Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
23,955
Reaction score
8,028
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?
There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.
Haha..gotta love how you filthy shameless beggars always see “steal more from good real Americans” as the solution to poverty.
You never mention ‘send 20-40 million trespassing wetbacks home to their shitholes’. Why is that?
jasonnfree georgephillip
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,514
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
If I can do the kind of work other people do for highly profitable companies, then I shouldn't have to "beg" or "plead" for the kind of wages other people earn, and I should be allowed to posess fireams and other weapons, but I should not have to resort to violence and extortion, as the labor unions do. I am simply not a member of any of the monied classes or even the working class which is so privileged when Democrats are in office.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,899
Reaction score
2,996
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,011
Reaction score
2,869
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How unfortunate that we only achieved full employment and a restructuring of our economy to a higher standard of living when Government told CEOs what to do.
That's how they became CEOs. It's the revolving door of politics between big business and big government.
Big business has always welcomed big government, because that serves their interests of driving smaller competitors out of business.

"Full employment" is a socialist/communist myth which necessitates death camps and labor camps for the unemployed. I was abused and underpaid as a slave at work. Two college degrees, and never enough to pay for independent housing and transportation.

The bosses wanted me in bed, or in someone else's bed, and they did not value the work I was able to do based on my education, training, and talents.
You should have asked for a raise if it required, professional work.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,011
Reaction score
2,869
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
If I can do the kind of work other people do for highly profitable companies, then I shouldn't have to "beg" or "plead" for the kind of wages other people earn, and I should be allowed to posess fireams and other weapons, but I should not have to resort to violence and extortion, as the labor unions do. I am simply not a member of any of the monied classes or even the working class which is so privileged when Democrats are in office.
Solving simple poverty in our at-will employment States through equal protection of the laws would benefit women more than our current regime.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,011
Reaction score
2,869
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?
There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.
Haha..gotta love how you filthy shameless beggars always see “steal more from good real Americans” as the solution to poverty.
You never mention ‘send 20-40 million trespassing wetbacks home to their shitholes’. Why is that?
jasonnfree georgephillip
right wingers love to create problems so they can, protest too much.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,541
Reaction score
26,566
Points
2,180
My comment was merely the point that star players are hundreds of times more compensated than those who perform the menial labor below them. Companies are no different. The CEO is the star player, and I never hear any criticism from the left about entertainers being compensated the same way.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action. A company? That's different. A lot different. People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.


Companies not to invest in. High executive turnover, golden parachutes, poison pills, etc., etc.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action.

Yeah, and you are not directly paying a CEO either. You are not paying the CEO of Walmart $20 Million... just like you are not paying Will Smith, $45 Million.

Will Smith, makes nearly double how much money the CEO of Walmart does.

And here's the kicker.... Will Smith's $45 Million is cash. The CEO of Walmart only gets $4.7 Million in cash. The rest is in stock in the company, which if the company does badly before he is legally able to sell the stock, he loses money.


People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.

First off... unless you are a shareholder in the company, it's not your money. It's THEIR money. They earned it. It's their money to do with as they please.

I wager if I knew your personal finances, I would find many things that I think are a waste of money in your budget.

But it's none of my business, is it? Right. And what the company decides to pay their CEO, is none of your business. Mind your own business. Worry about yourself.

You are not paying that CEO wage. And if the company didn't pay the CEO wage, it wouldn't go to you, so what do you care?

There are 1.7 Million traditional corporations operating in the US. How many examples do you have, of CEOs not producing value to the corporation, comparable to their pay? How many?

Because I have investments in a dozens of companies, and I've doubled my investment value, from how much I've put in. Clearly they are doing a good job in my opinion.

Based on what, would you claim they are not? Can you give me an example?

Even if you could, I doubt you really know what is going on. For example Tim Cook at Apple Computer, you might have said for the last few years, that Apple really hasn't done anything spectacular. But just last month, Apple unveiled that they had been developing their own micro processor, and it turns out it is faster than comparable Intel chips, uses a faction of the power, and is cheaper to manufacture.

Before this, you might have said "Tim Cook is way over paid for how little value he has added to Apple", and that's because you didn't know they were working hard behind the scenes to come up with a competitor to AMD and Intel, that is superior.

