Secretary Clinton almost ran for president on universal basic income

[danielpalos]

Bah, hum bug; it really is all the right wing has.

 

[danielpalos]

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.

So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?

Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.

Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).

I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?

You're correct, It is "self-evident" that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and thus are left with only one option; attempting truth avoidance by way of obfuscation, unfortunately for you your efforts are transparent.

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!" -- Patches O'Houlihan, Dodge Ball

They name streets after right wingers, they are called; one way.

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

 

[NightFox]

So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?

Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.

Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).

I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?

You're correct, It is "self-evident" that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and thus are left with only one option; attempting truth avoidance by way of obfuscation, unfortunately for you your efforts are transparent.

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!" -- Patches O'Houlihan, Dodge Ball

They name streets after right wingers, they are called; one way.

Cool story bro.... too bad it's completely irrelevant.

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Uh-huh, and what if tadpole turds where made of solid gold? Is it wish upon a star hour in your kindergarten class or sumptin'?

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

Given your responses so far, I suspect that you don't understand what "full employment of capital resources in our Republic" or "Wealth of Nations" means, however I remain open to the slight possibility that you might prove me wrong.

In the meantime allow me to express my appreciate for the laughs you've provided so far.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.

Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).

I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?

You're correct, It is "self-evident" that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and thus are left with only one option; attempting truth avoidance by way of obfuscation, unfortunately for you your efforts are transparent.

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!" -- Patches O'Houlihan, Dodge Ball

They name streets after right wingers, they are called; one way.

Cool story bro.... too bad it's completely irrelevant.

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Uh-huh, and what if tadpole turds where made of solid gold? Is it wish upon a star hour in your kindergarten class or sumptin'?

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

Given your responses so far, I suspect that you don't understand what "full employment of capital resources in our Republic" or "Wealth of Nations" means, however I remain open to the slight possibility that you might prove me wrong.

In the meantime allow me to express my appreciate for the laughs you've provided so far.

Nothing but rejection is simple fallacy. All you have is Your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate your opinion, with a valid argument.

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States.

 

[NightFox]

Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).

I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?

You're correct, It is "self-evident" that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and thus are left with only one option; attempting truth avoidance by way of obfuscation, unfortunately for you your efforts are transparent.

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!" -- Patches O'Houlihan, Dodge Ball

They name streets after right wingers, they are called; one way.

Cool story bro.... too bad it's completely irrelevant.

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Uh-huh, and what if tadpole turds where made of solid gold? Is it wish upon a star hour in your kindergarten class or sumptin'?

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

Given your responses so far, I suspect that you don't understand what "full employment of capital resources in our Republic" or "Wealth of Nations" means, however I remain open to the slight possibility that you might prove me wrong.

In the meantime allow me to express my appreciate for the laughs you've provided so far.

Nothing but rejection is simple fallacy. All you have is Your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate your opinion, with a valid argument.

Hate to break it to you Professor but you're the one that's put forth unsubstantiated opinion and have yet to produce anything even resembling an argument, which is why I asked you to back up your assertions in the first place, so far you've failed in that enterprise miserably by offering nothing by non sequitur garbage in an apparent attempt to distract from the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

For your edification let me refresh your memory regarding what I originally asked:

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.

So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?

Are you going to answer the questions I asked in response to your unfounded assertions or are you going to continue to attempt to throw up nonsensical word salad pursuant to obfuscation and leave no doubt that you're out of your depth?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in our at-will employment States can correct for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.

 

[BulletProof]

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

There are millions of people who would refuse to work with your generous payouts to non-workers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And then they would prefer the programs back AND universal basic income.

Could have them sign a waiver when they pick up their check, forfeiting any other claims on the federal government and US tax payers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

dear, only wo-men use that type of logic.
Even State Capitalism, is form of socialism.

Your future is AIDS and living out your final days a boring little twit.

There is a cure for AIDs in the FDA pipeline, IIRC.

 

[FA_Q2]

How much would universal income be?

