CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[martybegan]

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/minimum-wages-vs-universal-basic-income_b_7957850.html


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

 

[martybegan]

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

 

[Fishlore]

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

"Rational people"? What the hell does that have to do with anything? There are Americans that cannot conceptualize a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all Americans because they really don't understand the concept of community and, to the degree that the idea makes any sense at all to them, it sounds dangerous, crazy and un-American.

The Big Guys have been indoctrinating the Little Guys with the notion that society is a zero-sum contest in which the government is a mere referee. Can't afford a doctor for your kids? Let 'em croak. Can't make enough to eat? Beg in the streets. This and all the other branches of this "libertarian" philosophy are proclaimed to be the only true articulation of the principles of the the Constitution. Pathetic

 

[koshergrl]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.



oh , and added bonus it would actually help people more than the current system.

 

[koshergrl]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

LOL No we wouldn't and we'll never find out. We will ALWAYS have welfare

 

[guno]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

I remember William F Buckley proposed that years ago , he was a sane consevative

 

[koshergrl]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

LOL No we wouldn't and we'll never find out. We will ALWAYS have welfare

Not of the national sort. We'll just slide into straight up communism and rationing.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

LOL No we wouldn't and we'll never find out. We will ALWAYS have welfare

Not of the national sort. We'll just slide into straight up communism and rationing.

I'd bet a thousand dollars you didn't even glance at the link I provided. Even if you disagree with the premise it was a very good article.

 

[koshergrl]

It's still welfare. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

LOL No we wouldn't and we'll never find out. We will ALWAYS have welfare

Not of the national sort. We'll just slide into straight up communism and rationing.

I'd bet a thousand dollars you didn't even glance at the link I provided. Even if you disagree with the premise it was a very good article.

I'm not interested in communism.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course it is, but it would be CHEAPER than the system we have now, and guess what, we're NEVER going to do with welfare, and suggesting we should is as asinine as suggesting we should spend MORE money.

We could do quite well without welfare, and we will.

LOL No we wouldn't and we'll never find out. We will ALWAYS have welfare

Not of the national sort. We'll just slide into straight up communism and rationing.

I'd bet a thousand dollars you didn't even glance at the link I provided. Even if you disagree with the premise it was a very good article.

I'm not interested in communism.

LOL welfare certainly is a little socialist in nature, but we already have that.

This is simply discussing an alternative proposal that would be cheaper to the taxpayers. Why would you be against at least looking at a proposal that would be cheaper?

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

That's oversimplifying things a little. Yes , probably a large number of people on welfare are lazy, but you do realize that there are a LOT of working poor, right? You do realize a single person with no dependents working a full time job at say $9 an hour qualifies for welfare right? Is that person lazy?

It's thinking like this that is going to guarantee Hillary Clinton and her ilk keep getting elected. NO ONE wants to vote for an asshole with no sympathy and conservatives better figure out that they need to move slightly left if they don't want to be left behind.

That doesn't mean give in wholesale to the ridiculous demands of the left, it means exactly what it says , move slightly left and accommodate people instead of giving the loony left an excuse to say "see conservatives don't care about poor people" and the excuse of "we care about poor people that's why we don't want to reward bad behavior" or any of its variants is as ridiculous as anything the left says.

 

[martybegan]

I would believe it when I saw it.

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

That's oversimplifying things a little. Yes , probably a large number of people on welfare are lazy, but you do realize that there are a LOT of working poor, right? You do realize a single person with no dependents working a full time job at say $9 an hour qualifies for welfare right? Is that person lazy?

It's thinking like this that is going to guarantee Hillary Clinton and her ilk keep getting elected. NO ONE wants to vote for an asshole with no sympathy and conservatives better figure out that they need to move slightly left if they don't want to be left behind.

That doesn't mean give in wholesale to the ridiculous demands of the left, it means exactly what it says , move slightly left and accommodate people instead of giving the loony left an excuse to say "see conservatives don't care about poor people" and the excuse of "we care about poor people that's why we don't want to reward bad behavior" or any of its variants is as ridiculous as anything the left says.

You really think it is sympathy behind people like Hillary and her support for programs like this? Its about power, and a pliant and dependent voting class, i.e. "vote for me or they will take your goodies away".

Except now the # of people getting the goodies would increase, and the goodies would be direct cash payments.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Read this

Minimum Wages vs. Universal Basic Income


Don't poopoo the source, this is actually an excellent article and gives rational people something to think about.

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

That's oversimplifying things a little. Yes , probably a large number of people on welfare are lazy, but you do realize that there are a LOT of working poor, right? You do realize a single person with no dependents working a full time job at say $9 an hour qualifies for welfare right? Is that person lazy?

