CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[Spare_change]

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

 

[Darkwind]

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

What is not fair about that is that some people are not satisfied with having a minimal existence, and they will want to excel and challenge themselves.

Money as a store of effort accomplishes this, allowing the hard driven souls to work to their hearts content and the less capable to still survive and not be living in fear of economic collapse.

Having a mandatory minimum income is not fair to anyone, including those who would allegedly receive it.

However, I'm trying to make a point to the Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world. If you want to be like that, then you get no more than the lowest person on the totem pole.

Let's make it so everyone is exactly the same.

 

[Spare_change]

That may work out for some but not for all. People do not tend to have respect for what they did not work for. We have become a throw away society. Abortion is a good example of how some people think that even life its self of another living being is fully expendable without regard to what that life may contribute to society as a whole if allowed to grow. Perhaps they may want to start programs on how to teach your children respect first and go from there. Their attempt at forcing everyone to accept everyone and their brothers ideology of being acceptable to whatever isn't working out very well thus far.

I see the possibility of population control somehow being tied into UBI, if UBI is ever implemented on a very large scale. After all, we don't want to split that UBI between too many people. Don't want to overload the planets resources.

Mandatory execution at age .... 65? .... 60? .... 40?

Think I've heard that before.

 

[RodISHI]

That may work out for some but not for all. People do not tend to have respect for what they did not work for. We have become a throw away society. Abortion is a good example of how some people think that even life its self of another living being is fully expendable without regard to what that life may contribute to society as a whole if allowed to grow. Perhaps they may want to start programs on how to teach your children respect first and go from there. Their attempt at forcing everyone to accept everyone and their brothers ideology of being acceptable to whatever isn't working out very well thus far.

I see the possibility of population control somehow being tied into UBI, if UBI is ever implemented on a very large scale. After all, we don't want to split that UBI between too many people. Don't want to overload the planets resources.

Mandatory execution at age .... 65? .... 60? .... 40?

Think I've heard that before.

What do people expect when the whole society is full of 'corn babies'?

 

[Picaro]

The UBI concept i prefer gives each person a bonus each year that is insure to them that they will have enough to SURVIVE the year. they can supplement their income however they want at no penalty.

There are other ideas as well, but this is how I prefer it.

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is what the Federal Reserve does, lol.

Ah, no it doesn't. Were you being facetious or do you really not know why the US Treasury cannot just print money willy nilly?

The Federal Reserve is not the US Treasury. It is a system of private banks within a loosely tied government structure and they can issue credit in the form of 'reserve notes' as they see fit.

And they do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

 

[Picaro]

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

The lack of knowledge, coupled with you obvious bitterness, just boggles the mind.

A hammer is a tool to create something - it is used by a competent tradesman trained to use that particular tool.

A dollar is a tool used to create something - it, too, is used by a competent tradesman trained to use it.

You so blithely talk about the "parasitic" investors who make their living using the dollars created by the "poor and lazy". Yet, he is no different than the carpenter who makes his living using the lumber harvested by the very same "poor and lazy". You hire a carpenter to build your bookcase - you hire a financial manager to build your financial house.

It is convenient for you to look disdainfully at those who manage, those who build, those who invest. Why is it convenient? Because it gives you an excuse not to look at what you have failed to accomplish in your life. The choice is simple - you can work for your money, or you can have your money work for you. You simply picked the wrong one.

Yeah I already knew you wouldn't have a real response to anything, just more whining and ad homs. I've read all the gibberish before, probably beginning before you were born, and I can spot somebody who doesn't know squat right away, so you'll just have to annoy somebody else with your memorized memes and stuff you read at Free Republic.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

What was our population by WW I and by WW II? Even an 8th grade education then was far better than what we get from high school grads and most 'Liberal Arts' university programs these days. The only ones who show any intelligence were those who did independent outside work on their own.

 

[Spare_change]

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

The lack of knowledge, coupled with you obvious bitterness, just boggles the mind.

A hammer is a tool to create something - it is used by a competent tradesman trained to use that particular tool.

A dollar is a tool used to create something - it, too, is used by a competent tradesman trained to use it.

