Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said all work results in pay, nor did I say it was the only way to get money.

So my statement is a fallacy of false cause only if you add in all the things your imagination added. Just as an FYI, I am only responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you want me to have said or what you imagined I said.

And, once again, please stick with what I actually said. And stop lying when you claim I am talking about morality. I have not.

the fallacy of false Cause is that it is not the Only way to get money under Capitalism.

Employment is at the will of either party. The law is the law. Why be illegal to the law, but blame less fortunate illegals for their sincere imitation.

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

 

[dblack]

the fallacy of false Cause is that it is not the Only way to get money under Capitalism.

Employment is at the will of either party. The law is the law. Why be illegal to the law, but blame less fortunate illegals for their sincere imitation.

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

Are you still talking to [Ignored Member]?

 

[danielpalos]

the fallacy of false Cause is that it is not the Only way to get money under Capitalism.

Employment is at the will of either party. The law is the law. Why be illegal to the law, but blame less fortunate illegals for their sincere imitation.

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

no, it doesn't. why make up stories, story teller. why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

 

[danielpalos]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

 

[danielpalos]

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

Are you still talking to [Ignored Member]?

right wingers don't believe in our First Amendment?

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

no, it doesn't. why make up stories, story teller. why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?

Yes it does. Please show me any federal or state doctrine that is not satisfied by welfare but would be satisfied by the unemployment compensation as you want it recreated. You made a claim not show evidence of it.

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

Are you still talking to [Ignored Member]?

right wingers don't believe in our First Amendment?

What part of the 1st Amendment are you referring to?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What part of that amendment applies to this conversation?

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said it was the only way to get money. You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned. I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

Are you still talking to [Ignored Member]?

Yeah, it is a slow day. lol

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

no, it doesn't. why make up stories, story teller. why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?

Yes it does. Please show me any federal or state doctrine that is not satisfied by welfare but would be satisfied by the unemployment compensation as you want it recreated. You made a claim not show evidence of it.

it already exists in our Republic. any for-cause criteria need to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, you have gone through amazing mental acrobatics, told lies, and twisted logic to the extreme to advocate huge changes just to avoid the means tests of welfare.

Do you have some reason for wnting to avoid the means test? And spare me the "it is inefficient" or "it is too expensive" because both are lies.

 

[danielpalos]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.

unequal application of the law needs to be challenged in any at-will employment merely for the sake of equality and equal rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

No I do not. Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law. In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

no, it doesn't. why make up stories, story teller. why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?

Yes it does. Please show me any federal or state doctrine that is not satisfied by welfare but would be satisfied by the unemployment compensation as you want it recreated. You made a claim not show evidence of it.

it already exists in our Republic. any for-cause criteria need to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

No, it does not need to be challenged. Any job will have rules. Breaking those rules has consequences. You just want to avoid the consequences. If the rules are unjust, challenge them.

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.

unequal application of the law needs to be challenged in any at-will employment merely for the sake of equality and equal rights.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who quits their job or is fired for cause is not eligible. That is not discriminatory.

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.