Debates
14 Feb 23
14 Feb 23
You dems can't bankrupt this nation fast enough.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-13/guaranteed-basic-income-gets-boost-from-county-leaders-in-la-and-chicago
Golly, free money. Guaranteed Income! This means that the govt will have more power, and they will own us. Sonhjoluse says that it is us who want th power .
Anyway, more people dependent on the government. Do you fellas really want that? Do you want your son-in-law dependent, and make your grandchildren dependent? Can you think for a moment? Your son-in-law will not be able to aspire for success?
Control is the goal. Your govt gets into the racket, the grift,...how reckless will the govt get.
Joe I think the days of people working like a slave for minimum wage are over.
Y'all had a good run and made a lot of money.
It's just not worth it for the rest of us.
Don't worry, plenty of immigrants will do those jobs.
Also, many will live off the UBI but after awhile you'll see people who want more and they will do more.
The surprising part will be when society sees how many people are content just living with the UBI
My only interest is chess.
I don't need anything but a chess set so send me my UBI and if you need me, I'll be playing chess in the park 😏
15 Feb 23
@shallow-blue saidWithout inmates all those corrections officers wouldn't have jobs.
You're still in jail, you don't get to talk about people working or not working. Just get back into the shower, drop your soap and bend over, that's all you get to do for society.
You should be thanking me.
15 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou obviously don’t comprehend what a universal basic income means.
You dems can't bankrupt this nation fast enough.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-13/guaranteed-basic-income-gets-boost-from-county-leaders-in-la-and-chicago
Golly, free money. Guaranteed Income! This means that the govt will have more power, and they will own us. Sonhjoluse says that it is us who want th power .
Anyway, more people dependent on th ...[text shortened]... Control is the goal. Your govt gets into the racket, the grift,...how reckless will the govt get.
You do know that did a trial in Finland. Check out the results of that.
Realistically to get proper results you have to work out what the bureaucracy around unemployment (and controls, checks, etc.) cost, to see the actual picture of what can be saved.
For example: say you’re unemployed and get 500$ a month.
You can easily get part-time work which will pay you 300$ a month. But under the current system you have to hand in that 300$, so you working part-time doesn’t benefit you financially (but adds the extra stress of arranging day-care, etc. And costs twice as much yet in the bureaucracy surrounding it all, etc.)
To get people back into work, they need insentives (more often than not), so if they can keep the money they earn (and pay taxes) and you can drop the bureacracy costs… it could be a winner.
But how do you know?
By piloting the scheme.
Which Finland did.
So check out their results. Measuring = knowing.
But to sum it up: it worked a bit, but not enough. The scale of the experiment was too small.
16 Feb 23
@shavixmir saidYou are speaking of Workfare. Our leaders (ugh) have been on it for years, but minds smarter than us (remember we are a capitalist state) are not so sure about it, or it would already be implemented.
You obviously don’t comprehend what a universal basic income means.
You do know that did a trial in Finland. Check out the results of that.
Realistically to get proper results you have to work out what the bureaucracy around unemployment (and controls, checks, etc.) cost, to see the actual picture of what can be saved.
For example: say you’re unemployed and get 500 ...[text shortened]... ng.
But to sum it up: it worked a bit, but not enough. The scale of the experiment was too small.
But I agree,,,,,,on the face if it, I like Workfare. Let's do it in the USA. Tp get govt assistance, you have to dammit get a job. No losers need apply.
But UBI is not much more than doling out money, if those of a liberal mindset are in charge.... those politicians who would take money from producers and give it freely to losers.
If rebups get back in office, maybe Workfare could work. As my granny used to say, 'No tickey, No washy".
16 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidNo. I’m on about universal basic income.
You are speaking of Workfare. Our leaders (ugh) have been on it for years, but minds smarter than us (remember we are a capitalist state) are not so sure about it, or it would already be implemented.
But I agree,,,,,,on the face if it, I like Workfare. Let's do it in the USA. Tp get govt assistance, you have to dammit get a job. No losers need apply.
Bu ...[text shortened]... ups get back in office, maybe Workfare could work. As my granny used to say, 'No tickey, No washy".
And nobody gets rich. They work out how much a person / family needs to get by. So, usually not enough money for a car or a foreign holiday, etc.
Then, if people want more money for things like Iphones, cars, etc. They have to work for them.
The concept is that the price of maintaining the current system is massively cut and that by being able to keep the extra money earned, people will be motivated to take part time jobs and the like.
16 Feb 23
@shavixmir saidI totally agree. Plus, in the U.S. childcare is outrageously expensive, hard to find and often not good. In the U.S. there is a strong cultural belief in meritocracy. If you are poor, it's totally because you are lazy. Everyone is an island. No one is obligated to provide for anyone but him/herself and his/herfamily. It is startlingly anti Christian despite the way they scream for a Christian theocracy.
No. I’m on about universal basic income.
And nobody gets rich. They work out how much a person / family needs to get by. So, usually not enough money for a car or a foreign holiday, etc.
Then, if people want more money for things like Iphones, cars, etc. They have to work for them.
The concept is that the price of maintaining the current system is massively cut and ...[text shortened]... g able to keep the extra money earned, people will be motivated to take part time jobs and the like.
16 Feb 23
1 edit
@shavixmir saidI cannot in any way grasp the concept......someone needs X$ to live their lives, maybe 5 kids, maybe one, and the govt covers it with tax money. God almighty, what would that lead to? As you ponder that, stipulate that govt control (which it would be, of course) would be the rule of the day, and eventually they would own the recipients of the money. Just as they would own anyone for whom they pay all their meds.
No. I’m on about universal basic income.
And nobody gets rich. They work out how much a person / family needs to get by. So, usually not enough money for a car or a foreign holiday, etc.
Then, if people want more money for things like Iphones, cars, etc. They have to work for them.
The concept is that the price of maintaining the current system is massively cut and ...[text shortened]... g able to keep the extra money earned, people will be motivated to take part time jobs and the like.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is the concept of countries in the Netherlands area, govt covering checks to citizens. Creates dependency. We would never go for that. I guess you and I are in a standoff. Do you have friends who enjoy basking in government money? Foregoing self-reliance?"
16 Feb 23
@shavixmir said.
Then, if people want more money for things like Iphones, cars, etc. They have to work for them.
16 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidAnswer this question:
We already do that, Shav. So what happened in society for this concept that you promote to have evolved?. Is it a Marx thing? I only know self reliance, so you will need to school us. A place to go to get money when you get strapped for cash.
Absolutely unbelievable .
What is the purpose of human society?
16 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidIn January 2020 , there were 580,466 people experiencing homelessness in the U.S. That's about .174% of the population. Obviously we have a problem. The U.S. has the weakest social safety net among industrialized countries. Rather shameful considering we are the richest country.
We already do that, Shav. So what happened in society for this concept that you promote to have evolved?. Is it a Marx thing? I only know self reliance, so you will need to school us. A place to go to get money when you get strapped for cash.
Absolutely unbelievable .
@phranny saidEasy on the Christianity and while we are at it, morality. I do both, quite heavily, we have diff definitions, esp of morality. Morality to you is for rich people to spread the wealth they earned while other people were not earning wealth. Like when I say, some work harder than others.....that is why some have more than others, and libs just cannot get that concept.
I totally agree. Plus, in the U.S. childcare is outrageously expensive, hard to find and often not good. In the U.S. there is a strong cultural belief in meritocracy. If you are poor, it's totally because you are lazy. Everyone is an island. No one is obligated to provide for anyone but him/herself and his/herfamily. It is startlingly anti Christian despite the way they scream for a Christian theocracy.
That about covers your post, to the extent that I could even understand it. And you seem to think Christianity is a vehicle for you to use to force your thinking on us. That just won't fly, we are on economics here. If you go morality or christian, then you have to get into Duty of Care or whatever. Surely you don't want to impute a certain duty that one may have for another, and usually someone they do not know.