Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why? by WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yang wants to reduce military spending 200 Billion, but that wouldn't be enough, and I'm not sure where he got that number.

There's another 68 Billion in food stamps.

How much is Social Security? I can't seem to find what the yearly payouts for that is. Quite a bit of that could be rolled into UBI quite easily, I would think. Some thought would have to go into a sliding scale to decide who would get more than the $1,000 per month of UBI based on need.

There should also be no cap on Social Security and Medicare. If the plan is to tax the Uber Rich more, the first place to start would be making every dime you make taxable to SSI/Medicaid. Also make certain that after a lower amount of capitol gains have been acquired, the rest would be subject to a SSI/UBI/Medicare tax as well. (This tax would have to be high enough as to not hurt middle-class investors, and would go a long way to sustaining UBI/SSI and healthcare costs).

Of course, all of these numbers would need to be adjusted for inflation every year, or else we're just starting more bubbles we don't need.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

For March 2019 the Outlay for Social Security was $87 B. For the first 6 months of the Fiscal Year, it was $512 B. That is the largest item of spending.
The Monthly Treasury Statement updates that every month, and those numbers are laid out in the first 5 pages of the current format. And they have archives.

The 3rd or 4th largest Outlay category is Medicare. $53 B for March, $302 B for the half Fiscal Year.

On this subject of being paid to not work: how is this different than Greece?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, people make bad choices. Do people ALWAYS choose perfectly? Do people ALWAYS pick the right career, the right partner, the right investment, the right friends, the right city, the right option on whether or not to have children, and how many?

I know I've made bad choices and I'm sure you have too, despite the fac that you like to get angry at other people for not being as perfect as you are!

*****

I've already made myself clear ... long-term welfare for competent work-able working-age adults is not my preferred option. Sometimes life throws you a curveball tho, and for those instances ... well, that's where assistance comes in.

But long-term welfare for competent adults is a byproduct of a defective system that rewards sociopathy and disincentivises work. If you want to fix the problem, change the system.

But if you're not willing to change the system, then at least try not to make things worse.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 3:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.

Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.

The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system

I still have a problem with ubi tho: much of the money wil still go to China or elsewhere. So my choice would still be Medicare for All

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.

Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.

The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system

I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.

UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yang wants to reduce military spending 200 Billion, but that wouldn't be enough, and I'm not sure where he got that number.

There's another 68 Billion in food stamps.

How much is Social Security? I can't seem to find what the yearly payouts for that is. Quite a bit of that could be rolled into UBI quite easily, I would think. Some thought would have to go into a sliding scale to decide who would get more than the $1,000 per month of UBI based on need.

There should also be no cap on Social Security and Medicare. If the plan is to tax the Uber Rich more, the first place to start would be making every dime you make taxable to SSI/Medicaid. Also make certain that after a lower amount of capitol gains have been acquired, the rest would be subject to a SSI/UBI/Medicare tax as well. (This tax would have to be high enough as to not hurt middle-class investors, and would go a long way to sustaining UBI/SSI and healthcare costs).

Of course, all of these numbers would need to be adjusted for inflation every year, or else we're just starting more bubbles we don't need.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
For March 2019 the Outlay for Social Security was $87 B. For the first 6 months of the Fiscal Year, it was $512 B. That is the largest item of spending.
The Monthly Treasury Statement updates that every month, and those numbers are laid out in the first 5 pages of the current format. And they have archives.

The 3rd or 4th largest Outlay category is Medicare. $53 B for March, $302 B for the half Fiscal Year.

On this subject of being paid to not work: how is this different than Greece?

Wishi says about 60 million receive SS benefits.
So about $1,450 per month average.
I did not know that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OK, JSF, you're right: UBI is a bad idea. Simplifying Federal benefits would probably be more helpful.

I still think Medicare for All is a better idea tho.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.

Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.

The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.

UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

You're contradicting yourself here.

First you say that $1,000 would be the new $0.

Then you say that the money would disincentivize people to work.

Which is it? It can't be both.

I just pointed out in the other thread how the system we have in place now disincentivizes work. Yanno, a $4/hour increase leading to only 46 cents extra per hour in my pocket. No health insurance.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I know I've made bad choices and I'm sure you have too, despite the fac that you like to get angry at other people for not being as perfect as you are!

No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.

All of these "solutions" are basically people just wanting to throw money at other people. That's not going to work short-term, let alone long term.

People aren't making enough money because modern day living is expensive and expansive. There probably isn't ANY quick fixes for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 7:39 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

Boom - Mic drop. Very sound reasoning JSF! I agree completely. $1000 is enough to never have to work. You might make it make sense with $500 or food/gas/utilites/housing credits, but then inflation probably happens like JSF says. I think once people see the issues with UBI they will discount Yang - that's basically his party piece.

I too am for Medicare for all. If we're such a awesome nation we should be able to make it work better than anywhere else. Leave out the politicians and we'll have a chance. Just not having to pay for insurance would be a huge boon to individuals AND to businesses. The idea that they should have to pay for someone else's coverage never made sense to me - those costs end up getting passed on to the consumer.

And don't touch my SS unless you just make it better and sooner - I've invested way too much in it already.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

Boom - Mic drop. Very sound reasoning JSF! I agree completely. $1000 is enough to never have to work. You might make it make sense with $500 or food/gas/utilites/housing credits, but then inflation probably happens like JSF says. I think once people see the issues with UBI they will discount Yang - that's basically his party piece.

I too am for Medicare for all. If we're such a awesome nation we should be able to make it work better than anywhere else. Leave out the politicians and we'll have a chance. Just not having to pay for insurance would be a huge boon to individuals AND to businesses. The idea that they should have to pay for someone else's coverage never made sense to me - those costs end up getting passed on to the consumer.

And don't touch my SS unless you just make it better and sooner - I've invested way too much in it already.

$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?

I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.

Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.

Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 8:11 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?

I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.

Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.

Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.

You're joking, right? I use to for one. $395 for rent, no car, do the rest of the math. Ever heard of roommates? Campbell's soup and minute rice? Plenty of people could if they wanted to, and $1000 untaxed dollars would make it easy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?

I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.

Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.

Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.

You're joking, right? I use to for one. $395 for rent, no car, do the rest of the math. Ever heard of roommates? Campbell's soup and minute rice? Plenty of people could if they wanted to, and $1000 untaxed dollars would make it easy.

Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.

EDIT: And it's "I used to, for one". Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 9:42 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.

So... you haven't heard of roommates then? 2 people, combining their incomes? Ring any bells up there?

https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/in/indianapolis/

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.

It must be difficult being so dense! You're just being pissy because your UBI dream was shot down so completely. Sorry, dude! No free money for you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.

So... you haven't heard of roommates then? 2 people, combining their incomes? Ring any bells up there?

Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.

I'm the cheapest person you've ever met, and I would never do that again.

I've got an entire 4 bedroom house to myself, and I refuse to rent it out to anybody. I could theoretically live off of that income alone if I wanted to.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.

It must be difficult being so dense! You're just being pissy because your UBI dream was shot down so completely. Sorry, dude! No free money for you!

Nice try.

Don't get salty with me that your public school education fails you, yet again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 3:38 PM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.

You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 10:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Updated list of candidates: who is running in 2020

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&p=2

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

Boom - Mic drop. Very sound reasoning JSF! I agree completely. $1000 is enough to never have to work. You might make it make sense with $500 or food/gas/utilites/housing credits, but then inflation probably happens like JSF says. I think once people see the issues with UBI they will discount Yang - that's basically his party piece.

I too am for Medicare for all. If we're such a awesome nation we should be able to make it work better than anywhere else. Leave out the politicians and we'll have a chance. Just not having to pay for insurance would be a huge boon to individuals AND to businesses. The idea that they should have to pay for someone else's coverage never made sense to me - those costs end up getting passed on to the consumer.

And don't touch my SS unless you just make it better and sooner - I've invested way too much in it already.

pizmo, sometimes I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.

I currently have 2 homes, each has a mortgage payment of about $400 per month. Includes property Taxes, and Water/Sewer Utilities. Each is 3 bedrooms, one has 3 car garage.
The most recent apartment I had, 9 years ago, was $395, but that was 1 bedroom, roomy bath, and spacious living room and dining room, carport. 14 years ago I had one for $100 or $200, I forget which, but it was a studio.
I got spoiled early, when I convinced my best friend to bypass a 2 bedroom we had looked at, and get a 3 bedroom 2-level townhouse apartment, 2 full bath, 2 carports, 2 blocks from LAX, where we worked. We had our choice of which of our friends to take the 3rd bedroom, some bribery was involved in that decision. $1050, so $350 x 3, in the late 80s. Community Party Room, Exercise Room (directly out our living room window) swimming pool, sand volleyball court below our dinette window, BBQ pits below our living room window. Did I mention 2 blocks from LAX? Something like 400 apartments in the complex, many of which had 9 keys floating among all of the stewardesses which split each apartment. Hundreds of stewardesses sunning at the pool out our window, bouncing at volleyball, doing aerobics outside our window, visiting our BBQs. Everybody agreed it was the single best apartment and location in the whole complex. Every single weekend we had a BBQ, or party or both. When I moved out, they had a line of prospects begging to fill the spot.

I have pointed out that Dollar Tree can provide a week's worth of PBJ components for $3, or $4 for a second loaf of bread. In my area, 2 loaves/$1 is common at Kwik Trip.
I used to get Ramen noodles by the case, I recall they were 5 cents per serving. I introduced my grandfather to how delicious Michelina's and Yu Sing were, when they cost 50 cents per meal - and he liked them so much that he only ate 1/3 of each entrée per meal.

The last 5 or 6 vehicles I've purchased were $600, lasting several years each. So that is $200/year, or $17/month.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.

You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.

I won't even begin to list the endless quotes about how we wouldn't even need money if it weren't for women. More than half of those quotes are attributed to women themselves. Women are the single demographic that drives the modern economy.

Disregarding that, find me a woman who's going to live with you and pool their $1,000 while you both sit around all day doing nothing and either not drive you insane or badger you to get a job.

The idea that everybody would just sit around and do nothing if they had $1,000 a month is just as ridiculous as anything else you've ever said in here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2019 11:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

https://rusi.org/commentary/us-presidential-hopefuls-and-their-nuclear
-weapons-policies

US Democratic Party candidates for the White House are beginning to tackle nuclear challenges in their election campaigns.

Not all of the 18 hopefuls have made clear foreign – let alone nuclear – policy statements. It is particularly challenging to anticipate the positions of candidates like Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper, and Marianne Williamson, who have not served in public office or held positions at the federal level and thus lack even previous records from which to glean their nuclear policy sentiments. Others like Julian Castro and Wayne Messam have made domestic issues the focal points of their campaigns, also making it difficult to assess their views on nuclear issues. The rest, though, have revealed their positions on key issues, providing some insight into what a newly elected Democratic administration’s nuclear weapons policy might look like after 2020.

On US–Russia Arms Control Efforts

Leading Democratic candidates have criticised President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Senator Elizabeth Warren, amidst her calls for a ‘Foreign Policy for All,’ expressed her disdain for the decision, citing it as ‘yet another example of the Trump Administration’s dangerous and costly embrace of nuclear weapons’. In November last year, she joined a group of senators in introducing the Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2018, aimed at prohibiting the funding of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles – weapons eliminated by the treaty – until the administration can meet restraining criteria. Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York senator running for the democratic nomination, also co-sponsored the act, calling the legislation ‘more important than ever’ after expressing her views in a joint letter to the president that scrapping the treaty ‘risks the United States sliding into another arms race with Russia and erod[ing] U.S. nonproliferation efforts around the world’.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has not officially announced his candidacy but still leads in early primary polls, served in the Senate when the INF Treaty was originally ratified in 1987 and played an important role in securing the 2010 New START agreement. While claiming that the ‘Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of Western democracy’, Biden has also stressed that ‘(i)t is precisely because we do not trust our adversaries that treaties to constrain the human capacity for destruction are indispensable to the security of the United States of America’. Collectively, these sentiments imply that a Democratic White House would double down on efforts to maintain robust arms control agreements with Russia.
On the Iran Nuclear Deal

All candidates with congressional backgrounds have expressed their support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral deal in which Iran agreed to verifiably halt its production of fissile material in return for sanctions relief. Consequently, these candidates responded critically to President Trump’s 2018 decision to remove the US from the agreement. Beto O’Rourke, who gained national attention in his recent senatorial campaign against Ted Cruz, called the deal ‘a miracle of modern diplomacy … [that] demonstrably makes the world … a safer place’. California Senator Kamala Harris recognised the agreement as ‘the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East’.

It is an altogether different matter, however, if any of these candidates might attempt to salvage – or replace – the deal should they win in 2020. While the European states that are party to the agreement have worked to keep it in place, the ‘snapback’ of US sanctions in November 2018 has placed significant pressure on the Iranian economy and undermines the leverage that the so-called P5+1 counties – which negotiated the JCPOA – used to bring Iran to the negotiation table in the first place.

On North Korea

Perhaps most central to President Trump’s nuclear policy has been his response to and handling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. In a dramatic shift from 2017, during which he derisively called the North Korean leader ‘Little Rocket Man’ and threatened a ‘fire and fury’ response to North Korea’s provocations, Trump has since met with Kim Jong-un in two high-profile summits aimed at securing the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

On the whole, the Democratic candidates have expressed their support for diplomatic efforts to curb the North Korean nuclear threat but have criticised Trump’s particular approach. On Trump’s recent decision not to impose additional sanctions on the North Korean regime, John Delaney, the first Democrat to declare his candidacy, said the decision ‘undercut [Trump’s] own officials [and] underscores his erratic and unstable behavior’. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who has cited the false missile alert in her state of Hawaii as evidence that the US is marching towards ‘nuclear catastrophe’, claimed that ‘North Korea will look at Trump’s actions, not empty promises’ in deciding whether or not to make a deal. If the US threatens ‘regime-change war in Iran and Venezuela,’ she said, ‘we can’t expect Kim to believe that we won’t overthrow him if he gives up his nukes’.

Making his second bid for the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested a way forward with North Korea. Emphasising the importance of international sanctions, he claimed that ‘we should … continue to make clear that this is a shared problem, not to be solved by any one country alone but by the international community working together’.

The Next Nuclear Posture Review?

As has become custom, new presidents release a nuclear posture review (NPR) at the start of their terms to outline the administration’s nuclear weapons policies. While it is far too early to know who will be selected as the official Democratic nominee for the White House race, the nuclear stances of individual candidates hint at a possible NPR approach should the 2020 election hand the White House to a Democrat.

A Warren NPR would likely emphasise multilateral arms control and non-proliferation efforts. A Sanders NPR might focus on consensus-building around the most challenging nuclear issue areas. And a Biden NPR may look strikingly similar to Obama’s, perhaps even going so far as to adopt a no first use policy. Whatever the outcome, these early discussions demonstrate some candidates’ recognition that nuclear weapons issues will continue to be a central aspect of the presidential portfolio – and will hopefully encourage further debate on nuclear policies on the electoral campaign trail.

Jamie Kwong is a Research Assistant in the Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme at RUSI.

Royal United Services Institute
rusi.org
The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, sometimes still referred to by its pre-2004 name, the Royal United Services Institution, is a British defence and security think tank. It was founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington, Sir Arthur Wellesley. It won Prospect magazine's Think Tank of the Year Award in 2008. In 2009, the same magazine named RUSI "Foreign Policy Think Tank of the Year".Wikipedia

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.

You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.

I won't even begin to list the endless quotes about how we wouldn't even need money if it weren't for women. More than half of those quotes are attributed to women themselves. Women are the single demographic that drives the modern economy.

Disregarding that, find me a woman who's going to live with you and pool their $1,000 while you both sit around all day doing nothing and either not drive you insane or badger you to get a job.

The idea that everybody would just sit around and do nothing if they had $1,000 a month is just as ridiculous as anything else you've ever said in here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.

Or is he just saying that people would go find some kind of work for the fun of it, because they would get bored not working?

At first, the Inflation spike would happen fast, devaluing SS stipends, then the $1,000 per month would be valueless. Leaving us where we started, but with devaluatiing Inflation in place. But then we we couldn't be able to reverse the process, and the damage would be done, and the UBI fiasco would be ignored, forgotten, in the past, and the UBIers would be peddling their next Spendaholic Magic Bullet idiocy.

Plus, I've heard that modern women want to have their own jobs. So the women would not sit at home harping on, they would go and work for the fun of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.

You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.

I won't even begin to list the endless quotes about how we wouldn't even need money if it weren't for women. More than half of those quotes are attributed to women themselves. Women are the single demographic that drives the modern economy.

Disregarding that, find me a woman who's going to live with you and pool their $1,000 while you both sit around all day doing nothing and either not drive you insane or badger you to get a job.

The idea that everybody would just sit around and do nothing if they had $1,000 a month is just as ridiculous as anything else you've ever said in here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.

No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.

I'm arguing that in his hypothetical fantasy land world where this is possible, there is no woman who's going to stand for a man who sits around playing video games and binge watching Netflix, let alone many women who wouldn't be bored out of their mind doing the same themselves.

Throw a kid or two in the mix, assuming there is sex involved and we're not delving further into fantasy land with strictly platonic roommates, and this becomes even more impossible. (Remember, there are no welfare benefits for children, no EIC, and no food stamps in this scenario).

Nobody could afford to sit around all day and not work with $1,000 per month without being completely miserable. Whether single or married.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.

IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.

Oh. You don't, huh?

Allow me to enlighten you.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.

Oh. You don't, huh?

Allow me to enlighten you.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?

It's attitudes like that that make women want to go their own way. Hubby and I contributed equally to the finances, so stuff it.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.

WELL THEN, YOU'RE STUPID.

You don't give a damn?

How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:45 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
pizmo, sometimes I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.

I don't blame you - we rarely agree on anything. But I was being completely serious. You pointed out a couple of righteous points - "we all get it and we all know we all get it." I know my fellow human pretty well - that's a recipe for inflation just like you said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:02 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.

Jack was making the argument that no one could live on $1000 other than him. Already we have 3 people posting here who have and could again. Do the math, professor.
And who the hell says all you do is sit around and watch tv all day? You have very little imagination. That's you hoping/wishing/making sh*t up to validate one of your erroneous "all feelz" opinions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
It's attitudes like that that make women want to go their own way. Hubby and I contributed equally to the finances, so stuff it.

I have no doubt that you did and do. I was not talking about you, and you should not be affronted when not directed your way.
I was attempting to paraphrase the attitude which 6ix seemed to be emulating, which rue had indicated bafflement about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.

Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.

The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.

UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.

Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.

You're contradicting yourself here.

First you say that $1,000 would be the new $0.

Then you say that the money would disincentivize people to work.

Which is it? It can't be both.

I just pointed out in the other thread how the system we have in place now disincentivizes work. Yanno, a $4/hour increase leading to only 46 cents extra per hour in my pocket. No health insurance.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Does as anybody else think these are contradictory concepts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.

Oh. You don't, huh?

Allow me to enlighten you.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?

I'm not going to go so far as to say that.

But according to the hbr.org article:

Quote:
Women now drive the world economy.

Globally, they control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. Their $13 trillion in total yearly earnings could reach $18 trillion in the same period.

In 2009 they spent 7 Trillion more than they earned. It was projected that by 2013 they would spend 10 Trillion more than they earned.

I caution some here to not go down the lines of "bullshit! I don't do that!". Because you know very well women who do, and you have no doubt bitched about them, and dare I say have been envious of them at one point in your life or another.

There's an entire industry of reality TV shows and garbage magazines based off of this phenomena that must get views, because they keep pumping that bullshit out. I'll leave it to you to decide what about these trash rags and shows that are so enthralling to a mostly female audience.

All I'm going to say is that most men aren't going to be spending any money on window dressings. If there weren't women to impress, we'd be garbed in little more than rags.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.

Jack was making the argument that no one could live on $1000 other than him. Already we have 3 people posting here who have and could again. Do the math, professor.
And who the hell says all you do is sit around and watch tv all day? You have very little imagination. That's you hoping/wishing/making sh*t up to validate one of your erroneous "all feelz" opinions.

No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.

You obviously make so much money that you have no idea what inflation did to everything. I'm only able to do it because I live rent and mortgage free.

Although, I will make one alteration to my support for the UBI, based off of your replies. Not that you specifically said it, but because I know you would be doing it in this hypothetical world where you got to sat around doing nothing with your time and your roommates...

When the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.

Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?

Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.

Still think you can swing that in 2019?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:57 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.

Goddamn, dude. You're doing it now - so that's one. I wouldn't want to, nor would JSF it sounds, but I could go right back to where I was with my wife before we were married and make it easy, with money to spare. Let's see... how many is that? 1... 2... 3.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
hen the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.

Good luck with that one!

How many people do you think would be eligible for UBI? 20?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?

The concept of multiple people - married even - living under one roof is just too big a thing for you to wrap your head around, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.

I dunno, what did you do after you got canned? Didn't you say you just paid the penalty?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Still think you can swing that in 2019?

Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My sister could live on $1000/mo with a roommate, but the people who could live off of that are in areas where the living cost is low: western NY, Indianna, Minnesota (outside of the Twin Cities) etc. In the LA region, where I live, a two-bedroom apartment costs $1300/mo.

*****

What got lost in the shuffle about UBI is that it would be inflationary, and much of the money would fly overseas and stimulate the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian etc economies, so the net effect wouldn't be helpful. (Consumer spending drives our trade deficit.)
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-part
ners-3306276

Aside from that, UBI doesn't solve the problem of too few good jobs. We don't HAVE to be competing against Haitians for a bowl of rice a day, if we don't want to. The USA could be nearly self-sufficient; we have most of the physical resources and all of the people required to power an economy for the foreseeable future if we use them correctly and don't strip-mine them from our children. We could tell most of the world to stuff it. Costs would go up, but so would wages. The only thing that would mean is that more money would be circulating in the economy where 99% of us live, and not squirreled away in the coffers of the 0.01%.

I don't see UBI having the intended effect. But I think SIX might be heading in the right direction with credit cards: One of the drivers of our incredible wealth gap is that the wealthy have access to near-zero pct interest rate loans, which allows them to place their bets in the various bubbles that these loans also inflate.

I'm not sure that the government can mandate a higher interest rate, but it CAN mandate required reserves. You could pull the plug on this speculation by requiring banks (and all lending institutions) to only lend money that they physically have in their possession: 100% reserve requirement. That would do two things: It would shut off the spigot of money created out of thin air and lent to the ultra-wealthy for their unicorn-fart speculation, and it would require the banks to offer higher interest rates on savings in order to attract more money, thus encouraging savings. You wouldn't have to do this all at once, just raise the reserve requirements by 2% per year. A 2% rise in reserve requirements per year (say, from 5% to 7% to 9%...) would require some serious readjustment in speculation.

Just a thought.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.

Goddamn, dude. You're doing it now - so that's one. I wouldn't want to, nor would JSF it sounds, but I could go right back to where I was with my wife before we were married and make it easy, with money to spare. Let's see... how many is that? 1... 2... 3.

No. You couldn't. Just saying something doesn't make it true.

*Slaps his forehead*... How am I supposed to try to explain that to a Russiagater?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
hen the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.

Quote:
Good luck with that one! How many people do you think would be eligible for UBI? 20?

I didn't say the credit card debt or their obligation to pay the debt would be erased. Simply that anybody who didn't have a job would no longer have access to credit.

I think that's your problem with the first question too. You would have a ton of debt that you currently have. You just wouldn't have any access to dig an even deeper hole for yourselves.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?

Quote:
The concept of multiple people - married even - living under one roof is just too big a thing for you to wrap your head around, isn't it?

Stupid question. Moving on...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.

Quote:
I dunno, what did you do after you got canned? Didn't you say you just paid the penalty?

LOL... you have absolutely no idea how anything works.

If you didn't file income taxes because you didn't have income, you didn't have to pay the penalty, since it was only a tax line item on your income taxes. So no, I didn't pay it. Starting next year, nobody pays it.

I'm talking about health insurance, which universally everybody agrees is important. UBI could be used to pay for it for those without jobs or with part time jobs. Sure, you could choose to go without it, but I'd laugh at anyone who did that who was paying off a car or was paying $300 per month for cable TV and a cell phone.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Still think you can swing that in 2019?

Quote:
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.

Prove it.

People only do it here now because there are plenty of government programs out there that not only incentivize not working, but they deincentivize working, for the lowest earners.

The UBI would not be enough for anybody to live and enjoy living, yet since everybody got it and you wouldn't lose it for getting a part or full time job, there is no dis-incentives to work.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.- WISHY

WELL THEN, YOU'RE STUPID You don't give a damn? How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?-SIGNY

Well, to make a point and maybe drag the discussion back to the original topic...

Quote:
The Department of Defense is the world’s worst bookkeeper. The books are so atrocious that they are wrong about everything and it’s impossible to detect just how bad the fraud and corruption that runs rampant through the Pentagon has become.

Journalist Matt Taibbi told RT’s Lee Camp that he discovered it’s not possible to make any sense of the books.

Taibbi recently dove headfirst into the insanity that is the Pentagon’s finances to find out how a much-lauded audit of the organization, (which receives half a trillion dollars a year) failed to give the DoD either a pass or fail. What Taibbi found was that the Pentagon operates under a system that is inherently unable to provide financial accountability, he said during an interview on Redacted Tonight.

“It’s organized so badly that when the Pentagon at the end of every year goes to ask for more money for the next year… they invent the numbers because they have no audit trail. They submit all those numbers to the Congress, saying we spent this on that, but they don’t actually have the documents,” he said. “The sheer quantity of the numbers makes it impossible to detect anything like fraud or theft because the books are all wrong at every single level of the system.”

The massive amount of waste and corruption is unbelievable, yet it’s impossible to even get a handle on just how bad it has become. Taibbi also says that there is no way the Pentagon will ever change the way they do their books unless there is reform to how they receive their money. Unless the Pentagon cuts off weapons contractors, there will never be any type of reform – so don’t hold your breath.

Pentagon Admits Billions In US Funds Disappeared in Afghanistan To “Fraud, Waste And Abuse”

“The people who sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee are going to be primarily funded by military contractors. Which means that none of those people are ever going to approve any measure that threatens to stop funding of the Pentagon until they get their books in order,” Taibbi said. “And the only way you can make the Pentagon make their books in order is to yank the money.”

The Pentagon is not known for their ability to reason or be responsible unless it’s providing “reasons” that they should be responsible for the deaths of millions across the globe.

*Side Note: Taibbi added that he sees the “Russiagate” hoax to be the biggest blow to mainstream media’s reputation since the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco under the Bush administration.

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-pentagons-bookkeeping-is-at
rocious-the-books-are-wrong-on-everything_04152019

Any candidates calling for a top-to-bottom reform of how the Pentagon (oh, and DHS and HUD) track their expenditures?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?

These do not say what you think they say.

lol :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?

These do not say what you think they say.

lol :)

Then go ahead and Womansplain them to me.

You have my consent.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

just for fun

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Any candidates calling for a top-to-bottom reform of how the Pentagon (oh, and DHS and HUD) track their expenditures?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

Not about tracking, but about spending:

CODEPINK Ranks the 2020 Presidential Candidates on War, Peace and Military Spending
https://www.mintpressnews.com/codepink-ranks-2020-presidential-candida
tes-war-peace-military-spending/256700/

War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-p
residential-candidates

Yang: "10% of the military budget — approximately $60 billion per year —to a new domestic infrastructure force called the Legion of Builders and Destroyers."
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256198/andrew-yang-gang-presidential-p
olicies-universal-basic-income-joe-rogan

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

Cory Booker (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D)

Julian Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)
Support our world-class military with the resources they need, with a particular focus on technological capabilities

Tulsi Gabbard (D)
Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)
BRING EVERY TROOP HOME
The United States has about 800 military bases spread across the world. There are bases in 80 countries, with about 138,000 troops total deployed across the world. Only 11 other countries have military bases in other nations; the country with the second-most bases has at most 40.

Kamala Harris (D)

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D)

Amy Klobuchar (D)

Wayne Messam (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D)

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (I)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Donald Trump (R)
National Security and Defense: President Trump rebuilt our military, crushed ISIS, and confronted rogue nations to protect America and our allies.

Elizabeth Warren (D)
That means cutting our bloated defense budget and ending the stranglehold of defense contractors on our military policy.

Bill Weld (R)

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D)
Modernize Military Spending

http://2020candidates.org/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You don't give a damn?

How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?

Your comrade just made my point for me. Thanks.

That you think anyone really has a say in anything this country or any other does militarily is the ultimate pinnacle of being ludicrous. Fantasy compounded by delusion.

Maybe I should start calling you Cap'n Marvel, because you think you alone have the power to take on whole military systems and I marvel at that.

Waste of time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RUE: Awesome! Thanks for the useful information!

WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:53 PM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
cartoon
just for fun

That's a great cartoon! It's funny, it feels completely, sadly all too true. And it also illustrates why quoting from a platform or "statements on the issues" is so hard to trust, pointless even. Interviewers seem to think that's a hard hitting question, "so where do you stand on the issues?" And I can just hear some of them go, "f*ck! I knew they'd ask me that - we've been working on it day and night but just haven't finished it yet... there are so many goddamn issues! And they always ask me about the ones we haven't gotten to yet! B*stards! Who has the time to research all this sh*t anyway! I'll just have to wing it..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:00 PM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.

Prove it.

You

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.

Thanks, I don't anyway. But I like to play the "who could win if this country WASN'T run by a shadow government". There is too much money and other things at stake to just hand over power. It's all a puppet show.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:

You

Bwah haaaa haa.

Stop, you might break his delusion of being a self-made man...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RUE: Awesome! Thanks for the useful information!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

It looks like people who have already identified the bloated military as a problem, and who have a history of criticizing the bloated military as a problem, already have statements. Bernie is an unfocused critic (his priorities are elsewhere); but he has no official statement because it looks like he's taking his time publicly putting out a comprehensive position statement.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NYTimes today

>
2020 Presidential Election
9 Takeaways From a Look Inside the 2020 Money Race
Bernie Sanders is the money leader. Elizabeth Warren is spending big. Pete Buttigieg emerged out of nowhere. And (almost) everyone is buying gobs of Facebook ads.
1h ago

>
‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
Members of the party establishment who oppose Senator Bernie Sanders have discussed how to handle his candidacy. Others are warning of a schism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Updated list of candidates: who is running in 2020

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&p=2

Or like this:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&mid=10742
86#1074286

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:34 PM