No, because it fails for man of the the _SAME_ reason's as Welfare yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing. Would you make the statement that it fails because it would lead to wide spread crime and poverty, economic collapse, and is completely unobtainable let alone unsustainable? If you agree that it's a fairy tale crock of shit hypothesis, I'll consider adjusting the point I made but not removing it from the table.
Right, and the Welfare system is currently available to a very small percentage of the population. UBI would extend the same corruption capability to every person in the US. As it is today, we have schools serving 3 meals a day plus snacks to kids from homes collecting welfare. Now extend that same percentage to the _whole_ population and what happens? Mmhmm, if you don't see the obvious issue you are not even trying.
As to the payout in general I very much disagree. If UBI is to replace welfare it must be a livable wage. Government jobs and food programs already adjust based on your location, UBI could not be an exception. Now take UBI value * 320,000,000 and see what you get. It is 2-3 times our total GDP. You do know what happened to the Weimar Republic right? If not, time to learn something. Either way, time to stop believing in fairy tales.
PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE IN HIGH COST AREAS! Are you claiming that UBI will only impact some people and therefor is not UBI but Welfare? I am not talking about a "WHAT IF", income disparity between different geographic regions ALREADY EXISTS! I pointed out what happens when you attempt to compensate for THE ALREADY EXISTING DISPARITY. The system will be abused by a slave class being sent to high cost areas to collect the higher UBI and sending that cash back to low cost areas.
If you can not answer the BASIC questions about YOUR proposal give up! If you repeat the same stupidity you must be a troll!
Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily? No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!
I don't know anything about a frog Icon, but I know a few people labelled as alt-right. It appears that there is an intentionally attempt to label them as bigots, and their speech as a hate crime. The frog character being maligned is simply a means to that end.
So I go back to my original post and ask again, who are they claiming is committing hate speech and what is their proof? Who is the bigot when someone attempts to silence opinions they dislike? Sorry, but a frog cartoon won't take on the meaning of a swastika without a whole lot of people being killed carrying that slogan.
The idea that speech hurts people is disingenuous and dangerous. There are times when calling someone a moron is a completely rational response.
If you set UBI at below poverty (not sustainable so less than the proponents of UBI require with their own theory), and use 20,000/yr you would have to have 6.4 Trillion Dollars to cover the bill. This is if you round down the population to 320,000,000 people. The current GDP of the United States of America is about 5 Trillion dollars. Our whole GDP (not tax dollars or Government revenue) would not cover the bill. Where does that money come from without causing massive inflation and a collapse of currency? See the Weimar Republic.
Read economists instead of social engineers. Milton Friedman would be a good start because when he was younger he proposed it, but later saw it was impossible and scrapped the idea in favor of work related assistance.
The Mormon system works because it actually requires people to train for work, train to interview, build a resume, and work part time. The US system is a failure, as is most social programs run by the Government.
I'm not going to read past your first point which I addressed ahead of time and your comment that I deny evidence. Do basic math! UBI * Every_Person_In_America and look at the number. If you used a universal 20,000/yr (below poverty level) UBI the payout is 6.4 TRILLION Dollars. The total GDP for the US is about 5.
The only way to get 6.4Trillion dollars is to print it, which would cause a financial collapse beyond what the world saw with the Weimar Republic.
Now who exactly is denying basic evidence? Milton Friedman scrapped the idea after toying with it because it was not workable by any means.
That's a feature, not a bug. You have a right to life, not a right to live in San Francisco or Portland or Seattle. Didn't we just cover that in the discussion about western states footing the bill for the homeless problem? (Answer: Yes, yes we did.)
By your own admission, UBI is impossible then. It could not possibly be Universal if it's not available to all. Or is your plan to pack everyone wanting UBI up and move them to the Desert so they can collect?
This is such basic reasoning I can't for the life of me understand how people believe it. You know that old saying "If it sounds too good to be true it probably is?"
Yup, we are currently living with wide spread insanity. Facts no longer matter, and people who don't believe in your political opinion are spreading hate.
Question though: Who is attempting to stifle speech? The people with the opposing opinion or those on the left? So are they making the frog a symbol of hate speech? I'm very confused.
If you were gay you would probably know who Milo Yiannopoulos was and would vote from Trump. If you were Trans, you would probably know Blaire White and vote for Trump. Sorry, I can only cover 1/2 of LGBT, maybe someone else can help the others.
