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 18 of 24
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.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: 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