Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are missing the point. What you argue is not what the argument is about but a diversion. Employment is at the will of either party. The legislature is not more ethical or more moral than the People (who may be Poor). That is why we have laws instead of false right-wing morality and ethics.Again, no statute, law or part of the US Constitution requires that people be paid, without consequences, for doing nothing.
Rather than spend billions of dollars supporting people and perpetuating the poverty, spend that money on education and job training so they can support themselves.
Why that arbitrary and capricious for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State?
You are missing the point. What you argue is not what the argument is about but a diversion. Employment is at the will of either party. The legislature is not more ethical or more moral than the People (who may be Poor). That is why we have laws instead of false right-wing morality and ethics.
There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.Because the program was never designed to provide unending assistance.
We subscribe to Capitalism where all that may be required is Capital to find solutions to problems and ensure promptness.What is ethical or moral about demanding that the gov't and the tax payer support you, when you will not lift a finger to support yourself?
There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
We subscribe to Capitalism where all that may be required is Capital to find solutions to problems and ensure promptness.
Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the right-wing, every time it comes up as an economic, political-opportunity cost.
How about a discussion on why equal protection of the laws is not the best solution for this dillemma?
Why do you believe we could not eliminate poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States via unemployment compensation as that form of capital safety net under our form of Government?
Simply having recourse to an income would enable more market-friendliness. More people spending more money means employers may also need to hire more labor to meet demand. There is no unemployment under truer forms of capitalism only underpayment. Wages should go up enough for Labor to meet demand. How would Labor (as the least wealthy in our Republic) be worse off?
That is what the case is all about. States don't have the authority, merely the social Power; we have a Constitution for a reason.Yes, and Unemployment Compensation is available to all. The amounts vary from state to state, but the duration of 26 weeks is pretty standard.
Yes, it is truer capitalism without social (subjective) morality.Giving money to people who do not work is not capitalism.
You are the one making up the story that someone who could be making more, would rather be Poor.If the dilemma is a temporary loss of employment, the UC is the answer. If the dilemma is anything else the solution lies elsewhere.
The elimination of poverty is not what UC was designed for. It is not what it is equipped or funded for. But being able to draw $450 a week for 26 weeks can get (or keep) someone on their feet so they can become self supporting.
That is what the case is all about. States don't have the authority, merely the social Power; we have a Constitution for a reason.
Yes, it is truer capitalism without social (subjective) morality.
You are the one making up the story that someone who could be making more, would rather be Poor.
This is before the Court now to challenge that repugnance.Ok, so you get one amount for all the states to pay out for UC. $450 is one of the higher amounts for the states. You get that for 26 weeks (barring emergency situations).
That is just You begging the question under our Constitutional form of Government. No one is forcing you to work in an at-will employment State. You have no Standing to complain because you can simply quit on an at-will basis if you have a problem with it.You keep mentioning morality. What is moral about expecting others to work and give up their money to support you, when you will not lift a finger to support yourself?
I have asked that several times and you have not answered.
When you allege everyone will want unemployment compensation instead of a market friendly wage from some labor they may actually enjoy.What? When did I do that?
This is before the Court now to challenge that repugnance.
That is just You begging the question under our Constitutional form of Government. No one is forcing you to work in an at-will employment State. You have no Standing to complain because you can simply quit on an at-will basis if you have a problem with it.
