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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Gorbechev did that, dupe.

After Reagan beat them, Gorbachev is the one who surrendered.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan had nothing to do with DumBama's debt. He created it all on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Reagan inspired pander to the rich policies of W Bush, who started the corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION OF 2008, which dupes like you haven't HEARD OF. lol

 

[francoHFW]

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Heard of inflation? Reagan added 1.8 in "good times". That's how we got good times, a sham. Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression and helping the victims. Great job, GOP. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Heard of inflation?

Inflation that was over 13% in 1980 and dropped to less than 2% in 1986?
Yes, I've heard of it you silly moron.

Reagan added 1.8 in "good times".

You can say that just because it was good times after the massive economic growth of his 2 terms.

Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression

Hey, silly person, the recession was over in June 2009.
Why did he continue to add trillions to the debt when the economy went positive so quickly?
Reagan added $1.8 trillion and GDP was $ 5.3 trillion in 1988.
Obama added $9.3 trillion and GDP was $18.6 trillion in 2016.

Every way you look at it, compared to Reagan, Obama pretty much sucked.

The debt was up to 800 billion/month for UE and welfare for victims of the DEPRESSION, no fault of Obama's. It's still 1-200 billion NOW. Reagan also started the disgraceful GOP propaganda machine which has produced a nation of ignorant fools.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Heard of inflation? Reagan added 1.8 in "good times". That's how we got good times, a sham. Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression and helping the victims. Great job, GOP. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Heard of inflation?

Inflation that was over 13% in 1980 and dropped to less than 2% in 1986?
Yes, I've heard of it you silly moron.

Reagan added 1.8 in "good times".

You can say that just because it was good times after the massive economic growth of his 2 terms.

Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression

Hey, silly person, the recession was over in June 2009.
Why did he continue to add trillions to the debt when the economy went positive so quickly?
Reagan added $1.8 trillion and GDP was $ 5.3 trillion in 1988.
Obama added $9.3 trillion and GDP was $18.6 trillion in 2016.

Every way you look at it, compared to Reagan, Obama pretty much sucked.

The debt was up to 800 billion/month for UE and welfare for victims of the DEPRESSION, no fault of Obama's. It's still 1-200 billion NOW. Reagan also started the disgraceful GOP propaganda machine which has produced a nation of ignorant fools.

The debt was up to 800 billion/month

You failed math, didn't you?

Reagan also started the disgraceful GOP propaganda machine which has produced a nation of ignorant fools

It's Reagan's fault that you're an idiot? That's funny.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

 

[Brain357]

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

 

[Brain357]

So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

Yes completely defeated. Not very American.

When do you expect the end? We continue on this course and the debt will kill us.

 

[Brain357]

So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

There is over 300 billion in corp taxes collected. That is more than enough to lift low income workers out of welfare. Why not come up with a tax structure that gives incentive for corps to pay more in return for tax breaks? This would cut out the government, boost the economy and decrease welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

There is over 300 billion in corp taxes collected. That is more than enough to lift low income workers out of welfare. Why not come up with a tax structure that gives incentive for corps to pay more in return for tax breaks? This would cut out the government, boost the economy and decrease welfare.

There is over 300 billion in corp taxes collected. That is more than enough to lift low income workers out of welfare.

How many low income workers are you trying to lift out of welfare?

Why not come up with a tax structure that gives incentive for corps to pay more in return for tax breaks?

At the current tax rate, a corporation would reduce their taxes by 35 cents for every dollar in added payroll expense. Are you talking about a larger reduction? How large?

This would cut out the government, boost the economy and decrease welfare.

Why would it boost the economy?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

There is over 300 billion in corp taxes collected. That is more than enough to lift low income workers out of welfare. Why not come up with a tax structure that gives incentive for corps to pay more in return for tax breaks? This would cut out the government, boost the economy and decrease welfare.

No, because what you are talking about is subsidizing lower income jobs. If we were going to go down that road, I would sooner have government subsidize business for providing healthcare insurance to their employees if anything. Many of us lost our health insurance with the passage of Commie Care.

Another problem is welfare people know how to scam the system. They are experts at it. Increase their wages, and they will work less hours to keep government goodies coming in. There have been reports of this in cities that adopted huge minimum wage increases.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.

That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.

As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

Yes completely defeated. Not very American.

When do you expect the end? We continue on this course and the debt will kill us.

So creating more debt will help?

I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'm glad I'll be off this planet (or at the very least, retired) before that happens. Manual labor jobs are being replaced by robots and automation. Even fast food restaurants are purchasing self-serve kiosks to have customers place orders and pay for their food. Down the road, those robots will be pouring your drinks, making your french fries, and even creating the hamburger you're going to eat. The entire restaurant will be run by one or two humans.

Automation is becoming cheaper and labor is becoming more expensive. I don't see the advantage of making labor so expensive that automation is the best investment for the future. JC Pennies closed down hundreds of stores. So did Game Stop recently. They are joining the many stores closing in the country because of internet sales. What are we supposed to do with the thousands of Americans that used to work in these stores?

Thinking of being a cab driver? How about working for Uber? Well, those are short-term incomes, because in the near future, cabs and Uber vehicles will be manless vehicles. You summons a car, swipe your credit card or debit card, and the vehicle will magically drive you to the destination you entered in the computer system of the vehicle.

It's very frightening. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that forcing industry to overpay manual labor will only speed up this disaster.

 

[danielpalos]

can you cite a State labor code that states that?

Requirements in IL

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

• You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
• You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
• You must be able and available to work
• You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident

You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.

Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.

Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.

Wage Requirement and the Base Period

The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.

The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.


This chart shows the base period.

Additionally:

• You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
• Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.

The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.

Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).

You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.

The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.

Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights

Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.

Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."

"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"

don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?

Not paying you unemployment is perfectly legal.

being legal to our own laws, is more legal and less hypocritical.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Requirements in IL

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

• You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
• You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
• You must be able and available to work
• You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident

You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.

Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.

Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.

Wage Requirement and the Base Period

The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.

The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.


This chart shows the base period.

Additionally:

• You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
• Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.

The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.

Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).

You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.

The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.

Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights

Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.

Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."

"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"

don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?

Not paying you unemployment is perfectly legal.

being legal to our own laws, is more legal and less hypocritical.

And that's why you'll get no unemployment benefits.

 

[Redfish]

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.

economics is not complicated.

You are jumping ahead. One step at a time please. Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more. You don't think more people making good money is good? You don't think the economy would grow? You want people dependent on government?

Let's stop the loser attitude and discuss what would really help people out of poverty and grow the economy.

I don't want people dependent on the government, that's what you dems and libs want.

As to the amount of profit available to raise wages, you know nothing about the grocery and fast food industry if you think they are high profit businesses. Walmart makes on volume, not individual item mark up. Most grocery stores are in the 2-3% profit range.

Now, if you want to talk profit rates, look up what big pharma is making, look at Apple and Google and Facebook.

You don't fix the economy by raising minimum wage, that's a proven fact.

 

[danielpalos]

Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"

don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?

Not paying you unemployment is perfectly legal.

being legal to our own laws, is more legal and less hypocritical.

And that's why you'll get no unemployment benefits.

it needs to be litigated. A federal doctrine and State laws are more supreme than administrative law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"

don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?

Not paying you unemployment is perfectly legal.

being legal to our own laws, is more legal and less hypocritical.

And that's why you'll get no unemployment benefits.

it needs to be litigated. A federal doctrine and State laws are more supreme than administrative law.

You should sue!
I'm sure plenty of lawyers would love to take your case pro bono.
Let me know how it turns out.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.

economics is not complicated.

You are jumping ahead. One step at a time please. Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more. You don't think more people making good money is good? You don't think the economy would grow? You want people dependent on government?

Let's stop the loser attitude and discuss what would really help people out of poverty and grow the economy.

I don't want people dependent on the government, that's what you dems and libs want.

As to the amount of profit available to raise wages, you know nothing about the grocery and fast food industry if you think they are high profit businesses. Walmart makes on volume, not individual item mark up. Most grocery stores are in the 2-3% profit range.

Now, if you want to talk profit rates, look up what big pharma is making, look at Apple and Google and Facebook.

You don't fix the economy by raising minimum wage, that's a proven fact.

So shouldn't you be for lowering corporate taxes while getting people off welfare? Our current road is just growing dependence.

 

[Brain357]

The point is that if we agree profits would allow it and it would in fact be good for the economy and country it can done. Shouldn't the real only question be how? You seem so sold on there is nothing that can fix the problems. I think there are many answers, but the goal must first be defined. Shall we move forward on the how?

It sure isn't Walmart overpaying their employees.

The "How" is easy. Work more hours or get a job that pays more. That's how. I've been doing it my entire life as have some of my friends and family.

You really are just defeated. No real interest in improvement. I guess slow economic growth and growing government independence is just your thing.

No, it's called living in reality.

I know what our past was. I know how it was formed, and I know why it died. I also know there is nothing you can do to bring it back. Automation and robots are not going to melt and never return. Overseas wages are not going to increase to such a point there will be no place to manufacture but the USA. American consumers are not going to change their priorities. Investors are not going to settle for lower profits.

When you can come to terms with those realities, only then will you be able to understand you can't turn the clock back. All you can do is put the cards on the table, look them over, and then make plans for the future.

Yes completely defeated. Not very American.

When do you expect the end? We continue on this course and the debt will kill us.

So creating more debt will help?

I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'm glad I'll be off this planet (or at the very least, retired) before that happens. Manual labor jobs are being replaced by robots and automation. Even fast food restaurants are purchasing self-serve kiosks to have customers place orders and pay for their food. Down the road, those robots will be pouring your drinks, making your french fries, and even creating the hamburger you're going to eat. The entire restaurant will be run by one or two humans.

Automation is becoming cheaper and labor is becoming more expensive. I don't see the advantage of making labor so expensive that automation is the best investment for the future. JC Pennies closed down hundreds of stores. So did Game Stop recently. They are joining the many stores closing in the country because of internet sales. What are we supposed to do with the thousands of Americans that used to work in these stores?

Thinking of being a cab driver? How about working for Uber? Well, those are short-term incomes, because in the near future, cabs and Uber vehicles will be manless vehicles. You summons a car, swipe your credit card or debit card, and the vehicle will magically drive you to the destination you entered in the computer system of the vehicle.

It's very frightening. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that forcing industry to overpay manual labor will only speed up this disaster.

Getting people off welfare and creating more tax payers will decrease debt.

If automation is your big fear it would be very easy to tax it so it is not profitable.

 

[danielpalos]

don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?

Not paying you unemployment is perfectly legal.

being legal to our own laws, is more legal and less hypocritical.

And that's why you'll get no unemployment benefits.

it needs to be litigated. A federal doctrine and State laws are more supreme than administrative law.

You should sue!
I'm sure plenty of lawyers would love to take your case pro bono.
Let me know how it turns out.

I already have a claim upon the State regarding redress of grievances.