Tulsi: We Now Need Universal Income

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think she's an airhead, I do disagree with her politics though. She's only staying in the race to antagonize the others.

I think Tulsi is still in it cuz she thinks Biden's health may fail or he might be indicted at some point so she might be the one left standing who is not a socialist. Or maybe she gets the nod to be on the Dem ticket as the VP.

I think if Biden is nominated, he'll have to pick a woman, but a woman of color. I would bet on Harris or somebody like that.

Barbara Jordan was the last intelligent black woman in the democrat party

and she died a long time ago

Harris can't be too dumb. She was a district attorney if I'm remembering correctly.

That doesent necessarily make her smart

I watched a few of her interviews. In fact, she was on Laura's show Thursday night. She's no AOC by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think it could replace an income unless you work at Walmart stocking shelves. But I always found it an interesting concept if we removed all social programs and replaced it with UI. It would solve so many problems in this country, and this coming from a conservative.

How would it solve them?

I presented a few of them in post 29.

Yeah
No.

The reason these people have no money is they cant handle spending wisely.
Just more money to throw away won't help.

I think it can. Our social programs prevent people from making money to stay on the dole. Without such limitations, people might be more inspired to make money.

In a perfect world, maybe.
With no net, we will have to step over dead bodies to get home each day, because there will still be life's losers
While I would be fine with that,
The ******* progressives simply would lose their minds.
Need real world solutions.

I'm not suggesting it would be without fault. I just think it would solve a lot of problems we currently face. The working people can't ***** about the non-working sucking in tax money. The non-working can't complain about working people having too much money. Nobody could say they can't afford healthcare or college for their children. It would stop the practice of having more babies for bigger welfare checks and HUD homes; people could buy condoms or get fixed instead. We have 74 million Americans on Medicaid now. There would be no Medicaid with universal income. With a private retirement account, if you pass away prematurely, all that money goes to your family instead of government to help support the program.

 

[MarathonMike]

Multiple lawmakers have proposed economic stimulus packages and universal basic income programs as the coronavirus begins to take a larger toll on the American economy.

On Friday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a 2020 presidential candidate, introduced a resolution that would provide an income of $1,000 a month to every American “until COVID-19 no longer presents a public health emergency.”

In an effort to stop the spread of the virus, the U.S. has imposed travel bans on several countries hardest-hit by the pandemic, and dozens of large events and conferences have been canceled or postponed.

Lawmakers call for universal basic income amid coronavirus crisis

As Democrats use this unfortunate situation to promote their political agenda, and attempt to create more government dependents, Universal Income is now being thrown out there. $1,000 a month to every American? Does that include children? How would handing every American a thousand bucks a month help with COVID 19?

I'm sure most people cannot quit their job or stay home from work getting $1,000 a month, so what exactly is this money, handed out by the federal government now 23 trillion dollars in debt, supposed to do for the people? Who declares when this public health emergency has ended?

I've talked about UI before, but only in light of replacing all social programs, which in the long run would save the government money. But to pass out money like candy at Halloween is just a ridiculous idea. But as the Democrats believe, never let a good crisis go to waste.

The interest on our debt is already approaching 10% of our Federal revenue. Giving everyone $1000 a month in addition to all the other Federal assistance programs is insanity. Are we just assuming that since we are the world's reserve currency we are too big too fail and we can just keep printing money? What is the thought process here?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Giving everyone $1000 a month in addition to all the other Federal assistance programs is insanity.

Unless we pay for it. You forgot that part.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Multiple lawmakers have proposed economic stimulus packages and universal basic income programs as the coronavirus begins to take a larger toll on the American economy.

On Friday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a 2020 presidential candidate, introduced a resolution that would provide an income of $1,000 a month to every American “until COVID-19 no longer presents a public health emergency.”

In an effort to stop the spread of the virus, the U.S. has imposed travel bans on several countries hardest-hit by the pandemic, and dozens of large events and conferences have been canceled or postponed.

Lawmakers call for universal basic income amid coronavirus crisis

As Democrats use this unfortunate situation to promote their political agenda, and attempt to create more government dependents, Universal Income is now being thrown out there. $1,000 a month to every American? Does that include children? How would handing every American a thousand bucks a month help with COVID 19?

I'm sure most people cannot quit their job or stay home from work getting $1,000 a month, so what exactly is this money, handed out by the federal government now 23 trillion dollars in debt, supposed to do for the people? Who declares when this public health emergency has ended?

I've talked about UI before, but only in light of replacing all social programs, which in the long run would save the government money. But to pass out money like candy at Halloween is just a ridiculous idea. But as the Democrats believe, never let a good crisis go to waste.

The interest on our debt is already approaching 10% of our Federal revenue. Giving everyone $1000 a month in addition to all the other Federal assistance programs is insanity. Are we just assuming that since we are the world's reserve currency we are too big too fail and we can just keep printing money? What is the thought process here?

That's what I asked in the OP. I can't follow her logic on this, not that it stands a chance in hell of happening.

Giving me a thousand bucks a month is not going to get me to go to the ballpark, or go to a movie theater, or go to a casino. It's not going to support somebody staying home instead of going to work. So what is this money supposed to do exactly when it comes to the coronavirus?

 

[BluesLegend]

All receiving 'universal income' need to perform 40 hours a week of community service, deal? Plenty of trash to pick up along highways.

 

[BluesLegend]

$1000 a month for every man, woman, and child in America will cost $4 trillion a year.

 

[task0778]

This income idea has interesting facets, but it has somehow escaped fully convincing me.
I have another, very different economic concept that I've never seen economists discuss. From my own understanding (and, technically, it is true I have taught university level economics in Paris), it is a viable system that creates enormous wealth for middle and under population segments without touching the money supply. It would be an essentially non-government program more like a bank or credit institution. Another attribute is that it would entwine the value of life with buying power, thus being a constant societal reminder of what value is based upon. It would establish a direct business link between the rich and the poor.
No one (of the rare people) I've tried to explain this too has quite understood. Apparently, more attention will have to be given to clear and simple description.

I am struggling big time trying to see your side of the issue. How is it viable to give out $200 - $300 billion dollars every month? That's the idea, right? Do you believe the debt can be run up by that much that fast and monetize it all? And it's from the gov't directly or indirectly, how is that not a gov't program? Without touching the money supply, are you sure? It's gotta show up somewhere on the gov'ts balance sheet. It ain't hard currency, but it's gotta be driving up inflation. And banks and credit unions don't give out money without a debt to be paid back plus interest, did I miss that part?

Entwine the value of life with buying power, that is pure rubbish IMHO. The value of life has absolutely NOTHING to do with the value of anyone's life. The richest person's life has no more value than the poorest. Pretty rich coming from people that support abortion right to birth and even sometimes after. A direct business link between rich and poor? And you taught economics at a university level?

What you and Tulsi are talking about is redistribution of wealth, pure and simple. Temporary, she says. But you're talking permanently I think.

From the OP:

But some members say a universal basic income is needed to prevent lasting economic damage.

“The coronavirus pandemic has created a threat to the health and well-being of the American people, as well as to our country’s economic stability,” Gabbard said in a statement. “While some in Washington are focused on taking care of Wall Street, everyday Americans get left behind. That’s wrong. … Taking care of all Americans will stimulate our economy during this downturn.”

Economist Nouriel Roubini backed the idea in a tweet Friday, suggesting that it be financed with bonds and monetized by the Federal Reserve.

Now I don't know what he means by financed with bonds and monetized by the federal reserve, but this is what the economist is suggesting.

Tulsi's resolution says this:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— (1) the Federal Government should create and provide an emergency Universal Basic Payment of $1,000 per month available to all Americans until the Department of Health and Human Services declares that the COVID–19 outbreak no longer presents a public health emergency; (2) the Universal Basic Payment should be a temporary economic stimulus package aimed to empower Americans directly and immediately; and (3) the Payment should be made to every United States citizen above the age of 18 years and should be nontaxable.

When people get their SSA check every month, it doesn't come from the Fed, it comes from the US Treasury, courtesy of the SSA. It is real, spendable money and it therefore increases the money supply. Same thing with this UBI, a check is going to come from the Treasury to each citizen who is 18 or over; I don't know off-hand how many people we have who are 18 or over, but if it's one half of the populations then that's 160 million. So, we're talking about raising the debt by $160 billion dollars every month until the pandemic is declared over.

Admittedly, I ain't no economist, but it's hard to see how we can add that much new debt on top of what we already have. Who's gonna buy it, and at what interest rate? How long will it be until the US is spending more to service it's debt than anything else?

Are we going to do this every time from now on when we have a new virus, next year and beyond? How long will it take to become law and how long will it take to find the eligibles vs non-eligibles? How long will it take to crank up the money machine for this and make it happen? With any luck, the CV thing might be over by then.

Are we going to do this again for other reasons, like another recession or depression? Is it really viable over the long run? I'll be straight up honest about it, I think this idea stinks of politics. Another ridiculous idea that is irresponsible.

 

[Norman]

She is smarter than Biden, but this absolutely stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This income idea has interesting facets, but it has somehow escaped fully convincing me.
I have another, very different economic concept that I've never seen economists discuss. From my own understanding (and, technically, it is true I have taught university level economics in Paris), it is a viable system that creates enormous wealth for middle and under population segments without touching the money supply. It would be an essentially non-government program more like a bank or credit institution. Another attribute is that it would entwine the value of life with buying power, thus being a constant societal reminder of what value is based upon. It would establish a direct business link between the rich and the poor.
No one (of the rare people) I've tried to explain this too has quite understood. Apparently, more attention will have to be given to clear and simple description.

I am struggling big time trying to see your side of the issue. How is it viable to give out $200 - $300 billion dollars every month? That's the idea, right? Do you believe the debt can be run up by that much that fast and monetize it all? And it's from the gov't directly or indirectly, how is that not a gov't program? Without touching the money supply, are you sure? It's gotta show up somewhere on the gov'ts balance sheet. It ain't hard currency, but it's gotta be driving up inflation. And banks and credit unions don't give out money without a debt to be paid back plus interest, did I miss that part?

Entwine the value of life with buying power, that is pure rubbish IMHO. The value of life has absolutely NOTHING to do with the value of anyone's life. The richest person's life has no more value than the poorest. Pretty rich coming from people that support abortion right to birth and even sometimes after. A direct business link between rich and poor? And you taught economics at a university level?

What you and Tulsi are talking about is redistribution of wealth, pure and simple. Temporary, she says. But you're talking permanently I think.

From the OP:

But some members say a universal basic income is needed to prevent lasting economic damage.

“The coronavirus pandemic has created a threat to the health and well-being of the American people, as well as to our country’s economic stability,” Gabbard said in a statement. “While some in Washington are focused on taking care of Wall Street, everyday Americans get left behind. That’s wrong. … Taking care of all Americans will stimulate our economy during this downturn.”

Economist Nouriel Roubini backed the idea in a tweet Friday, suggesting that it be financed with bonds and monetized by the Federal Reserve.

Now I don't know what he means by financed with bonds and monetized by the federal reserve, but this is what the economist is suggesting.

Tulsi's resolution says this:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— (1) the Federal Government should create and provide an emergency Universal Basic Payment of $1,000 per month available to all Americans until the Department of Health and Human Services declares that the COVID–19 outbreak no longer presents a public health emergency; (2) the Universal Basic Payment should be a temporary economic stimulus package aimed to empower Americans directly and immediately; and (3) the Payment should be made to every United States citizen above the age of 18 years and should be nontaxable.

When people get their SSA check every month, it doesn't come from the Fed, it comes from the US Treasury, courtesy of the SSA. It is real, spendable money and it therefore increases the money supply. Same thing with this UBI, a check is going to come from the Treasury to each citizen who is 18 or over; I don't know off-hand how many people we have who are 18 or over, but if it's one half of the populations then that's 160 million. So, we're talking about raising the debt by $160 billion dollars every month until the pandemic is declared over.

Admittedly, I ain't no economist, but it's hard to see how we can add that much new debt on top of what we already have. Who's gonna buy it, and at what interest rate? How long will it be until the US is spending more to service it's debt than anything else?

Are we going to do this every time from now on when we have a new virus, next year and beyond? How long will it take to become law and how long will it take to find the eligibles vs non-eligibles? How long will it take to crank up the money machine for this and make it happen? With any luck, the CV thing might be over by then.

Are we going to do this again for other reasons, like another recession or depression? Is it really viable over the long run? I'll be straight up honest about it, I think this idea stinks of politics. Another ridiculous idea that is irresponsible.

Agreed. Earlier I looked up the numbers. We have 209 million adults over the age of 18 in this country; 2.3 million are in prison, so I'm assuming they wouldn't be getting a check.

 

[there4eyeM]

This income idea has interesting facets, but it has somehow escaped fully convincing me.
I have another, very different economic concept that I've never seen economists discuss. From my own understanding (and, technically, it is true I have taught university level economics in Paris), it is a viable system that creates enormous wealth for middle and under population segments without touching the money supply. It would be an essentially non-government program more like a bank or credit institution. Another attribute is that it would entwine the value of life with buying power, thus being a constant societal reminder of what value is based upon. It would establish a direct business link between the rich and the poor.
No one (of the rare people) I've tried to explain this too has quite understood. Apparently, more attention will have to be given to clear and simple description.

