Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[georgephillip]

Are you disabled? You are on Medicaid and SSI?

My income from SSA is just over $700/month, so Medicaid picks up the 20% of medical expenses that Medicare doesn't cover. There are two US economic groups that have the best medical care in the world, the very rich and the very poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

It's called getting off your worthless ass and working, dip.

Why do right wingers complain about taxes if it is so easy to just get a better job that pays more, so the taxes you pay don't bother you?

 

[hadit]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.

Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.

That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?

Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.

WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?

It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.

More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.

It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.

I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.

You're going in the wrong direction.

Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.

You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.

You must be very used to doing that.

Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.

We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.

This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.

From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?

Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.

The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

How does that even relate to UC? You're just quoting random things, hoping desperately they relate, but they don't.

Too bad for you, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Just because You are that ignorant means nobody should have to take You seriously; no judge has to take You seriously, why should anyone else?

You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the law. Nothing you've quoted has any relevance to UC.

All you have is fake news. Why do you bother?

What does fake news have to do with your ignorance of the Constitution and the law? You're just flailing now.

 

[hadit]

The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.

What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.

1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.

Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.

That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?

Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.

WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?

It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.

More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.

It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.

I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.

You're going in the wrong direction.

Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.

You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.

You must be very used to doing that.

Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.

We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.

This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.

From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?

Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.

The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

How does that even relate to UC? You're just quoting random things, hoping desperately they relate, but they don't.

Too bad for you, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Just because You are that ignorant means nobody should have to take You seriously; no judge has to take You seriously, why should anyone else?

You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the law. Nothing you've quoted has any relevance to UC.

All you have is fake news. Why do you bother?

What does fake news have to do with your ignorance of the Constitution and the law? You're just flailing now.

lol. Fake news and Hoax is all you have not any understanding of the Constitution or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.

What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.

1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.

Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.

 

[hadit]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

“Poverty” here in this country would be considered opulence innody of the rest of the world. This is a colossal mistake by some very ignorant people. All that will happen is an increase in the cost of living, putting people right back in “poverty” despite the free money.

Means nothing, Labor has to be able to afford our first world economy.

That’s funny because it’s been working so far as is. Where else do you see “poor” people with cell phones and big screen TVs?

Because we have the expense of our social, war on poverty? Free market capitalists used to simply outlaw being poor not actually solve simple poverty.

WTF? Are you off your meds? Are you replying to the right thread?

It doesn't matter which thread he's on, he always says the same things.

More "gospel Truth" than right wingers, that is for sure.

It's been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. They're right, so stop wasting yours.

I used to vote republican, then I started working on recovering my mind.

You're going in the wrong direction.

Right wingers have no free market capitalism solutions only right wing fantasy that requires socialism on a national and international basis.

You've been publicly spanked in every thread on economics you've ever posted.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. In left wing male fantasy I have to "bend over and say thank you ma'am, may I have another" every time I resort to fallacy and lose my argument.

You must be very used to doing that.

Have any women here been bragging about it?

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is more economically efficient than our current regime.

We should have no homeless issues in our first world economy.

We already have "Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation". You have failed to demonstrate how we do not. The law doesn't discriminate against any skin color, sexual preference, or even favorite NFL team. That's the bottom line, if you're laid off, you can collect. If you never held a job or just don't want to, you can't. Equal protection.

This is the law in question:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

There are no for-cause criteria. EDD would have to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.

From your own statement, which has no link to any law, which means you could have just made it up, I submit the following: "Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month". How do you reconcile that statement with your fantasy that it applies to people who never worked and never will?

Employers are not required to hire anyone in an at-will employment State, not even in Right to Work States. What is your point?

There is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment.

The point is, as it always has been, that there simply is no unequal protection under the law when it comes to UC, and at-will employment doesn't even relate to the topic. Yet you continue spouting the same worn out meaningless phrases as if they mean something. Do you understand that? You've never managed to demonstrate where the so-called unequal protection exists, ever.

Also, saying there "is no unemployment under free market capitalism only underpayment" is also meaningless, because of course there is unemployment.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

How does that even relate to UC? You're just quoting random things, hoping desperately they relate, but they don't.

Too bad for you, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Just because You are that ignorant means nobody should have to take You seriously; no judge has to take You seriously, why should anyone else?

You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the law. Nothing you've quoted has any relevance to UC.

All you have is fake news. Why do you bother?

What does fake news have to do with your ignorance of the Constitution and the law? You're just flailing now.

lol. Fake news and Hoax is all you have not any understanding of the Constitution or the law.

I know that UC does not cover those who have never held a job and was never designed to do so. I also know that there is no unequal protection under the law just because you can't collect UC simply for existing, and you have done nothing to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

 

[hadit]

The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.

What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.

1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.

Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.

1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

 

[danielpalos]

I know that UC does not cover those who have never held a job and was never designed to do so.

Black codes still existed back then. States have no legal authority from the People to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws. The general welfare End justifies the fiscal means.

 

[danielpalos]

The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.

What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.

1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.

Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.

1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.

 

[Nova78]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

It's called getting off your worthless ass and working, dip.

Why do right wingers complain about taxes if it is so easy to just get a better job that pays more, so the taxes you pay don't bother you?

Taxes would be lower if we stop generational welfare

Welfare is the left's favorite entitlement. Because if they keep you dependent on the government, you'll have to vote for them over and over again. It's brilliant really. In Maine, they tried something different. Sometimes families need help, but if you're single, able-bodied and want to live on the taxpayer's dime... they're going to make you work for it. Uh oh...
The results are...not at all shocking if you have any common sense.Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased.
In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.

 

[danielpalos]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

It's called getting off your worthless ass and working, dip.

Why do right wingers complain about taxes if it is so easy to just get a better job that pays more, so the taxes you pay don't bother you?

Taxes would be lower if we stop generational welfare

Welfare is the left's favorite entitlement. Because if they keep you dependent on the government, you'll have to vote for them over and over again. It's brilliant really. In Maine, they tried something different. Sometimes families need help, but if you're single, able-bodied and want to live on the taxpayer's dime... they're going to make you work for it. Uh oh...
The results are...not at all shocking if you have any common sense.Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased.
In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.

Are you new here? We could have solved simple poverty and generational poverty through the automatic stabilization of our economy with existing legal and physical infrastructure, Yesterday, but for Right Wing interference and obstruction of promoting the general welfare in a market friendly manner.

 

[Nova78]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

There have already been proposals along these lines from Democrats like Kamala Harris.

Personally I think they are a great idea. This is America, the richest, best country in the world. We should have no one living in poverty here.

It's called getting off your worthless ass and working, dip.

Why do right wingers complain about taxes if it is so easy to just get a better job that pays more, so the taxes you pay don't bother you?

Taxes would be lower if we stop generational welfare

Welfare is the left's favorite entitlement. Because if they keep you dependent on the government, you'll have to vote for them over and over again. It's brilliant really. In Maine, they tried something different. Sometimes families need help, but if you're single, able-bodied and want to live on the taxpayer's dime... they're going to make you work for it. Uh oh...
The results are...not at all shocking if you have any common sense.Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased.
In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.

Are you new here? We could have solved simple poverty and generational poverty through the automatic stabilization of our economy with existing legal and physical infrastructure, Yesterday, but for Right Wing interference and obstruction of promoting the general welfare in a market friendly manner.

WTF are you talking about? Say again in english instead of some Obama golbal horseshit.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics or the law.

 

[georgephillip]

So have you really thought about that? Because asking how you can have an economy not producing at full capacity, and have widespread unemployment at the same time.... isn't that hard to figure out.

If an economy suffers from spare capacity (machines and other forms of capital sitting idle) and unused labor, do you blame the profit motive or lack of central planning?

Five-year plans of China - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So have you really thought about that? Because asking how you can have an economy not producing at full capacity, and have widespread unemployment at the same time.... isn't that hard to figure out.

If an economy suffers from spare capacity (machines and other forms of capital sitting idle) and unused labor, do you blame the profit motive or lack of central planning?

Five-year plans of China - Wikipedia

If an economy suffers from spare capacity (machines and other forms of capital sitting idle) and unused labor, do you blame the profit motive or lack of central planning?


If there is spare capacity that can't be used profitably, why would it be a good idea
for a central planner to use it?

 

[hadit]

I know that UC does not cover those who have never held a job and was never designed to do so.

Black codes still existed back then. States have no legal authority from the People to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws. The general welfare End justifies the fiscal means.

UC is not unequal protection of the laws. That's the bottom line. Your fantasizing about it being so does nothing to make it so. If you don't believe me, start a lawsuit and let us know how it goes.

If you work and get laid off, you have access to something you don't have access to if you refuse to work in the first place. That's the bottom line. Your fantasizing about it being so does nothing to make it so. If you don't believe me, try to collect UC after never holding a job or leaving it for any reason other than being laid off and let us know how it goes.

States have the legal authority to set UC qualifications within their borders. That's the bottom line. Your fantasizing about it being so does nothing to make it so. If you don't believe me, start a lawsuit and let us know how it goes.

I know you will do none of those things and that you will continue blathering your nonsense.

 

[hadit]

The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.

What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.

1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.

Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.

1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.

Whether they should have or not is immaterial, you cannot double the MW overnight and expect there to be no consequences. That only happens in the left's dreams, and no one takes the left seriously about economics.

 

[The Original Tree]

America will never accept your Satanic Great Reset. We like our guns, owning cars, and property, and making money.

Why don't you douche bags put in your advance order for your 666 chip, and then commit self abortions to save the planet and honor Satan.

You are going to Hell, so why are you waiting?

Why is this Idiotic Thread being allowed to drag on? It's nothing but flame bait and I see nothing in here from the left bot repetitive bot responses.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is not unequal protection of the laws.

Yes, our current regime is repugnant to State at-will employment laws. The State can't make up arbitrary rules which conflict with existing law.