I get conservative guys point about public assistance

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Your argument is merely apologism for top down class warfare. If we can't fix it, then we should just let it proceed as it has been, right?
My argument is that actually fixing the system requires more than simply punishing the 1%. The remaining 19% have a huge chunk too. If you really, truly want to fix things then the entire 20% needs to chip in. If not, then your complaint is nothing more than 'They have too much and it pisses me off.' Nobody cares that you are pissed off, Jhhnn, and it ultimately makes for the argument of a simpleton driven by rage. We have enough raging simpletons in here, like AgentIdiot. Don't be him. Break out of the mold.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,582
7,645
136
Annual health care spending in the US in 2014 was 3.8 trillion. Your plan is already in the hole based on 2014 spending, let alone what the spending is now.

Medicare is a 3 tier system. Gov subsidy, insurance company, and deductibles / copays. Not all of it is footed by the .gov. We can tackle the fake charges that hospitals use to write tax deductions. A $60 boot is turned into $250 so they can claim a greater loss. A portion of our medical system is literally fraudulent. Then there's the battle to cut drug costs, etc. There is much we can do to reform the whole thing. Last, but not least, everyone being able to afford care will prevent a lot of the more severe and more costly treatments that we incur as easily treated diseases no longer linger.

If it needs more funding than assumed, don't worry... there's a fairly large chunk of change left over.

Basic income? What does that provide for?

Pretty sure I've covered that in this topic. Let's see..

The math thoroughly supports that, if taxed at 100%, every single couple would have ~1.76 million to start a family with.
Therefore, the problem CAN be solved with enough money applied to solve it.
I simply ask for a quarter to apply the same basic principles.

The current system is filled with holes and limitations that do not make any sense. It lacks the nest egg, which is a key component of EVERYONE having home, transport, and education. The monthly income after that is padding to cover disability, unemployment, social security, et al. It does not leave you behind if you find a job, so there is no trade off to punish working. No incentive to increase costs with more kids. No pyramid scheme to make a later generation pay off the debt. It brings balance and stability to a system that is in chaos.

It also frees us to pursue the free market and cheapen the cost of goods even if it costs us jobs. That has, and will, continue to occur regardless but at least we'll be prepared. A safety net compliments the free market nicely. We just have to drop old dogmas and wake up to the fact that we are a wealthy nation, the economy is about to radically upend itself, and UBI is the only clear path forward.

Long story short, the math proves it can work.​

At a UBI of $1k / month per person, every couple would start life off with a $432,000 nest egg. That's the realistic quarter version of the figure above. This figure would be enough to secure housing, transport and education. All the tools for a "free ride" into the Middle Class. The monthly "income" of $2k for a couple will give them options should they want to move or find new work. All without the hoops and hurdles they currently have to beg for. It is my "Libertarian" version of an already existing "welfare state".

For that matter, what constitutes the remaining Federal Budget?

Literally everything in our current budget that would not fall under welfare or medical. Those are already the massive, big ticket, items.

Your budgeting seems very Trumpish in nature. Lot's of high-level talk, nothing in the way of details.

My last post was a snapshot of the big picture to help illustrate it for you in its totality. That often gets lost in the details, and/or posters will simply gloss over large posts as TL;DR. It helps leave an impression to have the bullet points ready. That you assume it's all there is, well... that's amusing. The economy is the basis of my political conversion from Libertarian. I would not have done so lightly.

Far as I have seen, the Republican side has no alternative. No answers. Trickle down has failed this country for 40+ years. It's time we stop pretending taxes are the sum of all ills, and realize that the value of labor has tanked. And that loss isn't over. Automation will soon end any fantasy the Republicans could ever hope to hold for job creation.

We are entering a brave new world. It's time we step up, face economic reality, and help our people through the changes.
 
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
My argument is that actually fixing the system requires more than simply punishing the 1%. The remaining 19% have a huge chunk too. If you really, truly want to fix things then the entire 20% needs to chip in. If not, then your complaint is nothing more than 'They have too much and it pisses me off.' Nobody cares that you are pissed off, Jhhnn, and it ultimately makes for the argument of a simpleton driven by rage. We have enough raging simpletons in here, like AgentIdiot. Don't be him. Break out of the mold.


I never even suggested that I wasn't willing to pitch in, which makes that a red herring. The whole thrust of your argument here is a red herring because we both know that Repubs intend to cut taxes at the top, come Hell or high water.

The people & places left behind by the Job Creators best hold onto their bootstraps because they'll get no relief from Repubs.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Pretty sure I've covered that in this topic. Let's see..