I am struggling big time trying to see your side of the issue. How is it viable to give out $200 - $300 billion dollars every month? That's the idea, right? Do you believe the debt can be run up by that much that fast and monetize it all? And it's from the gov't directly or indirectly, how is that not a gov't program? Without touching the money supply, are you sure? It's gotta show up somewhere on the gov'ts balance sheet. It ain't hard currency, but it's gotta be driving up inflation. And banks and credit unions don't give out money without a debt to be paid back plus interest, did I miss that part?

Entwine the value of life with buying power, that is pure rubbish IMHO. The value of life has absolutely NOTHING to do with the value of anyone's life. The richest person's life has no more value than the poorest. Pretty rich coming from people that support abortion right to birth and even sometimes after. A direct business link between rich and poor? And you taught economics at a university level?

What you and Tulsi are talking about is redistribution of wealth, pure and simple. Temporary, she says. But you're talking permanently I think.

You did not read or you did not understand my post. "I have another, very different economic concept..."
This is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Gabbard; it is another idea.

 

[HappyJoy]

I thought Gabbard was Miss November on the wingnut pinup calendar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I thought Gabbard was Miss November on the wingnut pinup calendar.

She's gorgeous from a physical perspective. However her leftist ideas leave a lot to be desired.

 

[HappyJoy]

I thought Gabbard was Miss November on the wingnut pinup calendar.

She's gorgeous from a physical perspective. However her leftist ideas leave a lot to be desired.

I was referring to a few wingnut Trumpbots who claim to approve of her politics. Though they are probably thinking with the wrong head.

 

[Billiejeens]

I thought Gabbard was Miss November on the wingnut pinup calendar.

You dont think.

 

[HappyJoy]

I thought Gabbard was Miss November on the wingnut pinup calendar.

You dont think.

You forgot the apostrophe.

If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, at least have a better command of the language you were born with while doing it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody is talking about the number of businesses that will disappear...….

Yes they are.

The best way to support business is consumers with money.

 

[Hum Dinger]

As Conservatives dismiss any ideas that may help people in need they, as usual, failed to think ANYTHING through.

Millions and millions of low income people are going to have NO income when they can't work due to the CoronaVirus.

The vast majority of these people live pay check to paycheck. They will not be able to make rent or mortgage payments.

Now, I know that Conservatives couldn't give a crap if millions of working Americans can't make their payments or if they are forced out into the streets resulting exponentially increased spread of this pandemic among the poor.

BUT -

What Conservatives don't seem to consider is what will happens to the finances of millions of landlords and to the banks when
these millions and millions of working people fail to pay all at the same time.

That will ripple thru our economy like a tidal wave. We'll have a financial collapse like we've never known.

Dumbasses!

 

[Thinker101]

As Conservatives dismiss any ideas that may help people in need they, as usual, failed to think ANYTHING through.

Millions and millions of low income people are going to have NO income when they can't work due to the CoronaVirus.

The vast majority of these people live pay check to paycheck. They will not be able to make rent or mortgage payments.

Now, I know that Conservatives couldn't give a crap if millions of working Americans can't make their payments or if they are forced out into the streets resulting exponentially increased spread of this pandemic among the poor.

BUT -

What Conservatives don't seem to consider is what will happens to the finances of millions of landlords and to the banks when
these millions and millions of working people fail to pay all at the same time.

That will ripple thru our economy like a tidal wave. We'll have a financial collapse like we've never known.

Dumbasses!

Yep, I'm sure a free income will encourage you to get off your rear and become a productive citizen...dumbass.

 

[Billiejeens]

As Conservatives dismiss any ideas that may help people in need they, as usual, failed to think ANYTHING through.

Millions and millions of low income people are going to have NO income when they can't work due to the CoronaVirus.

The vast majority of these people live pay check to paycheck. They will not be able to make rent or mortgage payments.

Now, I know that Conservatives couldn't give a crap if millions of working Americans can't make their payments or if they are forced out into the streets resulting exponentially increased spread of this pandemic among the poor.

BUT -

What Conservatives don't seem to consider is what will happens to the finances of millions of landlords and to the banks when
these millions and millions of working people fail to pay all at the same time.

That will ripple thru our economy like a tidal wave. We'll have a financial collapse like we've never known.

Dumbasses!

Your premise is completely wrong.
The Republicans main goal in government is always to raise the tide so that all boats rise.
No doubt taxpayer money will need to be infused into the economy especially in the shallower end so those folks dont run aground.
No doubt President Trump will then be blamed for raising the debt.