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 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I've already said that the mentally ill, intellectually disabled and addicted (oh, and children) need a different kind of assistance. Beyond that, I'm not about to go trying to minutely control every aspect of everyone's life. CHINA does that, it's called their "social credit" system.
Just give people money and let them make their choices.
****
But if there was a real job at a living wage for everyone who wanted to work ... we wouldn't need this aid. If you want a reprise of my REAL obssessive agenda ... the goverment needs to reform the financial system and the economy to make "aid" less necessary. This discussion of welfare is NOT my agenda.
People make bad choices.
Aid is ALWAYS going to be necessary, and the key word here Ms. Paranoid is VOLUNTARY.
Why does "doing the right thing" = "control" to you??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For March 2019 the Outlay for Social Security was $87 B. For the first 6 months of the Fiscal Year, it was $512 B. That is the largest item of spending.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yang wants to reduce military spending 200 Billion, but that wouldn't be enough, and I'm not sure where he got that number.
There's another 68 Billion in food stamps.
How much is Social Security? I can't seem to find what the yearly payouts for that is. Quite a bit of that could be rolled into UBI quite easily, I would think. Some thought would have to go into a sliding scale to decide who would get more than the $1,000 per month of UBI based on need.
There should also be no cap on Social Security and Medicare. If the plan is to tax the Uber Rich more, the first place to start would be making every dime you make taxable to SSI/Medicaid. Also make certain that after a lower amount of capitol gains have been acquired, the rest would be subject to a SSI/UBI/Medicare tax as well. (This tax would have to be high enough as to not hurt middle-class investors, and would go a long way to sustaining UBI/SSI and healthcare costs).
Of course, all of these numbers would need to be adjusted for inflation every year, or else we're just starting more bubbles we don't need.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The Monthly Treasury Statement updates that every month, and those numbers are laid out in the first 5 pages of the current format. And they have archives.
The 3rd or 4th largest Outlay category is Medicare. $53 B for March, $302 B for the half Fiscal Year.
On this subject of being paid to not work: how is this different than Greece?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, people make bad choices. Do people ALWAYS choose perfectly? Do people ALWAYS pick the right career, the right partner, the right investment, the right friends, the right city, the right option on whether or not to have children, and how many?
I know I've made bad choices and I'm sure you have too, despite the fac that you like to get angry at other people for not being as perfect as you are!
*****
I've already made myself clear ... long-term welfare for competent work-able working-age adults is not my preferred option. Sometimes life throws you a curveball tho, and for those instances ... well, that's where assistance comes in.
But long-term welfare for competent adults is a byproduct of a defective system that rewards sociopathy and disincentivises work. If you want to fix the problem, change the system.
But if you're not willing to change the system, then at least try not to make things worse.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.
Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.
The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
I still have a problem with ubi tho: much of the money wil still go to China or elsewhere. So my choice would still be Medicare for All
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.
Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.
The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wishi says about 60 million receive SS benefits.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:For March 2019 the Outlay for Social Security was $87 B. For the first 6 months of the Fiscal Year, it was $512 B. That is the largest item of spending.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yang wants to reduce military spending 200 Billion, but that wouldn't be enough, and I'm not sure where he got that number.
There's another 68 Billion in food stamps.
How much is Social Security? I can't seem to find what the yearly payouts for that is. Quite a bit of that could be rolled into UBI quite easily, I would think. Some thought would have to go into a sliding scale to decide who would get more than the $1,000 per month of UBI based on need.
There should also be no cap on Social Security and Medicare. If the plan is to tax the Uber Rich more, the first place to start would be making every dime you make taxable to SSI/Medicaid. Also make certain that after a lower amount of capitol gains have been acquired, the rest would be subject to a SSI/UBI/Medicare tax as well. (This tax would have to be high enough as to not hurt middle-class investors, and would go a long way to sustaining UBI/SSI and healthcare costs).
Of course, all of these numbers would need to be adjusted for inflation every year, or else we're just starting more bubbles we don't need.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The Monthly Treasury Statement updates that every month, and those numbers are laid out in the first 5 pages of the current format. And they have archives.
The 3rd or 4th largest Outlay category is Medicare. $53 B for March, $302 B for the half Fiscal Year.
On this subject of being paid to not work: how is this different than Greece?
So about $1,450 per month average.
I did not know that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, JSF, you're right: UBI is a bad idea. Simplifying Federal benefits would probably be more helpful.
I still think Medicare for All is a better idea tho.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.
Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.
The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
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.
You're contradicting yourself here.
First you say that $1,000 would be the new $0.
Then you say that the money would disincentivize people to work.
Which is it? It can't be both.
I just pointed out in the other thread how the system we have in place now disincentivizes work. Yanno, a $4/hour increase leading to only 46 cents extra per hour in my pocket. No health insurance.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know I've made bad choices and I'm sure you have too, despite the fac that you like to get angry at other people for not being as perfect as you are!
No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
All of these "solutions" are basically people just wanting to throw money at other people. That's not going to work short-term, let alone long term.
People aren't making enough money because modern day living is expensive and expansive. There probably isn't ANY quick fixes for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Quote:Do I read this right?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: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. :)
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
Or is he just saying that people would go find some kind of work for the fun of it, because they would get bored not working?
At first, the Inflation spike would happen fast, devaluing SS stipends, then the $1,000 per month would be valueless. Leaving us where we started, but with devaluatiing Inflation in place. But then we we couldn't be able to reverse the process, and the damage would be done, and the UBI fiasco would be ignored, forgotten, in the past, and the UBIers would be peddling their next Spendaholic Magic Bullet idiocy.
Plus, I've heard that modern women want to have their own jobs. So the women would not sit at home harping on, they would go and work for the fun of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Do I read this right?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: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. :)
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.
I'm arguing that in his hypothetical fantasy land world where this is possible, there is no woman who's going to stand for a man who sits around playing video games and binge watching Netflix, let alone many women who wouldn't be bored out of their mind doing the same themselves.
Throw a kid or two in the mix, assuming there is sex involved and we're not delving further into fantasy land with strictly platonic roommates, and this becomes even more impossible. (Remember, there are no welfare benefits for children, no EIC, and no food stamps in this scenario).
Nobody could afford to sit around all day and not work with $1,000 per month without being completely miserable. Whether single or married.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
Oh. You don't, huh?
Allow me to enlighten you.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
Oh. You don't, huh?
Allow me to enlighten you.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's attitudes like that that make women want to go their own way. Hubby and I contributed equally to the finances, so stuff it.
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WELL THEN, YOU'RE STUPID.
No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
You don't give a damn?
How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
pizmo, sometimes I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.
I don't blame you - we rarely agree on anything. But I was being completely serious. You pointed out a couple of righteous points - "we all get it and we all know we all get it." I know my fellow human pretty well - that's a recipe for inflation just like you said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.
Jack was making the argument that no one could live on $1000 other than him. Already we have 3 people posting here who have and could again. Do the math, professor.
And who the hell says all you do is sit around and watch tv all day? You have very little imagination. That's you hoping/wishing/making sh*t up to validate one of your erroneous "all feelz" opinions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have no doubt that you did and do. I was not talking about you, and you should not be affronted when not directed your way.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:It's attitudes like that that make women want to go their own way. Hubby and I contributed equally to the finances, so stuff it.
Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
I was attempting to paraphrase the attitude which 6ix seemed to be emulating, which rue had indicated bafflement about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Does as anybody else think these are contradictory concepts?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I already understood that 6ix doesn't seem to understand the underlying problems with his Magic Bullet solution, but perhaps you have overlooked it as well.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SIX ... you want to kipe the entire Social Sceurity budget?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
First of all, the people who are collecting Social Security are either retired, disabled, or disabled children ... people who (for the most part) CAN'T work. Yes, I know, there are stories of 75-year-olds happily working but I can tell you, from experience, that most retirees ... the the time they retire ... are used up and/or suffer from accumulated health issues. You're putting those people on the same footing s younger, healthier people who CAN work a full-time job.
Secondly, those people who retired planned on a specific income, and yanking it away after-the-fact would just create a lot of elderly poor. It may chap your ass that some retirees refer to their Social Security as "casino money" ... I frankly don't know anyone who does ... but what that means is that they saved for their retirement. Are you going to punish people who made good decisions? And for those who depend on Socail Security ... the minum payment is $1300/mo ... you'll just drive them further into poverty.
The best thing to do would be to replace the $1000/month of Social Security with UBI, or better yet, make people who are receiving Social Security, SSI etc ineligible for UBI benefits. I know that makes UBI less "uinversal" but it still DOES simplify the system
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.
You're contradicting yourself here.
First you say that $1,000 would be the new $0.
Then you say that the money would disincentivize people to work.
Which is it? It can't be both.
I just pointed out in the other thread how the system we have in place now disincentivizes work. Yanno, a $4/hour increase leading to only 46 cents extra per hour in my pocket. No health insurance.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:IDK. I understood the part about not wanting a roommate, but that whole part about women driving the economy and so on ... not a clue.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Do I read this right?
Is 6ix now arguing that $1,000 is too much Tax-free money if 2 people cohabitate, there would be too much free time if nobody worked while being given too much money?
That seems like an absolute flip from a few posts previous.
Oh. You don't, huh?
Allow me to enlighten you.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I'm not going to go so far as to say that.
But according to the hbr.org article:
Quote:
Women now drive the world economy.
Globally, they control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. Their $13 trillion in total yearly earnings could reach $18 trillion in the same period.
In 2009 they spent 7 Trillion more than they earned. It was projected that by 2013 they would spend 10 Trillion more than they earned.
I caution some here to not go down the lines of "bullshit! I don't do that!". Because you know very well women who do, and you have no doubt bitched about them, and dare I say have been envious of them at one point in your life or another.
There's an entire industry of reality TV shows and garbage magazines based off of this phenomena that must get views, because they keep pumping that bullshit out. I'll leave it to you to decide what about these trash rags and shows that are so enthralling to a mostly female audience.
All I'm going to say is that most men aren't going to be spending any money on window dressings. If there weren't women to impress, we'd be garbed in little more than rags.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. I'm not. CC is making that argument.
Jack was making the argument that no one could live on $1000 other than him. Already we have 3 people posting here who have and could again. Do the math, professor.
And who the hell says all you do is sit around and watch tv all day? You have very little imagination. That's you hoping/wishing/making sh*t up to validate one of your erroneous "all feelz" opinions.
No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.
You obviously make so much money that you have no idea what inflation did to everything. I'm only able to do it because I live rent and mortgage free.
Although, I will make one alteration to my support for the UBI, based off of your replies. Not that you specifically said it, but because I know you would be doing it in this hypothetical world where you got to sat around doing nothing with your time and your roommates...
When the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.
Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?
Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.
Still think you can swing that in 2019?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.
Goddamn, dude. You're doing it now - so that's one. I wouldn't want to, nor would JSF it sounds, but I could go right back to where I was with my wife before we were married and make it easy, with money to spare. Let's see... how many is that? 1... 2... 3.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
hen the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.
Good luck with that one!
How many people do you think would be eligible for UBI? 20?Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?
The concept of multiple people - married even - living under one roof is just too big a thing for you to wrap your head around, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.
I dunno, what did you do after you got canned? Didn't you say you just paid the penalty?
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Still think you can swing that in 2019?
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My sister could live on $1000/mo with a roommate, but the people who could live off of that are in areas where the living cost is low: western NY, Indianna, Minnesota (outside of the Twin Cities) etc. In the LA region, where I live, a two-bedroom apartment costs $1300/mo.
*****
What got lost in the shuffle about UBI is that it would be inflationary, and much of the money would fly overseas and stimulate the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian etc economies, so the net effect wouldn't be helpful. (Consumer spending drives our trade deficit.)
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-part
ners-3306276
Aside from that, UBI doesn't solve the problem of too few good jobs. We don't HAVE to be competing against Haitians for a bowl of rice a day, if we don't want to. The USA could be nearly self-sufficient; we have most of the physical resources and all of the people required to power an economy for the foreseeable future if we use them correctly and don't strip-mine them from our children. We could tell most of the world to stuff it. Costs would go up, but so would wages. The only thing that would mean is that more money would be circulating in the economy where 99% of us live, and not squirreled away in the coffers of the 0.01%.
I don't see UBI having the intended effect. But I think SIX might be heading in the right direction with credit cards: One of the drivers of our incredible wealth gap is that the wealthy have access to near-zero pct interest rate loans, which allows them to place their bets in the various bubbles that these loans also inflate.
I'm not sure that the government can mandate a higher interest rate, but it CAN mandate required reserves. You could pull the plug on this speculation by requiring banks (and all lending institutions) to only lend money that they physically have in their possession: 100% reserve requirement. That would do two things: It would shut off the spigot of money created out of thin air and lent to the ultra-wealthy for their unicorn-fart speculation, and it would require the banks to offer higher interest rates on savings in order to attract more money, thus encouraging savings. You wouldn't have to do this all at once, just raise the reserve requirements by 2% per year. A 2% rise in reserve requirements per year (say, from 5% to 7% to 9%...) would require some serious readjustment in speculation.
Just a thought.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. We don't have 3 other people who could do it again.
Goddamn, dude. You're doing it now - so that's one. I wouldn't want to, nor would JSF it sounds, but I could go right back to where I was with my wife before we were married and make it easy, with money to spare. Let's see... how many is that? 1... 2... 3.
No. You couldn't. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
*Slaps his forehead*... How am I supposed to try to explain that to a Russiagater?
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
hen the UBI is instituted, along with removing all other forms of social safety nets, anybody who is not employed for longer than 3 months looses access to any credit cards they have, and in order to get another credit card in the future, they must work at least one year's time to acquire one.
Quote:
Good luck with that one!
I didn't say the credit card debt or their obligation to pay the debt would be erased. Simply that anybody who didn't have a job would no longer have access to credit.
I think that's your problem with the first question too. You would have a ton of debt that you currently have. You just wouldn't have any access to dig an even deeper hole for yourselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Are you still going to live off of $1,000 per month in 2019 without credit cards?
Quote:
The concept of multiple people - married even - living under one roof is just too big a thing for you to wrap your head around, isn't it?
Stupid question. Moving on...
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh... and you're forgetting that if you don't have a job and you want health insurance, you're going to have to pay for said health insurance with your UBI.
Quote:
I dunno, what did you do after you got canned? Didn't you say you just paid the penalty?
LOL... you have absolutely no idea how anything works.
If you didn't file income taxes because you didn't have income, you didn't have to pay the penalty, since it was only a tax line item on your income taxes. So no, I didn't pay it. Starting next year, nobody pays it.
I'm talking about health insurance, which universally everybody agrees is important. UBI could be used to pay for it for those without jobs or with part time jobs. Sure, you could choose to go without it, but I'd laugh at anyone who did that who was paying off a car or was paying $300 per month for cable TV and a cell phone.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Still think you can swing that in 2019?
Quote:
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.
Prove it.
People only do it here now because there are plenty of government programs out there that not only incentivize not working, but they deincentivize working, for the lowest earners.
The UBI would not be enough for anybody to live and enjoy living, yet since everybody got it and you wouldn't lose it for getting a part or full time job, there is no dis-incentives to work.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, I get mad at people for not trying at all. Like you don't even try to not blah blah about military and war at every in-opportunity. Why don't you start a thread about it....OH, THAT'S RIGHT....NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.- WISHY
WELL THEN, YOU'RE STUPID
Well, to make a point and maybe drag the discussion back to the original topic...
Quote:
The Department of Defense is the world’s worst bookkeeper. The books are so atrocious that they are wrong about everything and it’s impossible to detect just how bad the fraud and corruption that runs rampant through the Pentagon has become.
Journalist Matt Taibbi told RT’s Lee Camp that he discovered it’s not possible to make any sense of the books.
Taibbi recently dove headfirst into the insanity that is the Pentagon’s finances to find out how a much-lauded audit of the organization, (which receives half a trillion dollars a year) failed to give the DoD either a pass or fail. What Taibbi found was that the Pentagon operates under a system that is inherently unable to provide financial accountability, he said during an interview on Redacted Tonight.
“It’s organized so badly that when the Pentagon at the end of every year goes to ask for more money for the next year… they invent the numbers because they have no audit trail. They submit all those numbers to the Congress, saying we spent this on that, but they don’t actually have the documents,” he said. “The sheer quantity of the numbers makes it impossible to detect anything like fraud or theft because the books are all wrong at every single level of the system.”
The massive amount of waste and corruption is unbelievable, yet it’s impossible to even get a handle on just how bad it has become. Taibbi also says that there is no way the Pentagon will ever change the way they do their books unless there is reform to how they receive their money. Unless the Pentagon cuts off weapons contractors, there will never be any type of reform – so don’t hold your breath.
Pentagon Admits Billions In US Funds Disappeared in Afghanistan To “Fraud, Waste And Abuse”
“The people who sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee are going to be primarily funded by military contractors. Which means that none of those people are ever going to approve any measure that threatens to stop funding of the Pentagon until they get their books in order,” Taibbi said. “And the only way you can make the Pentagon make their books in order is to yank the money.”
The Pentagon is not known for their ability to reason or be responsible unless it’s providing “reasons” that they should be responsible for the deaths of millions across the globe.
*Side Note: Taibbi added that he sees the “Russiagate” hoax to be the biggest blow to mainstream media’s reputation since the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco under the Bush administration.
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-pentagons-bookkeeping-is-at
rocious-the-books-are-wrong-on-everything_04152019
Any candidates calling for a top-to-bottom reform of how the Pentagon (oh, and DHS and HUD) track their expenditures?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
These do not say what you think they say.
lol :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would the adequate paraphrase be Men earn the money, women spend all the money?
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/184334/rise-of-female-driven-
economy-feminist-economics
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-every
one-know-women-consumers/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
These do not say what you think they say.
lol :)
Then go ahead and Womansplain them to me.
You have my consent.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
just for fun
Quote:Not about tracking, but about spending:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Any candidates calling for a top-to-bottom reform of how the Pentagon (oh, and DHS and HUD) track their expenditures?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
CODEPINK Ranks the 2020 Presidential Candidates on War, Peace and Military Spending
https://www.mintpressnews.com/codepink-ranks-2020-presidential-candida
tes-war-peace-military-spending/256700/
War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-p
residential-candidates
Yang: "10% of the military budget — approximately $60 billion per year —to a new domestic infrastructure force called the Legion of Builders and Destroyers."
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256198/andrew-yang-gang-presidential-p
olicies-universal-basic-income-joe-rogan
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
Cory Booker (D)
Pete Buttigieg (D)
Julian Castro (D)
John Delaney (D)
Support our world-class military with the resources they need, with a particular focus on technological capabilities
Tulsi Gabbard (D)
Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.
Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
Mike Gravel (D)
BRING EVERY TROOP HOME
The United States has about 800 military bases spread across the world. There are bases in 80 countries, with about 138,000 troops total deployed across the world. Only 11 other countries have military bases in other nations; the country with the second-most bases has at most 40.
Kamala Harris (D)
John Hickenlooper (D)
Jay Inslee (D)
Amy Klobuchar (D)
Wayne Messam (D)
Beto O'Rourke (D)
Tim Ryan (D)
Bernie Sanders (I)
Eric Swalwell (D)
Donald Trump (R)
National Security and Defense: President Trump rebuilt our military, crushed ISIS, and confronted rogue nations to protect America and our allies.
Elizabeth Warren (D)
That means cutting our bloated defense budget and ending the stranglehold of defense contractors on our military policy.
Bill Weld (R)
Marianne Williamson (D)
Andrew Yang (D)
Modernize Military Spending
http://2020candidates.org/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You don't give a damn?
How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?
Your comrade just made my point for me. Thanks.
That you think anyone really has a say in anything this country or any other does militarily is the ultimate pinnacle of being ludicrous. Fantasy compounded by delusion.
Maybe I should start calling you Cap'n Marvel, because you think you alone have the power to take on whole military systems and I marvel at that.
Waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUE: Awesome! Thanks for the useful information!
WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
cartoon
just for fun
That's a great cartoon! It's funny, it feels completely, sadly all too true. And it also illustrates why quoting from a platform or "statements on the issues" is so hard to trust, pointless even. Interviewers seem to think that's a hard hitting question, "so where do you stand on the issues?" And I can just hear some of them go, "f*ck! I knew they'd ask me that - we've been working on it day and night but just haven't finished it yet... there are so many goddamn issues! And they always ask me about the ones we haven't gotten to yet! B*stards! Who has the time to research all this sh*t anyway! I'll just have to wing it..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.
Prove it.
You
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.
Thanks, I don't anyway. But I like to play the "who could win if this country WASN'T run by a shadow government". There is too much money and other things at stake to just hand over power. It's all a puppet show.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You
Bwah haaaa haa.
Stop, you might break his delusion of being a self-made man...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It looks like people who have already identified the bloated military as a problem, and who have a history of criticizing the bloated military as a problem, already have statements. Bernie is an unfocused critic (his priorities are elsewhere); but he has no official statement because it looks like he's taking his time publicly putting out a comprehensive position statement.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RUE: Awesome! Thanks for the useful information!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NYTimes today
>
2020 Presidential Election
9 Takeaways From a Look Inside the 2020 Money Race
Bernie Sanders is the money leader. Elizabeth Warren is spending big. Pete Buttigieg emerged out of nowhere. And (almost) everyone is buying gobs of Facebook ads.
1h ago
>
‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
Members of the party establishment who oppose Senator Bernie Sanders have discussed how to handle his candidacy. Others are warning of a schism.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Updated list of candidates: who is running in 2020
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&p=2
Or like this:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62903&mid=10742
86#1074286
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Common Dreams today
>
For First Time, Major National Poll Shows Bernie Sanders at Top of 2020 Democratic Pack
>
Pelosi: AOC Wing of Party Is 'Like Five People,' Dems Need to 'Hold the Center'
comment: Because that worked so well with Hillary?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.
Thanks, I don't anyway. But I like to play the "who could win if this country WASN'T run by a shadow government". There is too much money and other things at stake to just hand over power. It's all a puppet show.
I like to play it too. That's why I like to discuss Big Ideas: Why society is like an organism. The limits of measuring everything against "efficiency". What are America's (long term) interests?
"Thinking" is free ... or at least, it should be. It doesn't cost you any money. It doesn't need to be practical. It doesn't even need to be real. It doesn't put you at risk of anything.
What it DOES is inform your "practical" self of possible problems and possible solutions.
So, why limit yourself to centrist candidates with establishment ideas? Isn't it better to think, and think deeply, about the origins of our problems, and to outline the limits of your ideas, and "blue sky" some thoughts on potential solutions?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I like to play it too. That's why I like to discuss...
No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES.
See what you look like???Your tactics are some of the most manipulative I've ever seen, and I have a Bi-polar Monster-in-law. I would pay money to get the two of you together in a room.
I think it could open a vortex of emotional vampirism that could lead to the destruction of the space-time continuum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.
Prove it.
You
Are we just going to keep going around in circles here then?
We've already covered this. I am a special case. The $800 per month I don't have to spend on rent or mortgage allows me to do what I do on what roughly equates to $1,000 per month after taxes, without the need of a roommate.
Hardly anybody in the country that isn't retired already owns their own home. It's virtually undoutable that anybody that does would not sit around doing nothing.
Using me as a barometer for this is not good metrics.
Although, I will say I am a good example of the non-economic reasons you should work, or at least do something productive with your life when you don't really have to...
I sat around doing almost nothing for 2 1/2 years straight, drinking 5 out of 7 days on average every week, sometimes more than 30 cheap beers in a session. The small amount of time I wasn't inebriated was just my "recovery" time in between either spent sleeping or watching Netflix.
I hated myself, and I was destroying myself.
Granted, getting a job wasn't what got me sober, but I had to obsessively delve into old projects of mine for months before I felt like I didn't need to go out and buy more alcohol. It was nearly a full year of sobriety before I even had applied for another job.
Without being a religious type, I can't argue that work is good for the soul. It's good to have structure and to have goals and accomplishments, however small they might be. It helps break up the days so you don't just waste 3 years doing the same thing every day and look back and wonder where the last 3 years had gone.
Let's put aside the argument of who could and couldn't make it off of only $1,000 per month for a moment and ask the question "why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"
I think you're projecting.
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life, and was often the catalyst for many other terrible decisions I have made.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life
I can answer that one....
Because working just about ANY job as one of the plebs in this country absolutely BLOWS. Every job hubbs has had he's hated within two years of starting it.
A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've. You end up holding up THEIR end of the job, every time.
Then a quarter of the people are pure and simple asshats, or narcissists, or psychopaths that making dealing with them soul destroying.
Then there's a work week that isn't five days and hasn't been for a while now. A great many people work 6 days a week/10-12 hr days and can't afford to take off vacation days. You NEVER get enough rest.
Then you have corporations that push whole novels full of bullshit like calling an employee a "member" or any one of a number of humiliating or belittling jargon that they know is meaningless.
Then realize after taxes and healthcare deductions you will probably NEVER retire...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life
I can answer that one....
Because working just about ANY job as one of the plebs in this country absolutely BLOWS. Every job hubbs has had he's hated within two years of starting it.
A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've. You end up holding up THEIR end of the job, every time.
Then a quarter of the people are pure and simple asshats, or narcissists, or psychopaths that making dealing with them soul destroying.
Then there's a work week that isn't five days and hasn't been for a while now. A great many people work 6 days a week/10-12 hr days and can't afford to take off vacation days. You NEVER get enough rest.
Then you have corporations that push whole novels full of bullshit like calling an employee a "member" or any one of a number of humiliating or belittling jargon that they know is meaningless.
Then realize after taxes and healthcare deductions you will probably NEVER retire...
Well... all true.
But that's working full time at a job you hate because you HAVE to work full time at a job you hate.
Even part time retail, I get that. The management at my store are largely useless. I was written up for insubordination with my first overnight manager. She was fired a few months later because her terrible family life and her own alcoholism got in the way of work and she had a few no-call, no-shows. I've outlasted 4 overnight managers since I've been there, and now my store manager took a 3 month "stress leave" and abandoned everybody else because she couldn't take the heat now that the Six-Sigma men in black have come knocking.
I honestly thought I had it all figured out. I actually LOVE my job now. I get a great workout, nobody ever bothers me or asks what I'm doing (or tells me what to do), and they're all smiles when they see me coming in. That's all going away soon when the night shift is removed and I have to deal with the new hard-ass store manager (and "service" customers for half of my shift and try not to get myself fired when I have to deal with a shitty one). I'm going to hang around a bit and see if I can build up something similar to what I had done for myself again, but the beauty of working a shitty part time job with no insurance and low pay is that it's not exactly hard to jump ship and go somewhere else if I don't feel like putting up with the bullshit.
The only way you're really going to work a job these days where you're not shit on at any level is if you go into business for yourself, and that's also a huge trade off because now you're your own boss and accountant and all the other things you can take for granted and not worry about when you are on somebody else's payroll.
This is just another argument for the UBI, the way I look at it. In my unique position, I could (and would) buy my own health insurance with it. Then I'd be completely free to keep on living the way I do, working part-time and only sacrificing 40% of my days without that hole of no insurance always nagging at the back of my mind. I would absolutely hate my job right now if I had to work full time for what I make.
