Dumb/Sometimes LOL Political Pictures

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
11,088
9,875
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
Who pays for the Alaska permanent fund? Why is it so wildly popular in Alaska including conservatives?

Look up the word socialism, it does not mean what you think it means. There is no government control of the means of production of anything at all with this plan.
It's simply another welfare plan that has never been tested on a large scale. What's 300 million times a thousand bucks a month again. Multiplied out by a year that's over 3 trillion dollars. Yangs tax plan to pay for it only raises 800 billion in a best case scenario. Oh yeah not everyone will receive it because they will pay in more than they get back so you don't actually need the 3 trillion.

It's pixie dust.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,068
1,743
oklahoma city
It's simply another welfare plan that has never been tested on a large scale. What's 300 million times a thousand bucks a month again. Multiplied out by a year that's over 3 trillion dollars. Yangs tax plan to pay for it only raises 800 billion in a best case scenario. Oh yeah not everyone will receive it because they will pay in more than they get back so you don't actually need the 3 trillion.

It's pixie dust.
You know those number are not accurate. You don't even have the eligible population correct then it goes downhill from there.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,068
1,743
oklahoma city
Which one of us would that be? I want rid of the money hole and reliance on fairy dust and unicorn powder. I don't think the federal government should be in the business of giving anyone money, for any reason. It's theft.
It is you.

There is a viable candidate that is campaigning on this as a platform of change. There is no candidate even close to what you just said. None, it isn't an option. So, exactly who is talking fairy dust and unicorn powder?

It is like being overweight and sitting in McDonalds screaming that you want a tasty meal with perfect macros prepared by a chef. Meanwhile, you still eat cheesburgers everyday. I'm saying, "Meh, these cheeseburgers are killing me and there is no chef showing up so I'm gonna have this chicken wrap as it is far better plan than the burgers."
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,068
1,743
oklahoma city
I wouldn't mind the idea but we are relying on humans in DC to do the right thing. That's where it will fall apart.
It isn't a yes/no like that. If there was NO welfare system and things were going along perfectly as many seem to think would happen in that situation and a politiican offered a UBI I would say no. But, that isn;'t the case at all. We are already relying on the humans in DC and they have already created a dysfunctional system. This is an idea to change that system to something better because it removes the incentive to stay poor. Is it perfect? Of course not. But, the option is not UBI or nothing. The options are UBI or more means-tested welfare.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,018
21,714
1,743
You know those number are not accurate. You don't even have the eligible population correct then it goes downhill from there.
It’s gonna cost 2.5 trillion by conservative estimates The entire US tech sector was valued at 5 trillion this year. Estimated total US tax revenue for the 2020 is 3.6 trillion.

So he is either going to tax a sector at 50% of valuation which either a) cause it move b) creates domestic pricing that puts us at a global disadvantage.....or he has to increase all taxes by 70%

Neither of those options is remotely feasible.

Love the new name Freedom Dividend.....like Blackwater is now Academi....or the healthier Camel Lights.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,414
3,020
1,743
You know those number are not accurate. You don't even have the eligible population correct then it goes downhill from there.
There are an estimated 253 million people in the U.S. that are 18 or older. If you give them all $1K per month, it comes out to over $3 trillion per year. We currently spend about $500 to $600 billion in welfare programs that can be cut. So where does the other $2.5 trillion come from?

I like the concept of UBI as a replacement for welfare programs, but I don't see how you pay for it without a massive redistribution of wealth.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,068
1,743
oklahoma city
It’s gonna cost 2.5 trillion by conservative estimates The entire US tech sector was valued at 5 trillion this year. Estimated total US tax revenue for the 2020 is 3.6 trillion.

So he is either going to tax a sector at 50% of valuation which either a) cause it move b) creates domestic pricing that puts us at a global disadvantage.....or he has to increase all taxes by 70%

Neither of those options is remotely feasible.

Love the new name Freedom Dividend.....like Blackwater is now Academi....or the healthier Camel Lights.
It has been the Freedom Dividend for a very long time if you looked at his website instead of guessing things in a negative way without even looking.
You can't move from VAT.
Obviously the entire thing does not come from tech. Our economy is more than $20T prior to handing consumers an extra $1000 a month.

