The blueprint for prosperity

[dudmuck]

And, you would be wrong, like usual.

I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.

And, no, the South did not solve anything. Even the North had Poor laws. Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.

Slaves had what your filthy party promises you. Guaranteed housing, medical care, food. This is what you seek, to be a slave.

You simply misunderstand the concept. Employment is at the will of either party. How would what you allege work by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

If you think about it, that solution helps free market capitalism more than it hinders it.

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves. Yes, there will be those who are physically or mentally unable. But I have no sympathy for those who simply do not try because they don't want to. I have nothing but disgust for someone who refuses to try to get work, and then expects to be able to live of the fruits of someone else's labors.

the premise of capitalism is the employer - employee releationship.
Just like a feudalism, the serf and lord.
Just like in slavery, the slave and master.
In capitalism, the employee and employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

 

[danielpalos]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

 

[danielpalos]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

 

[danielpalos]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

 

[initforme]

At will employers are hateful spiteful anti american employers. Facts are facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

Yes I can. You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.

 

[danielpalos]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

Yes I can. You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.

If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

Yes I can. You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.

If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

Yes I can. You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.

If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

UC is not a right. It is a financial assistance program with strict parameters.

You are not being denied equal protection of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.

UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor. The answer is no.

Not at all. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State. For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned. Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time. If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship. The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay. That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing. You did not lose your job because of cutbacks. You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work. You are capable of working. You just don't want to work. Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing. Why are your wants more important?

Define, doing nothing. Only capital must circulate under capitalism. There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.

lol. I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.

I understand what "at will" employment means too. I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.

No, you don't. My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.

Yes I can. You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.

If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked to act as another welfare program is not an effort to cure poverty or homelessness, as you have claimed.

It is purely to justify you getting paid for doing nothing, without having to show a need. Your disdain for means testing is likely because you still live at home. And you want money to spend on games and such. At least be honest about and stop with the attempts to couch it in altruistic terms.

 

[otto105]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves every problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:

Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU

How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…

www.prageru.com

Exact how would that solve the problem?


Did the free market solve the following problems;

old age poverty
injuries while at work
environmental protections
the interstate highway system
Rural electrification
our nation defense
equality of race
women's right to vote
healthcare

 

[P@triot]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves every problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:

Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU

How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…

www.prageru.com

Exact how would that solve the problem?

The same exact way it drove laser eye surgery way down while improving outcomes - competition. If I can shop around for the best price for knee replacement surgery, it causes other hospitals losing my business to lower their prices on knee replacement surgery.

Seriously man...are you really this dumb? Did you really need that explained to you or are you playing some weird trolling game?

 

[P@triot]

Did the free market solve the following problems; old age poverty

Uh...yeah. It raised the standard of living infinitely for everyone from newborns to the elderly.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked

lol. Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day. There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Did the free market solve the following problems; old age poverty

Uh...yeah. It raised the standard of living infinitely for everyone from newborns to the elderly.

How well did Capitalism do in 1929? You realize the social programs put in place back then are still with us bailing out Capitalism ever since.