Claire McCaskill Rips into Lying Hatch over tax plan for people making $50,000 or less..

[Missouri_Mike]

More lies and dishonesty from the reprehensible right.

The Republican plan is in fact bad for middle class Americans:

‘Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)…explained, accurately, that the Senate GOP tax plan isn’t intended to help the middle class; it’s written to benefit the richest Americans.
[…]
Brown’s argument was, at its core, substantive: non-partisan analyses of the Senate Republican tax plan make clear that it would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families. That’s not some lazy “political play”; it’s an argument backed up by evidence.’

A senatorial clash that explains what's wrong with the tax fight

Why does a tax plan have to benefit anyone to be acceptable? The middle class wants new roads, healthcare etc.Just like everyone else. Why would they think they shouldn't pay for it but the rich should?

I've never got this part of the liberal mind set. We want all of this free government shit but don't want to be the ones to pay for it. How can that possibly work?

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

More lies and dishonesty from the reprehensible right.

The Republican plan is in fact bad for middle class Americans:

‘Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)…explained, accurately, that the Senate GOP tax plan isn’t intended to help the middle class; it’s written to benefit the richest Americans.
[…]
Brown’s argument was, at its core, substantive: non-partisan analyses of the Senate Republican tax plan make clear that it would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families. That’s not some lazy “political play”; it’s an argument backed up by evidence.’

A senatorial clash that explains what's wrong with the tax fight

Why does a tax plan have to benefit anyone to be acceptable? The middle class wants new roads, healthcare etc.Just like everyone else. Why would they think they shouldn't pay for it but the rich should?

I've never got this part of the liberal mind set. We want all of this free government shit but don't want to be the ones to pay for it. How can that possibly work?

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Why does a tax plan have to benefit anyone to be acceptable? The middle class wants new roads, healthcare etc.Just like everyone else. Why would they think they shouldn't pay for it but the rich should?

I've never got this part of the liberal mind set. We want all of this free government shit but don't want to be the ones to pay for it. How can that possibly work?

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

You sure have a skewed vision of people and how they react. People in general do not take the government money and further themselves. They take the money and settle into whatever life style they can within those limits. We've seen this with blacks over the last 50 years. A few get out and do some good but are then called uncle tom's for doing so. Meanwhile the majority sit back and just collect the checks.

Can you imagine the amount of laziness if everyone in the country got that? No motivation. No benefit to going to school or work since all you have to do is hang out with your friends getting the same amount of money.

I like your last line. If you start young enough you can work toward retirement. They began life in retirement. You give them a life time pension with a basic income. And you think the majority will actually go to work above and beyond that?

 

[Lewdog]

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

You sure have a skewed vision of people and how they react. People in general do not take the government money and further themselves. They take the money and settle into whatever life style they can within those limits. We've seen this with blacks over the last 50 years. A few get out and do some good but are then called uncle tom's for doing so. Meanwhile the majority sit back and just collect the checks.

Can you imagine the amount of laziness if everyone in the country got that? No motivation. No benefit to going to school or work since all you have to do is hang out with your friends getting the same amount of money.

I like your last line. If you start young enough you can work toward retirement. They began life in retirement. You give them a life time pension with a basic income. And you think the majority will actually go to work above and beyond that?

I think you are missing the point. By doing this, you are cutting a ton of fat in the way of several programs and creating ONE section of government that simply takes care of the Universal Income. No more HUD, SNAP, SSI, SS, Medicare, Medicaid... all kinds of departments gone.

You get a check each month, you pay your own bills. If you want to live a better life, you get a job to make extra money.

 

[Lewdog]

Why does a tax plan have to benefit anyone to be acceptable? The middle class wants new roads, healthcare etc.Just like everyone else. Why would they think they shouldn't pay for it but the rich should?

I've never got this part of the liberal mind set. We want all of this free government shit but don't want to be the ones to pay for it. How can that possibly work?

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

You sure have a skewed vision of people and how they react. People in general do not take the government money and further themselves. They take the money and settle into whatever life style they can within those limits. We've seen this with blacks over the last 50 years. A few get out and do some good but are then called uncle tom's for doing so. Meanwhile the majority sit back and just collect the checks.

Can you imagine the amount of laziness if everyone in the country got that? No motivation. No benefit to going to school or work since all you have to do is hang out with your friends getting the same amount of money.

I like your last line. If you start young enough you can work toward retirement. They began life in retirement. You give them a life time pension with a basic income. And you think the majority will actually go to work above and beyond that?

Actually, yes I do. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times, if you pay people to be irresponsible, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.

Our social programs teach exactly that: be irresponsible. If you remember back after the Republicans instituted Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. People had to work to better themselves, and working harder and earning more money was a new reward for them; a reward most middle-class people experience all of their lives.

One of the biggest problems we have with our children is many are born into single-family households. Single family households are directly related to poverty. If a couple that desires to have a family had a combined income of 36K a year, that's hardly enough to raise a family on when you consider rent, health insurance, utilities, conveniences like cable or satellite television, cell phones and so on. But it's all up to the individual instead of the politicians or taxpayers. If you can sit home for 36K a year, fine with me. You'll have to live in a lower income area and I'll be able to get some sleep at night. It would encourage people to make more money because the money they make would have no effect on what government gives them. 18K a year is all you get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

On the other hand, why does Trump and his pals benefit from this plan, don't they drive the same roads Mike?... I mean how much money does someone need .. Many of these fat cats got rich off of the backs of the middle class.. So your point fails..

.

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

You sure have a skewed vision of people and how they react. People in general do not take the government money and further themselves. They take the money and settle into whatever life style they can within those limits. We've seen this with blacks over the last 50 years. A few get out and do some good but are then called uncle tom's for doing so. Meanwhile the majority sit back and just collect the checks.

Can you imagine the amount of laziness if everyone in the country got that? No motivation. No benefit to going to school or work since all you have to do is hang out with your friends getting the same amount of money.

I like your last line. If you start young enough you can work toward retirement. They began life in retirement. You give them a life time pension with a basic income. And you think the majority will actually go to work above and beyond that?

I think you are missing the point. By doing this, you are cutting a ton of fat in the way of several programs and creating ONE section of government that simply takes care of the Universal Income. No more HUD, SNAP, SSI, SS, Medicare, Medicaid... all kinds of departments gone.

You get a check each month, you pay your own bills. If you want to live a better life, you get a job to make extra money.

Plus think of all the government jobs that would eliminate. That alone would save taxpayers a ton of money.

 

[Lewdog]

So we should have a limit to how much money you can have. Well then, how much should that be?

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what do you think of the idea of getting rid of all social welfare programs, and just have universal income for all? Then people would be responsible for having to buy all their necessities out of that income, and they could still work and it wouldn't affect it, but then everything would be totally capitalistic, as you'd not have co-pays, or food stamps, or HUD, or anything like that. But with taxes, it would still be tiered so that the more money you made over your universal income, you'd pay a higher tax percentage.

Think of all the government fat that would cut...

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

 

[Lewdog]

How do you cut government fat by basically putting everyone on welfare? The working people would be the first ones the left would decide didn't need that much basic income. Then the lazy would demand theirs wasn't enough to live on.

Holy shit. No. Bad idea.

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

if you got rid of all our social programs, it would probably save us money.

Basic Income would be the same for everybody whether you worked 60 hours a week or just stayed home learning how to use your Obama Phone. I believe the model they had in Switzerland was equal to something like 18K over here. They voted it down BTW.

The way I see it, it would solve many social program problems we have today with our system.

For instance, our system rewards people for not working. As long as you make less than X amount per month, you continue to receive your food stamps. Working more is like working for free because anything you make over X amount is deducted from your stipend. So lower income people decline the opportunity to make more money whether it's not looking for a better opportunity or working more hours if offered.

An end to social engineering: I have HUD people living in my suburb; in fact, right next door to me. Why is it I have to work everyday to live here while they mostly sit home and able to live right next door? They come home all hours of the morning (since they don't have to get up for work) and wake me and my tenants up at 2;30am on work nights drunk on their asses setting their car alarms. Government puts them here assuming the good will have an affect on the bad. The more kids you have, the larger HUD home in the suburb you get. Basic Income would not allow them the opportunity to live here. They wouldn't be able to afford it without HUD unless they worked and made the additional money on top of their BI.

For the working, that extra money could really solve some current problems we've been trying to solve. For instance medical coverage. Many people still can't afford health insurance today in spite of Commie Care. 18K a year on top of your earnings would give most more than enough to get that coverage. Or perhaps college for your kids is a problem; not with basic income. You can use that money to provide your kids with that education they desire. Once they become adults, they too get a 18K check every year. They can use that check for their advanced education, and contributions from your 18K would make it more than affordable.

If these are not issues for you and your family, you could use your check to payoff your mortgage early, invest for your retirement or elderly age medical care since there would be no SS or Medicare. If you start young enough, you could be working towards an early retirement only available today for those that work for the government.

There are very few downsides to basic income.

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

 

[Lewdog]

This year Finland is doing an experiment with it.

Finland basic income: 2,000 citizens getting guaranteed income of $587/month

Of course I can't see how anyone could afford to live off $587 a month.

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess that would depend on the cost of living there. Here in my area, you can live somewhat comfortably on 40 to 50K a year for a single person. In the NE states, you'd be living in poverty.

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

Very well. We give people "land." Now what are they going to do with that land if they don't have money to build on it? The government gives you land 300 miles away from where you live now. Are you going to move there? The liberal argument behind Voter-ID is that black people can't figure out how to get to a facility 5 miles away to obtain a voter-id.

If we give everybody an acre of land, what do we do with the 1/8 acre properties in the city? What advantage is it to give a person an acre of land they can't pay the property tax on?

It just doesn't make sense. Hey......I'm a landlord, and I can tell you the hell we went through during the housing bubble. We couldn't find tenants for anything; everybody was buying their own home with 0% down and no credit check. What would we do if the government just gave away land? It would create too many problems.

 

[Lewdog]

Well personally I wouldn't be opposed to a form of homesteading as well. Give each person either an acre or half acre of land... and if people decide against taking that, maybe an amount of money. If that happened, you would never have to hear about reparations ever again, and it could be said everyone started out on fresh footing.

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

Very well. We give people "land." Now what are they going to do with that land if they don't have money to build on it? The government gives you land 300 miles away from where you live now. Are you going to move there? The liberal argument behind Voter-ID is that black people can't figure out how to get to a facility 5 miles away to obtain a voter-id.

If we give everybody an acre of land, what do we do with the 1/8 acre properties in the city? What advantage is it to give a person an acre of land they can't pay the property tax on?

It just doesn't make sense. Hey......I'm a landlord, and I can tell you the hell we went through during the housing bubble. We couldn't find tenants for anything; everybody was buying their own home with 0% down and no credit check. What would we do if the government just gave away land? It would create too many problems.

It could solve a lot of issues. We need people to move out of the cities and start homesteading elsewhere. Large cities with more people than jobs, is why the country is in the mess it is now. What we need is better infrastructure and lower population density problems.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The government doesn't own all the land in this country. If government were to do that, they would have to purchase land from private owners, and that would be impossible.

Reparations is a stupid concept. Why should people living today have to make reparations for people that lived over 100 years ago or more? Your life starts the day you were born--not when your great, great grandparents were born. As for poverty, my white father could tell you stories about his upbringing that would make you cry. He lived in a house the size of a three car garage with his five other siblings. They had no electricity or plumbing. Going to an outhouse in the summer was not a problem. Try doing that in the winter up north when it's -10 degrees outside and the wind blowing at 25 mph. He said he joined the military just so he could eat three meals a day.

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

Very well. We give people "land." Now what are they going to do with that land if they don't have money to build on it? The government gives you land 300 miles away from where you live now. Are you going to move there? The liberal argument behind Voter-ID is that black people can't figure out how to get to a facility 5 miles away to obtain a voter-id.

If we give everybody an acre of land, what do we do with the 1/8 acre properties in the city? What advantage is it to give a person an acre of land they can't pay the property tax on?

It just doesn't make sense. Hey......I'm a landlord, and I can tell you the hell we went through during the housing bubble. We couldn't find tenants for anything; everybody was buying their own home with 0% down and no credit check. What would we do if the government just gave away land? It would create too many problems.

It could solve a lot of issues. We need people to move out of the cities and start homesteading elsewhere. Large cities with more people than jobs, is why the country is in the mess it is now. What we need is better infrastructure and lower population density problems.

Most of the jobs are in large cities. Trust me, I'm a truck driver, I know these things. When we discuss getting off of social programs, the liberals constantly bring up those living in rural areas where there are no jobs or transportation.

The rental market today is super red hot and has been the last several years. There aren't enough rental units to go around. This caused a huge increase in apartment prices. Why is that? Because people that purchased their own homes during the bubble and bust found out that home ownership is not for everybody. It only sounds good on paper.

As a home owner, you have many more issues to deal with than a renter. What do you do when your hot water tank dies? What do you do when your ceiling is getting water because you need a new roof? What do you do when the water is coming from a sewer pipe instead of the roof from the second floor?

Many people today (particularly the younger people) just don't want to deal with these problems. They opt to rent because of convenience. They don't want to deal with lawn care, they don't want to deal with snow removal, they don't want to deal with electrical or plumbing issues. They don't want to fight with the city because they insist of a sidewalk replacement.

You can't just give people land and say "here you go, it's your problem now" because there are a lot of people today that don't want to deal with that problem.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Claire verbally beat up the old man: good on her.

You forgot to add Mormon which everyone on this forum knows you have a axe to grind with

 

[Lewdog]

The government still owns tons of land.

My grandparents who raised me had an outhouse when I was a kid... so yeah I know all about poverty.

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

Very well. We give people "land." Now what are they going to do with that land if they don't have money to build on it? The government gives you land 300 miles away from where you live now. Are you going to move there? The liberal argument behind Voter-ID is that black people can't figure out how to get to a facility 5 miles away to obtain a voter-id.

If we give everybody an acre of land, what do we do with the 1/8 acre properties in the city? What advantage is it to give a person an acre of land they can't pay the property tax on?

It just doesn't make sense. Hey......I'm a landlord, and I can tell you the hell we went through during the housing bubble. We couldn't find tenants for anything; everybody was buying their own home with 0% down and no credit check. What would we do if the government just gave away land? It would create too many problems.

It could solve a lot of issues. We need people to move out of the cities and start homesteading elsewhere. Large cities with more people than jobs, is why the country is in the mess it is now. What we need is better infrastructure and lower population density problems.

Most of the jobs are in large cities. Trust me, I'm a truck driver, I know these things. When we discuss getting off of social programs, the liberals constantly bring up those living in rural areas where there are no jobs or transportation.

The rental market today is super red hot and has been the last several years. There aren't enough rental units to go around. This caused a huge increase in apartment prices. Why is that? Because people that purchased their own homes during the bubble and bust found out that home ownership is not for everybody. It only sounds good on paper.

As a home owner, you have many more issues to deal with than a renter. What do you do when your hot water tank dies? What do you do when your ceiling is getting water because you need a new roof? What do you do when the water is coming from a sewer pipe instead of the roof from the second floor?

Many people today (particularly the younger people) just don't want to deal with these problems. They opt to rent because of convenience. They don't want to deal with lawn care, they don't want to deal with snow removal, they don't want to deal with electrical or plumbing issues. They don't want to fight with the city because they insist of a sidewalk replacement.

You can't just give people land and say "here you go, it's your problem now" because there are a lot of people today that don't want to deal with that problem.

No. In large cities there are more people than jobs. That's why there is more crime in large cities. Population density is the cause of most major social problems we face today.

 

[Old Rocks]

More lies and dishonesty from the reprehensible right.

The Republican plan is in fact bad for middle class Americans:

‘Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)…explained, accurately, that the Senate GOP tax plan isn’t intended to help the middle class; it’s written to benefit the richest Americans.
[…]
Brown’s argument was, at its core, substantive: non-partisan analyses of the Senate Republican tax plan make clear that it would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families. That’s not some lazy “political play”; it’s an argument backed up by evidence.’

A senatorial clash that explains what's wrong with the tax fight

Why does a tax plan have to benefit anyone to be acceptable? The middle class wants new roads, healthcare etc.Just like everyone else. Why would they think they shouldn't pay for it but the rich should?

I've never got this part of the liberal mind set. We want all of this free government shit but don't want to be the ones to pay for it. How can that possibly work?

Well now, when Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than does Buffet, then something is seriously wrong with tax system. The very wealthy should be paying the actual tax rate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay then. The point I'm making is that poverty of our ancestors doesn't reflect on your plight today. So I don't buy into this notion that blacks are entitled to any reparations. Black communities fail because of their own actions today--not of actions many years before they were born. After all, over 70% of black children born today are out of wedlock, and many of them in single-family homes.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

You're missing the point. I'm not saying to give them reparations. I'm saying by doing the homesteading it would get rid of the argument once and for all.

Very well. We give people "land." Now what are they going to do with that land if they don't have money to build on it? The government gives you land 300 miles away from where you live now. Are you going to move there? The liberal argument behind Voter-ID is that black people can't figure out how to get to a facility 5 miles away to obtain a voter-id.

If we give everybody an acre of land, what do we do with the 1/8 acre properties in the city? What advantage is it to give a person an acre of land they can't pay the property tax on?

It just doesn't make sense. Hey......I'm a landlord, and I can tell you the hell we went through during the housing bubble. We couldn't find tenants for anything; everybody was buying their own home with 0% down and no credit check. What would we do if the government just gave away land? It would create too many problems.

It could solve a lot of issues. We need people to move out of the cities and start homesteading elsewhere. Large cities with more people than jobs, is why the country is in the mess it is now. What we need is better infrastructure and lower population density problems.

Most of the jobs are in large cities. Trust me, I'm a truck driver, I know these things. When we discuss getting off of social programs, the liberals constantly bring up those living in rural areas where there are no jobs or transportation.

The rental market today is super red hot and has been the last several years. There aren't enough rental units to go around. This caused a huge increase in apartment prices. Why is that? Because people that purchased their own homes during the bubble and bust found out that home ownership is not for everybody. It only sounds good on paper.

As a home owner, you have many more issues to deal with than a renter. What do you do when your hot water tank dies? What do you do when your ceiling is getting water because you need a new roof? What do you do when the water is coming from a sewer pipe instead of the roof from the second floor?

Many people today (particularly the younger people) just don't want to deal with these problems. They opt to rent because of convenience. They don't want to deal with lawn care, they don't want to deal with snow removal, they don't want to deal with electrical or plumbing issues. They don't want to fight with the city because they insist of a sidewalk replacement.

You can't just give people land and say "here you go, it's your problem now" because there are a lot of people today that don't want to deal with that problem.

No. In large cities there are more people than jobs. That's why there is more crime in large cities. Population density is the cause of most major social problems we face today.

Living in the city I totally disagree. I work in industrial areas all day long. I can't tell you how many companies have HELP WANTED signs in front of their businesses. It's not just one or two places in an industrial complex. Many times it's dozens of places.

Our customers frequently ask me if I know anybody looking for a job? They can't find workers for anything.

In small towns you don't see this as much because there are more people than jobs. This is because few businesses open up in small towns. Transportation costs are too high and they are too far away from their customers.

So I think you have it quite the opposite. If you are in need of a job, your best bet is to look in a city than the country.