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

[martybegan]

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?

Progressives would figure out a way to make other look bad regardless, its what they do.

and getting an amendment is almost impossible, especially when it comes to something like this.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Progressives would figure out a way to make other look bad regardless, its what they do.

and getting an amendment is almost impossible, especially when it comes to something like this.

Any issue in this country is going to be hard to get solved, because 90% of Americans are in fact stupid and have no idea about anything other than "me a Democrat" or "me a Republican" when it comes to politics.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Progressives would figure out a way to make other look bad regardless, its what they do.

and getting an amendment is almost impossible, especially when it comes to something like this.

Any issue in this country is going to be hard to get solved, because 90% of Americans are in fact stupid and have no idea about anything other than "me a Democrat" or "me a Republican" when it comes to politics.

To me its less about stupid, and more about having other things to worry about combined with a feeling that government in general is something out of reach or touch when it comes to them.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Progressives would figure out a way to make other look bad regardless, its what they do.

and getting an amendment is almost impossible, especially when it comes to something like this.

Any issue in this country is going to be hard to get solved, because 90% of Americans are in fact stupid and have no idea about anything other than "me a Democrat" or "me a Republican" when it comes to politics.

To me its less about stupid, and more about having other things to worry about combined with a feeling that government in general is something out of reach or touch when it comes to them.

You're far too generous. Americans, in general, ARE stupid. I mean when a Junior at Harvard thinks the USA declared its independence in 1994, you got problems as a society (and of course that is just one example of stupidity we've seen)

 

[martybegan]

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?

Progressives would figure out a way to make other look bad regardless, its what they do.

and getting an amendment is almost impossible, especially when it comes to something like this.

Any issue in this country is going to be hard to get solved, because 90% of Americans are in fact stupid and have no idea about anything other than "me a Democrat" or "me a Republican" when it comes to politics.

To me its less about stupid, and more about having other things to worry about combined with a feeling that government in general is something out of reach or touch when it comes to them.

You're far too generous. Americans, in general, ARE stupid. I mean when a Junior at Harvard thinks the USA declared its independence in 1994, you got problems as a society (and of course that is just one example of stupidity we've seen)

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

 

[alang1216]

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

I would call it apathetic rather than ignorant or stupid. I bet more people could name 9 members of their favorite baseball or football team than could name the 8 supreme court justices.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

I would call it apathetic rather than ignorant or stupid. I bet more people could name 9 members of their favorite baseball or football team than could name the 8 supreme court justices.

And that would be fine if we didn't let the apathetic/stupid people vote.

 

[alang1216]

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

I would call it apathetic rather than ignorant or stupid. I bet more people could name 9 members of their favorite baseball or football team than could name the 8 supreme court justices.

And that would be fine if we didn't let the apathetic/stupid people vote.

Most people don't vote so you get your wish.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

I would call it apathetic rather than ignorant or stupid. I bet more people could name 9 members of their favorite baseball or football team than could name the 8 supreme court justices.

And that would be fine if we didn't let the apathetic/stupid people vote.

Most people don't vote so you get your wish.

Oh, exactly the folks we don't want voting make sure they show up to get their free shit.

 

[alang1216]

NPR did a segment on this very subject this weekend. They cited an actual study with actual facts and it was quite interesting. It seems that giving people a guaranteed minimum income didn't change the employment patterns of primary bread winners. It did affect people like working mothers who might move to part-time work given the option. All in all it sounded like a positive effect on society as a whole since most people are not too lazy to work.

 

[Asclepias]

I would call it ignorant before calling it stupid.

I would call it apathetic rather than ignorant or stupid. I bet more people could name 9 members of their favorite baseball or football team than could name the 8 supreme court justices.

And that would be fine if we didn't let the apathetic/stupid people vote.

You dont have any say in that though so why dream?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I was thinking about this this morning. I'll use my younger brother an his wife as an example. He makes right around $100K a year, she right around $40K. They have 2 small children an pay $1000 a month for child care. Reducing my sister in law's pay to $28K a year, IF they received a basic income of $1K a month for each of them, that would obviously mean $48K a year, which would be $20K a year more than they make now, and I guarantee my SIL would quit her job and stay home with her kids . Opening up her job for another person who needed the income.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Jim, I've been thinking about this, and my little brain is going in a couple of different directions.

First, there will clearly continue to be significant short-term pain as we (ever so slowly) come to grips with the fact that millions of people are simply no longer needed at their jobs due to advances in technology. Their skills are literally becoming obsolete, more so by the day, and many of the them might very well never return to the income and productivity levels of their past. So it's incumbent on us to (a) recognize this cold fact, and (b) consciously choose to either help them in some way or let them founder and rot.

Second, my fear is that this process will take far longer than it has to, because it will inevitably become hyper-politicized like everything else - meaning over-simplified, dumbed down and bumper-stickerized by both political ends. The damage done while this process plays out will almost certainly be incalculable. Some out-of-the-box thinking and true intellectual curiosity are badly needed here, and clearly both are in terribly short supply in contemporary American politics.

Third, finally, the good side: Isn't technology doing precisely what we have always wanted, bringing down costs, increasing productivity and making lives easier for end users? This could translate, if we let it, if we use our heads, into an entirely new way of looking at how we work and earn a living. The first thought that comes to mind is a shorter work week, job sharing, and the base income you describe. Imagine technology allowing for a higher standard of living on the low end AND a 20-hour work week.

We could move towards a Jetsons-like future if we could just get along like adults.
.

 

[WheelieAddict]

More than I would have thought are open to this in the long term, I'm surprised. As demand for employees decreases and automation increases a 32hr work week vs 40r could be a start. I'm not advocating this now we aren't there yet just an idea to transition in the future. With self driving vehicles alone that is massive job losses in the transportation industry.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Jim, I've been thinking about this, and my little brain is going in a couple of different directions.

First, there will clearly continue to be significant short-term pain as we (ever so slowly) come to grips with the fact that millions of people are simply no longer needed at their jobs due to advances in technology. Their skills are literally becoming obsolete, more so by the day, and many of the them might very well never return to the income and productivity levels of their past. So it's incumbent on us to (a) recognize this cold fact, and (b) consciously choose to either help them in some way or let them founder and rot.

Second, my fear is that this process will take far longer than it has to, because it will inevitably become hyper-politicized like everything else - meaning over-simplified, dumbed down and bumper-stickerized by both political ends. The damage done while this process plays out will almost certainly be incalculable. Some out-of-the-box thinking and true intellectual curiosity are badly needed here, and clearly both are in terribly short supply in contemporary American politics.

Third, finally, the good side: Isn't technology doing precisely what we have always wanted, bringing down costs, increasing productivity and making lives easier for end users? This could translate, if we let it, if we use our heads, into an entirely new way of looking at how we work and earn a living. The first thought that comes to mind is a shorter work week, job sharing, and the base income you describe. Imagine technology allowing for a higher standard of living on the low end AND a 20-hour work week.

We could move towards a Jetsons-like future if we could just get along like adults.
.

Awesome.

Those who take the time to think about this will have to agree that we need to go in this direction. The way we think about how citizens earn a living is going to change........again.

We require only a fraction of the manpower we once needed to produce food....and we've got lots more mouths to feed. We made adjustments.

So...you made some very salient.....if obvious....points in that post.

Where you go wrong is where you often go wrong. You know as well as I do that one side of the political spectrum is more likely to endeavor to get along like adults and be open to making the needed adjustments. One side is more likely to dig their heels in and balk at the idea that people will be lazy freeloaders and it's tough titties if they can't make enough money to feed themselves and their families. One side is way more likely to "bumper stickerize" a given issue.

When one side acts the fool and doesn't have any intention of working with the other side....you just can't point fingers of condemnation at both sides.

Now....be sure and say that you predicted my reply and that I am a perfect example of someone who wants to politicize this issue. You know....because I responded to your comment about politicization.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Jim, I've been thinking about this, and my little brain is going in a couple of different directions.

First, there will clearly continue to be significant short-term pain as we (ever so slowly) come to grips with the fact that millions of people are simply no longer needed at their jobs due to advances in technology. Their skills are literally becoming obsolete, more so by the day, and many of the them might very well never return to the income and productivity levels of their past. So it's incumbent on us to (a) recognize this cold fact, and (b) consciously choose to either help them in some way or let them founder and rot.

Second, my fear is that this process will take far longer than it has to, because it will inevitably become hyper-politicized like everything else - meaning over-simplified, dumbed down and bumper-stickerized by both political ends. The damage done while this process plays out will almost certainly be incalculable. Some out-of-the-box thinking and true intellectual curiosity are badly needed here, and clearly both are in terribly short supply in contemporary American politics.

Third, finally, the good side: Isn't technology doing precisely what we have always wanted, bringing down costs, increasing productivity and making lives easier for end users? This could translate, if we let it, if we use our heads, into an entirely new way of looking at how we work and earn a living. The first thought that comes to mind is a shorter work week, job sharing, and the base income you describe. Imagine technology allowing for a higher standard of living on the low end AND a 20-hour work week.

We could move towards a Jetsons-like future if we could just get along like adults.
.

Awesome.

Those who take the time to think about this will have to agree that we need to go in this direction. The way we think about how citizens earn a living is going to change........again.

We require only a fraction of the manpower we once needed to produce food....and we've got lots more mouths to feed. We made adjustments.

So...you made some very salient.....if obvious....points in that post.

Where you go wrong is where you often go wrong. You know as well as I do that one side of the political spectrum is more likely to endeavor to get along like adults and be open to making the needed adjustments. One side is more likely to dig their heels in and balk at the idea that people will be lazy freeloaders and it's tough titties if they can't make enough money to feed themselves and their families. One side is way more likely to "bumper stickerize" a given issue.

When one side acts the fool and doesn't have any intention of working with the other side....you just can't point fingers of condemnation at both sides.

Now....be sure and say that you predicted my reply and that I am a perfect example of someone who wants to politicize this issue. You know....because I responded to your comment about politicization.

I would much rather just not communicate with you, thanks.

Please stay on topic.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Jim, I've been thinking about this, and my little brain is going in a couple of different directions.

First, there will clearly continue to be significant short-term pain as we (ever so slowly) come to grips with the fact that millions of people are simply no longer needed at their jobs due to advances in technology. Their skills are literally becoming obsolete, more so by the day, and many of the them might very well never return to the income and productivity levels of their past. So it's incumbent on us to (a) recognize this cold fact, and (b) consciously choose to either help them in some way or let them founder and rot.

Second, my fear is that this process will take far longer than it has to, because it will inevitably become hyper-politicized like everything else - meaning over-simplified, dumbed down and bumper-stickerized by both political ends. The damage done while this process plays out will almost certainly be incalculable. Some out-of-the-box thinking and true intellectual curiosity are badly needed here, and clearly both are in terribly short supply in contemporary American politics.

Third, finally, the good side: Isn't technology doing precisely what we have always wanted, bringing down costs, increasing productivity and making lives easier for end users? This could translate, if we let it, if we use our heads, into an entirely new way of looking at how we work and earn a living. The first thought that comes to mind is a shorter work week, job sharing, and the base income you describe. Imagine technology allowing for a higher standard of living on the low end AND a 20-hour work week.

We could move towards a Jetsons-like future if we could just get along like adults.
.

Awesome.

Those who take the time to think about this will have to agree that we need to go in this direction. The way we think about how citizens earn a living is going to change........again.

We require only a fraction of the manpower we once needed to produce food....and we've got lots more mouths to feed. We made adjustments.

So...you made some very salient.....if obvious....points in that post.

Where you go wrong is where you often go wrong. You know as well as I do that one side of the political spectrum is more likely to endeavor to get along like adults and be open to making the needed adjustments. One side is more likely to dig their heels in and balk at the idea that people will be lazy freeloaders and it's tough titties if they can't make enough money to feed themselves and their families. One side is way more likely to "bumper stickerize" a given issue.

When one side acts the fool and doesn't have any intention of working with the other side....you just can't point fingers of condemnation at both sides.

Now....be sure and say that you predicted my reply and that I am a perfect example of someone who wants to politicize this issue. You know....because I responded to your comment about politicization.

I would much rather just not communicate with you, thanks.

Please stay on topic.
.

I am on topic. You brought up the topic. Maybe you should not bring up subjects that you don't want to discuss?

 

[Mac1958]

Star Trek is socialist fiction. That being said, if we could do most all of our manufacturing with replicators as on Star Trek, socialism might just work pretty well.

That's the thing. At some point we'll have to divorce our thinking from things like socialism and communism and look at the reality.

I don't see how this is not inevitable. There are millions of people who are being "technologied" out of the workforce. We can just let them rot or we can start looking at new ideas.

Socialism and communism, and even capitalism, could be becoming obsolete due to advances in technology.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First, there will clearly continue to be significant short-term pain as we (ever so slowly) come to grips with the fact that millions of people are simply no longer needed at their jobs due to advances in technology. Their skills are literally becoming obsolete, more so by the day, and many of the them might very well never return to the income and productivity levels of their past. So it's incumbent on us to (a) recognize this cold fact, and (b) consciously choose to either help them in some way or let them founder and rot.

I totally agree. This is an oncoming crisis and it seems few are even thinking about it.

Second, my fear is that this process will take far longer than it has to, because it will inevitably become hyper-politicized like everything else - meaning over-simplified, dumbed down and bumper-stickerized by both political ends. The damage done while this process plays out will almost certainly be incalculable. Some out-of-the-box thinking and true intellectual curiosity are badly needed here, and clearly both are in terribly short supply in contemporary American politics.

Yes, we simply MUST get back to the old paradigm of the Early Enlightenment Classic Liberal and Classic Conservative (Burke Conservative) engaging in open discussion and coming to resolutions that identify the interests of all parties and respect them. Our current polarized paradigm of the far right vrs the far left is taking us into a current heading to disaster as we cannot agree to let anyone take the rudder.

Edmund Burke was liberal enough in his day to support the American Revolution and yet conservative enough to oppose the French Revolution which he correctly identified as very different in essence and axioms. We need more of his kind of conservative, and more of the Jeffersonian kind of liberal.

Third, finally, the good side: Isn't technology doing precisely what we have always wanted, bringing down costs, increasing productivity and making lives easier for end users? This could translate, if we let it, if we use our heads, into an entirely new way of looking at how we work and earn a living. The first thought that comes to mind is a shorter work week, job sharing, and the base income you describe. Imagine technology allowing for a higher standard of living on the low end AND a 20-hour work week.

Again, I totally agree. We have a future Technological Utopia that will give us a life of leisure where people can make most of what they need and can barter for most of the rest with others who also make things. What cash will be needed could be obtained from the occasional part time job.

The challenge is getting us all from the present situation where so many of us depend on having a job and career for peace of mind, to the Utopia where this wont be necessary and not have an intervening civil war.

We could move towards a Jetsons-like future if we could just get along like adults.
.

Well some of us will see it, but just how many of us?

The more the merrier I say.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where you go wrong is where you often go wrong. You know as well as I do that one side of the political spectrum is more likely to endeavor to get along like adults and be open to making the needed adjustments. One side is more likely to dig their heels in and balk at the idea that people will be lazy freeloaders and it's tough titties if they can't make enough money to feed themselves and their families. One side is way more likely to "bumper stickerize" a given issue.

When one side acts the fool and doesn't have any intention of working with the other side....you just can't point fingers of condemnation at both sides.

Now....be sure and say that you predicted my reply and that I am a perfect example of someone who wants to politicize this issue. You know....because I responded to your comment about politicization.

And you really think that your attitude here is conducive to reasonable discussion with that polarizing rhetoric that casts ALL the blame on one side?

You need to open your eyes and realize that the side that shuts down discussion of almost any topic with accusations of racism and homophobia is as much in the wrong as their opposites who think everyone else is a lazy bum.