Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?
POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:53
VIEWED: 19566
PAGE 12 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.
Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.
Boom - Mic drop. Very sound reasoning JSF! I agree completely. $1000 is enough to never have to work. You might make it make sense with $500 or food/gas/utilites/housing credits, but then inflation probably happens like JSF says. I think once people see the issues with UBI they will discount Yang - that's basically his party piece.
I too am for Medicare for all. If we're such a awesome nation we should be able to make it work better than anywhere else. Leave out the politicians and we'll have a chance. Just not having to pay for insurance would be a huge boon to individuals AND to businesses. The idea that they should have to pay for someone else's coverage never made sense to me - those costs end up getting passed on to the consumer.
And don't touch my SS unless you just make it better and sooner - I've invested way too much in it already.
$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?
I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.
Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.
Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?
I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.
Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.
Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.
You're joking, right? I use to for one. $395 for rent, no car, do the rest of the math. Ever heard of roommates? Campbell's soup and minute rice? Plenty of people could if they wanted to, and $1000 untaxed dollars would make it easy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
$1000 per month is enough to never have to work? Where?
I can live on that, and even save money, but I'm the anomaly.
Who do you know that could live off of $1,000 per month and not have to work? I don't know anybody except for my retired grandma who's house is paid for.
Furthermore, I don't know anybody who would want to. Even if they could barely eek out the monthly bills with that, they'd still have no insurance and they'd be living a minimalist lifestyle like I do. I don't know anybody besides me who's willing to do that either.
You're joking, right? I use to for one. $395 for rent, no car, do the rest of the math. Ever heard of roommates? Campbell's soup and minute rice? Plenty of people could if they wanted to, and $1000 untaxed dollars would make it easy.
Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.
EDIT: And it's "I used to, for one". Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.
So... you haven't heard of roommates then? 2 people, combining their incomes? Ring any bells up there?
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/in/indianapolis/
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.
It must be difficult being so dense! You're just being pissy because your UBI dream was shot down so completely. Sorry, dude! No free money for you!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Where do you live that rent is $395. I was paying $600 a month in my first apartment back in 1998. I haven't seen any apartments for less than $800 in ten years unless you're willing to live out in meth-country down south.
So... you haven't heard of roommates then? 2 people, combining their incomes? Ring any bells up there?
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.
I'm the cheapest person you've ever met, and I would never do that again.
I've got an entire 4 bedroom house to myself, and I refuse to rent it out to anybody. I could theoretically live off of that income alone if I wanted to.
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Very hard to read your sentences and get their meaning sometimes.
It must be difficult being so dense! You're just being pissy because your UBI dream was shot down so completely. Sorry, dude! No free money for you!
Nice try.
Don't get salty with me that your public school education fails you, yet again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.
You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Updated list of candidates: who is running in 2020
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&p=2
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:pizmo, sometimes I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
UBI would put a huge spike in Inflation. EVERYBODY gets it. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody gets it. The minimum costs for everything would go up. If the cheapest rent was around $400 per month, it would jump a lot closer to $1,000 per month - almost overnight. All other bottom-of-the-barrel prices would go up. $1,000 per month would become the new baseline, the new $0 per month. The stipend from SS would become essentially worthless.
Bloating the Federal Debt just to make the $US worthless is not a great plan. Unless you are working towards anarchy, the collapse of USA.
Handouts of Government Spending as a path to prosperity is a foolish endeavor.
Plus, paying everybody to not work makes America less productive, and in the Global marketplace a pariah.
America already has 1/3 of the adult population not working, no need to make that even more.
Boom - Mic drop. Very sound reasoning JSF! I agree completely. $1000 is enough to never have to work. You might make it make sense with $500 or food/gas/utilites/housing credits, but then inflation probably happens like JSF says. I think once people see the issues with UBI they will discount Yang - that's basically his party piece.
I too am for Medicare for all. If we're such a awesome nation we should be able to make it work better than anywhere else. Leave out the politicians and we'll have a chance. Just not having to pay for insurance would be a huge boon to individuals AND to businesses. The idea that they should have to pay for someone else's coverage never made sense to me - those costs end up getting passed on to the consumer.
And don't touch my SS unless you just make it better and sooner - I've invested way too much in it already.
I currently have 2 homes, each has a mortgage payment of about $400 per month. Includes property Taxes, and Water/Sewer Utilities. Each is 3 bedrooms, one has 3 car garage.
The most recent apartment I had, 9 years ago, was $395, but that was 1 bedroom, roomy bath, and spacious living room and dining room, carport. 14 years ago I had one for $100 or $200, I forget which, but it was a studio.
I got spoiled early, when I convinced my best friend to bypass a 2 bedroom we had looked at, and get a 3 bedroom 2-level townhouse apartment, 2 full bath, 2 carports, 2 blocks from LAX, where we worked. We had our choice of which of our friends to take the 3rd bedroom, some bribery was involved in that decision. $1050, so $350 x 3, in the late 80s. Community Party Room, Exercise Room (directly out our living room window) swimming pool, sand volleyball court below our dinette window, BBQ pits below our living room window. Did I mention 2 blocks from LAX? Something like 400 apartments in the complex, many of which had 9 keys floating among all of the stewardesses which split each apartment. Hundreds of stewardesses sunning at the pool out our window, bouncing at volleyball, doing aerobics outside our window, visiting our BBQs. Everybody agreed it was the single best apartment and location in the whole complex. Every single weekend we had a BBQ, or party or both. When I moved out, they had a line of prospects begging to fill the spot.
I have pointed out that Dollar Tree can provide a week's worth of PBJ components for $3, or $4 for a second loaf of bread. In my area, 2 loaves/$1 is common at Kwik Trip.
I used to get Ramen noodles by the case, I recall they were 5 cents per serving. I introduced my grandfather to how delicious Michelina's and Yu Sing were, when they cost 50 cents per meal - and he liked them so much that he only ate 1/3 of each entrée per meal.
The last 5 or 6 vehicles I've purchased were $600, lasting several years each. So that is $200/year, or $17/month.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Living with a roommate is usually hell. Most people who weren't college age would do anything they could to not have a roommate. What you're talking about here is sacrificing your own quality of life, which is a choice. You wouldn't be able to exist on your own for $1,000 per month without a roommate.
You still can't understand 2 people living together with 2 incomes? Like a man and woman, a couple even, married or unmarried. Like that's unusual? Your understanding of things and concepts outside of your impenetrable 6 World is so tiny. Talk about a failed education! Although, in your case it probably wasn't the school's fault.
I won't even begin to list the endless quotes about how we wouldn't even need money if it weren't for women. More than half of those quotes are attributed to women themselves. Women are the single demographic that drives the modern economy.
Disregarding that, find me a woman who's going to live with you and pool their $1,000 while you both sit around all day doing nothing and either not drive you insane or badger you to get a job.
The idea that everybody would just sit around and do nothing if they had $1,000 a month is just as ridiculous as anything else you've ever said in here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://rusi.org/commentary/us-presidential-hopefuls-and-their-nuclear
-weapons-policies
US Democratic Party candidates for the White House are beginning to tackle nuclear challenges in their election campaigns.
Not all of the 18 hopefuls have made clear foreign – let alone nuclear – policy statements. It is particularly challenging to anticipate the positions of candidates like Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper, and Marianne Williamson, who have not served in public office or held positions at the federal level and thus lack even previous records from which to glean their nuclear policy sentiments. Others like Julian Castro and Wayne Messam have made domestic issues the focal points of their campaigns, also making it difficult to assess their views on nuclear issues. The rest, though, have revealed their positions on key issues, providing some insight into what a newly elected Democratic administration’s nuclear weapons policy might look like after 2020.
On US–Russia Arms Control Efforts
Leading Democratic candidates have criticised President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Senator Elizabeth Warren, amidst her calls for a ‘Foreign Policy for All,’ expressed her disdain for the decision, citing it as ‘yet another example of the Trump Administration’s dangerous and costly embrace of nuclear weapons’. In November last year, she joined a group of senators in introducing the Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2018, aimed at prohibiting the funding of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles – weapons eliminated by the treaty – until the administration can meet restraining criteria. Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York senator running for the democratic nomination, also co-sponsored the act, calling the legislation ‘more important than ever’ after expressing her views in a joint letter to the president that scrapping the treaty ‘risks the United States sliding into another arms race with Russia and erod[ing] U.S. nonproliferation efforts around the world’.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has not officially announced his candidacy but still leads in early primary polls, served in the Senate when the INF Treaty was originally ratified in 1987 and played an important role in securing the 2010 New START agreement. While claiming that the ‘Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of Western democracy’, Biden has also stressed that ‘(i)t is precisely because we do not trust our adversaries that treaties to constrain the human capacity for destruction are indispensable to the security of the United States of America’. Collectively, these sentiments imply that a Democratic White House would double down on efforts to maintain robust arms control agreements with Russia.
On the Iran Nuclear Deal
All candidates with congressional backgrounds have expressed their support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral deal in which Iran agreed to verifiably halt its production of fissile material in return for sanctions relief. Consequently, these candidates responded critically to President Trump’s 2018 decision to remove the US from the agreement. Beto O’Rourke, who gained national attention in his recent senatorial campaign against Ted Cruz, called the deal ‘a miracle of modern diplomacy … [that] demonstrably makes the world … a safer place’. California Senator Kamala Harris recognised the agreement as ‘the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East’.
It is an altogether different matter, however, if any of these candidates might attempt to salvage – or replace – the deal should they win in 2020. While the European states that are party to the agreement have worked to keep it in place, the ‘snapback’ of US sanctions in November 2018 has placed significant pressure on the Iranian economy and undermines the leverage that the so-called P5+1 counties – which negotiated the JCPOA – used to bring Iran to the negotiation table in the first place.
On North Korea
Perhaps m
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME