Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation purposes.

There is equal protection, if you are fired or your employer basically forces you to quit due to lower wages you get a check. On the other hand quitting for personal reasons results in equal treatment of no compensation. So what malfunction caused your denial?

Any for-cause criteria must require a for-cause employment relationship.

Pretty easy to see why you were fired really.

In other words, nothing but indoctrination.

 

[mudwhistle]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Democrats show their racism and their bigotry through their policies.
Most importantly, Democrats lie about everything.
They need people they feel are willing to sacrifice their principles to survive or are unable to see through their BS.
So what better person to play this on than someone on governmental assistance.
They assume that most people on welfare are dishonest and lazy.
So they do everything they can to create more of these dishonest and lazy individuals that they feel are willing to swallow any fraudulent BS they try to sell them.
If you're on a fixed income you are a target to Democrats.
They cut your benefits and blame it on Republicans.
It works all of the time.
This is in a nutshell why Democrats want a bad economy.
Democrats are constantly trying to screw up the economy.
They demand a higher minimum-wage because they know that it will cause layoffs.
They bring in millions of illegals and poor refugees to drive down wages.
These illegals are also more willing to commit crimes like election fraud and welfare fraud simply because many of them had to steal in their shithole countries to survive.
Democrats raise the costs of doing business through massive taxes and massive over regulation.

Democrats only love the extremely rich or the poor. Screw the Middle-Class.

 

[danielpalos]

We need a better energy grid for the US, not a wall.

 

[Papageorgio]

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

The law is employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for Any reason.

There is no law that gives a right to work. It gives BOTH the employer and the employee to terminate the working arrangement at any time. It does not allow the employee to collect unemployment if they are fired with cause. It allows them to collect the money granted to them from the unemployment insurance if fired without cause. Thus equal protection exists.

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

Equal is equal, what part isn’t equal?

Unequal is requiring for-cause criteria for Only the employee, to receive unemployment compensation under our current regime. Why "reward" lousy capitalists with more "loyalty" than they deserve.

You have equal protection, each state has a process to claim your unemployment. You have hearings and appeals under the law and all have the right. As far as capitalists, I work for good ones, not lousy ones, that is my choice.

 

[Papageorgio]

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

ALL employees are at will, what is unequal about that?

equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation purposes.

There is equal protection, you choose not to work. An employer doesn’t pay you for not working.

You aren’t looking for work, you want the government to pay you for a lazy choice.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause.

More stupidity on your part. It is at will, however if your choice is not to work, then you are paid accordingly.

 

[saveliberty]

In other words, nothing but indoctrination.

...from the guy who thinks he has a right to a job and not work at it. Now there's some indoctrination kool-aid.

 

[danielpalos]

The law is employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for Any reason.

There is no law that gives a right to work. It gives BOTH the employer and the employee to terminate the working arrangement at any time. It does not allow the employee to collect unemployment if they are fired with cause. It allows them to collect the money granted to them from the unemployment insurance if fired without cause. Thus equal protection exists.

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

Equal is equal, what part isn’t equal?

Unequal is requiring for-cause criteria for Only the employee, to receive unemployment compensation under our current regime. Why "reward" lousy capitalists with more "loyalty" than they deserve.

You have equal protection, each state has a process to claim your unemployment. You have hearings and appeals under the law and all have the right. As far as capitalists, I work for good ones, not lousy ones, that is my choice.

Unequal protection of the law needs to be challenged in every State.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

ALL employees are at will, what is unequal about that?

equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation purposes.

There is equal protection, you choose not to work. An employer doesn’t pay you for not working.

You aren’t looking for work, you want the government to pay you for a lazy choice.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause.

More stupidity on your part. It is at will, however if your choice is not to work, then you are paid accordingly.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.

 

[saveliberty]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.

First of all, link on the social services numbers. Second, I have made decisions not to hire based on unemployment and worker's compensation costs. Trust me, unemployment insurance has high costs, though not all of them are obvious to people like you.

 

[danielpalos]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.

First of all, link on the social services numbers. Second, I have made decisions not to hire based on unemployment and worker's compensation costs. Trust me, unemployment insurance has high costs, though not all of them are obvious to people like you.

I am suggesting a change to the unemployment tax. It should be a general tax.

 

[saveliberty]

I am suggesting a change to the unemployment tax. It should be a general tax.

Why? Employers contribute 100% of the funding to pay for those who have lost their job through specific circumstances. A general tax makes it easier to fire employees without a consequence.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no law that gives a right to work. It gives BOTH the employer and the employee to terminate the working arrangement at any time. It does not allow the employee to collect unemployment if they are fired with cause. It allows them to collect the money granted to them from the unemployment insurance if fired without cause. Thus equal protection exists.

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

Equal is equal, what part isn’t equal?

Unequal is requiring for-cause criteria for Only the employee, to receive unemployment compensation under our current regime. Why "reward" lousy capitalists with more "loyalty" than they deserve.

You have equal protection, each state has a process to claim your unemployment. You have hearings and appeals under the law and all have the right. As far as capitalists, I work for good ones, not lousy ones, that is my choice.

Unequal protection of the law needs to be challenged in every State.

I agree however we already have it in the world of unemployment, so you are dead wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

ALL employees are at will, what is unequal about that?

equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation purposes.

There is equal protection, you choose not to work. An employer doesn’t pay you for not working.

You aren’t looking for work, you want the government to pay you for a lazy choice.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause.

More stupidity on your part. It is at will, however if your choice is not to work, then you are paid accordingly.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.

We already went over this and it would double the current federal budget, because your “equal protection” would require full implementation immediately. Still you insist it wouldn’t.

Besides I don’t trust the government nor I want them taking more money from us taxpayers, we already pay too much.

 

[deltex1]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

More dependence=more votes. Simple as that.

 

[danielpalos]

I am suggesting a change to the unemployment tax. It should be a general tax.

Why? Employers contribute 100% of the funding to pay for those who have lost their job through specific circumstances. A general tax makes it easier to fire employees without a consequence.

It also makes it easier to quit without consequence.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal means equal. What basis do you have to deny and disparage equal protection of the law?

Equal is equal, what part isn’t equal?

Unequal is requiring for-cause criteria for Only the employee, to receive unemployment compensation under our current regime. Why "reward" lousy capitalists with more "loyalty" than they deserve.

You have equal protection, each state has a process to claim your unemployment. You have hearings and appeals under the law and all have the right. As far as capitalists, I work for good ones, not lousy ones, that is my choice.

Unequal protection of the law needs to be challenged in every State.

I agree however we already have it in the world of unemployment, so you are dead wrong.

No we don't.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation purposes.

There is equal protection, you choose not to work. An employer doesn’t pay you for not working.

You aren’t looking for work, you want the government to pay you for a lazy choice.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause.

More stupidity on your part. It is at will, however if your choice is not to work, then you are paid accordingly.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.

We already went over this and it would double the current federal budget, because your “equal protection” would require full implementation immediately. Still you insist it wouldn’t.

Besides I don’t trust the government nor I want them taking more money from us taxpayers, we already pay too much.

No, it doesn't. Welfare is more expensive.

 

[saveliberty]

It also makes it easier to quit without consequence.

No, that would take a change in the law. Look no one wants a deadbeat getting an unemployment check. There are still criminal penalties for that.

 

[saveliberty]

No, it doesn't. Welfare is more expensive.

You are just trying to add an unearned wage to welfare.

 

[Papageorgio]

Equal is equal, what part isn’t equal?

Unequal is requiring for-cause criteria for Only the employee, to receive unemployment compensation under our current regime. Why "reward" lousy capitalists with more "loyalty" than they deserve.

You have equal protection, each state has a process to claim your unemployment. You have hearings and appeals under the law and all have the right. As far as capitalists, I work for good ones, not lousy ones, that is my choice.

Unequal protection of the law needs to be challenged in every State.

I agree however we already have it in the world of unemployment, so you are dead wrong.

No we don't.

We have legal recourse to get compensation if wrongfully terminated. That is due process.