For most others that were working part time and had a rent and a mortgage, they would also be able to purchase their own health insurance while working part time, but they'd have to make some sacrifices to do it. But the option would be there.
I dunno. I doubt it would ever happen in our lifetime. Not onl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.
But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age and don't have the oomph it takes to go from shitty job to shitty job.
So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with either a higher budgetary demand, or less ability to work (age, illness) to make up the UBI shortfall. And I think you've spent your whole discussion talking about UBI and you, you, and you.
In a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.
But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.
So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.
But in a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.
Well... yes and no.
The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.
Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.
But you are right. I'm not a good example of why it would work. I've said so many times in this thread that I'm an extreme outlier, and that I fully recognize that.
My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)
I feel this argument is being derailed intentionally by people here from all sides.
I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.
Maybe I should summarize these things here again?
1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.
2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.
3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.
4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.
5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.
4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)
5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.
6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.
7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.
8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, bullshit, WISHY.
No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!
I propose an idea and what do I get?
REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...
I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.
I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.
I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.
What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.
You crack me up - you must be a comedian. Seriously. You are incapable of learning a single thing. You aren't that special, bra. Why did you spend 6 years not working? Like Wish said, like you go bleating on about your current sh*t job - working a job sucks. You even answered your own question, "I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work." You can't even agree with yourself - what a freaking doorknob.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Oh, bullshit, WISHY.
No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!
I propose an idea and what do I get?
REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...
I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.
I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.
I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.
What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.
Huh, you seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people on this forum... curious... perhaps telling even.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.
You crack me up - you must be a comedian. Seriously. You are incapable of learning a single thing. You aren't that special, bra. Why did you spend 6 years not working? Like Wish said, like you go bleating on about your current sh*t job - working a job sucks. You even answered your own question, "I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work." You can't even agree with yourself - what a freaking doorknob.
Once again, taking a single sentence of many paragraphs out of context.
Why don't you try putting your response here while quoting the entire thing?
Because it wouldn't make any sense. That's why.
Obviously, my point was to illustrate the terrible depths that people can let themselves slide into, such as depression, poor decision making and self-destructive behavior when they choose not to do any work.
This reply from you is just one more piece of evidence of what a small-minded asshole you truly are.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Once again, taking a single sentence of many paragraphs out of context.
I try to keep it simple for you, so you don't drift onto something else. I will try and make it even simpler for you next time.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Why don't you try putting your response here while quoting the entire thing?
Because I'm not responding to "the entire thing." You answered your own question, so I highlighted it for you. And even then you still don't get it, or refuse to understand.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Obviously, my point was to illustrate the terrible depths that people can let themselves slide into, such as depression, poor decision making and self-destructive behavior when they choose not to do any work.
Thank god you were the only one in America that's ever happened to. No one else has ever struggled like you have. F*cksake.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This reply from you is just one more piece of evidence of what a small-minded asshole you truly are.
Still having a hard time understanding how many households are double income? Did you see that link that said average rent in Indianapolis is $800 a month? That's a big city for Indiana, so rents will be even higher there than outside the city limits. Maybe only $600 a month? Split between 2 people making $2000... yeah, you're right. There's no room left after rent to pay for the Mazerati.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Oh, bullshit, WISHY.
No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???
The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!
I propose an idea and what do I get?
REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...
I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.
I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.
I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.
What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.
Huh, you seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people on this forum... curious... perhaps telling even.
See what I mean, WISHY?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Captain Crunch is put on ignore for the remainder of this thread. Anybody else who wants to have a legitimate conversation about UBI that doesn't involve inter-sectional politics or personal attacks thrown my way, please continue.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But that's not MY main arguemtn. I have several, which I will post, again.
The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.
Quote:Me too, so let's not discuss that.
Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.
Quote:Yes, the "law of unintended consequences" at work. Generally, if you want to promote a particular behavior, you reward it, so if you "reward" poverty with "assistance" you will promote dependence.
My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)
Quote:What about Federal unemployment insurance? During the last downturn, when many people lost their jobs, unemployment saved a lot of people. I bring this up because "not working" isn't always an individual choice, sometimes people can't find jobs. Federal unemployment has an individual funding stream.
I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.
Maybe I should summarize these things here again?
1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.
Quote:There ARE steps to remove people who don't belong. People are re-evaluated every five to seven years, or more often if "they" feel that the recipient's condition may improve.
2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.
Quote:I suggested coordinating Social Security with UBI, or simply making people receiving Social Security ineligible for UBI.
3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.
Quote:Removing the limit on Social Security is estimated to collect and extra $100 billion per year.
4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating
THERE IS NO UPPER WAGE LIMIT FOR MEDICARE TAXES. In fact, currently employers are mandated to charge EXTRA on incomes over $200,000, so no additional income would arise from Medicare taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751
There is currently no UBI tax, and its amount would have to be calculated.
Quote:Short-term capital gains (I found out) are already taxed, and they're taxed as "ordinary income". Since most people who claim short-term capital gains are probably high income earners (somewhere above a 12% tax bracket) it's likely that taxing short-term capital gains at Social Security and Medicare tax rates would lead to a REUCTION in taxes, not an increase. UBI taxes? TBD.
5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.
Quote:
4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.
I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.
But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.
So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.
But in a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.
Well... yes and no.
The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.
Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.
But you are right. I'm not a good example of why it would work. I've said so many times in this thread that I'm an extreme outlier, and that I fully recognize that.
My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)
I feel this argument is being derailed intentionally by people here from all sides.
I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.
Maybe I should summarize these things here again?
1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.
2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.
3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.
4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.
5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.
4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)
5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.
6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.
7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.
8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range frNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, let me just throw out there that the quote system here is rediculously outdated and it is a chore to try to keep these broken down reply threads going.
Quote:
The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.
Quote:
But that's not MY main arguemtn. I have several, which I will post, again.
Okay.
Quote:
Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.
Quote:
Me too, so lest's not discuss that.
Okay.
Quote:
My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)
Quote:
Yes, the "law of unintended consequences" at work. Generally, if you want to promote a particular behavior, you reward it, so if you "reward" poverty with "assistance" you will promote poverty.
Can we agree on a few things here first? These are fundamental arguments in favor of the UBI that are necessary to be agreed upon or else the UBI simply doesn't even merit any further discussion.
1. The UBI would not be poverty assistance, since everybody in the country no matter their income would receive it.
2. Existing forms of poverty assistance that I'm speaking of eliminating and replacing with the UBI reward bad behavior and promote poverty.
Quote:
I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.
Maybe I should summarize these things here again?
1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.
Quote:
What about Federal unemployment insurance? During the last downturn, when many people lost their jobs, unemployment saved a lot of people. I bring this up because "not working" isn't always an individual choice, sometimes people can't find jobs.
I'm open to discussing this further. Technically, part of your income wages go to "unemployment insurance". I don't know the ins and outs of how that system works, so it's up for debate if that's just another ponzi scheme or if it can be considered a genuinely compartmentalized and self-sustaining program or not.
Quote:
2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.
Quote:
There ARE steps to remove people who don't belong. People are re-evaluated every fix to seven years, or more often if "they" feel that the recipient's condition may improve.
If they're anything like the programs I have been on in the past (food stamps, Obamacare, etc.), the checks are leaving a lot to be desired. Indiana specifically has made new checks and requirements that I agree with 100% even though they preclude me from most of these programs.
I don't think anyone would genuinely argue with me that there are people who are taking advantage of this system though.
This may be moot, however, if there is a reduction of benefits across the board when everyone gets the UBI. It's my personal belief that really the only ones that should be receiving the full benefit are the individuals who are practically vegetables and are unable to wipe their own asses. I'm talking about the people who not only can't work, but end up putting a life-altering burden on any loved ones that need t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.
I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.
I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.
Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.
I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.
I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.
I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.
Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.
I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?
Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.
Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.
I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.
I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.
Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.
I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:
If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?
How many users of other drugs DO NOT use alcohol or cigarettes too? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I do know that when anybody cites research regarding smoking pot and driving that a vast majority of those who were intoxicated also had alcohol in their system, and that it is extremely rare that somebody smoking pot exclusively is part of those statistics.
The longer your hair is, the longer they can test for pot in your system via your hair. Shaving your head is not an acceptable solution. As far as I'm aware, the only entities that test hair follicles are Union jobs. If you don't have any hair on your head, they will get it elsewhere, and on every other part of your body with the hair being shorter and growing much slower, the concentration is greater and you're even more likely to fail. Unless you've got that crazy disease where you lost all of your body hair, you're just not going to get that cushy Union job if you walk into the doctor's office with no eyebrows.
Any local governments that I have known of don't do anything beyond urine testing when somebody has to "drop" for any type of probation. Hair testing is too cost prohibitive.
Quote:
Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.
Okay. Sounds good. I did throw out the $800 number in an earlier reply and stated that $1,000 isn't some magic number we have to go by. Don't see why $500 isn't an option either. I don't think there's any way that somebody in their right mind could claim that $500 per month would be enough for somebody to sit on and not do any work. The only issue here is that if we're eliminating all other forms of social safety nets for the UBI then there are going to be millions of people who have a much lower quality of life overnight at only $500 per month.
Quote:
Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.
You're right. Perhaps the answer lies in your consumption tax idea.
Look man...
All I know is that something needs to change. We're about two steps away from rioting on the streets, and all it's going to take is one domino to fall for the whole damn system to fall apart.
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the UBI isn't. It's unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unemployment Insurance.
This seems to be vastly different from one State to another.
Unlike Social Security, I consider UI to be part of a Social Safety Net, and the original intent was admirable.
But it has practically become a mangled mess. I would agree to fix it, not eliminate it. I hear people talking about the pitfalls, and regarding several States, but not most.
If somebody is receiving UI Benefits, or Payments, based upon work/job that they previously performed, most of the time these payments cannot pay their bills.
If they try to work some part-time job, the benefit payments seem to be reduced in some proportion, with a weekly calculation. Working part-time this way can effectively extend the benefit payment total, because the UI fund is no longer being depleted for the full amount each week. My opinion is that this is worthwhile, and also more productive, and should be encouraged by the Government, which also reduces Unemployment. BUT, if the worker works too many hours, even at low pay, then ALL Benefit payment for that week are taken away. This is the Agency in charge of Unemployment - does this seem counterproductive for them to punish or disincentivize underemployed persons for working? And if the Beneficiary schedules a job interview and the employer directs them not to come to work that day, then the Beneficiary has a full day of pay deleted from their payment for the week. These disruptions and losses of Benefits mean the person attempting to work cannot pay their bills. This stuff might seem like detail, but how are these Agency actions reasonable for we as a society to endorse? I would want Unemployment Agencies to encourage people to work, not penalize them for trying to work. It sounds like this happens in many States.
If something helps fix that, then I would support it. I support giving the needy a helping hand, but not pushing them back down into their hole.
To discuss Federal funding of Unemployment Insurance, we should not only look at low levels like now, but also at levels around 2011ish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.
I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.
I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.
Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.
I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:
If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?
The longer your hair is, the longer they can test for pot in your system via your hair. Shaving your head is not an acceptable solution. As far as I'm aware, the only entities that test hair follicles are Union jobs. If you don't have any hair on your head, they will get it elsewhere, and on every other part of your body with the hair being shorter and growing much slower, the concentration is greater and you're even more likely to fail. Unless you've got that crazy disease where you lost all of your body hair, you're just not going to get that cushy Union job if you walk into the doctor's office with no eyebrows.
Any local governments that I have known of don't do anything beyond urine testing when somebody has to "drop" for any type of probation. Hair testing is too cost prohibitive.
Quote:
Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.
Okay. Sounds good. I did throw out the $800 number in an earlier reply and stated that $1,000 isn't some magic number we have to go by. Don't see why $500 isn't an option either. I don't think there's any way that somebody in their right mind could claim that $500 per month would be enough for somebody to sit on and not do any work. The only issue here is that if we're eliminating all other forms of social safety nets for the UBI then there are going to be millions of people who have a much lower quality of life overnight at only $500 per month.
Quote:
Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.
You're right. Perhaps the answer lies in your consumption tax idea.
Look man...
All I know is that something needs to change. We're about two steps away from rioting on the streets, and all it's going to take is one domino to fall for the whole damn system to fall apart.
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the UBI isn't. It's unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage is.
You're bringing nothing substantial to the table in the meantime.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Hair drug testing is too cost prohibitive for handing out $1,000 per month? You are insane. The hair test could be rotated once or twice per year amongst the urine tests. What portion of the adult population do you think smokes pot? About 1/3?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hair drug testing is too cost prohibitive for handing out $1,000 per month? You are insane.
I said it was too cost prohibitive for most businesses and even the government won't currently do it for criminals on parole.
Quote:
The hair test could be rotated once or twice per year amongst the urine tests. What portion of the adult population do you think smokes pot? About 1/3? Then that saves 33% of the expense of the UBI program. Or 1/2? Or 2/3? If a failed test drops you from 12 months of UBI payments, and 2 consecutive passed tests can restart your payments the next year, the cost prohibitive claim is insipid.
If people who are working want to avoid being tested, they could have the option of foregoing their UBI payments, further saving the program money.
I don't know enough stats on drug use, but try some recalculation of UBI funding/expense if every drug user in America does not get UBI payments, either due to Voluntary exception to avoid drug tests, or suspension due to failed drug test. I know I have had at least 2 of the hair sample tests in the past decade, so I know there must be some cost benefit involved.
I'm 100% against testing for pot, and so would over 50% of Americans, so I don't see where this conversation is going to get us anywhere. 20 years from now, it's going to be completely legal to smoke it in every state, so unless you want to start using the same rules for drinking, smoking cigarettes, or just outright being fat, then you're wasting your time here.
In the mean time, are you proposing that the UBI be denied to anybody who smokes weed in states where it is a completely legal activity?
Quote:
I am bringing nothing to the Table?
????
1. Reduce the Federal Debt.
2. Balance the Federal Budget.
We've been talking about this for decades. It is NEVER going to happen.
Quote:
3. Consumption Tax, let everybody decide on each purchase if they want to pay Tax or not.
This alone barely does ANYTHING for the people who need it most.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!
I propose an idea and what do I get?
War is the ONLY "idea" you ever talk about, and if most of the people here "can't think" WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT????????????????????????????????????
Talk about ANYTHING ELSE I got no problems. But you try to steer the conversation there OVER AND OVER AND OVER= manipulation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending/
The Finland experiment was grossly misrepresented in the US press.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM UBI IS TRYING TO SOLVE?
According to Time magazine it is the lack of purchasing power in Utrecht.
Quote:
Utrecht is partnering with a local university to provide residents with a “basic income,” which is enough to cover living costs, The Independent reports. The idea is to see whether citizens dedicate more time to volunteering, studying and other forms of self and community improvement when they don’t have to worry about earning money to survive. People who participate in the experiment won’t have any restrictions placed on how they choose to spend the money they receive.
But Finland is ending the program (as reported by Time magazine) because of unpopularity (as implied by Time magazine):
Quote:
While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program.
Many participants reported lower stress levels shortly after the payments began, but researchers emphasize that the short duration of the program prevents them from drawing definitive conclusions about its effects. Kela will follow up with the Finns who participated for ten years, in order to identify the long-term effects of the program.
The NYTimes reported this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-in
come.html
Quote:
The Finnish government has opted not to continue financing it past this year, a reflection of public discomfort with the idea of dispensing government largess free of requirements that its recipients seek work. …the Finnish government’s decision to halt the experiment at the end of 2018 highlights a challenge to basic income’s very conception. Many people in Finland—and in other lands—chafe at the idea of handing out cash without requiring that people work ...
BUT THERE WAS SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION IN THE NEWS
Wired UK points out that the UBI experiment wasn't being ended, it simply wasn't expanded midstream, and that it'll run to its planned conclusion at the end of 2018. 26 April 2018
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results
-trial-cancelled
Quote:
Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains. Finland is only experimenting with a very narrow version of basic income that focuses on understanding whether giving monthly payments to people out of work changes their employment prospects. ... the aim of the austerity-focussed centre-right Finnish government is to reduce the country’s 8.5 per cent unemployment rate, and the basic income trial is just one way of attempting to do that.
A separate correction for initial bad reporting was published in the Independent. 27 April 2018
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/universal-basic-income
-finland-results-experiment-pros-cons-unemployed-trial-definition-a8325631.html
Quote:
Finland has been forced to deny widespread media reports that its universal basic income experiment had fallen flat.
The trial wasn't so much an economics trial, but a psychology experiment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-inc
ome-trial-after-two-years
Quote:
The scheme – aimed primarilNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bullshit.
War is the ONLY "idea" you ever talk about- WISHY
Reality, objectivity, the internet and social media
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61638
And meanwhile, back in Fukushima....
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58737
The Norfolk Island Experiment
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=46080
Society is not the government, or the nation
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60332&mid=1
007377
What are America's interests?: Economic theories and practice
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60986
Post-modern philosphy: Is this your basis?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61873
Personality Test
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61623
The Trump trade wars?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=62271
Also, "In the Garden and RAIN!!!", "What's for dinner?" and other topics about daily life.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you resent people who discuss the actual topic and who fail to focus on the all-important you.
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES.
Your tactics are some of the most manipulative I've ever seen, and I have a Bi-polar Monster-in-law. I would pay money to get the two of you together in a room.
I think it could open a vortex of emotional vampirism that could lead to the destruction of the space-time continuum.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having thought about it, UBI as a tool to reduce unemployment as in the Finland experiment can't work because the problem isn't that people aren't desperate enough to work, it's that there aren't enough jobs available. When unemployment is that high, it's not because 10% of the adult population is lazy or entitled.
Also, I tried tracking down poll figures cited by Time "While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program." I couldn't verify those figures. But taxing working people to pay for UBI is off-target to solving the problem. The problem is the disconnect between production, personal income, and cost of goods. It's like putting air in your tires when you're out of gas.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>
the only ones that should be receiving the full benefit are the individuals who are practically vegetables and are unable to wipe their own asses
>
A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've.
You guys - you should have 'arbeit macht frei' as your tag line.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to get back to 'how much money could we save by reducing the military budget' I assumed the lowest the US would want to go is the 2% GDP minimum NATO obligation.
I thought this was a good graphic to show, more or less, how far off the various NATO members are, including us.
Wiki says that the US spent about 3.1% of its GDP on the military in 2017. I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're still paying off the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded as emergency spending measures and kept out of the formal military budget. But that's a topic for another day and deeper digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es
If we can save a maximum of 1.1% (2017 3.1% spent - 2.0% NATO minimum) and the 2017 GDP was $21,443B (by reverse calculation)(World Bank 2017 figure is $19,390B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) then we can save about $236B annually on military spending.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, to get back to 'how much money could we save by reducing the military budget' I assumed the lowest the US would want to go is the 2% GDP minimum NATO obligation.
I thought this was a good graphic to show, more or less, how far off the various NATO members are, including us.
Quote:Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?
Wiki says that the US spent about 3.1% of its GDP on the military in 2017. I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're still paying off the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded as emergency spending measures and kept out of the formal military budget. But that's a topic for another day and deeper digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es
If we can save a maximum of 1.1% (2017 3.1% spent - 2.0% NATO minimum) and the 2017 GDP was $21,443B (by reverse calculation)(World Bank 2017 figure is $19,390B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) then we can save about $236B annually on military spending.
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into nonstop series of Wars, repeatedly?
What about CIA, or paramilitary contractors. Not sure if those are included in the Defense Budget.
That graphic implies Germany GDP is $4T and Britain is $3T. I didn't know that comparison.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?
Quote:The spending requirement is per each country, regardless of how much other countries do or don't spend.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.
I don't believe the US is spending more because other countries are spending less. US military spending got out of hand during the Col War, and now we're spending to maintain dominance around the globe - not because of national defense or treaty obligations.
Quote:I don't think Foreign Aid comes under the military budget! According to this website, these are the top 10 recipients of US foreign Aid (I reformatted and edited to make it easier https://borgenproject.org/top-10-recipients-of-u-s-foreign-aid/) But afaik, the only country we're bribing is Egypt, and it's so they don't attack Israel.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?
Israel – $3.1 billion
Egypt – $1.39 billion
Jordan – $1 billion
Afghanistan – $782.8 million
Kenya – $639.4 million
Tanzania – $535.3 million
Uganda – $436.4 million
Zambia – $428.9 million
Nigeria – $419.1 million
Iraq – $347.9 million
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:The spending requirement is per each country, regardless of how much other countries do or don't spend.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.
I don't believe the US is spending more because other countries are spending less. US military spending got out of hand during the Col War, and now we're spending to maintain dominance around the globe - not because of national defense or treaty obligations.
Quote:I don't think Foreign Aid comes under the military budget! According to this website, these are the top 10 recipients of US foreign Aid (I reformatted and edited to make it easier https://borgenproject.org/top-10-recipients-of-u-s-foreign-aid/) But afaik, the only country we're bribing is Egypt, and it's so they don't attack Israel.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?
Israel – $3.1 billion
Egypt – $1.39 billion
Jordan – $1 billion
Afghanistan – $782.8 million
Kenya – $639.4 million
Tanzania – $535.3 million
Uganda – $436.4 million
Zambia – $428.9 million
Nigeria – $419.1 million
Iraq – $347.9 million
Those figures just seem a lot less than Obama numbers, for the Muslim countries. Obama's favorite Iran isn't even listed.
I wonder how much State Dept, CIA spend on these briberies and warmongering activities.
Also, about 150 more countries exist, each getting less than $350 Million per year from us, if any.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bullshit.
I'm sure I could find twice as many where you say the words "war" or "military" or "deep state"....not that I go in your threads, because I know you would turn every single one into a war discussion if you could, wouldn't you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
[Originally posted by rue:
I think you resent people who discuss ....dead horse topics over and over for sympathy or inflationary psycho-babble manipulation.
FIFY.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WISHY, as usual, providing "thoughtful" "discussion" of the topic.
Do I mention "war" twice as much as I mention anything else? Even IF I did ... and I don't know of that's true, or not (Did you tally the "mentions?" Because, of the eight threads that I started currently visible on this page, only two of them have anything to do with deep state/regime change, and none of them with war per se)... SO WHAT?
I know war must seem a long ways away from Cranialrectalinversion, IN, but I tell you that we will never get our government finances OR our economy in working order until we stop trying to control the entire globe. I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?
So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics? Show me that our government spending, our investments, our energy expenditure and CO2 emissions, and economy would NOT change for the better, even in Cranialrectalinversion, IN, if we managed to end our endless wars. Or not. I truly don't care, because if you're just going to harp and be over-controlling I'm going to ignore you.
But if you ARE going to start that discussion, then start another thread instead of derailing this one, thanks.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well now, that is just wrong, and we all know you have no evidence to support that belief.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY, as usual, providing "thughtful" "discussion" of the topic.
Do I mention "war" twice as much as I mention anything else? Even IF I did ... and I don't know of that's true, or not (Did you tally the "mentions?" Because, of the eight threads that I started currently visible on this page, only two of them have anything to do with deep state/regime change, and none of them with war per se)... SO WHAT?
I know war must seem a long ways away from Cranialrectalinversion, IN, but I tell you that we will never get our government finances OR our economy in working order until we stop trying to control the entire globe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?
So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics?
Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.
They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.
Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
With Love, Wishy.
Clear enough??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.
They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.
Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.
FUCK RUSSIA (x100)
With Love, Wishy.
Clear enough??
Remember when the Left was the party of peace and tolerance?
Nothing but hate, insanity, death threats and disgusting behavior these days, huh?
Now we can add threats against babies too.
Wow.
Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?
I think if you take a step back and surmise the situation, you'll find that the "dummy" and his "Russian troll" friends don't behave at all in the way that they do.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Huh? What does that have to do with ... anything? Aside from the fact that you're butt-hurt about the Mueller report, that is?
I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?
So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics? SIGNY
Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats. -WISHY
Quote:You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???
They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country. -WISHY
Quote:Yep. IF Russia were to invade or attack then CLEARLY we should defend ourselves. But I don't see Russia invading or attacking us, do you? But obviously you don't mind turning into a baby-killer, and you don't mind if WE invade or attack other nations, so ... WTF?
et me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicabe blah blah blah .... If Russia were to invade or attack
Quote:WISHY, gone off the deep end... posting her usual intelligent contributions to a topic.
FUCK RUSSIA ...blah blah blah
Quote:Yep. You're crazy
Clear enough??WIHSY
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?
I'm pretty sure THG would be smart enough to know the REAL threat Russians pose, but you are just dumb enough to become a sympathizer.
Gotta keep your "mind open" right, moron?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???
Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??
Realized how bad that sounded and switched to "give up the quest for world domination".... in other words "get out of Russia's way", huh??
Never. NOT FOR ONE SECOND.
I repeat.... FUCK RUSSIA.
PS, How you gonna defend the Motherland after the Mueller report now? If the report made anything clear it's that Russians are giant sacks of crap. Gonna be hard to sell those tickets to Commieland to the public now, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?
Still Tulsi Gabbard, still because of foreign policy. But Liz Warren has moved up on my list due to some speeches she gave re foreign policy. And I can't tell if her starting so early was dumb luck or a stroke of genius. Because at this point the crap they threw at her (Pocahontas) was so long ago it's completely lost its power, and her positions have been so consistent for so long they seem credible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?
Still Tulsi Gabbard
When you can't win, deflect, huh??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Never in a million years did either of us post anything remotely like that. And if you tried as hard as you could, you'd never find a quote even remotely like that. (Which is probably why you didn't include a link and quote.)
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??
The fact that you posted that has made me realize how seriously you're disconnected from recognizable reality.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?
I'm pretty sure THG would be smart enough to know the REAL threat Russians pose, but you are just dumb enough to become a sympathizer.
Gotta keep your "mind open" right, moron?
You've apparently got the most open mind on this board, baby killer.
I don't think even Marcos would ever say something like that.
Get back on your meds, weirdo.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???
Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??
Realized how bad that sounded and switched to "give up the quest for world domination".... in other words "get out of Russia's way", huh??
Never. NOT FOR ONE SECOND.
I repeat.... FUCK RUSSIA.
PS, How you gonna defend the Motherland after the Mueller report now? If the report made anything clear it's that Russians are giant sacks of crap. Gonna be hard to sell those tickets to Commieland to the public now, right?
Now I know you're crazy. KIKI and I discussed that very point: what does it take to keep a credible deterrence. I mentioned that both the explosive and the the nuclear charge need to be tested and that the best deterrence against MIRVed hypersonic warheads would be submarine based and we both think that would be the logical thing to do.
I picture you, WISHY, crazily hanging on to The Button as if it's a safety blanket, like some demented character in Dr Strangelove.
Do you know what one of your many problems is?? You don't know the difference between offense and defense. And you.... you're just plain offensive.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You've apparently got the most open mind on this board, baby killer.
I'm not on meds and never have been, but you need to be because you can't even get when I'm trolling the troll, and you don't have the vaguest notion of WHY.
Go lick your balls for an hour, dogbrain.
No really, even JSF has moments where the shit in his head clears...you are the dumbest sonofabitch here. Even the Commies smell fresh stupid and that's saying something...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME