Theory on 'Official Poverty' Relating to Racism - Page 24 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

danielpalos · #**346** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by reality

And again i shall unto thee grasshopper, at will employment has nothing to do with receiving unemployment benefits.

Your argument is weak

At least my argument is not based on fallacy.

What part of at-will employment doctrine do you not understand?

What part of at-will employment laws do you not understand?

If someone is fired or quits, it is based on at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment law. If someone applies at EDD for unemployment compensation in at-will employment state, it is due to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

The only way to receive benefits now, is due to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Ideally, we would not need to waste money on a War on Poverty that will never solve poverty by trying to cure the after effects of poverty, instead of poverty itself that is due to a simple lack of income.

Why are you in favor of wasting my tax money?

reality · #**347** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

At least my argument is not based on fallacy.

What part of at-will employment doctrine do you not understand?

What part of at-will employment laws do you not understand?

If someone is fired or quits, it is based on at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment law. If someone applies at EDD for unemployment compensation in at-will employment state, it is due to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

The only way to receive benefits now, is due to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Ideally, we would not need to waste money on a War on Poverty that will never solve poverty by trying to cure the after effects of poverty, instead of poverty itself that is due to a simple lack of income.

Why are you in favor of wasting my tax money?

why are YOU in favor of wasting my tax money? We don't need the war on poverty at all.

unemployment laws and at will employment laws are two different things. continue to believe otherwise to your folly

danielpalos · #**348** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Actually, we do need a war on poverty in our mixed-market, money-based, political-economy. A poverty of money in any money-based market could be considered and inefficiency in that market. Simply eliminating a poverty of money through unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide an economic stimulus and generate more local tax revenue for local governments.

With more people applying for unemployment compensation, at-will; less people will want to apply for more expensive; welfare, as we currently know it and could lead to lower public sector costs from that type social safety net.

Welfare, as we currently know it, is more expensive to administer than unemployment compensation that can be obtained via at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

In addition, it would be another metric to help improve the efficiency of the market for labor.

In other words, unemployment compensation, at-will, could be considered an "instrument of expansion" for our economy, while welfare is only an "institution of cultural entropy" that does not solve for official poverty over the long term.

reality · #**349** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Actually, we do need a war on poverty in our mixed-market, money-based, political-economy. A poverty of money in any money-based market could be considered and inefficiency in that market. Simply eliminating a poverty of money through unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide an economic stimulus and generate more local tax revenue for local governments.

With more people applying for unemployment compensation, at-will; less people will want to apply for more expensive; welfare, as we currently know it and could lead to lower public sector costs from that type social safety net.

Welfare, as we currently know it, is more expensive to administer than unemployment compensation that can be obtained via at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

In addition, it would be another metric to help improve the efficiency of the market for labor.

In other words, unemployment compensation, at-will, could be considered an "instrument of expansion" for our economy, while welfare is only an "institution of cultural entropy" that does not solve for official poverty over the long term.

except for the pesky fact that its unconstitutional and would never get passed into law because no one wants to pay bums to do nothing

danielpalos · #**350** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

We are already paying for a War on Poverty that will never solve for poverty. It is Constitutional.

Unemployment compensation based on at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws would be more efficient and less expensive than our current War on Poverty. Why do you insist on paying more taxes to eliminate poverty than we need to?

I would rather pay some people to do nothing, in order to get a more efficient economy and improved standard of living.

Solving poverty via unemployment compensation, at-will, could also simulate full employment of resources in the market for labor; and be compatible with the theory of supply and demand. Zero percent official unemployment could end simple poverty due to a lack of income that is as easy to administer as minimum wage laws.

reality · #**351** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

We are already paying for a War on Poverty that will never solve for poverty. It is Constitutional.

Unemployment compensation based on at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws would be more efficient and less expensive than our current War on Poverty. Why do you insist on paying more taxes to eliminate poverty than we need to?

I would rather pay some people to do nothing, in order to get a more efficient economy and improved standard of living.

Solving poverty via unemployment compensation, at-will, could also simulate full employment of resources in the market for labor; and be compatible with the theory of supply and demand. Zero percent official unemployment could end simple poverty due to a lack of income that is as easy to administer as minimum wage laws.

whereas i would rather be shot then pay someone to do nothing. also unemployment laws and employment laws are seperate. keep telling yourself its the same thing though

danielpalos · #**352** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by reality

whereas i would rather be shot then pay someone to do nothing. also unemployment laws and employment laws are seperate. keep telling yourself its the same thing though

Fortunately, you can elect representatives to government and give them public emoluments for them to accomplish that public service for you; and, re-elect them even if they keep wasting our money on other boondoggles and forms of waste of public monies.

At-will employment in California is codified: 2922. That means it is a state law.

reality · #**353** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Fortunately, you can elect representatives to government and give them public emoluments for them to accomplish that public service for you; and, re-elect them even if they keep wasting our money on other boondoggles and forms of waste of public monies.

At-will employment in California is codified: 2922. That means it is a state law.

hey i don't vote for them. i voted for ron paul dude don't look at me.

at will employment, yes. where is at will UNemployment codified? is it 2923? o its an entirely seperate law? huh guess it has nothing to do with at will employment

danielpalos · #**354** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

With the full faith and credit of public acts, such doctrines and state laws should enable either market participant to terminate an employment relationship, with no liability to either participant. If someone can legally quit, at-will; why should they not be able to legally collect unemployment, at-will?

reality · #**355** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

With the full faith and credit of public acts, such doctrines and state laws should enable either market participant to terminate an employment relationship, with no liability to either participant. If someone can legally quit, at-will; why should they not be able to legally collect unemployment, at-will?

because quitting your job and collecting unemployment are governed by two different laws.
seriously dude where do you get your weed? wanna hook me up?

danielpalos · #**356** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Which different laws are they governed by?

