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

[Meister]

/—-/ 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.

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

 

[Markle]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

 

[Markle]

Let's see, Medicare for all and housing for all; what comes next, government for all?

I think government paid vacations would be nice. Start with two weeks paid vacation in your 20's, three in your 30's and four weeks paid vacation from the age of forty. A nice stipend for travel would be nice too. I'd love a new Harley every couple of years but realize maybe everyone wants a different toy. So maybe a nice annual stipend for that too. Yeah, sounds good!

Pelosi''s office might be a good perk. I hear she stocked up on booze.


Michele Bachmann accuses Nancy Pelosi of spending $100,000 on alcohol

Judicial Watch wrote that "the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.
The purchases included "Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine,"

Well, I can't criticize their choice of booze although I don't care for beer.

 

[Markle]

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

Try it out. Is there any government entitlement program which has ended, cut off people receiving cash from the government?

 

[Markle]

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

How would getting a check from the government, for doing nothing, make me more responsible?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Nonsense.

Two rules apply:

Rule #1: Whatever Liberal government promises you is a lie.

Rule #2: See Rule #1



Welfare is simply a vote-buying scam.

In the 50-plus years of 'the War on Poverty," some $22 trillion has been thrown down that abyss and the 'poverty rate' is almost the same as when started.

It's all fake, Ray, ....when poverty is correctly defined....no food, no home, no heat.....it is non-existent in America.


Wise up.

 

[rightwinger]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

 

[CrusaderFrank]

‘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.

We need more NYCHA housing

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Nonsense.

Two rules apply:

Rule #1: Whatever Liberal government promises you is a lie.

Rule #2: See Rule #1



Welfare is simply a vote-buying scam.

In the 50-plus years of 'the War on Poverty," some $22 trillion has been thrown down that abyss and the 'poverty rate' is almost the same as when started.

It's all fake, Ray, ....when poverty is correctly defined....no food, no home, no heat.....it is non-existent in America.


Wise up.

$22 trillion for food, housing, medical care, education, job opportunities for people who need it

What have we gotten for the trillions spent on wars in the last 50 years?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Yes it will, and everybody's pay increases at the same time. His pay may increase, but the cost of everything else increases eventually and the MW worker finds himself in the exact same position he did before the increase.

So what was solved? Nothing. We just distanced ourselves further from the world market and created inflation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Nonsense.

Two rules apply:

Rule #1: Whatever Liberal government promises you is a lie.

Rule #2: See Rule #1



Welfare is simply a vote-buying scam.

In the 50-plus years of 'the War on Poverty," some $22 trillion has been thrown down that abyss and the 'poverty rate' is almost the same as when started.

It's all fake, Ray, ....when poverty is correctly defined....no food, no home, no heat.....it is non-existent in America.


Wise up.

$22 trillion for food, housing, medical care, education, job opportunities for people who need it

What have we gotten for the trillions spent on wars in the last 50 years?

/----/ Our freedom, for starters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Nonsense.

Two rules apply:

Rule #1: Whatever Liberal government promises you is a lie.

Rule #2: See Rule #1



Welfare is simply a vote-buying scam.

In the 50-plus years of 'the War on Poverty," some $22 trillion has been thrown down that abyss and the 'poverty rate' is almost the same as when started.

It's all fake, Ray, ....when poverty is correctly defined....no food, no home, no heat.....it is non-existent in America.


Wise up.

I agree with everything you said, but what does that have to do with Universal Income?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

How would getting a check from the government, for doing nothing, make me more responsible?

Because that check is all you get. You don't get HUD, you don't get food stamps, you don't get Medicaid. In other words, you couldn't afford all those things with just 18 grand a year or 36 a year for a couple. You would have to work at least part-time to make ends meet. If you wanted children, you would make sure to only have as many as your income allowed just like working people. Unlike today where the more kids you have, the more you get from government, there is no way you could have four kids today like people do on social programs.

The problem with poverty in the US is it can't be solved when we encourage the poor to create more poor people. Again, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. In our current system, welfare people are having large families bringing in more welfare people while working people are having two children or less. Of course you can't solve poverty that way. You are producing more lowlifes than workers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Wrong, it's much more than 100%. Wages are only part of the increase. The employer has to match the additional money for SS and Medicare. Your employer will have an increase in Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance. Your employer will take a larger loss when you are off of work on vacations or holidays.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

PEOPLE ARE SO F*CKING STUPID.
FACT: There are more empty homes in America than there are homeless.
Obviously the problem is NOT rent cost.

 

[Marion Morrison]

PEOPLE ARE SO F*CKING STUPID.
FACT: There are more empty homes in America than there are homeless.
Obviously the problem is NOT rent cost.

But people don't wanna rehab a house and rent or live in it anymore, they want a new house in a subdivision with an HOA n stuff.

The big banks grabbed up all the foreclosures when the housing bubble burst, and the government helped them do it.

BoA should have been allowed to fail.

 

[Cellblock2429]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Wrong, it's much more than 100%. Wages are only part of the increase. The employer has to match the additional money for SS and Medicare. Your employer will have an increase in Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance. Your employer will take a larger loss when you are off of work on vacations or holidays.

/----/ Excellent point. Another prime example proving Libtard Moonbats couldn't run a Kool-Aid stand without adult supervision. They have no clue as to what's involved in hiring employees.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

PEOPLE ARE SO F*CKING STUPID.
FACT: There are more empty homes in America than there are homeless.
Obviously the problem is NOT rent cost.

But people don't wanna rehab a house and rent or live in it anymore, they want a new house in a subdivision with an HOA n stuff.

The big banks grabbed up all the foreclosures when the housing bubble burst, and the government helped them do it.

BoA should have been allowed to fail.

Precisely.
The Obama Admin bailed out the mortgage lenders.... 100 cents on the dollar including their profits.
But the homeowners were kicked out of the homes.
This left millions of homes across the country empty. Many of them having no single owners, the mortgages were pieced out along numerous investment packages. And the investors all made their profits with the bailouts.
They became "Lost homes".
And they are everywhere.

 

[Cellblock2429]

PEOPLE ARE SO F*CKING STUPID.
FACT: There are more empty homes in America than there are homeless.
Obviously the problem is NOT rent cost.

But people don't wanna rehab a house and rent or live in it anymore, they want a new house in a subdivision with an HOA n stuff.

The big banks grabbed up all the foreclosures when the housing bubble burst, and the government helped them do it.

BoA should have been allowed to fail.

/----/ True. We own rehabbed rental housing and new construction units. By far new construction is better. When we considered at rehabbing older homes we had to look for and deal with asbestos, mold and lead paint. New construction is the way to go, unfortunately we learned that too late as we are now selling off all rental properties.