You don't know what all value CEOs have been creating, because you are not there, and you are not in the executive board room discussions. The people who do know if a CEO is producing good results, are the same people that decide how much his compensations package is.
How unfortunate that we only achieved full employment and a restructuring of our economy to a higher standard of living when Government told CEOs what to do.
When did that happen?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,541
Reaction score
26,566
Points
2,180
Unemployment compensation is not welfare but a comprehensive insurance program that should actually solve for something, like simple poverty not nothing on a for-profit basis as right wingers would prefer.
Why should an insurance policy that covers temporary expenses associated with job loss attempt to solve poverty? That's not what it was designed for.
He sees the word "unemployment" in the name and assumes it covers him when he just doesn't want to work. And he won't deviate from it.
Individual liberty and natural rights, what is That sayeth the right wing in non-socialism threads.
Prove me wrong.
Individual liberty and natural rights already proved you wrong. You don't even understand the concepts only your right wing propaganda.

Individual liberty is enabled by equal protection of our at-will employment laws in any conflict of laws. UC codes cannot conflict with established federal doctrine or State Constitutions. Thus, employment is at the will of either party even for UC purposes.
You don't get it, your opinion doesn't count. Quote the actual law that establishes your right to collect UC when you don't qualify for it.
You get it even less. The actual law is equal protection of the laws. The State has no right to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.
Leftwingers are working to change that.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,707
Reaction score
5,098
Points
280
Unemployment compensation is not welfare but a comprehensive insurance program that should actually solve for something, like simple poverty not nothing on a for-profit basis as right wingers would prefer.
Why should an insurance policy that covers temporary expenses associated with job loss attempt to solve poverty? That's not what it was designed for.
He sees the word "unemployment" in the name and assumes it covers him when he just doesn't want to work. And he won't deviate from it.
Individual liberty and natural rights, what is That sayeth the right wing in non-socialism threads.
Prove me wrong.
Individual liberty and natural rights already proved you wrong. You don't even understand the concepts only your right wing propaganda.

Individual liberty is enabled by equal protection of our at-will employment laws in any conflict of laws. UC codes cannot conflict with established federal doctrine or State Constitutions. Thus, employment is at the will of either party even for UC purposes.
You don't get it, your opinion doesn't count. Quote the actual law that establishes your right to collect UC when you don't qualify for it.
You get it even less. The actual law is equal protection of the laws. The State has no right to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.
It is not doing so, as I have pointed out many times because the law applies to everyone equally. Just like with welfare, If you qualify, you can collect. If you don't, you can't. Tell you what, cite the court ruling that supports your assertion and the number of times people have successfully gotten compensated from UC even though they don't qualify for it. Don't wave around a vague, "Oh, it's because I imagine that the word 'Unemployment' in the title means I should get it because I don't want to hold a job".
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,707
Reaction score
5,098
Points
280
If I can do the kind of work other people do for highly profitable companies, then I shouldn't have to "beg" or "plead" for the kind of wages other people earn, and I should be allowed to posess fireams and other weapons, but I should not have to resort to violence and extortion, as the labor unions do. I am simply not a member of any of the monied classes or even the working class which is so privileged when Democrats are in office.
Solving simple poverty in our at-will employment States through equal protection of the laws would benefit women more than our current regime.
Blargle, pure blargle. You have no idea how that would work, you have no idea how much it would cost, and you have no idea how to pay for such a thing. You just repeat the same things over and over again.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,011
Reaction score
2,869
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
My comment was merely the point that star players are hundreds of times more compensated than those who perform the menial labor below them. Companies are no different. The CEO is the star player, and I never hear any criticism from the left about entertainers being compensated the same way.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action. A company? That's different. A lot different. People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.


Companies not to invest in. High executive turnover, golden parachutes, poison pills, etc., etc.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action.

Yeah, and you are not directly paying a CEO either. You are not paying the CEO of Walmart $20 Million... just like you are not paying Will Smith, $45 Million.

Will Smith, makes nearly double how much money the CEO of Walmart does.

And here's the kicker.... Will Smith's $45 Million is cash. The CEO of Walmart only gets $4.7 Million in cash. The rest is in stock in the company, which if the company does badly before he is legally able to sell the stock, he loses money.


People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.

First off... unless you are a shareholder in the company, it's not your money. It's THEIR money. They earned it. It's their money to do with as they please.

I wager if I knew your personal finances, I would find many things that I think are a waste of money in your budget.

But it's none of my business, is it? Right. And what the company decides to pay their CEO, is none of your business. Mind your own business. Worry about yourself.

You are not paying that CEO wage. And if the company didn't pay the CEO wage, it wouldn't go to you, so what do you care?

There are 1.7 Million traditional corporations operating in the US. How many examples do you have, of CEOs not producing value to the corporation, comparable to their pay? How many?

Because I have investments in a dozens of companies, and I've doubled my investment value, from how much I've put in. Clearly they are doing a good job in my opinion.

Based on what, would you claim they are not? Can you give me an example?