Any laws pursuant to a State Constitution, are the supreme law of that State. 2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

Pursuant to what authority, do any laws that are repugnant (1) to state statutes, become lawful?

Quote:

Main Entry:
re·pug·nant Listen to the pronunciation of repugnant
Pronunciation:
\-nənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, opposed, contradictory, incompatible, from Anglo-French, from Latin repugnant-, repugnans, present participle of repugnare to fight against, from re- + pugnare to fight — more at pungent
Date:
15th century

1: incompatible, inconsistent2archaic : hostile3: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>
— re·pug·nant·ly adverb

reality · #**357** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Which different laws are they governed by?

Any laws pursuant to a State Constitution, are the supreme law of that State. 2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

Pursuant to what authority, do any laws that are repugnant (1) to state statutes, become lawful?

ok genius. youve been so nice to look up the employment laws, why don't you look up the unemployment benefits laws? youll find that they are seperate from the employment statutes.

danielpalos · #**358** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Here is some background information on the topic.

Quote:

Administrative Justice, or, more commonly, administrative adjudication, is the exercise by an administrative agency of judicial powers delegated to the agency by a legislative body. Agencies typically possess both legislative and judicial powers in their area of authority. The legislative power gives the agency the authority to issue regulations, and the judicial power gives the agency the authority to adjudicate contested cases within its area of jurisdiction. This article focuses on the latter power.

The current distinction between adjudication within administrative agencies and adjudication in courts of law was not made historically. For example, the English Court of Exchequer evolved from the administrative Exchequer, a tax-assessing and collecting agency. American usage derives from the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution and from its limitation of the "judicial power of the United States" to certain types of "cases … and controversies." Administrative adjudication was once criticized as being contrary to the reservation of judicial power to courts as set down in Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in Crowell v. Benson (1932), however, that agencies could adjudicate cases as long as provision was made for ultimate judicial review.

Administrative courts are not ordinarily engaged in determining the rights and duties of individuals as against other individuals. Rather, they typically deal with individuals in relation to government in terms of benefits sought or disabilities incurred from government action. It is this function that chiefly distinguishes administrative tribunals from civil courts. In contrast to the criminal courts, administrative tribunals are typically empowered to assess various penalties, such as forfeiture of licenses for the violation of a statutory or administrative regulation. Some administrative agencies, however, are not vested with adjudicative powers and must proceed through the regular courts for civil or criminal punishment of violations.

Another fundamental difference between administrative tribunals and courts is the nature of subject matter jurisdiction. The subject matter of an agency's administrative regulation and adjudication is normally a single economic activity, a set of closely related economic activities, or specific benefits conferred by government. The concern of the National Labor Relations Board with labor relations is an example of the first; the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission over radio, television, and telephone exemplifies the second; and adjudication of the validity of benefit claims by such agencies as the Veterans Administration represent the third. In contrast, the subject matter jurisdiction of courts embraces a broad spectrum of civil and criminal law.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) imposes uniform procedural requirements on most U.S. agencies and requires the judicial function to be separated from the legislative and executive aspects within the agencies. Some agencies not covered by this act have alternate provisions in their organizational statutes; some have had additional procedural requirements imposed.

The APA specifies the requirements for notification and hearings of agencies under its jurisdiction. When Congress has specified that the administrative adjudication must be formal, the APA requires that the agency's decision be made upon a record established in a trial-type hearing, and that an initial decision be made by the officer who hears the evidence. This hearing examiner, known as an "administrative law judge," makes an initial decision based on reasoned analysis, written findings of fact, and conclusions of law. The initial decision is frequently subject to appeal to intra-agency boards or to the commission or board that is the highest administrative authority of the agency. The act further provides for a broad right of review of agency adjudication by the courts. In general, judicial review of formal agency adjudication is limited to questions of law, and administrative findings of fact are binding on the courts unless unsupported by substantial evidence. Questions of law include allegations that constitutional or statutory rights have been denied, failure to observe required procedures, and the agency's scope of authority. If Congress has not specified that the administrative adjudication must be formal, the APA is silent with regard to the procedures to be used. The requirements in such informal adjudications spring from constitutional requirements of procedural due process and from the right of courts to overturn agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or in violation of law.

Administrative regulation and adjudication is not limited to the national governmental level. It has become widespread in the states and municipalities, embracing such subjects as public utilities, natural resources, banking, securities, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance, employment discrimination, rents, automobile operation and inspection, corporations, elections, welfare, commercial insurance, land use, and environmental and consumer protection. Some states have administrative procedure acts comparable to the federal act of 1946; but in the states, judicial review is characteristically broader than under the federal act.

Source: Administrative Justice: Information from Answers.com

reality · #**359** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Here is some background information on the topic.

right dude. cause that has a lot to do with unemployment benefit statutes.

danielpalos · #**360** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

The act further provides for a broad right of review of agency adjudication by the courts. In general, judicial review of formal agency adjudication is limited to questions of law, and administrative findings of fact are binding on the courts unless unsupported by substantial evidence. Questions of law include allegations that constitutional or statutory rights have been denied, failure to observe required procedures, and the agency's scope of authority.

In the case of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, I feel that individuals who incur any for-cause liability are being denied and disparaged their statutory rights if both market participants agree that employment was at-will. Further, even the States are denied and disparaged in their privilege and immunity to "impair in the Obligation of Contracts".

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode