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 14 of 24
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 STUPIDYou don't give a damn? How about $1 trillion a year? Isn't THAT worth giving a damn about?-SIGNY
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