Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
So how much do you suppose you'll be paying for gasoline, natural gas, or propane for your home with a fossil fuel tax? Providers pass down all their costs to us.
Fossil fuel fortunes have come into existence through subsidies and other forms of government intervention in "free markets." The sooner gas, coal, and oil are taxed into extinction, the better, imho:

Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs - OurEnergyPolicy

"There is a long history of government intervention in energy markets. Numerous energy subsidies exist in the U.S. tax code to promote or subsidize the production of cheap and abundant fossil energy.

"Some of these subsidies have been around for a century, and while the United States has enjoyed unparalleled economic growth over the past 100 years—thanks in no small part to cheap energy—in many cases, the circumstances relevant at the time subsidies were implemented no longer exist.

"Today, the domestic fossil fuel industries (namely, coal, oil and natural gas) are mature and generally highly profitable.

"Additionally, numerous clean and renewable alternatives exist, which have become increasingly price-competitive with traditional fossil fuels."
Numerous? Not so much. There are a few, that specifically relate to fossil energy, but not 'numerous'.

And even then, they are not subsidies, as much as they are tax deductions.

A subsidy is when you actually take money from one person, and give it to another, to "subsidize" their operation.

A tax deduction is not a subsidy, because if it is... then everyone in the entire country is subsidized. I used a tax deduction, and I wager so did you, and so did everyone else. So are *YOU* subsidized by the US government? If you are, then how can you complain when others are as well?

A real Subsidy is like Amtrak. Amtrak is an actual subsidy. And by the way, an excellent example of why we don't want government running anything else.
During its more than 40-year tenure, the rail service has received over $45 billion in taxpayer dollars. Yet Amtrak has run operating losses every year since its inception in 1971. For over a decade, 41 of its 44 routes have remained unprofitable. In 2014 alone, its loses totaled roughly $1.1 billion.​
Amtrak's lack of revenue should come as no surprise since its leaders have conceded as much. "Amtrak will never be profitable," its then president David Gunn told Congress in 2002.​
Gunn's perspective explains why the train's operators have no incentive to cut down costs: They expect to get more funding regardless of the quality of service they provide, including a record of tardy train arrivals.​
As a result, Amtrak spends money it doesn't have on services riders don't need.​
To take one of many examples, from 2003 to 2013 Amtrak lost more than $900 million on food services alone. As U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., reported in a congressional hearing in 2012, Amtrak charged $9 for a cheeseburger. But it cost Amtrak $16 to make the burger. In effect, taxpayers subsidized $7 of each passenger's cheeseburger.​


^^^^ That is a subsidy. *YOU* are paying taxes to the government, so that the Amtrak CEO who makes $340,000 a year, can serve a $16 Burger for $9, on a railroad that has consistently lost money since 1971.

And better still, if not ironic... most of the primary riders of Amtrak are the wealthy. So the 99% are paying for a luxury of the wealthy, and people on the left-wing support it.

But back to the 'subsidies' of fossil fuels...

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction
Percentage Depletion


All businesses have depletion and cost deductions. If I invest $200,000 into a store renovation, I can use that as a deduction.

Credit for Clean Coal Investment

This I don't see a problem. You want to lower CO2 emissions, right? Isn't that the entire complaint about fossil fuels? Well those investments to retrofit coal power plants into gasification plants, dramatically reduces the out put of emissions.

Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit

This was a direct credit for domestic energy production.

Adding all those things together, would be roughly $40 Billion over 10 years.

Is that a lot in your world? All the tax credits and deductions across all fossil fuel companies, was a whooping $40 Billion over 10 years.

That's it.

The coal industry alone is worth $28 Billion per year. And that's after years of decline. And you are telling me "Fossil fuel fortunes have come into existence through subsidies"??

Really? You think that without that little $40 Billion over 10 years, that the Coal industry that is worth $28 Billion a year, wouldn't exist?

Now if you want to eliminate all tax deductions, that's fine. That wouldn't bother me so much, but you need to remember this.....

Every dollar that a company has, either came from paying workers less, or charging customers more.

Every dollar you demand a company pays to government, is a dollar you will have to pay the company, or get paid less at your work.

There is no magic money that companies have to pay taxes with, instead of charging you the customer more, or paying you the employee less.

