Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
what is ".....EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS...." ?????
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
oh---you mean "equal protection under the law"-----yes----VERY IMPORTANT------have you ever been to court on a life, liberty, or property question. I have.
THEIR AIN'T NONE (the 'equal' thing) Court decisions regarding "life, liberty, property" are
POLITICAL in my town-----increasingly.
Daniel believes that he's not getting equal protection under the law because Unemployment Compensation doesn't cover people who simply refuse to work a job. He thinks the word "Unemployment" means unemployed for any reason at all. And you will never convince him otherwise.

Basically, he insists UC is really a welfare program that covers everyone and can't figure out why no checks ever show up in the mail.
Employment is at the will of either party. Unequal protection of the laws only creates more poverty for right wingers to complain about when having to pay for general welfare spending on the Poor. And, UC is not a welfare program but a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
4,089
Reaction score
3,639
Points
1,940
I think UBI should be a democrat backup plan. Solving simple poverty using existing legal and physical infrastructure is easier and more cost effective from a returns to scale perspective. Promoting and providing for the general welfare in this case means a multiplier of two or more.
You aren't from the US are you?
You really are just a Right Wing bigot, aren't you?
Democrats are the party of bigots. No dissenting opinions allowed. Facebook and Twitter censorship are perfect examples of the bigotry of the party.

My question was very relevant and has nothing to do with bigotry. If you aren't from the US, you don't have any right to talk nor are you aware of what makes our country great.
lol. Stop complaining. You have no right to it. See how easy it is to be a bigot.
We are a sovereign nation. No, I don't believe people from other countries should have a say about US laws and policies. Forgive me for being such a "bigot". LOL
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You can very easily.... EASILY live a 1960s life style on minimum wage today.
Not where I live.
As I recall, in 1967 the California minimum wage was $1.75 a hour; my rent was $75 a month in Santa Monica which was (and is) a relatively high rent area. My car was 7 years old, and a single minimum wage job allowed me to pay it off and maintain it. I haven't been able to afford a car since 1993. My home technology was limited to a landline and a radio. Today in California the minimum wage is $12 an hour, and it would barely cover the market rent on any apartment similar to the one I lived in half-a-century ago.
Right, but you are in a socialist hell hole. Yeah, in California you can't live on nearly anything.

But that is because you voted for socialists idiots that ruined your cities.


You, and those like you, voted for socialism in California, through controls and regulations.

You screwed yourself.

This is why I'm entirely against government bailing out California. You did this to yourself.
Here is the the problem:
People being able to afford our first world economy means more people able to afford housing costs and more builders being able to build or upgrade more housing. What do landlords believe the minimum wage should be?
If people would move out of blue states they would be able to afford housing. The able bodies must work though. Novel concept I know.
lol. Are there no homeless in cheaper red States?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
I've lectured you on economics on dozens of occasions. University of Phoenix used to pay me to lecture morons like you on basic economic principles, no one pays me to educate your ignorant ass so I shan't bother.
I thank goodness for modern broadband times and videos on the subjects I want to learn more about. All you have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

And, our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a top down manner, we also have a Commerce Clause and even a central bank, what else is there to know under our form of Capitalism?
Quite obviously, you are not using that technology to actually further your education on the subject of economics. If anything, you are finding videos and articles that confirm your bias, but are not learning. While you're at it, the defense mandate must cover any given contingency in a top down and bottom up manner, which naturally gives the government the green light to do whatever it wants with our military, including using it to fight illegal drug use.

IOW, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you promote and which you ignore.
I resort to the fewest fallacies. So obviously, you have nothing but projection on your part.

And, no, our common defense clause doesn't cover everything more than our general welfare clause. Congress has the power to declare War not the common defense.
1. You absolutely do not resort to the fewest fallacies. In fact, you very rarely say something non-fallacious.
2. The Constitutional defense mandate has the same authority as the welfare clause. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to ignore. If you claim the welfare clause gives the government the right to confiscate vast sums of money in the name of welfare, you have to acknowledge that the defense mandate gives the government the right to use the military to fight illegal drug use by intercepting any coming across our borders.
3. Your last sentence has no bearing on anything, so is ignored.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
328 million Americans * $1,000/month = $328 billion/month.
$328 billion/month * 12 months = $3.9 trillion/year.

