What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

I appeal to the law that is put into place to protect the hard working Americans. Your congressman has fed you lies to get you off his back, the only reason a congress person would fail to sponsor a bill is that A) He doesn't believe in your cause or B)As you said, you had no money because he doesn't believe in your cause unless you pay him to believe.

You need to explain why hard working Americans would not want to work to earn more than compensation for simply being unemployed. Greed is Good under Capitalism. Thus, your argument is not very persuasive.

My congressman informed he can only present one hundred bill ideas to the legislature for debate. Considering how right wingers on this very forum have nothing but continuance, diversion and other forms of fallacy, it would be an uphill battle with no guarantee of success. He did not say he did not believe in that solution.

 

[Papageorgio]

And you have not supported that statement with anything. Not at all, whereas you've been shown over and over how that doesn't influence UC AT ALL. It doesn't even impair at will employment. That just means you can quit your job and they can fire you, end of story. Has nothing to do with collecting UC.

I agree to disagree. All I have shown is that right wingers prefer to appeal to ignorance instead of "work hard" to produce valid arguments.

The lazy guy that wants to be paid to stay home and not work is accusing others of not working hard. You can't make this stuff up guys.

 

[danielpalos]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you are appealing to your ignorance of understanding. You have only your fantasy which no court will hear because they think your premise is flawed and no congress will sponsor because they don't believe in your idea nor do they believe in you, it seems you don't have the capital to fund such a law.

If a Court hears it on the merits and agrees to move forward on this issue, it must mean right wingers are full of fallacy but believe they have nothing but "gospel Truth" because in Right Wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right. Thanks.

 

[Papageorgio]

I appeal to the law that is put into place to protect the hard working Americans. Your congressman has fed you lies to get you off his back, the only reason a congress person would fail to sponsor a bill is that A) He doesn't believe in your cause or B)As you said, you had no money because he doesn't believe in your cause unless you pay him to believe.

You need to explain why hard working Americans would not want to work to earn more than compensation for simply being unemployed. Greed is Good under Capitalism. Thus, your argument is not very persuasive.

My congressman informed he can only present one hundred bill ideas to the legislature for debate. Considering how right wingers on this very forum have nothing but continuance, diversion and other forms of fallacy, it would be an uphill battle with no guarantee of success. He did not say he did not believe in that solution.

100 bills he can present a year, so he doesn't believe in your idea and it isn't even in the top 100 concerns for him? So, he has no confidence in what you are saying, at all, unless you pay for the law. LOL!! Your story gets worse and worse as it goes. Can you name all the hundreds of bills you congressman has introduced? I'm guessing a lot less than 100 and he is string you along for a vote and nothing else. He is a smart guy.

 

[danielpalos]

The lazy guy that wants to be paid to stay home and not work is accusing others of not working hard. You can't make this stuff up guys.

You also can't make up the fact that "hard work advocating" right wingers have nothing but the laziness of ad hominems and other forms of fallacy instead of any valid and thoughtful arguments; but want to be taken more seriously than any hypocrite.

 

[Papageorgio]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

I am providing the links you ask for just like you provided me with the links I asked for several times and you provided nothing. You set the rules, I just follow your example.

 

[Papageorgio]

The lazy guy that wants to be paid to stay home and not work is accusing others of not working hard. You can't make this stuff up guys.

You also can't make up the fact that "hard work advocating" right wingers have nothing but the laziness of ad hominems and other forms of fallacy instead of any valid and thoughtful arguments; but want to be taken more seriously than any hypocrite.

Dude, your BS has been exposed as BS, you can't get a judge or a congressperson to even listen to your BS because you have no real argument and no real clue. Many of us has explained over and over why it won't work and you have continued to just repeat the same crap over and over. Your communication skills are lacking and most of what you spew makes no sense and when asked to help clarify, you just spew the same lines. That is why you are nothing but a troll that does nothing more than entertain you silly nonsense. We all get a good laugh from your stupidity and lack of communication skills. Nice you got a congressman to brush you off. LOL! Not many can say the same.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, you are appealing to your ignorance of understanding. You have only your fantasy which no court will hear because they think your premise is flawed and no congress will sponsor because they don't believe in your idea nor do they believe in you, it seems you don't have the capital to fund such a law.

