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.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just don't trust the government to do this in the way that you and I would accept and tolerate because they haven't proven themselves to be trustworthy. The way you see it might certainly be helpful if it were to work out that way. I just don't think they are able to keep their hands off our money and do it right.
Understandable, almost. If there was no program and this was an idea to introduce as something brand new then I would understand the hesitancy a lot more. But, we are already spending the money on welfare programs that by design demotivate, restrict people from moving out of poverty, require multiple bureaucracies, and have been in place for decades. There is immense data on how poorly they function and the problems they have caused with the nuclear family (particularly in minorities) and generational poverty.

THAT is what you are defending. There is no "none of the above" option. They can't keep their hands off money as they already take the money. When you say you don't trust the government you don't get that choice. It is trusting the government to continue failed programs or having new ones start that have scientific potential to be better. Those are the two choices. I'm always fascinated when conservatives act like they are choosing no program when they are choosing the current multitude of programs.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,584
13,807
1,743
There is immense data on how poorly they function and the problems they have caused with the nuclear family (particularly in minorities) and generational poverty.
.
Wait. Now there are studies proving that entitlement programs are to blame for the breakdown of families and not the increased glamorization in popular culture of having kids out of wedlock?

I haven't even seen these studies and my BS meter just blew up.

How about we help restore the family unit and just cut the welfare programs, if they are to blame?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Wait. Now there are studies proving that entitlement programs are to blame for the breakdown of families and not the increased glamorization in popular culture of having kids out of wedlock?

I haven't even seen these studies and my BS meter just blew up.

How about we help restore the family unit and just cut the welfare programs, if they are to blame?
What do you mean we? You think damage is repaired with a “oops, our bad” after decades?
Where is the candidate running on a cut all welfare platform? If I told you that certain antibiotics caused tendons to rip when treating pneumonia would you say let’s stop treating pneumonia or would you say let’s stop using that antibiotic?

That is what I’m saying. You guys are arguing for a nonexistent choice. And, it is nonexistent as other than on a message board nobody would actually want it and the sheer chaos it would cause. Do any of you ever talk to poor people at all? Do you talk to them about just cutting these things and ask what would happen? I do.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,584
13,807
1,743
What do you mean we? You think damage is repaired with a “oops, our bad” after decades?
Where is the candidate running on a cut all welfare platform? If I told you that certain antibiotics caused tendons to rip when treating pneumonia would you say let’s stop treating pneumonia or would you say let’s stop using that antibiotic?

That is what I’m saying. You guys are arguing for a nonexistent choice. And, it is nonexistent as other than on a message board nobody would actually want it and the sheer chaos it would cause. Do any of you ever talk to poor people at all? Do you talk to them about just cutting these things and ask what would happen? I do.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm not ready to get blamed for my tax dollars being the cause of the breakdown in traditional families. Pop culture, especially among minorities, has glamorized having kids out of wedlock and it has taken a toll.

You want your kid to have a good chance at success, get married and stay married. Statistically their odds of going to college, and avoiding prison, are greatly improved.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,028
3,769
743
49
But how does replacing $1,000 worth of welfare with $1,000 of the Ubi help the poor get anywhere.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Because if you are given means-tested welfare, you have to prove that you are poor to get it. Meaning, you can't have a savings account with any money in it. If they give you food stamps, you have to buy food. If they give you home heating oil reimbursement, you have to get home heating oil. Essentially the government is controlling your life and telling you exactly what to do with the little bit that you get and if you get any more, they take it away. Which, of course, is an incentive not to get any more.

A UBI, on the other hand, can be spent in any way the person needs. And contrary to belief, the majority of poor people do not want to be poor. So, in the UBI studies that have been done, people take the money and do things with it such as paying overdue bills, going to school, starting a small business or whatever. Instead of food stamps that give you $350 for food, if you can figure out a way to eat less, with the UBI you can buy a cheap car. The bottom line of the comparison is the individual does a better job allocating the resource than a government bureaucracy. Unlike means-tested welfare, it does not trap them in poverty. And, everyone that say's "No, they will just be lazy/waste the money/not work/ skip school" etc have not read the studies that show it isn't the case. so, while @Rack likes to write huge posts about what he thinks will happen, it is not what has been shown.
Just do away with a bunch of different taxes and take this to it's eventual outcome which is the Fairtax with it's prebate. Much simpler and less red tape.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,387
8,766
1,743
Earth
What do you mean we? You think damage is repaired with a “oops, our bad” after decades?
Where is the candidate running on a cut all welfare platform? If I told you that certain antibiotics caused tendons to rip when treating pneumonia would you say let’s stop treating pneumonia or would you say let’s stop using that antibiotic?