This is why people are paid less money in wages and higher prices for products, for the same job and products we have, in Europe. All over Europe, people are paid less money, than how much we are paid here in the US for the exact same identical job. Why? Because when you levy taxes on business to pay for all your government stuff.... that has to come from somewhere. It comes from paying the employees less, and charging the customers more.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
“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.
Actually that's true. That's why we need to allow the UN to assume control of global governance and create a welfare system that uplifts the poorest people around the world so that they can also drive cars, have heating and A/C, more than enough food, fashionable clothing, internet and phones and reasonable structures for shelter. It is a crime against humanity that the US exists on the backs of the world's poor.
You don't seem to realize just how many economies around the world, only exist because of the US. If we didn't exist... they wouldn't be richer. They would be poorer than they are now.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
And without those US jobs, those poorest workers of the world would watch their children starve. You know that, but want to feel good about yourself. How many products have you bought that were made in those countries by those workers?
I'm not like a right winger that pretends to give a shit about human life. You'd shoot a man for stealing your TV, so you don't care about human life. The fact is the world is horrendously over populated, and when these imperialist corporations come to these countries and exploit the people just enough so they can continue to fuck more, it exacerbates the problem. Rather that just a few hundred starving, you end up with thousands starving. It's a domino effect.
You can only say that because you have not lived with people stealing everything you own repeatedly.

I know people who have had their car and apartment broken into a half dozen times. You might as well be a slave in that situation, because you work only to have everything you work for stolen from you.

If I came and stole your stuff every single week, and you couldn't do anything to stop me... in less than a year, you'd be ready to shoot people too. And you are lying if you deny that. You are just a liar if you ever claim otherwise.

Right-wingers do care about human life, more than you people on the left do. We are more charitable. We volunteer more. We give more money.

Left-wingers never do any of that. All they do, is claim OTHERS should help people. Never them.

We are better people than you, and always will be no matter if you admit it or not.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: DBA

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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.
First, that graph is stupid. Showing that the number of audits has declined, doesn't mean anything.

I know people who have been audited only to show they over paid, and got a larger refund.

That graph has no fact based relevance, unless you just assume that people and falsifying their income taxes, and the IRS is seeing this and intentionally ignoring it.

If you can actually provide hard evidence of this, feel free to post it.

Further, the link you posted is crap from the start.

The wealthiest sliver of the population is depriving the American public of about $266 billion of owed tax revenue every year.

depriving the American public? Really depriving the American public?

Don't you mean depriving the wealthy elite in Washington DC?

Don't you mean depriving the wealthy lobbyists?

You think that if they collected that $266 Billion, that I would see a penny? Are you yourself stupid enough to thing YOU would get a dollar if they collected that?

Back in 2012 when they had the 40,000 audits... did you get a huge check? Did anyone? List the people that got the "audit check" from that?

No one. Don't even try to lie. No one.

The only people who benefit from government getting more money, is the people in government you are stupid enough to vote for, because you think they stuck it to the rich, when really they stuck it to you. And their lobbyist supporters.

I don't know a single person anywhere that benefited from the Obama stimulus... but I do know some Unions and Green Energy groups that did.

You people are all so blind. You are tied around the finger of the rich wealthy elite, and you support them as they screw you over and over.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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?
No, because they didn't. The internet only became available to the mass public, when private networks, funded privately, came into being. Which required hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, far more than the government ever invested.

This is the dirty little secret of the "government created the internet" mantra.

NSFNET, was designed to be a research only network. They didn't allow commercial use.

Thus, in 1990, after the military had dissolved ARPNET, commercial investment created commercially usable networks that paralleled the government funded research networks.

As the connected network grew, pressure began to build to allow commercial use of the network, which was prohibited by NSFNET management in order to maintain use of the bandwidth for research purposes. In response to the demand, a number of parallel networks were formed to allow commercial traffic, including the UUNET network ALTERNET, Performance Systems International (PSI) network PSINet, CERFNet, and NEARNet. Nearly all of the regional research networks eventually spun off commercial entities. As part of the same commercial dynamic, the umbrella organization Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) Association was formed by CERFnet, PSINet, and AlterNet to promote commercial use of Internet networking.​

Just a mere 5 years later, NSFNET itself, ceased to exist, as commercial investment completely over shadowed the government involvement.

Starting back in 1990, the NSF had started conducting a series of workshops and studies to plan for transition of the network to private industry. The vehicle that evolved to support the new architecture was a set of Network Access Points that acted as connection points for the commercial backbones so that the network would remain connected at the top level once the NSFNET was retired. On April 30, 1995, the NSFNET was officially dissolved.​


It was commercial investment, that created the internet we have today. Not the government.

By the way, the National Science Foundation (NSF) still has a government network for research purposes, just like it did at the very start.

But the reason we have the internet that we do today, is because of the trillions of dollars invested in internet technology. Not a comparatively tiny research network that the government funded in the 1980s.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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?
What you posted, does not contradict anything I posted.

US capitalists? Again, we didn't confiscate a single oil field. Nor did we start shipping oil to the US for free.

Every barrel of oil from Iraq, was paid for, just like we paid for oil from Iraq before the war.

You said we went there to take their oil. We didn't. Just flat out... we didn't take their oil.

So, nothing else you say matters to this discussion. Either we went into Iraq to take their oil, or we didn't.

We didn't take their oil. So we obviously didn't go there to take their oil.

Nothing you posted, contradicts any of that.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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
So... here's the problem... Maybe you don't know this, but the United Fruit Company gained nothing, and ultimately ended up losing everything.

From your own link.....

"The UFC did not profit from the coup; although it regained most of its privileges, its profits continued to decline, and it was eventually merged with another company to save itself from bankruptcy"

So..... back to my question: Where, and when, would you point to as a place where we got control, and stole their resources?

I would argue that the involvement of the US in Guatemala was more about the cold war Soviet influence, than about bananas.

Honestly, that's really stupid, to think the US would get so involved, over bananas. If you really think we spent that much time, money, and effort, and risk the backlash.... over bananas.... then... I don't know. That just seems like a something only a stupid person would think.

Now I would agree with you that it was a dumb move. Even if Guatemala went entirely soviet, they hardly had the money or man power to be a real threat to the US.

But your claim wasn't about that. Your claim was we stole people's resources. We didn't. There is no evidence that we stole anything from Guatemala. And certainly the United Fruit Company didn't get anything out of it.

So... no... try again.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
5,779
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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?
Depends on the details I suppose. I can't really say for something that hasn't happened.

Honestly, you guys on the left have pretty much zero credibility with accusations. You made up completely fabricated charges against Bret Kavanough. You made up Russia-Trump. And lets not even get into the dozens on dozens of false racism charges like Jussie Smollet that people blamed on Trump, only to find it out was fabricated.

So... *shrug* hard to say if anyone would believe Trump is guilty of anything, when the people accusing him are serial pathological liars.

Honestly, look at all the false accusations your said has said about Troop for the last 4 years. If I spent that many years making up stuff that Obama never did... saying he was a white-hater.. saying he was in league with Putin.... saying he was enriching his family... defrauding the public... and on and on.....
Eventually you wouldn't believe anything I accused him of, right?

Well? Same difference? You don't have much credibility. It's hard to trust any claims you make about him now.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
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.
How does that even relate to UC? You're just quoting random things, hoping desperately they relate, but they don't.
Too bad for you, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Just because You are that ignorant means nobody should have to take You seriously; no judge has to take You seriously, why should anyone else?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
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.
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.

Amazon.com

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.
QE seems be working in the US. When was all of the money printed recovered?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.

View attachment 422477

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.
The should have asked for tax breaks like businesses do in the US.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
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 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.
Capitalism was freer under the Articles of Confederation and they used believe Poor laws were a solution. Even now, right wingers have no problem trying to criminalize being Poor. Why do we have a homeless problem that is increasing not decreasing, even while the Richest get richer?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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
So... here's the problem... Maybe you don't know this, but the United Fruit Company gained nothing, and ultimately ended up losing everything.

From your own link.....

"The UFC did not profit from the coup; although it regained most of its privileges, its profits continued to decline, and it was eventually merged with another company to save itself from bankruptcy"

So..... back to my question: Where, and when, would you point to as a place where we got control, and stole their resources?

I would argue that the involvement of the US in Guatemala was more about the cold war Soviet influence, than about bananas.