Fun times indeed. Where is the almost $4 trillion going to come from, Bill Gates?

That's McConnell's response that kills the whole thing.
No one can make it on $1000 a month. The minimum should be $2000, and it would require price controls.

That would be $8T a year.

They print all the money they need already, at this point we just need electrons to fill the bank accounts. That's all "money" is at this point anyway. "Didgits", it's not based on anything real or tangible. So just program the treasury computers to fill every American's account with $500 a week and let people who can work earn a little bit more.

It's not that hard.
Solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States actually solves for simple poverty by solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner and automatically stabilizes our economy in the process.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
4,089
Reaction score
3,639
Points
1,940
what is ".....EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS...." ?????
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
oh---you mean "equal protection under the law"-----yes----VERY IMPORTANT------have you ever been to court on a life, liberty, or property question. I have.
THEIR AIN'T NONE (the 'equal' thing) Court decisions regarding "life, liberty, property" are
POLITICAL in my town-----increasingly.
Daniel believes that he's not getting equal protection under the law because Unemployment Compensation doesn't cover people who simply refuse to work a job. He thinks the word "Unemployment" means unemployed for any reason at all. And you will never convince him otherwise.

Basically, he insists UC is really a welfare program that covers everyone and can't figure out why no checks ever show up in the mail.
Employment is at the will of either party. Unequal protection of the laws only creates more poverty for right wingers to complain about when having to pay for general welfare spending on the Poor. And, UC is not a welfare program but a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy.
Pure idiocy. You must be a plant from one of our enemies. If you can indoctrinate more of the dumbed down electorate in our country, you will succeed in our downfall. Brilliant plan and if 80 million people actually voted for Biden, it seems to be working.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
can you define "simple poverty"?
Poverty which can be solved with mere money. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom mere money, may not be enough.
so true-----mere money is almost never ENOUGH.
INFLATED minimum wage is MERE MONEY.
Freebee food is also MERE MONEY

can you expand on your objection to my statement,
D. Palos?
Employment is at the will of either party. The State has no authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities for unemployment compensation through unequal protection of the law.
Yes, Daniel, the state absolutely has that authority because the State owes you nothing.
The State owes me equal protection of the laws. It is in our several Constitutions. Any other questions?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
what is ".....EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS...." ?????
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
oh---you mean "equal protection under the law"-----yes----VERY IMPORTANT------have you ever been to court on a life, liberty, or property question. I have.
THEIR AIN'T NONE (the 'equal' thing) Court decisions regarding "life, liberty, property" are
POLITICAL in my town-----increasingly.
Daniel believes that he's not getting equal protection under the law because Unemployment Compensation doesn't cover people who simply refuse to work a job. He thinks the word "Unemployment" means unemployed for any reason at all. And you will never convince him otherwise.

Basically, he insists UC is really a welfare program that covers everyone and can't figure out why no checks ever show up in the mail.
Employment is at the will of either party. Unequal protection of the laws only creates more poverty for right wingers to complain about when having to pay for general welfare spending on the Poor. And, UC is not a welfare program but a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy.
Pure idiocy. You must be a plant from one of our enemies. If you can indoctrinate more of the dumbed down electorate in our country, you will succeed in our downfall. Brilliant plan and if 80 million people actually voted for Biden, it seems to be working.
Ad hominems and non sequiturs are simply fallacy not any form of valid arguments.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
328 million Americans * $1,000/month = $328 billion/month.
$328 billion/month * 12 months = $3.9 trillion/year.

Fun times indeed. Where is the almost $4 trillion going to come from, Bill Gates?

That's McConnell's response that kills the whole thing.
No one can make it on $1000 a month. The minimum should be $2000, and it would require price controls.

That would be $8T a year.

