The blueprint for prosperity

[WinterBorn]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

 

[danielpalos]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

 

[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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

 

[WinterBorn]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Yes you would. You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework. If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Yes you would. You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.

You would appeal to ignorance of the law more. Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions. There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.

 

[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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework. If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.

Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective. It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework. If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.

Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective. It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.

You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded. The only thing that would not be new is the name.

 

[WinterBorn]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Yes you would. You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.

You would appeal to ignorance of the law more. Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions. There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.

I am doing no such thing.

I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.

Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not? And spare me the meaningless word-salad. Just a simple answer.

 

[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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework. If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.

Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective. It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.

You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded. The only thing that would not be new is the name.

The mission of the program is to solve for an economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary and capricious political objectives that don't solve simple poverty in a Market Friendly manner. We would be lowering the cost of litigation for the private sector in the process. It would be the same thing, only doing a better job.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Yes you would. You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.

You would appeal to ignorance of the law more. Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions. There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.

I am doing no such thing.

I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.

Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not? And spare me the meaningless word-salad. Just a simple answer.

If you can legally quit in an at-will employment State there is no basis to deny and disparage that faithful execution of the law. On what basis does an At-Will employment State deny or disparage our privileges and immunities? We have a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Nothing to rework? lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue. The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC. Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".

The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework. If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.

Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective. It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.

You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded. The only thing that would not be new is the name.

The mission of the program is to solve for an economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary and capricious political objectives that don't solve simple poverty in a Market Friendly manner. We would be lowering the cost of litigation for the private sector in the process. It would be the same thing, only doing a better job.

No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own. That is the clear and stated mission. Turning it into unending welfare was never the mission.

 

[WinterBorn]

UC is not a right.

Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.

Yes it is. And you have equal protection of the law.

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case. Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Yes you would. You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.

You would appeal to ignorance of the law more. Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions. There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.

I am doing no such thing.

I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.

Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not? And spare me the meaningless word-salad. Just a simple answer.

If you can legally quit in an at-will employment State there is no basis to deny and disparage that faithful execution of the law. On what basis does an At-Will employment State deny or disparage our privileges and immunities? We have a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.

You continue to claim inequality, and yet you cannot name one benefit the employer gets while you get none.

As for the 1st amendment, please read the actual text of the amendment and tell me what bearing it has on this topic:
"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."

 

[danielpalos]

No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.

Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented. That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.

You miss the point. It is about State public policies. Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.

You miss the point. It is about State public policies. Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.

No need. You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.

Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented. That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.

Absolute bullshit. The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times. All races are eligible based on the same criteria. You really are reaching to try and justify all this. And yet, you refuse to answer any questions I ask.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.

You miss the point. It is about State public policies. Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.

No need. You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.

It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[danielpalos]

No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.

Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented. That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.

Absolute bullshit. The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.

Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?