That is what I’m saying. You guys are arguing for a nonexistent choice. And, it is nonexistent as other than on a message board nobody would actually want it and the sheer chaos it would cause. Do any of you ever talk to poor people at all? Do you talk to them about just cutting these things and ask what would happen? I do.
I don't think people are saying to stop treating pneumonia just to stop using a very old, extremely dirty hospital literally 1,000's of miles away from the patients to treat it in. Another treatment for pneumonia isn't going to clean the hospital or repair the facility that has broken ac, a mold infestation in the operation rooms, and Administrators who hate each other that don't care about pneumonia and won't fix a damn thing.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm not ready to get blamed for my tax dollars being the cause of the breakdown in traditional families. Pop culture, especially among minorities, has glamorized having kids out of wedlock and it has taken a toll.

You want your kid to have a good chance at success, get married and stay married. Statistically their odds of going to college, and avoiding prison, are greatly improved.
Huge complex issues hardly ever have “a cause” even though we desire to find one cause.

You don’t think decades of single mothers getting state assistance that would go away if she married the baby daddy didn’t contribute significantly to this issue?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
I don't think people are saying to stop treating pneumonia just to stop using a very old, extremely dirty hospital literally 1,000's of miles away from the patients to treat it in. Another treatment for pneumonia isn't going to clean the hospital or repair the facility that has broken ac, a mold infestation in the operation rooms, and Administrators who hate each other that don't care about pneumonia and won't fix a damn thing.
Your attempt to destroy a straightforward analogy worked.
You are calling a new thing, a UBI, an old dirty hospital? Sorry, that doesn’t make sense by any stretch of the imagination. As I said, you are defending the old dirty hospital by arguing against a way forward away from it which is a de facto argument for the status quo.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Just do away with a bunch of different taxes and take this to it's eventual outcome which is the Fairtax with it's prebate. Much simpler and less red tape.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I don’t recall from the Fairtax if the prebate went to all citizens or just removed taxes paid. If it is given to all citizens then it is a UBI. I would have no problem with that other that there is nobody at all running on that platform so it is not even an option.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,387
8,766
1,743
Earth
Your attempt to destroy a straightforward analogy worked.
You are calling a new thing, a UBI, an old dirty hospital? Sorry, that doesn’t make sense by any stretch of the imagination. As I said, you are defending the old dirty hospital by arguing against a way forward away from it which is a de facto argument for the status quo.
Federal government is the old hospital that is incapable of healing.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Federal government is the old hospital this is incapable of healing.
Show any evidence anywhere in the world of a non-federal government actively making this type issue better. Anywhere that has a non-government system that has citizens doing better than the places that have government systems in place.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,584
13,807
1,743
Huge complex issues hardly ever have “a cause” even though we desire to find one cause.

You don’t think decades of single mothers getting state assistance that would go away if she married the baby daddy didn’t contribute significantly to this issue?
It would improve. What's your point?
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,584
13,807
1,743
You were complaining about the fact that I wrote that. I just explained why. That is the point, to address your complaint.
Complex issues rarely do have one defining cause, but I think I pointed out the biggest factor. It's not the correct PC, talking points, answer because it is a little too, blame the victim. The stability of the family correlates pretty directly to the financial success of various ethnic and geographic groups.

Entitlement programs, as you point out, have also not helped the trend. I don't really agree with your solution, but I find it interesting and applaud the willingness to consider a pretty radical new direction. My biggest concern is creating a class of people who find a way to get by on the UBI and pass that trade on to their kids. As you have said, that's what happens now with entitlement programs, but your approach almost makes it sound easier, potentially growing that class of people. It may have been tried, on a smaller scale, to some extent, but trying it in our country is a big gamble because taking it away would be politically impossible.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,387
8,766
1,743
Earth
Show any evidence anywhere in the world of a non-federal government actively making this type issue better. Anywhere that has a non-government system that has citizens doing better than the places that have government systems in place.
Capitalism, in and of itself, actively makes it better for all citizens because of the opportunity it provides so all Capitalist countries are perfect examples of the government NOT doing something (ie over taxing the population) in itself making it better for those in need. First world poverty is very different than third world poverty and isn't as easy to eradicate as simply giving the American "poor" a monthly payment...it's far more complex and requires local health solutions directly pointed at the poor. I didn't say the government in general was a problem but the federal government specifically in the USA in it's current form which is actually designed to move slowly and inefficiently on purpose. The purpose is to keep the American people as free and independent of it as possible. I'm completely on board with states or companies doing this locally if those in those regions desire it. I just think our federal government has a bad rate of success with these sorts of program and will never voluntarily give itself a decrease of pet projects in order to try something as radical a change as UBI.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Complex issues rarely do have one defining cause, but I think I pointed out the biggest factor. It's not the correct PC, talking points, answer because it is a little too, blame the victim. The stability of the family correlates pretty directly to the financial success of various ethnic and geographic groups.

Entitlement programs, as you point out, have also not helped the trend. I don't really agree with your solution, but I find it interesting and applaud the willingness to consider a pretty radical new direction. My biggest concern is creating a class of people who find a way to get by on the UBI and pass that trade on to their kids. As you have said, that's what happens now with entitlement programs, but your approach almost makes it sound easier, potentially growing that class of people. It may have been tried, on a smaller scale, to some extent, but trying it in our country is a big gamble because taking it away would be politically impossible.
Why would it concern you if a certain number of people simply decided that minimal existence is the best they are going to be able to do for the most part and lived a very meager existence? Because, this would be an incredibly meager existence. And, again, I spend a fair amount of my time with people at this functional level, it is not typically some person that otherwise would have been a stockbroker but just decided to live on a tiny amount of money. It is not desirable.

