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.
Why is it that non-liberals cannot comprehend that giving people enough to survive without any path for advancement is mediocrity? You know, heres your help that you need to survive, but if you work harder or more we take it away from you, and you end up worse off? Go to school? We wont help with that, get back to that minimum wage job! You know...the ones that everyone says are for teens, and elderly folks.....
Seriously though, giving people less is not a solution, either it will make them MORE dependent, and LESS willing to lose whatever they are getting, or it will malnourish or make them homeless.
Change things. stop reducing the help so severely on income gains. Stop subsidizing businesses with a minimum wage so low employees get welfare, etc. etc.
And pay attention to the fact that we dont have jobs going unfilled at the minimum wage level.....recognize we need more engineers and doctors for example-pay for college for fields where we need more people. Do things intelligently. Start pushing technical schools, and more.
Deal with the reality fo the world, not how you wish or think it should be.
Giving them more CAN be the answer. more opportunity, more education, etc.
oh please...I have been asking for details on the 'basic income' thread......NO-ONE, not even you is considerate enough to answer the questions so I can pose an opinion for or against
think about it......
1. what is basic income...by definition
2. who gets basic income....every member of the household(100% population) or only the ones of working age, or only the 'head of household'
3. would it be taxable, or is anything above BI taxable
4. how would you pay for it
now, form what I've seen posted some of you guys think everybody shoud get this BI..and at a rate of 18k each.......
I have a family of 6...2 adults and 4 kids....at 18k each that would be 108k....my normal wage is now 70k..up from 62k last year.....at 108k...I would quit working...no need to work..can do side jobs just to keep busy, but could live like a king, and be "gone fishing"
that's what you people don't understand....the more we give people, the less they would need to preform
want to scare a liberal....say the word """work""" or the phrase """"pay for performance""""
I recently had a guy knock on my door seeing me working out in the yard...he was looking for work......I had just left the shopping area...help wanted signs everywhere...I offered him a meal at Wendy's and to take him up to target/lowes/ and Wendy's all hiring......you know his answer.....no thank you, if I get a real job they will take away my welfare.....
LBJ, fifty years ago, started the "War on Poverty" so that liberals could feel good by ending poverty (and buy votes). Twenty trillion dollars later, the poverty level remains largely unchanged. But the votes stayed bought.
Obama's immigration policy, as Dunn pointed out, had/has some unintended consequences, but the policy sure felt good.
Liberals felt good about providing health care for everyone. But (and there's always a “but” when Obama is involved) someone must pay. But what do liberals care, it's not them.
Ignoring facts allows liberals to keep on feeling good by ignoring actual outcomes.
LBJ, fifty years ago, started the "War on Poverty" so that liberals could feel good by ending poverty (and buy votes). Twenty trillion dollars later, the poverty level remains largely unchanged. But the votes stayed bought.
Obama's immigration policy, as Dunn pointed out, had/has some unintended consequences, but the policy sure felt good.
Liberals felt good about providing health care for everyone. But (and there's always a “but” when Obama is involved) someone must pay. But what do liberals care, it's not them.
Ignoring facts allows liberals to keep on feeling good by ignoring actual outcomes.
What you meant to say is, LBJ declared a war on poverty and significantly reduced poverty, even now after thirty years of Republicans waging a full-throated war to bring back poverty and in the middle of a recovering post-depression economy. A depression, by the way, that would have been far more severe than the Great Depression if not for the anti-poverty safeguards currently built into the system by liberals.
Everything that differentiates modern society from the poverty of the Gilded Age is basically due to liberalism, and the conservatives who "built themselves up by their bootstraps like their parents have done" don't even appreciate that their parents only had good jobs because of the liberalism of the past. It's all very "what have you done for me lately".
oh please...I have been asking for details on the 'basic income' thread......NO-ONE, not even you is considerate enough to answer the questions so I can pose an opinion for or against
think about it......
1. what is basic income...by definition
2. who gets basic income....every member of the household(100% population) or only the ones of working age, or only the 'head of household'
3. would it be taxable, or is anything above BI taxable
4. how would you pay for it
I've answered all of the 4 items above before. As have others. You seem to choose the most unlikely things. Lets repeat mine for you AGAIN. Specifically these are my thoughts on it, others have different ones.
First of all the time for it is not yet. unemployment needs to be higher and structural.
1. Basic income is income that everyone gets no matter what their income is. Its a dividend from their government.
2. everyone over the age of 18 gets full basic income, anyone under 18 gets a 50% rate.
3. everything above BI is taxable. BI is not taxable.
4. We could do it today with a 50% flat tax with no exceptions. However this is not the correct time to do this in my opinion.
Quote:
now, form what I've seen posted some of you guys think everybody shoud get this BI..and at a rate of 18k each.......
That may be true here, however its not true in the vast majority of forums that discuss this.
Quote:
I have a family of 6...2 adults and 4 kids....at 18k each that would be 108k....my normal wage is now 70k..up from 62k last year.....at 108k...I would quit working...no need to work..can do side jobs just to keep busy, but could live like a king, and be "gone fishing"
$1500/mo is what I consider on the high side, $1200/month is more likely if we did it today. Shrug. So lets look at your example.
$4,800/month. If you quit, your take home would be about that same if you quit working. OR if taxes were 50% flat (including state BTW)....your income would go from the current 70K, or the BI of 57.6K (about the same as your after tax?).....to 92.5K after tax. And you'de quit? Really?
Most wouldn't. Its weird but humans LIKE doing things, and LIKE having a better life.
Quote:
that's what you people don't understand....the more we give people, the less they would need to preform
Really? So when Canada did this experiment, and we did it, those populations all just stopped moving and died? nope. Reality-when these experiments have occurred the number of people working DID in fact go down.....because more were going to school, and more were raising their children. And its not like we have full employment now or anytime coming up you know?
Quote:
want to scare a liberal....say the word """work""" or the phrase """"pay for performance""""
Oh I am so terrified. Those words caused me to work a whole 20 hours last week. Oh wait...on my only week off I have taken all year just after 21 days of non stop work.... I had to go in and work because I also get raises because i go beyond whats expected.
Apparently those words dont terrify me. OMG that must mean...I'm not a liberal.
Actually despite your assumption...I am not a very good liberal. Gun control for example involves using both hands.
Quote:
I recently had a guy knock on my door seeing me working out in the yard...he was looking for work......I had just left the shopping area...help wanted signs everywhere...I offered him a meal at Wendy's and to take him up to target/lowes/ and Wendy's all hiring......you know his answer.....no thank you, if I get a real job they will take away my welfare.....
nuff said
Oh look, almost EXACTLY the point I made earlier in threads. Thank you. You've just demonstrated why BI is a good idea.
You do know obamacare is primarily based on a conservative plan right?
LOL, you liberals are still trying to push that deplorable mess called Ocare on to Republicans....that's how embarrassed and ashamed you all are of the thing. Romney's deal was for a SINGLE STATE, not the entire nation. This just demonstrates how STUPID liberals are.
It was already mentioned in this thread how to get out of poverty: JOB
You help someone get a job, they will get out poverty. You keep handing them a little bit of money every month, they will never get out of poverty. Stop acting like you've never heard other ideas. That's dishonest.
We've already gone over healthcare ad nauseum on various threads on this forum. When I say "we" I don't mean me, specifically, I mean plenty of people have pointed out different options, things that used to happen, as much, much, much better alternatives to that crapfest called Ocare. The fact that it scares you that it would work, and give people a better feeling about themselves, along with their new job, doesn't mean it's not been said.
You lift people up by helping them help themselves. You do not lift people up by throwing coins at them once a month. When are you libs going to get that?
Basic Income is nothing more than welfare for the increasing number of POOR in America.
Basic Income is the left's answer to preventing the US from turning into a third world nation with 2 classes..the wealthy and the poor.
LOL, you liberals are still trying to push that deplorable mess called Ocare on to Republicans....that's how embarrassed and ashamed you all are of the thing. Romney's deal was for a SINGLE STATE, not the entire nation. This just demonstrates how STUPID liberals are.
It was already mentioned in this thread how to get out of poverty: JOB
You help someone get a job, they will get out poverty. You keep handing them a little bit of money every month, they will never get out of poverty. Stop acting like you've never heard other ideas. That's dishonest.
We've already gone over healthcare ad nauseum on various threads on this forum. When I say "we" I don't mean me, specifically, I mean plenty of people have pointed out different options, things that used to happen, as much, much, much better alternatives to that crapfest called Ocare. The fact that it scares you that it would work, and give people a better feeling about themselves, along with their new job, doesn't mean it's not been said.
You lift people up by helping them help themselves. You do not lift people up by throwing coins at them once a month. When are you libs going to get that?
Poof the magic job fairy will create them right? Heres reality, you talk like a job is the way out of poverty, OK what jobs pay enough to get people out of poverty?
STEM right? I mean lets be honest with each other. STEM jobs. And you know what is going on?
#1 getting a STEM degree now means crushing debt. That sounds fun right?
#2 if you are the sort that can do this, now you face off against the massive number of H1-B's coming in. Lowering your pay rate, and making it harder to be out of debt.
You see the problem? And Obama and the Republicans have consistently pushed for more H1-b's, and reducing government assistance to colleges, and to students.
The ACA was the best of bad choices. I dont hold that against Obama too much-single payer would have been better, but his pushing for increased H1-bs and illegal immigration I hold against him pretty hard.
You lift people out of poverty by giving them money or opportunity, or even better BOTH. Because money can create opportunity.
To defeat poverty, you must defeat free will and human nature. You must defeat self-actualization. You must defeat ambition, desire, greed, work ethic, passion and long term planning. That's the only way you defeat poverty.
You see, poverty is a relative term. It requires a "compared to" population to make any sense. The poorest American is in the richest 20% of the global population simply by virtue of being in America. They are poor compared to other Americans, but rich compared to the vast majority of everyone else on Earth. It's a measure of envy and coveting. Once basic survival is handled, everything else is about jealousy and relativism.
And since some people will always be more ambitious, capable, faster, bigger, stronger, smarter, etc than others, some will succeed more relative to those others, and will thus be "richer" by compare. So until you stop them from being more successful, or program to not want to be, you will always, now and forever, have poverty.
That's the biggest problem with socialism in all its incarnations, and why capitalism always kicks its arse for improving the human condition generally - it ignores or tries to go against basic human nature. Thus, it always ends up failing.
That's what LBJ said how many years ago ?
And yet poverty has increased, welfare programs have increased.
It didn't work.
Actually it reduced poverty, and our last recession would have been insane without it. I'd say it worked.
Quote:
However, experts who study poverty call the official statistics misleading because they don't take into account non-cash assistance such as rent subsidies, tax credits and food stamps — the tools now favored over a welfare check to ameliorate poverty's effects. Using what's called the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) researchers at Columbia University calculate that the poverty rate adjusted for inflation has fallen from 26% in 1967 to 16% today, a more significant decline.
And let me qoute LBJ himself...these words ring true today as well:
Quote:
"It will not be a short or easy struggle; no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won,"
Quote:
"The richest nation on Earth can afford to win it."
Depending on your measure we have reduced it by 25% or 50%. And given that we are FAR richer then back then, theres no reason it should exist today in this country.....except that many do not want to do whats necessary to rid ourselves of 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.