Please, do a similar assess of our current policies regarding taxation and benefits and give me a rational explanation why it is better. Be sure to be realistic.

Negative Nancy is too easy. But, Nancy never defends the other position, just claims non-existent ones.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
11,088
9,875
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
You know those number are not accurate. You don't even have the eligible population correct then it goes downhill from there.
Your right I was lazy and didn't go back and read his whole sight and revenue generation model again. The 3 trillion number is close as Donny pointed out it's actually 2.5 trillion. The 800 billion is what his sight said he was going to raise with his tax plan.

The premise of the whole financial model was more people would be paying more than they were receiving so the 800 billion would be sufficient to cover the difference. Then the people who were receiving money would spend it on things that got taxed to pay for it which would grow the economy. I realize he proposed covering it with a VAT.

Experimenting on an idea with a few thousand people in Norwegian countries and implementing it in a country with 330 million are not even similar. Not to mention every country that has experimented with the idea has scrapped it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,068
1,743
oklahoma city
There are an estimated 253 million people in the U.S. that are 18 or older. If you give them all $1K per month, it comes out to over $3 trillion per year. We currently spend about $500 to $600 billion in welfare programs that can be cut. So where does the other $2.5 trillion come from?

I like the concept of UBI as a replacement for welfare programs, but I don't see how you pay for it without a massive redistribution of wealth.
His primary proposal is a VAT.

The problem with just using it for poverty is that you always have that poverty trap where you lose the benefit by earning income therefore don't want to take that step. That is the work disincentive.

Again, if we had NO redistribution of wealth then that argument would make sense. But, the government redistributes wealth all the time. From the cost of a medical license being far higher than the cost of a hairdresser license. To bailing out huge companies while letting smaller ones fall. The examples are endless.
When Mitt Romney ran for president he paid 13% on $43 million while I paid 28% on a tiny percent of that. Is that not wealth redistribution? This is a $1000 that every citizen gets. Then we all pay for it with purchases. Again, is it perfect, no. Is it a far better idea than any other democrat out there? Yes.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,018
21,714
1,743
It has been the Freedom Dividend for a very long time if you looked at his website instead of guessing things in a negative way without even looking.
You can't move from VAT.
Obviously the entire thing does not come from tech. Our economy is more than $20T prior to handing consumers an extra $1000 a month.

Please, do a similar assess of our current policies regarding taxation and benefits and give me a rational explanation why it is better. Be sure to be realistic.

Negative Nancy is too easy. But, Nancy never defends the other position, just claims non-existent ones.
I’ve read his entire schpeel on his website..... it’s childishly native. I’ve listened to multiple interviews with him....it’s all bull shit: No one him, you or otherwise can deliver on a realistic way to pay for it. It’s going to be 2.5 T conservatively. Maybe 3 T. Total tax projected revenue is 3.6. There is no program that benefits society that will increase taxes a minimum of 70% to give money to people most of whom don’t need it.

You also never address the fact that this isn't going to end welfare as those on welfare already receive benefits exceeding the UBI and optionally opt in. You keep saying you can’t say “nothing is better”. Nothing is absolutely better than raising taxes 70% or creating annual deficit spending at unprecedented levels.

His plan doesn’t accomplish anything he states. It doesn’t end welfare, he can’t pay for it, and it’s not enough money to do the things he states such as allow people to start a business. This is literally in every sense of the word throwing money at something. Nothing is 3 trillion dollars a year better than this.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,414
3,020
1,743
The problem with just using it for poverty is that you always have that poverty trap where you lose the benefit by earning income therefore don't want to take that step. That is the work disincentive.
I think we need a happy medium that allows us to solve this problem without a full fledged UBI that requires a massive redistribution of wealth. Here's what my proposal would be:
Every household with an income under $30K per year would receive $1K per month in basic income.
Every household with an income of $30K to $50K per year would receive a lower amount adjusted for income.
Everyone household with an income over $50K per year would get nothing, because they don't really need it.