Even if you could, I doubt you really know what is going on. For example Tim Cook at Apple Computer, you might have said for the last few years, that Apple really hasn't done anything spectacular. But just last month, Apple unveiled that they had been developing their own micro processor, and it turns out it is faster than comparable Intel chips, uses a faction of the power, and is cheaper to manufacture.

Before this, you might have said "Tim Cook is way over paid for how little value he has added to Apple", and that's because you didn't know they were working hard behind the scenes to come up with a competitor to AMD and Intel, that is superior.

You don't know what all value CEOs have been creating, because you are not there, and you are not in the executive board room discussions. The people who do know if a CEO is producing good results, are the same people that decide how much his compensations package is.
How unfortunate that we only achieved full employment and a restructuring of our economy to a higher standard of living when Government told CEOs what to do.
When did that happen?
WWII. According to right wingers, the depression should have not lasted as long as it did and we should have also been able to win WWII.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,011
Reaction score
2,869
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Unemployment compensation is not welfare but a comprehensive insurance program that should actually solve for something, like simple poverty not nothing on a for-profit basis as right wingers would prefer.
Why should an insurance policy that covers temporary expenses associated with job loss attempt to solve poverty? That's not what it was designed for.
He sees the word "unemployment" in the name and assumes it covers him when he just doesn't want to work. And he won't deviate from it.
Individual liberty and natural rights, what is That sayeth the right wing in non-socialism threads.
Prove me wrong.
Individual liberty and natural rights already proved you wrong. You don't even understand the concepts only your right wing propaganda.

Individual liberty is enabled by equal protection of our at-will employment laws in any conflict of laws. UC codes cannot conflict with established federal doctrine or State Constitutions. Thus, employment is at the will of either party even for UC purposes.
You don't get it, your opinion doesn't count. Quote the actual law that establishes your right to collect UC when you don't qualify for it.
You get it even less. The actual law is equal protection of the laws. The State has no right to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.
Leftwingers are working to change that.
Yes, the left is working to change unequal protection of the laws especially on a for-profit basis.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,541
Reaction score
26,566
Points
2,180
My comment was merely the point that star players are hundreds of times more compensated than those who perform the menial labor below them. Companies are no different. The CEO is the star player, and I never hear any criticism from the left about entertainers being compensated the same way.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action. A company? That's different. A lot different. People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.


Companies not to invest in. High executive turnover, golden parachutes, poison pills, etc., etc.
That's bullshit. I know *I* don't pay that much money to see professional sports stars in action.

Yeah, and you are not directly paying a CEO either. You are not paying the CEO of Walmart $20 Million... just like you are not paying Will Smith, $45 Million.

Will Smith, makes nearly double how much money the CEO of Walmart does.

And here's the kicker.... Will Smith's $45 Million is cash. The CEO of Walmart only gets $4.7 Million in cash. The rest is in stock in the company, which if the company does badly before he is legally able to sell the stock, he loses money.


People have to go to work and produce. The wheeling and dealing of empire-building CEOs doesn't add a whole lot of value to some of those companies for the salaries they're paid.

First off... unless you are a shareholder in the company, it's not your money. It's THEIR money. They earned it. It's their money to do with as they please.

I wager if I knew your personal finances, I would find many things that I think are a waste of money in your budget.

But it's none of my business, is it? Right. And what the company decides to pay their CEO, is none of your business. Mind your own business. Worry about yourself.

You are not paying that CEO wage. And if the company didn't pay the CEO wage, it wouldn't go to you, so what do you care?

There are 1.7 Million traditional corporations operating in the US. How many examples do you have, of CEOs not producing value to the corporation, comparable to their pay? How many?

Because I have investments in a dozens of companies, and I've doubled my investment value, from how much I've put in. Clearly they are doing a good job in my opinion.

Based on what, would you claim they are not? Can you give me an example?

Even if you could, I doubt you really know what is going on. For example Tim Cook at Apple Computer, you might have said for the last few years, that Apple really hasn't done anything spectacular. But just last month, Apple unveiled that they had been developing their own micro processor, and it turns out it is faster than comparable Intel chips, uses a faction of the power, and is cheaper to manufacture.

Before this, you might have said "Tim Cook is way over paid for how little value he has added to Apple", and that's because you didn't know they were working hard behind the scenes to come up with a competitor to AMD and Intel, that is superior.

You don't know what all value CEOs have been creating, because you are not there, and you are not in the executive board room discussions. The people who do know if a CEO is producing good results, are the same people that decide how much his compensations package is.
How unfortunate that we only achieved full employment and a restructuring of our economy to a higher standard of living when Government told CEOs what to do.
When did that happen?
WWII. According to right wingers, the depression should have not lasted as long as it did and we should have also been able to win WWII.
ROFL! So you want to put the US under martial law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top