Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[danielpalos]

Government costs; why do You on the Right Wing, believe we have so much Debt?

That would be petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama and his failed policies.

all he did was, bailout the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

How much homelessness is there in alleged, Right to Work States.

What is an "alleged Right to Work State"?

why do you bother arguing politics?

look up, right to work state.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't whine about taxes.

You're whining about not collecting unemployment.
And about capital gains taxes.

i am "whining" about illegals whining about less fortunate illegals, to our own laws.

and I am "whining" about a lack of equal protection of the law, for the poor, under our form of Capitalism.

And your confusion about equal protection meaning unemployment checks for quitters and never workers.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny at-will benefits.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're whining about not collecting unemployment.
And about capital gains taxes.

i am "whining" about illegals whining about less fortunate illegals, to our own laws.

and I am "whining" about a lack of equal protection of the law, for the poor, under our form of Capitalism.

And your confusion about equal protection meaning unemployment checks for quitters and never workers.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny at-will benefits.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

 

[danielpalos]

i am "whining" about illegals whining about less fortunate illegals, to our own laws.

and I am "whining" about a lack of equal protection of the law, for the poor, under our form of Capitalism.

And your confusion about equal protection meaning unemployment checks for quitters and never workers.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny at-will benefits.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your confusion about equal protection meaning unemployment checks for quitters and never workers.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny at-will benefits.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

Paying unemployment benefits to quitters and never workers would end up increasing our tax burden.
The resulting increase in unemployment would decrease GDP and shrink our economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms

There are no "unemployment taxes" there is only unemployment insurance REQUIRED by law for employers to have. Unemployment insurance can be provided by the state or private insurance companies. Insurance CLAIMS can be made if one falls under the category of said coverage which is losing a job through no fault of your own.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?????

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny at-will benefits.

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

Paying unemployment benefits to quitters and never workers would end up increasing our tax burden.
The resulting increase in unemployment would decrease GDP and shrink our economy.

Yes, it does, simply Because, Capital must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. No amount of right wing fantasy, can change that.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms

There are no "unemployment taxes" there is only unemployment insurance REQUIRED by law for employers to have. Unemployment insurance can be provided by the state or private insurance companies. Insurance CLAIMS can be made if one falls under the category of said coverage which is losing a job through no fault of your own.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?????

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

employment is at the will of either party, not only the employer, for any Thing.

Yup. And no unemployment for quitters and never workers.

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

Paying unemployment benefits to quitters and never workers would end up increasing our tax burden.
The resulting increase in unemployment would decrease GDP and shrink our economy.

Yes, it does, simply Because, Capital must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. No amount of right wing fantasy, can change that.

Handing you money for never working is a waste of capital with a negative multiplier.
No amount of lazy, liberal weed smoking can change that.

 

[Markle]

FDR did not extend the Depression. That's one of the more humorous rightwing myths.

Now long did the depression of 1920/21 last and what was done to end it?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wage and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.

The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.

As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA- LSMS368

Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[Markle]

Yes, I do. I get my encyclopedic understanding of socialism from encyclopedias, not dictionaries.

Have they a different definition? How interesting.

Please, show us the difference or did you just learn what it is, and is not, after I challenged you?

 

[Markle]

why do you bother arguing politics?

look up, right to work state.

I know exactly what a right to work state is.

Your statement was an "ALLEGED right to work state". What is an ALLEGED RIGHT TO WORK STATE?

 

[Wyatt earp]

They are not. The real poverty rate is 4%, contrary to the BS you read in the MSM.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Ammunition For Poverty Pimps

You give a poor person Medicaid, you make that person as much less poor as is the value of that healthcare insurance.

No?

Correct me if I am wrong but if my federal taxes "give a person medicad "

I am poorer ..


WTF is this shit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms

There are no "unemployment taxes" there is only unemployment insurance REQUIRED by law for employers to have. Unemployment insurance can be provided by the state or private insurance companies. Insurance CLAIMS can be made if one falls under the category of said coverage which is losing a job through no fault of your own.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?????

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

I swear, responding to you is like typing with my computer off. You don't know the difference between insurance and taxes? No, they are not the same. I just explained the entire thing to you, and you act as if you didn't read a word. THERE ARE NO UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES!!! They don't exist outside of your head.

And WTF "legal products" does the legislature make? What products?

 

[danielpalos]

why does it work for firerers? no labor tax breaks for firing labor.

why does it work for firerers?

Firers have to pay a higher unemployment tax.

no labor tax breaks for firing labor

Correct. They pay a higher tax.

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

Paying unemployment benefits to quitters and never workers would end up increasing our tax burden.
The resulting increase in unemployment would decrease GDP and shrink our economy.

Yes, it does, simply Because, Capital must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. No amount of right wing fantasy, can change that.

Handing you money for never working is a waste of capital with a negative multiplier.
No amount of lazy, liberal weed smoking can change that.

nothing but fallacy? thanks for making it easy for me.

 

[danielpalos]

FDR did not extend the Depression. That's one of the more humorous rightwing myths.

Now long did the depression of 1920/21 last and what was done to end it?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wage and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.

The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.

As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA- LSMS368

Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

dears, laissez-fair capitalism gave us the, Great Depression.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I do. I get my encyclopedic understanding of socialism from encyclopedias, not dictionaries.

Have they a different definition? How interesting.

Please, show us the difference or did you just learn what it is, and is not, after I challenged you?

You have nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you bother arguing politics?

look up, right to work state.

I know exactly what a right to work state is.

Your statement was an "ALLEGED right to work state". What is an ALLEGED RIGHT TO WORK STATE?

You are still, clueless and Causeless. Why not get a valid argument, instead?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms

There are no "unemployment taxes" there is only unemployment insurance REQUIRED by law for employers to have. Unemployment insurance can be provided by the state or private insurance companies. Insurance CLAIMS can be made if one falls under the category of said coverage which is losing a job through no fault of your own.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?????

Labor doesn't make the law. Legislatures are paid to manufacture legal products with the full faith and credit of public Acts. It is just, lousy management.

There is no reason any unemployment taxes could not be general taxes on firms. It would be a savings over our current regime due to that simplification. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

I swear, responding to you is like typing with my computer off. You don't know the difference between insurance and taxes? No, they are not the same. I just explained the entire thing to you, and you act as if you didn't read a word. THERE ARE NO UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES!!! They don't exist outside of your head.

And WTF "legal products" does the legislature make? What products?

it is not a true insurance program. We have State laws that cover insurance, not administrative laws.