2016 was the Last Election for White America

Once the Capitalists understand they can't sell Gizmos to people that have no money, they will be the biggest proponents to Andrew Yang and his Universal Basic Income.

The appeal of UBI has less to do with consumption and more to do with efficiency. The problem with Yang's proposal is that he wants to add UBI to the current welfare system. That would be financial suicide.

UBI should instead replace the welfare state. It would be vastly more efficient, and we could lay off a lot of the dead weight in government. The overall cost would be a lot less than the current welfare state as well, as long as the stipend is relatively low.
 
The appeal of UBI has less to do with consumption and more to do with efficiency. The problem with Yang's proposal is that he wants to add UBI to the current welfare system. That would be financial suicide.

UBI should instead replace the welfare state. It would be vastly more efficient, and we could lay off a lot of the dead weight in government. The overall cost would be a lot less than the current welfare state as well, as long as the stipend is relatively low.

"First, if you're already receiving some forms of government aid — such as food stamps or TANF — then under Yang's plan you would choose to keep your current benefits or take the $1,000-a-month UBI instead. In other words, rather than stacking atop the existing welfare state, Yang's Freedom Dividend would replace portions of it depending on recipients' voluntary decisions.
Granted, America's existing welfare programs are shot through with capricious requirements, random income cutoffs, and a whole mess of despiriting bureaucracy that lower-income Americans have to navigate. As Yang himself put it: "Our welfare programs are designed to be difficult." Replacing that maze with a simple, monthly, no-strings-attached check would arguably leave a lot of people better off, even if some of them would have to give up some of their existing benefits."
https://theweek.com/articles/858097/andrew-yangs-ubi-problem

I agree it would be more efficient and you could cut the bureaucracy.
 
:)
Can you see a world with more people than Jobs?
A world that builds For-Profit Prisons.
Prisons that hold the 'excess people'.

We have a world today where there are jobs and people that don't want to work.

Those prisons couldn't make a profit if individuals didn't choose to commit crimes.

Prisons hold criminals not just random excess people.
 
Welcome to 2020 Trump's America!

It's not Trump's America when jobs are being created but people don't want to work.

No "business" can make a profit unless people choose to use it. If individuals don't make the choice to commit crimes, not a single for-profit prison would make a dime.

Prisons hold criminals not excess people.
 
The appeal of UBI has less to do with consumption and more to do with efficiency. The problem with Yang's proposal is that he wants to add UBI to the current welfare system. That would be financial suicide.

UBI should instead replace the welfare state. It would be vastly more efficient, and we could lay off a lot of the dead weight in government. The overall cost would be a lot less than the current welfare state as well, as long as the stipend is relatively low.

Wrong; there should be no welfare at all. Welfare creates dependency. Welfare ensures dystopia. Welfare creates malaise. Welfare is the bane of human endeavor.

If you REALLY want to make things better and prosperous, here is what you do:

(1) eradicate the Tax Code and supplant it with the Fair Tax;
(2) Term limits for Congress critters. 3 terms for the House, two for the Senate; and
(3) Eliminate the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Education.

Anything less is window dressing and won't do a damn thing to improve anyone's lives or reduce the massive debt and deficits.
 
"First, if you're already receiving some forms of government aid — such as food stamps or TANF — then under Yang's plan you would choose to keep your current benefits or take the $1,000-a-month UBI instead. In other words, rather than stacking atop the existing welfare state, Yang's Freedom Dividend would replace portions of it depending on recipients' voluntary decisions.
Granted, America's existing welfare programs are shot through with capricious requirements, random income cutoffs, and a whole mess of despiriting bureaucracy that lower-income Americans have to navigate. As Yang himself put it: "Our welfare programs are designed to be difficult." Replacing that maze with a simple, monthly, no-strings-attached check would arguably leave a lot of people better off, even if some of them would have to give up some of their existing benefits."
https://theweek.com/articles/858097/andrew-yangs-ubi-problem

I agree it would be more efficient and you could cut the bureaucracy.

There is nothing good or efficient about dumb redistribution schemes that hand out money for doing nothing. :rolleyes:
 
For-Profit Prisons creates an incentive to lock people up.

It's immoral business practices

Would it be 'immoral' if the Judge got a kick-back for everyone he sent to Prison? Or maybe he's just given free Stock in the Corporation?

Or a seat on the board of directors

:laugh:

giphy.gif
 
How do they do that? Are they sending out private police forces to find perps? I doubt you are smart enough to see how stupid that sounds.

"Corrupt ‘Kids for Cash’ judge ruined more than 2,000 lives"
https://nypost.com/2014/02/23/film-details-teens-struggles-in-state-detention-in-payoff-scandal/

"Judge Ciavarella, who sentenced around 3,000 children in a similar manner, was later sentenced himself to 28 years in prison for financial crimes related to his acceptance of $2.2 million as a finder’s fee for the construction of a for-profit facility in which to house these so-called delinquents."
 
Back
Top