This wouldn't increase the run for the border, would it?

[No. 1 son]

While I do think we are in que for some sort of basic minimum universal "salary", you can't rule out a redistribution grab by some.  Can a whole nation go insane? We need to discourage population swell, not subsidize it. 

[Dave's Not Here Man]

...............according to the economists who came up with the idea, Darrick Hamilton of the New School and William Darity of Duke University.

"Serious proposal" by "economists". El Oh El.

Red meat chum story, and here I thought you were on the qt about distractions. But it did make for a predictably vitriolic comment string on fredcom's facebook page.

[minx]

I'm not going to say that the concept isn't intriguing, but to say it will help reduce inequality is a joke.
I live in abject poverty and have a baby. Since I work at several minimum wage jobs, I don't get extra money, but I do qualify for WIC and food stamps, so at least we're not starving most days.
What good is a 'baby bond' going to do for me or my child? It's not going to help us move out of the crack motel where we're forced to live.
It's not going to help me get a better job so that I can afford transportation to look for a better (or at least full-time) job.
It's not going to improve the shitty schools my kid will be forced into.

In short, it's not worth shit in terms of improving my situation, or my child's situation. But hell yeah, if said kid lives until they see the age of 18, they'll get some cash, they they probably will blow immediately, having never seen that sum of money in their lives.

It's a great idea for the middle class, who might not need cash as quickly, but I think that if I were poor, I'd have more pressing things on my mind, like how to keep the lights on.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

If it were a "serious proposal", say, like one made by a legislator, then I would be more inclined to discuss its merits. As it is now, there are none.

The "serious proposal(s)" we're actually dealing with are of profoundly greater concern. Like adding 10% to our already 3/4 of a trillion dollar defense budget, adding 20 billion to the debt for a pipe dream border wall, snatching health coverage for up to 20 million people, allowing the corporations to pollute our air and water, and giving massive tax breaks to the top 1% of those who hold 80% of the total wealth in our country in concert with the attempt to remove all social-economic safety nets for us and to place them under those too bog to fall. To name a few "serious" topics.

[minx]

None of those are 'serious' and they have all been, or will be taken care of. This is what the president has said, and I trust him because he is the most stablest of geniuses.

On a side note, do you think it would be beneficial to the country if we gave all loyal Trump supporters free Valium or something of the like? If nothing else, they probably should be banned from any further gun purchases, because if you can still find it in yourself to support that loon, much less be an avid supporter, I'd say you qualify as mentally ill.

[bobathon]

Give them free dioxin.

[bobathon]

It may not be a whole nation, but almost half of Americans are insane. They are called "Trump's supporters".

[No. 1 son]

Well, that was fun, and we have the introductory name calling done. Good.

John, forgive me, but the disaster we find ourselves came from legislators legislating. "If it were a "serious proposal", say, like one made by a legislator, then I would be more inclined to discuss its merits. As it is now, there are none." I think we need more people thinking out of the box, more options rather than just more of the same. It just isn't working.

I was thinking about hoe we spend money now. We spend at the fed level between 1.15 billion to 2.5 billion on welfare programs. Add the state and local programs ( largely funded by block grants) it is about +_ $ one trillion. That's every year.

Look at the prison/legal complex. We have on hand an average of 2.5 million prisoners incarcerated at any one time. The cost to maintain their incarceration is averaged at about $35,000. That alone leaves a lot of people at home not contributing or able to support themselves.

I don't think we need to keep this foolish endless loop of poverty going any more, it's self destructive. I do think that the citizens here would respond to a partnering of the people by acknowledging their place in the country as well as their responsibilities. I would initiate a sustenance level income, say $20,000 yearly, for every legal citizen ( maybe not resident), over the age of 18. This has no federal strings attached (except maybe the condition felonies could not be committed, resulting in revocation). No govt telling you how to spend or save, no significant other strings, nothing.No added bonus for more babies, that is on you. No penalty for working for as much wages as you can acquire, this adds to your gross income.

Pay for this? Eliminate all welfare and entitlements. Maybe a net for abusers, as there will always be some.

I haven't figured out about Social Security yet, but right now it's being shuffled in with all the other entitlements, although it is a requirement to participate in now. Likewise, there could be a new approach to universal health care mixed in, although I wouldn't bet the farm on Congress doing it right.

I think participation in their own well being and having a 4 person family income of 80k could go a long way to stabilizing the core family and even give some incentive to avoid a life of crime.

The "jobs" that every politician since William Jennings Bryon has promised will never return,because robotics will continue to make our life easier for less money. We can, however, spread the risk and reward a little more equitably. Just mho.

Now, do I think our leaders would consider this? Not as long as your ass has a hole in it, the power of the purse is too great for them.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Firstly, I think the word "entitlement" is highly misrepresented for the purpose of maintaining a specific narrative. I would like to know what it means in context instead of dictionary definition. For example, we all know what it means to feel entitled. In most cases we understand what it means to be entitled. In many cases it's fair and appropriate to feel that you are owed something, especially when you in fact, are owed something. Like if I worked for you and we agreed you would pay me a certain amount, I am entitled to receive that amount. Just like if I worked and contributed to Social Security, then I am entitled to receive it. So in that context I don't know where the push back comes from.

On the other hand, many use the word for welfare-type programs, even though at this point I'm not even really clear on what welfare really means. Perhaps it's a set of programs that one may receive in some sort of package. I know that with SSI, if you can get it, comes with other things more or less attached, like Medicaid. Other than that, it seems to me that the public assistance programs are pretty pot luck variety. As far as being "entitled" to them though, I don't know where that comes from especially when they are commonly referred to as "entitlements".

Here comes the rub. Except for my first example (and often times even in that one), in all the others I've mentioned here, one is forced to "apply for" and prove a need to be considered for receiving them. In the case of SSI (a federally administered program through Social Security) you essentially have to be, and have to prove yourself to be, indigent and impoverished, without income, assets, or prospects. Because who would want to help those folks right? Same pretty much follows for state and local programs although in some cases, one can still get some types of public assistance, but again, the process is not simple, is not easy, takes a long time, and is quite taxing. And in many cases, the "applicant" for said "entitlements" will be turned down or cut off because he or she might have worked and earned 5 dollars more than the 750 a month limit that month, because their employer gave them a 10 dollar bonus but added it to their pay check.

And for all this, I still have yet to meet anyone, not one single person, who has ever expressed or testified about how the government is going to take care of them regardless. I have, on the other hand, met more people than I can count, present company included, who can't get the same "entitlements" they desperately need because of the rules, the regulations, and the FACT that we are really entitled to nothing, only granted those things based on a broken system implemented by people who have never had to, and almost certainly never will have to, rely on them.

My solutions: Double down on programs for the poor. Incentivise work instead of punishing it. Make health and education the top priorities (and make them both free and equal for everyone) in this country and knock it off with the trillion dollar a year defense bullshit and sending shit into space. Take real care of the disabled and enable as many others as possible. Restart the job corp and other programs that worked very well at one time, cleaning up and rebuilding the parks, etc. Allow government to create jobs, it's okay, we'll survive it. Believe me.

[No. 1 son]

I think we're in the same church but sit in different pews. No, no one is entitled to anything, and the only rights you have are what you can successfully fight for. I think that weaning people off of programs for the poor, which are engineered to keep people poor and dependent on government, will include people in the process, and stimulate self reliance, and hopefully self respect. The government can't create jobs, only demand can do that, and our flawed foreign policy eliminates that possibility. Our economy, to be more precise our leadership, has failed us, and the time for them to step up has long since passed. The only power any government has is in the confidence of the people, and how do you view that?

[bobathon]

First, Imma watch you piss in this jar, you scumbag moocher.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I view it like this; I can have equal parts of confidence and doubts in the government's abilities to manage opportunity and material programs. I disagree that government cannot create jobs. In fact, it can effectively and efficiently create jobs within the framework of existing and future social programs, as well as other areas. We've done it before (The New Deal) and there are living breathing examples of its successes out there as we speak.

I also disagree, for the most part, in the welfare by design system that a lot of people like to shake their pointy conspiracy finger at. Making and keeping the people dependent on government for their basic needs defies the concept, and definition, of capitalism. In fact, it was capitalism that caused the demand for the social safety net to begin with. Further, I would counter that this concept applies to the rich and big corporations than it does to the less fortunate. But I don't disagree that there are some snares, probably set unintentionally, in the social safety net (There doesn't appear to be any in the corporate ones). Those can be removed without much effort. And finally, weaning the poor off of ye olde teet sounds real good in theory but it also assumes all poor people are created equal. That doesn't work with the reality of things. It ignores nature. We are perfectly capable of taking care of those who need taken care of, assisting those who need assistance, and directing those who need attention. Here. In the US, that is. 

[bobathon]

It assumes things like "returning overseas dollars will get jerb creators to create jerbs", too. When there aren't jerbs for every last one of us, how does anyone earn bootstrap money? We do a shit job of caring for our people. E pluribus I got mine, bitchez.

[bobathon]

Jan 9, 2018 8:17:18 GMT -5 No. 1 son said:

While I do think we are in que for some sort of basic minimum universal "salary", you can't rule out a redistribution grab by some.  Can a whole nation go insane? We need to discourage population swell, not subsidize it. 

Why didn't you suggest a 100% inheritance tax?

[No. 1 son]

Jan 10, 2018 19:13:06 GMT -5 Dave's Not Here Man said:

I also disagree, for the most part, in the welfare by design system that a lot of people like to shake their pointy conspiracy finger at. Making and keeping the people dependent on government for their basic needs defies the concept, and definition, of capitalism. In fact, it was capitalism that caused the demand for the social safety net to begin with. Further, I would counter that this concept applies to the rich and big corporations than it does to the less fortunate. But I don't disagree that there are some snares, probably set unintentionally, in the social safety net (There doesn't appear to be any in the corporate ones). Those can be removed without much effort. And finally, weaning the poor off of ye olde teet sounds real good in theory but it also assumes all poor people are created equal. That doesn't work with the reality of things. It ignores nature. We are perfectly capable of taking care of those who need taken care of, assisting those who need assistance, and directing those who need attention. Here. In the US, that is. 

I appreciate your views. I may have misspoken on the govt's ability to create jobs. What I doubt is their desire to create jobs, or more specifically if would they do what's necessary to create real change. Not that they wouldn't benefit from an improved economy, but in a better economy their leverage over the masses would be somewhat reduced. 

Let's take another tack. Do you feel, in your experience, that the needs and numbers of needy people for the lack of  better word is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing? That might tell us if we are succeeding or not. If you add up all the money spent in programs and drug rehab, drug enforcement, subsidies, public housing, etc, it just appears to me the money is not being used wisely, and tends to further alienate and divide people. I totally agree with you that we are sedating a lot of people while pursuing an aggressive regime change agenda worldwide. The black budget alone could make life a lot easier for a lot of people. I also think a real solution should involve some kind of commitment and responsibility form recipients of this money, or you are just gifting more problems down the road. 

[bobathon]

You have those sums so we can confirm per capita expenditures on elements of welfare?


If dependency on government is bad, why is dependency on private corporations good? The root issue is that the natural equilibrium state for unrestrained capitalism is a feudal serfdom. We tweak rules to tame that beast, but sometimes we let it run pretty free. And we have a lot of shitty history that needs correcting (e.g. redlining - keeping the poor poor, through government and private practices). If government cannot help, what can? There's a lot of private money involved in keeping people down, so the market speaks pretty clearly.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Let's take another tack. Do you feel, in your experience, that the needs and numbers of needy people for the lack of better word is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing? That might tell us if we are succeeding or not. If you add up all the money spent in programs and drug rehab, drug enforcement, subsidies, public housing, etc, it just appears to me the money is not being used wisely, and tends to further alienate and divide people. I totally agree with you that we are sedating a lot of people while pursuing an aggressive regime change agenda worldwide. The black budget alone could make life a lot easier for a lot of people. I also think a real solution should involve some kind of commitment and responsibility form recipients of this money, or you are just gifting more problems down the road.

My experience doesn't cover whatever the factual numbers are. It would however appear to me from what I read and hear that they are increasing, which is easily reconciled by figuring in economic conditions, corporate greed and the profound impact it has on workers and potential workers, corrupt financial institutions, the stupid for-profit healthcare system, and many other factors. Of course it stands to reason that unemployment and underemployment contribute heavily to the increasing numbers. At the end of the day, I'm very willing to talk about commitment and responsibility on the part of the less fortunate when and only when we fully address commitment and responsibility on the part of the most fortunate. 







Oh and one other thing, when you're showing tough love on the less fortunate, keep in mind how at any time you can be among them, no matter how responsible and committed you are-

www.newsweek.com/carrier-plant-layoff-215-more-workers-indiana-trump-778040

[No. 1 son]

All that is true, but where we diverge is you still believe the solution lies in the present system, and I don't. Pure capitalism, or for that matter pure socialism or communism all would work in the ideal world. What we have now is not capitalism, but a bastard variant of corporate cronyism, and exists only to serve the status quo, and we ain't in the club.

In a pure free market all that's needed is the ability to efficiently enforce a contract, arbitrate a dispute, and access to fair courts for regress. Congress and the courts have established a nonworking enviornment through their lobbyists' influence, and turned their back on the general population. Oh, yeah, they'll allow a functional but bare bones economy so as not to kill the golden goose, but never allow enough wealth (power) to accumulate among the masses. Bad for business.

The conflict here is that politicians can be persuaded to create market regulations that benefit those who can influence the politicians. To quote someone “When buying and selling is legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators.”

All I am saying is that people can and will improve their positions after time if given a reasonable chance to participate in their own future. This can never happen in our system because the voters have zero representation. I know that there are people who will never be anything other than wards of the state, and that happens everywhere. They must be and will be taken care of. That should not be used as a catch all to justify massive handouts to people who routinely make terrible decisions and lack the will to help themselves. You can't equate a person with disabling injuries or diseases with people who ruin their lives and others' lives with drugs or criminal acts.

[bobathon]

Massive expenditures to people who make bad decisions? Do we mean law enforcement? Our glorious Military? Stadiums for NFL? Obseqious giveaways to entice industry? Oh no, we prefer a target less able to defend itself in our complaints wrt waste, the literally legendary legions of welfare queens. Umbrage achieved.



ETA: What is the single biggest driver of crime? What fraction of drug users are ruining lives, and how does that compare to alcohol use? First answer is poverty. Second one is intended to point out the problem of prohibition, so tough we gave up with alcohol (so we'd need to rebaseline after drug prohibition is repealed for whatever drugs). Inherently, drug legality would reduce drug crime and the gang violence around it (except tax stamp cheats).
And FWIW, maybe it's limits of internet, but I don't think your simple description of the needs for a free market is as complete as you seem to believe*, and even with that, there would have to be a lot of neutral infrastructure to allow it. That's Big Government again. And is there room in a free market for safety regulations? Can you just package up any old thing and sell it to whoever? Or do we have Big Government horning in some more?

*You realize people spend their lives studying economics, delving into the minutiae of all those free market forces, right? But three legs has your stool, easy-peasy. Whodathunk some rando would have the easy solution to what so many have agonized over. Impressive.

[No. 1 son]

Jan 12, 2018 20:19:49 GMT -5 bobathon said:

Massive expenditures to people who make bad decisions? Do we mean law enforcement? Our glorious Military? Stadiums for NFL? Obseqious giveaways to entice industry? Oh no, we prefer a target less able to defend itself in our complaints wrt waste, the literally legendary legions of welfare queens. Umbrage achieved.



ETA: What is the single biggest driver of crime? What fraction of drug users are ruining lives, and how does that compare to alcohol use? First answer is poverty. Second one is intended to point out the problem of prohibition, so tough we gave up with alcohol (so we'd need to rebaseline after drug prohibition is repealed for whatever drugs). Inherently, drug legality would reduce drug crime and the gang violence around it (except tax stamp cheats).
And FWIW, maybe it's limits of internet, but I don't think your simple description of the needs for a free market is as complete as you seem to believe*, and even with that, there would have to be a lot of neutral infrastructure to allow it. That's Big Government again. And is there room in a free market for safety regulations? Can you just package up any old thing and sell it to whoever? Or do we have Big Government horning in some more?

*You realize people spend their lives studying economics, delving into the minutiae of all those free market forces, right? But three legs has your stool, easy-peasy. Whodathunk some rando would have the easy solution to what so many have agonized over. Impressive.

Ok, we have some ground to make up. First of all you seem to think Big Government is Good Government, and I don't necessarily equate them. If you believe that the Government you support is doing a fine job, that's ok. But you seem to on one hand say they are vital while saying also there's a ton of inequities. I see room for improvement, too. There is a need for a self correcting accountable system in place, but I am saying it has over reached and needs some corrective action to do what it's supposed to do. You say poverty is responsible for crime, and that is a factor. So is greed and just plain meanness in people. So where is this poverty coming from, if the system is working as you describe? I just think it derives from the representation being suborned by monied interests, that's all, and can be fixed, although there's no real incentive for it to be recognized, much less fixed. I suggest a basic wage for everyone, does that sound like I have an inferior moral standing to you? I hope that's not how I came across. I would really like to see people succeed and dissipate some of the hate which is ruining our nation. 

[bobathon]

Generally I agree there. Poverty is a huge crime driver, not a mere contributor.

I believe our system worked before, so I believe it is salvable. I don't hold a position of all government is good or all government is bad.l. I am saying that to support your free market requires a neutral arbiter, and that has to be a government. On top of that, do the people that government acts for deserve any other protections wrt free market? If the consumer is happy with the product, is that the only thing that matters for a perfect free market? Or do we worry about the impacts of that product (i.e. do we care about pollution, safety - think seat belt laws, poisonous processes and wastes, labor rights to not lop off a finger in the chicken factory, etc)? If we do, that takes a government to implement - word of mouth won't tell you what's being done behind factory walls and can't be guaranteed to tell you about faulty products.
So, one point is that there are a lot of things we all love government for, and want it for. There are also things people do NOT want their government doing, and yet it does. So I would say the government that allows us to drone murder suspects without trial for crimes, for example, is Bad Government. But the one that provides investment in its people - education, roads and other infrastructure, health care - is a Good Government. Government is government: Bad Government is Bad, and Good Government is Good, but government isn't inherently one or the other. And the alternative is - anarchy?
Yu need one of them government things to support a free market. How are you going to resolve disputes without one? Forced individual arbitration of dissatisfied customer versus umpteen corporate suits or do we create a court system that allows class actions? Other than a government, how do you provide those three legs to your free market stool?

[bobathon]

See here:

www.lcurve.org/images/LCurveFlier2003.pdf

Notice how really, unless you're in the country club, all of us are essentially equal. From those of us who are poverty stricken to those of us making 6 figures. So let's not get worked up at the oh so awful burden of us equals caring for other of us equals. Let's poke at the elephant in the room instead, eh? Someone is milking the system, and it ain't the poor drug addicts.