What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

Not very difficult. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place; unlike the great changes required to our endless wars right wingers can never win.

It would involve major changes and would be a duplication of service already provided by the welfare system. Why make all those changes when welfare can do what you demand with no changes.

Not at all. That is You simply making that up.

 

[danielpalos]

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.

Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

For what? For violating simple and clearly stated rules? That is not censorship.

Stop whining when it happens to right wingers.

 

[BlackSand]

Says the persons who only have ad hominems instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

The rebuttal was simple, yet you missed it still the same.

You do not require my acceptance or agreement to petition your local or state government for what you want.
If you cannot achieve that, then you are a failure ... There is no point in arguing with that.

.

 

[hadit]

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

To summarize, you want to be paid $15/hour to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot. Is that about the size of it?

Why do you have a problem with if you can make more than that minimum wage? Just quit and go on unemployment. Don't whine.

The problem is you getting paid and doing nothing productive for the society that's paying you. And your attitude right there is why we don't do it, because many would be just like you and refuse to work a productive job.

Where is the law that says anyone has to be employed in an at-will employment State? Black codes prove you wrong. It was a lack of equal protection of the laws that causes and has caused poverty in our republic.

As has been explained to you many times, you don't have to be employed. You also don't have to get paid if you're not. See how that works, or are you still stuck on stupid?

Not from a job. Silly right winger. Compensation for simply being unemployed is the simple solution that can win our endless war on poverty.

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society, silly one. Society has accepted that some are worthy of being paid while not working, such as the elderly or disabled. Paying you just because you don't want to take an available job, however, is NOT the solution you dream about, because the net cost to society would simply be too great. I can't make it any clearer than that. I've led you to water, now you have to decide to drink.

 

[hadit]

There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.

I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.

It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.

Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

No, it does not. Doing what you want would change UC to a welfare program, and it would no longer work like it does. IOW, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

 

[danielpalos]

Says the persons who only have ad hominems instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

The rebuttal was simple, yet you missed it still the same.

You do not require my acceptance or agreement to petition your local or state government for what you want.
If you cannot achieve that, then you are a failure ... There is no point in arguing with that.

.

And, if I win, it must mean y'all were failures with nothing but ad hominems and hypocrisy?

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.

I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.

It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.

Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

No, it does not. Doing what you want would change UC to a welfare program, and it would no longer work like it does. IOW, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

No, that is your simple misunderstanding. UC can solve simple poverty by correcting for the poverty causing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Capital must circulate under Capitalism.

 

[hadit]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

I say that because every dollar you pay someone to be idle has to first be taken from someone else who has earned it. Do you at least acknowledge that truth? Therefore, any multiplier effect you get from paying someone is countered by the opportunity cost from taking that dollar away from someone else who would have put it to good use. Do you acknowledge that reality?

 

[hadit]

There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.

I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.

It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.

Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

No, it does not. Doing what you want would change UC to a welfare program, and it would no longer work like it does. IOW, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

No, that is your simple misunderstanding. UC can solve simple poverty by correcting for the poverty causing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Capital must circulate under Capitalism.

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work). So you're not gaining much there. You just keep reiterating that it would work without any clue how it would.

 

[WinterBorn]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

Not very difficult. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place; unlike the great changes required to our endless wars right wingers can never win.

It would involve major changes and would be a duplication of service already provided by the welfare system. Why make all those changes when welfare can do what you demand with no changes.

Not at all. That is You simply making that up.

That is a lie. The welfare system is designed and set up to provide long term assistance if needed. It is already funded the way UC would have to be funded.

 

[WinterBorn]

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.

Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

For what? For violating simple and clearly stated rules? That is not censorship.

Stop whining when it happens to right wingers.

I am not whining. I am also not claiming I was censored when I violated the rules.

 

[WinterBorn]

Says the persons who only have ad hominems instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.

The rebuttal was simple, yet you missed it still the same.

You do not require my acceptance or agreement to petition your local or state government for what you want.
If you cannot achieve that, then you are a failure ... There is no point in arguing with that.

.

And, if I win, it must mean y'all were failures with nothing but ad hominems and hypocrisy?

If you win, and UC becomes available for anyone who does not have a job and doesn't try to get one, I will happily admit to failure.

But that will never happen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

 

[WinterBorn]

There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.

I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.

It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.

Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

No, it does not. Doing what you want would change UC to a welfare program, and it would no longer work like it does. IOW, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

No, that is your simple misunderstanding. UC can solve simple poverty by correcting for the poverty causing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Capital must circulate under Capitalism.

Capital does circulate under capitalism. Distributing it to other people who did not earn it does not change whether it circulates. If I keep what I earn, it will still circulate.

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

I say that because every dollar you pay someone to be idle has to first be taken from someone else who has earned it. Do you at least acknowledge that truth? Therefore, any multiplier effect you get from paying someone is countered by the opportunity cost from taking that dollar away from someone else who would have put it to good use. Do you acknowledge that reality?

No, it doesn't. A positive multiplier means growing an economy. Why do you believe what you do?

 

[hadit]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

They never account for the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy first so they can distribute it.

 

[hadit]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

I say that because every dollar you pay someone to be idle has to first be taken from someone else who has earned it. Do you at least acknowledge that truth? Therefore, any multiplier effect you get from paying someone is countered by the opportunity cost from taking that dollar away from someone else who would have put it to good use. Do you acknowledge that reality?

No, it doesn't. A positive multiplier means growing an economy. Why do you believe what you do?

How do you suggest the government get the money to pay you to stay home and smoke pot if it does not first tax it from someone who earned it?

 

[danielpalos]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

 

[danielpalos]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

Not much of a change. Simply starting endless wars that right wingers could never win is worse. Besides, it is simple to make the changes and employers would not be on the hook for UC as they are now.

Oh, so changing how it is funded, changing who is qualified, how state IDs are issued, how benefits are handled and how long they last, is "not much of a change"? LMAO

You really do bend over backwards to try and defend an indefensible position.

Not very difficult. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place; unlike the great changes required to our endless wars right wingers can never win.

It would involve major changes and would be a duplication of service already provided by the welfare system. Why make all those changes when welfare can do what you demand with no changes.

Not at all. That is You simply making that up.

That is a lie. The welfare system is designed and set up to provide long term assistance if needed. It is already funded the way UC would have to be funded.

Means testing is for those for whom solving for simple poverty may not be enough. It is about increasing the efficiency of our economy not simply applying concepts in a biased manner.