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

[ReinyDays]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

 

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

Paying people to help stimulate the economy? What a bunch of entitlement claptrap. Lol.

You offer no valid rebuttal. All you have is an ad hominem. Typical of the right wing who still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

A multiplier of 2 gainsays your contention.

 

[danielpalos]

Rude doesn't begin to describe the disgusting arrogance required to equate slavery with not getting paid to do nothing.

Employment is at the will of either party. No employer would be paying anyone to do nothing. The State administering benefits for the general welfare has to do it through equal protection of the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

How is at will employment violated by UC having qualifications?

Because it is an Agency of a State and State law regarding employment relationships in an at-will employment State is clear.

 

[danielpalos]

You have been told over and over and over, reasoned with over and over and over, and you don’t want to accept whatever anyone else says, you don’t want a discussion, you want agreement with your idea, even the congressman knew it wouldn’t fly and he told you you’d have to pay him to present the bill. You have nothing, no bill, court case, nothing but fallacy.

All you needed the whole time was valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

This is good, because you're proving my point. Thus far you've established two things, that at will employment means you can legally quit be let go from a job, and that UC has qualifications that you need to meet in order to collect benefits. What you have NOT established is that the latter violates the former. If you see a conflict, it is on you to explain what the heck you think that conflict is and how it relates in a legal sense, because you've been spouting off on it for years without the slightest clue.

EDD having qualifications that are repugnant to State (at-will employment) law violate the equal protection clause.

 

[danielpalos]

It wasn't all that long along ago.. You could work at one job, put ten percent in the bank, "earn" an additional five or six percent interest, spend some having fun, and pay your dad back for the car loan with the rest. Now you need half a $million per month just to rent an apartment in Manhattan.

Yup, and you could graduate from high school, work at the assembly line for 40 years, your wife stay home to keep the house and raise five kids that could go to college, retire at 65 and live out your golden years. It's a different world now.

All that happened due to FDR's brand of socialism not any form of free market Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

That is possibly the worst pile of meaningless blargle I have seen on the internet, surpassed only by other things you've written. It literally means nothing. You've strung together a bunch of vague words that give absolutely no idea of how anything would work.

You simply claiming that with no valid argument for rebuttal is only an ad hominem, which are usually considered fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

"Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation". That's all that needs to be noted to explain your idiocy. You cloak your desire in word blargle, but the heart of what you are saying is that. You think you should keep getting paid even though you walked off the job. There is no justification for that stance, which is why you have to hide it behind a solid wall of blargle. Whenever you mention your mantra again, and you will, I will have to remind you this is what you really mean.

Equal protection of the law apparently means nothing to the "illegal loving" right wing who are immoral enough to whine about less fortunate "illegals".

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone would pay much, much more in taxes, there would be fewer jobs available, people would have less money to spend, and homelessness would still exist. You could provide every single person in the country an apartment, and in short order a significant number of those apartments would be unlivable and people would still be living in boxes under the bridge.

Simply because You say so? You need to show why that would be the case. I can easily claim people could pay less in taxes because so many more people would be circulating capital creating demand and generating general taxes if not also income taxes. A multiplier of 2 means that for every 1 dollar spent on unemployment compensation 2 dollars of economic activity would be generated in our market economy.

Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing at every capital opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

He does, however, have a completely unshakable faith that he's on to something significant and that he can create whole new areas of legal argument simply by redefining words to mean something completely different and creating legal dependencies where none exist. Easy prediction. After a short amount of time, he'll go silent for a few weeks only to pop up making the exact same arguments using the exact same words as if none of this happened, and he'll claim that he won every argument about it. A bot would be more flexible.

Coincidence or conspiracy? Solving simple poverty in our republic can be as simple and as market friendly as equal protection of the laws can make it in modern economic times.

 

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

 

[hadit]

How is at will employment violated by UC having qualifications?

Because it is an Agency of a State and State law regarding employment relationships in an at-will employment State is clear.

Yes, it is clear. It is clear that the one does not violate the other. You have yet to show any violation.

 

[hadit]

It wasn't all that long along ago.. You could work at one job, put ten percent in the bank, "earn" an additional five or six percent interest, spend some having fun, and pay your dad back for the car loan with the rest. Now you need half a $million per month just to rent an apartment in Manhattan.

Yup, and you could graduate from high school, work at the assembly line for 40 years, your wife stay home to keep the house and raise five kids that could go to college, retire at 65 and live out your golden years. It's a different world now.

All that happened due to FDR's brand of socialism not any form of free market Capitalism.

No, it happened because during those decades the US was the only major manufacturer on the planet. The rest of the developed world was devastated by WWII. Europe was trying to rebuild, China and India were not yet world players and Japan was demolished. We weren't touched. It's easy to charge premium prices and pay premium wages when you're the only game in town.

 

[hadit]

This is good, because you're proving my point. Thus far you've established two things, that at will employment means you can legally quit be let go from a job, and that UC has qualifications that you need to meet in order to collect benefits. What you have NOT established is that the latter violates the former. If you see a conflict, it is on you to explain what the heck you think that conflict is and how it relates in a legal sense, because you've been spouting off on it for years without the slightest clue.

EDD having qualifications that are repugnant to State (at-will employment) law violate the equal protection clause.

You keep saying that with no evidence that you're right. It's all in your head and no one agrees with you, especially anyone with even a passing understanding of the law. Let's just say it this way, if there was even the slightest violation it would have been tossed by the SC a long time ago. The bottom line remains, you want something to be that isn't and won't be no matter how many times you repeat yourself on the internet. Give us one court case that agrees with you.

 

[danielpalos]

How is at will employment violated by UC having qualifications?

Because it is an Agency of a State and State law regarding employment relationships in an at-will employment State is clear.

Yes, it is clear. It is clear that the one does not violate the other. You have yet to show any violation.

How simple do I need to make the concept?

The EDD rule conflicts with the State law regarding employment the will of either party.

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

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.

The State law must have precedence over any rule of an Agency of a State in any conflict of laws. And, the equal protection clause means the State law must be enforced equally. EDD must prove for-cause employment to apply any rule that conflicts with employment at the will of either party.

 

[hadit]

That is possibly the worst pile of meaningless blargle I have seen on the internet, surpassed only by other things you've written. It literally means nothing. You've strung together a bunch of vague words that give absolutely no idea of how anything would work.

You simply claiming that with no valid argument for rebuttal is only an ad hominem, which are usually considered fallacies.

In this case, your entire post is a fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it happened because during those decades the US was the only major manufacturer on the planet. The rest of the developed world was devastated by WWII. Europe was trying to rebuild, China and India were not yet world players and Japan was demolished. We weren't touched. It's easy to charge premium prices and pay premium wages when you're the only game in town.

I agree with you to a certain extent, and also that our wartime economy enabled full employment and that there were programs to ensure there was no recession due to end of the conflict and less war production.

 

[hadit]

How is at will employment violated by UC having qualifications?

Because it is an Agency of a State and State law regarding employment relationships in an at-will employment State is clear.

Yes, it is clear. It is clear that the one does not violate the other. You have yet to show any violation.

How simple do I need to make the concept?

The EDD rule conflicts with the State law regarding employment the will of either party.

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

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.

The State law must have precedence over any rule of an Agency of a State in any conflict of laws. And, the equal protection clause means the State law must be enforced equally. EDD must prove for-cause employment to apply any rule that conflicts with employment at the will of either party.

You keep stating it without any supporting evidence. You have not made the case that labor law cannot have qualifications and even admitted that your inane stance is wrong because it would mean that children are due UC payments because they don't have jobs. If you had the slightest amount of legal knowledge, you would realize that EDD can have qualifications or not have qualifications and neither would have any impact on at will employment. See for yourself:

1. There are qualifications to EDD. You can quit your job with no legal ramifications.
2. There are no qualifications to EDD. You can quit your job with no legal ramifications.

Show me how qualifications in EDD mean you can't quit your job. That's the hurdle you can't get over. You say there's a conflict, but in both cases you can quit your job. The ONLY difference is whether you get paid for doing it or not.

 

[hadit]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

That is incorrect. Just giving people more money doesn't help them learn financial responsibility, and even the poor can learn financial responsibility. It's the same principle whether you're talking about $10 or $10 million. The lottery winners that ended up broke prove that point, as well as the poor that are happy with the little they have.