Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,707
Reaction score
5,098
Points
280
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.
That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?
Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.
WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?
It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.
More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.
It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.
I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.
You're going in the wrong direction.
Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.
You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.
You must be very used to doing that.
Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.
We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.
This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.
From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,926
Reaction score
2,855
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.
That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?
Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.
WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?
It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.
More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.
It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.
I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.
You're going in the wrong direction.
Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.
You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.
You must be very used to doing that.
Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.
We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.
This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.
From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?
Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,707
Reaction score
5,098
Points
280
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.
That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?
Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.
WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?
It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.
More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.
It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.
I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.
You're going in the wrong direction.
Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.
You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.
You must be very used to doing that.
Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.
We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.
This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.
From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?
Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.
The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,899
Reaction score
2,996
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
I honestly can’t believe nobody thought of just taxing the shit out of everything would allow a nation to make everyone equal. Oh wait, that’s been socialism since day one and has a success rate of exactly zero.
Capitalism is unstable, unequal, and un-democratic. Anyone doubting those realities before the Trump Pandemic struck should have had their eyes opened by the economic gains of the richest of the rich over the last ten months:

US Billionaires Have Increased Their Riches By $1 Trillion During the Pandemic

"This month, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) published a report called 'Billionaire Wealth vs. Community Health: Protecting Essential Workers from Pandemic Profiteers.'

"Its authors determined that since March 2020, the total net worth of the country’s 647 billionaires grew by almost $960 billion. At that rate, it’s likely that by the time you read this article, that figure will have topped a trillion dollars."

The 1 Percent Are Cheating Us Out of a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in Taxes Every Year

Since Reagan the richest of the rich have paid less and less; it is not asking too much to change that dynamic before oligarchy formally replaces democracy in this country.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,305
Reaction score
11,921
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
I honestly can’t believe nobody thought of just taxing the shit out of everything would allow a nation to make everyone equal. Oh wait, that’s been socialism since day one and has a success rate of exactly zero.
Capitalism is unstable, unequal, and un-democratic. Anyone doubting those realities before the Trump Pandemic struck should have had their eyes opened by the economic gains of the richest of the rich over the last ten months:

US Billionaires Have Increased Their Riches By $1 Trillion During the Pandemic

"This month, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) published a report called 'Billionaire Wealth vs. Community Health: Protecting Essential Workers from Pandemic Profiteers.'

"Its authors determined that since March 2020, the total net worth of the country’s 647 billionaires grew by almost $960 billion. At that rate, it’s likely that by the time you read this article, that figure will have topped a trillion dollars."

Since Reagan the richest of the rich have paid less and less; it is not asking too much to change that dynamic before oligarchy formally replaces democracy in this country.
Capitalism is unstable, unequal, and un-democratic.

And still 10 times better than communism.

Since Reagan the richest of the rich have paid less and less;

Liar.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,305
Reaction score
11,921
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
taxing intellectual property is a new angle. Once we have UBI in place then the government can just own it all. You got paid your UBI, we now own that business.
Should Microsoft, Google, and Amazon reimburse US taxpayers for their funding/creation of the Internet?
Haven't their income tax payments alreay paid for the creation of the Internet?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,899
Reaction score
2,996
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
But we haven't controlled the natural resources of other sovereign states. You can say that.... but that's just more left-wing mythology. When has that ever happened?

Your link:

"Iraq's oil fields currently produce about 2.5 million barrels a day.

"It was the first time in more than 35 years that Iraq has allowed foreign oil companies to do business inside its borders."

Was the US invasion of Iraq a myth?

Do you believe Iraq's oil production would be 2.5 mbd or Chinese state capitalists would be exploiting that nation's natural resources if US capitalists had not invaded, destroyed, and occupied Iraq in 2003?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,899
Reaction score
2,996
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Where, and when, would you point to as a place where we got control, and stole their resources? I can't think of a single time anywhere ever in the last 100 years.
Start here:

"The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, code-named Operation PBSuccess, was a covert operation carried out by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution of 1944–1954.

"It installed the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas, the first in a series of U.S.-backed authoritarian rulers in Guatemala. "

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état - Wikipedia
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,899
Reaction score
2,996
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If they really did violate the law, being it to court and prove it.

Regardless, I don't have problem with this. He paid taxes on all the money he earned correct?

You are not suggesting that Trump's father did not pay his income taxes, right?
It's my understanding the Trump family has dodged its tax obligations for generations in spite of the fact that patriarch Fred Trump depended on federally insured mortgages to acquire his fortune in the first place:

Why hasn’t New York charged Donald Trump for tax fraud?

"The New York Times’ investigation last October reached back to the 1980s, uncovering that Donald Trump and his family members filed tax returns for valuations for their properties far below what independent estimates would suggest.

"Fred and Mary Trump, the president’s parents, passed down over $1 billion in wealth to their children, for which they paid only $52.2 million in taxes – despite the fact that the 55 percent tax rate on gifts and inheritances of that size would have racked up a tax bill of at least $550 million."

If Trump accepts a pardon before leaving office, will you consider that an admission of guilt on his part?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,305
Reaction score
11,921
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
"The New York Times’ investigation last October reached back to the 1980s, uncovering that Donald Trump and his family members filed tax returns for valuations for their properties far below what independent estimates would suggest.
Which tax returns require the valuations of your properties?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,926
Reaction score
2,855
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.
That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?
Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.
WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?
It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.
More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.
It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.
I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.
You're going in the wrong direction.
Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.
You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.
You must be very used to doing that.
Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.
We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.
This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.
From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?
Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.
The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,707
Reaction score
5,098
Points
280
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.
That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?
Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.
WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?
It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.
More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.
It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.
I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.
You're going in the wrong direction.
Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.
You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.
You must be very used to doing that.
Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.
We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.
This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.
From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?
Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.
The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
How does that even relate to UC? You're just quoting random things, hoping desperately they relate, but they don't.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Let's look at financial transactions. What transactions do you speak of? Last time DumBama messed with that, he created policy that credit card companies could no longer lay heavy fines and increased interest rates for their Democrat.....
When Wall Street banks borrow from the Fed at less than 1% rates and then loan those funds to consumers at 27%, I'm more concerned with restoring some semblance of consumer protection than with transfer balance fees.:stir:

Citigroup Has Made a Sap of the Fed: It’s Borrowing at 0.35 % from the Fed While Charging Struggling Consumers 27.4 % on Credit Cards
Here's a thought.... Don't borrow. You don't have to borrow. Even during the year, where I had a taxable income of just $10,000 for the whole year... I don't borrow. Was it fun? No of course not.

It was miserable living on $10,000 for a year.

But you can't do it. You can cut your expensive, and live on very very little. Yes, eating rice as your meal every day for months sucks.... but you don't have to borrow. I did not borrow. In fact, I actually paid down my debts during that year, if only by a little.

If you don't like the interest rate Citigroup is charging.... don't borrow from Citigroup.

Look, here's the deal with stupidity like this.....

Citigroup is only charging 27.4% interest on people that are higher risk. Even back when I had credit cards, none of them had higher than a 10% interest rate. None of them did.

But of course I paid my bills on time, every time, and never was late or default on those bills, or any other bills.

The reason they are charging 27.4%, is because high risk borrowers require high interest rates, or it's not worth the risk to lend to them.

If you somehow managed to get some sort of a law that bans high interest rates... the result is simply that banks won't lend to those people.

Now I'm all for that. I actually would support such a law.

But you need to understand that this doesn't mean that those same people are going to still get loans, but with low interest.

No, they simply won't get loans.

Just like before you had sub-prime mortgages... those people that did not qualify for a prime rate mortgage.... just didn't get a mortgage.

Again, I'm in favor of this. By all means lobby to limit interest rates, and cut thousands, if not millions of people, out of the credit market. I think the fewer people borrowing the better.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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.
Every country that has attempted that has ended up in ruins. Venezuela printed money. Zimbabwe. Argentina. Haiti.

You can't just print money, and give it away, and not have consequences. Supply and demand, works on money itself. You drastically increase the supply, without a comparable increase in demand, and the result is lower value.

You drastically increase the supply of dollars, without increasing the demand goods, and the result is lower value of money.

100 years of economic history has proven this every single time.

https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640&tag=ff0d01-20

Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing―and recovering―their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, "this time is different"―claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters.​

The old rules of how currency works are still true with the US today. Don't be stupid, and repeat the idiocracy of the past.

No one can make it on $1000 a month.

I have. And I know others that have.

If you want to earn more.... get a job that pays more. Learn something that pays more. Get a second job. I did.

If you simply eliminate all jobs that pay less, you simply won't have jobs that pay less.

No one is going to pay a burger flipper $25,000 a year. I wouldn't buy burgers from such a place. Thus such a place would shut down... thus they wouldn't earn $25,000 a year.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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.
Price controls result in shortages. You can't freeze costs across the board, because costs don't freeze.

Look at Venezuela.

Screenshot_2020-11-28 food shortages venezuela - Google Search.png


If you tell people that they must pay their workers more, and they can't charge higher prices for their products... they simply won't sell their products.

Why would I continue to operate a business at a loss? I wouldn't. Rice farmers in Venezuela said exactly that.

They said why should they sell rice, at a lower price, than they can afford to pay my workers?

No one is going to do that. Which is why people are literally starving to death in Venezuela.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The underlying theme I see here simply is another give away, all solved by "tax the wealthy"....

College? = Tax the rich
Housing? = Tax the rich
Poverty? = Tax the rich
Food insecurity? = Tax the rich
Unemployment? = Tax the rich
etc, etc, etc....

Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money....Margret Thatcher.
Not true. They haven't hoarded. They have produced wealth, for everyone. Name something you own... anything at all... that wasn't produced by a rich person?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence in most of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.
“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence in most of the rest of the world.

I don't understand why people are down voting that statement.... That is a fact. That is a concrete, set in stone, fact. The poorest full time working people in this country, live a luxury life style compared to the rest of the world.

These people live in a bubble. You guys need to go to Honduras and see what real poverty is like. Or any number of other places, like Haiti and so on.

The people in this country that work... live in a dream world, compared to the rest of the planet.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,430
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The US exploits the poorest workers of the world who toil in highly toxic environments making textiles and disposable products for beneath slavery wages.

Why do they work for us in toxic environments for beneath slavery wages?
I told you, it's because Imperialist corporations prop up their governments, the US Gov't also supplies these governments with weapons and just enough money to feed an army of thugs to thwart a rebellion.
Nah. That would be wrong.

Give me an example, and I'll prove it wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top