It's thinking like this that is going to guarantee Hillary Clinton and her ilk keep getting elected. NO ONE wants to vote for an asshole with no sympathy and conservatives better figure out that they need to move slightly left if they don't want to be left behind.

That doesn't mean give in wholesale to the ridiculous demands of the left, it means exactly what it says , move slightly left and accommodate people instead of giving the loony left an excuse to say "see conservatives don't care about poor people" and the excuse of "we care about poor people that's why we don't want to reward bad behavior" or any of its variants is as ridiculous as anything the left says.

You really think it is sympathy behind people like Hillary and her support for programs like this? Its about power, and a pliant and dependent voting class, i.e. "vote for me or they will take your goodies away".

Except now the # of people getting the goodies would increase, and the goodies would be direct cash payments.

I couldn't care less why the liberals do what they do, everyone knows they are scum sucking dirt bags. I'm talking about what is the most right thing and the most fiscally conservative thing to do. It is CHEAPER to pay a "universal wage" than it is to continue all the present welfare programs. Does that not compute?

 

[martybegan]

I used this reference before, and it fits. The outline given in the article is like the Ideal Gas Law, great for showing a concept, but disastrous if used to calculate a real condition.

You would be paying people to be lazy, you would be subsidizing people to live at the lowest livable level possible.

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

That's oversimplifying things a little. Yes , probably a large number of people on welfare are lazy, but you do realize that there are a LOT of working poor, right? You do realize a single person with no dependents working a full time job at say $9 an hour qualifies for welfare right? Is that person lazy?

It's thinking like this that is going to guarantee Hillary Clinton and her ilk keep getting elected. NO ONE wants to vote for an asshole with no sympathy and conservatives better figure out that they need to move slightly left if they don't want to be left behind.

That doesn't mean give in wholesale to the ridiculous demands of the left, it means exactly what it says , move slightly left and accommodate people instead of giving the loony left an excuse to say "see conservatives don't care about poor people" and the excuse of "we care about poor people that's why we don't want to reward bad behavior" or any of its variants is as ridiculous as anything the left says.

You really think it is sympathy behind people like Hillary and her support for programs like this? Its about power, and a pliant and dependent voting class, i.e. "vote for me or they will take your goodies away".

Except now the # of people getting the goodies would increase, and the goodies would be direct cash payments.

I couldn't care less why the liberals do what they do, everyone knows they are scum sucking dirt bags. I'm talking about what is the most right thing and the most fiscally conservative thing to do. It is CHEAPER to pay a "universal wage" than it is to continue all the present welfare programs. Does that not compute?

If run the way you propose, yes it would be cheaper, however my issue is that it would never work in the real world. Some people wouldn't be able to handle it, and all the programs that you want to eliminate would come right back, instead now it would be the cost of the handouts plus the cost of the programs.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

We are already doing that, at a cost of BILLIONS to maintain the various welfare programs.

The "conservative" pipedream of just doing away with the minimum wage law and welfare and letting people do or die is just that, a pipedream, it will never happen.

Who says that these people should "die"?

It doesn't eliminate the fact that a guaranteed minimum income from the government is subsidizing laziness.

That's oversimplifying things a little. Yes , probably a large number of people on welfare are lazy, but you do realize that there are a LOT of working poor, right? You do realize a single person with no dependents working a full time job at say $9 an hour qualifies for welfare right? Is that person lazy?

It's thinking like this that is going to guarantee Hillary Clinton and her ilk keep getting elected. NO ONE wants to vote for an asshole with no sympathy and conservatives better figure out that they need to move slightly left if they don't want to be left behind.

That doesn't mean give in wholesale to the ridiculous demands of the left, it means exactly what it says , move slightly left and accommodate people instead of giving the loony left an excuse to say "see conservatives don't care about poor people" and the excuse of "we care about poor people that's why we don't want to reward bad behavior" or any of its variants is as ridiculous as anything the left says.

You really think it is sympathy behind people like Hillary and her support for programs like this? Its about power, and a pliant and dependent voting class, i.e. "vote for me or they will take your goodies away".

Except now the # of people getting the goodies would increase, and the goodies would be direct cash payments.

I couldn't care less why the liberals do what they do, everyone knows they are scum sucking dirt bags. I'm talking about what is the most right thing and the most fiscally conservative thing to do. It is CHEAPER to pay a "universal wage" than it is to continue all the present welfare programs. Does that not compute?

If run the way you propose, yes it would be cheaper, however my issue is that it would never work in the real world. Some people wouldn't be able to handle it, and all the programs that you want to eliminate would come right back, instead now it would be the cost of the handouts plus the cost of the programs.

I have acknowledged that it would probably require a Constitutional amendment to ensure that those other systems were gone for good.

As another benefit, wouldn't it be good for the liberals to look like the assholes for refusing to get on board with a program designed to help people for a change?