Okay Progressives, What does raising taxes on the Rich and Corporations do for you?

[danielpalos]

Very good, you may be learning something. Are we to take from this that you have decided that simply refusing to work should not entitle you to welfare payments?

Unemployment compensation is a distinct policy. It is more market friendly and efficient at automatically stabilizing our economy, on an at-will basis. More expensive means testing is for those for whom, merely solving for a lack of capital under our form of Capitalism, may not be enough.

UC serves a very specific purpose. Leave it alone. If you want to be paid to stay in the basement smoking pot, try to get your legislators to create a program to do it, but stop trying to hijack UC and pretend it somehow should cover you if only people would pretend words mean different things.

Then, stop complaining about your useless, War on Poverty. We could have won that alleged war, Yesterday, but for right wingers alleging morality while not posting on Parler.

 

[hadit]

Abolish your right wing, general warfare spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if you don't want to be taxed for them.

Oh by the way dannyboy....Some facts that you seem to be missing..


The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=25288


Up to 2019 there was 23 trillion dollars of debt until Joe Biden working with China released the Kung Flu upon US. But notice how that war on poverty never got rid of poverty and such waste because when you pay people not to work, they wont. Take that 1 trillion away and soon everyone is working....

Only because right wingers have nothing but bigotry not faithfulness to our Constitution. We could have literally solved simple poverty in a more automatically stabilizing method than we do now, yesterday; but for right wing bigotry and nothing but Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor.

Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor? Please enlighten US about those policies....

You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, like usual when it concerns the Poor and repetitions.

It is about equal protection of at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States for unemployment compensation.

You have to translate Daniel-speak. What he is saying here is he wants those who choose not to work and who have never held a job to be treated just like those who have worked for decades and have been laid off through no fault of their own. He somehow thinks the law isn't fair because one group gets paid while the other doesn't.

Being legal to the law, what a concept.

We are. The law is very clear. If you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can receive unemployment compensation. What is unclear about that?

Equality and equal protection of the law is even more clear than that. What part of at the will of either party is unclear?

None at all. The law is applied equally as designed. There is no unfairness at all. It doesn't matter what your skin color is or what your genitals look like or whose poster you have up on your wall, if you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can collect Unemployment Compensation. If you simply refuse to work or quit because you don't want to work you can't. We have equal protection under the law. You keep saying we don't, but have never established your case because all you do is just repeat that one thing over and over, as if it's significant. It's not.

At-will means for both parties. Requiring a work ethic from Labor as the least wealthy in our republic is not equal protection of the laws. There should be no moral prejudice at law involved. Labor must be able to enjoy equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State. Only right winger have a problem with free market Capitalism, especially when it involves the Poor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism. Only right wingers are willing to Hoax around because they may believe the Poor actually are worth-less under Capitalism.

I have educated you so many times on this with zero impact that it's absolutely ridiculous. You are without doubt the most dogmatic poster I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. At-will means both parties can choose TO NOT BE IN AN EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP. That means you can quit a job and it means they can fire you from that job. That's all it means. It doesn't mean you can claim UC just because you want it if you've never worked a job and won't work one now. The law applies equally to everyone, if you get laid off from a job, you can collect UC. You can't collect it if you quit or if you never took a job. There's nothing unequal about it. IOW, you're just plain WRONG about labor not having equal protection under the law, just plain wrong.

 

[Orangecat]

Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing except make the losers of society think they've hurt the winners. Shit rolls downhill, though, and the losers will continue to vote democrat and fantasize about socialism recifying their incompetence.

 

[hadit]

Very good, you may be learning something. Are we to take from this that you have decided that simply refusing to work should not entitle you to welfare payments?

Unemployment compensation is a distinct policy. It is more market friendly and efficient at automatically stabilizing our economy, on an at-will basis. More expensive means testing is for those for whom, merely solving for a lack of capital under our form of Capitalism, may not be enough.

UC serves a very specific purpose. Leave it alone. If you want to be paid to stay in the basement smoking pot, try to get your legislators to create a program to do it, but stop trying to hijack UC and pretend it somehow should cover you if only people would pretend words mean different things.

Then, stop complaining about your useless, War on Poverty. We could have won that alleged war, Yesterday, but for right wingers alleging morality while not posting on Parler.

I'm neither complaining about the useless war on poverty nor am I posting on Parler. Like I said, if you want to get paid to smoke pot, convince your legislators to create a program for you, but stop pretending that existing law entitles you to it.

 

[hadit]

Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing except make the losers of society think they've hurt the winners. Shit rolls downhill, though, and the losers will continue to vote democrat and fantasize about socialism recifying their incompetence.

I would rather the idle rich pump millions into the economy every year by shopping and spending lots of money than to have some bureaucrat attempt to do it through taxation. I think that's the real sticking point for the envious. They don't want the wealthy to decide to spend money and get something they want. The envious want the wealthy to have their wealth confiscated involuntarily. I'd prefer they give the money to a business that employs and pays workers.

 

[danielpalos]

Abolish your right wing, general warfare spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if you don't want to be taxed for them.

Oh by the way dannyboy....Some facts that you seem to be missing..


The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=25288


Up to 2019 there was 23 trillion dollars of debt until Joe Biden working with China released the Kung Flu upon US. But notice how that war on poverty never got rid of poverty and such waste because when you pay people not to work, they wont. Take that 1 trillion away and soon everyone is working....

Only because right wingers have nothing but bigotry not faithfulness to our Constitution. We could have literally solved simple poverty in a more automatically stabilizing method than we do now, yesterday; but for right wing bigotry and nothing but Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor.

Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor? Please enlighten US about those policies....

You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, like usual when it concerns the Poor and repetitions.

It is about equal protection of at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States for unemployment compensation.

You have to translate Daniel-speak. What he is saying here is he wants those who choose not to work and who have never held a job to be treated just like those who have worked for decades and have been laid off through no fault of their own. He somehow thinks the law isn't fair because one group gets paid while the other doesn't.

Being legal to the law, what a concept.

We are. The law is very clear. If you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can receive unemployment compensation. What is unclear about that?

Equality and equal protection of the law is even more clear than that. What part of at the will of either party is unclear?

None at all. The law is applied equally as designed. There is no unfairness at all. It doesn't matter what your skin color is or what your genitals look like or whose poster you have up on your wall, if you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can collect Unemployment Compensation. If you simply refuse to work or quit because you don't want to work you can't. We have equal protection under the law. You keep saying we don't, but have never established your case because all you do is just repeat that one thing over and over, as if it's significant. It's not.

At-will means for both parties. Requiring a work ethic from Labor as the least wealthy in our republic is not equal protection of the laws. There should be no moral prejudice at law involved. Labor must be able to enjoy equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State. Only right winger have a problem with free market Capitalism, especially when it involves the Poor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism. Only right wingers are willing to Hoax around because they may believe the Poor actually are worth-less under Capitalism.

I have educated you so many times on this with zero impact that it's absolutely ridiculous. You are without doubt the most dogmatic poster I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. At-will means both parties can choose TO NOT BE IN AN EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP. That means you can quit a job and it means they can fire you from that job. That's all it means. It doesn't mean you can claim UC just because you want it if you've never worked a job and won't work one now. The law applies equally to everyone, if you get laid off from a job, you can collect UC. You can't collect it if you quit or if you never took a job. There's nothing unequal about it. IOW, you're just plain WRONG about labor not having equal protection under the law, just plain wrong.

You only have the "gospel Truth" on Parler not anywhere we can discover sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

You are describing unequal protection of the law. On what basis are persons denied or disparaged unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

 

[danielpalos]

Very good, you may be learning something. Are we to take from this that you have decided that simply refusing to work should not entitle you to welfare payments?

Unemployment compensation is a distinct policy. It is more market friendly and efficient at automatically stabilizing our economy, on an at-will basis. More expensive means testing is for those for whom, merely solving for a lack of capital under our form of Capitalism, may not be enough.

UC serves a very specific purpose. Leave it alone. If you want to be paid to stay in the basement smoking pot, try to get your legislators to create a program to do it, but stop trying to hijack UC and pretend it somehow should cover you if only people would pretend words mean different things.

Then, stop complaining about your useless, War on Poverty. We could have won that alleged war, Yesterday, but for right wingers alleging morality while not posting on Parler.

I'm neither complaining about the useless war on poverty nor am I posting on Parler. Like I said, if you want to get paid to smoke pot, convince your legislators to create a program for you, but stop pretending that existing law entitles you to it.

You only have appeals to ignorance of the law; employment at the will of either means just that. It does not mean requirements on Labor repugnant to the concept.

 

[danielpalos]

Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing except make the losers of society think they've hurt the winners. Shit rolls downhill, though, and the losers will continue to vote democrat and fantasize about socialism recifying their incompetence.

I would rather the idle rich pump millions into the economy every year by shopping and spending lots of money than to have some bureaucrat attempt to do it through taxation. I think that's the real sticking point for the envious. They don't want the wealthy to decide to spend money and get something they want. The envious want the wealthy to have their wealth confiscated involuntarily. I'd prefer they give the money to a business that employs and pays workers.

There were rich persons during the Articles of Confederation and freer, free market capitalism. All they did was outlaw being Poor back then. Just like right wingers prefer to do in modern times.

 

[Orangecat]

There were rich persons during the Articles of Confederation and freer, free market capitalism. All they did was outlaw being Poor back then. Just like right wingers prefer to do in modern times.

You sound like a dingbat when you say being poor was outlawed. The kiddie table is down the hall, run along.

 

[danielpalos]

There were rich persons during the Articles of Confederation and freer, free market capitalism. All they did was outlaw being Poor back then. Just like right wingers prefer to do in modern times.

You sound like a dingbat when you say being poor was outlawed. The kiddie table is down the hall, run along.

It only sounds that way; real life really is that "dingy".

The Poor could not even vote back then.

 

[Orangecat]

It only sounds that way; real life really is that "dingy".

The Poor could not even vote back then.

Being poor has never been outlawed. Such hyperbole makes you sound both uneducated and unhinged.

 

[danielpalos]

It only sounds that way; real life really is that "dingy".

The Poor could not even vote back then.

Being poor has never been outlawed. Such hyperbole makes you sound both uneducated and unhinged.

This is not Parler. You really are, simply ignorant like right wingers tend to be.

The United States’ long history of criminalizing homelessness - From The Square

The US has a long history of proscribing the subsistence activities of impoverished people. Is it finally moving toward the decriminalization of homelessness?

www.fromthesquare.org

 

[Orangecat]

This is not Parler. You really are, simply ignorant like right wingers tend to be.

The United States’ long history of criminalizing homelessness - From The Square

The US has a long history of proscribing the subsistence activities of impoverished people. Is it finally moving toward the decriminalization of homelessness?

www.fromthesquare.org

Sorry, kid, but laws criminalizing vagrancy and anti-camping statutes are not "outlawing poverty". You're an easily manipulated useful idiot.

 

[hadit]

Abolish your right wing, general warfare spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if you don't want to be taxed for them.

Oh by the way dannyboy....Some facts that you seem to be missing..


The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=25288


Up to 2019 there was 23 trillion dollars of debt until Joe Biden working with China released the Kung Flu upon US. But notice how that war on poverty never got rid of poverty and such waste because when you pay people not to work, they wont. Take that 1 trillion away and soon everyone is working....

Only because right wingers have nothing but bigotry not faithfulness to our Constitution. We could have literally solved simple poverty in a more automatically stabilizing method than we do now, yesterday; but for right wing bigotry and nothing but Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor.

Repeal of public policies that actually benefit the Poor? Please enlighten US about those policies....

You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, like usual when it concerns the Poor and repetitions.

It is about equal protection of at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States for unemployment compensation.

You have to translate Daniel-speak. What he is saying here is he wants those who choose not to work and who have never held a job to be treated just like those who have worked for decades and have been laid off through no fault of their own. He somehow thinks the law isn't fair because one group gets paid while the other doesn't.

Being legal to the law, what a concept.

We are. The law is very clear. If you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can receive unemployment compensation. What is unclear about that?

Equality and equal protection of the law is even more clear than that. What part of at the will of either party is unclear?

None at all. The law is applied equally as designed. There is no unfairness at all. It doesn't matter what your skin color is or what your genitals look like or whose poster you have up on your wall, if you get laid off through no fault of your own, you can collect Unemployment Compensation. If you simply refuse to work or quit because you don't want to work you can't. We have equal protection under the law. You keep saying we don't, but have never established your case because all you do is just repeat that one thing over and over, as if it's significant. It's not.

At-will means for both parties. Requiring a work ethic from Labor as the least wealthy in our republic is not equal protection of the laws. There should be no moral prejudice at law involved. Labor must be able to enjoy equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State. Only right winger have a problem with free market Capitalism, especially when it involves the Poor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism. Only right wingers are willing to Hoax around because they may believe the Poor actually are worth-less under Capitalism.

I have educated you so many times on this with zero impact that it's absolutely ridiculous. You are without doubt the most dogmatic poster I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. At-will means both parties can choose TO NOT BE IN AN EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP. That means you can quit a job and it means they can fire you from that job. That's all it means. It doesn't mean you can claim UC just because you want it if you've never worked a job and won't work one now. The law applies equally to everyone, if you get laid off from a job, you can collect UC. You can't collect it if you quit or if you never took a job. There's nothing unequal about it. IOW, you're just plain WRONG about labor not having equal protection under the law, just plain wrong.

You only have the "gospel Truth" on Parler not anywhere we can discover sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

You are describing unequal protection of the law. On what basis are persons denied or disparaged unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

They are denied on the basis that they do not meet the criteria to collect UC. Your problem is that you grabbed the word "Unemployment" out of the name of the program and refuse to think beyond it, so of course you're wrong. UC doesn't mean you get paid just because you don't have a job but really really want to get enough to buy pot, it means you get a percentage of what you were being paid if you are laid off through no fault of your own. Can you understand and acknowledge that reality? I don't have much confidence that you can. Also, at-will employment does NOT apply to the question of who receives UC, because if you voluntarily quit a job or refuse to take an available one, you don't qualify for UC. That is true whether you're in an at-will state or not, so it's totally irrelevant. Can you understand and acknowledge that reality?

Let's put it in terms you might understand. The law dictates that I pay federal income taxes every year. The amount of money I pay is more than what some others pay and less than what some others pay. Am I being denied equal protection under the law?

Again, I work and I provide for my family. I earn enough that I don't qualify for food stamps or subsidized housing. Am I being denied equal protection under the law?

Now, think very carefully and answer those questions honestly if you can. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting and if you won't answer, I'll answer for you and destroy your argument yet again. And what the heck does Parler have to do with anything?

 

[danielpalos]

This is not Parler. You really are, simply ignorant like right wingers tend to be.

The United States’ long history of criminalizing homelessness - From The Square

The US has a long history of proscribing the subsistence activities of impoverished people. Is it finally moving toward the decriminalization of homelessness?

www.fromthesquare.org

Sorry, kid, but laws criminalizing vagrancy and anti-camping statutes are not "outlawing poverty". You're an easily manipulated useful idiot.

lol.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[Orangecat]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

You quote a french poet as evidence that being poor is outlawed? Recess is over, back to 3rd grade studies you go, kid.

 

[danielpalos]

They are denied on the basis that they do not meet the criteria to collect UC.

Equal protection of the laws is in our State and federal supreme laws of the land in any conflict of laws. UC criteria cannot conflict with Constitutional law.

 

[Supposn]

I am for raising the minimum wage as a more market friendly manner for raising tax revenue.

DanielPalos, to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor.
I’m among the firm proponents for increasing and retaining its purchasing power. The federal minimum wage rate is not, (actually or in effect) a tax and it doesn’t increase tax revenues.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France

You quote a french poet as evidence that being poor is outlawed? Recess is over, back to 3rd grade studies you go, kid.

Orangecat, you post to establish or to confirm that you’re a fool?

 

[danielpalos]

I am for raising the minimum wage as a more market friendly manner for raising tax revenue.

DanielPalos, to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor.
I’m among the firm proponents for increasing and retaining its purchasing power. The federal minimum wage rate is not, (actually or in effect) a tax and it doesn’t increase tax revenues.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you that Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

Squeezing tax money from Capitalists should happen to merely promote the general welfare. We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not any form of, race to the bottom in any first world economy. Capitalists leaving for cheaper wages should be excised the difference to eliminate it as a rational choice in our first world economy.