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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Your story is your own.nice story.The law is, employment at the will of either party.So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?Your story is your own.nice story.The law is, employment at the will of either party.
Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?Your story is your own.nice story.Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?Your story is your own.nice story.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?Your story is your own.If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?Your story is your own.
In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?That is not equal protection under the law. That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
You, the employee, get paid. Which is normally what you get for your labor. If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.I live in the real world. The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not. That is not equal protection under the law.
This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work. If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass. You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.Yes, providing for the general welfare. That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.You make up your own stories, story teller. Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democratsnobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
