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?
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/open arm toward law breakers/ILLEGALS called these days? LOL.
Illegal immigrants can't vote, champ.Why? More votes for them. Period. Not like the politicians from the left or the right give a damn about the average Americans. At least the Republicans are not pretending as bad at Democrats about caring for the average Joe/Susie.
Anyway, you say there are more people than more jobs, but hey... let more unskilled and untrained people to come in and compete with the unskilled and untrained US citizens for the dwindling jobs. I am not very smart but I know that is crazy and stupid.
Illegal immigrants can't vote, champ.
And libruuuuuls aren't calling for the importation of more illegal immigrants.
But keep arguing against that strawman that Masters Limbaugh and Hannity have shit into your skull.
Are we still holier than thou absolutists? Some of us apparently are.
I have a tough time believing that any American is so demented that they're jealous of illegals, but here you are, all over again, dragging the thread OT so as to bend it to your hateful agenda.
You add nothing to the conversation besides asking a bullshit loaded question, and then deflecting when I answer. And you think me calling you champ is an adhominem?Not right away but guess what when they became LEGALS from another amnesty? Uh huh, they ain't voting for Republicans for sure. Got that, champ?
Oh, more ad hom attack even I told you that I do not have cable tv or listen to talk radio. Spin, deflect, ad hom attack. Tell me something new.
Oh, still pussied out of a simple yes or no answer. Of course. Thanks for playing. Hey, more taco trucks and law mowing businesses = the future of the USA..wheeeeeeeee.. Happy, happy, joy, joy...look at those high paying high tech jobs. Must. Stop. Laughing. So. Hard.
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 add nothing to the conversation besides asking a bullshit loaded question, and then deflecting when I answer. And you think me calling you champ is an adhominem?
Go crawl into your safespace and wait until Strongman Trump tells you it's safe to come out, snowflake.
Still hateful, still OT. You just have to spew sometimes, I guess.
Limbaugh and Hannity have spent their entire paid political lives shouting that libruuuuls want to import as many illegal immigrants into the country so that they'll vote for the Democratic party, while also taking away your job.You wrote " Masters Limbaugh and Hannity have shit into your skull". Did you use the same line in a few posts above? What was my reply to you?
Oh, and this is my edit to the post above "Since when believing in everyone should follow rules and laws equally = Limbaugh and Hannity?"
Humm...let see. I believe in rules and laws and everyone should follow rules and laws equally, regardless of race/creed/sex/age/nationality/<fill in the blank>. So hateful there. Uh huh.
Can't dispute the facts and logic, pull out the ad hom attack, more more more. Full speed ahead.
Jaskalas assumes that people earning this income never, ever spend a dime of it, at least until they become a "couple." It's a bit like communism assuming that people will always accept their lot and only do good for the sake of community, and that nobody has bigger plans for themselves. That's just not human nature, as much as we would like it to be. People are generally greedy assholes, and it's not only the right who are members of that group.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.
Jaskalas assumes that people earning this income never, ever spend a dime of it, at least until they become a "couple." It's a bit like communism assuming that people will always accept their lot and only do good for the sake of community, and that nobody has bigger plans for themselves. That's just not human nature, as much as we would like it to be. People are generally greedy assholes, and it's not only the right who are members of that group.
Nice non-response Jhhnn. I'll assume you had nothing at all and that was the best you could do because clearly you couldn't actually provide any sort of rebuttal.Nice variant on "They're just as bad". Not to mention very poignant wrt the topic at hand, and not in a good way.
Jaskalas assumes that people earning this income never, ever spend a dime of it
People are generally greedy assholes
Nice non-response Jhhnn. I'll assume you had nothing at all and that was the best you could do because clearly you couldn't actually provide any sort of rebuttal.
Feel free to buy into to pie-in-the sky plans. It's a common habit of the left. Ignore any sort of reality about human behavior. It will get you...nowhere, other than having a soundbyte.
Do you know what would happen under this plan? A small percentage of people would become very, very rich, and many others would be upper to middle class, while a vast percentage of others would spend everything on crap and be broke, just like it is now. The demographics might shift somewhat, but not appreciably. As much as you would like to assume that this would fix all economic ills, you fail to take human behavior into consideration and assume that everyone would behave to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, there is a group who will always be shitheads. And, btw, that group encompasses all ethnicities, so I'm not making any sort of racial statement. I am merely commenting on the human condition. A relatively small group of people fuck everything up for everyone else. That's just reality.The nest egg? It wouldn't be theirs until the designated age. I simply calculated 1k/mo until 18.
People's finances are their own problem. I simply aim to provide them one hell of a step up in life. ALL the equal opportunity anyone could dream of. If, in spite of all that, they become failures, we have options for dealing with the homeless. Especially if they have an income regardless of employment. I imagine shelters would operate quite easily for $300-$500 / mo per person.
Communism? I find your attempts to dissuade me to be rather paltry. You have no economic plan to present. No counter proposal. Which is precisely why I had to devise one myself. There are no alternatives. I'm sure there will be variants of basic income... different ways to go about it, but trickle down was doomed before it even started. You cannot sustain an employment based economic model when you sap the value out of employment. You cannot sustain it when automation ends labor altogether.
The closer we get to that future, the more desperate our people will be for change. I hope you know what you'd say to them. It's okay though, you really just have to remember that old adage. "Can't beat 'em, join 'em." You seemingly don't have much reason to resist.
You know what de-humanizing is, right? It's when you look at an out-group and strip away the reality that they are people so that you can dismiss them casually without having to consider compassion.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?
If the group is relatively small, then might they also be inconsequential relative to the success of the rest?Do you know what would happen under this plan? A small percentage of people would become very, very rich, and many others would be upper to middle class, while a vast percentage of others would spend everything on crap and be broke, just like it is now. The demographics might shift somewhat, but not appreciably. As much as you would like to assume that this would fix all economic ills, you fail to take human behavior into consideration and assume that everyone would behave to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, there is a group who will always be shitheads. And, btw, that group encompasses all ethnicities, so I'm not making any sort of racial statement. I am merely commenting on the human condition. A relatively small group of people fuck everything up for everyone else. That's just reality.
Greed so frequently trumps education. I am not arguing for the status quo at all. Personally, I would love a system where people would assume a role and adhere to the principles involved,If the group is relatively small, then might they also be inconsequential relative to the success of the rest?
Can that group of stupid possibly be smaller than let's say 40 million? Possibly could it be appreciably smaller?
Could we make it even smaller with education?
It's okay, Status Quo Warrior, we know your answers.
Greed so frequently trumps education. I am not arguing for the status quo at all. Personally, I would love a system where people would assume a role and adhere to the principles involved,
However, I am a realist. I know how people act, and many act poorly and don't hesitate to screw over others to get theirs. That is just a sad fact of life, like it or not. Unless you have some unknown plan to change/control human behavior, nothing will change in that regard.
Sucks, but those are the simple facts, like them or not.
^LOL
Don't feel bad, you have a solid grip on Failing. See? You're not completely useless!
The nest egg? It wouldn't be theirs until the designated age. I simply calculated 1k/mo until 18.
People's finances are their own problem. I simply aim to provide them one hell of a step up in life. ALL the equal opportunity anyone could dream of. If, in spite of all that, they become failures, we have options for dealing with the homeless. Especially if they have an income regardless of employment. I imagine shelters would operate quite easily for $300-$500 / mo per person.
Communism? I find your attempts to dissuade me to be rather paltry. You have no economic plan to present. No counter proposal. Which is precisely why I had to devise one myself. There are no alternatives. I'm sure there will be variants of basic income... different ways to go about it, but trickle down was doomed before it even started. You cannot sustain an employment based economic model when you sap the value out of employment. You cannot sustain it when automation ends labor altogether.
The closer we get to that future, the more desperate our people will be for change. I hope you know what you'd say to them. It's okay though, you really just have to remember that old adage. "Can't beat 'em, join 'em." You seemingly don't have much reason to resist.
Not right away but guess what when they became LEGALS from another amnesty? Uh huh, they ain't voting for Republicans for sure. Got that, champ?
Oh, more ad hom attack even I told you that I do not have cable tv or listen to talk radio. Spin, deflect, ad hom attack. Tell me something new.
Since when believing in everyone should follow rules and laws equally = Limbaugh and Hannity?