‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

[Cellblock2429]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

 

[danielpalos]

For example, Ray. Would you rent to me? Great credit. Excellent references. Pay on time and usually BEFORE rent is due. Improvement of property with my own sweat and usually my own money when I have it to spare. But..I can't pay more than 600 bucks per month due to SS budget. And you can rent your place for 1500 per month. Who would you choose? The people who will pay 1500 per month, thats who. So I wind up on the street under an overpass.

That's a very good scenario.

Okay, so I decide to rent to you at $600.00 a month. However the bills to run the place cost me $800.00 a month. I lose $200.00 a month by renting to you.

Should I do that to accommodate your income?

Why would the bills cost you 800 bucks a month? Especially if I am paying my own utilities, using my own money to replace the fridge, hot water heater, plants in the landscaping I did myself, supplying a stove when the one you furnished bonks out?
No..you would not make a profit with someone like me...but....and this is an important but.....I would not cost you in renting your property whereas if you rented it for 1500 bucks a month...perhaps the tenants will find a cheaper place within a year and then you have normal wear and tear you have to pay to fix for the new tenants. THAT will cost you. Wouldn't you rather have someone taking care of what you own and stay for a long period of time instead of constantly placing ads for new tenants, or tenants who don't stay, or tenants who are pissed they pay that much rent and not take care of "home"?

Let's just say what you think has any truth to it and I don't make a profit. Do you think I do all this work around here for free? Do you think I spend all that time screwing around with categorizing expenditures, spend two days before taxes preparing, assuming the responsibilities of major repairs or replacements like roofs, furnaces, driveways is something I do for a hobby?

I didn't do this as a social obligation. I don't have those resources. Like everybody else, when I take huge responsibilities and have major bills to pay, I need a sufficient income to take care of it. If I was going to do something for charity, it certainly wouldn't be this. It takes up any and all of my free time. I would have put my hard earned money in the market or commodities.

I didn't say you should...or have insulted you in any manner for what you choose to do or whether you make a profit or not, etc. This is just two different sides of the subject we are discussing. Or...I thought it was.

There is, but you seem to be ignoring the other side of the argument and only focusing on yours.

My side is this: most of us landlords don't make much money on rental income. Much of what you pay is what you would otherwise pay if you owned a house: taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, updates, mortgage.........

In some cases (like mine) when I had to take a loan out for major repairs, those loans have to be repaid.

This year I was lucky, I actually made a little profit. My tax preparer has a lot of landlords, and she told me I was the only one last year that showed a profit. All her other landlord clients were in the red as they are most every other year.

Big companies probably make out, but rental property is just part of their portfolio. They are very diverse in their investments. When one investment isn't working out, then they dump that investment and put their money elsewhere.

So if the government made regulation that stopped their profit, they would be selling out probably to somebody that would charge even more for rent.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means more people can pay more rent and help cover upgrade costs.

 

[danielpalos]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's a very good scenario.

Okay, so I decide to rent to you at $600.00 a month. However the bills to run the place cost me $800.00 a month. I lose $200.00 a month by renting to you.

Should I do that to accommodate your income?

Why would the bills cost you 800 bucks a month? Especially if I am paying my own utilities, using my own money to replace the fridge, hot water heater, plants in the landscaping I did myself, supplying a stove when the one you furnished bonks out?
No..you would not make a profit with someone like me...but....and this is an important but.....I would not cost you in renting your property whereas if you rented it for 1500 bucks a month...perhaps the tenants will find a cheaper place within a year and then you have normal wear and tear you have to pay to fix for the new tenants. THAT will cost you. Wouldn't you rather have someone taking care of what you own and stay for a long period of time instead of constantly placing ads for new tenants, or tenants who don't stay, or tenants who are pissed they pay that much rent and not take care of "home"?

Let's just say what you think has any truth to it and I don't make a profit. Do you think I do all this work around here for free? Do you think I spend all that time screwing around with categorizing expenditures, spend two days before taxes preparing, assuming the responsibilities of major repairs or replacements like roofs, furnaces, driveways is something I do for a hobby?

I didn't do this as a social obligation. I don't have those resources. Like everybody else, when I take huge responsibilities and have major bills to pay, I need a sufficient income to take care of it. If I was going to do something for charity, it certainly wouldn't be this. It takes up any and all of my free time. I would have put my hard earned money in the market or commodities.

I didn't say you should...or have insulted you in any manner for what you choose to do or whether you make a profit or not, etc. This is just two different sides of the subject we are discussing. Or...I thought it was.

There is, but you seem to be ignoring the other side of the argument and only focusing on yours.

My side is this: most of us landlords don't make much money on rental income. Much of what you pay is what you would otherwise pay if you owned a house: taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, updates, mortgage.........

In some cases (like mine) when I had to take a loan out for major repairs, those loans have to be repaid.

This year I was lucky, I actually made a little profit. My tax preparer has a lot of landlords, and she told me I was the only one last year that showed a profit. All her other landlord clients were in the red as they are most every other year.

Big companies probably make out, but rental property is just part of their portfolio. They are very diverse in their investments. When one investment isn't working out, then they dump that investment and put their money elsewhere.

So if the government made regulation that stopped their profit, they would be selling out probably to somebody that would charge even more for rent.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means more people can pay more rent and help cover upgrade costs.

