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

[danielpalos]

The lazy guy that wants to be paid to stay home and not work is accusing others of not working hard. You can't make this stuff up guys.

You also can't make up the fact that "hard work advocating" right wingers have nothing but the laziness of ad hominems and other forms of fallacy instead of any valid and thoughtful arguments; but want to be taken more seriously than any hypocrite.

Dude, your BS has been exposed as BS, you can't get a judge or a congressperson to even listen to your BS because you have no real argument and no real clue. Many of us has explained over and over why it won't work and you have continued to just repeat the same crap over and over. Your communication skills are lacking and most of what you spew makes no sense and when asked to help clarify, you just spew the same lines. That is why you are nothing but a troll that does nothing more than entertain you silly nonsense. We all get a good laugh from your stupidity and lack of communication skills. Nice you got a congressman to brush you off. LOL! Not many can say the same.

A short wall of text with nothing but ad hominems?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you are appealing to your ignorance of understanding. You have only your fantasy which no court will hear because they think your premise is flawed and no congress will sponsor because they don't believe in your idea nor do they believe in you, it seems you don't have the capital to fund such a law.

If a Court hears it on the merits and agrees to move forward on this issue, it must mean right wingers are full of fallacy but believe they have nothing but "gospel Truth" because in Right Wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right. Thanks.

Again, you have said nothing, the courts won't side with your stupidity so please forge on forward, show your congressman up! LOL!!

BTW, there is no limit to the number of bills a congressman can present, looks like your congressman has made you out to be a loon.

He happens to be a republican.

 

[Papageorgio]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

I am providing the links you ask for just like you provided me with the links I asked for several times and you provided nothing. You set the rules, I just follow your example.

Page iv of this study shows a multiplier of 2 for regular unemployment compensation and extended unemployment compensation.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

1.7 Moving from Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to a job losers’ stimulus program amid the coronavirus recession - Equitable Growth.

 

[danielpalos]

Show how the principle of at will employment "control" UC law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

No State or agency of a State can Constitutionally criminalize (or deny or disparage) something that is legal for all intents and purposes.

Literally, that statement ONLY means that a job can be terminated by either the employee or the employer and is the crux of your problem. Why do you keep pretending it relates to UC when it clearly does NOT? Let's put it this way, how does you walking off a job entitle you to UC benefits when UC law clearly states you don't qualify? Note very carefully that UC does not criminalize (or deny or disparage) at will employment. Consider this, you walk off a job and cannot collect UC. Were you prevented from walking off the job? You were fired from your job for cause and cannot collect UC. Was your boss prevented from firing you? The answer to both is a resounding "no", which means nothing was criminalized (or denied or disparaged). Why do you continue to insist on linking things together that are not linked?

You simply don't understand the concept. Employment relationships are at the will of either party in the State of California unless otherwise agreed upon. There is no Constitutional basis deny or disparage our own laws regarding employment at-will.

 

[danielpalos]

There is your fallacy. The two are linked only in your mind, not by law. Therefore, it is a fallacy for you to continue screeching about unequal protection of the law. UC law is clear on who qualifies to collect benefits and has not been found to be unconstitutional. You would be a lot more convincing if you simply stated that you would like to collect UC if you are fired from a job for cause. That would be honest and a lot more respectable than this endless nattering about the law not being applied equally, because it IS applied exactly as it is written. If you get laid off, you can collect. Otherwise, no, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state having at will employment, nothing. You're constructing the linkage because it's the only way you can justify your stance, but it doesn't exist.

The point is, there is no basis to create extra-legal laws, rules, regulations, etc. that have the effect of denying and disparaging equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

You're the only one who believes that you win your arguments. I've seen no one other than you say that.

Cite the actually fallacy or simply be full of fallacy yourself.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, you are appealing to your ignorance of understanding. You have only your fantasy which no court will hear because they think your premise is flawed and no congress will sponsor because they don't believe in your idea nor do they believe in you, it seems you don't have the capital to fund such a law.

If a Court hears it on the merits and agrees to move forward on this issue, it must mean right wingers are full of fallacy but believe they have nothing but "gospel Truth" because in Right Wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right. Thanks.

Again, you have said nothing, the courts won't side with your stupidity so please forge on forward, show your congressman up! LOL!!

BTW, there is no limit to the number of bills a congressman can present, looks like your congressman has made you out to be a loon.

He happens to be a republican.

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I can. UC is very clear, you can collect if you are laid off from your job.

First things first. Where does it say that in the labor code?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Only one law has precedence in Any conflict of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Nah. Though New Deal reforms steadied the system, Capitalism has never been stronger. Richer more powerful capitalist corporations than ever. More stock outstanding. Weaker unions and “Labour parties” everywhere. S.S. & Medicare and a safety net may have saved capitalist “democracy” — but by themselves haven’t changed the system into anything else. The latest important developments have tended to create a sort of private/public central bank perpetual “bail out” of private crashing capital, a sort of ersatz “state capitalism” — but it is still capitalism.

Real Capitalism meaning anarcho-Capitalism fell with Mogadishu. Show us any true free market capitalism economy that is above third world in modern times.

 

[danielpalos]

.....another thing, you can create jobs, but that doesn't mean the stupid LAZY humans will be good doing them/etc.....some people don't have the discipline/industriousness/etc to be good workers .......