If a Court hears it on the merits and agrees to move forward on this issue, it must mean right wingers are full of fallacy but believe they have nothing but "gospel Truth" because in Right Wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right. Thanks.

Again, you have said nothing, the courts won't side with your stupidity so please forge on forward, show your congressman up! LOL!!

BTW, there is no limit to the number of bills a congressman can present, looks like your congressman has made you out to be a loon.

 

[Orangecat]

Because right wingers only complain when the less fortunate are "illegal" to the law.

So you're "concerned" because you think some people are lying regarding some of your word-salad nonsense?
Seek professional help.

 

[Orangecat]

isn't right wing fantasy wonderful where you can Always be Right simply because you are on the right wing?

Isn't left wing illiteracy wonderful, where you don't capitalize the first word of a sentence but randomly capitalize others?
It says a lot about the misfiring mind behind the screen.

 

[hadit]

Show how the principle of at will employment "control" UC law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

No State or agency of a State can Constitutionally criminalize (or deny or disparage) something that is legal for all intents and purposes.

Literally, that statement ONLY means that a job can be terminated by either the employee or the employer and is the crux of your problem. Why do you keep pretending it relates to UC when it clearly does NOT? Let's put it this way, how does you walking off a job entitle you to UC benefits when UC law clearly states you don't qualify? Note very carefully that UC does not criminalize (or deny or disparage) at will employment. Consider this, you walk off a job and cannot collect UC. Were you prevented from walking off the job? You were fired from your job for cause and cannot collect UC. Was your boss prevented from firing you? The answer to both is a resounding "no", which means nothing was criminalized (or denied or disparaged). Why do you continue to insist on linking things together that are not linked?

 

[hadit]

He's trying to set up a false dynamic where he can claim that being fired from a job or quitting qualifies him to collect UC. There's no legal linkage, but he keeps insisting there is and that at will employment somehow overrides UC law. It's one of his hardest held doctrines and he's not deviated from it at all.

The is employment at the will of either party. Cause does not matter; analogous to no-fault insurance. If it is legal to fire the person, that person should qualify for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

There is your fallacy. The two are linked only in your mind, not by law. Therefore, it is a fallacy for you to continue screeching about unequal protection of the law. UC law is clear on who qualifies to collect benefits and has not been found to be unconstitutional. You would be a lot more convincing if you simply stated that you would like to collect UC if you are fired from a job for cause. That would be honest and a lot more respectable than this endless nattering about the law not being applied equally, because it IS applied exactly as it is written. If you get laid off, you can collect. Otherwise, no, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state having at will employment, nothing. You're constructing the linkage because it's the only way you can justify your stance, but it doesn't exist.

 

[hadit]

No, it will mean that legal opinion has reversed itself. Now, from where do you see this overturning coming from? Are you going to launch the lawsuit and get laughed out of court?

lol. No. Only the frivolous, clueless and Causeless right wing does that. I haven't lost my arguments on this forum. All we have discovered is that right wingers have nothing but fallacy but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing. Their lips move and they type on the Internet to prove it all the time.

Come up with valid arguments for rebuttal to even begin to be more than a simple procedural challenge instead a legal argument challenge.

You're the only one who believes that you win your arguments. I've seen no one other than you say that.

 

[hadit]

And that has nothing to do with collecting UC. They are separate issues.

Can you explain how and why they are separate issues?

Of course I can. UC is very clear, you can collect if you are laid off from your job. That means you first have to hold a job, and you have to be let go from that job for reasons other than poor performance or breaking the rules of the company, etc. You also cannot collect if you quit on your own. This is done deliberately to prevent the system from being overwhelmed by those who would treat it like a non-means tested welfare program and destroy it. Follow me so far? Now, at will employment means that you can quit a job and no one will stop you. It also means that you can be fired and no one can stop your boss from firing you. Got that? Here are some scenarios involving UC:

1. You are laid off from your job and allowed to collect UC. Is at will employment violated? No, because being laid off meets the criteria behind at will employment.
2. You quit your job and are NOT allowed to collect UC. Is at will employment violated? No, because you were not prevented from quitting, which meets the criteria behind at will employment. That's the point of at will employment, remember?
3. You're fired from your job and are NOT allowed to collect UC. Is at will employment violated? No, because the boss was not prevented from firing you, which meets the criteria behind at will employment. That's the point of at will employment, remember?

