REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 09:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10518
PAGE 4 of 5

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
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.



I like to play it too. That's why I like to discuss Big Ideas: Why society is like an organism. The limits of measuring everything against "efficiency". What are America's (long term) interests?

"Thinking" is free ... or at least, it should be. It doesn't cost you any money. It doesn't need to be practical. It doesn't even need to be real. It doesn't put you at risk of anything.

What it DOES is inform your "practical" self of possible problems and possible solutions.

So, why limit yourself to centrist candidates with establishment ideas? Isn't it better to think, and think deeply, about the origins of our problems, and to outline the limits of your ideas, and "blue sky" some thoughts on potential solutions?

-----------
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  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:23 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I like to play it too. That's why I like to discuss...



No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

Your tactics are some of the most manipulative I've ever seen, and I have a Bi-polar Monster-in-law. I would pay money to get the two of you together in a room.
I think it could open a vortex of emotional vampirism that could lead to the destruction of the space-time continuum.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
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



Are we just going to keep going around in circles here then?

We've already covered this. I am a special case. The $800 per month I don't have to spend on rent or mortgage allows me to do what I do on what roughly equates to $1,000 per month after taxes, without the need of a roommate.

Hardly anybody in the country that isn't retired already owns their own home. It's virtually undoutable that anybody that does would not sit around doing nothing.

Using me as a barometer for this is not good metrics.



Although, I will say I am a good example of the non-economic reasons you should work, or at least do something productive with your life when you don't really have to...

I sat around doing almost nothing for 2 1/2 years straight, drinking 5 out of 7 days on average every week, sometimes more than 30 cheap beers in a session. The small amount of time I wasn't inebriated was just my "recovery" time in between either spent sleeping or watching Netflix.

I hated myself, and I was destroying myself.

Granted, getting a job wasn't what got me sober, but I had to obsessively delve into old projects of mine for months before I felt like I didn't need to go out and buy more alcohol. It was nearly a full year of sobriety before I even had applied for another job.

Without being a religious type, I can't argue that work is good for the soul. It's good to have structure and to have goals and accomplishments, however small they might be. It helps break up the days so you don't just waste 3 years doing the same thing every day and look back and wonder where the last 3 years had gone.


Let's put aside the argument of who could and couldn't make it off of only $1,000 per month for a moment and ask the question "why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"

I think you're projecting.


I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life, and was often the catalyst for many other terrible decisions I have made.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 1:18 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"



I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life



I can answer that one....

Because working just about ANY job as one of the plebs in this country absolutely BLOWS. Every job hubbs has had he's hated within two years of starting it.

A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've. You end up holding up THEIR end of the job, every time.

Then a quarter of the people are pure and simple asshats, or narcissists, or psychopaths that making dealing with them soul destroying.

Then there's a work week that isn't five days and hasn't been for a while now. A great many people work 6 days a week/10-12 hr days and can't afford to take off vacation days. You NEVER get enough rest.

Then you have corporations that push whole novels full of bullshit like calling an employee a "member" or any one of a number of humiliating or belittling jargon that they know is meaningless.

Then realize after taxes and healthcare deductions you will probably NEVER retire...


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 1:36 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"



I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life



I can answer that one....

Because working just about ANY job as one of the plebs in this country absolutely BLOWS. Every job hubbs has had he's hated within two years of starting it.

A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've. You end up holding up THEIR end of the job, every time.

Then a quarter of the people are pure and simple asshats, or narcissists, or psychopaths that making dealing with them soul destroying.

Then there's a work week that isn't five days and hasn't been for a while now. A great many people work 6 days a week/10-12 hr days and can't afford to take off vacation days. You NEVER get enough rest.

Then you have corporations that push whole novels full of bullshit like calling an employee a "member" or any one of a number of humiliating or belittling jargon that they know is meaningless.

Then realize after taxes and healthcare deductions you will probably NEVER retire...




Well... all true.

But that's working full time at a job you hate because you HAVE to work full time at a job you hate.

Even part time retail, I get that. The management at my store are largely useless. I was written up for insubordination with my first overnight manager. She was fired a few months later because her terrible family life and her own alcoholism got in the way of work and she had a few no-call, no-shows. I've outlasted 4 overnight managers since I've been there, and now my store manager took a 3 month "stress leave" and abandoned everybody else because she couldn't take the heat now that the Six-Sigma men in black have come knocking.

I honestly thought I had it all figured out. I actually LOVE my job now. I get a great workout, nobody ever bothers me or asks what I'm doing (or tells me what to do), and they're all smiles when they see me coming in. That's all going away soon when the night shift is removed and I have to deal with the new hard-ass store manager (and "service" customers for half of my shift and try not to get myself fired when I have to deal with a shitty one). I'm going to hang around a bit and see if I can build up something similar to what I had done for myself again, but the beauty of working a shitty part time job with no insurance and low pay is that it's not exactly hard to jump ship and go somewhere else if I don't feel like putting up with the bullshit.


The only way you're really going to work a job these days where you're not shit on at any level is if you go into business for yourself, and that's also a huge trade off because now you're your own boss and accountant and all the other things you can take for granted and not worry about when you are on somebody else's payroll.


This is just another argument for the UBI, the way I look at it. In my unique position, I could (and would) buy my own health insurance with it. Then I'd be completely free to keep on living the way I do, working part-time and only sacrificing 40% of my days without that hole of no insurance always nagging at the back of my mind. I would absolutely hate my job right now if I had to work full time for what I make.

For most others that were working part time and had a rent and a mortgage, they would also be able to purchase their own health insurance while working part time, but they'd have to make some sacrifices to do it. But the option would be there.



I dunno. I doubt it would ever happen in our lifetime. Not only does JSF disagree with the UBI, but so does everybody else including the borderline socialists on this board. Nobody is actually discussing it here. And now half of them are going off on hardly related identity politics tangents to avoid the issue altogether.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:57 AM

RUE

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


UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.

But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age and don't have the oomph it takes to go from shitty job to shitty job.


So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with either a higher budgetary demand, or less ability to work (age, illness) to make up the UBI shortfall. And I think you've spent your whole discussion talking about UBI and you, you, and you.



In a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.

But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.


So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.



But in a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.



Well... yes and no.

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.


But you are right. I'm not a good example of why it would work. I've said so many times in this thread that I'm an extreme outlier, and that I fully recognize that.




My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

I feel this argument is being derailed intentionally by people here from all sides.

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.


I'm sure there's more. I'll revise this as we discuss it further.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
Oh, bullshit, WISHY.

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...

I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.

I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.

I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.

What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.

-----------
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  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:25 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.



You crack me up - you must be a comedian. Seriously. You are incapable of learning a single thing. You aren't that special, bra. Why did you spend 6 years not working? Like Wish said, like you go bleating on about your current sh*t job - working a job sucks. You even answered your own question, "I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work." You can't even agree with yourself - what a freaking doorknob.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:26 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
Oh, bullshit, WISHY.

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...

I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.

I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.

I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.

What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.




Huh, you seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people on this forum... curious... perhaps telling even.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.



You crack me up - you must be a comedian. Seriously. You are incapable of learning a single thing. You aren't that special, bra. Why did you spend 6 years not working? Like Wish said, like you go bleating on about your current sh*t job - working a job sucks. You even answered your own question, "I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work." You can't even agree with yourself - what a freaking doorknob.



Once again, taking a single sentence of many paragraphs out of context.

Why don't you try putting your response here while quoting the entire thing?

Because it wouldn't make any sense. That's why.


Obviously, my point was to illustrate the terrible depths that people can let themselves slide into, such as depression, poor decision making and self-destructive behavior when they choose not to do any work.

This reply from you is just one more piece of evidence of what a small-minded asshole you truly are.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:17 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Once again, taking a single sentence of many paragraphs out of context.



I try to keep it simple for you, so you don't drift onto something else. I will try and make it even simpler for you next time.

Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Why don't you try putting your response here while quoting the entire thing?



Because I'm not responding to "the entire thing." You answered your own question, so I highlighted it for you. And even then you still don't get it, or refuse to understand.

Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Obviously, my point was to illustrate the terrible depths that people can let themselves slide into, such as depression, poor decision making and self-destructive behavior when they choose not to do any work.



Thank god you were the only one in America that's ever happened to. No one else has ever struggled like you have. F*cksake.

Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This reply from you is just one more piece of evidence of what a small-minded asshole you truly are.



Still having a hard time understanding how many households are double income? Did you see that link that said average rent in Indianapolis is $800 a month? That's a big city for Indiana, so rents will be even higher there than outside the city limits. Maybe only $600 a month? Split between 2 people making $2000... yeah, you're right. There's no room left after rent to pay for the Mazerati.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
Oh, bullshit, WISHY.

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...

I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.

I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.

I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.

What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.




Huh, you seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people on this forum... curious... perhaps telling even.



See what I mean, WISHY?

-----------
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  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:03 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


So Captain Crunch is put on ignore for the remainder of this thread. Anybody else who wants to have a legitimate conversation about UBI that doesn't involve inter-sectional politics or personal attacks thrown my way, please continue.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Quote:

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.
But that's not MY main arguemtn. I have several, which I will post, again.

Quote:

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.
Me too, so let's not discuss that.

Quote:


My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

Yes, the "law of unintended consequences" at work. Generally, if you want to promote a particular behavior, you reward it, so if you "reward" poverty with "assistance" you will promote dependence.

Quote:

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

What about Federal unemployment insurance? During the last downturn, when many people lost their jobs, unemployment saved a lot of people. I bring this up because "not working" isn't always an individual choice, sometimes people can't find jobs. Federal unemployment has an individual funding stream.

Quote:

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.
There ARE steps to remove people who don't belong. People are re-evaluated every five to seven years, or more often if "they" feel that the recipient's condition may improve.

Quote:

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.
I suggested coordinating Social Security with UBI, or simply making people receiving Social Security ineligible for UBI.

Quote:

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.
Removing the limit on Social Security is estimated to collect and extra $100 billion per year.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating

THERE IS NO UPPER WAGE LIMIT FOR MEDICARE TAXES. In fact, currently employers are mandated to charge EXTRA on incomes over $200,000, so no additional income would arise from Medicare taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751
There is currently no UBI tax, and its amount would have to be calculated.

Quote:

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.
Short-term capital gains (I found out) are already taxed, and they're taxed as "ordinary income". Since most people who claim short-term capital gains are probably high income earners (somewhere above a 12% tax bracket) it's likely that taxing short-term capital gains at Social Security and Medicare tax rates would lead to a REUCTION in taxes, not an increase. UBI taxes? TBD.

Quote:

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)
The government doesn't have the authority to do this, and I don't think I'd want to extend government power into this realm,

Quote:

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.
THE CURRENT on-the-books military budget is about a half-trillion dollars, and while that's a significant amount of money it would not come anywhere near funding UBI.

Quote:

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.
True, that. But OTOH if you start increasing "wages" by adding more taxes, employers would increasingly turn to automation.

Quote:

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.
Depends on where you live.

Quote:

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.
An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending
/

We should follow up with other UBI experiments to see how they fared.

Quote:

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.
I don't understand how consumption tax makes things better for lower earners.

Quote:

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.
All this has done is encourage the government to jigger the inflation figures (not to include housing and energy costs!!!)

So ... The cost of UBI is somewhere in the realm of $260 trillion dollars per year.

UBI
$2.6 trillion cost
$0.2 trillion from the Pentagon.
$0.7 trillion from converting the entire federal "welfare" budget
$0.7 trillion coordinating with Social Security
$0.1 trillion eliminating the upper income limit on SS taxes

There is still about a trillion dollar shortfall.

*****

My questios about UBI are two-fold

It's very expensive. I haven't identified funding to make up that almost-$1trillion shortfall.

It may not have the positive effect on "the economy" that you imagine. I tried to estimate how much of that $$$ would simply flow overseas, but the calculation is too difficult: The trade deficit is driven by consumer goods and is in the realm of about a half-trillion dollars per year, total consumer spending in the USA is about $13(?) trillion per year, so maybe 4% (?) of UBI money would go into the trade deficit if proportionate, which isn't huge. OTOH I think that UBI would be inflationary; it would create the problem of "too much money chasing too few goods". Landlords and utlities would receive a windfall; farmers might get a lifeline and foreign consumer goods manufacturers would get a boost. Except for money spent on food (which would go to the American farmer) I don't see UBI promoting more production at home.

It would be extremely beneficial in the short term for the low-income wage earner. Is there any way to retain the benefits of "not incentivising unemployment" without spending so much money? The only thing I can think of is that the government "make up" the difference between poverty level and income, but that would require yet another complex system.

-----------
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  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:48 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:07 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.

But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.

So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.


But in a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.


Well... yes and no.

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.


But you are right. I'm not a good example of why it would work. I've said so many times in this thread that I'm an extreme outlier, and that I fully recognize that.




My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

I feel this argument is being derailed intentionally by people here from all sides.

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.


I'm sure there's more. I'll revise this as we discuss it further.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

9. Not sure I understand raising State and Local Taxes with Consumption Tax. Unless the State also switches to Consumption Tax.
One of the " unintended" factors (which I consider minor) of Consumption Tax is the Increase in bartering, which escapes transfers of money. This would likely bolster neighborhood strength, community cohesiveness, and I don't think needs to be addressed.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:13 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


First off, let me just throw out there that the quote system here is rediculously outdated and it is a chore to try to keep these broken down reply threads going.

Quote:

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.


Quote:

But that's not MY main arguemtn. I have several, which I will post, again.


Okay.

Quote:

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.


Quote:

Me too, so lest's not discuss that.


Okay.

Quote:

My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)


Quote:

Yes, the "law of unintended consequences" at work. Generally, if you want to promote a particular behavior, you reward it, so if you "reward" poverty with "assistance" you will promote poverty.


Can we agree on a few things here first? These are fundamental arguments in favor of the UBI that are necessary to be agreed upon or else the UBI simply doesn't even merit any further discussion.

1. The UBI would not be poverty assistance, since everybody in the country no matter their income would receive it.

2. Existing forms of poverty assistance that I'm speaking of eliminating and replacing with the UBI reward bad behavior and promote poverty.


Quote:

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.



Quote:

What about Federal unemployment insurance? During the last downturn, when many people lost their jobs, unemployment saved a lot of people. I bring this up because "not working" isn't always an individual choice, sometimes people can't find jobs.


I'm open to discussing this further. Technically, part of your income wages go to "unemployment insurance". I don't know the ins and outs of how that system works, so it's up for debate if that's just another ponzi scheme or if it can be considered a genuinely compartmentalized and self-sustaining program or not.

Quote:

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.


Quote:

There ARE steps to remove people who don't belong. People are re-evaluated every fix to seven years, or more often if "they" feel that the recipient's condition may improve.


If they're anything like the programs I have been on in the past (food stamps, Obamacare, etc.), the checks are leaving a lot to be desired. Indiana specifically has made new checks and requirements that I agree with 100% even though they preclude me from most of these programs.

I don't think anyone would genuinely argue with me that there are people who are taking advantage of this system though.

This may be moot, however, if there is a reduction of benefits across the board when everyone gets the UBI. It's my personal belief that really the only ones that should be receiving the full benefit are the individuals who are practically vegetables and are unable to wipe their own asses. I'm talking about the people who not only can't work, but end up putting a life-altering burden on any loved ones that need to put these disabled people's needs before their own.

Again, I'm open to discussing any of this.

Quote:

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.


Quote:

I suggested coordinating Social Security with UBI, or simply making people receiving Social Security ineligible for UBI.


That "might" work, for most people, but it's certainly not a one size fits all solution. A recent check of the SSA website for my own retirement income shows that I would only be receiving $806 per month in SSI if I were to retire at 62. (More accurately, whatever the inflated value of $806 per month in today's dollars would be 22 years from now).

In this instance, perhaps an "either/or" choice would be more appropriate.

We would have to keep in mind that this eliminates any financial incentive for people to actively try to work more years to get a larger payout later in life that we have with SSI as it is today, but it could be argued that UBI makes that issue moot as well.

Now, you may not personally know anybody who refers to their SSI checks as "boat money", but I do. None of this addresses the inequality between senior citizens that are so well off that the could afford to spend their UBI on the boat without a second thought, and those that need to pay the bills with it, particularly when they are so old they have no ability to work to try to offset this. I don't know how to rectify this. I'm open to suggestions.



Quote:

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.


Quote:

Removing the limit on Social Security is estimated to collect and extra $100 billion per year.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating



I can't even fathom how it's possible that it's only 100 Billion per year. I will have to look deeper into this and from studies from multiple sources.

Quote:

THERE IS NO UPPER WAGE LIMIT FOR MEDICARE TAXES. In fact, currently employers are mandated to charge EXTRA on incomes over $200,000, so no additional income would arise from Medicare taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751



I wasn't aware of this. Good. At least there's that.

Quote:

There is currently no UBI tax, and its amount would have to be calculated.


Obviously there isn't. I'm only lumping them together because I believe that they should be lumped together in the end... somehow.

Perhaps the UBI is taxed on any individual making more than the FED standard deduction (currently $12,000/year for an individual), with no upper limits like the medicare tax.

Quote:

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.


Quote:

Short-term capitl gains are already taxed, and they're taxed as "ordinary income". Since most people who claim short-term capitla gains are probably high income earners (somewhere above the 15% tax bracket) it's likely that taxing short-term capital gains at Social Security and Medicare tax rates would lead to a REUCTION in taxes, not an increase. UBI taxes? TBD.


I'm going to need some data on this.

I wasn't saying replace current tax levels on capitol gains with SSI/medicare/UBI taxes. I was saying to add those to existing tax rates, but to only start taxing them on capitol gains in excess of a certain amount as to not hurt the middle-class.

Quote:

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)


Quote:

The government doesn't have the authority to do this, and I don't think I'd want to extend government power into this realm,


I agree about the government, but that doesn't have to be under the purview of the government either. A simple solution here would be for the government to tax bad behavior and make it prohibitive for credit card companies to extend credit to people with no income. Say, a 30% higher tax rate on any income they generate by extending credit to those without jobs?

Quote:

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.


Quote:

THE CURRENT on-the-books military budget is about a half-trillion dollars, and while that's a significant amount of money it would not come anywhere near funding UBI.


I stand corrected. Now I see where Yang gets his 200 Billion reduction figure without even hearing him talk on the issue. A 200 Billion annual reduction would put us just about squarely where we were pre 911.

Quote:

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.


Quote:

True, that. But OTOH if you start increasing "wages" by adding more taxes, employers would increasingly turn to automation.


But I really haven't here. At least not for a majority of Americans. I've suggested that those making more actual income in excess of the standard deduction (currently $12,000 for a single person) would pay a UBI tax on their income with no upper limit. I've suggested that there be no upper limit on Social Security (I'm not sure of the current figure for a single person, but they stop paying somewhere slightly above $100,000 per year). I've suggested adding UBI/SSI/Medicare taxes to capitol gains.

None of these would effect 70% or more of the US work force, save for the new UBI tax, but that would still be largely in their favor because including the $12,000 tax-free UBI, an individual would not even be paying into UBI until they had $24,000 in annual income, at current levels.

There could arguably be some reasons not to do what I'm saying here, but nobody working the jobs most likely to be replaced by automation in the future would be impacted by this.


Quote:

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.


Quote:

Depends on where you live.


True, but what are you currently doing living in a high cost of living area if you don't have a job or are making close to minimum wage anyhow?

Once again, we're verging on the argument that the UBI will suddenly make everyone not want to work, which is a fallacy. If you want to live in an area with great weather and great access to everything our civilization has made possible to us, you're going to be "taxed" on that through higher cost of living in the more desirable areas. That's already true. UBI doesn't make that "more" true.

Quote:

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.


Quote:

An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending
/

We should follow up with other UBI experiments to see how they fared.



Well... I'm not even suggesting coupling UBI with a complex welfare system here. I'm suggesting replacing a complex welfare system with the UBI.



Quote:

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.


Quote:

I don't understand how consumption tax makes things better for lower earners.


You don't? It's one of the few things that I agree with JSF on regarding taxes.

0% sales tax on food (excluding prepared food, and a pre-determined list of "exotic" foods... for example... caviar will be taxed.

0% sales tax on gas and electric (for your primary residence, assuming you're not living in a McMansion... Trump's primary residence would be paying a tax after a certain pre-determined dollar amount)

0% sales tax on a home phone or one cell phone per adult individual.

0% sales tax on a reasonable speed internet connection for your primary residence. (You will pay sales taxes if you opt for higher speed plans)

$0 yearly vehicle sticker tax on vehicles over 10 years old.

These are just some ideas. There are plenty more.

What specifically is your argument against the consumption tax, other than it could be a slippery slope that needs to be kept an eye on?

Quote:

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.


Quote:

All this has done is encourage the government to jigger the inflation figures (not to include housing and energy costs!!!)


True. I've argued that the inflation figures are bullshit for years now.

Somebody should do something about that.

Quote:


So ... The cost of UBI is somewhere in the realm of $260 trillion dollars per year.

UBI
$2.6 trillion cost
$0.2 trillion from the Pentagon.
$0.7 trillion from converting the entire federal "welfare" budget
$0.7 trillion coordinating with Social Security
$0.1 trillion eliminating the upper income limit on SS taxes

There is still about a trillion dollar shortfall



Well... $1,000 per month isn't some sort of infallible magic number.

What about $800 per month? What about not starting UBI payouts until somebody is 24 (average age of college graduates)?

There's always room for negotiaions.

Maybe $800 per month would be low enough that those who think most people would just sit around doing nothing would think that would be impossible as opposed to a full $1,000 per month?

Do Right, Be Right. :)




EDIT: I noticed after I posted that you have added to the bottom of your post. I don't have time right now to reply to that, as I've already spent about 45 minutes replying and formating this post as it is. I will come back hopefully sometime today to reply to the rest of your post. If you changed anything that I have already replied to after I had replied, also feel free to point that out to me as well.

Your update that wasn't present when I replied:

Quote:


My questios about UBI are two-fold

It's very expensive. I haven't identified funding to make up that almost-$1trillion shortfall.

It may not have the positive effect on "the economy" that you imagine. I tried to estimate how much of that $$$ would simply flow overseas, but the calculation is too difficult: The trade deficit is driven by consumer goods and is in the realm of about a half-trillion dollars per year, total consumer spending in the USA is about $13(?) trillion per year, so maybe 4% (?) of UBI money would go into the trade deficit if proportionate, which isn't huge. OTOH I think that UBI would be inflationary; it would create the problem of "too much money chasing too few goods". Landlords and utlities would receive a windfall; farmers might get a lifeline and foreign consumer goods manufacturers would get a boost. Except for money spent on food (which would go to the American farmer) I don't see UBI promoting more production at home.

It would be extremely beneficial in the short term for the low-income wage earner. Is there any way to retain the benefits of "not incentivising unemployment" without spending so much money? The only thing I can think of is that the government "make up" the difference between poverty level and income, but that would require yet another complex system.


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.



I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:42 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.


I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?



Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.



Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 1:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.


I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)




Quote:

If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?



How many users of other drugs DO NOT use alcohol or cigarettes too? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I do know that when anybody cites research regarding smoking pot and driving that a vast majority of those who were intoxicated also had alcohol in their system, and that it is extremely rare that somebody smoking pot exclusively is part of those statistics.

The longer your hair is, the longer they can test for pot in your system via your hair. Shaving your head is not an acceptable solution. As far as I'm aware, the only entities that test hair follicles are Union jobs. If you don't have any hair on your head, they will get it elsewhere, and on every other part of your body with the hair being shorter and growing much slower, the concentration is greater and you're even more likely to fail. Unless you've got that crazy disease where you lost all of your body hair, you're just not going to get that cushy Union job if you walk into the doctor's office with no eyebrows.

Any local governments that I have known of don't do anything beyond urine testing when somebody has to "drop" for any type of probation. Hair testing is too cost prohibitive.

Quote:

Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.


Okay. Sounds good. I did throw out the $800 number in an earlier reply and stated that $1,000 isn't some magic number we have to go by. Don't see why $500 isn't an option either. I don't think there's any way that somebody in their right mind could claim that $500 per month would be enough for somebody to sit on and not do any work. The only issue here is that if we're eliminating all other forms of social safety nets for the UBI then there are going to be millions of people who have a much lower quality of life overnight at only $500 per month.

Quote:

Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.



You're right. Perhaps the answer lies in your consumption tax idea.



Look man...

All I know is that something needs to change. We're about two steps away from rioting on the streets, and all it's going to take is one domino to fall for the whole damn system to fall apart.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the UBI isn't. It's unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage is.

You're bringing nothing substantial to the table in the meantime.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 1:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Unemployment Insurance.
This seems to be vastly different from one State to another.
Unlike Social Security, I consider UI to be part of a Social Safety Net, and the original intent was admirable.
But it has practically become a mangled mess. I would agree to fix it, not eliminate it. I hear people talking about the pitfalls, and regarding several States, but not most.

If somebody is receiving UI Benefits, or Payments, based upon work/job that they previously performed, most of the time these payments cannot pay their bills.
If they try to work some part-time job, the benefit payments seem to be reduced in some proportion, with a weekly calculation. Working part-time this way can effectively extend the benefit payment total, because the UI fund is no longer being depleted for the full amount each week. My opinion is that this is worthwhile, and also more productive, and should be encouraged by the Government, which also reduces Unemployment. BUT, if the worker works too many hours, even at low pay, then ALL Benefit payment for that week are taken away. This is the Agency in charge of Unemployment - does this seem counterproductive for them to punish or disincentivize underemployed persons for working? And if the Beneficiary schedules a job interview and the employer directs them not to come to work that day, then the Beneficiary has a full day of pay deleted from their payment for the week. These disruptions and losses of Benefits mean the person attempting to work cannot pay their bills. This stuff might seem like detail, but how are these Agency actions reasonable for we as a society to endorse? I would want Unemployment Agencies to encourage people to work, not penalize them for trying to work. It sounds like this happens in many States.
If something helps fix that, then I would support it. I support giving the needy a helping hand, but not pushing them back down into their hole.
To discuss Federal funding of Unemployment Insurance, we should not only look at low levels like now, but also at levels around 2011ish.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.


I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



Quote:

If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?


The longer your hair is, the longer they can test for pot in your system via your hair. Shaving your head is not an acceptable solution. As far as I'm aware, the only entities that test hair follicles are Union jobs. If you don't have any hair on your head, they will get it elsewhere, and on every other part of your body with the hair being shorter and growing much slower, the concentration is greater and you're even more likely to fail. Unless you've got that crazy disease where you lost all of your body hair, you're just not going to get that cushy Union job if you walk into the doctor's office with no eyebrows.

Any local governments that I have known of don't do anything beyond urine testing when somebody has to "drop" for any type of probation. Hair testing is too cost prohibitive.
Quote:

Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.

Okay. Sounds good. I did throw out the $800 number in an earlier reply and stated that $1,000 isn't some magic number we have to go by. Don't see why $500 isn't an option either. I don't think there's any way that somebody in their right mind could claim that $500 per month would be enough for somebody to sit on and not do any work. The only issue here is that if we're eliminating all other forms of social safety nets for the UBI then there are going to be millions of people who have a much lower quality of life overnight at only $500 per month.
Quote:

Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.


You're right. Perhaps the answer lies in your consumption tax idea.



Look man...

All I know is that something needs to change. We're about two steps away from rioting on the streets, and all it's going to take is one domino to fall for the whole damn system to fall apart.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the UBI isn't. It's unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage is.

You're bringing nothing substantial to the table in the meantime.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Hair drug testing is too cost prohibitive for handing out $1,000 per month? You are insane. The hair test could be rotated once or twice per year amongst the urine tests. What portion of the adult population do you think smokes pot? About 1/3? Then that saves 33% of the expense of the UBI program. Or 1/2? Or 2/3? If a failed test drops you from 12 months of UBI payments, and 2 consecutive passed tests can restart your payments the next year, the cost prohibitive claim is insipid.
If people who are working want to avoid being tested, they could have the option of foregoing their UBI payments, further saving the program money.
I don't know enough stats on drug use, but try some recalculation of UBI funding/expense if every drug user in America does not get UBI payments, either due to Voluntary exception to avoid drug tests, or suspension due to failed drug test. I know I have had at least 2 of the hair sample tests in the past decade, so I know there must be some cost benefit involved.


I am bringing nothing to the Table?
????
1. Reduce the Federal Debt.
2. Balance the Federal Budget.
3. Consumption Tax, let everybody decide on each purchase if they want to pay Tax or not.

If UBI can work within #2, then let's see it. I haven't seen that yet.

Get the Gross Federal Debt down to 50% of GDP to start.

I'll tell you what: if you show that 2/3 - 3/4 of Americans would exempt themselves from UBI payments (either voluntarily to avoid drug tests, or suspended for failed test), you might get some traction with your UBI, and the numbers might work out. My prior points about inflation and minimal costs would be completely undercut. Also, the drug users who have a heart would still support it, for the good of society. But the drug users who are merely greedy for Free Government Money would not.

Think of the homeless wino. Your UBI providing them with $1,000 worth of quality booze will accomplish what?


Regarding Taxation of UBI, clarify your intentions. If you intend that those with no other income than UBI would be below the Tax level, then that is one thing. If you intend that current non-taxed earners (like under $12K per year or something) would remain untaxed with their combined $24K per year, then that is something better. If you intend that high income earners would get after tax $550 UBI per month, then lay it out.
How many would want to submit to monthly drug testing just to collect $550 on top of their $200K salary? Most of the High earners might just opt out of payments, making UBI potentially feasible.


BREAKING NEWS: alcohol is legal in most States, for those Of Age. Tobacco as well. Pot is not legal anywhere in the US.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:41 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hair drug testing is too cost prohibitive for handing out $1,000 per month? You are insane.



I said it was too cost prohibitive for most businesses and even the government won't currently do it for criminals on parole.

Quote:

The hair test could be rotated once or twice per year amongst the urine tests. What portion of the adult population do you think smokes pot? About 1/3? Then that saves 33% of the expense of the UBI program. Or 1/2? Or 2/3? If a failed test drops you from 12 months of UBI payments, and 2 consecutive passed tests can restart your payments the next year, the cost prohibitive claim is insipid.
If people who are working want to avoid being tested, they could have the option of foregoing their UBI payments, further saving the program money.
I don't know enough stats on drug use, but try some recalculation of UBI funding/expense if every drug user in America does not get UBI payments, either due to Voluntary exception to avoid drug tests, or suspension due to failed drug test. I know I have had at least 2 of the hair sample tests in the past decade, so I know there must be some cost benefit involved.



I'm 100% against testing for pot, and so would over 50% of Americans, so I don't see where this conversation is going to get us anywhere. 20 years from now, it's going to be completely legal to smoke it in every state, so unless you want to start using the same rules for drinking, smoking cigarettes, or just outright being fat, then you're wasting your time here.

In the mean time, are you proposing that the UBI be denied to anybody who smokes weed in states where it is a completely legal activity?



Quote:

I am bringing nothing to the Table?
????
1. Reduce the Federal Debt.
2. Balance the Federal Budget.



We've been talking about this for decades. It is NEVER going to happen.

Quote:

3. Consumption Tax, let everybody decide on each purchase if they want to pay Tax or not.


This alone barely does ANYTHING for the people who need it most.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:58 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?



War is the ONLY "idea" you ever talk about, and if most of the people here "can't think" WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT????????????????????????????????????

Talk about ANYTHING ELSE I got no problems. But you try to steer the conversation there OVER AND OVER AND OVER= manipulation.


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:33 PM

RUE

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


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending
/


The Finland experiment was grossly misrepresented in the US press.



WHAT IS THE PROBLEM UBI IS TRYING TO SOLVE?

According to Time magazine it is the lack of purchasing power in Utrecht.
Quote:

Utrecht is partnering with a local university to provide residents with a “basic income,” which is enough to cover living costs, The Independent reports. The idea is to see whether citizens dedicate more time to volunteering, studying and other forms of self and community improvement when they don’t have to worry about earning money to survive. People who participate in the experiment won’t have any restrictions placed on how they choose to spend the money they receive.


But Finland is ending the program (as reported by Time magazine) because of unpopularity (as implied by Time magazine):
Quote:

While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program.
Many participants reported lower stress levels shortly after the payments began, but researchers emphasize that the short duration of the program prevents them from drawing definitive conclusions about its effects. Kela will follow up with the Finns who participated for ten years, in order to identify the long-term effects of the program.


The NYTimes reported this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-in
come.html
Quote:

The Finnish government has opted not to continue financing it past this year, a reflection of public discomfort with the idea of dispensing government largess free of requirements that its recipients seek work. …the Finnish government’s decision to halt the experiment at the end of 2018 highlights a challenge to basic income’s very conception. Many people in Finland—and in other lands—chafe at the idea of handing out cash without requiring that people work ...




BUT THERE WAS SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION IN THE NEWS

Wired UK points out that the UBI experiment wasn't being ended, it simply wasn't expanded midstream, and that it'll run to its planned conclusion at the end of 2018. 26 April 2018
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results
-trial-cancelled

Quote:

Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains. Finland is only experimenting with a very narrow version of basic income that focuses on understanding whether giving monthly payments to people out of work changes their employment prospects. ... the aim of the austerity-focussed centre-right Finnish government is to reduce the country’s 8.5 per cent unemployment rate, and the basic income trial is just one way of attempting to do that.


A separate correction for initial bad reporting was published in the Independent. 27 April 2018
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/universal-basic-income
-finland-results-experiment-pros-cons-unemployed-trial-definition-a8325631.html
Quote:

Finland has been forced to deny widespread media reports that its universal basic income experiment had fallen flat.


The trial wasn't so much an economics trial, but a psychology experiment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-inc
ome-trial-after-two-years
Quote:

The scheme – aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might incentivise people to take up paid work by smoothing out gaps in the welfare system -
and limited in scope
Quote:

– is strictly speaking not a universal basic income (UBI) trial, because the payments are made to a restricted group and are not enough to live on.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/finland-ends-universal-bas
ic-income-experiment
/ 24 April 2018
Why it wasn't expanded mid-stream appears to be due to political, not economic factors/
Quote:

“The eagerness of the government is evaporating,” Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers told the BBC. Professor Kangas said the government had turned down a request to expand the scheme to pay up to £61 million to fund the basic income for employed Finns rather than the group of 2,000 unemployed people.




Here are the results of Finland's most recent election

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-15/finland-s-nail-bite
r-election-sets-stage-for-tough-talks-q-a
April 15, 2019, 2:28 AM PDT
Quote:

Finland's Nail-Biter Election Sets Stage for Tough Talks
Finland has had its closest election result in 60 years, Finland has had its closest election result in 60 years, handing victory to the Social Democrats with a margin of just 6,813 votes over the nationalist Finns Party. The conservative National Coalition came in a close third, while the Green League posted its best result ever.
The outcome sets the stage for tough talks on forming a viable coalition, with compromises necessary across the political spectrum.


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

War is the ONLY "idea" you ever talk about- WISHY
Bullshit.

Reality, objectivity, the internet and social media
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61638

And meanwhile, back in Fukushima....
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58737

The Norfolk Island Experiment
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=46080

Society is not the government, or the nation
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60332&mid=1
007377


What are America's interests?: Economic theories and practice
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60986

Post-modern philosphy: Is this your basis?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61873

Personality Test
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61623

The Trump trade wars?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=62271

Also, "In the Garden and RAIN!!!", "What's for dinner?" and other topics about daily life.

-----------
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  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:35 PM

RUE

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


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

Your tactics are some of the most manipulative I've ever seen, and I have a Bi-polar Monster-in-law. I would pay money to get the two of you together in a room.
I think it could open a vortex of emotional vampirism that could lead to the destruction of the space-time continuum.

I think you resent people who discuss the actual topic and who fail to focus on the all-important you.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:46 PM

RUE

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


Having thought about it, UBI as a tool to reduce unemployment as in the Finland experiment can't work because the problem isn't that people aren't desperate enough to work, it's that there aren't enough jobs available. When unemployment is that high, it's not because 10% of the adult population is lazy or entitled.

Also, I tried tracking down poll figures cited by Time "While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program." I couldn't verify those figures. But taxing working people to pay for UBI is off-target to solving the problem. The problem is the disconnect between production, personal income, and cost of goods. It's like putting air in your tires when you're out of gas.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:53 PM

RUE

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


>
the only ones that should be receiving the full benefit are the individuals who are practically vegetables and are unable to wipe their own asses

>
A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've.



You guys - you should have 'arbeit macht frei' as your tag line.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:33 PM

RUE

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


So, to get back to 'how much money could we save by reducing the military budget' I assumed the lowest the US would want to go is the 2% GDP minimum NATO obligation.

I thought this was a good graphic to show, more or less, how far off the various NATO members are, including us.



Wiki says that the US spent about 3.1% of its GDP on the military in 2017. I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're still paying off the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded as emergency spending measures and kept out of the formal military budget. But that's a topic for another day and deeper digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es


If we can save a maximum of 1.1% (2017 3.1% spent - 2.0% NATO minimum) and the 2017 GDP was $21,443B (by reverse calculation)(World Bank 2017 figure is $19,390B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) then we can save about $236B annually on military spending.


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So, to get back to 'how much money could we save by reducing the military budget' I assumed the lowest the US would want to go is the 2% GDP minimum NATO obligation.

I thought this was a good graphic to show, more or less, how far off the various NATO members are, including us.



Quote:


Wiki says that the US spent about 3.1% of its GDP on the military in 2017. I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're still paying off the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded as emergency spending measures and kept out of the formal military budget. But that's a topic for another day and deeper digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es


If we can save a maximum of 1.1% (2017 3.1% spent - 2.0% NATO minimum) and the 2017 GDP was $21,443B (by reverse calculation)(World Bank 2017 figure is $19,390B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) then we can save about $236B annually on military spending.

Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.


When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into nonstop series of Wars, repeatedly?
What about CIA, or paramilitary contractors. Not sure if those are included in the Defense Budget.


That graphic implies Germany GDP is $4T and Britain is $3T. I didn't know that comparison.

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:45 PM

RUE

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


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?

No.
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.

The spending requirement is per each country, regardless of how much other countries do or don't spend.
I don't believe the US is spending more because other countries are spending less. US military spending got out of hand during the Col War, and now we're spending to maintain dominance around the globe - not because of national defense or treaty obligations.
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?

I don't think Foreign Aid comes under the military budget! According to this website, these are the top 10 recipients of US foreign Aid (I reformatted and edited to make it easier https://borgenproject.org/top-10-recipients-of-u-s-foreign-aid/) But afaik, the only country we're bribing is Egypt, and it's so they don't attack Israel.

Israel – $3.1 billion

Egypt – $1.39 billion

Jordan – $1 billion

Afghanistan – $782.8 million

Kenya – $639.4 million

Tanzania – $535.3 million

Uganda – $436.4 million

Zambia – $428.9 million

Nigeria – $419.1 million

Iraq – $347.9 million

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:13 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?
No.
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.

The spending requirement is per each country, regardless of how much other countries do or don't spend.
I don't believe the US is spending more because other countries are spending less. US military spending got out of hand during the Col War, and now we're spending to maintain dominance around the globe - not because of national defense or treaty obligations.
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?

I don't think Foreign Aid comes under the military budget! According to this website, these are the top 10 recipients of US foreign Aid (I reformatted and edited to make it easier https://borgenproject.org/top-10-recipients-of-u-s-foreign-aid/) But afaik, the only country we're bribing is Egypt, and it's so they don't attack Israel.

Israel – $3.1 billion

Egypt – $1.39 billion

Jordan – $1 billion

Afghanistan – $782.8 million

Kenya – $639.4 million

Tanzania – $535.3 million

Uganda – $436.4 million

Zambia – $428.9 million

Nigeria – $419.1 million

Iraq – $347.9 million

Those figures just seem a lot less than Obama numbers, for the Muslim countries. Obama's favorite Iran isn't even listed.

I wonder how much State Dept, CIA spend on these briberies and warmongering activities.


Also, about 150 more countries exist, each getting less than $350 Million per year from us, if any.

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:42 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bullshit.



I'm sure I could find twice as many where you say the words "war" or "military" or "deep state"....not that I go in your threads, because I know you would turn every single one into a war discussion if you could, wouldn't you?



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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:47 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

[Originally posted by rue:
I think you resent people who discuss ....dead horse topics over and over for sympathy or inflationary psycho-babble manipulation.



FIFY.


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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WISHY, as usual, providing "thoughtful" "discussion" of the topic.

Do I mention "war" twice as much as I mention anything else? Even IF I did ... and I don't know of that's true, or not (Did you tally the "mentions?" Because, of the eight threads that I started currently visible on this page, only two of them have anything to do with deep state/regime change, and none of them with war per se)... SO WHAT?

I know war must seem a long ways away from Cranialrectalinversion, IN, but I tell you that we will never get our government finances OR our economy in working order until we stop trying to control the entire globe. I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?

So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics? Show me that our government spending, our investments, our energy expenditure and CO2 emissions, and economy would NOT change for the better, even in Cranialrectalinversion, IN, if we managed to end our endless wars. Or not. I truly don't care, because if you're just going to harp and be over-controlling I'm going to ignore you.

But if you ARE going to start that discussion, then start another thread instead of derailing this one, thanks.

-----------
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  

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:53 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY, as usual, providing "thughtful" "discussion" of the topic.

Do I mention "war" twice as much as I mention anything else? Even IF I did ... and I don't know of that's true, or not (Did you tally the "mentions?" Because, of the eight threads that I started currently visible on this page, only two of them have anything to do with deep state/regime change, and none of them with war per se)... SO WHAT?

I know war must seem a long ways away from Cranialrectalinversion, IN, but I tell you that we will never get our government finances OR our economy in working order until we stop trying to control the entire globe.

Well now, that is just wrong, and we all know you have no evidence to support that belief.

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 2:18 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?

So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics?




Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.


Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.

FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA

With Love, Wishy.

Clear enough??

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.


Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.

FUCK RUSSIA (x100)

With Love, Wishy.

Clear enough??



Remember when the Left was the party of peace and tolerance?

Nothing but hate, insanity, death threats and disgusting behavior these days, huh?

Now we can add threats against babies too.

Wow.




Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?

I think if you take a step back and surmise the situation, you'll find that the "dummy" and his "Russian troll" friends don't behave at all in the way that they do.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 5:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?
So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics? SIGNY


Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats. -WISHY

Huh? What does that have to do with ... anything? Aside from the fact that you're butt-hurt about the Mueller report, that is?

Quote:

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country. -WISHY
You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???

Quote:

et me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicabe blah blah blah .... If Russia were to invade or attack
Yep. IF Russia were to invade or attack then CLEARLY we should defend ourselves. But I don't see Russia invading or attacking us, do you? But obviously you don't mind turning into a baby-killer, and you don't mind if WE invade or attack other nations, so ... WTF?

Quote:


FUCK RUSSIA ...blah blah blah

WISHY, gone off the deep end... posting her usual intelligent contributions to a topic.


Quote:

Clear enough??WIHSY
Yep. You're crazy

-----------
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  

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:14 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:



Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?




I'm pretty sure THG would be smart enough to know the REAL threat Russians pose, but you are just dumb enough to become a sympathizer.

Gotta keep your "mind open" right, moron?

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:20 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???





Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??

Realized how bad that sounded and switched to "give up the quest for world domination".... in other words "get out of Russia's way", huh??

Never. NOT FOR ONE SECOND.

I repeat.... FUCK RUSSIA.


PS, How you gonna defend the Motherland after the Mueller report now? If the report made anything clear it's that Russians are giant sacks of crap. Gonna be hard to sell those tickets to Commieland to the public now, right?


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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:25 PM

RUE

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


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

Still Tulsi Gabbard, still because of foreign policy. But Liz Warren has moved up on my list due to some speeches she gave re foreign policy. And I can't tell if her starting so early was dumb luck or a stroke of genius. Because at this point the crap they threw at her (Pocahontas) was so long ago it's completely lost its power, and her positions have been so consistent for so long they seem credible.

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:26 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?

Still Tulsi Gabbard



When you can't win, deflect, huh??

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:41 PM

RUE

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


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??

Never in a million years did either of us post anything remotely like that. And if you tried as hard as you could, you'd never find a quote even remotely like that. (Which is probably why you didn't include a link and quote.)

The fact that you posted that has made me realize how seriously you're disconnected from recognizable reality.

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:44 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:



Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?




I'm pretty sure THG would be smart enough to know the REAL threat Russians pose, but you are just dumb enough to become a sympathizer.

Gotta keep your "mind open" right, moron?



You've apparently got the most open mind on this board, baby killer.

I don't think even Marcos would ever say something like that.

Get back on your meds, weirdo.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???





Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??

Realized how bad that sounded and switched to "give up the quest for world domination".... in other words "get out of Russia's way", huh??

Never. NOT FOR ONE SECOND.

I repeat.... FUCK RUSSIA.


PS, How you gonna defend the Motherland after the Mueller report now? If the report made anything clear it's that Russians are giant sacks of crap. Gonna be hard to sell those tickets to Commieland to the public now, right?




Now I know you're crazy. KIKI and I discussed that very point: what does it take to keep a credible deterrence. I mentioned that both the explosive and the the nuclear charge need to be tested and that the best deterrence against MIRVed hypersonic warheads would be submarine based and we both think that would be the logical thing to do.

I picture you, WISHY, crazily hanging on to The Button as if it's a safety blanket, like some demented character in Dr Strangelove.

Do you know what one of your many problems is?? You don't know the difference between offense and defense. And you.... you're just plain offensive.



-----------
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  

Friday, April 19, 2019 2:37 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


You've apparently got the most open mind on this board, baby killer.




I'm not on meds and never have been, but you need to be because you can't even get when I'm trolling the troll, and you don't have the vaguest notion of WHY.

Go lick your balls for an hour, dogbrain.

No really, even JSF has moments where the shit in his head clears...you are the dumbest sonofabitch here. Even the Commies smell fresh stupid and that's saying something...

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

Friday, April 19, 2019 2:44 AM

RUE

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


"Even the Commies smell fresh stupid and that's saying something..."

Really? That's some whirlpool of crazy. Now you think you're listening to voices in MY head.

You need lithium. Or Haldol.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL