Liberal Communism On Display

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
 
giphy.gif
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
The basic income would be good for the economy and absolutely necessary when the robots (sooner than you think) and thinking machines are doing most of the work. Most of humanity is about to be - out of a job.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.




Now....who was that wise wonk who said

"The fact is, a defining characteristic of the indoctrinated is to reject any reason, logic or experience if it interferes with their dogma of the day."





Oh....right.....' twas I.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
The basic income would be good for the economy and absolutely necessary when the robots (sooner than you think) and thinking machines are doing most of the work. Most of humanity is about to be - out of a job.



1. What is the reason that you used the false flag avi, hiding behind 'Righty' rather than what you clearly are....
Lefty Loosey.


Lying seems to come naturally to you Leftists.


2. "....and thinking machines...."
Can't come fast enough to save you.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
The basic income would be good for the economy and absolutely necessary when the robots (sooner than you think) and thinking machines are doing most of the work. Most of humanity is about to be - out of a job.



1. What is the reason that you used the false flag avi, hiding behind 'Righty' rather than what you clearly are....
Lefty Loosey.


Lying seems to come naturally to you Leftists.


2. "....and thinking machines...."
Can't come fast enough to save you.
Don't worry. Your legacy will live on long after you are dead. it's not that had to teach a robot to press Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V.
 
Seems that as long as the Left owns the schools and the media, the less than astute will accept the Liberal/Communist doctrines that have been proven....PROVEN....to be failures for society.


An historic review of reality:

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
404 Not Found
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

a. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.


b. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”


c. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


d. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


e. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


f. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.




The obverse is the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and the Obama presidency.
 
"Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money"
Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money




Did I miss where Liberal/Communist Zuckerberg turned over ownership of his company to the federal government, you know....to fuel all that 'guaranteed income' he favors?


No?


Well....looks like yet another chapter Peter Schweizer can add to his book.


51NR5GBR2EL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg





Amazing that Democrat voters can't see through this stuff.
 
For Liberals/Communists, government...an institution that produces no wealth, but simply confiscates same, can provide prosperity a la Robin Hood.

One must be willing to accept 'perpetual motion' machines in the same vein.


  1. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some government mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state.
    1. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.
    2. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.
    3. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia. David Mamet
 
For Liberals/Communists, government...an institution that produces no wealth, but simply confiscates same, can provide prosperity a la Robin Hood.

One must be willing to accept 'perpetual motion' machines in the same vein.


  1. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some government mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state.
    1. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.
    2. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.
    3. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia. David Mamet
No government = no capitalism.

Signed, Adam Smith.
 
"Spain's pro-EU ruling Socialists have been pummeled in recent elections over the budget cuts demanded by the EU. Its loss in municipal elections in May was the greatest since democracy returned to Spain in 1978.


In Finland, the True Finns party and its anti-bailout adherents won an unheard-of 20% of the seats in the 200-member parliament in April, putting it a mere five seats behind the top vote-getter, the conservative National Coalition Party.


"It is not the little guy who benefits: He is being milked and lied to in order to keep the insolvent system running," True Finns leader Timo Soini said in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe soon after the election.


The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.


European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


And the socialists lost in 2016 to Trump.....




Yet, not all Liberals/Communists got the memo:

"Zuckerberg talks about having the "freedom" to seek out meaning. He says not a word about how taking this money from taxpayers to pay others would rob them of some of their freedom.

How many companies would not be started because of higher taxes required to pay a guaranteed income? That thought never occurs to Zuckerberg. What of the lower standard of living of those who have to pay these crushing taxes? That never occurs to Zuckerberg either; he is too obscenely rich to relate to it.

What about the massive inflation that would result from millions of people suddenly having higher incomes? No thought to that either. Did Zuckerberg drop out of Harvard before got a chance to take Economics 101?"
Blog: Zuckerberg calls for guaranteed income; write him for your first check
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.



"So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept."

Really, you imbecile?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sooooo, Karl Marx was an American????


You're a government school grad, huh?
 
Mark was last seen helping smuggle tens of thousands of rolls of toilet paper into Venezuela.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.




As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal, let me offer you the education that you sorely lack, you should learn that every one of the collectivist doctrines...socialist, communist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, Fascist ...


....stem from the German, and is far, far from the American basis of this nation's creation.

The origin of Nazism:
The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



FDR learned this well.

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943
http://www.bipps.org/happy-chandlers-dangerous-statism/




Never claim Liberalism/Communism is Americanism again!
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.



"So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept."

Really, you imbecile?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sooooo, Karl Marx was an American????


You're a government school grad, huh?


Can you read?

Thomas Paine lived ~100 years before Marx.

Besides, though it's apparently beyond your reading comprehension, your own quote of Marx says:

"From each according to his ability"

That means that everyone that can work does work.

Did you get passed the third grade? I doubt your reading comprehension is even that good.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.




As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal, let me offer you the education that you sorely lack, you should learn that every one of the collectivist doctrines...socialist, communist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, Fascist ...


....stem from the German, and is far, far from the American basis of this nation's creation.

The origin of Nazism:
The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



FDR learned this well.

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943
Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism




Never claim Liberalism/Communism is Americanism again!


Perhaps you should read the works of Thomas Paine. Though I doubt you'd comprehend what your reading, you may actually learn what it means to be American.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.



"So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept."

Really, you imbecile?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sooooo, Karl Marx was an American????


You're a government school grad, huh?


Can you read?

Thomas Paine lived ~100 years before Marx.

Besides, though it's apparently beyond your reading comprehension, your own quote of Marx says:

"From each according to his ability"

That means that everyone that can work does work.

Did you get passed the third grade? I doubt your reading comprehension is even that good.




Can't you learn???


Here.....let's see if you can:

Which represents the Americanism?


a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


or


b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
 
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.


But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others

...i.e., reliable Democrat voters

...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.

1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.

2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.

Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.



"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster



3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.


4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.

It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.

So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.

The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.

Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.

Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.

The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.



"So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept."

Really, you imbecile?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sooooo, Karl Marx was an American????


You're a government school grad, huh?


Can you read?

Thomas Paine lived ~100 years before Marx.

Besides, though it's apparently beyond your reading comprehension, your own quote of Marx says:

"From each according to his ability"

That means that everyone that can work does work.

Did you get passed the third grade? I doubt your reading comprehension is even that good.




Can't you learn???


Here.....let's see if you can:

Which represents the Americanism?


a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


or


b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.

What represents Americanism:

1. PoliticalChic's delusions?

2. The writings of Thomas Paine?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top