Here is what the federal government currently considers to be the poverty level:

• $12,060 for individuals
• $16,240 for a family of 2
• $20,420 for a family of 3
• $24,600 for a family of 4
• $28,780 for a family of 5
• $32,960 for a family of 6
• $37,140 for a family of 7
• $41,320 for a family of 8

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - HealthCare.gov Glossary

No. That defeats the idea of a universal income.

You do not set an amount based on family size - you set an amount based on every adult above X age gets Y per year.

 

[FA_Q2]

That would have tripled unemployment.

That is somewhat the point.

There is a real problem when efficiency starts to make human labor a relic of the past. As more and more compete for fewer and fewer jobs the compensation for that work becomes pitiful and people are left with little to no power in deciding their own lives. Universal income is supposed to help address that reality by shifting the demand for labor.


What I find truly laughable about this thread is that the idea of a universal income comes out of the RIGHT WING, not the left. It is inherently against the left mantra of dividing and choosing who gets what - a universal income is truly universal and flat no matter who or how successful you are.


One more instance of Hillary actually showing that she was likely further right than Trump...

 

[FA_Q2]

I can tell none of you tards watched the video.

Willful blindness and stupidity. You are all talking out of your asses about a subject you know nothing about.

And you are surprised?

 

[martybegan]

And then they would prefer the programs back AND universal basic income.

Could have them sign a waiver when they pick up their check, forfeiting any other claims on the federal government and US tax payers.

that would last as long as congress felt like overturning the waivers.

Short of an amendment defining the exact terms it would just increase government, not decrease it.

 

[Freewill]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs.

There are several approaches to mitigate that sort of thing.

1) Dont give the UBI all in cash, but give say two thirds of it in credit accounts toward food, shelter a clothing stipend and other necessities.

2) Use biometric confirmation that the person is who the funds were given for. This would make it much more difficult to trade for drugs.

3) Private charities would still operate, so the drug addict would not simply die if the government cannot provide additional funding.

4) As inept as Congress is, amendments to the law to make it so that drug addicts and other irresponsible people get more money are less likely to happen, at least not quickly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

she didn't do it because the numbers didn't add up. thoughts?

Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income

The more Secretary Clinton goes on TV and promotes her wonderful election loss, people in the middle say: "Oh wow, thats why I voted Trump"

Actually, the Liberal scam....just like all the others.....has been shown to be a failure.

1. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

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

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



In short.....everything Liberals touch turns to .....mud.

 

[danielpalos]

What if, a Person could apply for unemployment compensation that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than any statutory minimum wage, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

All we need do is ensure full employment of capital resources in our Republic, to better create, a Wealth of Nations.

There are millions of people who would refuse to work with your generous payouts to non-workers.

Supply and demand are economic Laws; don't be, "illegal" to the law.

 

[danielpalos]

That would have tripled unemployment.

That is somewhat the point.

There is a real problem when efficiency starts to make human labor a relic of the past. As more and more compete for fewer and fewer jobs the compensation for that work becomes pitiful and people are left with little to no power in deciding their own lives. Universal income is supposed to help address that reality by shifting the demand for labor.


What I find truly laughable about this thread is that the idea of a universal income comes out of the RIGHT WING, not the left. It is inherently against the left mantra of dividing and choosing who gets what - a universal income is truly universal and flat no matter who or how successful you are.


One more instance of Hillary actually showing that she was likely further right than Trump...

Simply reserving labor from that market should not hamper gains in efficiency as capital will have to seek gains from efficiency, rather than simply, "make it on the back of cheap labor."

 

[danielpalos]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

Why? Anyone with any income would be better able to participate in our markets.

 

[danielpalos]

she didn't do it because the numbers didn't add up. thoughts?

Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income

The more Secretary Clinton goes on TV and promotes her wonderful election loss, people in the middle say: "Oh wow, thats why I voted Trump"

Actually, the Liberal scam....just like all the others.....has been shown to be a failure.

1. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

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

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



In short.....everything Liberals touch turns to .....mud.

How long were the studies? It takes time to learn how to merely use capital, for all of its worth.