Fauxcahontas on the War Path

  • 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.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,727
24,011
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#21
With gays making up only 2% of the population, what's the point in in courting the gay vote, especially at the national level? So gays, no doubt, have depended upon massive support from straights at every level where they have succeeded.
It's still indirectly buying votes as it's designed to get the woke crowd, gay or not, to vote for them. But it's also pandering to their big money donors and to Hollywood.

would conservatives support abolishing all government welfare in return for the government guaranteeing giving a basic income to everyone who is qualified?
No.

It just might end poverty.
No, it won't.

If you refuse to agree to it, then how else can you make a deal to abolish all government welfare?
First of all, I don't want to abolish all government welfare, I want to get rid of the waste, fraud and dependency in the system (of course you already know that, it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise). Secondly, trading the current welfare system for basic income is not abolishing government welfare, it's simply changing it's name.

If both Democrats and Republicans are going to run bad candidates again in 2020, then I'm sure not going to vote for either one of them once again. A vote for the Libertarian candidate won't be a wasted vote, since the Libertarian party needs to get enough votes to continue being recognized as a political party in Oklahoma.
I voted Libertarian in 2016 and had planned to do so again. But the attempts by the left to undermine the electoral college is kind of forcing me to vote for Trump instead. If the popular vote is much closer this time, maybe they'll stop pushing this nonsense. I agree that the Libertarian party needs to get more votes so they can be recognized as a legitimate party, but protecting the EC takes precedence over that because without it, 3rd parties will no longer matter anyway.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#22
No.



No, it won't.



First of all, I don't want to abolish all government welfare, I want to get rid of the waste, fraud and dependency in the system (of course you already know that, it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise). Secondly, trading the current welfare system for basic income is not abolishing government welfare, it's simply changing it's name.
1. Yes, many conservatives support/have supported a UBI.
2. If you are going to make an authoritative statement, show the evidence. Not, "here is what I think will happen" but actual evidence that it would not improve poverty.
3. EVERYONE wants to get rid of fraud waste abuse etc. If you create means-tested programs, there will forever be someone trying to get it fraudulently. And same with dependency. If you create a program that forces someone to live below a certain means to get it, you incentivize people to live that way. That is dependency. A UBI is given to every citizen. The only way to get it fraudulently is to fraudulently claim citizenship. That is far easier to monitor than preventing someone from claiming they make $9872 a year while they work under the table for $40K more. And, this IS the solution to dependency. If everyone gets it, it is the baseline so it is not dependency. Nobody says we are "dependent" on free police or free fire department or free defense. It is the baseline in this country but not others. So, if you want to make more than the UBI, you can. If you want to hire more security, you can. You don't lose the UBI just like you don't lose the police. No dependency.
Saying UBI from means-tested welfare is simply a name change shows ignorance of how these things function. That is like saying that universal health care is just a name change from Medicaid. It is a factually incorrect statement.

This is a far more libertarian idea than the system that you are defending. The true libertarian way would be no government welfare at all. But, you, and many, find that unpalatable. But, a UBI would be the least government invasive and controlling way to ensure basic welfare. After many decades of creating fraud, waste, abuse and dependency with this system, it is hilarious to hear, "I just want the welfare system without fraud waste, abuse and dependency." That is like saying, "I don't want these football rule changes. I want football to be played exactly like we have always played it, just without the concussions happening." It just doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,727
24,011
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#24
3. EVERYONE wants to get rid of fraud waste abuse etc. If you create means-tested programs, there will forever be someone trying to get it fraudulently. And same with dependency. If you create a program that forces someone to live below a certain means to get it, you incentivize people to live that way. That is dependency. A UBI is given to every citizen. The only way to get it fraudulently is to fraudulently claim citizenship. That is far easier to monitor than preventing someone from claiming they make $9872 a year while they work under the table for $40K more. And, this IS the solution to dependency. If everyone gets it, it is the baseline so it is not dependency. Nobody says we are "dependent" on free police or free fire department or free defense. It is the baseline in this country but not others. So, if you want to make more than the UBI, you can. If you want to hire more security, you can. You don't lose the UBI just like you don't lose the police. No dependency.
Well obviously if EVERYBODY gets it, then there's no need to commit fraud to get it. I fail to see how that improves the situation. Better that 30% of the population attain it fraudulently than 100% attain it legally....I'm speaking purely from a financial feasibility issue here...if we can't afford giving free stuff to half the population right now, how do we afford to give it to everybody.