Now, give me YOUR scenarios where you think that at will employment is being violated because you're not allowed to collect UC for walking off a job, and explain why. Don't resort to vague, meaningless phrases like you always do.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Economy’s are living breathing things. It’s best to go with what has worked throughout the course of time rather than make the same mistakes that have been tested and already failed

Because economies are “living breathing things” — they change over time, develop, age and can even die. Over generations large economic institutions and even the capitalist system itself needs to be reborn, and new laws must be developed to deal with new contradictions. Just like every farm and business dies or otherwise becomes interconnected to the larger whole, national economies are integrated with others. This creates whole new physical realities and money circulatory systems.

I don’t want to simplify matters. You probably agree our present “crony capitalist” system is utterly corrupt at many levels. It’s historic nature has changed profoundly. In my opinion classes and individuals without capital today, especially if they lack other supportive social or institutional structures, are lost in modern society. They are like babes alone in the woods, essentially doomed.

There is no built-in guarantee that “modern capitalism” under a national state umbrella of law can work in the future for the great majority of mankind. Stronger international structures of law and trade and a much more powerful social democratic safety net must be extended to the whole human community.

The solutions can’t just be “Unemployment Insurance” and “a high minimum wage” .... of course. But traditional opportunities are disappearing for too many in our high-tech, automated, globalized economy. Demands for “Jobs or basic income,” higher wages, universal medical care, free (equal opportunity) education — these are reasonable and inevitable demands for those left at the bottom of society. The elites who run our corporations and states ought to pay more attention to the welfare of those at the bottom, just as they must pay attention to those in the middle ... being driven to the bottom.

From one perspective, "capitalism died in 1929" and socialism via social programs enacted by FDR's administration have been bailing out Capitalism ever since.

Nah. Though New Deal reforms steadied the system, Capitalism has never been stronger. Richer more powerful capitalist corporations than ever. More stock outstanding. Weaker unions and “Labour parties” everywhere. S.S. & Medicare and a safety net may have saved capitalist “democracy” — but by themselves haven’t changed the system into anything else. The latest important developments have tended to create a sort of private/public central bank perpetual “bail out” of private crashing capital, a sort of ersatz “state capitalism” — but it is still capitalism.

 

[harmonica]

.....another thing, you can create jobs, but that doesn't mean the stupid LAZY humans will be good doing them/etc.....some people don't have the discipline/industriousness/etc to be good workers .......

Your point? Or do you believe more in our endless, costly, and less effective war on poverty.

if you don't get the point you need to go back and graduate from 4th grade-

 

[danielpalos]

100 bills he can present a year, so he doesn't believe in your idea and it isn't even in the top 100 concerns for him? So, he has no confidence in what you are saying, at all, unless you pay for the law. LOL!! Your story gets worse and worse as it goes. Can you name all the hundreds of bills you congressman has introduced? I'm guessing a lot less than 100 and he is string you along for a vote and nothing else. He is a smart guy.

He may not believe it is worth the hassle to argue it with right wingers since they can have the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[Papageorgio]

100 bills he can present a year, so he doesn't believe in your idea and it isn't even in the top 100 concerns for him? So, he has no confidence in what you are saying, at all, unless you pay for the law. LOL!! Your story gets worse and worse as it goes. Can you name all the hundreds of bills you congressman has introduced? I'm guessing a lot less than 100 and he is string you along for a vote and nothing else. He is a smart guy.

He may not believe it is worth the hassle to argue it with right wingers since they can have the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

So you are saying the idea isn't worth fighting for.

 

[danielpalos]

The multiplier is at best 1.7,

Link? You need to provide a link because you are on the right wing, and you are typing on the Internet.

I am providing the links you ask for just like you provided me with the links I asked for several times and you provided nothing. You set the rules, I just follow your example.

Page iv of this study shows a multiplier of 2 for regular unemployment compensation and extended unemployment compensation.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf