- Thread starter
- #21
As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.
But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others
...i.e., reliable Democrat voters
...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.
1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.
2. ....by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.
Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.
"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster
3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.
4. 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.
But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
It was Thomas Paine who first proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Long before the concept of communism existed.
So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept.
The justification was that natural resources are owned equally by all humanity, so those that use natural resources for profit should pay everyone else for the use.
Furthermore, under communist rule everyone is required to work that can work. Government controls the jobs. There was no welfare in the Soviet Union.
Also, if a universal guaranteed income provided everyone "a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status", there would be no incentive for families to break up. They'd receive the same income regardless of their family associations.
The real reason why a guaranteed minimum income would not work is that there would be a period of massive inflation that would effectively nullify the guaranteed minimum income. You can bet that the cost of rent, food, clothing and other essentials would jump - so all that money would end up going to the wealthy anyway.
"So it's no, it's not a communist concept. It's an American concept."
Really, you imbecile?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sooooo, Karl Marx was an American????
You're a government school grad, huh?
Can you read?
Thomas Paine lived ~100 years before Marx.
Besides, though it's apparently beyond your reading comprehension, your own quote of Marx says:
"From each according to his ability"
That means that everyone that can work does work.
Did you get passed the third grade? I doubt your reading comprehension is even that good.
Can't you learn???
Here.....let's see if you can:
Which represents the Americanism?
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
or
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
What represents Americanism:
1. PoliticalChic's delusions?
2. The writings of Thomas Paine?
Why your fear of answering this simple query?
Here.....let's see if you can:
Which represents the Americanism?
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
or
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
It's an optional question...you've already proven to be a dunce in claiming that government paying a guaranteed free paycheck is 'American'.