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.

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,033
6,734
1,743
Yukon, OK
#61
Wait a minute, we are talking about $12k a year here. And, for those currently on food stamps, welfare etc, this would be $12K instead of those not on top of those. Do you really think a huge number of motivated people would go, WOOOHOOOO! I am making $12K a year I don't have to raise a single finger to do anything!!!"
The bolded is where my concern lies. I'm not opposed to UBI in place of what we currently have (though I'm still not entirely sold on it at a federal level due to the vastly different costs of living across the country) but, as others have pointed out, I have a really difficult time seeing that happen. Sadly, I feel pretty confident that any attempt at replacing it is going to be blasted on media and protested as trying to "eliminate welfare" and will get you labeled as "racist", "hates poor people", "privileged", etc. and the push will be made to stack UBI on top of what we currently have (because "fair share" and all that) and THAT I am opposed to. If we can do what you're saying then awesome, but I have heavy doubts we can actually get it done that way. Not to say we shouldn't try, just that it's quite a battle ahead to get it done the way you're saying.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#62
The bolded is where my concern lies. I'm not opposed to UBI in place of what we currently have (though I'm still not entirely sold on it at a federal level due to the vastly different costs of living across the country) but, as others have pointed out, I have a really difficult time seeing that happen. Sadly, I feel pretty confident that any attempt at replacing it is going to be blasted on media and protested as trying to "eliminate welfare" and will get you labeled as "racist", "hates poor people", "privileged", etc. and the push will be made to stack UBI on top of what we currently have (because "fair share" and all that) and THAT I am opposed to. If we can do what you're saying then awesome, but I have heavy doubts we can actually get it done that way. Not to say we shouldn't try, just that it's quite a battle ahead to get it done the way you're saying.
The presence of a UBI will not absolutely stop a politician from enacting welfare/minimum wage increases/student loan repayment etc. But, the absence of a UBI gives them far more firepower to do so. Only the most liberal wing would want both. The average moderate American, if talked into a UBI, would not also want welfare on top. This is up to the voters.

Look at what the dems are proposing. Political pendulums swing and while those on this board claim how liberal everything is, the reality when you look at who has prospered is that it has been the very wealthy. And, the dems are feeding on that. Something is gonna happen at some point, IMHO. the UBI makes far more sense to me that student loans being forgiven/ jobs guarantees/ etc.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#63
Are you saying that you want the government to remain status quo in all ways other than shrinking? Think about that. Never improve because even improvement can be screwed up.
I have never once suggested that. I have argued quite vehemently for reform of the current broken welfare system (and many others).

The fact that the status quo is so hard to change is actually quite a legitimate reason to oppose UBI.....because if it doesn't work, we know from experience just how hard it will be to fix.
 
Sep 29, 2011
584
111
593
59
Breckenridge, CO
#65
Hey, if you don't understand the definition of words, don't ask me to join. Look up "socialism." While clueless people think it means "any government I don't like" it doesn't.

If you think Thomas Paine and Milton Friedman are liberals, then your claim to know what a moron is comes from experience.

And that reductio ad absurdum argument comes from someone that obviously is completely clueless about things like money supply. Anyone with a basic understanding of that would be able to answer their own question. I'm not going to take the time to teach you as you do not seem teachable.

This will be my last post to you on the subject. Arrogance and stupidity are a horrible combination for a conversation. You have no desire to consider something other than that you are right and demeaning others with a differing opinion cements your clueless beliefs.

You are a typical person with some money (would not surprise me if from Daddy) who thinks they protect it by keeping others down. The classic "I've got a huge piece of pie so I'm smart and those that don't are stupid so I'm gonna protect my pie." So very simplistic and wrong but very hard to overcome.

Enjoy your cars.
Nice attempt at deflection.

Now answer the question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more? That appears to be one of Mr Yang's (and yours) rationale for UBI, correct?

As for my wealth, it was 100% self-made. And your 100% wrong about my need to keep the less wealthy down. That would be moronic. I'm 100% in favor of enabling America's less wealthy the ability to increase their wealth without limit. But giving money away is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Providing opportunity is the path to the correcting the less wealthy's plight. Virtually any able-bodied and able-minded individual is provided the tools necessary to live a comfortable life. It's should be their sole responsibility to take advantage of it. But let's face it, a huge segment of the population either wants the handout, or is unwilling to expend the effort to enhance their economic situation. It's those individuals which I am unwilling to prop up with UBI. UBI will only exacerbate the "do-nothing" attitude that currently plagues the productivity of the economy, and a huge segment of the less wealthy population.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#66
Nice attempt at deflection.

Now answer the question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more? That appears to be one of Mr Yang's (and yours) rationale for UBI, correct?
I answered that question. Your lack of ability to understand the answer is not a good reason to ask it again.

Why don't you answer this, currently, we give those that you claim have a "do nothing attitude" somewhere just shy of $1000 in means-tested benefits. Nothing proposed by any politician on either side is going to magically make those benefits go away. How exactly is replacing that with $1000 that does not require them to stay poor in order to maintain the benefit adding to the "do nothing" side? How is letting them keep that small benefit while having a savings account, starting an apprenticeship, or taking a job causing them to "do nothing" more than laws that actually force them to do nothing? Don't argue from the fantasy world of no benefits that does not and will not exist. Answer from the real world. Pick your poison.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#67
I have never once suggested that. I have argued quite vehemently for reform of the current broken welfare system (and many others).

The fact that the status quo is so hard to change is actually quite a legitimate reason to oppose UBI.....because if it doesn't work, we know from experience just how hard it will be to fix.
What reform? This is reform. Spell out exactly what you would do. Not platitudes like "stop abuse" but exactly how you would reform means-tested welfare in a way that would not make them stay dependent on welfare. Means-testing incentivizes people to not have reportable means, ie not working. I want to hear how to reform that because I have never heard of a solution.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#68
What reform? This is reform. Spell out exactly what you would do. Not platitudes like "stop abuse" but exactly how you would reform means-tested welfare in a way that would not make them stay dependent on welfare. Means-testing incentivizes people to not have reportable means, ie not working. I want to hear how to reform that because I have never heard of a solution.
I'll answer when I'm not at work. In the meantime, that goes both ways. What are the specific steps to phase out the current system and replace it with this? One would be a fool to accept UBU without a concrete unchangeable plan to get rid of the current system.

I asked earlier and I'm not sure you gave me a direct answer; I hope we can agree that adding UBI in addition to the current system is not acceptable, because that's not reform, it's expansion. And are any of the Dem candidates actually seriously pushing UBI in lieu of the current system or all they all just promising "more"?
 
Sep 29, 2011
584
111
593
59
Breckenridge, CO
#69
Nice attempt at deflection.

Now answer the question.u That appears to be one of Mr Yang's (and yours) rationale for UBI, correct?
I answered that question. Your lack of ability to understand the answer is not a good reason to ask it again.

Why don't you answer this, currently, we give those that you claim have a "do nothing attitude" somewhere just shy of $1000 in means-tested benefits. Nothing proposed by any politician on either side is going to magically make those benefits go away. How exactly is replacing that with $1000 that does not require them to stay poor in order to maintain the benefit adding to the "do nothing" side? How is letting them keep that small benefit while having a savings account, starting an apprenticeship, or taking a job causing them to "do nothing" more than laws that actually force them to do nothing? Don't argue from the fantasy world of no benefits that does not and will not exist. Answer from the real world. Pick your poison.
You didn’t answer my question you deflected. Why don’t you directly answer it (below) in your own words? You claim it’s more than a giveaway. You claim it will in and of itself stimulate the economy to everyone’s benefit. I think you’re just a chicken that thinks the government is the answer to everyone’s problems.

If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#70
You didn’t answer my question you deflected. Why don’t you directly answer it (below) in your own words? You claim it’s more than a giveaway. You claim it will in and of itself stimulate the economy to everyone’s benefit. I think you’re just a chicken that thinks the government is the answer to everyone’s problems.

If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You think I am a "chicken" that thinks that the government is the answer to everyone's problems and I think you are selfish and got lucky with daddy's money who thinks that a bigger economic pie somehow means his already large piece is smaller.

Your question is the intellectual equivalent of when a conservative says that tax cuts can increase tax revenue and a liberal says "Oh, then make the tax rate zero and the revenue will be maximum." Your lack of understanding of how money works with inflation does not make my point wrong. It isn't clever, it is sophomoric.
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
4,023
2,455
1,743
Valhalla
#71
You didn’t answer my question you deflected. Why don’t you directly answer it (below) in your own words? You claim it’s more than a giveaway. You claim it will in and of itself stimulate the economy to everyone’s benefit. I think you’re just a chicken that thinks the government is the answer to everyone’s problems.

If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not picking a side here but that is simple to answer as not all things are linear, meaning that just because something is good in a small amount more of it does not always make it better. Caffeine in smaller amounts wakes you up and helps many start the day but moving up to a tablespoon will kill you.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#72
I'll answer when I'm not at work. In the meantime, that goes both ways. What are the specific steps to phase out the current system and replace it with this? One would be a fool to accept UBU without a concrete unchangeable plan to get rid of the current system.

I asked earlier and I'm not sure you gave me a direct answer; I hope we can agree that adding UBI in addition to the current system is not acceptable, because that's not reform, it's expansion. And are any of the Dem candidates actually seriously pushing UBI in lieu of the current system or all they all just promising "more"?
The only candidate running on the UBI is planning that initially the current welfare recipient is given the option of continuing the benefits or taking the UBI but not allowing both. I have always maintained that having both would be a horrible idea. I do not know how to make that answer more clear.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#73
The only candidate running on the UBI is planning that initially the current welfare recipient is given the option of continuing the benefits or taking the UBI but not allowing both. I have always maintained that having both would be a horrible idea. I do not know how to make that answer more clear.
That's not reform it's an expansion. It will basically keep the current welfare system as is, and just add everybody who isn't on welfare to UBI.

Plus having both exist simultaneously will mean more administrative costs. And will leave the door open for future pandering politicians promising both to some people in exchange for votes.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,108
8,663
1,743
Earth
#74
I respect that Steross is so invested in UBI and I truly think he cares about those that he feels will be left behind in a new economy...That is a VERY good thing and we need folks to think about the future. However, I do think it's not the best tract to take...we already do this now in several ways (i.e. earned income tax credit, Social Security, other attempts like food stamps). YET we still have the poor and even in increasing numbers these days. We all know free money isn't free and someone has to pay...additionally when we are given a car by our parents we don't take near as good care of it as we do when we earn it. When we get free stuff human nature keeps us going back to where we got it for more free stuff until someone cuts us off and makes us face reality. This has been discussed in books like the Time Machine where the main character travels in time and finds a time and place where no one works and has everything provided for them, it seems like Utopia, but they all are selfish and greedy strangely...they are so taken care of and pampered that they don't even realize that they are being used as a food source for the "controlling" ones. This concept is also the theme of the Matrix.

When you give someone, me included, a check for NOTHING it really is a incentive to NOT work quite as hard and to be a little less productive than I would be otherwise (certainly it's not an incentive to not work at all, but a little less hard). It's actually a form of bondage. As an example I've adjusted my own retirement savings based on Social Security. It would have been better off if I did not do that, but I have a safety net so I adjusted down and IMHO lost some of my freedom by doing so (this makes me dependent on Government rather than wholly on myself). I know UBI isn't designed to do that and it's only a "basic income" devised by those who think they are smarter than those they want to give money too. Ultimately, taken to an extreme, UBI and other hand outs are about control of the masses because those who do this "think" they can't take care of themselves, granted those who think it's a great idea don't think it's about control at all (that's how it starts).

In a free society that values work and capitalism, those who currently don't have... certainly CAN have and it's an insult to assume they cannot and to disincentive them by handouts isn't altruistic, it's actually sort of an insult...granted some are so stuck in a rut created by lowered expectations or illness that they have a VERY difficult time and may never recover (certainly we should have, and do have, programs for those). Also, to assume that it wouldn't cause inflation, I don't understand how it couldn't. Inflation is caused by increases in money in the system, as stated, and if you drop a bunch of money in the system you have to have inflation due to scarcity, no? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you give every man, woman, and child in America an extra $1,000 a month it would make absolute no difference in their lifestyle long term because prices would eventually escalate just as much to match the extra in the system? We would ALL love to have utopia but we honestly NEED work and the don't need free money. Free money without work doesn't produce what we all would like it to produce...responsible Adults...it produces more of a teenagers mentality in all of us...

Also, even if it's unknowingly, It's a further attempt at an equalization of outcomes like getting a trophy no matter how you do at scoccer...it dumbs us down...it's even sort of a soft slap in the face. I have two kids (one an adult and the other 17)...both of those kids will grow up in a highly technical society and I've raised them to be able to handle that and to rise above it, which they have and will...AND, IMHO Basic Income would be more of a determent to their development of character, self reliance, and ability to think for themselves and problem solve than whatever good it would do them financially temporarily. The problem with UBI, and really most all costly social programs, is not that they don't mean well...but what happens when they fail (God help us when SS fails) and what effect do they have on the human spirit. Those points can be debated and backed up by research on both/all sides, I don't know maybe it's worth the effort.

I tend to believe that those aultristic souls who think this is a great idea don't realize that it's perhaps a dangerous or even evil one that robs the very person it's trying to help of their motivation, spirit, and ability to learn. We learn most when under pressure. Diamonds are made under immense pressure. Take away the pressure...you have no diamonds.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#75
That's not reform it's an expansion. It will basically keep the current welfare system as is, and just add everybody who isn't on welfare to UBI.

Plus having both exist simultaneously will mean more administrative costs. And will leave the door open for future pandering politicians promising both to some people in exchange for votes.
So, you are tell me if you got $241 in food stamps, $567 in SSI, and $212 in WIC, you would stay with that instead of $1000 in cash? Only an idiot would. Furthermore, doing it like this prevents the "you are taking their benefits away" mantra.
Pandering politicians build damns with no lake, bridges to nowhere, and give wealthy industries subsidies. You really think they need some "door open" to pander?
Finally, these are the plans of a candidate, not a law. The Trump tax cut. Was that his campaign plan? No. Obamacare, was that a campaign plan? No. Arguing over this level of detail before anything is proposed is nearly pointless. If you are waiting for the political plan that perfectly fits your desires before you would consider support, you are basically saying you love the current welfare system.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#76
I respect that Steross is so invested in UBI and I truly think he cares about those that he feels will be left behind in a new economy...That is a VERY good thing and we need folks to think about the future. However, I do think it's not the best tract to take...we already do this now in several ways (i.e. earned income tax credit, Social Security, other attempts like food stamps). YET we still have the poor and even in increasing numbers these days. We all know free money isn't free and someone has to pay...additionally when we are given a car by our parents we don't take near as good care of it as we do when we earn it. When we get free stuff human nature keeps us going back to where we got it for more free stuff until someone cuts us off and makes us face reality. This has been discussed in books like the Time Machine where the main character travels in time and finds a time and place where no one works and has everything provided for them, it seems like Utopia, but they all are selfish and greedy strangely...they are so taken care of and pampered that they don't even realize that they are being used as a food source for the "controlling" ones. This concept is also the theme of the Matrix.

When you give someone, me included, a check for NOTHING it really is a incentive to NOT work quite as hard and to be a little less productive than I would be otherwise (certainly it's not an incentive to not work at all, but a little less hard). It's actually a form of bondage. As an example I've adjusted my own retirement savings based on Social Security. It would have been better off if I did not do that, but I have a safety net so I adjusted down and IMHO lost some of my freedom by doing so (this makes me dependent on Government rather than wholly on myself). I know UBI isn't designed to do that and it's only a "basic income" devised by those who think they are smarter than those they want to give money too. Ultimately, taken to an extreme, UBI and other hand outs are about control of the masses because those who do this "think" they can't take care of themselves, granted those who think it's a great idea don't think it's about control at all (that's how it starts).

In a free society that values work and capitalism, those who currently don't have... certainly CAN have and it's an insult to assume they cannot and to disincentive them by handouts isn't altruistic, it's actually sort of an insult...granted some are so stuck in a rut created by lowered expectations or illness that they have a VERY difficult time and may never recover (certainly we should have, and do have, programs for those). Also, to assume that it wouldn't cause inflation, I don't understand how it couldn't. Inflation is caused by increases in money in the system, as stated, and if you drop a bunch of money in the system you have to have inflation due to scarcity, no? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you give every man, woman, and child in America an extra $1,000 a month it would make absolute no difference in their lifestyle long term because prices would eventually escalate just as much to match the extra in the system? We would ALL love to have utopia but we honestly NEED work and the don't need free money. Free money without work doesn't produce what we all would like it to produce...responsible Adults...it produces more of a teenagers mentality in all of us...

Also, even if it's unknowingly, It's a further attempt at an equalization of outcomes like getting a trophy no matter how you do at scoccer...it dumbs us down...it's even sort of a soft slap in the face. I have two kids (one an adult and the other 17)...both of those kids will grow up in a highly technical society and I've raised them to be able to handle that and to rise above it, which they have and will...AND, IMHO Basic Income would be more of a determent to their development of character, self reliance, and ability to think for themselves and problem solve than whatever good it would do them financially temporarily. The problem with UBI, and really most all costly social programs, is not that they don't mean well...but what happens when they fail (God help us when SS fails) and what effect do they have on the human spirit. Those points can be debated and backed up by research on both/all sides, I don't know maybe it's worth the effort.

I tend to believe that those aultristic souls who think this is a great idea don't realize that it's perhaps a dangerous or even evil one that robs the very person it's trying to help of their motivation, spirit, and ability to learn. We learn most when under pressure. Diamonds are made under immense pressure. Take away the pressure...you have no diamonds.
I am not some misguided altruistic soul. Thanks but no thanks for the patronizing compliment. Find one post, any post where I have been the "let's just help the poor in any way we can" type person. I am a data-driven person who realizes based on data that this is the right way forward for the country. I'm not "invested" in it. It won't help me personally at all other than living in safer, healthier communities. This post is just repeating the same false arguments (with no supporting data at all) that I already addressed in prior posts. No, this is not like the programs we already have at all. No, the data does not show that it causes people to avoid work and live in poverty, in fact, the system we have now that you are defending does exactly that.

Your opinions are based on faith. You "think" that it would do this. And you say "IMHO" it would do that. And you keep repeating this even though they are simply not borne out in the data that we already have. But, we already have data that shows it is the current means-tested welfare that CAUSES exactly the issues that you are falsely attributing to a UBI because so far you don't seem to understand what means-tested even means. It appears to me that this desire of yours to keep repeating this opinion is either selfishness or fear, ie, you do not want others to excel or you simply ignore reality when forming your opinions. You claimed that you watched that video but other than a junior high joke about his looks you have completely ignored what was said about poverty and actual ways to help it while spouting things that the video shows are not true.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,108
8,663
1,743
Earth
#77
I am not some misguided altruistic soul. Thanks but no thanks for the patronizing compliment. Find one post, any post where I have been the "let's just help the poor in any way we can" type person. I am a data-driven person who realizes based on data that this is the right way forward for the country. I'm not "invested" in it. It won't help me personally at all other than living in safer, healthier communities. This post is just repeating the same false arguments (with no supporting data at all) that I already addressed in prior posts. No, this is not like the programs we already have at all. No, the data does not show that it causes people to avoid work and live in poverty, in fact, the system we have now that you are defending does exactly that.

Your opinions are based on faith. You "think" that it would do this. And you say "IMHO" it would do that. And you keep repeating this even though they are simply not borne out in the data that we already have. But, we already have data that shows it is the current means-tested welfare that CAUSES exactly the issues that you are falsely attributing to a UBI because so far you don't seem to understand what means-tested even means. It appears to me that this desire of yours to keep repeating this opinion is either selfishness or fear, ie, you do not want others to excel or you simply ignore reality when forming your opinions. You claimed that you watched that video but other than a junior high joke about his looks you have completely ignored what was said about poverty and actual ways to help it while spouting things that the video shows are not true.
In the battle between socialist and government based and funded science vs faith and history, I'll fall on faith and history's side every time. The issue we have is that you value "science" over history and faith...we fall on different sides of a world view. We won't be able to resolve that on a message board. The reason I say you are "invested" in it is because you defend it so passionately. That's not a slam its a complement. I do think you passionately think you are right or you wouldn’t waste your time. That isn’t a slam. It’s ok and even good for people to have different opinions based on differing world views. It makes life interesting. Thanks and adieu.
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2012
1,611
907
743
56
#78
I respect that Steross is so invested in UBI and I truly think he cares about those that he feels will be left behind in a new economy...That is a VERY good thing and we need folks to think about the future. However, I do think it's not the best tract to take...we already do this now in several ways (i.e. earned income tax credit, Social Security, other attempts like food stamps). YET we still have the poor and even in increasing numbers these days. We all know free money isn't free and someone has to pay...additionally when we are given a car by our parents we don't take near as good care of it as we do when we earn it. When we get free stuff human nature keeps us going back to where we got it for more free stuff until someone cuts us off and makes us face reality. This has been discussed in books like the Time Machine where the main character travels in time and finds a time and place where no one works and has everything provided for them, it seems like Utopia, but they all are selfish and greedy strangely...they are so taken care of and pampered that they don't even realize that they are being used as a food source for the "controlling" ones. This concept is also the theme of the Matrix.

When you give someone, me included, a check for NOTHING it really is a incentive to NOT work quite as hard and to be a little less productive than I would be otherwise (certainly it's not an incentive to not work at all, but a little less hard). It's actually a form of bondage. As an example I've adjusted my own retirement savings based on Social Security. It would have been better off if I did not do that, but I have a safety net so I adjusted down and IMHO lost some of my freedom by doing so (this makes me dependent on Government rather than wholly on myself). I know UBI isn't designed to do that and it's only a "basic income" devised by those who think they are smarter than those they want to give money too. Ultimately, taken to an extreme, UBI and other hand outs are about control of the masses because those who do this "think" they can't take care of themselves, granted those who think it's a great idea don't think it's about control at all (that's how it starts).

In a free society that values work and capitalism, those who currently don't have... certainly CAN have and it's an insult to assume they cannot and to disincentive them by handouts isn't altruistic, it's actually sort of an insult...granted some are so stuck in a rut created by lowered expectations or illness that they have a VERY difficult time and may never recover (certainly we should have, and do have, programs for those). Also, to assume that it wouldn't cause inflation, I don't understand how it couldn't. Inflation is caused by increases in money in the system, as stated, and if you drop a bunch of money in the system you have to have inflation due to scarcity, no? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you give every man, woman, and child in America an extra $1,000 a month it would make absolute no difference in their lifestyle long term because prices would eventually escalate just as much to match the extra in the system? We would ALL love to have utopia but we honestly NEED work and the don't need free money. Free money without work doesn't produce what we all would like it to produce...responsible Adults...it produces more of a teenagers mentality in all of us...

Also, even if it's unknowingly, It's a further attempt at an equalization of outcomes like getting a trophy no matter how you do at scoccer...it dumbs us down...it's even sort of a soft slap in the face. I have two kids (one an adult and the other 17)...both of those kids will grow up in a highly technical society and I've raised them to be able to handle that and to rise above it, which they have and will...AND, IMHO Basic Income would be more of a determent to their development of character, self reliance, and ability to think for themselves and problem solve than whatever good it would do them financially temporarily. The problem with UBI, and really most all costly social programs, is not that they don't mean well...but what happens when they fail (God help us when SS fails) and what effect do they have on the human spirit. Those points can be debated and backed up by research on both/all sides, I don't know maybe it's worth the effort.

I tend to believe that those aultristic souls who think this is a great idea don't realize that it's perhaps a dangerous or even evil one that robs the very person it's trying to help of their motivation, spirit, and ability to learn. We learn most when under pressure. Diamonds are made under immense pressure. Take away the pressure...you have no diamonds.
my computer connection would time out before I completed a reply of this magnitude.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#80
So, you are tell me if you got $241 in food stamps, $567 in SSI, and $212 in WIC, you would stay with that instead of $1000 in cash? Only an idiot would. Furthermore, doing it like this prevents the "you are taking their benefits away" mantra.
Pandering politicians build damns with no lake, bridges to nowhere, and give wealthy industries subsidies. You really think they need some "door open" to pander?
Finally, these are the plans of a candidate, not a law. The Trump tax cut. Was that his campaign plan? No. Obamacare, was that a campaign plan? No. Arguing over this level of detail before anything is proposed is nearly pointless. If you are waiting for the political plan that perfectly fits your desires before you would consider support, you are basically saying you love the current welfare system.
The numbers you gave add up to $1020 and those are not the only government assistance programs that exist. What about Snap, Pell Grants, Tax credits, Section 8 housing, school lunch program, energy assistance, etc., etc., etc.

If you want to talk about getting rid of a major portion of the welfare state, not just two or three programs, but most (or all) of it, then maybe we can look at the numbers and figure out how it's going to be paid for. But putting this in place, right alongside all or most of an already completely broken welfare system still in place and no specifics about how to pay for it...it's just not acceptable. I'm sorry, we're never going to agree on this.

I did tell you I would add my thought on reform though. I'm not sure either party is interested in doing anything but just a few things I'd like to try. We need to incentivize working...making either employment, continuing education, or public service mandatory to receive benefits. And people who do work do not automatically lose their benefits, that's just stupid, make some sliding scale so that they make more with partial benefits and salary than they would on just benefits alone. Benefits should also be bare necessities.....they should be something that people don't want to live on forever......beans and rice make a perfectly nutritious meal. We also need to get private charities more involved, instead of giving tax credits to people who don't work, give tax cuts to people who donate to charities. I'm sure if we had a list of all available government assistance programs, we could do down that list and come up with literally dozens of ideas to try that does not involve simply giving more money to more people.