Dr. King's dream: A basic income guarantee is still something America needs

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
whoa, we all need unicorns too..
Alaska's give it residents monies back from the Natural resource it has in the state (oil) and gives back some of the profits that is invested from that..
this is an opinion piece...


SNIP:



By Allan Sheahen


Special to the Mercury News

Posted: 08/23/2013 12:01:00 PM PDT






As we mark the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech, we are sobered by the fact that 46 million citizens are living in poverty and that we have become two Americas, one for the rich and one for the rest of us.

King had a solution to poverty and to the bleak economic conditions faced by many Americans today.

"I am now convinced that the simplest solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a new widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income," he wrote in his 1967 book, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" "A host of psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security."

In 1969, a Presidential Commission recommended, 22-0, that the United States adopt a guaranteed annual income, with no mandatory work requirements, for all citizens in need. The report was buried and forgotten.

The concept of a Basic Income Guarantee is not discussed much anymore. But it remains, as the late economist Milton Friedman always maintained, the most practical and sensible way to end poverty and provide economic security to all Americans.

Today we have more than 14 million Americans unemployed with no evidence that we can create jobs for everyone who wants one. Machines are doing work people used to do.

Job creation is a completely wrong approach because the world doesn't need everyone to have a job in order to produce what is needed. When we say we need more jobs, what we really mean is we need more money to live on.

Today there are more than 300 income-tested federal social programs costing more than $400 billion a year. Much of that money goes for administrative expenses, not to the needy.

Charles Murray, the conservative author whose 1984 book, "Losing Ground," claimed that welfare was doing more harm than good, now agrees with King's approach. Murray calls for giving an annual grant of $10,000 with no work requirement to every adult over age 21.

"America's population is wealthier than any in history," Murray writes in his book, In Our Hands. "Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirements, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectively. The solution is to give the money to the people."

all of it here
Dr. King's dream: A basic income guarantee is still something America needs - San Jose Mercury News
 
I would support a negative income tax if it was part of a complete reworking of the tax laws accompanied by an elimination of all social engineering through taxes.
 
One principle talking point of the First Industrial Revolution held that the machine would one day free humanity from its need to toil. Dr King may well have been picking up where CH Douglas left off:

"Social credit is an interdisciplinary distributive philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924.

"It encompasses the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics. Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals.

"Douglas once wrote, 'Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.'[1]

"Douglas said that Social Crediters want to build a new civilization based upon 'absolute economic security' for the individual, where 'they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid."[2][3]

"In his words, 'what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own.'"

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, the USA is the richest country in History with trillion$ hidden away off-shore by corporations and the richest 1% of individuals.

Our own Utopia is calling.
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Its funny they acknowledge that government is so inefficient at spending money, so they propose doing away with the programs and just handing out the money. Why not just cut the taxes and never collect it in the first place? It's all about income redistribution, it has nothing to do with providing "services" that the poor supposedly need. Just punish the hard workers and reward the lazy slackers, that's the progressive way.

"Income guarantee", what a farce.
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.
Are you saying all impoverished people are mentally ill, crippled or aged?! The US does have a social security system to support the above you understand. It also has a welfare system to support lazy slackers.
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.

You think handing mentally ill money is going to help them?
 
"The current unemployment rate of 7.5% percent means close to 20 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed.

"Nobody states the obvious truth: that the marketplace has changed and there will never again be enough jobs for everyone who wants one -- no matter who is in the White House or in Congress.

"Fifty years ago, economists predicted that automation and technology would displace thousands of workers a year. Now we even have robots doing human work.

"Job losses will only get worse as the 21st century progresses. Global capital will continue to move jobs to places on the planet that have the lowest labor costs. Technology will continue to improve, eliminating countless jobs."

Jobs Are Not the Answer

It isn't about a few slackers living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.
Everyone would get the same guarantee, and those who want more would be free to continue selling their labor to the lowest bidder.
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.
Are you saying all impoverished people are mentally ill, crippled or aged?! The US does have a social security system to support the above you understand. It also has a welfare system to support lazy slackers.

