Slashdot Mirror

I'll respond factually:

This: http://frac.org/initiatives/am... is NOT a peer-reviewed study with any of the data. Maybe your contention is that it'(s based on such a paper which is susbtantiated with the necessary data, but what is on that page on itself clearly isn't.

This: http://www.basicincomecanada.o... [basicincomecanada.org] does contain papers, of which I already had read 4 prior to you giving me the link. All failed to answer my exact question, however, and a cursory look at the others (granted, I've not read them all) shows that most of them are pertaining to the local experiments we already spoke about. I'm not sure if you are aware what would be an adequate response to my question would be, but it's NOT detailing those experiments and the claims of their dioto benefits. My question pertains to this: if you implement a national-wide UBI, who is going to pay for it and in what matter - susbtantiated by actual numbers and calculations of how this would be sponsored.

These papers, as far as I can see, do NOT answer this, and that's because even when they go into the finances that made them possible, it's clear who made it possible and where the monetary support to implement it came from: from the government/state. As said before, this is hardly surprising, and seen the local aspect of the experiments versus the wealth of an entire nation, it is no wonder it doesn't show any problems concerning the financing of such small UBI-experiments.

My question is: how will it be paid for if you apply A NATIONAL UBI? clearly, such a thing will be orders of magnitudes bigger, which means you can not just use your ordinary taxes an system as it is now, and still expect to be able to pay for it. NONE of the papers address this particular issue with any concrete numbers. At least as far as I've seen - but if I'm wrong in this, please point out the papers you think actually do , concerning this specific question of mine.

I'm always wondering why so many people, when being asked a specific question, think a buckload of links which do not deal with the question asked is the answer. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful for the links, since they seem at least somewhat better than the average articles on UBI, but That doesn't mean they are all relevant to the specific objection I raised. Take "A wider lens: an analysis of Kesselman’s view of a basic income" for instance. Since I haven't read it, I took the time reading it completely - but to no avail for an answer to my question. It's full of claims of how wonderful such a system would be for the people, it has very little substantiation of facts and numbers - I mean, it just doesn't, sorry - and nowhere is being explained where a national-wide UBI which would cost tens of billions would be paid by. He even seems to claim things like invalidity would get additional benefits on top of the UBI, so it would make things even more expensive.

Now, I'm not making making a definite judgement on all of what is claimed there. It might well be that it's the best thing since sliced bread. But it doesn't answer the question: who's going to pay for it. Can we agree on that?

This: http://www.degruyter.com/view/... [degruyter.com] is a mere summary, which does no good in hinting at an adequate answer neither. The rest is behind a paid wall, and I'm not going to pay for it. In essence, it's not a substantiation of what you said on itself, thus. Do you imply that it is? Are you confirming the paper itself gives a direct answer to my questions? Did you read that paper yourself? In that case, could you please simply give the answer to my question yourself? Because the summary on itself - which it linked to - is pretty worthless in this regard, I'm sure you agree. The same goes for many of the sublinks of your other link. "Basic Income: Econ

From: http://frac.org/initiatives/hu...
===
Due to the additional risk factors associated with poverty, food insecure and low-income people are especially vulnerable to obesity (see the section on the Relationship Between Hunger and Overweight or Obesity and the section on the Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity). More specifically, obesity among food insecure people -- as well as among low-income people -- occurs in part because they are subject to the same influences as other Americans (e.g., more sedentary lifestyles, increased portion sizes), but also because they face unique challenges in adopting healthful behaviors, as described below. (For more information on the influences all Americans face, see the section on Factors Contributing to Overweight and Obesity.)

Key Factors
        Limited resources
        Lack of access to healthy, affordable foods
        Fewer opportunities for physical activity
        Cycles of food deprivation and overeating
        High levels of stress
        Greater exposure to marketing of obesity-promoting products
        Limited access to health care ...

I don't know the exact details of what the threshold is

According to this page, the threshold is 75%. The school has to requalify once every four years.

The argument that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans and eat cheaply is, in a word, bullshit.

Note that I never said that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans.

Do you know how little is involved in cooking rice? Did pasta or fresh root vegetables somehow get hard to prepare? Do chicken thighs and pork shoulders not just go in an oven with little to no prep? One week of skipping fast food for real CHEAP groceries pays for a rice cooker. One MEAL of skipping fast food pays for a used crock pot.

It takes roughly one order of magnitude more time to prepare white rice than to purchase a fast food meal. Additionally, white rice can (usually) only be cooked at home (and most people only have one home), whereas fast food can be purchased at a great many locations. Consequently, someone who is poor (and likely has much less free time) is much less likely to be able to cook their own food than to eat fast food. This is corroborated by the fact that poor people eat lots of fast food. Your ideas about pork shoulders are fascinating, but they're not born out by the facts. In any case, these folks explain it fairly well so that I don't have to.

Anyone eating fast food "because it's cheaper" is intellectually dishonest.

It's not a "theory" that groceries are cheaper than fast food.

You're the one that's hung up on cost. I'm talking about the reality that poor people eat fast food.

A sandwich in a lunch bag to eat between jobs has been cheaper and better for you than going to McDonalds for, well, forever.

See my above reference.

...especially with no taxes.

Sales tax is nowhere near significant enough to be a determining factor here. Indeed, poor people eat fast food despite the additional tax burden. You can argue all you want about whether or not this makes sense, but that's not going to change the reality that poor people eat more fast food, which is taxed, while wealthy people eat more unprepared food, which is not taxed.

But the number of Americans that starve because of economic conditions is zero. The poorest region in America is the Mississippi Delta, which has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.

I don't think that you understand that obesity and hunger are not diametrically opposite concepts, as explained here, and here.

Should you be mandated by the federal government to buy everyone food, too?

Where have you been?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

You've been paying for that for ages now.

Plus, more and more people are becoming eligible either from economic hardship or reductions in restrictions for qualification to participate.

Just look at the numbers:

More Than 46.2 Million Americans Received SNAP/Food Stamps in October 2011

vs

Participation in the Food Stamp Program jumped in May 2001 from the previous month to 17,243,978 persons, according to FRACâ(TM)s analysis of preliminary data from USDA

http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/

A larger and larger percentage of Americans are becoming dependent on the government for their food. That's not a good thing. If you control a population's food supply, you control them.

Couple controlling the food supply with controlling access to healthcare and what lifestyles & behaviors are acceptable because healthcare costs are forced to be shared by the government, and the government then has total control of the population and everything they do. In order for such a system to function, government must have total control of individual lifestyles and behaviors.

Strat

starve or freeze to death on the streets, like they do every single day in the US

Citation please.

a voucher for housing which can be applied to rent or mortgage or home repairs, a food program, a real universal health care system, home heating, etc

The US has all of these, and more.

• Voucher for housing which can be applied to rent or mortgage:
  • Section 8, HOME Investment Partnerships Program
  • Community Development Block Grant
• A food program:
  • Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
  • Child and Adult Care Food Program
  • National School Lunch Program
  • Head Start Program
  • ...and many, many more
• Universal health care system
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare

  While these are not "universal", they cover everyone who supposedly can't afford private health insurance.

• Home heating:
  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

These have been around for decades, and are still around and well-funded. Since they were created, the problems they address have only gotten worse--not suddenly, because of cuts, but gradually. It is obvious that "assisting" poor people by paying for their survival is not a workable long-term solution, regardless of how good it makes you feel.

...the real opposition to welfare is actually a matter of only slightly veiled racism on the part of conservative Republicans

Apply Occam's razor. Is it really more likely that those who want to reduce welfare programs are racist? Or that they want to slow the deluge of wasteful government spending?

Perhaps I'll quote some past US Presidents:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." (apparently Gerald Ford)

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." (definitely Thomas Jefferson)

Are these racist statements?

Does the proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.” somehow no longer apply?

Citations please? Someone has been watching too much Fidel Castro or something.

Really? You're not going to spend like thirty seconds on Google and consider your lack of familiarity with common knowledge to be a valid debating point? Your choice.

Food insecurity:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/101/1/e3
http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18wed2.html
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/510S

Medical coverage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
(Just follow the damned links.)

Education:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnces.ed.gov%2Fpubs2005%2F2005021.pdf&rct=j&q=comparison%20of%20education%20in%20the%20united%20states%20to%20other%20countries&ei=9d-KTIjRBISdlgeC7KmsCQ&usg=AFQjCNHg2XP3uyuKjnED6uGl91FHXaS17g&cad=rja

I should also mention that the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration per capita on the planet, but I'll let you look that one up yourself.

-FL

It's hard to learn if you don't have food in your stomach:

http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/pro grams/sbp.html
http://www.schoolsk-12.com/parents/Breakfast-Pays- Big-Dividends-in-Boston-Schools.html

Some great examples of technological innovation putting food in peoples stomachs:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/september/re frigeration.htm
http://www.fullbellyproject.org/index.asp

I've also read that the pot-in-pot refrigeration allows children to go to school, as they don't have to go to market to hawk their families produce everyday. The technology didn't make the creators all that wealthy, but everybody who uses it is hugely better off; in fact, more 'wealthy'.

Personally, I think the most universal measures of 'good' are wealth and self determination(freedom, liberty, whatever). A man who wakes up in the morning secure in his person, health and future has it all. The rest is just details; capitalism turns out to be a pretty good way to allocate resources(it rewards success, which is as good a way as I can think of to create more success.), and education tends to be a pretty good thing too, because it makes people more able to become self sufficient.

...Mr. and Mrs. Lard-belly won't have the $$$ to both stuff their faces AND run their 8mpg SUVs/cattle haulers...

Obviously you haven't seen the statistics on income vs. obeisity. link

all the ranting and raving about "get these people food first" is totally ethnocentric and offensive. I am embarrased being a citizen of the wealthiest nation in the world where we let our own people starve, while the technophiles go around dropping 3-4 year old ($4,000) computers in the trash. When someone proposes letting people in the 3rd world get their fair chance to go online, people in the US somehow are ready to be up in arms telling that person to fight for food instead. what a load...

give people they same choice that you have. if they want a computer, let them have it, if they want corn, so be it. but to sit back and say those people don't need computers reeks of arrogance.

Looking at the track record of out Gov't programs ie food,Iraq(dont even need to provide link). As far as Im concerned, the gov't should just stay out of it.

• One in six elderly citizens in the USA is either hungry or has an inadequate diet.
  
  
• One in four children comes to school undernourished in the United States.
  

Oh, your system is great at nutrition and has no problem with hunger, women are safe, and causes no health problems.

because their "goverments" are stupid and evil

Hm, yes, we should bring these international criminals to justice. Oh, wait...

there's a plank in your eye.

North Korea can barely keep its electrical grid up - not to mention feed its people.

Like the United States?

"there are significant amount of people in the industrialized world who live significantly below the poverty line, and are at real risk of starvation."

Define please "significant" and "poverty line."

I'll help - and I'm not here to agree or disagree with you, just to provide real links.

First, "significant." Here's a link to the Food Research and Action Center and some hunger and poverty stats. If 3% is "significant" to you, then 3% of US households experience hunger. There is more information on the site that can either be used for your argument or against it. One line that struck me, "While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low."

That's "chronic mild undernutrition." To me, that is not "risk of starvation," but your interpretation of the damn lies...I mean statistics...may vary.

Now, "poverty line." Did you know that the U.S. poverty level changes year to year, family to family and is different for 2 out of 50 states? And it can be as low as around $8,000 per year or as high as $30,000 per year, depending upon family size. Which is scary, because according to that chart, I only make twice the poverty level for my family size.

Here's the deal. We hear a lot of buzzwords these days and we hear broad generalizations like "significant" and "real risk." And much of what is presented to us on the evening news is pre-digested and edited down to 3 minute tid-bits.

And in the end, we find that we're simply not that poor in industrialized nations. We find that the people who need resources aren't getting them because of lack of education or because those resources are otherwised blocked by outside sources (poverty and starvation in a war zone.) Not because the resources themselves aren't available.

Now, about prices going up...is that the word of an economist or just a thought from someone who buys a loaf of Wonder every couple of weeks? And how much is "up?" 3%? 4%? 50%? What if the price of a loaf of bread does go up 50% because they're using grain for fuel? Will some people stop buying bread? (At $3 for a loaf of bread, I'd stop buying or cut back.) *Then* what happens to the price? Hmmm..

Things to think about. The simplistic stuff you read on the CNN homepage doesn't nearly cover the real world.