The All Things Political Topic - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office

[Gfted1]

Socialist policies dont have to be all or nothing. Lets start out with UHC and UBI, financed by taxing the fatcats into the ground, and see where it goes.  Companies dont need to be nationalized.

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Socialist policies dont have to be all or nothing. Lets start out with UHC and UBI, financed by taxing the fatcats into the ground, and see where it goes.  Companies dont need to be nationalized.

You right, neither UBI or UHC means the country suddenly becomes socialist. Look at the UK and there working NHS 

Its the taxing, sustainability  and funding  of these things that becomes a potential problem

[Gfted1]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Its the taxing, sustainability  and funding  of these things that becomes a potential problem

Maybe unrestricted immigration is the solution to our woes? More bodies = more tax income.

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Maybe unrestricted immigration is the solution to our woes? More bodies = more tax income.

That is economically true.

[Malcador]

Or just need to put 'em to work younger

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-alabama-factory-2022-07-22/

 

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

That is economically true.

No its not, they might not find jobs and  contribute towards the tax base outside of VAT, I think you call it sales tax,   so they could just end up  being recipients of social grants and a burden to  the state without contributing properly 

And no country would allow unrestricted immigration because no country has unlimited resources

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Or just need to put 'em to work younger

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-alabama-factory-2022-07-22/

 

Malc nothing beats work experience, lets not be negative 

[alanschu]

On 7/21/2022 at 10:26 AM, Malcador said:

Is this actually a problem in the US, especially Florida ?

I suppose it is if you just paint anything less right (not even left) as Communism

  

6 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Socialist policies dont have to be all or nothing. Lets start out with UHC and UBI, financed by taxing the fatcats into the ground, and see where it goes.

Ardent capitalists like Milton Friedman have also advocated for a UBI too. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070

Edited July 22, 2022 by alanschu

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

Ardent capitalists like Milton Friedman have also advocated for a UBI too. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070

Good article. I was interested by his third point.

[Gromnir]

interesting third point. too bad is complete wrong. the majority o' adult welfare recipients get benefits less than a year and 90% stop w/i five years. somewhere 'tween 1/2 and 2/3 who leave welfare w/i a year do so 'cause they found meaningful gainful employment... ~15% leave 'cause o' marriage and the remainder is attributable to a variety o' reasons.

am wondering how much further the numbers would drop if you accounted for the functional unemployable. for example, seeing as how we does such a bang-up job in this country addressing mental illness o' our homeless population, more than 25% is serious mental ill and ~45% has some documented mental illness. those mental ill individuals is not ideal future employees save for possible gop Presidential candidates and air traffic controllers.

the "welfare trap"  isn't what is advertised. darn inconvenient facts.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[Achilles]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

interesting third point. too bad is complete wrong.

I think there's a difference between "is not representative of all circumstances" and "completely wrong". I would agree with you that Friedman's take is sloppy and leaves out a lot of people's stories. I don't think that makes the point completely wrong.

As someone who grew up poor white trash, and lived around other families who were also struggling with the welfare trap, I can attest that it's very much real. Happy to look at whatever metrics you'd like to share regarding percentages.

For the record, I agree that our track record with homelessness and mental health treatment is deplorable.

[Gromnir]

we would say the friedman observation that, "The number of people on welfare has been skyrocketing. Why? Because once they get on welfare, we make it almost impossible for them to get off," is indeed complete wrong. is not almost impossible to "get off" welfare and statistics reveal most persons/families do indeed stop taking free money sooner as well as later. yeah, there is more than a handful o' folks who abuse the system. any social program is gonna suffer a free rider problem.  unlike welfare/snap/disability, with ubi it is initially rich people and middle class who will be free riders exploiting the handout, yes? based on extreme limited example o' obsidian feedback, the most ardent appeal o' ubi is a prospective free rider exploit where individuals who have jobs and own property and can afford to send kids to college nevertheless want the free money. regardless, the welfare trap is not as friedman describes... nowhere close.

HA! Good Fun!

ps to make clear, to describe as a trap near impossible to escape when more than 50% stop taking welfare w/i the first year and 90% terminate benefits w/i five years, strains credulity, no? if Gromnir or @Achilles made such a boast we would at best be accused o' gross hyperbole. 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[Darkpriest]

10 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Socialist policies dont have to be all or nothing. Lets start out with UHC and UBI, financed by taxing the fatcats into the ground, and see where it goes.  Companies dont need to be nationalized.

Need to burst your bubble... UBI is evil... 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-free-money-harvard-exeter-study-stimulus-handout-low-income-well-being-health-personal-agency-poverty-covid-11658166372

[Gfted1]

I must have hit my free article limit this month for the WSJ, can you give me the abridged version?

[Achilles]

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

we would say the friedman observation that, "The number of people on welfare has been skyrocketing. Why? Because once they get on welfare, we make it almost impossible for them to get off," is indeed complete wrong. is not almost impossible to "get off" welfare and statistics reveal most persons/families do indeed stop taking free money sooner as well as later.

I appreciate the clarification.

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make and agree that statistically, the majority of people do take welfare benefits usually only do so for a limited period of time.

However...

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

yeah, there is more than a handful o' folks who abuse the system. any social program is gonna suffer a free rider problem. 

<snip>

ps to make clear, to describe as a trap near impossible to escape when more than 50% stop taking welfare w/i the first year and 90% terminate benefits w/i five years, strains credulity, no? if Gromnir or @Achilles made such a boast we would at best be accused o' gross hyperbole.

...this isn't to say that there isn't a legitimate welfare trap. Just as there are people who do abuse the system there are also people who find themselves in situations where getting off of welfare becomes almost impossible (you either have to win the job lottery, be willing to work two or three jobs, or figure out how to make just enough NOT to lose your benefits while waiting for one of the other two opportunities to present itself).

Is Friedman painting everyone with this brush when he shouldn't be? Yes.

Does that means these people don't exist? No.

Would UBI help them? I'm going with "yes" but could be persuaded otherwise.

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

unlike welfare/snap/disability, with ubi it is initially rich people and middle class who will be free riders exploiting the handout, yes? based on extreme limited example o' obsidian feedback, the most ardent appeal o' ubi is a prospective free rider exploit where individuals who have jobs and own property and can afford to send kids to college nevertheless want the free money.

That's a question of framing and whether or not we should have means testing. Not whether or not UBI would benefit some people.

Admitting that my thinking could be wrong on this, I don't care that Bill Gates gets UBI when "he doesn't deserve it" if it means that a school teacher can quit her second job to focus on the one she loves. Or my son can quit his part time gig to focus on going to school full time. Et cetera.

Yes, I'm paying for his college because I can afford it. I'll also be paying off the parent plus loans until I die. I'll take the "free money" too please.

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

regardless, the welfare trap is not as friedman describes... nowhere close.

"Nowhere close" is fair

Edited July 22, 2022 by Achilles
fixing formatting

[Gromnir]

is worth repeating that Gromnir is a ubi advocate in the sense am recognizing that as automation becomes more common and ai improves, vast swaths o' US jobs is gonna disappear, never to be replaced. ubi, long-term, is unavoidable in our estimation. whatever resistance we got to ubi is sole based on matters o' practicality and implementation.

there has been numerous ubi experiments conducted over the decades in europe and the US and none o' those efforts has been sustainable and positive. to manage US $12k per year as some envision would require and additional near $3 trillion per year and is impossible to magic into existence that kinda money. to achieve ubi requires Congress to pass paradigm shifting legislation and am not seeing that happening anytime soon, even if all the kinks in past programs could be addressed so is feasible with a diverse republic such as the US.

HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind Gromnir also is not bothered by free rider problems in large social programs. as we noted, am disappointed, baffled and not surprised by the folks who is angered 'cause kids who ain't needy might get free school lunch or breakfast while attempting to feed those who desperate need such a program. so what if bill gates receives ubi if hundreds o' thousands and possible millions is lifted outta poverty? can't let a few hypocrites and ne'er-do-wells sabotage beneficial social programs. as we observed, "any social program is gonna suffer a free rider problem." inevitable. our point were naught save to address the most common ubi hypocrisy we has seen on these boards.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[Darkpriest]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

I must have hit my free article limit this month for the WSJ, can you give me the abridged version?

Basically that Harvard and Exeter Uni scientists found that 'UBI' does more harm than good to social and economic behaviors, and in the end is making people worse off. And here is the kicker, they were shocked by the results as they all thought prior to experiment on the control group, that it would improve how people act and feel. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Achilles]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

is worth repeating that Gromnir is a ubi advocate in the sense am recognizing that as automation becomes more common and ai improves, vast swaths o' US jobs is gonna disappear, never to be replaced. ubi, long-term, is unavoidable in our estimation. whatever resistance we got to ubi is sole based on matters o' practicality and implementation.

there has been numerous ubi experiments conducted over the decades in europe and the US and none o' those efforts has been sustainable and positive. to manage US $12k per year as some envision would require and additional near $3 trillion per year and is impossible to magic into existence that kinda money. to achieve ubi requires Congress to pass paradigm shifting legislation and am not seeing that happening anytime soon, even if all the kinks in past programs could be addressed so is feasible with a diverse republic such as the US.

I think the people who have reservations about UBI are well served to re-read your first two sentences as many times as they need to for the argument to sink in. For better or worse, folks.

As for practicality of implementation, I'm sure there are better and worse options. "Figuring it out later" falls into the latter category.

[BruceVC]

It surprises me that some of you guys in the US still espouse UBI after what you have  seen as the risk with what this  kind of social stimulus has caused in the US during the lockdowns 

There are lots of examples of companies employees in low earning jobs not wanting to come back to work because they were either earning more or could survive on stimulus. That was never the point of stimulus, it was suppose to help people who couldn't work. Not let people decide they didnt want to work

Stimulus checks were not taxable and UBI is the same and even though I admit not everyone will abuse it we now see evidence that there was rampant abuse and the same thing  will happen with UBI which will create inflation in the US because if many people dont  want to work in certain sectors around production and manufacturing, albeit on minimal wage, you will have pressure on supply chains and the availability of goods. And one of the reasons for inflation is linked to a shortage of goods...basic supply and demand mechanics

Here is a good article that summarizes the tax and other issues with UBI

https://www.niskanencenter.org/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/#:~:text=“Universal Basic Income” is Just a Negative Income,of how much they earn on their own.

[Chairchucker]

On 7/22/2022 at 1:42 AM, BruceVC said:

Who would you guys prefer in 2024 as GOP candidate, Trump or DeSantis ?

I definitely prefer DeSantis and I know the problems with some of his policies but Trump is an anomaly and far too inconsistent and I dont like Trumpism which requires Trump to be truly sustainable 

Whichever is most likely to destroy the GOP, which is probs any 'not Trump' with Trump running as an independent.

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Whichever is most likely to destroy the GOP, which is probs any 'not Trump' with Trump running as an independent.

 why do you want to see the GOP destroyed, you used the wrong word? Didnt you mean reformed and free from Trumpism ?

Did you have issues with the GOP before Trump and if so what were they?

[Chairchucker]

I'll take either 'destroyed' or 'irrevocably changed so they stop having the kinds of policies that appeal to the type of demographic who also thinks voting in a white supremacist is a good idea'.

They consistently have policy aimed at oppressing LGBTQ+ people, making it harder for poor people to live, opposing climate change legislation, making it harder for people of colour to vote, opposing any kind of gun control, maintaining a facade of being 'pro life' while opposing policies that actually reduce the rate of abortion, like availability of contraception and welfare for single mothers...

 

And the GOP as it stands right now is buying pretty hard into Trump's lies to the extent that every single GOP politician who tried to point out that Trump was in fact a lying sentient garbage dump has faced ostracisation from the GOP, with Liz Cheney for example being removed from her role as conference chair for correctly criticising Trump. They are a corrupt institution full of corrupt vultures.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

I'll take either 'destroyed' or 'irrevocably changed so they stop having the kinds of policies that appeal to the type of demographic who also thinks voting in a white supremacist is a good idea'.

They consistently have policy aimed at oppressing LGBTQ+ people, making it harder for poor people to live, opposing climate change legislation, making it harder for people of colour to vote, opposing any kind of gun control, maintaining a facade of being 'pro life' while opposing policies that actually reduce the rate of abortion, like availability of contraception and welfare for single mothers...

 

And the GOP as it stands right now is buying pretty hard into Trump's lies to the extent that every single GOP politician who tried to point out that Trump was in fact a lying sentient garbage dump has faced ostracisation from the GOP, with Liz Cheney for example being removed from her role as conference chair for correctly criticising Trump. They are a corrupt institution full of corrupt vultures.

So I imagine you going to be disappointed when we see sweeping GOP victories in the midterms?

The reality of the success of the GOP is because Americans who vote for them are more concerned with the failures of the Democrats and some of there ideological views  than the issues you raise because the issues you raise are not everything the GOP stands for and delivers on 

So the Democrats have failed to deliver on numerous policies and outcomes that Biden promised. He has had some unfair criticism but perception is reality but we will have to see how the undecided voters go. They are always the dark horse in US elections because US polling data doesnt include there views because they literally make up there mind in the last week or so and they much less  partisan 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/upshot/so-just-who-are-these-undecided-voters.html

Edited July 24, 2022 by BruceVC

[Sarex]

https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-winning-approach-to-african-investment/a-62535649

[Chairchucker]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

So I imagine you going to be disappointed when we see sweeping GOP victories in the midterms?

I will be disappointed in any and all GOP victories, yes.

[Gorth]

14 hours ago, Sarex said:

https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-winning-approach-to-african-investment/a-62535649

 

https://www.dw.com/en/china-backed-kribi-port-project-in-cameroon-leaves-locals-frustrated/a-42016788

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/08/china-africa-cooperation-investment-belt-road/

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/china-and-africa-is-it-the-end-of-the-honeymoon-period/

https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/05/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-in-kenya/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-expensive-bet-on-Africa-has-failed

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/beijing-finds-itself-cornered-by-africa-as-they-cancel-china-led-projects-121092100753_1.html

https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/chinas-infrastructure-heavy-model-for-african-growth-is-failing/

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-200-billion-gamble-on-africa-has-failed-miserably-due-to-covid-19/

https://www.ft.com/content/ca4072f6-a79f-11e8-a1b6-f368d365bf0e

 

Tl;dr; China is leaving a trail of devastation through Africa, leaving behind poor countries with staggering debts to China for useless/pointless infrastructure and wrecked local economies and environmental, ecological (and economical) disasters, which the locals can't afford to clean up again.

 

Edit: The strategic objective appearing to be a mix of getting cheap African resources and dictating African local politics.