Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh I'm sure Alaska will be fine, we're up our state gov's butt to fix our budget regardless of OPEC manipulations and regulations.
That said, the glaring flaw in the idea of basic income is the fact that the second the Gov needs more money they'll raid the pantry and piss it away on special interests, tax breaks, or whatever else hair they get up their butt. I mean shit, the reason they raided the fund is because they didn't want to spend our government savings heh
You need to rid yourselves of Lisa Murkowski....she's a hyena same as her daddy was.
dear, only wo-men resort to emotionalism over reason.dear, only wo-men use that type of logic.
Even State Capitalism, is form of socialism.
Your future is AIDS and living out your final days a boring little twit.
Ironically for your post Tom Horn - The most popular suggestion from Alaskan's to make our budget ends meet was a gas tax; we're used to paying more for gas so, in general, most folks already had it in their personal annual budgets to pay for over the year, vs suddenly losing a grand or two in October (when the PFD pays out) and when most Alaskan's have set up to pay their bigger bills (the years worth of auto insurance, the pets shots and vet visits, etc.)
She's a Dem playing under the R title IMO, that said a crap ton of Alaskan's don't have time to pay attention to politics, they're too busy working their assess off and playing with their money - they go in and vote a straight R ticket. Murkowski is pretty smart in that respect...
Ironically for your post Tom Horn - The most popular suggestion from Alaskan's to make our budget ends meet was a gas tax; we're used to paying more for gas so, in general, most folks already had it in their personal annual budgets to pay for over the year, vs suddenly losing a grand or two in October (when the PFD pays out) and when most Alaskan's have set up to pay their bigger bills (the years worth of auto insurance, the pets shots and vet visits, etc.)
There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in the last 40 years thanks to the maoists at the EPA. Your state should apply for a new refinery to be built there to serve your state and western Canukistan wih the excess. It would mean a couple thousand jobs and independence from the lower 57 states. That would cut your gasoline bill down to peanuts and bring in extra income. The President is dedicated to making us the preeminent energy exporter in the world, which is why he's the last person Putin wanted to see in the White House.
Ironically for your post Tom Horn - The most popular suggestion from Alaskan's to make our budget ends meet was a gas tax; we're used to paying more for gas so, in general, most folks already had it in their personal annual budgets to pay for over the year, vs suddenly losing a grand or two in October (when the PFD pays out) and when most Alaskan's have set up to pay their bigger bills (the years worth of auto insurance, the pets shots and vet visits, etc.)
There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in the last 40 years thanks to the maoists at the EPA. Your state should apply for a new refinery to be built there to serve your state and western Canukistan wih the excess. It would mean a couple thousand jobs and independence from the lower 57 states. That would cut your gasoline bill down to peanuts and bring in extra income. The President is dedicated to making us the preeminent energy exporter in the world, which is why he's the last person Putin wanted to see in the White House.
I'm no fan of EPA and gov regulations. However, I don't think there's enough purchasing power of Alaskan residents, nor enough "connection" power for Alaska to garner much interest in a refinery up here. Why, when they can plug into the lower 48 market with almost no additional expenses? Even if we want to argue portage, Anchorage and Valdez are not exactly ideal for it either. Valdez is only "the port" because there wasn't a better option that stayed open all year - and it ain't that great. Anchorage can't get it's head out of it's ass to fix our port (we've been dicking the dog on a port expansion for decades because there's a good bit of Alaskan's that don't want population increase and the problems that come with it - see Alaska crime rates over the past couple decades.) We're working the air cargo connection so the port connection is less important- though oil exportation could come in time if we can get our international NatG to China thing rolling. ATM though we're being stingy with the money for the expenditures [pipeline] required to make even /that/ happen.
You're right though, Alaska is about ready to explode back into the scene with President Trump's election. Don Young is working it down there to repair all the damage previous administrations did to our ability to utilize our resources.
Clinton is more dumb as we thought.
Not really, she may be on to something.
Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.
I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:
First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.
So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.
If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.
After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.
Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.
Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.
It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.
I guess that could depend on how long we can keep Democrats out of power. But write the law that it's either universal income or back to the system we are currently under. I think if left to a vote of the people, most would choose universal income over what we have today.
No "tard" it doesn't come from a tax on "excess profits" it comes directly from the revenues garnered on the natural resource commonly known as "oil" in the form of extraction royalties which is then invested for the APF corporation in various investment vehicles and dividends are paid out from the returns on those investments to qualified Alaskan Citizens.You are confused Moon Bat. Alaska collects a ton of taxes from oil and gas and that is where the money comes from.Please watch the video I posted in post 43, dipshit.You are confused Moon Bat.None of your doomsday predictions have come to pass in Alaska.Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.
It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.
Alaska is the only place on Earth where universal basic income is a reality. It was started by Republicans in the 1970s and continues to this day.
In other countries where this concept has been tested, it has been a raging success.
In Namibia, it raised school attendance and reduced child malnutrition.
It is never a success to take money away from someone that earned it and give it to someone that didn't earn it. That is despicable.
In Alaska they are redistrbuting energy taxes that we all pay for. It was greedy thing for them to do.
"...energy taxes that we all pay for".
And where do you think the money for welfare comes from, tard? TAXES!!!
The tax money to support Alaska's Permanent Fund comes from EXTRA taxes levied on the oil companies.
It's a tax on "excess profits". Socialist Palin decided how much profit was too much and punished them accordingly.
We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.Clinton is more dumb as we thought.
Not really, she may be on to something.
Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.
I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:
First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.
So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.
If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.
After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.
Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.
Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.
It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.
I guess that could depend on how long we can keep Democrats out of power. But write the law that it's either universal income or back to the system we are currently under. I think if left to a vote of the people, most would choose universal income over what we have today.
And then they would prefer the programs back AND universal basic income.
She could have won; even "welfare queen red States" know where their, "bread is buttered".Dumb idea. She should run with it
-Geaux
So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.
Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.
We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.Clinton is more dumb as we thought.
Not really, she may be on to something.
Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.
I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:
First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.
So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.
If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.
After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.
Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.
Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.
It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.
I guess that could depend on how long we can keep Democrats out of power. But write the law that it's either universal income or back to the system we are currently under. I think if left to a vote of the people, most would choose universal income over what we have today.
And then they would prefer the programs back AND universal basic income.
Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.
Yes, we can; only poor is relative.We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.Not really, she may be on to something.
Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.
I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:
First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.
So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.
If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.
After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.
Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.
Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.
It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.
I guess that could depend on how long we can keep Democrats out of power. But write the law that it's either universal income or back to the system we are currently under. I think if left to a vote of the people, most would choose universal income over what we have today.
And then they would prefer the programs back AND universal basic income.
You can't "solve" poverty.
I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.
Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).
I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?
I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?Solving simple poverty should mean, Merchants in Commerce need not fear pilferage in the shadow of the valley pilferers, simply Because, they would no longer have any excuse for not using fiat money in our markets.So what's your specific proposal(s) to accomplish "solving simple poverty" while at the same time "improving the efficiency of our economy"? how long will your proposal(s) take to realize the benefits? what's your definition of "solving"? how much economic efficiency improvement are we going to see? what are the opportunity costs of your proposal(s)?We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty.
Uh-huh, now that you've had your nonsense word-salad breakfast you can take a stab at responding to the questions utilizing at least a modicum of reason and evidence to support your answer(s).
Did you know, that having nothing but the repeal of simple rejection, is just a diversion and a fallacy?I thought it was self-evident. What do you imagine will happen, if real Persons no longer have a valid reason to steal due to poverty in our Republic?
How have you survived 54 years being almost too stupid to breathe?
