Because it will destroy what little economy we have left. All that money has to come from somewhere. mostly from my pocket. no thank you.

no we are turning into a socialized economy which is WHY we are in the shit hole we are in in the first place. Socialism has been terrible for the world economy all around. besides, america = not a socialist nation. the bottom line is I refuse to pay someone to sit and do nothing.


And youre avoiding the fact that at will employment DOES not equate to at will UNEMPLOYMENT.

Your claim that providing a more consistent income that can be taxed by local governments, will destroy our economy is not founded on economics. If anything, it will improve our average standard of living by the amount of poverty that is eliminated. Improving our average standard of living can be considered a provision of the general welfare.

You keep missing the point about your morals and paying for forms of fraud and a War on Poverty, but not actually wanting to eliminate official poverty in our republic; it is self-evident to someone employing ethics. I think your morals are better suited to more Capitalistic, third world economies rather than more socialized, first world economies that can afford to have socialized wars on abstractions.

Unemployment at-will is compatible with at-will employment doctrine and at-will employment laws since it is the inverse of it. How is unemployment at-will not consistent with "and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Since otherwise ceasing work can be considered at-will ceasement of employment or unemployment at-will.

Its actually fairly basic. That money comes from the federal government. They get their money from us. Therefore they are taking my money and giving it to lazy bums. That tax money is supposed to be used for a specific purpose/s namely: fixing roads, providing for the common defense, delivering my mail, paying civil servants, providing for things like the FBI ATF US marshals etc. Not going to lazy slobs.
Now that money that is supposed to be going to those things i mentioned above is now going to lazy slobs. but we can't just shut down the above, so we raise taxes. alot. those high taxes SMOTHER the economy. Look at california, case in point.


And i keep telling you I DON"T WANT THE WAR ON POVERTY OR THE WAR ON DRUGS AND I"M CERTAINLY NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR THE ILLEGAL ACT OF WELFARE FRAUD. THOSE PEOPLE NEED TO BE PUNISHED, NOT REWARDED (those people being those who commit welfare fraud. it is a crime you know)

heres the definition of inverse

inverse
7 entries found.

1inverse (adjective)

2inverse (noun)

additive inverse

inverse function

inverse square law

inverse variation

multiplicative inverse




Main Entry: 1in·verse
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈvərs, ˈin-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, turned upside down, from Latin inversus, from past participle of invertere
Date: 15th century
1 : opposite in order, nature, or effect
2 : being an inverse function <inverse sine>

as you can see it means opposite. heres the defintion of opposite


opposite
5 entries found.

1opposite (adjective)

2opposite (noun)

3opposite (adverb)

4opposite (preposition)

opposite number


Ads by GoogleAntonyms
Use Ask.com To Find It. Get Accurate Results & Fast Answers.
Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search


Main Entry: 1op·po·site
Pronunciation: \ˈä-pə-zət, ˈäp-sət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin oppositus, past participle of opponere
Date: 14th century
1 a: set over against something that is at the other end or side of an intervening line or space <opposite interior angles> <opposite ends of a diameter> b: situated in pairs on an axis with each member being separated from the other by half the circumference of the axis <opposite leaves> — compare alternate
2 a: occupying an opposing and often antagonistic position <opposite sides of the question> b: diametrically different (as in nature or character) <opposite meanings>
3: contrary to one another or to a thing specified : reverse <gave them opposite directions>
4: being the other of a pair that are corresponding or complementary in position, function, or nature <members of the opposite sex>
5: of, relating to, or being the side of a baseball field that is near the first base line for a right-handed batter and near the third base line for a left-handed batter

Definition 4 does not apply. the prefix UN denotes NOT as in definition 2 and 3.



you are free to quit and thereby terminate your source of income. you are not a serf. thats what at will employment means.
if you quit your job you are INELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. YOU HAVE TO BE FIRED TO QUALIFY.

Actually, unemployment at-will could be mostly self-supporting with solvency guaranteed by the general government of the Union. The private sector could create jobs by offering complementary products and services. Only those with less marketable skill sets would be satisfied with a couch potato income if they could otherwise command prevailing market based wage work.

being an inverse function is another way of saying the opposite side of the same coin.

forgetting the fact that inverse functions only exist as math and not as language in law books opposite meaning the total reversal. not equal. not the same. different.

how would it be self supporting? That money has to come from somewhere and giving it away for free is a constant loss. one that the taxpayers have to bear.

