Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a difference between being naturally unemployed and being unemployed for-cause. Even right-wingers should be able to understand that.
And that's not what it's doing, as you will find out when your case is tossed out of court. UC laws have been around long enough that were they unconstitutional, they would have been challenged by now. No one but you believes they are "unequal protection of the laws".There is no for-Cause requirement in an at-will employment State, thus Government has no authority or right, to abuse that Social Power due to unequal protection of the laws.
An exception to the rule? It would be called welfare since he should have been examined by medical professionals to ensure it was not for health related reasons.
It's glaringly obvious that Daniel has not thought beyond, "It's not fair that I can't get UC just because I quit my job".Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Your plan would likely take away healthcare for millions of families, and yet not give them enough income to buy healthcare on the private market.
It's glaringly obvious that Daniel has not thought beyond, "It's not fair that I can't get UC just because I quit my job".
Why do you allege to care, right-wingers? Y'all have no morals or ethics. Stop whining.IOW, you want a cradle to grave nanny state where someone could literally live off his parents until he became an adult, then get paid this fantasy UC money for his entire adult life, then go on Social Security and exist until he dies, not having contributed anything to the economy his entire life. do you not see how ridiculous that is?
Do you believe anyone with recourse to an income for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States would learn Nothing about Capitalism by merely existing in our economy?I don't expect a 90 year old to be working to earn a living.
Thanks. Just ask. It is specifically from an abridgement, denial, and disparagement of benefits. I prefer to keep it to ourselves and our State whenever possible.oh ok...sure yeah. you can go right ahead...people file lawsuits all the time. You have every right to sue the State if you want.
I am just not sure why you would sue your state, for a Constitutional violation and not take it directly to Federal Court, who has orgininal jurisdiction over those sort of claims, that involve US Constitutional matters
oh yeah if you are simply appealing a denial of benefits you should keep it in the state and follow the appeal processThanks. Just ask. It is specifically from a denial of benefits. I prefer to keep it to ourselves and our State whenever possible.
No. Not at all. I only realize that I would be foolish to take right-wingers seriously about economics, the law, or politics. There is a simple solution to simple poverty. You confuse poverty with Poor. Typically of the fantastical, economically clueless, and economically Causeless right-wing.You do realize that there will ALWAYS be people in poverty, right? What you want to do would bankrupt the country and not achieve your goals. IOW, a farce.
What if it automatically puts them in a high enough tax bracket to where it can increase the multiplier?Well, duh, because they could get an extra 30 grand a year for doing nothing. And what you want to do is welfare, not UC.
Why do you believe that, if they would be able to afford to see a doctor, or an attorney?Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Your plan would likely take away healthcare for millions of families, and yet not give them enough income to buy healthcare on the private market.
You need valid arguments not simply making up and assuming your own conclusions. NPD?And that's not what it's doing, as you will find out when your case is tossed out of court. UC laws have been around long enough that were they unconstitutional, they would have been challenged by now. No one but you believes they are "unequal protection of the laws".
It is even more obvious right-wingers only know how to project not be Reason-able.It's glaringly obvious that Daniel has not thought beyond, "It's not fair that I can't get UC just because I quit my job".
Why do you believe that, if they would be able to afford to see a doctor, or an attorney?
Thanks. I wrote to the Court about the issues involved and how I may need recourse to our Tenth Amendment to ensure we can get a comprehensive solution from the general Government of the Union.oh yeah if you are simply appealing a denial of benefits you should keep it in the state and follow the appeal process
i thought you were challenging the Constitutionality of the UE insurance law of your state
A capital decision? It is why education can be important. An accountant would give you your best options.Because making $31,200 per year would disqualify them from drawing Medicaid. Most private healthcare policies cost $1,000 to $1,500 per month ($12,000 to $18,000 per year). In other words, 1/3 of their pre-tax income. Federal tax on $31,200 is 12%, so their net income (before state tax is taken) is just under $27,500.
Oh, so they pay an accountant out of the $27.500.00 to tell them what to do with all the money they have left? lolA capital decision? It is why education can be important. An accountant would give you your best options.
I asked the Court to assign a Senior Judge instead of a special master because it did not occur to me and I thought a Senior Judge would be more helpful.
Trying to settle out of Court with the Court. Only in California, right?