And yes it is dependency. Once an entire generation has grown up expecting and depending on this as part of their "salary", how does that NOT make them dependent on it? It's the very definition of dependency, except instead of half the population dependent on the government, 100% of the population is dependent on it. The biggest problem with dependency is people who will never vote to decrease government. Moving to a UBI will only exacerbate that problem, not fix it.

Lastly, I think there is a little bit of naivety going on here. If we could trust the government (or more specifically the politicians running it) to do things correctly, the current welfare system wouldn't be such a mess. What makes you think for one second that there wouldn't be massive corruption in a system that big with that much money going through it? And how long before the politicians start tweaking it for votes just like they do now: "People making over a certain amount shouldn't get UBI, people making under a certain amount should get more UBI", etc. etc. etc. By the time our grand kids generation rolls around, we could very well have a system just as broken as the current one, except with more people on it.

Maybe we should actually make a go at reforming the current system, to see if it can be done, before we dump a potentially bigger problem on future generations.
But regardless of anything else, I hope you and I could at least agree, that UBI should not be considered in addition to the current welfare system, that it would only ever even be attempted in PLACE of it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#25
Well obviously if EVERYBODY gets it, then there's no need to commit fraud to get it. I fail to see how that improves the situation. Better that 30% of the population attain it fraudulently than 100% attain it legally....I'm speaking purely from a financial feasibility issue here...if we can't afford giving free stuff to half the population right now, how do we afford to give it to everybody.
We Have a $20 trillion dollar a year economy without this which would boost it further. We can afford it we just chose to dole out government largess in far less appropriate ways. As is said when the middle class complains about the super wealthy having too much money, it isn't a pie to be cut up. A rich man having $50 billion ( with the government policies that universally allowed that to happen) does not make you poor. And a poor man getting $1000 a month doesn't either.

And yes it is dependency. Once an entire generation has grown up expecting and depending on this as part of their "salary", how does that NOT make them dependent on it? It's the very definition of dependency, except instead of half the population dependent on the government, 100% of the population is dependent on it. The biggest problem with dependency is people who will never vote to decrease government. Moving to a UBI will only exacerbate that problem, not fix it.
Are you and 100% of the population dependent on the police? In a sense, yes, of course you are. Are you willing to give that up? No, I doubt it. If you are talking in that basic sense, then sure it is dependency, but who cares? That generalized dependency is far different than a specific individual being made dependent in a way that others are not.
Lastly, I think there is a little bit of naivety going on here. If we could trust the government (or more specifically the politicians running it) to do things correctly, the current welfare system wouldn't be such a mess. What makes you think for one second that there wouldn't be massive corruption in a system that big with that much money going through it? And how long before the politicians start tweaking it for votes just like they do now: "People making over a certain amount shouldn't get UBI, people making under a certain amount should get more UBI", etc. etc. etc. By the time our grand kids generation rolls around, we could very well have a system just as broken as the current one, except with more people on it.
The current welfare system is a mess because of the fact of its nature. Politicians can't fix/reform it without fundamentally changing it because the very method creates fraud and dependence.

Sounds like you are advocating that the US should become several smaller countries. I mean, they can't refund taxes to everyone. That is so massive, no way can't be fraud. And Social Security, too big, must be fraud. National defense, too big, must be fraud. These are just not effective arguments to me.

If your stance to any change in government is "They will just mess it up so don't try to make it better" then move to a place like Somalia with no government. Seriously, that is not a valid argument. If they will mess up everything, why do anything? Even if you vote for smaller government, they will mess that up, so why bother? Why even talk about it? It is a fallacy argument.

Maybe we should actually make a go at reforming the current system, to see if it can be done, before we dump a potentially bigger problem on future generations.
But regardless of anything else, I hope you and I could at least agree, that UBI should not be considered in addition to the current welfare system, that it would only ever even be attempted in PLACE of it.
The only major candidate advocating a UBI is in place of the current system. A grandfather period where current recipients can choose which they prefer. Also, he is in favor of requiring sunsetting of old laws, a reform that would be an answer to your 'they just add laws:"

Congress is set up to pass laws. They’re not set up to remove old laws. Because of this, the U.S. Code has become a bloated mess that only benefits those looking to exploit loopholes or avoid responsibility by pointing at the letter of the law.

While it’s important to take the time to revise the U.S.C., we should also proactively stop it from becoming a mess again in the future.

All laws passed should have their success metrics (in business, we call these Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs) defined and included. There should also be a sunset period defined—a time during which, barring Congressional action, the law will be removed from the books.


After the defined period, a Congressional committee could hear testimony about how the law has met its KPIs and, if it’s still relevant and has achieved its goals, can decide to reenact it for another period of time. If it is no longer relevant, or if it has failed to achieve its defined goals, it should cease to be law.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,233
50,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#26
And a poor man getting $1000 a month doesn't either.
Except that someone has to pay for it, and it won't be the billionaire with an army of attorneys and accountants and the ability to move money to where it won't be taxed (all the while calling for more taxes and more government largess). It will be me. It's bullspit.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#27
Except that someone has to pay for it, and it won't be the billionaire with an army of attorneys and accountants and the ability to move money to where it won't be taxed (all the while calling for more taxes and more government largess). It will be me. It's bullspit.
No, it won’t.
And, think about what you are implying. If what you are saying is the case, then the entire idea of taxation is flawed. And, the answer to that flaw is not to simply continue what we are doing.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,233
50,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#28
No, it won’t.
And, think about what you are implying. If what you are saying is the case, then the entire idea of taxation is flawed. And, the answer to that flaw is not to simply continue what we are doing.
It isn't that the entire idea of taxation is flaw, the entire idea of soaking the rich to give away money from the government is flawed. It just won't work.

Personally, I'd be for ending all entitlements and federal social programs.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#29
Personally, I'd be for ending all entitlements and federal social programs.

You've written before about how "we" need to do more for mental health and/or substance abuse in this country. And, unless otherwise specifically designated, "we" in this country is the federal government. And, as I recall, that concern was born out of your own family experience. Something makes me think if your family experience was a family member with severe disabilities that was dependent on SSI for the few hundred dollars a month that a person like that gets to live on and Medicaid for his health care, you might have a different opinion on that funding while stating that MH care should be in the private market.

If you are for completely dismantling all these programs, then you really have two choices:
1. Admit that you could not care less about less fortunate others and if their lives become even more of a living hell to save a few tax dollars that will then be spent somewhere else, then so be it.
2. Go have a talk with people living on these low-income programs. Tell them what they can do to make their lives better so that they are not dependent. Obviously, you have it figured out, just tell them how.

I've done the second one many times and I can tell you the situations are far harder than you would think. It isn't often, "Hey, stop smoking, drinking, and playing on your phone, clean yourself up and get a job it will all work out."

"I have around 12 seizures a day, nobody will hire me."
"I can only stand for 20 minutes before my legs give out. I've tried call centers so I can sit. They don't like how slow my disease makes me talk."
"I had a good job but I could not do it anymore once I got multiple sclerosis. I lost my job and all my benefits, I had to drain my savings paying off the health care bills."
.....and so on.

Seriously, you want to just cut all that? Well, superficially me too. I like my money. But, I know it would be morally wrong. There is not a first world country on earth that does not take care of the less fortunate. It is part of an advanced society. The states have no money to take something like this on. Charities wouldn't come close (as proven elsewhere in the world where it is charity dependent). If those programs go away, there is nothing. Are you hoping for foreign aid like occurs in Afganistan or Somalia? Are you just saying tough shit to people like that?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,233
50,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#31
You've written before about how "we" need to do more for mental health and/or substance abuse in this country. And, unless otherwise specifically designated, "we" in this country is the federal government. And, as I recall, that concern was born out of your own family experience. Something makes me think if your family experience was a family member with severe disabilities that was dependent on SSI for the few hundred dollars a month that a person like that gets to live on and Medicaid for his health care, you might have a different opinion on that funding while stating that MH care should be in the private market.

If you are for completely dismantling all these programs, then you really have two choices:
1. Admit that you could not care less about less fortunate others and if their lives become even more of a living hell to save a few tax dollars that will then be spent somewhere else, then so be it.
2. Go have a talk with people living on these low-income programs. Tell them what they can do to make their lives better so that they are not dependent. Obviously, you have it figured out, just tell them how.

I've done the second one many times and I can tell you the situations are far harder than you would think. It isn't often, "Hey, stop smoking, drinking, and playing on your phone, clean yourself up and get a job it will all work out."

"I have around 12 seizures a day, nobody will hire me."
"I can only stand for 20 minutes before my legs give out. I've tried call centers so I can sit. They don't like how slow my disease makes me talk."
"I had a good job but I could not do it anymore once I got multiple sclerosis. I lost my job and all my benefits, I had to drain my savings paying off the health care bills."
.....and so on.

Seriously, you want to just cut all that? Well, superficially me too. I like my money. But, I know it would be morally wrong. There is not a first world country on earth that does not take care of the less fortunate. It is part of an advanced society. The states have no money to take something like this on. Charities wouldn't come close (as proven elsewhere in the world where it is charity dependent). If those programs go away, there is nothing. Are you hoping for foreign aid like occurs in Afganistan or Somalia? Are you just saying tough shit to people like that?
"Morally wrong"... whatever happened to "you can't legislate morality"? Whose morality are we going to legislate now? While we're at it, legislating morality, I've got some other moral concerns I would like legislated. That's why it's all bullspit and needs to stop. It ain't the function of the government. If it is a moral issue for you then you need to open up your moral pocket and spend your moral money as you see morally fit and quit trying to force your morality on me.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,095
8,657
1,743
Earth
#32
What has been delegated to the government should be taken care of by the Church...but since the church has failed we (states and nation) have an obligation to take care of the less fortunate in partnership with private organizations like the church. Basic wage is an interesting idea and these are exactly the reason we have states as laboratories for experimentation. To say they don't have enough money is a cop out because some do and just spend it in ways that could be reallocated. The point of the states is to try things out...(i.e. Colorado and pot, other states and new life laws). Those in the local communities (i.e. states) should have more say and control over their populace than does the Feds who rule in far away Washington DC that has a completely different value system than at least half of the country they "rule." States need to be allowed to be more bold and yes it was designed as 50 small nearly autonomous communities (i.e. countries) within a collective national community that provides for defense mainly and stabilization of the economy and yes "general" welfare. Certainly it's a balance, but this basic wage would be far easier to pass in certain states than others and that is why things like that should be attempted on a local level first rather than in the nation at large. Then other states can look to see if it's successful or not and follow (or not) suit. Same thing with healthcare law including prescription meds IMHO.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#33
"Morally wrong"... whatever happened to "you can't legislate morality"? Whose morality are we going to legislate now? While we're at it, legislating morality, I've got some other moral concerns I would like legislated. That's why it's all bullspit and needs to stop. It ain't the function of the government. If it is a moral issue for you then you need to open up your moral pocket and spend your moral money as you see morally fit and quit trying to force your morality on me.
While I’m self funding people that the government made dependent then you shut off, why don’t you show you have principles and pay back all that salary you have obtained from government funded higher education. Because, if keeping people from starving isn’t the role of government, keeping college professors and administrators well paid certainly isn’t something taxpayers like me should be doing either. I suppose hypocrisy is a moral issue, too.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#34
What has been delegated to the government should be taken care of by the Church...but since the church has failed we (states and nation) have an obligation to take care of the less fortunate in partnership with private organizations like the church. Basic wage is an interesting idea and these are exactly the reason we have states as laboratories for experimentation. To say they don't have enough money is a cop out because some do and just spend it in ways that could be reallocated. The point of the states is to try things out...(i.e. Colorado and pot, other states and new life laws). Those in the local communities (i.e. states) should have more say and control over their populace than does the Feds who rule in far away Washington DC that has a completely different value system than at least half of the country they "rule." States need to be allowed to be more bold and yes it was designed as 50 small nearly autonomous communities (i.e. countries) within a collective national community that provides for defense mainly and stabilization of the economy and yes "general" welfare. Certainly it's a balance, but this basic wage would be far easier to pass in certain states than others and that is why things like that should be attempted on a local level first rather than in the nation at large. Then other states can look to see if it's successful or not and follow (or not) suit. Same thing with healthcare law including prescription meds IMHO.
Exactly right! And the state of Alaska has had a UBI for many decades. It is wildly popular and successful. It is cherished by conservatives and liberals alike.

But, a national UBI makes more sense now given the economic issues are being caused by automation and global reach American companies.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,095
8,657
1,743
Earth
#35
Exactly right! And the state of Alaska has had a UBI for many decades. It is wildly popular and successful. It is cherished by conservatives and liberals alike.

But, a national UBI makes more sense now given the economic issues are being caused by automation and global reach American companies.
Alaska has Oil revenue sharing...Oklahoma should as well...but it's not 'really' UBI as most think of it, however, I agree that we should implement this exact same policy in Oklahoma...In fact it ought to be mentioned to the Governor if he really wants to make us a top 10 state he needs to outlaw the state income tax and implement revenue sharing by the energy companies...It would be a win/win for everyone in Oklahoma IMHO. Energy companies can attract employees with no state income tax and with our revenue sharing and low real estate prices we can help the less fortunate.