Honestly, that's really stupid, to think the US would get so involved, over bananas. If you really think we spent that much time, money, and effort, and risk the backlash.... over bananas.... then... I don't know. That just seems like a something only a stupid person would think.

Now I would agree with you that it was a dumb move. Even if Guatemala went entirely soviet, they hardly had the money or man power to be a real threat to the US.

But your claim wasn't about that. Your claim was we stole people's resources. We didn't. There is no evidence that we stole anything from Guatemala. And certainly the United Fruit Company didn't get anything out of it.

So... no... try again.
The problem is we have no general warfare clause yet the right wing's only solutions are for the general warfare not the general welfare.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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?
Depends on the details I suppose. I can't really say for something that hasn't happened.

Honestly, you guys on the left have pretty much zero credibility with accusations. You made up completely fabricated charges against Bret Kavanough. You made up Russia-Trump. And lets not even get into the dozens on dozens of false racism charges like Jussie Smollet that people blamed on Trump, only to find it out was fabricated.

So... *shrug* hard to say if anyone would believe Trump is guilty of anything, when the people accusing him are serial pathological liars.

Honestly, look at all the false accusations your said has said about Troop for the last 4 years. If I spent that many years making up stuff that Obama never did... saying he was a white-hater.. saying he was in league with Putin.... saying he was enriching his family... defrauding the public... and on and on.....
Eventually you wouldn't believe anything I accused him of, right?

Well? Same difference? You don't have much credibility. It's hard to trust any claims you make about him now.
Right wingers are even worse. The proof is, here is the guy right wingers voted for as the Greatest of the Great on the Right Wing:

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims--https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,912
Reaction score
3,005
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The reason is simple. On the DR side, they have a concept that is fundamental to all Capitalism, called "Private Property".

On the Haiti side, they have government owned land, that is "held in common". So that all people can benefit from the natural resources of the country equally... and thus... there are none.
Haitian deforestation has more to do with charcoal, coffee, and French capitalists than with "government owned land."

Deforestation in Haiti - Wikipedia

"The rapid deforestation of Haiti began during the colonial period facilitated by slavery of captive Africans, and was intensified when coffee was introduced in 1730.

"Upland forests were cleared and fifty years later, a quarter of the colony's land was under coffee.

"The system of plantation monoculture and clean -cultivation between rows of coffee, indigo, tobacco, and sugarcane exhausted soil nutrients and led to rapid erosion[2]

"Following the Haitian revolution, the government was forced to export timber throughout the 19th century to pay off a 90 million franc indemnity to France for the 'loss' equivalent to the 'value' of the formerly enslaved population."
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,333
Reaction score
2,921
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The reason is simple. On the DR side, they have a concept that is fundamental to all Capitalism, called "Private Property".

On the Haiti side, they have government owned land, that is "held in common". So that all people can benefit from the natural resources of the country equally... and thus... there are none.
Haitian deforestation has more to do with charcoal, coffee, and French capitalists than with "government owned land."

Deforestation in Haiti - Wikipedia

"The rapid deforestation of Haiti began during the colonial period facilitated by slavery of captive Africans, and was intensified when coffee was introduced in 1730.

"Upland forests were cleared and fifty years later, a quarter of the colony's land was under coffee.

"The system of plantation monoculture and clean -cultivation between rows of coffee, indigo, tobacco, and sugarcane exhausted soil nutrients and led to rapid erosion[2]

"Following the Haitian revolution, the government was forced to export timber throughout the 19th century to pay off a 90 million franc indemnity to France for the 'loss' equivalent to the 'value' of the formerly enslaved population."
Yet, the right wing claims it was socialism not "free market capitalism" that caused the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
 

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,929
Reaction score
6,158
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
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.
They are downplaying int because it’s an inconvenient truth.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,912
Reaction score
3,005
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
hese are for profit, capitalist companies, operating the oil fields in Alaska. They are not government run, they are for-profit. They are not 'held in common'.
The oil and gas resources they exploit ARE part of the commons. It is only the capitalists' peculiar definition of "private property" that permits a few parasites to amass vast fortunes from the public domain.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,766
Reaction score
5,167
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.
Too bad for you, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Just because You are that ignorant means nobody should have to take You seriously; no judge has to take You seriously, why should anyone else?
You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the law. Nothing you've quoted has any relevance to UC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top