The idea that this would make that number grow makes no sense to me. Think about the two options:
1. You get around $1000 a month from the government but you have to prove to them that you cannot/will not do anything else and they check your accounts etc and if they find anything, they take it away.
2. You get a $1000 from the government. If you take a part time job, that is good. If you get a unexpected inheritance, that is fine, too. No matter what you do, you will get this as a baseline.

Can you explain to me why option #2 would make more people be there? Because, if you are lving option #2 and all the sudden you find out you can get a job that you don't mind, you get both! If you have option #1, any job kills the benefit. I can't see how that would make more people live at the baseline. It makes far more sense to me that fewer would.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,584
13,807
1,743
Why would it concern you if a certain number of people simply decided that minimal existence is the best they are going to be able to do for the most part and lived a very meager existence? Because, this would be an incredibly meager existence. And, again, I spend a fair amount of my time with people at this functional level, it is not typically some person that otherwise would have been a stockbroker but just decided to live on a tiny amount of money. It is not desirable.

The idea that this would make that number grow makes no sense to me. Think about the two options:
1. You get around $1000 a month from the government but you have to prove to them that you cannot/will not do anything else and they check your accounts etc and if they find anything, they take it away.
2. You get a $1000 from the government. If you take a part time job, that is good. If you get a unexpected inheritance, that is fine, too. No matter what you do, you will get this as a baseline.

Can you explain to me why option #2 would make more people be there? Because, if you are lving option #2 and all the sudden you find out you can get a job that you don't mind, you get both! If you have option #1, any job kills the benefit. I can't see how that would make more people live at the baseline. It makes far more sense to me that fewer would.
I think you have a different perspective on people in this situation than I do, in part, because your experience with them is different than mine. You are the kind hearted care giver linstening to their tales of woe and offering aid. I am the guy asking them to show up for work and, well... work.

Some people work for a bit, until we get on their nerves too much with all our pesky stuff about job requirements and showing up on time, then they quit. To your point, they are incentivized to quit because they replace their income with government entitlements which they believe they are owed. That's why I think most all entitlements should have a finite time associated with qualifying, but that's a different debate. Historically job growth has increased at the same time the length of time for unemployment was shortened, despite the prophecies of doom.

Under UBI, many might just skip the step of making a run at employment and settle in to the comfortable pattern of waiting for the monthly UBI check. The longer a person is unemployed, the easier it becomes, and the harder to get a job. If you could guarantee politicians would resist the temptation of buying votes by increasing the UBI I could probably be on board, but I don't think they could.

Again it gets back to how we define "Basic" in UBI. If you could sell me on the idea that UBI wouldn't grow to the point of too much comfort, and end the other entitlements, I'd be on board.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,028
3,769
743
49
Just do away with a bunch of different taxes and take this to it's eventual outcome which is the Fairtax with it's prebate. Much simpler and less red tape.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I don’t recall from the Fairtax if the prebate went to all citizens or just removed taxes paid. If it is given to all citizens then it is a UBI. I would have no problem with that other that there is nobody at all running on that platform so it is not even an option.
Prebate goes to all. But is basically considered a refund of basic amount of taxes that would be spent by an average family under the Fairtax.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
Prebate goes to all. But is basically considered a refund of basic amount of taxes that would be spent by an average family under the Fairtax.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
If a prebate to every citizen was tied to a reform or minimization of means-tested welfare that would accomplish similar although a VAT has some benefits over a sales tax.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
I think you have a different perspective on people in this situation than I do, in part, because your experience with them is different than mine. You are the kind hearted care giver linstening to their tales of woe and offering aid. I am the guy asking them to show up for work and, well... work.

Some people work for a bit, until we get on their nerves too much with all our pesky stuff about job requirements and showing up on time, then they quit. To your point, they are incentivized to quit because they replace their income with government entitlements which they believe they are owed. That's why I think most all entitlements should have a finite time associated with qualifying, but that's a different debate. Historically job growth has increased at the same time the length of time for unemployment was shortened, despite the prophecies of doom.

Under UBI, many might just skip the step of making a run at employment and settle in to the comfortable pattern of waiting for the monthly UBI check. The longer a person is unemployed, the easier it becomes, and the harder to get a job. If you could guarantee politicians would resist the temptation of buying votes by increasing the UBI I could probably be on board, but I don't think they could.

Again it gets back to how we define "Basic" in UBI. If you could sell me on the idea that UBI wouldn't grow to the point of too much comfort, and end the other entitlements, I'd be on board.
UBI can grow to too much comfort just like welfare can grow to too much comfort. That part is all the same and it is dependent on the citizens to say "that's enough." That is the case with all government if you think about it.