Universal Basic Income Hits the US

[georgephillip]

So is everyone going to be given say... and thousand dollars a month then if they decide to work they get both the endowment and the money from work to add incentive to this program?

That's how it is being presented. Every citizen will receive a monthly stipend without means testing and independently of any other source of income.

We know this is a Liberal idea. It involves something for nothing.

It involves sharing equally in what society produces, a concept those who are constantly seeking a moral justification for selfishness find difficult to grasp.
the definition of universal
"universal

[yoo-nuh-vur-suh l]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

"See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

"adjective
1.
of, relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole:
universal experience.
2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general:
a universal cure.
3.
affecting, concerning, or involving all:
universal military service.
4.
used or understood by all:
a universal language.
5.
present everywhere..."

 

[Conservative65]

So is everyone going to be given say... and thousand dollars a month then if they decide to work they get both the endowment and the money from work to add incentive to this program?

That's how it is being presented. Every citizen will receive a monthly stipend without means testing and independently of any other source of income.

We know this is a Liberal idea. It involves something for nothing.

It involves sharing equally in what society produces, a concept those who are constantly seeking a moral justification for selfishness find difficult to grasp.
the definition of universal
"universal

[yoo-nuh-vur-suh l]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

"See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

"adjective
1.
of, relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole:
universal experience.
2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general:
a universal cure.
3.
affecting, concerning, or involving all:
universal military service.
4.
used or understood by all:
a universal language.
5.
present everywhere..."

The selfish ones don't have a hard time grasping it. The selfish ones are those that don't CONTRIBUTE equally to society but demand that the benefits of living in society be given to them equally.

When everyone in society contributes to the pot equally then everyone in society can claim an equal return. Since some contribute far more than others who contribute little to nothing, my statement stands that those wanting an equal benefit for a less than equal contribution want something for nothing.

 

[georgephillip]

Who's paying for all these endowments?

Replacing current welfare, Social Security, unemployment, and subsidized housing benefits, etc, etc are expected to provide much of the approximate $3 trillion dollar a year that is necessary to provide every US citizen with $10,000 a year.(US adult population is roughly 240 million)

It's not replacing welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc. for those on them. It's calling them by a different name. If a freeloader is getting those handouts now and they will be getting this instead, they're still getting something for nothing and not contributing to the cost of it.

If the government starts calling a tax a fee but the amount is the same, there is no difference other than the name.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not clear why you're using the term "freeloader" when basic income will be available to all citizens on a universal basis?

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[9]

"Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament.[10][11] In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase 'distribution was made unto every man according as he had need':

"Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

 

[georgephillip]

Universal basic income, universal health insurance, universal education........

For universal marxist c---ts !!! Hail Che Guevara !

Got your hardhat?

 

[georgephillip]

The selfish ones don't have a hard time grasping it. The selfish ones are those that don't CONTRIBUTE equally to society but demand that the benefits of living in society be given to them equally.

What do you mean by "contribute equally to society?"

 

[Conservative65]

Who's paying for all these endowments?

Replacing current welfare, Social Security, unemployment, and subsidized housing benefits, etc, etc are expected to provide much of the approximate $3 trillion dollar a year that is necessary to provide every US citizen with $10,000 a year.(US adult population is roughly 240 million)

It's not replacing welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc. for those on them. It's calling them by a different name. If a freeloader is getting those handouts now and they will be getting this instead, they're still getting something for nothing and not contributing to the cost of it.

If the government starts calling a tax a fee but the amount is the same, there is no difference other than the name.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not clear why you're using the term "freeloader" when basic income will be available to all citizens on a universal basis?

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[9]

"Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament.[10][11] In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase 'distribution was made unto every man according as he had need':

"Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

You can take that communist bullshit and shove it up your ass.

So sad you misuse the Bible to support the bullshit communism you support. What you support is through government mandate. The unity and common attitude held by those people wasn't based on the church leadership forcing them to do it but by the choice of those doing the giving. Big difference between the mandate you support and God's teachings.

 

[Conservative65]

The selfish ones don't have a hard time grasping it. The selfish ones are those that don't CONTRIBUTE equally to society but demand that the benefits of living in society be given to them equally.

What do you mean by "contribute equally to society?"

To help the cause in the same manner as everyone else. If you want to benefit the same, shouldn't you contribute to the cause the same.

Should the well educated person at a company make the same things as the uneducated floor sweeper?

 

[georgephillip]

When everyone in society contributes to the pot equally then everyone in society can claim an equal return. Since some contribute far more than others who contribute little to nothing, my statement stands that those wanting an equal benefit for a less than equal contribution want something for nothing.

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Profiting by common ownership and collecting money[edit]

• Collect money or resources by accepting voluntary donation.
• Universal stock ownership[24]
• Profits generated by publicly owned enterprises[25]
• Develop robot and automated industry, increased productivity and effective of production
• Selling natural resource such as metal and petroleum, and divide the revenue to each citizen"

Would you concede every citizen has an equal right to claims on wealth that was inherent in society before that citizen was born?