It would only be different in order not function, as could be inferred by your argument.

In many states, the employer has to pay all of the unemployment compensation tax. In the hypothetical, since poverty elimination is the goal, both market participants could split the cost of unemployment compensation. It could reduce some of that cost to the employer, and provide the labor market participant with some market based metrics to work with.

Eliminating the drug and terror wars would free up those resources and it would not cost you anymore than you are already paying; and you could be more holy and moral to our Constitution, not to mention more patriotic to our republic.

For those that never provide labor input to the economy, the general government of the Union could ensure the solvency of that public policy with our tax money; as a form of holiness and morality, and glorious patriotism to our republic, and modern and global first world political-economy.

I would still like to discuss a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation at-will is consistent with that doctrine and those state laws.

We could find ways to lower other public sector costs. If no individual market participant can claim to be in official poverty, why would they need more government services? Those services may be more cost effective if provided by the private sector utilizing money based markets and our political-economy.

If no one can claim to be in official poverty, government health care mandates would be more ethical and moral to money based markets. Such capital would be allocated at the individual level and potentially result in better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

By solving poverty in our republic via unemployment compensation, at-will; generational forms of poverty would also only exist at-will due to a lack of money management skills; not, a poverty of money.

As a form of minimum wage, unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a market based metric for any potential labor market participant to easily recognize for money management purposes.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

youre selling, and still none of us are buying. The point of wanting the drug and poverty wars stopped is i want that money BACK. so the government can quit taking a bite out of my paycheck the size of oklahoma.

Plus, i don't consider giving my cash away to lazy slobs to be holy or moral. only you seem to belive that. trying to enforce your morals on me doesn't work because i don't believe them.

The simplicity of my argumentation is that you don't have to believe me, I am not the one appealing via fallacy to authority of morals, but to logic and reason on their own merit.

Simply allowing some lazy slobs recourse to unemployment compensation, at-will, could allow other more motivated market participants to obtain prevailing market based wages with less friction (cost) in that market for both market participants; and, provide an impetus for productivity gains that can improve our standard of living; ostensibly, for the greater glory our republic. It doesn't get any more moral than that.

How does your point of view provide for the general welfare of our republic? It seems to me, that you are willing to condone the parent of revolution and crime for the sake of mere lucre.

I guess i mustve imagined you using the term "more holy and moral" about 30 times.
Swing an a miss

There will always be poverty. Theres only so much of the big pie to go around. I'm in favor of letting people grab the pie as they can, on the basis of their own work and merit. Capitalism has proven itself better economically than socialism (look at our economy in the 50's when we had something close to pure capitalism and then look at our socialized economy now. look at the deficit.). I'm for America remaining the strongest power in the world. I'm not for paying lazy slobs to do jack shit. Its my money i'll do with it as i please, and i'll vote how i please.

I think you are mistaken. There will always be poor people in any given money based market. However being poor and being in poverty are two different things.

Poverty can be eliminated through unemployment compensation at-will. Unemployment compensation at-will also conforms to current at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws in our current political-economy. Therefore your argument doesn't hold concerning at-will employment doctrine, as a method of eliminating poverty; because it is already part of our legal system.

It is more ethical and can be considered more moral, to simply pay people to not provide labor input to the economy, than to condone the parent of revolution and crime and all other social ills related to poverty, for the sake of mere lucre.

Eliminating poverty via the public sector is more cost effective than eliminating it via the private sector.

that may even be true, however it puts wayyyyy tooooooo much authority into the hands of the government. power bad for governments. that is if you don't want to be goose stepping, burning books, and saluting your supreme leader for life. which i don't. No socialism for me thanks, i'm on a bullshit free diet.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, is compatible with our Ninth Amendment, our Tenth Amendment, and existing at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws.

It is why I suggest using existing infrastructure, including legal inertia regarding at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. We are already paying for that "overhead" anyway, so why not employ those resources better to lower our tax burden. It could be considered a States' right to provide for its own general welfare as it sees fit, within the official weights and measures standards established for the Union.

In effect, it could be the several States exercising their privileges and immunities concerning the general government of the Union's obligation to pay the Debts of the United States when providing for the general welfare of the Union of the several States.

and we've come full circle yet again. It doesn't apply. Youll have to make a new law. And grant the federal government even more sweeping power to lord over the people and the States. No thank you