They print all the money they need already, at this point we just need electrons to fill the bank accounts. That's all "money" is at this point anyway. "Digits", it's not based on anything real or tangible. So just program the treasury computers to fill every American's account with $500 a week and let people who can work earn a little bit more.

It's not that hard.
It's also not that hard to see the effects of doing that. Hyper-inflation is inevitable, because all you're doing is progressively making the dollar worth less and less.

Answer this question honestly. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether? If you do, you might begin to realize why simply creating more money doesn't translate into more wealth.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I think UBI should be a democrat backup plan. Solving simple poverty using existing legal and physical infrastructure is easier and more cost effective from a returns to scale perspective. Promoting and providing for the general welfare in this case means a multiplier of two or more.
You aren't from the US are you?
You really are just a Right Wing bigot, aren't you?
Democrats are the party of bigots. No dissenting opinions allowed. Facebook and Twitter censorship are perfect examples of the bigotry of the party.

My question was very relevant and has nothing to do with bigotry. If you aren't from the US, you don't have any right to talk nor are you aware of what makes our country great.
lol. Stop complaining. You have no right to it. See how easy it is to be a bigot.
We are a sovereign nation. No, I don't believe people from other countries should have a say about US laws and policies. Forgive me for being such a "bigot". LOL
Right wingers only allege to believe in natural rights in abortion threads. How special (pleading) of them.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,648
Reaction score
2,764
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
328 million Americans * $1,000/month = $328 billion/month.
$328 billion/month * 12 months = $3.9 trillion/year.

Fun times indeed. Where is the almost $4 trillion going to come from, Bill Gates?

That's McConnell's response that kills the whole thing.
No one can make it on $1000 a month. The minimum should be $2000, and it would require price controls.

That would be $8T a year.

They print all the money they need already, at this point we just need electrons to fill the bank accounts. That's all "money" is at this point anyway. "Digits", it's not based on anything real or tangible. So just program the treasury computers to fill every American's account with $500 a week and let people who can work earn a little bit more.

It's not that hard.
It's also not that hard to see the effects of doing that. Hyper-inflation is inevitable, because all you're doing is progressively making the dollar worth less and less.

Answer this question honestly. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether? If you do, you might begin to realize why simply creating more money doesn't translate into more wealth.
How did QE work?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
what is ".....EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS...." ?????
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
oh---you mean "equal protection under the law"-----yes----VERY IMPORTANT------have you ever been to court on a life, liberty, or property question. I have.
THEIR AIN'T NONE (the 'equal' thing) Court decisions regarding "life, liberty, property" are
POLITICAL in my town-----increasingly.
Daniel believes that he's not getting equal protection under the law because Unemployment Compensation doesn't cover people who simply refuse to work a job. He thinks the word "Unemployment" means unemployed for any reason at all. And you will never convince him otherwise.

Basically, he insists UC is really a welfare program that covers everyone and can't figure out why no checks ever show up in the mail.
Employment is at the will of either party. Unequal protection of the laws only creates more poverty for right wingers to complain about when having to pay for general welfare spending on the Poor. And, UC is not a welfare program but a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy.
You claim UC has to cover those who refuse to work a job because of "unequal protection under the law". That's bogus, and until you admit that, you're going no further.

Also, you repeating endlessly that "Employment is at the will of either party" is totally meaningless, totally. Literally, it means nothing in this context, so you need to stop saying it.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
20,857
Reaction score
14,403
Points
1,365
We must balance the budget to avoid the worst economic disaster in American history

but we wont
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
328 million Americans * $1,000/month = $328 billion/month.
$328 billion/month * 12 months = $3.9 trillion/year.

Fun times indeed. Where is the almost $4 trillion going to come from, Bill Gates?

That's McConnell's response that kills the whole thing.
No one can make it on $1000 a month. The minimum should be $2000, and it would require price controls.

That would be $8T a year.

They print all the money they need already, at this point we just need electrons to fill the bank accounts. That's all "money" is at this point anyway. "Digits", it's not based on anything real or tangible. So just program the treasury computers to fill every American's account with $500 a week and let people who can work earn a little bit more.

