Is a universal basic income really that different other than that they benefit everyone instead just fake billionaires who commit treason and their cronies?
Let's say Basic Income is $5K/yr, so everyone gets $5K/yr - where does that money come from? Are you going to cut entitlements? Are you going to raise taxes?
Where do those millions of $5K checks come from?
How long before politicians argue that 'no one can live in $5K/yr?' - don't think they won't, google 'food stamp challenge' and marvel at people, celebrities, and politicians argue that you can't live on 'Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program', AKA SNAP. That the first letter stands for 'Supplemental' is a fact that eludes them...
Republicans have added$150BN/yr for ten years, that's it.
I routinely watch republicans try and cut spending, I've never seen a Democrat cut spending - ever. Clinton ran a surplus for a couple years by embracing entitlement reforms forced on him by a Republican Congress (after enduring gov't shutdowns), but his response was not to pay down the debt, but instead to increase spending... how do I know this? The debt increased EVERY DAY of the Clinton presidency - every day.
the reason why the taxes go up in a couple of years is because they needed to try to make it deficit neutral.
No, they don't. As long as tax receipts cover the interest payments owed on the national DEBT, the budget is considered balanced.
Individual tax cuts could have been made permanent, if Democrats supported it (congressional rules, too wonky to detail here)... instead, Democrats chose to run against these temporary tax cuts ("crumbs" as Nancy Pelosi refers to them) because they were temporary, ignoring that with their support the cuts could have been permanent.
The individual tax cuts will sunset when elected officials choose to not extend them.
Politifact agreed with you, provided you consider 2009 to be the deficit Bush left for Obama, but if you consider Bush's last full year was FY'2008, not so much.
Bush never had a deficit greater than $0.5T while in office, Obama never had a deficit lower than $0.5T in 8 years.
Then again, I very carefully used the word 'debt' which is the accumulation of annual deficits, the two are not interchangeable.
In America today, many/most voters choose not to vote FOR someone but to vote AGAINST someone else.
Many Trump voters chose Trump because they didn't want to see Hillary in office. Similarly, many Hillary voters chose Hillary because they didn't want to see Trump in office.
Maybe because a Democrat presidential candidate has lost the election twice now in recent times despite getting more popular vote
Thankfully, the Presidency is not a popularity contest. You might as well complain that Democrats lost despite being taller, or nicef, or any other totally irrelevant metric.
not to mention calling to question the real purpose of the electoral system, which was designed before telecommunications
What does the existence of a telecommunications system have to do with the e!pectoral college - wait, let me get my tin foil hat on before you explain has a system designed to protect the rights and interests of the smaller states would not exist if there were a way to quickly communicate election results...
No ISP has a plan like you described, the closest I've seen is that ISPs will offer to "zero rate" traffic from certain websites for a nominal fee - this is the exact opposite of what you allege is the outcome of a world without Net Neutrality.
Wow, not sure how FCC and FTC got auto corrected into DVD and HTC.
And no, political appointees don't get to "fill-in" when Congress fails to act, nor does the President.
That's why DAPA failed in the courts.
That's why DACA was set to be cancelled by the courts, until Trump gave Congress 6 months to fix it.
That's why Net Neutrality regulations put in effect by one FCC Chairman despite the law clearly indicating it was illegal to do so can be removed by a subsequent FCC Vommissioner.
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something like the soon to be scuttled regulations, so do it the write way - these "one and phone" acts by the previous administration did little more than placate a voting constituency, they weren't bui!t to last.
Anything one DVD administrator can do, another can undo.
Anything a President can do, another can undo.
Laws passed by Congress, well, it takes an act of Congress to reverse it.
You seem to be ignoring that Democrat voters in the primaries, picked Clinton a hell of a lot of times when they could have picked Sanders instead. Blame the DNC if you must, but millions of people did fill in the circle next to Clinton. Were they just following DNC orders?
You seem to be ignoring that the DNC failedto treat Bernie Sanders fairly, denied him resources and support, and at one point he had to threaten to sue the DNC to get that which the party traditionally made available to previous candidates without issue.
Pretend the Democrat party was fair if you must, but Bernie got a raw deal.
They have 30 days to override the FCC's action, any delay past that date would require either the drafting of a bill that not only passes the House and Senate, but is also signed into law by President Trump OR they have to wait to win back the whitehouse and then seat a different Chairman and start the process all over again.
How do the statistics differentiate between women that use the app but don't have sex - between relationships, etc, and women who use it because they have sex so often they can't keep things straight and need an app to manage a simple periodic cycle. If you want to increase the statistics have a bunch of celibate nuns install the app on their smartphones.
It's about the only side effect possible, and as is stated in the article, on every box for every birth control, and in every pamphlet in the Planned Parenthood waiting room- "No method of birth control is 100% effective.".
In round numbers, how many solar installers are needed in the poverty-stricken Appalachian region? Once every miner's shack and double wide gets a solar installation placed on top of it, what will they do? Collect unemployment until a new job training bill comes along and gives them another glimmer of hope.
One thing I've noticed since Jimmy Carter left office is that every administration, Democrat or Republican, that remains in office for two 4 year terms doubles the national debt.
When the country 'suffered' it's last gov't shutdown one party refused to vote in favor of any spending plan unless they got a 'deficit holiday' where federal spending was unrestricted by the Federal Debt Limit for 18 months, and politicians from that same political party argued relentlessly that the Federal Debt Limit should be eliminated - in both cases the party in question was the Democrats.
The Trump Tax cuts add $150BN to the national debt each of the next ten years, the Obama administration added (on average) in excess of $1T of deficits to our national debt year after year.
Nancy Pelosi famously argued under the previous administration that there was "nothing to cut" in the Federal budget, there was no waste.
Harry Reid dismissed attempts to cut federal spending because every cut cost federal workers jobs.
I don't excuse Republican excesses in spending, but I'm not blind to the Democrats excesses as well.
See here to learn that 99% of 911 call centers are capable of handling cellphone-generated GPS locations, but it relies on carrier upgrades outside their direct control.
Or, you know, take the bait, assume the 911 system has remained stagnant for the last two decades, and feign false outrage over this non-issue.
The 911 system was put in place before cell phones included GPS locators, and to retrofit the system with a new capability would be quite expensive. Any idea how many 911 call centers there are across America? 5,783
99.4% of PSAPs have some Phase I 99.0% of PSAPs have some Phase II
Phase I - Cellphone carrier provides caller's number and cell tower calculated location Phase II - Cellphone carrier provides caller's number and cellphone calculated location
Shockingly, this isn't nearly the "crisis issue" the click-bait headline would have you believe, and it is actually being implemented today.
U.S. regulators estimate as many as 10,000 lives could be saved each year if the 911 emergency dispatching system were able to get to callers one minute faster.
Are they really asserting that as many as 10,000 deaths per year because first-responders got to the location up to 60 seconds too late? That seems a bit fantastical, and the reader is supposed to assume that the issue is that first-responders got lost on the way to the location and it has nothing to do with traffic between the first responder and the victim, delays calling 911 as helpful neighbors try and help rather than call 911, etc.
With democrat support, the cuts could have been made permanent - oddly, Democrat leaders aren't too quick to point that out and Democrat supporters never ask 'why?'
Because they had to work within the rules of the Congress, I'm surprised Democrats failed to point out that their greatest complaint against the tax cuts, one of the stated reasons they gave for voting against the cuts, that the individual income tax cuts were temporary could have been corrected if Democrats voted for the cuts!
It's almost like the Democrats were putting politics ahead of policy, but that can't be right.
What makes her a better choice than giving the current Democrat a third term? Seriously, she'd be taking the place of a well-liked, well-supported Democrat because...
I think democrats will be torn between their current Senator and this 'flavor of the month' candidate Manning.
Slashdot Mirror
Is a universal basic income really that different other than that they benefit everyone instead just fake billionaires who commit treason and their cronies?
Let's say Basic Income is $5K/yr, so everyone gets $5K/yr - where does that money come from? Are you going to cut entitlements? Are you going to raise taxes?
Where do those millions of $5K checks come from?
How long before politicians argue that 'no one can live in $5K/yr?' - don't think they won't, google 'food stamp challenge' and marvel at people, celebrities, and politicians argue that you can't live on 'Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program', AKA SNAP. That the first letter stands for 'Supplemental' is a fact that eludes them...
Republicans have added$150BN/yr for ten years, that's it.
I routinely watch republicans try and cut spending, I've never seen a Democrat cut spending - ever. Clinton ran a surplus for a couple years by embracing entitlement reforms forced on him by a Republican Congress (after enduring gov't shutdowns), but his response was not to pay down the debt, but instead to increase spending... how do I know this? The debt increased EVERY DAY of the Clinton presidency - every day.
the reason why the taxes go up in a couple of years is because they needed to try to make it deficit neutral.
No, they don't. As long as tax receipts cover the interest payments owed on the national DEBT, the budget is considered balanced.
Individual tax cuts could have been made permanent, if Democrats supported it (congressional rules, too wonky to detail here)... instead, Democrats chose to run against these temporary tax cuts ("crumbs" as Nancy Pelosi refers to them) because they were temporary, ignoring that with their support the cuts could have been permanent.
The individual tax cuts will sunset when elected officials choose to not extend them.
Politifact agreed with you, provided you consider 2009 to be the deficit Bush left for Obama, but if you consider Bush's last full year was FY'2008, not so much.
Bush never had a deficit greater than $0.5T while in office, Obama never had a deficit lower than $0.5T in 8 years.
Then again, I very carefully used the word 'debt' which is the accumulation of annual deficits, the two are not interchangeable.
In America today, many/most voters choose not to vote FOR someone but to vote AGAINST someone else.
Many Trump voters chose Trump because they didn't want to see Hillary in office. Similarly, many Hillary voters chose Hillary because they didn't want to see Trump in office.
They promised him a fair shot at being their candidacy, then worked against him every time they could.
Maybe because a Democrat presidential candidate has lost the election twice now in recent times despite getting more popular vote
Thankfully, the Presidency is not a popularity contest. You might as well complain that Democrats lost despite being taller, or nicef, or any other totally irrelevant metric.
not to mention calling to question the real purpose of the electoral system, which was designed before telecommunications
What does the existence of a telecommunications system have to do with the e!pectoral college - wait, let me get my tin foil hat on before you explain has a system designed to protect the rights and interests of the smaller states would not exist if there were a way to quickly communicate election results...
State Attorneys General are not 'Congress Critters'
No ISP has a plan like you described, the closest I've seen is that ISPs will offer to "zero rate" traffic from certain websites for a nominal fee - this is the exact opposite of what you allege is the outcome of a world without Net Neutrality.
Wow, not sure how FCC and FTC got auto corrected into DVD and HTC.
And no, political appointees don't get to "fill-in" when Congress fails to act, nor does the President.
That's why DAPA failed in the courts.
That's why DACA was set to be cancelled by the courts, until Trump gave Congress 6 months to fix it.
That's why Net Neutrality regulations put in effect by one FCC Chairman despite the law clearly indicating it was illegal to do so can be removed by a subsequent FCC Vommissioner.
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something like the soon to be scuttled regulations, so do it the write way - these "one and phone" acts by the previous administration did little more than placate a voting constituency, they weren't bui!t to last.
Anything one DVD administrator can do, another can undo.
Anything a President can do, another can undo.
Laws passed by Congress, well, it takes an act of Congress to reverse it.
You seem to be ignoring that Democrat voters in the primaries, picked Clinton a hell of a lot of times when they could have picked Sanders instead. Blame the DNC if you must, but millions of people did fill in the circle next to Clinton. Were they just following DNC orders?
You seem to be ignoring that the DNC failedto treat Bernie Sanders fairly, denied him resources and support, and at one point he had to threaten to sue the DNC to get that which the party traditionally made available to previous candidates without issue.
Pretend the Democrat party was fair if you must, but Bernie got a raw deal.
They have 30 days to override the FCC's action, any delay past that date would require either the drafting of a bill that not only passes the House and Senate, but is also signed into law by President Trump OR they have to wait to win back the whitehouse and then seat a different Chairman and start the process all over again.
Abstinence also fails when a woman is raped.
How do the statistics differentiate between women that use the app but don't have sex - between relationships, etc, and women who use it because they have sex so often they can't keep things straight and need an app to manage a simple periodic cycle. If you want to increase the statistics have a bunch of celibate nuns install the app on their smartphones.
It's about the only side effect possible, and as is stated in the article, on every box for every birth control, and in every pamphlet in the Planned Parenthood waiting room- "No method of birth control is 100% effective.".
In round numbers, how many solar installers are needed in the poverty-stricken Appalachian region? Once every miner's shack and double wide gets a solar installation placed on top of it, what will they do? Collect unemployment until a new job training bill comes along and gives them another glimmer of hope.
One thing I've noticed since Jimmy Carter left office is that every administration, Democrat or Republican, that remains in office for two 4 year terms doubles the national debt.
When the country 'suffered' it's last gov't shutdown one party refused to vote in favor of any spending plan unless they got a 'deficit holiday' where federal spending was unrestricted by the Federal Debt Limit for 18 months, and politicians from that same political party argued relentlessly that the Federal Debt Limit should be eliminated - in both cases the party in question was the Democrats.
The Trump Tax cuts add $150BN to the national debt each of the next ten years, the Obama administration added (on average) in excess of $1T of deficits to our national debt year after year.
Nancy Pelosi famously argued under the previous administration that there was "nothing to cut" in the Federal budget, there was no waste.
Harry Reid dismissed attempts to cut federal spending because every cut cost federal workers jobs.
I don't excuse Republican excesses in spending, but I'm not blind to the Democrats excesses as well.
See here to learn that 99% of 911 call centers are capable of handling cellphone-generated GPS locations, but it relies on carrier upgrades outside their direct control.
Or, you know, take the bait, assume the 911 system has remained stagnant for the last two decades, and feign false outrage over this non-issue.
The 911 system was put in place before cell phones included GPS locators, and to retrofit the system with a new capability would be quite expensive. Any idea how many 911 call centers there are across America? 5,783
According to a 911 industry group:
99.4% of PSAPs have some Phase I
99.0% of PSAPs have some Phase II
Phase I - Cellphone carrier provides caller's number and cell tower calculated location
Phase II - Cellphone carrier provides caller's number and cellphone calculated location
Shockingly, this isn't nearly the "crisis issue" the click-bait headline would have you believe, and it is actually being implemented today.
U.S. regulators estimate as many as 10,000 lives could be saved each year if the 911 emergency dispatching system were able to get to callers one minute faster.
Are they really asserting that as many as 10,000 deaths per year because first-responders got to the location up to 60 seconds too late? That seems a bit fantastical, and the reader is supposed to assume that the issue is that first-responders got lost on the way to the location and it has nothing to do with traffic between the first responder and the victim, delays calling 911 as helpful neighbors try and help rather than call 911, etc.
In many/most cases, factories pay the cost of the inspectors, not government.
With democrat support, the cuts could have been made permanent - oddly, Democrat leaders aren't too quick to point that out and Democrat supporters never ask 'why?'
The last administration pissed away $10T in 8 years, and that's considered 'irresponsible'.
The current administration puts forth a plan to incur $1.5T over the next 10 years, and they are trying to destroy the economy?
Because they had to work within the rules of the Congress, I'm surprised Democrats failed to point out that their greatest complaint against the tax cuts, one of the stated reasons they gave for voting against the cuts, that the individual income tax cuts were temporary could have been corrected if Democrats voted for the cuts!
It's almost like the Democrats were putting politics ahead of policy, but that can't be right.
What makes her a better choice than giving the current Democrat a third term? Seriously, she'd be taking the place of a well-liked, well-supported Democrat because...
I think democrats will be torn between their current Senator and this 'flavor of the month' candidate Manning.