Your point? Or do you believe more in our endless, costly, and less effective war on poverty.

if you don't get the point you need to go back and graduate from 4th grade-

You need to work harder than merely having nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) Right Wingers. Too much hard work but still advocate it for others?

 

[danielpalos]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

 

[Papageorgio]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

What does that have to do with anything you just posted? Are you claiming your congressman is a liar?

 

[danielpalos]

100 bills he can present a year, so he doesn't believe in your idea and it isn't even in the top 100 concerns for him? So, he has no confidence in what you are saying, at all, unless you pay for the law. LOL!! Your story gets worse and worse as it goes. Can you name all the hundreds of bills you congressman has introduced? I'm guessing a lot less than 100 and he is string you along for a vote and nothing else. He is a smart guy.

He may not believe it is worth the hassle to argue it with right wingers since they can have the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

So you are saying the idea isn't worth fighting for.

Not if there is no chance for it to pass because right wingers don't care about the law and merely prefer to blame less fortunate "illegals".

 

[danielpalos]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

I am providing the links you ask for just like you provided me with the links I asked for several times and you provided nothing. You set the rules, I just follow your example.

Page iv of this study shows a multiplier of 2 for regular unemployment compensation and extended unemployment compensation.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

1.7 Moving from Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to a job losers’ stimulus program amid the coronavirus recession - Equitable Growth.

The multiplier effect for Unemployment Insurance is at least 1.7, meaning that a $100 increase in government spending leads to $70 additional GDP in the private sector.6 This 1.7 multiplier effect is based on the effect of fiscal stimulus during the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The expansion of Unemployment Insurance during the Great Recession had an even greater impact—about 1.9, which means that every $100 spent on Unemployment Insurance led to $90 additional GDP value.7

That tends to imply that simplifying unemployment compensation can lead to a higher multiplier. And, the previous study showed an average multiplier of 2.

And, unemployment compensation has run out for some and others have had a difficult time obtaining it during the pandemic.

 

[danielpalos]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

What does that have to do with anything you just posted? Are you claiming your congressman is a liar?

I should have doubled checked what a right winger typed on the Internet, to begin with.

California Senate

Senate Rule 22.5

Not more than 40 bills in the [two-year] regular session

California Assembly

Assembly Rule 49

Not more than 50 bills in the [two-year] regular session

 

[Papageorgio]

100 bills he can present a year, so he doesn't believe in your idea and it isn't even in the top 100 concerns for him? So, he has no confidence in what you are saying, at all, unless you pay for the law. LOL!! Your story gets worse and worse as it goes. Can you name all the hundreds of bills you congressman has introduced? I'm guessing a lot less than 100 and he is string you along for a vote and nothing else. He is a smart guy.

He may not believe it is worth the hassle to argue it with right wingers since they can have the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

So you are saying the idea isn't worth fighting for.

Not if there is no chance for it to pass because right wingers don't care about the law and merely prefer to blame less fortunate "illegals".

So he doesn’t believe in your cause. The democrats are still in control of the presidency and congress but I doubt your congressman will present it, he is just making excuses and blowing the idea off.

 

[Papageorgio]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

What does that have to do with anything you just posted? Are you claiming your congressman is a liar?

I should have doubled checked what a right winger typed on the Internet, to begin with.

California Senate

Senate Rule 22.5

Not more than 40 bills in the [two-year] regular session

California Assembly

Assembly Rule 49

Not more than 50 bills in the [two-year] regular session

So you are talking state or US? I’m talking federal. I don’t care what California does, I don’t nor will I ever live there.

 

[Papageorgio]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

I am providing the links you ask for just like you provided me with the links I asked for several times and you provided nothing. You set the rules, I just follow your example.

Page iv of this study shows a multiplier of 2 for regular unemployment compensation and extended unemployment compensation.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

1.7 Moving from Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to a job losers’ stimulus program amid the coronavirus recession - Equitable Growth.

The multiplier effect for Unemployment Insurance is at least 1.7, meaning that a $100 increase in government spending leads to $70 additional GDP in the private sector.6 This 1.7 multiplier effect is based on the effect of fiscal stimulus during the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The expansion of Unemployment Insurance during the Great Recession had an even greater impact—about 1.9, which means that every $100 spent on Unemployment Insurance led to $90 additional GDP value.7

That tends to imply that simplifying unemployment compensation can lead to a higher multiplier. And, the previous study showed an average multiplier of 2.

And, unemployment compensation has run out for some and others have had a difficult time obtaining it during the pandemic.

No it indicates that during a recession or economic downturn such as the coronavirus era, the unemployment compensation has a positive effect, it says nothing about how it would work in a good economy, which would be less.

 

[hadit]

You're the only one who believes that you win your arguments. I've seen no one other than you say that.

Cite the actually fallacy or simply be full of fallacy yourself.

I cite them in every argument we have. Not my problem you ignore them.

 

[hadit]

Of course I can. UC is very clear, you can collect if you are laid off from your job.

First things first. Where does it say that in the labor code?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Only one law has precedence in Any conflict of laws.

There is no conflict. Literally, there is none. You haven't shown where there is any, you just keep repeating it. Look at my scenarios and give me yours. Show me where there is conflict.