You so blithely talk about the "parasitic" investors who make their living using the dollars created by the "poor and lazy". Yet, he is no different than the carpenter who makes his living using the lumber harvested by the very same "poor and lazy". You hire a carpenter to build your bookcase - you hire a financial manager to build your financial house.

It is convenient for you to look disdainfully at those who manage, those who build, those who invest. Why is it convenient? Because it gives you an excuse not to look at what you have failed to accomplish in your life. The choice is simple - you can work for your money, or you can have your money work for you. You simply picked the wrong one.

Yeah I already knew you wouldn't have a real response to anything, just more whining and ad homs. I've read all the gibberish before, probably beginning before you were born, and I can spot somebody who doesn't know squat right away, so you'll just have to annoy somebody else with your memorized memes and stuff you read at Free Republic.

First of all, I strongly suspect you don't have a damn clue when I was born --- in fact, I probably am older than you.

But, age isn't the issue. Your effete elitism certainly is .... you somehow believe that you 1) deserve an income simply because you breathe, 2) you believe in a culling of the human population (which, certainly, doesn't include you) in order to make your life easier, and 3) that you don't have to contribute to the general welfare of the human race.

Your egotism stuns me ... but your arguments don't. They've been around longer than you realize, and they are nothing more than the continued attempt by the intelligentsia to avoid their responsibilities and to live off the sweat of others. We've fought wars over your kind of stupidity. We've seen your stupidity try to be implemented, only to fail every time with astounding quickness.

Quit trying to feed your ego - get off your ass and go to work.

 

[Spare_change]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

But, of course, you want to be sure that the cut-off is below your level, right? You create an argument for genocide, just as long as it doesn't include you.

 

[Picaro]

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

The lack of knowledge, coupled with you obvious bitterness, just boggles the mind.

A hammer is a tool to create something - it is used by a competent tradesman trained to use that particular tool.

A dollar is a tool used to create something - it, too, is used by a competent tradesman trained to use it.

You so blithely talk about the "parasitic" investors who make their living using the dollars created by the "poor and lazy". Yet, he is no different than the carpenter who makes his living using the lumber harvested by the very same "poor and lazy". You hire a carpenter to build your bookcase - you hire a financial manager to build your financial house.

It is convenient for you to look disdainfully at those who manage, those who build, those who invest. Why is it convenient? Because it gives you an excuse not to look at what you have failed to accomplish in your life. The choice is simple - you can work for your money, or you can have your money work for you. You simply picked the wrong one.

Yeah I already knew you wouldn't have a real response to anything, just more whining and ad homs. I've read all the gibberish before, probably beginning before you were born, and I can spot somebody who doesn't know squat right away, so you'll just have to annoy somebody else with your memorized memes and stuff you read at Free Republic.

First of all, I strongly suspect you don't have a damn clue when I was born --- in fact, I probably am older than you.

But, age isn't the issue. Your effete elitism certainly is .... you somehow believe that you 1) deserve an income simply because you breathe, 2) you believe in a culling of the human population (which, certainly, doesn't include you) in order to make your life easier, and 3) that you don't have to contribute to the general welfare of the human race.

Your egotism stuns me ... but your arguments don't. They've been around longer than you realize, and they are nothing more than the continued attempt by the intelligentsia to avoid their responsibilities and to live off the sweat of others. We've fought wars over your kind of stupidity. We've seen your stupidity try to be implemented, only to fail every time with astounding quickness.

Quit trying to feed your ego - get off your ass and go to work.

lol more strawmen, still not a single response to my points, just more blather. You have the grasp of history and economics of a ten year old, so it's only to be expected that people think you're around that age.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

But, of course, you want to be sure that the cut-off is below your level, right? You create an argument for genocide, just as long as it doesn't include you.

lol now you've invented another strawman.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Quit trying to feed your ego - get off your ass and go to work.

lol more strawmen, still not a single response to my points, just more blather. You have the grasp of history and economics of a ten year old, so it's only to be expected that people think you're around that age.

Knee jerk ignorance is one of the most destructive forces in the universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

But, of course, you want to be sure that the cut-off is below your level, right? You create an argument for genocide, just as long as it doesn't include you.

lol now you've invented another strawman.

There will not be a need to cull the human herd, and our moral legitimacy would not allow for this option any way.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, and that has to be coupled with a big reduction in population, back to what we were on track for in the late 1960's, low population growth and high productivity employment.

I dont think that a reduction in population is necessary, in fact it will rob the population of a great amount of accumulated experience and creativity.

It would require a lot less infrastructure and the high maintenance costs that involves, for one; we could reduce school sizes, build and maintain fewer roads, require a lot less electrical power, reduce our demand for natural resources, and preserve a lot more topsoil, just for starters.

I doubt our current system is cranking out any volume of learned and educated scholars, they can't even produce many who can make correct change in their heads, so I don't think there is any 'great amount of accumulated experience and creativity' is going to be lost; just the opposite would happen, in fact.

But, of course, you want to be sure that the cut-off is below your level, right? You create an argument for genocide, just as long as it doesn't include you.

lol now you've invented another strawman.

There will not be a need to cull the human herd, and our moral legitimacy would not allow for this option any way.

It's a moderate way to go about it; it would take more years than some would like, but shutting off immigration and increasing birth control isn't amoral; what effect is murdering some 60 million babies via abortion on demand for the crime of merely being inconvenient doing to morals and respect for human life? both the left and right wing are on board with human life only having some economic value as it is, and both favor murdering people by the hundreds of millions by one method or another; mine murder no one.

 

[iceberg]

Zuckerberg has a good idea.

Let's just get rid of money and make everything free.

can we start with letting me get my message out to people who like my radio station page w/o having to pay to get them to see what they already signed up to see.

 

[Rambunctious]

Everything free? Okay I'm for that. But who will make the stuff I want? who will cook the food I want to eat? or fix the car I drive? Who will clean Zucks house? who will wash Zucks dirty T- shirts? all for free! Hmmmmmmmmm I don't think it's a good Idea.

 

[Spare_change]

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

The lack of knowledge, coupled with you obvious bitterness, just boggles the mind.

A hammer is a tool to create something - it is used by a competent tradesman trained to use that particular tool.

A dollar is a tool used to create something - it, too, is used by a competent tradesman trained to use it.

You so blithely talk about the "parasitic" investors who make their living using the dollars created by the "poor and lazy". Yet, he is no different than the carpenter who makes his living using the lumber harvested by the very same "poor and lazy". You hire a carpenter to build your bookcase - you hire a financial manager to build your financial house.

It is convenient for you to look disdainfully at those who manage, those who build, those who invest. Why is it convenient? Because it gives you an excuse not to look at what you have failed to accomplish in your life. The choice is simple - you can work for your money, or you can have your money work for you. You simply picked the wrong one.

Yeah I already knew you wouldn't have a real response to anything, just more whining and ad homs. I've read all the gibberish before, probably beginning before you were born, and I can spot somebody who doesn't know squat right away, so you'll just have to annoy somebody else with your memorized memes and stuff you read at Free Republic.

First of all, I strongly suspect you don't have a damn clue when I was born --- in fact, I probably am older than you.

But, age isn't the issue. Your effete elitism certainly is .... you somehow believe that you 1) deserve an income simply because you breathe, 2) you believe in a culling of the human population (which, certainly, doesn't include you) in order to make your life easier, and 3) that you don't have to contribute to the general welfare of the human race.

Your egotism stuns me ... but your arguments don't. They've been around longer than you realize, and they are nothing more than the continued attempt by the intelligentsia to avoid their responsibilities and to live off the sweat of others. We've fought wars over your kind of stupidity. We've seen your stupidity try to be implemented, only to fail every time with astounding quickness.

Quit trying to feed your ego - get off your ass and go to work.

lol more strawmen, still not a single response to my points, just more blather. You have the grasp of history and economics of a ten year old, so it's only to be expected that people think you're around that age.

Points? You don't have points ... you throw out nonsensical blather and then expect someone to spend more than a microsecond responding to such asinine inanity? You haven't offered "points" - nothing that justifies the insipid stupidity of your so-called recommendations.