Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:51 PMStar Member applegrove (70,677 posts)All of the problems Universal Basic Income can solve that have nothing to do with unemploymentAll of the problems Universal Basic Income can solve that have nothing to do with unemploymentby Olivia Goldhill a Quartzhttp://qz.com/667208/all-of-the-problems-universal-basic-income-can-solve-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-unemployment/"SNIP.............Others are less convinced that there would be such a sharp drop in working hours, but nevertheless believe that UBI would reduce the working week. Currently, most people can’t afford to leave a job without worrying about being destitute, points out Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Massachusetts, who serves on the US Basic Income Guarantee Network Committee. “Having UBI means more negotiating power all around,†he says in an interview.As well as increasing leisure time, working less could be a massive step towards reducing the pace of climate change. Bregman points to studies suggesting that working less would half the amount of CO2 (pdf) emitted this century. After all, countries with shorter working weeks have smaller environmental footprints (pdf).“It’s pretty obvious why,†says Bregman in an interview. “We’re using most of our wealth and increased productivity in the form of more consumption.†We work more to spend more—on travel, cars, trips to the mall, exotic food, and many other products that harm the environment.Murphy adds that more employees will have the negotiating power to insist on a job closer to their home. “A lot of carbon generation comes from commuting to work,†he says.............SNIP"
Response to applegrove (Original post)Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:53 PMHydra (14,063 posts)1. I'm advocating hard for this ideaAnd a lot of people are scared of it- they're afraid someone else will have it easier than them, or that the sacredness of work is at stake.Things are still moving in various places in the world- just like legalization, it's going to take places that implement it and not having the world end when they do.
Response to applegrove (Original post)Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:00 PMroamer65 (8,697 posts)2. As long as the middle class doesn't have to bear the tax burden.It should come from significantly increased taxed on the wealthy.
Response to roamer65 (Reply #2)Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:15 PMHydra (14,063 posts)3. We already subsidize the 1% for all the money this would costIt's just a matter of taking their free toys away. They're just using it to buy our gov't anyway.
Response to applegrove (Original post)Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:50 PMerpowers (6,800 posts)4. Do Not Support That ReasonI do not support Universal Basic Income as a way to get more people to work less. In the past I did not support universal Basic Income, but I am moving closer to supporting the idea. However, I only support it as a way to help people get on their feet.To start, I think the government should give low income people between the ages of 18-24 $1,000 per month for 4 years. They could use the money to do anything they want, but they would be encouraged to use the money to improve their lives. Hopefully, they would use the money to get some form of a college degree, get some type of skill that would allow them to either get a job, or get a better/higher paying job, and/or buy clothes, or other items that would help them, or allow them to get a job.If the government wants people to have more time to spend with families, or more time to go to the movies they could just reduce the work week to four days. Either leave the work week at 32 hours, or make people work 10 hours a day.
Response to applegrove (Original post)Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:53 PMStar Member FLPanhandle (5,883 posts)5. You would have to control illegal immigration first.Otherwise the flood of people coming in to take advantage of it would bankrupt the country.
Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #5)Tue Apr 26, 2016, 01:39 AMStar Member applegrove (70,677 posts)7. Illegals don't typically get welfare today so I doubt they would have accessto a basic income plan.
I swear to God these mental midgets derive their economic philosophy from a Fortune Cookie.
Response to applegrove (Original post)Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:50 PMerpowers (6,800 posts)4.To start, I think the government should give low income people between the ages of 18-24 $1,000 per month for 4 years. They could use the money to do anything they want, but they would be encouraged to use the money to improve their lives. Hopefully, they would use the money to get some form of a college degree, get some type of skill that would allow them to either get a job, or get a better/higher paying job, and/or buy clothes, or other items that would help them, or allow them to get a job.
That's so far beyond industrial-grade in its stupidity that it would be military-grade stupidity, but for Libs' and Progs' loathing of the military.
How about Unicorn-grade?
erpowers (6,800 posts)4. Do Not Support That ReasonIn the past I did not support universal Basic Income, but I am moving closer to supporting the idea. However, I only support it as a way to help people get on their feet.
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site
Consider it stolen.
Back to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to FLPanhandle (Reply #5)Tue Apr 26, 2016, 01:39 AMStar Member applegrove (70,677 posts) 7. Illegals don't typically get welfare today so I doubt they would have accessto a basic income plan.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:46 PMStar Member hunter (23,976 posts)Should we give every homeless person a home?The Canadian city of Medicine Hat recently became the first city to end homelessness thanks to a surprisingly simple idea: giving every person living on the streets a home with no strings attached.Unlike many other homelessness initiatives, the so-called "Housing First" approach doesn't require homeless people to make steps towards solving other issues like alcoholism, mental health problems or drug addiction before they get accommodation.--more--http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36092852The obvious and experimentally verified answer is "YES!"This is especially true in our 21st century economy where increasing numbers of people are simply unemployable, not because they are addicts, or mentally ill, or disabled, but because the modern hyper-productive and automated economy simply doesn't need them.People ought to look at guaranteed housing as a safety net for themselves and their loved ones. The range of jobs and careers that could evaporate in an instant is expanding.But the best part about being human is that the vast majority of us want to move forward, break the real and imaginary chains that bind us, improve our own standard of living, and contribute to the community. Safe secure housing gives us the foundation to do that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027783812Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #1)Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:23 PMStar Member Hortensis (6,458 posts)3. Some municipalities here in the U.S. have also beenproviding homes to their homeless with some inspiring results. But it's like making water run uphill. It requires constant tending. And mental illness and severe personality disorders are endemic among the homeless. Only some "just need a break," or a series of breaks, and those are the ones who tend to still be stable in the homes over the long term.As for empty-house idea, are you sure your neighbors wouldn't mind having untreated mentally ill people and destitute and desperate drug addicts moving in?Btw, it is very likely that, as soon as your local government got the idea that your neighborhood was a good place to dump problems, they'd be delivering convicted molesters, felons, druggies, and others fresh out of jail who have nowhere to go there. Those NIMBY neighborhoods have a way of objecting and, let's face it, they have to go somewhere.No simple answers.
Response to Hortensis (Reply #3)Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:55 PMStar Member hunter (23,978 posts)5. Nobody ever talks about "functional" alcoholics depressing property values.And I've met ****-loads of them, even in wealthy neighborhoods. Maybe especially in wealthier neighborhoods.Opiate addicts, mildly supervised, on methadone or in similar treatment, are generally nicer neighbors than some of the affluent weekend raging alcoholic neighbors I've suffered.The same would be true of most meth abusers too, given some supervision and enough clean and legal amphetamines to keep them stable.
The dream life of every last DUmbfuk.Stoned out of their mind and living for free.
The Homeless Hilton, coming to a neighborhood near you. I'm sure rich, white liberals will be overjoyed to be the first ones to live next door.
Weaves, Boobjobs, buttjobs, Kardashian lifestyle is what they would use that money for! How can you be this ignorant?!!
