Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL you either don't know what a tourniquet is, don't appreciate the delicate art of drawing analogies, or just want to argue -- reality be damned.
Your use of flowery analogies is just a way to disguise the lack of strength in your argument. Tourniquets, band-aids, slings, gauze pads, cotton balls...whatever...fact is that the poor in this country gets lots of help. Throwing more money at them (as shown by liberal cities and states) does not solve the problem, it just creates more problems.
As for just wanting to argue. Just count the #of my posts with yours in this thread and we all can see who it is that just wants to argue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
Utah -- under Republican leadership -- has solved 91% of their homeless problem by adopting a "housing-first" approach.
Thank you for making my point. Conservative approaches to solving homeless and poor is more effective than the liberal/Leftist approach. No disagreement there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
UBI is based on the same understanding.
No it's not. No conservative or Republican would ever support UBI. This is a socialist Leftist idea. You don't know what you are talking about and are all over the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
And it's not "free money;" it's money already in the economy, only locked away in one small part of it because the rich have paid their politicians to write tax loopholes into the law.
It is free money. When you get money for doing nothing, it is free. It doesn't get more easy to understand than that. You are trying to mislead with your skillful use of verbiage. (I'll give you credit there. You do have a talent there but economics, not so much).
So the rich have to bribe the politicians so that they can keep more of their OWN money instead of having the politicians steal more of it? How outrageous of them! Off with their heads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
The analogy is this: oxygen (money) circulates throughout the body (economy) instead of being trapped in one part of it, as in pneumothorax (wealth-hoarding).
Money (oxygen) already circulates throughout the body. That is why the body (this country) is the richest in the world and millions from elsewhere are trying to get into.
The body (country) is very healthy and strong. The circulatory system is working just fine. You just want more of the oxygen to go to dead tissue instead of going to the brain, heart, liver and other critical parts of the body that contributes to the healthy body.
How about 'The Second Grade Solution' to reduce wealth disparities?
Just give everyone 18 and over a million dollars on their birthday or when they reach 18, which ever comes first.
Now no one is poor and we can eliminate welfare and medicaid and food stamps and section 8 housing.
We will be the richest nation on earth and the envy of the world! So UBI will be totally unnecessary.
The unlimited wealth creation powers of the Federal Reserve can pay for the initial costs.
After that, federal sales taxes on the exploding consumption will fund the program to include population growth via births and new arrivals to our shores, documented or not because we are a kind and welcoming people.
Your use of flowery analogies is just a way to disguise the lack of strength in your argument. Tourniquets, band-aids, slings, gauze pads, cotton balls...whatever...fact is that the poor in this country gets lots of help. Throwing more money at them (as shown by liberal cities and states) does not solve the problem, it just creates more problems.
As for just wanting to argue. Just count the #of my posts with yours in this thread and we all can see who it is that just wants to argue. Thank you for making my point. Conservative approaches to solving homeless and poor is more effective than the liberal/Leftist approach. No disagreement there.
If you disagree with the analogy, you can state why or just ignore it.
Instead, you miss the point of the analogy while adopting it...yet another case in point: claiming "housing-first" is "conservative."
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby
No it's not. No conservative or Republican would ever support UBI. This is a socialist Leftist idea. You don't know what you are talking about and are all over the place.
LOL only in your world could Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Baker III, Sir Richard Branson, Jaime Diamond, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, John Goodenough, Marc Bernioff, Greg Mankiw, and The International Monetary Fund all be socialist/leftist....
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby
It is free money. When you get money for doing nothing, it is free.
LOL you'll be the first in line applying for The Freedom Dividend...s'okay; the sun shines on you too.
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
How about 'The Second Grade Solution' to reduce wealth disparities?
Just give everyone 18 and over a million dollars on their birthday or when they reach 18, which ever comes first.
Now no one is poor and we can eliminate welfare and medicaid and food stamps and section 8 housing.
We will be the richest nation on earth and the envy of the world! So UBI will be totally unnecessary.
The unlimited wealth creation powers of the Federal Reserve can pay for the initial costs.
After that, federal sales taxes on the exploding consumption will fund the program to include population growth via births and new arrivals to our shores, documented or not because we are a kind and welcoming people.
If you disagree with the analogy, you can state why or just ignore it.
Instead, you miss the point of the analogy while adopting it...yet another case in point: claiming "housing-first" is "conservative."
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
I suggest you take your own advice, except you want me to ignore your response to me but yet you wouldn't ignore my response to you. And a sure sign of one losing an argument is to resort to personal insult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
LOL only in your world could Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Baker III, Sir Richard Branson, Jaime Diamond, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, John Goodenough, Marc Bernioff, Greg Mankiw, and The International Monetary Fund all be socialist/leftist....
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
A few of the recognizable names such as Gates, Zuckerberg, Dimon, Bezos, etc. are NOT conservatives. And you are the one telling me I know nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomelessLoser
LOL you'll be the first in line applying for The Freedom Dividend...s'okay; the sun shines on you too.
You know nothing -- but have an opinion on everything.
You're losing it. Personal attacks is a sure sign.
If instead of giving people $1000 a month, we give them a negative tax of -$1000 a month it will be more acceptable to conservatives, but it would have the same net benefit with just more steps. This has been proven
"A Harvard Business School study found that Americans think the right CEO-worker pay ratio is no higher than 7 to 1. But a report I co-authored for the Institute for Policy Studies found that 80% of S&P 500 firms paid their CEO over 100 times more than their median worker last year.
In many cases, it was well more than 1,000 times.
All this could mean bipartisan traction for a new bill introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Barbara Lee earlier this month. It would raise the federal corporate income tax rate on companies that pay their CEOs more than 50 times their median workers' pay.
The bigger the gap, the bigger the hike. At a 50-to-1 gap, the tax goes up by half a percentage point. At 500-to-1, firms would see their tax bills jump by 5 full percentage points. That might be enough to get corporate boards to rethink how much they pay their top executives — and how little they pay their workers.
Could Republicans like my old Minnesota neighbors get on board? It sure seems like it."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
