On all the great social issues of our time, "The Left" has already won.

[Laelth]

By all means, lay out your plan and show your work.

No, thank you.  I was just responding to a comment in a thread on the proposed, Swiss guaranteed minimum income.  On that subject, I have already given my opinion.

-Laelth

[wasp69]

No, thank you...

-Laelth

Didn't think so, doesn't fit with trolling and disruption, does it?  Honest debate involving actual ideas and data rarely do.

[Laelth]

Didn't think so, doesn't fit with trolling and disruption, does it?  Honest debate involving actual ideas and data rarely do.

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.  I stand by that.  I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.  That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.  I stand by that.

Of course you do...bless your heart.  

I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.

And you've once again proven that wise old adage about avoiding trying to do math in public.  


We spend nearly 16% of our GDP on social welfare programs and it's expanding rapidly under this Administration.

I know that 12K a year may sound great to you and your boss up on the Hill...but again it also shows how out of touch with reality you inside the beltway types are.

What's going to happen when you have more people taking idiotic free stuff like this than you have workers to tax to pay for your moronic scheme?

That money HAS to come from somewhere.  And unless you plan on going to a 90% tax rate on everyone working you'll soon have more people on the dole than providing revenue to the Government via federal income taxes.  You're expenditures  will greatly outpace your income in no time.

Then what? What's going to happen to your little scheme when 75 - 80% of the people are taking this money instead of working?

Congratulations you've just destroyed any incentive an American has to work.  Which I think is part of the plan.

You libs NEVER think about the consequences of your actions...you're too tied up and invested in the emotion of the act and the optics to care about the nuts and bolts reality.

[wasp69]

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.  I stand by that.  I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.  That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.

-Laelth

You have done nothing other than say everyone needs 12k a year (at tax payer expense), and state you disagree with the cost.  All of this with nothing to back up your premise nor rebutt Chris's numbers.

If it is so pointless, and indefensible, why open your mouth to begin with?  Unless your goal is to disrupt and troll, there was no reason to begin an argument, was there?  Your lack of will to defend your flame bait, across multiple threads, says more than any half assed begging off you have already tried.

[txradioguy]

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.

Why do people deserve that?  On what grounds or Constitutional reasoning do you make this statement?

[Bad Dog]

Why do people deserve that?  On what grounds or Constitutional reasoning do you make this statement?

Because it would make Lilith feel like a good person and that he matters.

[Laelth]

Why do people deserve that?  On what grounds or Constitutional reasoning do you make this statement?

You make a good point.  Nobody deserves that.  I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.

For me, the only question, politically, is what would be best for the country.  Nobody "deserves" anything, from my point of view.  That said, and as I have argued elsewhere (but will never be able to prove to your satisfaction, so I'm not even going to try), we are all better off (and richer) when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.  Our income disparity (highest to lowest) has reached levels now that are on par with what we had in 1918.  That's a serious problem, and I would be willing to use the power of government to re-distribute that wealth (if I could) because I firmly believe that in a capitalist system wealth flows from the bottom to the top.  Because I don't want to live in a 3rd world country, I am willing to use the power of government to reverse this natural flow because, as I have said, I think we're all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

You make a good point.  Nobody deserves that.  I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.

You said yo'd have no problem with everyone in the country getting $12K.  No mention of work or something to actually earn that money.  Therefore you think it is somehow owed to them...they deserve that money just for being.

If you're not attaching any work to something then the opposite of working for something is what?

For me, the only question, politically, is what would be best for the country.  Nobody "deserves" anything, from my point of view.  That said, and as I have argued elsewhere (but will never be able to prove to your satisfaction, so I'm not even going to try), we are all better off (and richer) when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.  Our income disparity (highest to lowest) has reached levels now that are on par with what we had in 1918.  That's a serious problem, and I would be willing to use the power of government to re-distribute that wealth (if I could) because I firmly believe that in a capitalist system wealth flows from the bottom to the top.  Because I don't want to live in a 3rd world country, I am willing to use the power of government to reverse this natural flow because, as I have said, I think we're all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

The only serious problem in this country is out of control Liberalism and your Socialistic mastermind ideas that are void of thought and do not survive in the real world.

That what happens when you spend your life theorizing inside the beltway your entire adult life.  You lost touch with what's happening outside the political fantasyland that is D.C.

What is BEST for this country is to put people back to work.  And that involves repealing Obamacare, reigning in the out of control Executive branch  bureaucracy that is now essentially a fourth branch of government and taking the ever tightening restrictions off of the free market system that made this country so great.

Your childish idea will do nothing more than speed the country over a fiscal cliff it will never recover from.

[Splashdown]

You make a good point.  Nobody deserves that.  I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.

For me, the only question, politically, is what would be best for the country.  Nobody "deserves" anything, from my point of view.  That said, and as I have argued elsewhere (but will never be able to prove to your satisfaction, so I'm not even going to try), we are all better off (and richer) when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.  Our income disparity (highest to lowest) has reached levels now that are on par with what we had in 1918.  That's a serious problem, and I would be willing to use the power of government to re-distribute that wealth (if I could) because I firmly believe that in a capitalist system wealth flows from the bottom to the top.  Because I don't want to live in a 3rd world country, I am willing to use the power of government to reverse this natural flow because, as I have said, I think we're all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

I agree that we are better off when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. But taking it forcefully from the wealthy is where we'll disagree. When there is job CREATION, there is wealth CREATION!

Your idea is to move the pie from one side to the other. My idea is to bake more pie. We do that through job creation, not increased taxes or giving stuff away.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

I agree that we are better off when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. But taking it forcefully from the wealthy is where we'll disagree. When there is job CREATION, there is wealth CREATION!

Your idea is to move the pie from one side to the other. My idea is to bake more pie. We do that through job creation, not increased taxes or giving stuff away.

Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I would prefer the free market to handle these problems.  When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.

Let me also add that jobs will be created when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.  That demand is what creates jobs (from my perspective).

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Splashdown]

Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I would prefer the free market to handle these problems.  When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Don't you think there's an argument to be made that the government stepping in that has caused this "moment"? We're losing jobs to Obamacare.

The government creats nothing. It only takes.

[txradioguy]

Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I would prefer the free market to handle these problems.  When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

It's Liberal policies that are choking the free market's ability to create jobs.  Nothing the Government does will improve that.  Government doesn't create wealth and it doesn't create jobs.  It can only restrict in both areas.

The answer isn't more government...it's LESS government.

Liberals are the only political animals that think the way to fix their bad ideas is with...MORE bad ideas.

[Laelth]

It's Liberal policies that are choking the free market's ability to create jobs.  Nothing the Government does will improve that.  Government doesn't create wealth and it doesn't create jobs.  It can only restrict in both areas.

The answer isn't more government...it's LESS government.

Liberals are the only political animals that think the way to fix their bad ideas is with...MORE bad ideas.

Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long.  I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now.  On this, we will never agree.

 

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long.  I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now.  On this, we will never agree.

 

-Laelth

So the economic recover that Reagan gave this country...that lasted all the way through the Clinton years was wrong?

To look at everything positive that happened during the eight years of Reagan and beyond and call it a failure or a mistake is something only a hard core inside the Beltway Lib would ever try to say with a straight face.

For one to believe you...the piles of economic data that's been compile to contrary wold have to be completely and utterly ignored.

[Laelth]

Don't you think there's an argument to be made that the government stepping in that has caused this "moment"? We're losing jobs to Obamacare.

Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so.  I just don't buy it.  

The government creats nothing. It only takes.

Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs).  The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff.  I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so.  I just don't buy it.  
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs).  The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff.  I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

The only thing in there that you ticked off that is actually necessary for the Government to do is the military and currency.  The rest could be done more efficiently and at a cheaper cost to the consumer by private companies.

The government didn't create or build most of our airports.  That's just retarded.

[Splashdown]

Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so.  I just don't buy it.  
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks,

They were there already.

the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world),

We don't value it that much anymore...

the interstate highway system,

I'll concede that one.

the FAA, most of our airports,

Hmm... how are the airlines doing, again? How is flying NOT a nightmare again?

our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world),

bankrupt

the greatest military machine the world has ever seen,

conceded, and it's the one that is Constitutionally required.

and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs).

...that could be done far more efficiently and cheaply in the private sector--look at education, for example.

The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff.  I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.

Thanks for the response.

no, and yes, and you're welcome.

-Laelth

[NHSparky]

Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%.  That would wipe out the national defecit.

I appreciate your response.

-Laelth

No it wouldn't.  Not when you give 49 percent of the population no "skin in the game" as your beloved Obumbles likes to say.

And for the record, NO, Clinton did NOT balance the budget.  Even the GAO admits that.

[NHSparky]

Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long.  I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now.  On this, we will never agree.

 

-Laelth

Funny thing is, he was dead-on balls accurate when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."  Remember 1980?  I sure as hell do.  And the current chump-in-chief is destroying this nation and this economy in ways Carter himself would shudder at.

"REAL" unemployment is at 11-12 percent, if you use the U-3 number and factor in the change of workforce utilization from 2009 to now.  We have the LOWEST percentage of adults working since they started tracking that stat in the 1970's.  We have the LONGEST period of unemployment over 7.5 percent EVER, and if you figure it what it should REALLY be (the U-6, not the U-3) it's that much WORSE.

Now I've pointed out a number of things to you, which over the past several pages you've chosen to ignore--that's fine, you're entitled to be an arrogant condescending smartass, as am I.  But as Romney rightly pointed out, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts."  And the fact is, this country is in the shitter, barely getting by (if that) and there's an economic shitstorm of epic proportions that'll make 2008 look like an episode of Romper Room.  You want a ****ed up country?

Nationalize 1/6th of the economy, which is why the Democrats are trying to do, and watch the whole thing just go to warm runny shit.

[NHSparky]

Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so.  I just don't buy it.  
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs).  The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff.  I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Again, they didn't create shit.  The parks were already there.  Someone just put a fence around it and called it a park.  As for the remainder of your examples, really?  You want to use the USPS as an example of government success?

Stop. Hurt. Sides. Laughing.  If the Founding Fathers had seen exactly what the USPS would turn into today, I'd be willing to bet they'd have ripped that ****ing clause right out of the Constitution.  The Interstate Act did in fact allow for greater mobility and trade, but the government did NOT dictate which companies used those roads--in fact, a lot of trade still goes by rail--remember who made those? Then, to maintain said roads, who exactly gets THOSE contracts?  I leave you with some stellar examples of "work" from government sources and funding that would have made Al Capone blush from shame such as the Big Dig, pretty much any Caltrans project, etc.

And as former military member, while I will acknowledge that it is the best, most powerful, and most highly regarded force of fighting men (and women) the world has ever seen, even the bureaucracy there isn't without substantial drawbacks.  We have more admirals than ships.  And if you on the left had your way, Carter's "hollow force" would become the norm.  In fact, we spend a lower percentage of GDP on our military than we EVER have--and that's a Constitutionally-mandated function!  Is welfare?  Is the EPA?  Is Social Security?

Sure--the government employs millions of people--and it could do with millions fewer than it has today.

[wasp69]

Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long.  I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now.  On this, we will never agree.

 

-Laelth

A very myopic non sequitur that serves no other purpose than disruption and flame bait.  That was a stupid remark and is, as you already know, a lie.

[Laelth]

Funny thing is, he was dead-on balls accurate when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."  Remember 1980?  I sure as hell do.  And the current chump-in-chief is destroying this nation and this economy in ways Carter himself would shudder at.

Yes, I remember 1980, and, as you might imagine, I am a fan of our 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr.  As I have also said, I think Reagan was wrong when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."  I think Reagan did a lot of damage to this country with that statement, and we have not yet recovered from it.  Obama, for his part, can't do much of anything (from my perspective).  If he could, I'd be seeing some serious, liberal reform right now.  Instead, Obama is fighting for the ACA, an expensive band-aid on a broken health-care system that was thought up by the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s.  This is not where I wanted to be in the second term of a Democratic President.

"REAL" unemployment is at 11-12 percent, if you use the U-3 number and factor in the change of workforce utilization from 2009 to now.  We have the LOWEST percentage of adults working since they started tracking that stat in the 1970's.  We have the LONGEST period of unemployment over 7.5 percent EVER, and if you figure it what it should REALLY be (the U-6, not the U-3) it's that much WORSE.

I buy all of that.  We are in trouble.  This is a big problem.  Fine.  If your only goal is to place blame, have at it.  I don't care who's to blame.  I just want it fixed.

Now I've pointed out a number of things to you, which over the past several pages you've chosen to ignore--that's fine, you're entitled to be an arrogant condescending smartass, as am I.  But as Romney rightly pointed out, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts."  And the fact is, this country is in the shitter, barely getting by (if that) and there's an economic shitstorm of epic proportions that'll make 2008 look like an episode of Romper Room.  You want a ****ed up country?

Well, I agree with Romney on the opinions vs. facts issue.  While I don't see financial collapse on the horizon now (I did in 2008), it's possible that a financial collapse of the kind you envision could get us to where I think we need to go, and I have said so elsewhere.

Nationalize 1/6th of the economy, which is why the Democrats are trying to do, and watch the whole thing just go to warm runny shit.

Does it really matter, at this point, what Democrats are trying to do?  They're having trouble preserving the ACA, a law that was passed three years ago.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans can do much right now at the federal level.  Our government is divided.

Sorry if I let some of your previous posts pass without a response.  CC keeps me quite busy when I post here.

 

-Laelth

[biersmythe]

Yes, I remember 1980, and, as you might imagine, I am a fan of our 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr.  As I have also said, I think Reagan was wrong when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."  I think Reagan did a lot of damage to this country with that statement, and we have not yet recovered from it.  Obama, for his part, can't do much of anything (from my perspective).  If he could, I'd be seeing some serious, liberal reform right now.  Instead, Obama is fighting for the ACA, an expensive band-aid on a broken health-care system that was thought up by the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s.  This is not where I wanted to be in the second term of a Democratic President.
I buy all of that.  We are in trouble.  This is a big problem.  Fine.  If your only goal is to place blame, have at it.  I don't care who's to blame.  I just want it fixed.
Well, I agree with Romney on the opinions vs. facts issue.  While I don't see financial collapse on the horizon now (I did in 2008), it's possible that a financial collapse of the kind you envision could get us to where I think we need to go, and I have said so elsewhere.
Does it really matter, at this point, what Democrats are trying to do?  They're having trouble preserving the ACA, a law that was passed three years ago.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans can do much right now at the federal level.  Our government is divided.

Sorry if I let some of your previous posts pass without a response.  CC keeps me quite busy when I post here.

 

-Laelth

Oh geez....Carter was a complete failure and a boob....still is. Oh and before you think about hitting me with the most likely response, and the one I always get from your side "What about Bush". Yea what about him? He was an idiot as well...he expanded the Govt as well. I do not believe in Govt. expansion. It would fit on a postage stamp if I had my way.  

Edit for sp.

[Carl]

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.  I stand by that.  I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.  That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.

-Laelth

Am I correct is the presumption that your 12/k minimum is for an individual that pays 0 dollars in taxes?