It's not that hard.
It's also not that hard to see the effects of doing that. Hyper-inflation is inevitable, because all you're doing is progressively making the dollar worth less and less.

Answer this question honestly. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether? If you do, you might begin to realize why simply creating more money doesn't translate into more wealth.
How did QE work?
It provided a temporary boost to the economy designed to head off catastrophic collapse. It cannot continue for very long without causing the problem I described. Now, since you chimed in you can also answer the question. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether?
 

KarlMarxsPitBull

Active Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
103
Points
33
It's also not that hard to see the effects of doing that. Hyper-inflation is inevitable, because all you're doing is progressively making the dollar worth less and less.

Answer this question honestly. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether? If you do, you might begin to realize why simply creating more money doesn't translate into more wealth.
Like I said, establish price controls. Freeze costs across the board, and for those in the workforce who can be productive, allow them to make a little more to give them incentive. Like I said, money isn't "real" anymore. The government could cook the books like ENRON if it has to, and who is going to audit them? Money is a bugaboo of small minds.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
We must balance the budget to avoid the worst economic disaster in American history

but we wont
We won't even tolerate trimming the budget a little bit. Heck, even freezing it for a few years would bring things back into line, but we won't because the instant someone starts to feel a pinch, they start screaming and politicians turn the money spigots back on.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
4,989
Points
280
It's also not that hard to see the effects of doing that. Hyper-inflation is inevitable, because all you're doing is progressively making the dollar worth less and less.

Answer this question honestly. Why don't we just set the minimum wage at $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether? If you do, you might begin to realize why simply creating more money doesn't translate into more wealth.
Like I said, establish price controls. Freeze costs across the board, and for those in the workforce who can be productive, allow them to make a little more to give them incentive. Like I said, money isn't "real" anymore. The government could cook the books like ENRON if it has to, and who is going to audit them? Money is a bugaboo of small minds.
Nixon tried price and wage controls. Didn't work. They never work, because costs are real.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
20,857
Reaction score
14,403
Points
1,365
but we won't because the instant someone starts to feel a pinch, they start screaming and politicians turn the money spigots back on.
They will scream louder when the economy collapses and the gravy train screeches to a halt
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
20,857
Reaction score
14,403
Points
1,365
Nixon tried price and wage controls. Didn't work. They never work, because costs are real.
You are talking to a marxist

a bad economy only drives more people onto the arms of their god - big government

So even when their ideas fail its still a win for them
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,462
Reaction score
7,226
Points
1,815
can you define "simple poverty"?
Poverty which can be solved with mere money. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom mere money, may not be enough.
so true-----mere money is almost never ENOUGH.
INFLATED minimum wage is MERE MONEY.
Freebee food is also MERE MONEY
You simply need to manage your money better. And, "payment in kind" is not mere money.
the secret to non-poverty is not actually "money management" ------it is LIFE-STYLE MANAGEMENT
You are merely quibbling under Capitalism.
what does "quibbling under Capitalism" mean?
For the record----do you use the term "CAPITALISM"
as a perjorative?
328 million Americans * $1,000/month = $328 billion/month.
$328 billion/month * 12 months = $3.9 trillion/year.

Fun times indeed. Where is the almost $4 trillion going to come from, Bill Gates?

That's McConnell's response that kills the whole thing.
No one can make it on $1000 a month. The minimum should be $2000, and it would require price controls.

That would be $8T a year.

They print all the money they need already, at this point we just need electrons to fill the bank accounts. That's all "money" is at this point anyway. "Digits", it's not based on anything real or tangible. So just program the treasury computers to fill every American's account with $500 a week and let people who can work earn a little bit more.

It's not that hard.
it's very hard because it is counter-productive. -----
Utopian concepts ABOUND-----yours is on the
level of Edward Bellamy (looking backward) ---
describing a society in which laborious work is
limited to energetic eager adolescents who view work crews as something like pleasant summer vacations and who then look forward to a LONG LIFE OF IDLE LUXURY. Nice society if it COULD HAPPEN---nope
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top