Everyone likes to claim that the Slippery Slope is an invalidation fallacy when in fact it's a warning of a potential outcome. If a person has in their possession a quantity of cards the Police suspects criminal, they are fully within their rights to request a warrant and detain the person until a Judge grants or denies the request. Courts in general do not take weeks or even days to file a warrant, and the detaining officer does not have to appear before the judge.
There is a reason we have a codified due process in this country. Stop giving away your rights!
BI will not work and will lead to severe social problems. Basic reasoning and logic is why people dislike the idea, not because of a political party or affiliation. Let me give a couple of the major points on why it would fail, but to be perfectly honest this is not a Slashdot discussion but a much longer debate.
1. Cost of Living: BI does not consider the variances in cost of living. A person in CA would need a BI of about 80K/yr in the Bay area, but a BI of 30K in Detroit. So simple you say, get it done. Now you have humans being trafficked to CA to live in mass shanty towns to generate massive amounts of cash to be sent back to Detroit. This already happens with expensive items and drugs, so it can not simply be dismissed when discussing BI.
2. Where does the cash come from? BI exceeds the total GDP today or you don't have BI. I don't care if you take all of Bill Gates money, Clinton's money, Zuckerberg's money, and any other rich person you can think of. It will not pay the bill, and surely can't sustain the bill.
3. It can not replace current Welfare systems and still requires those same programs. The US Welfare system is a way of life for many. Many are mentally ill, but some are addicts who choose not to get help to correct themselves so live off of the State. Giving them a bucket of cash just gives them more money to spend as they see fit. There is no assurances that they will use BI for food, utilities, housing, or any other purpose one claims BI is for. Welfare programs are not getting the majority of recipeients on their feet after a fall, but are a method of maintaining a class of people dependent on the Government. Intentional or not, that is how the system works. Get married, lose benefits. Get a job, lose benefits. Have a kid out of wedlock, gain benefits. Quit your job, gain benefits. We have not fixed what we have so there is no reason to believe that BI is some magic bullet that gets people to behave responsibly and for the betterment of themselves and society.
Now some may say "but item 2 and 3 can be protected against" to which I say horse dookie. Unless you want a massive amount of BI police consuming even more tax money it can't happen. Further, there are many in politics who want more of a dependent class. That is how many people stay in power.
My complaint was there is no balance, and that discussions is extremely lopsided. Now you concede that point. Perhaps your account should be called "Troll" instead of "Shill"y. Perhaps "shit"y?
Which side of the term are you talking about? The side that came out and slandered the people alleging a false claim, or the side that came out with the claim to begin with? Sure, I'm familiar with the term and history has shown the Veterans to be correct and the media guilty of slandering them.
The history of the October surprise tends to favor Democrats as the most avid users of the tactic. But hey, I'm sure you knew that already.
ABC and NBC are not Cable stations? WTF planet do you live on? Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias. Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.
One TV station out of all available channels, and TV is still where many get news. Now if you want to play the lopsided comparison game break down the categories and count Liberal vs. Conservative Radio, Promoted Web sites, Newspapers, and finally Magazines. It's not an even field no matter how much bullshit you attempt to throw on the scale. I can not list the amount of Radio shows promoting a Liberal agenda because the list would be too damn long.
Like it or not, Hillary is bringing Bill with her and has given that statement as a reason to vote for her. She stated for all to hear in the last debate that Bill would be involved in policy aspects. This is quite different than the role a first lady is given for the Office of President. Bill has no legal power but will be establishing and working on Policy by Hillary's own words.
For your 2nd item I can only point you to the US Constitution and Bill of rights. Funding of candidates has always been a part of politics, but politicians have always had to sell themselves to the public. Even Obama had to sell his bullshit line about Hope and Change to get the public to vote (later we found it to be bullshit but many believed it when he said it). The Democratic platform overwhelmingly supported Obama over Clinton in both 08 and 12 because public opinion matched. Hillary is a straight up appointee where the public has been ignored. Again, try to find facts. You can do it all by yourself if you try, this conversation is dull at this point and it seems like you are trolling.
I gave you a source and you claimed that the source was invalid. If you say the source is invalid you need to prove it. If not, you are just another troll. I'm guessing the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because it fails for man of the the _SAME_ reason's as Welfare yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing. Would you make the statement that it fails because it would lead to wide spread crime and poverty, economic collapse, and is completely unobtainable let alone unsustainable? If you agree that it's a fairy tale crock of shit hypothesis, I'll consider adjusting the point I made but not removing it from the table.
I wrote something similar on my personal blog back in May.
Right, and the Welfare system is currently available to a very small percentage of the population. UBI would extend the same corruption capability to every person in the US. As it is today, we have schools serving 3 meals a day plus snacks to kids from homes collecting welfare. Now extend that same percentage to the _whole_ population and what happens? Mmhmm, if you don't see the obvious issue you are not even trying.
No point in arguing with a moron. Buh bye, good luck with the meds.
As to the payout in general I very much disagree. If UBI is to replace welfare it must be a livable wage. Government jobs and food programs already adjust based on your location, UBI could not be an exception. Now take UBI value * 320,000,000 and see what you get. It is 2-3 times our total GDP. You do know what happened to the Weimar Republic right? If not, time to learn something. Either way, time to stop believing in fairy tales.
PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE IN HIGH COST AREAS! Are you claiming that UBI will only impact some people and therefor is not UBI but Welfare? I am not talking about a "WHAT IF", income disparity between different geographic regions ALREADY EXISTS! I pointed out what happens when you attempt to compensate for THE ALREADY EXISTING DISPARITY. The system will be abused by a slave class being sent to high cost areas to collect the higher UBI and sending that cash back to low cost areas.
If you can not answer the BASIC questions about YOUR proposal give up! If you repeat the same stupidity you must be a troll!
Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily? No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!
I don't know anything about a frog Icon, but I know a few people labelled as alt-right. It appears that there is an intentionally attempt to label them as bigots, and their speech as a hate crime. The frog character being maligned is simply a means to that end.
So I go back to my original post and ask again, who are they claiming is committing hate speech and what is their proof? Who is the bigot when someone attempts to silence opinions they dislike? Sorry, but a frog cartoon won't take on the meaning of a swastika without a whole lot of people being killed carrying that slogan.
The idea that speech hurts people is disingenuous and dangerous. There are times when calling someone a moron is a completely rational response.
As two other people already let known, you are a fool. Perhaps an ignorant fool, but a fool nonetheless.
If you set UBI at below poverty (not sustainable so less than the proponents of UBI require with their own theory), and use 20,000/yr you would have to have 6.4 Trillion Dollars to cover the bill. This is if you round down the population to 320,000,000 people. The current GDP of the United States of America is about 5 Trillion dollars. Our whole GDP (not tax dollars or Government revenue) would not cover the bill. Where does that money come from without causing massive inflation and a collapse of currency? See the Weimar Republic.
Read economists instead of social engineers. Milton Friedman would be a good start because when he was younger he proposed it, but later saw it was impossible and scrapped the idea in favor of work related assistance.
The Mormon system works because it actually requires people to train for work, train to interview, build a resume, and work part time. The US system is a failure, as is most social programs run by the Government.
I'm not going to read past your first point which I addressed ahead of time and your comment that I deny evidence. Do basic math! UBI * Every_Person_In_America and look at the number. If you used a universal 20,000/yr (below poverty level) UBI the payout is 6.4 TRILLION Dollars. The total GDP for the US is about 5.
The only way to get 6.4Trillion dollars is to print it, which would cause a financial collapse beyond what the world saw with the Weimar Republic.
Now who exactly is denying basic evidence? Milton Friedman scrapped the idea after toying with it because it was not workable by any means.
That's a feature, not a bug. You have a right to life, not a right to live in San Francisco or Portland or Seattle. Didn't we just cover that in the discussion about western states footing the bill for the homeless problem? (Answer: Yes, yes we did.)
By your own admission, UBI is impossible then. It could not possibly be Universal if it's not available to all. Or is your plan to pack everyone wanting UBI up and move them to the Desert so they can collect?
This is such basic reasoning I can't for the life of me understand how people believe it. You know that old saying "If it sounds too good to be true it probably is?"
Read the Federalist papers.
Yup, we are currently living with wide spread insanity. Facts no longer matter, and people who don't believe in your political opinion are spreading hate.
Question though: Who is attempting to stifle speech? The people with the opposing opinion or those on the left? So are they making the frog a symbol of hate speech? I'm very confused.
