If you had to pick a dem running for pres, who would you pick? As we see the limited Democrats on this forum. I would like to hear who they are going to vote for?
no idea. Repub here. but I cannot recall an election with this many extreme left candidates, many openly calling for socialism. I think a few moderate (D) candidates would do well in 2020, but dems have completely missed the concept of a candidate that could attract a few republican votes while also keeping the dem base interested.
no idea. Repub here. but I cannot recall an election with this many extreme left candidates, many openly calling for socialism. I think a few moderate (D) candidates would do well in 2020, but dems have completely missed the concept of a candidate that could attract a few republican votes while also keeping the dem base interested.
No idea is correct, none of the front runners are supporters of socialism. Learn what socialism is before attributing it to anyone.
At this stage I would guess it will be Warren but my track record of picking winners is terrible. I'd like to see a Bernie/Yang ticket just to own the Cons. Is cons the alternative term for Libs?
Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist so I am not sure what you are talking about.
Bernie is a democratic socialist which means he believes in private property rights, capitalist economic system with socialized healthcare and education.
Socialism is collective property rights, planned economy. The terms are pretty similar but the systems are completely different.
I agree with Ralph... surprised as I am to say so, my bet is it'll be Warren at the nomination. Biden seems to be losing a step and Bernie can't get past his own core supporters. Crazy as it is to say a year out, but I feel like the rest of the group is just falling behind. Maybe that's just perception, but perception becomes reality.
Me personally, I really like Mayor Pete, but I don't think this is quite his time.
Who knows. If there are enough Reps to kick Trump's sorry a$$ to the curb, it could be a Republican. Otherwise it will be any Dem on the ticket. I guess nobody cares about the deficit anymore.
:I'd like to see a Bernie/Yang ticket just to own the Cons. Is cons the alternative term for Libs?
Dude??? How very un cool of you? Do you not like the USA? Ok let’s put the shoe on the other foot! Me being from the US & you from NZ. I would like to see Carrot Top & Tekashi69 ticket for New Zeland.
Dude??? How very un cool of you? Do you not like the USA? Ok let’s put the shoe on the other foot! Me being from the US & you from NZ. I would like to see Carrot Top & Tekashi69 ticket for New Zeland.
Lol, the difference is NZ is not stupid enough to vote them in!
Good point Ralph. From the Country that Voted in people like Maxine Waters, AOC, The LibTards will vote in virtually anyone, Hey what happened to Michael Avanatti's 2020 Presidential bid? LOL LOL
Don't forget that TrumpTurds will vote in anybody. Don't want to leave anyone out. I bet no one here voted for Maxine or AOC, but we do have TrumpTurds here.
Don't forget that TrumpTurds will vote in anybody. Don't want to leave anyone out. I bet no one here voted for Maxine or AOC, but we do have TrumpTurds here.
We won't voted for anybody. We won't vote in internationalists, socialists, communists, people who don't know which bathroom to use, people who don't know which pronoun to use when talking about he or she, people who tax the middle class out of existence, who try and take our guns, tell us what to say, control our lives ..... Never mind, I should just say we won't vote for democrats.
we won't voted for anybody. We won't vote in internationalists, socialists, communists, people who don't know which bathroom to use, people who don't know which pronoun to use when talking about he or she, people who tax the middle class out of existence, who try and take our guns, tell us what to say, control our lives ..... Never mind, i should just say we won't vote for democrats.
Don't forget that TrumpTurds will vote in anybody. Don't want to leave anyone out. I bet no one here voted for Maxine or AOC, but we do have TrumpTurds here.
...and yet, you espouse all of their collective libtard views while being such a wake77 (pussy) that you won't admit it. Face it!!! Your party will NEVER win on a discussion of policy. Your loser party relies on harnessing the emotionally-unstable, needy, non-productive, blood-sucking, emotional, taker, dredge of our society-while trying to fake that you contribute in some bizarre, third-world-way.
Bernie is a democratic socialist which means he believes in private property rights, capitalist economic system with socialized healthcare and education.
Socialism is collective property rights, planned economy. The terms are pretty similar but the systems are completely different.
Oh horse schitt! Everyone knows the BS slippery slope that is socialism. The only thing that's worth noting in all of this is the willingness of libtards to actually believe the country is still too stupid to fall for their fake news as well as their fake cure for their fake news.
Dude??? How very un cool of you? Do you not like the USA? Ok let’s put the shoe on the other foot! Me being from the US & you from NZ. I would like to see Carrot Top & Tekashi69 ticket for New Zeland.
...and yet, you espouse all of their collective libtard views while being such a wake77 (pussy) that you won't admit it. Face it!!! Your party will NEVER win on a discussion of policy. Your loser party relies on harnessing the emotionally-unstable, needy, non-productive, blood-sucking, emotional, taker, dredge of our society-while trying to fake that you contribute in some bizarre, third-world-way.
Some sort of internet badass here. He must still be upset I poked fun at his 400 lb. wife.
Bernie is a democratic socialist which means he believes in private property rights, capitalist economic system with socialized healthcare and education.
Socialism is collective property rights, planned economy. The terms are pretty similar but the systems are completely different.
Your party relies on harnessing the emotionally-unstable, needy, non-productive, blood-sucking, emotional, taker, dredge of our society-while trying to fake that you contribute in some bizarre, third-world-way.
the notion that any Dem is the savior their party has been waiting their entire lives for is quite laughable.
Is Trump the perfect Pres? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But WAY better than any offering the left has or will put forward. MAGA.
So we have one supporter of Mayor Pete and one for Bernie/Yang. Anyone else want to weigh in?
I will probably vote for Trump again. If I were to vote Democrat I would most likely lean toward Tom Steyer. For the most part the whole Democratic fields policy positions are homogeneous, making it difficult to distinguish candidates by anything other than temperament.
what have Dems accomplished in 3 years? Besides waste billions in taxpayers money. <--- I realize that's nothing new to them, but at some point, their job is to represent their constituents. Not start a bunch of **** for the sake of starting it.
How is it different from free police, free fire, free education, free military, free roads and highways?
Or better yet, how does such a staunchly republican state like Alaska participate in such a similar scheme and not go all ANTIFA?
False. None of that is Free. Kids in California have to pay for the bus to school. Taxes are already so high to support what you have there, that middle class is getting to be none existent.
False. None of that is Free. Kids in California have to pay for the bus to school. Taxes are already so high to support what you have there, that middle class is getting to be none existent.
Of course it's not free. It's all paid for with taxes. Collecting taxes and spending them for the public good is not socialism.
If all you are talking about is the redistribution of wealth, then is the $28B (and counting) "bailout" of farmers as the result of cancelled sales to the Chinese (far far more than the "government motors" bailout ended up costing) also socialism? If not, why not? What about the mortgage interest deduction?
Of course it's not free. It's all paid for with taxes. Collecting taxes and spending them for the public good is not socialism.
If all you are talking about is the redistribution of wealth, then is the $28B (and counting) "bailout" of farmers as the result of cancelled sales to the Chinese (far far more than the "government motors" bailout ended up costing) also socialism? If not, why not? What about the mortgage interest deduction?
Giving away 1000 a month for absolutely no reason is a very big step closer to socialism. While it may not technically be defined as socialism, it's a far cry from the capitalist system the country was founded upon.
AOC is a self proclaimed socialist. And the left parades her dumbass around like we should put her face on the statue of liberty.
Giving away 1000 a month for absolutely no reason is a very big step closer to socialism. While it may not technically be defined as socialism, it's a far cry from the capitalist system the country was founded upon.
AOC is a self proclaimed socialist. And the left parades her dumbass around like we should put her face on the statue of liberty.
It's socialism like every conservative is a right wing white nationalist I guess.
You don't really hear local political commentary. Everything is framed as white man did this or that to such and such person of color or women. They talk (democrats) like white people are all a monolithic block. They even pass laws to keep white people down like they are all rich and being white automatically makes you rich. So, if one can be painted that way so can the other.
You obviously don't know the social impact to it. All people will do is raise the cost of what ever that group of people would buy to recapture that money. It would be another distribution of money from the middle class.
Socialism is socializing the means of production and dissolving private property rights. Explain how UBI is socialism?
Is your hard earned money not your property? You can keep it put under your bed. Almost anything with it. Illegal to destroy but it is yours. It is in place of chickens, goats, and daughters of days gone by. The money you force from my hand is the more labor I have to produce to make up for it. That is socializing and forcing my labor to survive.
Basically what you are trying to argue is if I don't come down and take your grain, but instead take all the money you made from the grain sale, then it is not socialism? right.......
Giving away 1000 a month for absolutely no reason is a very big step closer to socialism. While it may not technically be defined as socialism, it's a far cry from the capitalist system the country was founded upon.
So maybe you can explain how things like the state and local tax deduction, the mortgage interest tax deduction and the earned income tax credit and the personal exemption are consistent with "the capitalist system the country was founded upon"? How is giving a credit on taxes to certain individuals not a subsidy? How is collecting less revenue than you spend consistent with capitalism (LOL I know I know -- UBER, right?)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1
AOC is a self proclaimed socialist. And the left parades her dumbass around like we should put her face on the statue of liberty.
Well that's what fox wants you to believe anyway. I guess maybe we should all settle on a definition of what socialism actually is? Then we can decide whether a policy is socialist or not.
Or is the idea just if you proclaim you are or are not a thing then it's true? Like how the NAZIs were socialists, because socialist was right there in the name (National Socialist German Workers Party)? Ergo, Bernie = NAZI, right?
Governments job should be to help Business make and employee more and more people. Help business move money. Government makes 10c on every dollar they move her in Ca. Governments job should be to help people move money, giving tax credits to simulate business to hire workers so they have a paycheck and spend money and pay taxes is basic.
Or is the idea just if you proclaim you are or are not a thing then it's true? Like how the NAZIs were socialists, because socialist was right there in the name (National Socialist German Workers Party)? Ergo, Bernie = NAZI, right?
Correct. Same with the rest of the dems demanding violent action & total control by the state. They're all copying the Nazi playbook accept they want to add a dash of full communism.
One of many ubi experiments currently taking place. This one over in Stockton. The ultimate idea is that ubi replaces most of not all welfare/assistance programs, drastically cutting the cost/overhead of managing them
Sorry for the late reply, I'm a volunteer using a texting tool and we try not to message people late at night. To pay for it, Andrew is proposing a VAT tax of 10%. It's a more efficient, fair tax and will have large tech companies finally paying their fair share. For almost all American consumers the VAT+Freedom Dividend will mean a lot more money in their pocket at the end of the day. This is how it works: for the first $120,000 you spend, or $240,000 for couples, you are still receiving more money than you pay in. But if you have a year where you spend more than a quarter million dollars as a couple, then you are just starting contributing to everyone else's Freedom Dividend. yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
That is Yang's plan for UBI. Won't putting a 10% tax on everything cause people to spend less? Maybe it would only be short term, but if you go to the store and everything costs 10% more overnight, it's got to at least be psychological to not spend as much? Of course, a lot of Americans spend outside of their means, so maybe it would help some of that? At least short term, it would have to put a hurt on the economy. Yes, maybe some people would feel richer their $12000 a year, but the people spending more than that are who in talking about.
One of many ubi experiments currently taking place. This one over in Stockton. The ultimate idea is that ubi replaces most of not all welfare/assistance programs, drastically cutting the cost/overhead of managing them
That would also be the case with the freedom dividend (i.e. $1k a month UBI). Everyone gets, not just the unemployed.
If everyone gets it, then where are you pulling the billions away from? Price of basic needs will rise to capture that offset in cash. Soon you start looking like California where you have so many regulated "have too's" that people can not even afford to by into the most basics of the standards of living
If everyone gets it, then where are you pulling the billions away from? Price of basic needs will rise to capture that offset in cash. Soon you start looking like California where you have so many regulated "have too's" that people can not even afford to by into the most basics of the standards of living
Thankfully his website isn't on the darkweb, so if you google it you are sure to find it.
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:
1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.
4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:
1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.
4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.
I call BS on pretty much all of that.
1) The town I grew up in, that $1000 would go to booze, week or meth. There is a reason that Welfare was tied to certain purchases because they already leaned where the money would go.
2) Robots and software? Where are you going to get the taxes from if you are supposedly replacing them with robots and software
3) I see Jack Daniels and Juan Pable Escobar Jr, getting billions.
4) Carbon fees are creating yet another feat currency that is going to be another rich person give away like it is in California. Tax the regular people while they give craps loads of money to the Sierra Club and other large land owners for not developing land that they could not develop anyway. All while we the consumer pay through the nose for it.
dang delta, the way you talk about where you grow up it's this inexpensive Nirvana of self reliant folks with easy access to nice schools and low cost healthcare. Why would everyone suddenly start spending their income on drugs? Remember, EVERYONE would get the money, you included. Is all that keeps you from going on a meth bender not having the $$$?
Consider that we already give thousands away in the form of exempting income from taxes -- does everyone who gets the personal exemption on their taxes use it for drugs?
dang delta, the way you talk about where you grow up it's this inexpensive Nirvana of self reliant folks with easy access to nice schools and low cost healthcare. Why would everyone suddenly start spending their income on drugs? Remember, EVERYONE would get the money, you included. Is all that keeps you from going on a meth bender not having the $$$?
Consider that we already give thousands away in the form of exempting income from taxes -- does everyone who gets the personal exemption on their taxes use it for drugs?
For the ones who want to participate. There is also a good portion of low lifes and I have seen the generational addictions and behavior. That is why they tied welfare to certain goods that can be purchased because that money will go to drugs. May not impact you and I in that manner but the people that these crazy schemes are designed to help typically don't get the memo that this helps them. You know who else had income for homeless? San Francisco. How is that working out fo them. They getting more or less homeless in their city?
Our high school has vocational and academic programs. Has an two level basketball stadium with 6 courts if they fold the seats up and run side to side. Not bad for a broke little town with a population of 19,000 and 60 miles to even the nearest mall.
It is true, it did only cost us $100 dollars for a urgent care visit with medication with no insurance needed while on vacation there. It cost us $45 when I was a teen for a ER visit when some lady pulled in front of me and my friend on our bicycles.
So if everyone gets this money, what is the point? The market will offset. It is just like credit cards right now. everyone is pretty much approved. What has costs done of products since the easing of credit? money in the market makes prices go up, not down.
The difference is and "exemption" of taxes is allowing people who EARNED their money to keep it. Not taking from those who earned it and giving it to others who did not. That is the difference I have compared to you. I don't believe that things I work hard for are yours for the taking.
dang delta, the way you talk about where you grow up it's this inexpensive Nirvana of self reliant folks with easy access to nice schools and low cost healthcare. Why would everyone suddenly start spending their income on drugs? Remember, EVERYONE would get the money, you included. Is all that keeps you from going on a meth bender not having the $$$?
Consider that we already give thousands away in the form of exempting income from taxes -- does everyone who gets the personal exemption on their taxes use it for drugs?
Also, how much of that money will directly leave the country? We already supply Mexico with their 3rd leading GNP income with cash directly leaving the country. How much more will go if you just give cash out?
Not taking from those who earned it and giving it to others who did not. That is the difference I have compared to you. I don't believe that things I work hard for are yours for the taking.
Well I guess we can just stick with the Trump/AOC/MMT model of "who cares, just cut taxes AND spend more." Which is, in the end, also a tax on you, if you choose to think about it a little.
Also, how much of that money will directly leave the country? We already supply Mexico with their 3rd leading GNP income with cash directly leaving the country. How much more will go if you just give cash out?
And China. And Canada. And Germany. That's the beauty of money. You can spend it how you want. Or even save it.
1000 a month is pennies if you are on welfare and have 3 kids. Plus all the free housing, free cable, free healthcare, free free free free. 1k is a joke. Welfare is to help people, but it turns into a lifestyle they are not going to work and take 1k to get off
And China. And Canada. And Germany. That's the beauty of money. You can spend it how you want. Or even save it.
People in the position to help do not have the luxury to save it. California in particular will suck it out of you in a heart beat. It will not change their lifestyle. All in the same post you hate the idea of cutting taxes (which is money earned from the private party and is NOT the governments money), yet want to turn around and give the same people $1000. Why don't you just let them keep it instead of creating even more government departments that would be responsible for handing out that money month after month. It would be a net drain.
People in the position to help do not have the luxury to save it. California in particular will suck it out of you in a heart beat. It will not change their lifestyle. All in the same post you hate the idea of cutting taxes (which is money earned from the private party and is NOT the governments money), yet want to turn around and give the same people $1000. Why don't you just let them keep it instead of creating even more government departments that would be responsible for handing out that money month after month. It would be a net drain.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept. The "thems" who would keep the money are not the thems who would receive it, at least under Yang's plan. As I understand it, It's a progressive tax on households who spend (not make) more than $250K per year. In that case, the 10% VAT is greater than the $12k x 2 UBI. (Pay $25K to get $24k). But for households spending (again spending, not making) $100K per year, you'd get $24K but pay 10K. Spend a million? Pay $100K to get $24K.
In the end this is a wealth redistribution scheme to spread the wealth around.
IMHO, the weak point in the idea is that the payments ($12K per person) continue even if the economy tanks, people spend less, and collections fall. And as bcd suggests, increasing the cost of most goods by 10% overnight (through the VAT) is probably going to slow the economy down.
From a policy perspective, I do really like the idea of taxing consumption through a VAT vs taxing earnings through income tax, because it doesn't penalize savers, it penalizes spenders. But I do wonder about feasibility given our dependence on no-money-down-same-as-cash-72-month-car-loan freewheeling easy spending to buoy the economy. If everyone starts behaving responsibly with their money, the economy will definitely contract.
Welfare is to help people, but it turns into a lifestyle they are not going to work and take 1k to get off
I don't know anyone on welfare, but I've certainly known people who have been laid off and collecting unemployment who haven't pursued less than perfect jobs because to do so would mean that they no longer get unemployment checks. I think the means testing of welfare is the same... get a job that pays too much and you lose all benefits. That's a pretty perverse disincentive to seeiking work.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept. The "thems" who would keep the money are not the thems who would receive it, at least under Yang's plan. As I understand it, It's a progressive tax on households who spend (not make) more than $250K per year. In that case, the 10% VAT is greater than the $12k x 2 UBI. (Pay $25K to get $24k). But for households spending (again spending, not making) $100K per year, you'd get $24K but pay 10K. Spend a million? Pay $100K to get $24K.
In the end this is a wealth redistribution scheme to spread the wealth around.
IMHO, the weak point in the idea is that the payments ($12K per person) continue even if the economy tanks, people spend less, and collections fall. And as bcd suggests, increasing the cost of most goods by 10% overnight (through the VAT) is probably going to slow the economy down.
From a policy perspective, I do really like the idea of taxing consumption through a VAT vs taxing earnings through income tax, because it doesn't penalize savers, it penalizes spenders. But I do wonder about feasibility given our dependence on no-money-down-same-as-cash-72-month-car-loan freewheeling easy spending to buoy the economy. If everyone starts behaving responsibly with their money, the economy will definitely contract.
Sounds like a 10% tax on every house being brought. Only the ultra wealthy are spending that kind of money. Usually the ultra wealthy new money crowd who have to have the new million dollar car, however the vast majority of that 10% would be from the middle class who purchase homes.
The other irony is to eco what you just said, saving money will actually tank the economy.
I don't know anyone on welfare, but I've certainly known people who have been laid off and collecting unemployment who haven't pursued less than perfect jobs because to do so would mean that they no longer get unemployment checks. I think the means testing of welfare is the same... get a job that pays too much and you lose all benefits. That's a pretty perverse disincentive to seeiking work.
Happens every day. I knew plenty of people who were on welfare. We technically qualified but did not take it growing up.
This happens to also be the unintended (or maybe intended) consequence of welfare that it has destroyed the family unit. I don't think you realize the position these people are in where they will purposely have kids to get more checks and make sure their is never a man in the house so they continue to qualify for benefits. The effect (while I am sure it is complicated) is the black community when from around 25% single parent homes to over 70%. Now we have generational problems such as drug addition, gang violence, and a large population who are in now way shape of form ready to contribute to society in a positive way.
Happens every day. I knew plenty of people who were on welfare. We technically qualified but did not take it growing up.
This happens to also be the unintended (or maybe intended) consequence of welfare that it has destroyed the family unit. I don't think you realize the position these people are in where they will purposely have kids to get more checks and make sure their is never a man in the house so they continue to qualify for benefits. The effect (while I am sure it is complicated) is the black community when from around 25% single parent homes to over 70%. Now we have generational problems such as drug addition, gang violence, and a large population who are in now way shape of form ready to contribute to society in a positive way.
While I think that most of your conclusions are uncorroborated white-folk lore, let's assume you are right. Wouldn't a transition to a system where these things didn't matter (i.e. folks just "get the money" regardless of income or marital status) make more sense? Why create perverse disincentives not to work or get married?
While I think that most of your conclusions are uncorroborated white-folk lore, let's assume you are right. Wouldn't a transition to a system where these things didn't matter (i.e. folks just "get the money" regardless of income or marital status) make more sense? Why create perverse disincentives not to work or get married?
Actually the change in single family households in the black community is fact. The income change with having married couple in the household that disqualifies them for welfare is a fact. Not sure how that is white people lore.
What shouln't everyone just get it comment ignores the basics of humanity and also the way money works. While the system should not be set up keep people from working or getting married, giving people money is not the answer either. Why is it that democrats keep wanting to try and relearn the lessons that were already learned by the democrats before them. Just giving it to them does 2 things. First, it everyone has it then it is worth nothing. Business people will find out what is getting the uptick in sales, then raise the price. Second is the always ignoring the human aspect to this all. The ones who live generationally will still find a way to stay in the system. They have no intention of leaving the system. Why make it easy and why make it so others would want to stay. Easy money right? The only ones who would suffer would be the kids. That is why they have reformed it now to where they can only buy certain products and not booze and smokes.
I see you have not thought about the middle class paying for this again. The price point is every home sales. 10% increase.
Children in single-parent families by race in the United States
BTW, kind of funny. The spike in single family birthrate started dramatically increasing right after second major welfare reform of the 1960's. The first big reform being the New Deal with FDR. Not saying that the two are absolutely related, but look at the numbers and then look at the details of what it takes to qualify. You would have to really want to try to discount it but it has to be a factor.
I'm not sure a VAT would apply to home sales? There are different suggestions for treatment of capital gains and investment income, so I don't think that every transaction of everything is supposed to be subject to the VAT. Interesting question tho, and devil is DEFINITELY in the (nonexistent at this point) details.
What your graph shows is that we have measured by different yardsticks over the years. (some end, some begin etc etc). All tend to follow the same curve. Do you have that same graph by income? That would be the interesting question -- do poor whites actually marry at a higher rate than poor folks of other races? Or do poor folks act similarly?
Or to say it another way, what is the rate of out of wedlock births among the white middle class and the minority middle class?
I don't know anyone on welfare, but I've certainly known people who have been laid off and collecting unemployment who haven't pursued less than perfect jobs because to do so would mean that they no longer get unemployment checks. I think the means testing of welfare is the same... get a job that pays too much and you lose all benefits. That's a pretty perverse disincentive to seeiking work.
I don't know the specifics on how/why on this story, but I was talking with the supervisor at our local landfill. He was trying to fill a vacancy there and tried hiring a guy for $25/hour. The guy turned him down because he would lose his welfare. I don't know the specifics to the guy's situation, and maybe it just wasn't enough of a pay bump to make him work, but he factually turned down $25/he work to stay on welfare.
I'm not sure a VAT would apply to home sales? There are different suggestions for treatment of capital gains and investment income, so I don't think that every transaction of everything is supposed to be subject to the VAT. Interesting question tho, and devil is DEFINITELY in the (nonexistent at this point) details.
What your graph shows is that we have measured by different yardsticks over the years. (some end, some begin etc etc). All tend to follow the same curve. Do you have that same graph by income? That would be the interesting question -- do poor whites actually marry at a higher rate than poor folks of other races? Or do poor folks act similarly?
Or to say it another way, what is the rate of out of wedlock births among the white middle class and the minority middle class?
Only yardstick they measured by is breaking out non whites into more refined stats. It could be a good question if it is driven by economics vs culture. If it is economics, I would think it would continue the contention that it is partially if not dramatically driven by welfare requirements.
I don't know the specifics on how/why on this story, but I was talking with the supervisor at our local landfill. He was trying to fill a vacancy there and tried hiring a guy for $25/hour. The guy turned him down because he would lose his welfare. I don't know the specifics to the guy's situation, and maybe it just wasn't enough of a pay bump to make him work, but he factually turned down $25/he work to stay on welfare.
You may have discovered the cost between living in crap and working in crap. Apparently the pay rate delta needs to be much higher. Truth be told many of these folks can't be talked out of it no matter what the pay is because they don't want to sober up enough to go to work.
I don't know the specifics on how/why on this story, but I was talking with the supervisor at our local landfill. He was trying to fill a vacancy there and tried hiring a guy for $25/hour. The guy turned him down because he would lose his welfare. I don't know the specifics to the guy's situation, and maybe it just wasn't enough of a pay bump to make him work, but he factually turned down $25/he work to stay on welfare.
We have an employee who refuses to take a raise simply because she'll lose her benefits & it'd cost her more to be on our benefits than the raise she would receive. In my mind, this is how welfare should work. She works, she makes money, she gets help from the state that allows her to live in a better apartment, put her son in a better school & have money to have a little fun on the side. Too many on the left are successful guilt ridden white people who have no clue how bad welfare is abuse or that it's a way of life for many. In my HS the Mexican girls were encouraged to pump out kids & collect benefits. The black community? Good lord, generational welfare & a way of life. The white trash in the south? Same thing.
We have an employee who refuses to take a raise simply because she'll lose her benefits & it'd cost her more to be on our benefits than the raise she would receive. In my mind, this is how welfare should work. She works, she makes money, she gets help from the state that allows her to live in a better apartment, put her son in a better school & have money to have a little fun on the side. Too many on the left are successful guilt ridden white people who have no clue how bad welfare is abuse or that it's a way of life for many. In my HS the Mexican girls were encouraged to pump out kids & collect benefits. The black community? Good lord, generational welfare & a way of life. The white trash in the south? Same thing.
Should it though? That is what keeps people on the benefits though. Would she be the only person at that pay level or is everyone at the company eligible?
Technically a family making $102,000 a year in the bay area qualifies for assistance.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
By that definition, America would not be considered "socialist" until gov controls 100% of allocation of resources and money.
Nobody is calling for socialism, but the current class of Dems definitely have socialist tendencies!
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
By that definition, America would not be considered "socialist" until gov controls 100% of allocation of resources and money.
Nobody is calling for socialism, but the current class of Dems definitely have socialist tendencies!
Some simply want a massive welfare state but can't do math. Others want the Gov take complete control so we can all be "equal" in the eyes of Marx
Almost nobody wants that. That's just what right wing nincompoops say because they are unable to argue any point which is nuanced.
That's a great point. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, are any countries actually actively pursuing Marxism? Even the red scare boogiemen China and Russia are no longer advocating for state owned means of production. It's actually a pretty quaint and antiquated approach.
Linear Mode