Honestly, I'm not sure a national UBI would work considering the distinct differences in our economy and cost of living by regions...I think it might be better to do it by region based on politics and economics being regional and thus making programs easier to pass and more diverse state to state. Then each state can pick and choose what's right for them from the choices they see in other states (i.e. the Alaska model fits Oklahoma and Texas well).
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,233
50,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#38
While I’m self funding people that the government made dependent then you shut off, why don’t you show you have principles and pay back all that salary you have obtained from government funded higher education. Because, if keeping people from starving isn’t the role of government, keeping college professors and administrators well paid certainly isn’t something taxpayers like me should be doing either. I suppose hypocrisy is a moral issue, too.
My current employer takes no state or federal funds. So, yeah, while we're at it, get the feds out of the student loan business and shut down the USDoE. From my vantage point it has done nothing but wreck higher ed.

"But it's a moral issue... wah! I wanna force my morality on everyone else... wah!"
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#39
Alaska has Oil revenue sharing...Oklahoma should as well...but it's not 'really' UBI as most think of it, however, I agree that we should implement this exact same policy in Oklahoma...In fact it ought to be mentioned to the Governor if he really wants to make us a top 10 state he needs to outlaw the state income tax and implement revenue sharing by the energy companies...It would be a win/win for everyone in Oklahoma IMHO. Energy companies can attract employees with no state income tax and with our revenue sharing and low real estate prices we can help the less fortunate.

Honestly, I'm not sure a national UBI would work considering the distinct differences in our economy and cost of living by regions...I think it might be better to do it by region based on politics and economics being regional and thus making programs easier to pass and more diverse state to state. Then each state can pick and choose what's right for them from the choices they see in other states (i.e. the Alaska model fits Oklahoma and Texas well).
A national UBI would also be revenue sharing. That is why Yang is calling it a Freedom Dividend. It is a dividend to the American people for creating the society in which these companies were allowed to become what they are. Amazon made billions last year and paid zero taxes because technology has advanced more rapidly than US taxation and they are able to shift and shuttle to avoid our current tax system. That money wasn't made in Seatttle, it was made everywhere. Same with google, FB etc. Wait until these companies get automation to the point where we don't need truckers or drivers or radiologists etc. They obtain the entire economic gain while we foot the bill. We need to look at how to make capitalism work during this 4th revolution to stave off the calls for socialism, which isn't effective, and is gonna happen if we cling to last centuries economic ideals.

The same national UBI would be perfect to improve those distinct differences in economy. Right now, it is crazy expensive to live in Silicon Valley. But, people do it because there is no life/economy/income in say, Appalachia. But, if everyone in Appalachia had $1000 a month with the lower cost of living, think about how much that would spur on the economy there. Think about a small town in Oklahoma with 5,000 residents all the sudden having $5,000,000 a month injected into the local economy. Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, an extra $1000 is nice, but it isn't going to spur the local economy to the same effect because $1000 means far less there.

Face it, the areas that most need a UBI would have a very difficult time implementing a UBI. Maybe Oklahoma could do a small one with oil revenues but most rural poor states cannot. While on the other hand, areas that have money and high cost of living would be able to easily implement it but it would only increase the differences you are talking about. When an Oklahoman looks at Facebook, he would be funding a Washington state or California UBI. Not the way forward in my opinion.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,525
31,977
1,743
oklahoma city
#40
My current employer takes no state or federal funds. So, yeah, while we're at it, get the feds out of the student loan business and shut down the USDoE. From my vantage point it has done nothing but wreck higher ed.

"But it's a moral issue... wah! I wanna force my morality on everyone else... wah!"
Current. Yippee. But, your current employer competes with those funds your past employers took therefore higher education incomes have increased far above inflation. Are you gonna swear off government-funded jobs in higher ed in the future consistent with your opinion? Nah, of course not. You would be fine taking away the lifeline of the downtrodden with no other choice but even in a position to make a choice you will suck off the same teet you are bitching about.

There is no forcing. It is my opinion. You know I have no ability to enforce anything. If you want to keep some extra pocket change and know that people born with cerebral palsy will be homeless and begging for food in the streets like occurs in places like Bangladesh, that is an opinion you simply will live with and carry with you. It stands on its own, whether it is moral or not.