 

[Conservative65]

When everyone in society contributes to the pot equally then everyone in society can claim an equal return. Since some contribute far more than others who contribute little to nothing, my statement stands that those wanting an equal benefit for a less than equal contribution want something for nothing.

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Profiting by common ownership and collecting money[edit]

• Collect money or resources by accepting voluntary donation.
• Universal stock ownership[24]
• Profits generated by publicly owned enterprises[25]
• Develop robot and automated industry, increased productivity and effective of production
• Selling natural resource such as metal and petroleum, and divide the revenue to each citizen"

Would you concede every citizen has an equal right to claims on wealth that was inherent in society before that citizen was born?

You have an equal right to earn income and grow wealth but not have it given to you.

 

[georgephillip]

Who's paying for all these endowments?

Replacing current welfare, Social Security, unemployment, and subsidized housing benefits, etc, etc are expected to provide much of the approximate $3 trillion dollar a year that is necessary to provide every US citizen with $10,000 a year.(US adult population is roughly 240 million)

It's not replacing welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc. for those on them. It's calling them by a different name. If a freeloader is getting those handouts now and they will be getting this instead, they're still getting something for nothing and not contributing to the cost of it.

If the government starts calling a tax a fee but the amount is the same, there is no difference other than the name.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not clear why you're using the term "freeloader" when basic income will be available to all citizens on a universal basis?

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[9]

"Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament.[10][11] In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase 'distribution was made unto every man according as he had need':

"Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

You can take that communist bullshit and shove it up your ass.

So sad you misuse the Bible to support the bullshit communism you support. What you support is through government mandate. The unity and common attitude held by those people wasn't based on the church leadership forcing them to do it but by the choice of those doing the giving. Big difference between the mandate you support and God's teachings.

There's an even bigger difference between today's capitalistic Christians and their communistic ancestors:
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Christian communists hold the Biblical verse Acts 4:32-35 as evidence that the first Christians lived in a communist society. Acts 4:32-35 reads, 'All the believers were one in heart and mind.

"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

"With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.'"

 

[Conservative65]

Who's paying for all these endowments?

Replacing current welfare, Social Security, unemployment, and subsidized housing benefits, etc, etc are expected to provide much of the approximate $3 trillion dollar a year that is necessary to provide every US citizen with $10,000 a year.(US adult population is roughly 240 million)

It's not replacing welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc. for those on them. It's calling them by a different name. If a freeloader is getting those handouts now and they will be getting this instead, they're still getting something for nothing and not contributing to the cost of it.

If the government starts calling a tax a fee but the amount is the same, there is no difference other than the name.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not clear why you're using the term "freeloader" when basic income will be available to all citizens on a universal basis?

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[9]

"Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament.[10][11] In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase 'distribution was made unto every man according as he had need':

"Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

You can take that communist bullshit and shove it up your ass.

So sad you misuse the Bible to support the bullshit communism you support. What you support is through government mandate. The unity and common attitude held by those people wasn't based on the church leadership forcing them to do it but by the choice of those doing the giving. Big difference between the mandate you support and God's teachings.

There's an even bigger difference between today's capitalistic Christians and their communistic ancestors:
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Christian communists hold the Biblical verse Acts 4:32-35 as evidence that the first Christians lived in a communist society. Acts 4:32-35 reads, 'All the believers were one in heart and mind.

"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

"With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.'"

Have them explain to you that no church leader of that time mandated that people do that.

Christian communist is an oxymoron. The communists are atheists. Are you saying there is such a thing as a Christian atheist? You are which makes you statement invalid.

 

[georgephillip]

The selfish ones don't have a hard time grasping it. The selfish ones are those that don't CONTRIBUTE equally to society but demand that the benefits of living in society be given to them equally.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity to CONTRIBUTE, and this often occurs through an accident of birth:

"Some theorists have posed a level playing field conception of equality of opportunity,[3][19] similar in many respects to the substantive principle, (although it has been used in different contexts to describe formal equality of opportunity[9]) and it is a core idea regarding the subject of distributive justice espoused by John Roemer[35][59][60] and Ronald Dworkin[61][62] and others.

"Like the substantive notion, the level playing field conception goes farther than the usual formal approach.[35] The idea is that initial 'unchosen inequalities' – prior circumstances over which an individual had no control but which impact his or her success in a given competition for a particular post – these unchosen inequalities should be eliminated as much as possible..."
Equal opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservative65]

The selfish ones don't have a hard time grasping it. The selfish ones are those that don't CONTRIBUTE equally to society but demand that the benefits of living in society be given to them equally.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity to CONTRIBUTE, and this often occurs through an accident of birth:

"Some theorists have posed a level playing field conception of equality of opportunity,[3][19] similar in many respects to the substantive principle, (although it has been used in different contexts to describe formal equality of opportunity[9]) and it is a core idea regarding the subject of distributive justice espoused by John Roemer[35][59][60] and Ronald Dworkin[61][62] and others.

"Like the substantive notion, the level playing field conception goes farther than the usual formal approach.[35] The idea is that initial 'unchosen inequalities' – prior circumstances over which an individual had no control but which impact his or her success in a given competition for a particular post – these unchosen inequalities should be eliminated as much as possible..."
Equal opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, the excuse making argument. You've lost when you get to that. Based on what you say, some good for nothing will always have an excuse in order to blame his/her failures in life on someone or something else when, in reality, people are where they are in life based on choices they make.

You chose to make excuses and, as a result, you're a dumbass that thinks those who chose more wisely should give you something so you'll have what we earned.

 

[georgephillip]

Have them explain to you that no church leader of that time mandated that people do that.

How do you know what they were told?

 

[Conservative65]

Have them explain to you that no church leader of that time mandated that people do that.

How do you know what they were told?

Jesus taught about sharing and that involves a voluntary act by the giver. Communism as it is practiced today does it through mandate. Show me where Jesus ever used the government leaders to mandate his teachings.

 

[georgephillip]

Christian communist is an oxymoron. The communists are atheists. Are you saying there is such a thing as a Christian atheist? You are which makes you statement invalid.

"A number of Christians, of various political persuasions, object to the use of the word communism in the term "Christian communism" due to that word's association with the governments of nations such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China,Vietnam, and North Korea, which are seen as neutral.

"Many of the policies adopted by the governments of those countries were inarguably un-Christian in character, including official state hostility towards religious institutions. As such, many Christians argue that the title of Christian communalism should be used, rather than Christian communism."
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is communalism a better choice?

 

[Conservative65]

Christian communist is an oxymoron. The communists are atheists. Are you saying there is such a thing as a Christian atheist? You are which makes you statement invalid.

"A number of Christians, of various political persuasions, object to the use of the word communism in the term "Christian communism" due to that word's association with the governments of nations such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China,Vietnam, and North Korea, which are seen as neutral.

"Many of the policies adopted by the governments of those countries were inarguably un-Christian in character, including official state hostility towards religious institutions. As such, many Christians argue that the title of Christian communalism should be used, rather than Christian communism."
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is communalism a better choice?

There's a difference between living communally and communism although both words come from the same root.

If a group of like minded people want to live together and every person in that group believes what others contribute is equal to what they contribute wanting to share, go for it. I don't personally choose to do that. That's communal. However, when the government gets involved and mandates it, that's communism. They are different.

 

[Blackrook]

It will lead to mass genocide when the government figures out how much money it can save by killing people off.

 

[georgephillip]

Christian communist is an oxymoron. The communists are atheists. Are you saying there is such a thing as a Christian atheist? You are which makes you statement invalid.

"A number of Christians, of various political persuasions, object to the use of the word communism in the term "Christian communism" due to that word's association with the governments of nations such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China,Vietnam, and North Korea, which are seen as neutral.

"Many of the policies adopted by the governments of those countries were inarguably un-Christian in character, including official state hostility towards religious institutions. As such, many Christians argue that the title of Christian communalism should be used, rather than Christian communism."
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is communalism a better choice?

There's a difference between living communally and communism although both words come from the same root.

If a group of like minded people want to live together and every person in that group believes what others contribute is equal to what they contribute wanting to share, go for it. I don't personally choose to do that. That's communal. However, when the government gets involved and mandates it, that's communism. They are different.

Long before any of the three great religions came into existence there was a stage of history that Marx identified as primitive communism:

"Primitive communism[edit]

"The First Stage: is usually called primitive communism. It has the following characteristics.

• Shared property: there is no concept of ownership beyond individual possessions. All is shared by the tribe to ensure its survival.[citation needed]
• Hunting and gathering: tribal societies have yet to develop large scale agriculture and so their survival is a daily struggle.[citation needed]
• Proto-democracy: there is usually no concept of 'leadership' yet. So tribes are led by the best warrior if there is war, the best diplomat if they have steady contact with other tribes and so forth.[citation needed]

"The primitive communism stage most likely begins soon after the dawn of humanity itself, at the stage where fire is developed, and communal living therefore becomes more convenient.[citation needed]

"Primitive communist societies tend to be very small, consisting of a maximum of a few hundred members, with size being dependent upon the environment. In this stage humanity is no different from any other animal, in that it has not yet found ways to bend nature to its will.

"This stage ends with the development of private property,[citation needed] especially with the development of large scale agriculture. This in turn produces productive property, such as cattle and slaves."
Marx's theory of history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Oh, the excuse making argument. You've lost when you get to that. Based on what you say, some good for nothing will always have an excuse in order to blame his/her failures in life on someone or something else when, in reality, people are where they are in life based on choices they make.

How are people responsible for their choice of parents? Formal equality of opportunity depends on starting points like birth, genetics, and education all of which are beyond the control of anyone. You're confusing excuse with explanation.