/----/ Open up your own business so you can hire your fair share of $15 an hour workers. We'll see how long you last.

 

[Cellblock2429]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

 

[basquebromance]

we need ECONOMIC DIGNITY!

 

[danielpalos]

Why would the bills cost you 800 bucks a month? Especially if I am paying my own utilities, using my own money to replace the fridge, hot water heater, plants in the landscaping I did myself, supplying a stove when the one you furnished bonks out?
No..you would not make a profit with someone like me...but....and this is an important but.....I would not cost you in renting your property whereas if you rented it for 1500 bucks a month...perhaps the tenants will find a cheaper place within a year and then you have normal wear and tear you have to pay to fix for the new tenants. THAT will cost you. Wouldn't you rather have someone taking care of what you own and stay for a long period of time instead of constantly placing ads for new tenants, or tenants who don't stay, or tenants who are pissed they pay that much rent and not take care of "home"?

Let's just say what you think has any truth to it and I don't make a profit. Do you think I do all this work around here for free? Do you think I spend all that time screwing around with categorizing expenditures, spend two days before taxes preparing, assuming the responsibilities of major repairs or replacements like roofs, furnaces, driveways is something I do for a hobby?

I didn't do this as a social obligation. I don't have those resources. Like everybody else, when I take huge responsibilities and have major bills to pay, I need a sufficient income to take care of it. If I was going to do something for charity, it certainly wouldn't be this. It takes up any and all of my free time. I would have put my hard earned money in the market or commodities.

I didn't say you should...or have insulted you in any manner for what you choose to do or whether you make a profit or not, etc. This is just two different sides of the subject we are discussing. Or...I thought it was.

There is, but you seem to be ignoring the other side of the argument and only focusing on yours.

My side is this: most of us landlords don't make much money on rental income. Much of what you pay is what you would otherwise pay if you owned a house: taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, updates, mortgage.........

In some cases (like mine) when I had to take a loan out for major repairs, those loans have to be repaid.

This year I was lucky, I actually made a little profit. My tax preparer has a lot of landlords, and she told me I was the only one last year that showed a profit. All her other landlord clients were in the red as they are most every other year.

Big companies probably make out, but rental property is just part of their portfolio. They are very diverse in their investments. When one investment isn't working out, then they dump that investment and put their money elsewhere.

So if the government made regulation that stopped their profit, they would be selling out probably to somebody that would charge even more for rent.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means more people can pay more rent and help cover upgrade costs.

/----/ Open up your own business so you can hire your fair share of $15 an hour workers. We'll see how long you last.

don't worry; I will. I am in California. let's talk then and see who the Hypocrite is.

 

[danielpalos]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.
View attachment 206161

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

 

[PoliticalChic]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

Yes, these payments would come from tax dollars, but with our social programs, they are paid for with tax dollars anyway, and only those who don't try receive them. In other words, you are taking away from the workers and giving their money to the non-workers.

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

 

[PoliticalChic]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

Yes, these payments would come from tax dollars, but with our social programs, they are paid for with tax dollars anyway, and only those who don't try receive them. In other words, you are taking away from the workers and giving their money to the non-workers.

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

What a gross misunderstanding of the political and social milieu.

Of course social programs wouldn't cease......they're there to buy votes.

I'm surprised as your naivete.

 

[danielpalos]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

lousy capitalists lose money instead of make money.

 

[Cellblock2429]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.
View attachment 206161

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

/—-/ Nothing stopping you from paying war time taxes. Get out the old checkbook...

 

[Markle]

If you or anyone else would have told me at 50 years of age that my body would begin to crumble at 58 years old..I would have laughed and said "oh hayell no!".
Alas...that is exactly what it did. I played too hard, worked too hard and now I am paying for it. Yep. It sucks getting old.

My friend next door was slamed hard and lost a leg and other body parts. Since the Gov cut down his meds and stuff he has started to buy off the "street". He is smart uses 2 MG of heroin 90 percent. I a darn shame a guy who got hurt in Iraqi is treated that way.

My Ol' Man lost his left leg and both hands were damaged in The Battle of the Bulge. He was in VA hospitals for two years and underwent countless surgeries. After surgeries, he refused narcotic painkillers because he did not want to become addicted. He never reached out for heroin.

 

[danielpalos]

And what exactly are "market friendly means"?

/----/ ""market friendly means" is Lib code speak for I have no fu*king idea how the economy works but it sure makes me sound smart.

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.
View attachment 206161

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

/—-/ Nothing stopping you from paying war time taxes. Get out the old checkbook...

fake wars, fake tax rates.

don't ask for cuts to social spending. we have a general welfare clause.

we don't have a general warfare clause.

 

[basquebromance]

the reality on the ground of how severe the housing crisis has been is finally getting attention. Senator KH's proposal is very ambitious!

Nationally, over 21 million Americans spend more than 30% of the money they make on rent.

 

[Markle]

We Told Yall That

but yall didn't listen.

Simple, move!

 

[basquebromance]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

 

[Markle]

fake wars, fake tax rates.

don't ask for cuts to social spending. we have a general welfare clause.

we don't have a general warfare clause.

The general welfare clause does not mean everyone who lays back, gets supported in the way in which they would like to become accustomed.