What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[WinterBorn]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is welfare. You want it to be indefinite. You want it to be independent of whether you voluntarily quit your job or were fired for cause. That is not UC.

Nope. That is just You telling stories. UC is UC and administered by EDD.

And most, if not all, of that is funded by the employer. How is you providing nothing for the employer, while they are required to continue to pay you.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.

I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.

You have provided no proof, so no link means you are lying. Thanks for proving again you have nothing.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law. You have less standing than I do.

He did not appeal to any such thing. I wanted proof of your claim. You refused to provide it.

you are appealing to ignorance of a very simple concept. y'all have nothing but diversion and ad hominems not any valid rebuttals.

I think his rebuttals are fine, I think you don't have any answers to your simple concept that is beyond your grasp or understanding of the economy or how the world works. Have you lefties been able to fix homelessness in Seattle, Portland, New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco yet? Until you figure that out, you have nothing, throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

 

[danielpalos]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are changing the definition of unemployment compensation to suit your needs.

That is what You do, story teller. I am bearing true witness to the terms.

No, you are not. You ARE, in fact, changing the definition of UC. It is temporary financial for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.

 

[danielpalos]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

It is about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is a simple concept. Anyone, and I really do mean anyone should be able to grasp it.

There is no reason to pay someone for refusing to work. The UC was created and designed as temporary help, not a long term career. If you want to live off the tax payers, you draw welfare.

You believe in wage-slavery? There is no requirement to work in any at-will employment States. And, stop appealing to ignorance of the reason for an endless war on poverty. It is just plain politically annoying for right wingers to be so ignorant yet still want to be taken seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

Promoting and providing for the general welfare implies it; otherwise we would not have any endless war on poverty. Stop appealing to so much ignorance, it is annoying.

 

[WinterBorn]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is welfare. You want it to be indefinite. You want it to be independent of whether you voluntarily quit your job or were fired for cause. That is not UC.

Nope. That is just You telling stories. UC is UC and administered by EDD.

And most, if not all, of that is funded by the employer. How is you providing nothing for the employer, while they are required to continue to pay you.

Nobody required it to be funded that way only lousy management and legacy issues from the days of black codes.

 

[danielpalos]

So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.

I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.

You have provided no proof, so no link means you are lying. Thanks for proving again you have nothing.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law. You have less standing than I do.

He did not appeal to any such thing. I wanted proof of your claim. You refused to provide it.

you are appealing to ignorance of a very simple concept. y'all have nothing but diversion and ad hominems not any valid rebuttals.

I think his rebuttals are fine, I think you don't have any answers to your simple concept that is beyond your grasp or understanding of the economy or how the world works. Have you lefties been able to fix homelessness in Seattle, Portland, New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco yet? Until you figure that out, you have nothing, throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

UC for simply being unemployed would mean we don't need the expense of our alleged wars on crime or drugs.

 

[danielpalos]

You are changing the definition of unemployment compensation to suit your needs.

That is what You do, story teller. I am bearing true witness to the terms.

No, you are not. You ARE, in fact, changing the definition of UC. It is temporary financial for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equal protection of the law is not temporary. Nobody required it to be that way. It is like saying black codes were not unconstitutional.

 

[BlackSand]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids danielpalos from petitioning his local or state government from providing the services he desires.
He simply requires it to become a federal issue in attempts to leverage outside opinion his ideas cannot overcome in a more localized ballot issue.

He must change the world to get what he wants in his own backyard, because he would surly fail among those who know him best.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

It is about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is a simple concept. Anyone, and I really do mean anyone should be able to grasp it.

There is no reason to pay someone for refusing to work. The UC was created and designed as temporary help, not a long term career. If you want to live off the tax payers, you draw welfare.

You believe in wage-slavery? There is no requirement to work in any at-will employment States. And, stop appealing to ignorance of the reason for an endless war on poverty. It is just plain politically annoying for right wingers to be so ignorant yet still want to be taken seriously.

No, I do not believe in wage slavery. I know that there is no requirement to work in any at-will employment state. I also know that there is no requirement to pay you for doing nothing. In a capitalist society, people are paid for providing goods, labor or services. If you are UNABLE to work, society, by agreement, will take care of your minimal needs.

The fact that you are able to work, but simply don't want to, means you get nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

Not very difficult. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place; unlike the great changes required to our endless wars right wingers can never win.

 

[WinterBorn]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

Promoting and providing for the general welfare implies it; otherwise we would not have any endless war on poverty. Stop appealing to so much ignorance, it is annoying.

That is not what that statement means.

And if it is, then draw welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids danielpalos from petitioning his local or state government from providing the services he desires.
He simply requires it to become a federal issue in attempts to leverage outside opinion his ideas cannot overcome in a more localized ballot issue.

He must change the world to get what he wants in his own backyard, because he would surly fail among those who know him best.

.

Says the persons who only have ad hominems instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[WinterBorn]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

Not very difficult. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place; unlike the great changes required to our endless wars right wingers can never win.

It would involve major changes and would be a duplication of service already provided by the welfare system. Why make all those changes when welfare can do what you demand with no changes.

 

[danielpalos]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

It is about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is a simple concept. Anyone, and I really do mean anyone should be able to grasp it.

There is no reason to pay someone for refusing to work. The UC was created and designed as temporary help, not a long term career. If you want to live off the tax payers, you draw welfare.

You believe in wage-slavery? There is no requirement to work in any at-will employment States. And, stop appealing to ignorance of the reason for an endless war on poverty. It is just plain politically annoying for right wingers to be so ignorant yet still want to be taken seriously.

No, I do not believe in wage slavery. I know that there is no requirement to work in any at-will employment state. I also know that there is no requirement to pay you for doing nothing. In a capitalist society, people are paid for providing goods, labor or services. If you are UNABLE to work, society, by agreement, will take care of your minimal needs.

The fact that you are able to work, but simply don't want to, means you get nothing.

Unequal protection of the laws is unConstitutional. It really is that simple.

The Employment Act of 1946 ch. 33, section 2, 60 Stat. 23, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1021, is a United States federal law. Its main purpose was to lay the responsibility of economic stability of inflation and unemployment onto the federal government.[1] The Act stated: it was the "continuing policy and responsibility" of the federal government to:

coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, and resources . . . to foster and promote free competitive enterprise and the general welfare; conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment for those able, willing, and seeking to work; and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.[2]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_of_1946

 

[danielpalos]

Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?

Promoting and providing for the general welfare implies it; otherwise we would not have any endless war on poverty. Stop appealing to so much ignorance, it is annoying.

That is not what that statement means.

And if it is, then draw welfare.

Not to you. You appeal to ignorance.

 

[WinterBorn]

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.

Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

For what? For violating simple and clearly stated rules? That is not censorship.