No, I am saying that some of them are, obviously.

Should I be surprised you did your best to misunderstand my post?
 
This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.

You think handing mentally ill money is going to help them?

I think that describing people who are mentally ill as "lazy slackers" is obscene.

The fact is - many people who are on welfare need help, and any civilised society will respect and help those people to live as full and productive a life as they can.
 
I would support a negative income tax if it was part of a complete reworking of the tax laws accompanied by an elimination of all social engineering through taxes.

We already have a negative income tax.

Many people get everything deducted from their paychecks back and then some.
 
Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.
Are you saying all impoverished people are mentally ill, crippled or aged?! The US does have a social security system to support the above you understand. It also has a welfare system to support lazy slackers.

No, I am saying that some of them are, obviously.

Should I be surprised you did your best to misunderstand my post?

Should anyone be surprised you intentionally mischaracterized his post?
 
Squeese -

The mischaracterisation here is Hawks. Unless of course, you believe that to be on welfare is synonymous with being a "lazy slacker".
 
Shame on the mentally ill, the crippled and the aged!

It is interesting that you consider mentally ill people to be "lazy slackers"....I don't get that attitude at all.

You think handing mentally ill money is going to help them?

I think that describing people who are mentally ill as "lazy slackers" is obscene.

The fact is - many people who are on welfare need help, and any civilised society will respect and help those people to live as full and productive a life as they can.

I never described mentally ill people as "lazy slackers". If the best you can do is lie to try to prove a point then you've lost.

I know mentally handicapped people, some of which have a job, and I do not object to them also receiving SS and other benefits.

You know damn well who I am referring to when I say "lazy slackers", the physically and mentally able that are freeloaders. No one of able mind and body should be on welfare or unemployment.
 
Saigon is a typical liberal, he puts words in peoples mouths they never said then get all indignant about it

that's suppose to show how much THEY CARE more than other people

it's pathetic
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia said:
The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1]
In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.


A major theme of the The End of Work is that productivity would lead to the destruction of jobs; however, the book appeared when productivity growth had been in a slowdown since the early 1970s. Because the widespread use of computers in the 1980s and early 1990s did not live up to the high expectations for productivity growth, this was called the productivity paradox. Strong productivity growth finally appeared in the late 1990s and lasted a few years, then slowed down again. The productivity slowdown is still being debated.[3] Strong growth but without absorbing large numbers of unemployed people is called a jobless recovery
.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work
 
Hawk -

Where in this statement:

This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Its funny they acknowledge that government is so inefficient at spending money, so they propose doing away with the programs and just handing out the money. Why not just cut the taxes and never collect it in the first place? It's all about income redistribution, it has nothing to do with providing "services" that the poor supposedly need. Just punish the hard workers and reward the lazy slackers, that's the progressive way.

do you acknowledge that many people (such as the mentally ill) are thoroughly deserving of welfare?

Because your statement fairly clearly suggests that people on welfare are "lazy slackers".

I really dislike this need to pigeon hole and label people with derisory terms, simply because they are poor.
 
Hawk -

Where in this statement:

This is what it all boils down to, a whole sector of the population living off the fruits and labors of everyone else.

Its funny they acknowledge that government is so inefficient at spending money, so they propose doing away with the programs and just handing out the money. Why not just cut the taxes and never collect it in the first place? It's all about income redistribution, it has nothing to do with providing "services" that the poor supposedly need. Just punish the hard workers and reward the lazy slackers, that's the progressive way.
do you acknowledge that many people (such as the mentally ill) are thoroughly deserving of welfare?

Because your statement fairly clearly suggests that people on welfare are "lazy slackers".

I really dislike this need to pigeon hole and label people with derisory terms, simply because they are poor.

Is the OP about the mentally ill?

No, it isn't.

Hawk clearly references the OP in his post.

Your post has nothing to do with the OP.

We already have social programs for citizens who CAN'T work.

Find the word "mentally ill" in the OP.

When you can't, stop posting in this thread.
 

Forum List

Back
Top