There are only about 52 million households in the U.S. with an income under $50K per year. This plan would cost about $600 billion per year. We could save that much by cutting the existing welfare programs. Plus it wouldn't provide a disincentive to work because the basic income wouldn't be reduced until income was well above the poverty level.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
Talk about ignroant propaganda.

The issues of welfare are not evidence against a UBI as the entire purpose of a UBI is to avoid the entrapping effects of welfare.

That is about as smart as saying, "Run-flat tires just won't work. History has show us that tires go flat........"

And no, I am not trying to convince you. You are a lost cause of concrete thought. I am only replying so that other people don't just accept the nonsense that you are spewing.
and there it is.... nobody can make a statement without their points being "ignorant", and attacking people as "a lost cause"... and then proclaiming innocence from ridicule because "you're saving other people".... oh how noble.

Run flat tires have to deal wit physics, which has no correlation to social welfare programs (like UBI).

And you have no basis for any of your claims, because UBI has been tried and IT FAILED, just like I said, because nobody tried to get out of it.... take the free money and mediocre along -- nothing like climbing the corporate ladder as your propaganda depicted.

why can't you ever have a decent discussion with others without the name calling and personal attacks?

Why? (I'm not asking if, I clearly said why can't you do it without the attacks).

let's have the discussion without you attacking others ..... what cha say?

...But there are many important questions to be answered before a UBI should be thought of as a legitimate policy option. That’s why scholars are intently watching experiments that have been taking place around the world. Newark, however, is unlikely to tell us much.

Newark is almost certainly not going to provide the city’s residents with a true UBI. The city’s population tops 285,000. If every adult were to receive a UBI of $12,000 per year (as proposed by Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang), and children received half that amount, it would cost nearly $2.5 billion.

The taxes necessary to fund such a program would crush any hope for Newark’s economic revitalization. And as businesses and wealthier residents fled the city in droves, the program's funding would collapse. You can’t redistribute wealth that doesn’t exist.

More likely, Newark will end up following the lead of other cities like Stockton and Oakland in California that simply offer cash payments of a few hundred dollars to a small number of randomly chosen low-income individuals. That would amount to little more than continuing our current approach to fighting poverty of throwing a little money at the problem.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
Who pays for the Alaska permanent fund? Why is it so wildly popular in Alaska including conservatives?

Look up the word socialism, it does not mean what you think it means. There is no government control of the means of production of anything at all with this plan.
The "Alaska fund" is paid for by the State collecting money from companies removing mineral resources (oil). Other States do this too, namely Texas which is a huge reason why the skate by without income tax. California doesn't charge the companies near enough, and the citizens get stuck with the government bills while corporations rape the State bare of it's resources.

Don't need to "look up socialism".... how about you look up "wealth redistribution" (which is what UBI is) and then look up under which systems wealth redistribution is used/mandated (e.g., socialism)
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
11,088
9,875
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
His primary proposal is a VAT.

The problem with just using it for poverty is that you always have that poverty trap where you lose the benefit by earning income therefore don't want to take that step. That is the work disincentive.

Again, if we had NO redistribution of wealth then that argument would make sense. But, the government redistributes wealth all the time. From the cost of a medical license being far higher than the cost of a hairdresser license. To bailing out huge companies while letting smaller ones fall. The examples are endless.
When Mitt Romney ran for president he paid 13% on $43 million while I paid 28% on a tiny percent of that. Is that not wealth redistribution? This is a $1000 that every citizen gets. Then we all pay for it with purchases. Again, is it perfect, no. Is it a far better idea than any other democrat out there? Yes.
It is a redistribution of wealth no matter how you set up the tax scheme. A guy making 100k a year is paying a heck of a lot more VAT tax than a guy making 10k a year. The money the guy making a 100k pays into the VAT gets redistributed back to the guy making 10k. Not to mention the VAT hurts the guy making 100k's purchasing power because it immediately drives up the costs of all goods and services it's applied on. Now some of his neighborhood stores go out of business because people can't spend as much. One of Yangs arguments was impoverished areas will have business opening and opportunity because of the free money. It will be directly offset on the other end of town because of the reduction in spending power there due to a regressive VAT tax.

His financial model is pie in the sky.