Planet America

[sparks]

ETA: When I was young, I thought large scale education subsidies and subsidized student loans were a good idea. Then I grew up.

I take it you'd be against the idea of a Universal Basic Income then.

And it appears he wants to keep the Great Unwashed dumb. What an asshole.

[Meadmaker]

ETA: When I was young, I thought large scale education subsidies and subsidized student loans were a good idea. Then I grew up.

I take it you'd be against the idea of a Universal Basic Income then.

The short answer is yes.

Somewhat more elaborate answer:

There has to be some form of social safety net. We should not let people starve, or freeze, or suffer from lack of medical care, no matter what. If we don't have some sort of safety net, then people who have no ability to work suffer tremendously. Also, with no safety net, employers have too much power. If people's health literally would decline as a result of losing a job, then people are practically slaves.

On the other hand, if you just give people money for nothing, then many people are perfectly willing to contribute nothing and live off the labor of other people.

So you have to balance that. If universal basic income can be the way that safety net is provided, then I'm not completely opposed to it, but all the talk I hear about the idea makes me very, very, nervous, and mistrustful of the concept, because I so often hear it expressed in terms of some sort of right, and I rarely hear any proponent of the concept acknowledge that some people are just plain lazy and would be perfectly willing to let other people do the work to keep them warm and fed.

[Meadmaker]

ETA: When I was young, I thought large scale education subsidies and subsidized student loans were a good idea. Then I grew up.

I take it you'd be against the idea of a Universal Basic Income then.

And it appears he wants to keep the Great Unwashed dumb. What an asshole.

There are plenty among the Great Unwashed who keep themselves dumb, despite resources available. Many of those people attend universities using student loans.

ETA: I should clarify one thing. When I complained about educational subsidies, I was referring to university level subsidies, and specifically the way we do things in America today. The system is completely broken, so much so that Joe Biden has proposed billions of dollars to fix the damage caused by it. I fully support public payment of the cost of educating children, and I fully support some level of public payment for advanced education. What I do not support is massive subsidies based on the desires and choices of eighteen year olds.

[arthwollipot]

On the other hand, if you just give people money for nothing, then many people are perfectly willing to contribute nothing and live off the labor of other people.

First, the evidence has shown that the number of people who will do that is far fewer than you might expect.

Second, even if a thousand people are bludging off of my taxes, if it means that just one child does not starve to death it's totally worth it.

[Meadmaker]

Second, even if a thousand people are bludging off of my taxes, if it means that just one child does not starve to death it's totally worth it.

I think preventing children from starving to death falls under the "safety net" concept. If universal basic income is the only way to prevent that, then count me in on universal basic income.

Kamala Harris hasn't made any proposals that would reduce the number of children starving to death. She must be a heartless bitch with a soul black as night. Or.....maybe there's some other explanation.

[stanky]

the "red scare" has been used all my life.
it's justified the Korean War; Vietnam; and all manner of vicious clandestine military adventures; and the need for hundreds of bases, around the globe, to protect us from an ideology by the people, of the people, and for the people. hatred for Putin doesn't justify starting more wars.
how do we tally the numbers for kills by american presidents?
or is that not nice?


i don't hate my country.
i hate the parasitic disease it has.
i'd like to help it quit it's disgusting habit.

[Admin]

First, the evidence has shown that the number of people who will do that is far fewer than you might expect.

My honest opinion is that people should be able to decide whether or not they receive unemployment benefits. If they don't want to work they'll be shit employees and cost everyone money, and the amount of money invested in administration is more than just paying the benefit out.

Unemployment is an essential cog in the employment process.

95% of people faced with a choice of taking the easy money, or earning double the amount actually working, will choose the latter.

[Meadmaker]

First, the evidence has shown that the number of people who will do that is far fewer than you might expect.

My honest opinion is that people should be able to decide whether or not they receive unemployment benefits. If they don't want to work they'll be shit employees and cost everyone money, and the amount of money invested in administration is more than just paying the benefit out.

Unemployment is an essential cog in the employment process.

95% of people faced with a choice of taking the easy money, or earning double the amount actually working, will choose the latter.

But what if, instead of earning double, you would earn 20% more by working? I think an awful lot of people would choose not to work. (Especially when you factor in that there is often a cost of working, in the form of transporation, food, or clothing that is only required for the job. If there's child care involved, forget it.)

So there's a balance that must be struck. Too much benefits and it discourages work. Too little benefits and there's no safety net. Politicians argue constantly over how to strike that balance.


But....here's the thing....Kamala Harris isn't proposing anything to do with that. She's proposing subsidies for housing purchases. I think it is a truly awful idea. Why?

How do people decide what house to buy? They look at what they can afford to spend, and buy a house that they can afford. How do sellers set prices? They sell for the highest price people are willing to pay. So what happens if you give people 25,000 dollars of government money? They will be able to afford 25,000 more. So the seller will charge 25,000 more. Her plan funnels money from taxpayers to people who sell real estate.

[stanky]

violence works well for the willing.
it can get you free stuff.
it's a religion in the U.S.

i saw this editorial about the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-end-myt ... 00250.html

the assessment is that it was unnecessary.
there was wide agreement about that, in high places.
Who does something like that!!??

answer:

my country
from the start to today
we're clinically predisposed to violence
(and the extraction of wealth)

yet, we're focused on Russia and the immense threat.

i think they'd be happy to be buddies with the U.S.
other than tribal war chiefs, my guess is that the whole world is ready to move on...except us.
we're dragging our feet and our knuckles to appease the worst type of behavior for sustainability...continued movement of wealth to the few and away from the many.

[Meadmaker]

Who does something like that!!??

Somebody whose son is sitting on Okinawa waiting for orders to board a troop transport for the invasion.


I'm not saying it was the right thing to do. That's complicated. But it's understandable.