The math thoroughly supports that, if taxed at 100%, every single couple would have ~1.76 million to start a family with.
Therefore, the problem CAN be solved with enough money applied to solve it.
I simply ask for a quarter to apply the same basic principles.

The current system is filled with holes and limitations that do not make any sense. It lacks the nest egg, which is a key component of EVERYONE having home, transport, and education. The monthly income after that is padding to cover disability, unemployment, social security, et al. It does not leave you behind if you find a job, so there is no trade off to punish working. No incentive to increase costs with more kids. No pyramid scheme to make a later generation pay off the debt. It brings balance and stability to a system that is in chaos.

It also frees us to pursue the free market and cheapen the cost of goods even if it costs us jobs. That has, and will, continue to occur regardless but at least we'll be prepared. A safety net compliments the free market nicely. We just have to drop old dogmas and wake up to the fact that we are a wealthy nation, the economy is about to radically upend itself, and UBI is the only clear path forward.

Long story short, the math proves it can work.​
Does this assume that every corporation in this country can be liquidated and reduced to nothing so everyone can have $1.7 million?

Hey, who gets MS Word in this deal? What about John Deere, home and commercial divisions? Sony America? Facebook?

Is this what you are claiming? If so, do you realize the impact of what you are suggesting?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I never even suggested that I wasn't willing to pitch in, which makes that a red herring. The whole thrust of your argument here is a red herring because we both know that Repubs intend to cut taxes at the top, come Hell or high water.

The people & places left behind by the Job Creators best hold onto their bootstraps because they'll get no relief from Repubs.
I'm not a Repub, Jhhnn, which makes the entire thrust of your response moot.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Does this assume that every corporation in this country can be liquidated and reduced to nothing so everyone can have $1.7 million?

Hey, who gets MS Word in this deal? What about John Deere, home and commercial divisions? Sony America? Facebook?

Is this what you are claiming? If so, do you realize the impact of what you are suggesting?
Why are you actively not reading what he has to say?

He's putting in the effort, why can't you?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Why are you actively not reading what he has to say?

He's putting in the effort, why can't you?
Is he not saying, in essence, that every US corporation has to be dissolved in order for US citizens to each have 1.7M? Because that's what would have to happen. What about that is not clear to you? What am I missing about this argument?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Is he not saying, in essence, that every US corporation has to be dissolved in order for US citizens to each have 1.7M? Because that's what would have to happen. What about that is not clear to you? What am I missing about this argument?
That he isn't saying everyone and everything is taxed 100%. That seems to be exactly what you're missing.

You're missing his whole friggin' thing.

Maybe read it over again.

He's saying that the 100% thing proves the money exists to redistribute. Not that he wants to do it. You have to know it looks like you are actively choosing to focus on a premise that he actually pushes aside.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,582
7,645
136
Does this assume that every corporation in this country can be liquidated and reduced to nothing so everyone can have $1.7 million?

The figure is based on United States annual personal income of $15.5 trillion. Corporations not part of the equation.
The actual UBI plan involves a quarter of that.

Hey, who gets MS Word in this deal? What about John Deere, home and commercial divisions? Sony America? Facebook?

The point of UBI is I don't care what they do with it.

Is this what you are claiming? If so, do you realize the impact of what you are suggesting?

It is a bold plan to be sure, but no less dramatic than the automation we face. Labor is being removed from the economy. It's time we install a safety net that can secure the economy without it.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
My argument is that actually fixing the system requires more than simply punishing the 1%. The remaining 19% have a huge chunk too. If you really, truly want to fix things then the entire 20% needs to chip in. If not, then your complaint is nothing more than 'They have too much and it pisses me off.' Nobody cares that you are pissed off, Jhhnn, and it ultimately makes for the argument of a simpleton driven by rage. We have enough raging simpletons in here, like AgentIdiot. Don't be him. Break out of the mold.

Degenerates are sure proud of pretending to be too goddamn stupid to ever understand arithmetic. I'm sure glad your peer chucky showed up to help demonstrate that it's the race realists who really have a solid grip on modern economics.
 
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
I ignored Upchuck the Second a while back. He's not even prolific enough to waste time responding to.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,596
7,854
136
The figure is based on United States annual personal income of $15.5 trillion. Corporations not part of the equation.
The actual UBI plan involves a quarter of that.



The point of UBI is I don't care what they do with it.



It is a bold plan to be sure, but no less dramatic than the automation we face. Labor is being removed from the economy. It's time we install a safety net that can secure the economy without it.
While I think the UBI is a good idea because:

1. There are not enough jobs for 7 billion people around the world, and there aren't enough jobs for 310 million Americans (minus retired, disabled, etc.)
2. No one should have to worry about being homeless, foodless, and without heat/cooling

And a UBI doesn't require that all assets be pooled together and then redistributed. It simply requires a new accounting column.

At the same time, there are other options that can be used to ease Americans into the future, as the current economic model is clearly anachronistic.

For example, labor, that is, 99.9% of Americans, were promised shorter work weeks, higher wages, better benefits, and more free time because of automation. Yet, here we are, 40+ hours a week worked by often 2 people to support a household, which was supported by 1 worker just 60 years ago.

So, increase wages/benefits, and cut a full-time work week from 40, to 25 hours. Instantly, you just created millions of jobs that need to be filled. If we're going to slowly move into a realistic current economy that reflects the reality that computers and automation are destroying jobs by being cheaper and faster than a human.

And it doesn't have to be 25 hours...it can be tailored to individual industries and sectors.

Other options exist, like a negative income tax, which would effectively do something similar to a UBI.

What is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention is that there are more people than there are jobs. Either address it, or the people starving do to forces they can't control, will rectify the situation eventually. Which is never particularly attractive to the people who happen to own and operate the banks and the governments at that time, so they might as well give up a few more scraps of wealth and power now, so we can get on with society already.
 
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
<snip>

What is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention is that there are more people than there are jobs. Either address it, or the people starving do to forces they can't control, will rectify the situation eventually. Which is never particularly attractive to the people who happen to own and operate the banks and the governments at that time, so they might as well give up a few more scraps of wealth and power now, so we can get on with society already.

Then why liberals/democrats are so eager to have more and more ILLEGALS here in the US? The same type of folks that will be hard to move up with with the new automated/high tech economy.
 
Last edited:

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Then why liberals/democrats are so eager to have more and more ILLEGALS here in the US? The same type of folks that will be hard to move up with with the new automated/high tech economy.
You mean immigrants, right?

Illegal is an adjective, not a noun.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,596
7,854
136
Then why liberals/democrats are so eager to have more and more ILLEGALS here in the US? The same type of folks that will be hard to move up with with the new automated/high tech economy.
Why do you believe in the boogeyman that Rush Limbaugh is paid to squirt straight out of his ass and into your skull?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
You mean immigrants, right?

Illegal is an adjective, not a noun.

You do know the meaning of ILLEGAL, right? There are LEGAL immigrants and there are ILLEGAL immigrants. You do know they are not the same, right?

Why do you believe in the boogeyman that Rush Limbaugh is paid to squirt straight out of his ass and into your skull?

You can stop it right there because I do not have cable/satellite and I do not have time to listen to talk radio so the ad hom attack can stop right there. Are you going to answer the question above or more of pussy out/deflection?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Then why liberals/democrats are so eager to have more and more ILLEGALS here in the US? The same type of folks that will be hard to move up with with the new automated/high tech economy.

Eager isn't the right word. We're just more accepting. Illegals go to where the jobs are, where the economy is growing rather than places like Pemiscot County where it's been dying for decades. Illegals fill the Job Creators' need for labor in ways that Americans simply don't.

Social spending kinda puts poor people & places under hospice care. Shee-it, Sherlock- if a fairly large % of the county is receiving food stamps it's what keeps the grocery stores open & enables much of the rest of commerce as well.

If the Job Creators gave a flying rat's ass about that it would be different, but it's not.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
Eager isn't the right word. We're just more accepting. Illegals go to where the jobs are, where the economy is growing rather than places like Pemiscot County where it's been dying for decades. Illegals fill the Job Creators' need for labor in ways that Americans simply don't.

Social spending kinda puts poor people & places under hospice care. Shee-it, Sherlock- if a fairly large % of the county is receiving food stamps it's what keeps the grocery stores open & enables much of the rest of commerce as well.

If the Job Creators gave a flying rat's ass about that it would be different, but it's not.

Again, you pussied out this question last time so I will bring it up again. Are we still a nation of rules and laws? Yes or No?

LOL @ "more accepting". Is that how tolerate/look the other way/open arm toward law breakers/ILLEGALS called these days? LOL.
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,596
7,854
136
You do know the meaning of ILLEGAL, right? There are LEGAL immigrants and there are ILLEGAL immigrants. You do know they are not the same, right?



You can stop it right there because I do not have cable/satellite and I do not have time to listen to talk radio so the ad hom attack can stop right there. Are you going to answer the question above or more of pussy out/deflection?
So, you're demanding that I answer a loaded question?

Talk about deflection.

Why do you believe that libruuuls want more illegal immigrants to flood into this country and steal your job, specifically?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |