Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SharkTanked

Universal Basic Income

Recommended Posts

On 11/23/2022 at 7:24 PM, bornontheblue said:

@SalinasSpartan I hope you have a great Thanksgiving with people you love, and enjoy the day. 

If I was rude in this conversation please accept my apologies. It is a good topic though. 

No worries, I always appreciate your perspective; I know you genuinely believe the policies you advocate for are what’s best for society. I appreciate getting the opinions of conservatives that genuinely come to their beliefs from a good place. Hope you and yours have a nice holiday weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 7:29 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

It's not a gotcha.  Stop thinking like that.  You did the same thing in the WC thread.  Nobody is trying to "get you".  Especially not me.  If you are being quoted and challenged, maybe, just maybe it is because this is a place for rigorous dialogue and we find it fun?  It's not hostility, it's not gotcha. 

The point was more than a "gotcha".  There is zero evidence to support the idea that democrats will compromise to enact real, needed reform on the topic.  Non.     

It is an anecdote that is meaningless today. Republicans supported immigration reform in the 00s; and? What does that have to do with politics right now? Do you honestly foresee the Republicans switching course on this any time soon? Now if the Republicans tried this under Trump, that would be very relevant. But at some point it’s just irrelevant what a party used to advocate for, and I think 14-22 years is well passed that point. 

To quote the brilliant Slim Charles, “the thing about the old days is, they the old days”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 7:34 PM, Los_Aztecas said:

They use these programs at lower rates. But yes, they would qualify for income tax credits, but I don't lump that in with social services.

Again, that statement was in the context of my conversation with another person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2022 at 10:40 AM, happycamper said:

It's meant as a replacement for much of our current welfare and taxation state.

There's been multiple studies conducted on the efficacy of aid programs, and the one thing that is agreed on is that dollar for dollar, nothing helps people more than just giving them a dollar. People know what they need, in the aggregate, more efficiently than any state could. Furthermore, means testing and excluding people does multiple things that harm the intended program. First, it makes a class boundary to the program. If even middle class people aren't getting it, then there will be resentment towards people who are getting it. There's little society wide buyin. It's how the Swedish million homes program and Singapore's residential towers were successes and our federal housing projects were far less successful. Secondly, it creates a massive bureaucratic burden. You need a bureaucracy to administer who gets how much and a bureaucracy to register and a bureaucracy to exclude and then probably a bureaucracy to help the people who should be getting it to overcome the bureaucracy that is doing means testing. 

So instead of a middle class couple with 3 kids getting

Food stamps

child tax credit

they get UBI for everyone in the house. easy peasy. Furthermore, say you're giving everyone... 200 bucks a month. How much aid is that to someone who is homeless? How much does that limit panhandling, help people get back on their feet? for 200 bucks a month you can afford a value meal every day at a fast food place. Then you just give it to everyone and graduate the tax rate so that the people who don't need it get it taxed right back out. 

Huh?  A middle class couple isn't getting food stamps.

The UBI proposals I have seen are specifically targeted for people below the poverty line.

The advantage to food stamps, medi-cal, and AFDC (or whatever the hell they call it now) is that there are strings attached to make sure poor people spend assistance on food and rent and healthcare and stuff, as opposed to just spending it on booze and drugs, and letting their kids go hungry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 8:14 PM, CPslograd said:

Huh?  A middle class couple isn't getting food stamps.

The UBI proposals I have seen are specifically targeted for people below the poverty line.

The advantage to food stamps, medi-cal, and AFDC (or whatever the hell they call it now) is that there are strings attached to make sure poor people spend assistance on food and rent and healthcare and stuff, as opposed to just spending it on booze and drugs, and letting their kids go hungry.

The logic (which isn’t wrong) is that universal programs are more durable. Medicare and Social Security are the prime examples of this. Of course this doesn’t stop the exceptionally well off that have LITERALLY no use for the program from complaining about it and wanting it abolished; but that is a pretty small segment of the population. 

Put it this way, there are many people that wouldn’t NEED UBI to survive, but it would make their lives noticeably easier. Those people would not want to give that up once they adjust their lifestyle to receiving it, even if without it they wouldn’t face any issues with the big Hs (hunger, housing, healthcare). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 8:14 PM, CPslograd said:

Huh?  A middle class couple isn't getting food stamps.

The UBI proposals I have seen are specifically targeted for people below the poverty line.

The advantage to food stamps, medi-cal, and AFDC (or whatever the hell they call it now) is that there are strings attached to make sure poor people spend assistance on food and rent and healthcare and stuff, as opposed to just spending it on booze and drugs, and letting their kids go hungry.

But it does cost a ton more to administer the programs like that, so it's a trade off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 8:44 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

It is an anecdote that is meaningless today. Republicans supported immigration reform in the 00s; and? What does that have to do with politics right now? Do you honestly foresee the Republicans switching course on this any time soon? Now if the Republicans tried this under Trump, that would be very relevant. But at some point it’s just irrelevant what a party used to advocate for, and I think 14-22 years is well passed that point. 

To quote the brilliant Slim Charles, “the thing about the old days is, they the old days”. 

You are familiar with the age of our congress persons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 10:06 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You are familiar with the age of our congress persons?

Even if several of the members of the Republican caucus are the same it doesn’t change the fact that the Republican Party now is not the Republican Party that existed under Bush. Not to mention it’s pretty dumb to say that “Democrats killed the bill” when the yays and nays were bipartisan.  

Look, I genuinely enjoy discussions, debates, whatever you want to call them with people that legitimately believe in conservative ideals. I like trying to understand why they believe their policies prescriptions are what is best for society. But general point scoring debates for the sake of debating just don’t really interest me anymore. I care about actionable shit.

Like, if someone that isn’t into politics comes up to me and is now passionate about immigration reform and wants to know what politicians they can vote for now that might realistically push for that, what the phuck can the do with the information that, “well ACTUALLY, Democrats didn’t pass immigration reform in 2007!”?  

That person would naturally ask, “o ok, so Republicans want immigration reform to allow for people to more easily immigrant and provide a pathway to citizenship?”

And then you would say, “well actually no, the Republican Party is now almost unanimously against that, the only politicians seriously advocating for this now are Democrats”. 

And then they would say, “so why am I supposed to care about that some Democrats voted against an immigration bill 15 years ago?” 

The answer is, what the parties did 15 years ago just does not matter right now. And if coalitions change in like 2028 and Republicans are backing immigration reform, guess what? It won’t effing matter that in 2022 Democrats were the party of immigration reform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 12:26 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

Even if several of the members of the Republican caucus are the same it doesn’t change the fact that the Republican Party now is not the Republican Party that existed under Bush. Not to mention it’s pretty dumb to say that “Democrats killed the bill” when the yays and nays were bipartisan.  

Look, I genuinely enjoy discussions, debates, whatever you want to call them with people that legitimately believe in conservative ideals. I like trying to understand why they believe their policies prescriptions are what is best for society. But general point scoring debates for the sake of debating just don’t really interest me anymore. I care about actionable shit.

Like, if someone that isn’t into politics comes up to me and is now passionate about immigration reform and wants to know what politicians they can vote for now that might realistically push for that, what the phuck can the do with the information that, “well ACTUALLY, Democrats didn’t pass immigration reform in 2007!”?  

That person would naturally ask, “o ok, so Republicans want immigration reform to allow for people to more easily immigrant and provide a pathway to citizenship?”

And then you would say, “well actually no, the Republican Party is now almost unanimously against that, the only politicians seriously advocating for this now are Democrats”. 

And then they would say, “so why am I supposed to care about that some Democrats voted against an immigration bill 15 years ago?” 

The answer is, what the parties did 15 years ago just does not matter right now. And if coalitions change in like 2028 and Republicans are backing immigration reform, guess what? It won’t effing matter that in 2022 Democrats were the party of immigration reform. 

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  A few things.  One, this board is not your environment for new or curious voters.  The posters actively engaging on this side are all very thoughtful voters, so our discussions go, let's say, deeper and more cutting.  Nobody here is going to reconsider a position based on a throw away comment or two.  Secondly, in your scenario I would tell said curious voter that while republicans have shifted ever more to less immigration the better, there is still no serious effort for meaningful immigration reform from democrats,

This is a big boy board.  The contributors are not so easily influenced, especially with throw away one off comments like mine.  We have all delved into the issue far deeper, many times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the declining birth rate, I think universal, basic income and single payer  healthcare would be a very bad idea. Those two systems will pull even more people out of the workforce, which we can’t afford that anymore.

I would leave the workforce now in my 40s if that happens.

The Masters 5k road race All American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 8:20 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The most significant piece of immigration reform presented in my lifetime was by a Republican and killed by democrats under W.

Are you referring to Bush's guest worker proposal?

People, not a fan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 7:50 AM, robe said:

With the declining birth rate, I think universal, basic income and single payer  healthcare would be a very bad idea. Those two systems will pull even more people out of the workforce, which we can’t afford that anymore.

I would leave the workforce now in my 40s if that happens.

False assumptions on top of a big missing piece of demographics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 12:50 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  A few things.  One, this board is not your environment for new or curious voters.  The posters actively engaging on this side are all very thoughtful voters, so our discussions go, let's say, deeper and more cutting.  Nobody here is going to reconsider a position based on a throw away comment or two.  Secondly, in your scenario I would tell said curious voter that while republicans have shifted ever more to less immigration the better, there is still no serious effort for meaningful immigration reform from democrats,

This is a big boy board.  The contributors are not so easily influenced, especially with throw away one off comments like mine.  We have all delved into the issue far deeper, many times. 

No I understand the purpose of the board, I’m just explaining why my own interest in engaging on the board in a lot of political topics just isn’t what it was, even though I like pretty much everybody here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 2:21 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

Having lived in both rural and inner cities, work ethic of the poor are exactly the same.  I mean that flat out honestly.  That hopelessness, destroyed families, drugs, hate, a lot of that was external pressures that fractured the nuclear families and neighborhoods, sending back to go without collecting 200 dollars.  The same in a rural area as it is in the inner city, just not in the same raw numbers.  Gotta make high crime areas safer, get access to a halfway decent job, and remove artificial barriers and policies that keep the spiral spiraling, and create accountable safety nets (I touched on prorated services in another post), and after a generation or so, we can see some improvements.  Now, do democrats want to risk losing a dependent base, and do republicans want to lose their fear porn?  All signs in the last 50 years say no, but maybe we can be tired of watching people eat shit their entire life and change the party tenets.

I agree that the poor have been forgotten in this country...Republicans have only made a few feeble attempts to reach out and Dems would rather support illegal immigrants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 10:14 PM, CPslograd said:

Huh?  A middle class couple isn't getting food stamps.

The UBI proposals I have seen are specifically targeted for people below the poverty line.

The advantage to food stamps, medi-cal, and AFDC (or whatever the hell they call it now) is that there are strings attached to make sure poor people spend assistance on food and rent and healthcare and stuff, as opposed to just spending it on booze and drugs, and letting their kids go hungry.

Middle class people get child tax credits 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2022 at 11:31 AM, SharkTanked said:

There's been a bit of pointing at UBI as a savior to our system on this board, some by people I would not expect to support it.

I am almost completely uneducated on it, and I am below average when it comes to understanding macroeconomics.

From my extremely limited understanding of this, it seems to me that in a capitalistic system lacking price control, UBI would just create inflationary pressure that would end up negating the UBI.

How am I wrong in the above assumption? Please educate me. Honestly. 

Is the assumption that inflationary pressure is a constant and the only proper way to reduce the impact is UBI?

Old Charles tweeted this today:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2022 at 7:30 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

I’d definitely prefer that to the current “federalism if we like the law, strong central government if we don’t like the law” system we have right now. 

There is a time and place for Federalism.

Certainly on the issues of slavery, Jim Crow, and Equality. In a lot of other areas, let the States do their thing. If it is succesful, others will emulate it. If not, they won't.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 3:08 PM, azgreg said:

"I don't want my tax dollars used to provide free money to drug addicts !"

You know that argument is going to hit the fan.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 10:33 AM, SDSUfan said:

 

The best social welfare program is... AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN....a job.

A good paying job.

McDonalds and Walmart jobs simply push one further into poverty.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 9:44 AM, Spaztecs said:

There is a time and place for Federalism.

Certainly on the issues of slavery, Jim Crow, and Equality. In a lot of other areas, let the States do their thing. If it is succesful, others will emulate it. If not, they won't.

But in practice, today, SCOTUS doesn’t seem to really be looking at it like that. The conservative justices on SCOTUS seem to decide if they like the state law or not first, and then that determination dictates whether they will invoke federalism or not. And it’s not always hot button political issues; like for example you don’t see SCOTUS typically invoking federalism when a state like CA tries to ban certain arbitration clauses in contracts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...