If you were gay you would probably know who Milo Yiannopoulos was and would vote from Trump. If you were Trans, you would probably know Blaire White and vote for Trump. Sorry, I can only cover 1/2 of LGBT, maybe someone else can help the others.
Everyone likes to claim that the Slippery Slope is an invalidation fallacy when in fact it's a warning of a potential outcome. If a person has in their possession a quantity of cards the Police suspects criminal, they are fully within their rights to request a warrant and detain the person until a Judge grants or denies the request. Courts in general do not take weeks or even days to file a warrant, and the detaining officer does not have to appear before the judge.
There is a reason we have a codified due process in this country. Stop giving away your rights!
BI will not work and will lead to severe social problems. Basic reasoning and logic is why people dislike the idea, not because of a political party or affiliation. Let me give a couple of the major points on why it would fail, but to be perfectly honest this is not a Slashdot discussion but a much longer debate.
1. Cost of Living: BI does not consider the variances in cost of living. A person in CA would need a BI of about 80K/yr in the Bay area, but a BI of 30K in Detroit. So simple you say, get it done. Now you have humans being trafficked to CA to live in mass shanty towns to generate massive amounts of cash to be sent back to Detroit. This already happens with expensive items and drugs, so it can not simply be dismissed when discussing BI.
2. Where does the cash come from? BI exceeds the total GDP today or you don't have BI. I don't care if you take all of Bill Gates money, Clinton's money, Zuckerberg's money, and any other rich person you can think of. It will not pay the bill, and surely can't sustain the bill.
3. It can not replace current Welfare systems and still requires those same programs. The US Welfare system is a way of life for many. Many are mentally ill, but some are addicts who choose not to get help to correct themselves so live off of the State. Giving them a bucket of cash just gives them more money to spend as they see fit. There is no assurances that they will use BI for food, utilities, housing, or any other purpose one claims BI is for. Welfare programs are not getting the majority of recipeients on their feet after a fall, but are a method of maintaining a class of people dependent on the Government. Intentional or not, that is how the system works. Get married, lose benefits. Get a job, lose benefits. Have a kid out of wedlock, gain benefits. Quit your job, gain benefits. We have not fixed what we have so there is no reason to believe that BI is some magic bullet that gets people to behave responsibly and for the betterment of themselves and society.
Now some may say "but item 2 and 3 can be protected against" to which I say horse dookie. Unless you want a massive amount of BI police consuming even more tax money it can't happen. Further, there are many in politics who want more of a dependent class. That is how many people stay in power.
My complaint was there is no balance, and that discussions is extremely lopsided. Now you concede that point. Perhaps your account should be called "Troll" instead of "Shill"y. Perhaps "shit"y?
Which side of the term are you talking about? The side that came out and slandered the people alleging a false claim, or the side that came out with the claim to begin with? Sure, I'm familiar with the term and history has shown the Veterans to be correct and the media guilty of slandering them.
The history of the October surprise tends to favor Democrats as the most avid users of the tactic. But hey, I'm sure you knew that already.
ABC and NBC are not Cable stations? WTF planet do you live on? Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias. Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.
One TV station out of all available channels, and TV is still where many get news. Now if you want to play the lopsided comparison game break down the categories and count Liberal vs. Conservative Radio, Promoted Web sites, Newspapers, and finally Magazines. It's not an even field no matter how much bullshit you attempt to throw on the scale. I can not list the amount of Radio shows promoting a Liberal agenda because the list would be too damn long.
Like it or not, Hillary is bringing Bill with her and has given that statement as a reason to vote for her. She stated for all to hear in the last debate that Bill would be involved in policy aspects. This is quite different than the role a first lady is given for the Office of President. Bill has no legal power but will be establishing and working on Policy by Hillary's own words.
For your 2nd item I can only point you to the US Constitution and Bill of rights. Funding of candidates has always been a part of politics, but politicians have always had to sell themselves to the public. Even Obama had to sell his bullshit line about Hope and Change to get the public to vote (later we found it to be bullshit but many believed it when he said it). The Democratic platform overwhelmingly supported Obama over Clinton in both 08 and 12 because public opinion matched. Hillary is a straight up appointee where the public has been ignored. Again, try to find facts. You can do it all by yourself if you try, this conversation is dull at this point and it seems like you are trolling.
I gave you a source and you claimed that the source was invalid. If you say the source is invalid you need to prove it. If not, you are just another troll. I'm guessing the latter.
I said name more than one and weigh that against the stack.