$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

You are therefore saying that the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law and only you are not, because no one in the legal profession is saying what you are saying about UC law.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

IOW, you claim that the entire legal profession, who disagrees with you, is wrong and you, who are not a lawyer and who has never studied the law, are right. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

lol. No. Only You claim that. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

No one, I mean no one, takes you seriously. It is only in your leftwing mind that you are correct on just about anything.

So what you unsubstantially opinionate. You need to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion or have nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

I agree, you have no reference to any law regarding unemployment insurance payments.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

You've ignored everything to the contrary and refuse to honestly answer questions that you know will destroy your case. You're simply wrong. There is no conflict because UC can be just as means tested as welfare and any number of other laws.

I simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness.

There is no law which may conflict with another under form of federal Government since it can contested on Constitutional grounds.

 

[hadit]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

 

[hadit]

You are therefore saying that the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law and only you are not, because no one in the legal profession is saying what you are saying about UC law.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

IOW, you claim that the entire legal profession, who disagrees with you, is wrong and you, who are not a lawyer and who has never studied the law, are right. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

lol. No. Only You claim that. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

No one, I mean no one, takes you seriously. It is only in your leftwing mind that you are correct on just about anything.

So what you unsubstantially opinionate. You need to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion or have nothing but fallacy.

There are no posts on this board where someone takes your wild assertions on women and economics seriously.

 

[hadit]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

I agree, you have no reference to any law regarding unemployment insurance payments.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

You've ignored everything to the contrary and refuse to honestly answer questions that you know will destroy your case. You're simply wrong. There is no conflict because UC can be just as means tested as welfare and any number of other laws.

I simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness.

There is no law which may conflict with another under form of federal Government since it can contested on Constitutional grounds.

And there is no conflict between UC and at-will employment. As I've pointed out numerous times and you ignore because it punctures your beliefs, you can legally quit a job whether you get paid to do so or not. People do it every day. And yes, I agree that you "simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness". I'm glad you finally acknowledged that.

 

[danielpalos]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

I agree, you have no reference to any law regarding unemployment insurance payments.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

You've ignored everything to the contrary and refuse to honestly answer questions that you know will destroy your case. You're simply wrong. There is no conflict because UC can be just as means tested as welfare and any number of other laws.

I simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness.

There is no law which may conflict with another under form of federal Government since it can contested on Constitutional grounds.

And there is no conflict between UC and at-will employment. As I've pointed out numerous times and you ignore because it punctures your beliefs, you can legally quit a job whether you get paid to do so or not. People do it every day. And yes, I agree that you "simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness". I'm glad you finally acknowledged that.

You simply appeal to ignorance of the law. The judicature doesn't have to take you seriously, why should I?

 

[dblack]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

 

[dblack]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

 

[hadit]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

You're making a connection that doesn't exist in the real world. Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law any more than it has to follow food stamp law because the two are not connected. UC benefits people in a specific set of circumstances just as welfare benefits people in a specific set of circumstances. You can continue yammering about the connection you think you've discovered, but no one in the entire legal profession agrees with you, and they know a LOT more about the law than you do. The bottom line remains, you can legally quit a job whenever you want to, and society can choose to not compensate you for doing it whether you are in an at-will state or not. There are no penalties for quitting.

Means testing is as legitimate for UC as it is for welfare. You can't get around that. Until you can show me a court case that agrees with you, you will continue to lose this argument.

 

[hadit]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

I agree, you have no reference to any law regarding unemployment insurance payments.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

You've ignored everything to the contrary and refuse to honestly answer questions that you know will destroy your case. You're simply wrong. There is no conflict because UC can be just as means tested as welfare and any number of other laws.

I simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness.

There is no law which may conflict with another under form of federal Government since it can contested on Constitutional grounds.

And there is no conflict between UC and at-will employment. As I've pointed out numerous times and you ignore because it punctures your beliefs, you can legally quit a job whether you get paid to do so or not. People do it every day. And yes, I agree that you "simply appeal to ignorance of the law and wilful blindness". I'm glad you finally acknowledged that.

You simply appeal to ignorance of the law. The judicature doesn't have to take you seriously, why should I?

Because I agree with the judiciary, you do not. You believe your (very limited) understanding of the law is superior to that of the entire legal profession, I do not. You don't have to take me seriously, but if you ignore they entire judiciary, you're not doing yourself any favors.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

 

[hadit]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

 

[hadit]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

 

[danielpalos]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

 

[hadit]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

Be honest, you never said you wanted to get rid of the $14/hr in benefits the poor already receive. Paying them $14/hr for not ever holding a job DOUBLES the cost. Admit it or state that you would want to do away with the benefits. And, of course, the official poverty level would be adjusted upward as well. You know that.

 

[hadit]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

But it won't be because means tested is accepted in all government benefits. It just is, no matter how many times you insist there's a link between at-will employment and UC that should pay you for not working.