(03-02-2017 10:51 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.

However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

You can't fix stupid. Some will be like that. Others would use it as a way to change their existence in a positive manner.

Some will, but the number in the stupid category will be far too large for my liking.......and other's I presume. Nothing makes a taxpayer (the guy who is in the negative with the income redistribution, and that's what this is) more p!ssed off that to stand in the grocery line and see some lazy clown purchasing junk goodies with the government's handout.

This promotes dependency on the government. You don't think we have too much of that now?? And you believe those on the dole today are good stewards of that handout they get??

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.

However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Many people on FoodStamps and all that do not abuse it. As a kid, my parents were qualified for foodstamps and all that, and they never abused it. They bought food and all that to make sure that me and my sister do not go hungry. They made sure they buy me and my sister new clothes before they get new ones. They sacrifice to make me and my sister be provided for. Sadly, you do not see that in many cases were parents do not make sacrifices for their own kids. It is like abusing them.

(03-02-2017 11:27 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:51 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.

However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

You can't fix stupid. Some will be like that. Others would use it as a way to change their existence in a positive manner.

Some will, but the number in the stupid category will be far too large for my liking.......and other's I presume. Nothing makes a taxpayer (the guy who is in the negative with the income redistribution, and that's what this is) more p!ssed off that to stand in the grocery line and see some lazy clown purchasing junk goodies with the government's handout.

This promotes dependency on the government. You don't think we have too much of that now?? And you believe those on the dole today are good stewards of that handout they get??

If you think it's bad now. It's soon to get much worse. It's not about a bunch of useless sh!ts who don't want to work. It's about a bunch of people who want to work. But can't find a job. Because they have become unemployable, or the fact that the only jobs they can find are part-time ,and it's not just about the low skilled labor. If you haven't watched the doc Humans need not apply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Give it a watch. It's an eye opener.

Raise the minimum wage to $500,000 per hour. Everyone in the country can all work a few days and retire. It will be a friggin' Utopia.

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.
However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Most proposals are somewhere in the range of $5500-$10,000/year. And that goes for everybody--the homeless guy living under the bridge, Bill and Melinda Gates, everybody in between. One reason that it works is that our present welfare system is so overloaded with gatekeepers and administrators that you could actually do something like this for not that much more money than we are spending on welfare now. Combine this with Bismarck universal private health insurance, and you would have a much more comprehensive safety net than we have today, without the "welfare trap" provisions that make climbing out of poverty economically unattractive.

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.

However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Sounds like the Habitat for Humanity house that was built in our first due area. The family hadn't been in the house a year yet when we had a oven fire there because of all the spilled food left in the oven ignited and smoked up the house. As we were clearing the smoke our room by room there were holes in the walls, carpet was stained and burned, they had been parking in what was once a nice sod front yard. The interior of the house looked like it was 15 years old. Absolutely disgusting.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resourc...models.php


For those that want to compare healthcare models.

As an idea yes.

(03-02-2017 08:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  As an idea yes.

Do you question its effectiveness or need? or both?

(03-02-2017 08:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resourc...models.php
For those that want to compare healthcare models.

A few minor details are inaccurate. For example, under Bismarck the insurance companies are non profit in Germany (although they get there by operating at a profit and bonusing it all out to top executives at year end) whereas in Holland they are profit-seeking and in France they are a mix. And the "free" side of a Bismarck system is highly regulated, but the "pay" side not so much.

But not a bad place to start to try to get an understanding.

(03-02-2017 10:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 08:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  As an idea yes.

Do you question its effectiveness or need? or both?

I question its execution.

NO.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Kinda catchy.

(03-02-2017 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.
However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Most proposals are somewhere in the range of $5500-$10,000/year. And that goes for everybody--the homeless guy living under the bridge, Bill and Melinda Gates, everybody in between. One reason that it works is that our present welfare system is so overloaded with gatekeepers and administrators that you could actually do something like this for not that much more money than we are spending on welfare now. Combine this with Bismarck universal private health insurance, and you would have a much more comprehensive safety net than we have today, without the "welfare trap" provisions that make climbing out of poverty economically unattractive.

I would rather phase down the contributions through about 80,000 of gross income. Eliminate the layers of welfare, eliminate most, if not all tax deductions, and make it so that everyone is paying income taxes, even if it's a trivial amount, just to make it clear that they are stakeholders too. Increase the ubi to those that really need it and phase it down to nil for those that don't.

(03-03-2017 11:30 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.
However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Most proposals are somewhere in the range of $5500-$10,000/year. And that goes for everybody--the homeless guy living under the bridge, Bill and Melinda Gates, everybody in between. One reason that it works is that our present welfare system is so overloaded with gatekeepers and administrators that you could actually do something like this for not that much more money than we are spending on welfare now. Combine this with Bismarck universal private health insurance, and you would have a much more comprehensive safety net than we have today, without the "welfare trap" provisions that make climbing out of poverty economically unattractive.

I would rather phase down the contributions through about 80,000 of gross income. Eliminate the layers of welfare, eliminate most, if not all tax deductions, and make it so that everyone is paying income taxes, even if it's a trivial amount, just to make it clear that they are stakeholders too. Increase the ubi to those that really need it and phase it down to nil for those that don't.

Funny how people have no qualms about spending someone else's money or treating something that someone else owns like crap - but with a little skin in the game attitudes change.......

(03-03-2017 11:41 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 11:30 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Guys I misunderstood. It's $5500 a year.
However. As someone who lived through Katrina and the FEMA handout debacle, it's not a good idea. FEMA gave money to displaced people to pay for living, food, etc. Some people pissed it away on TVs, Louis Vuitton bags, xBoxes, etc. Then cried when they were evicted from their hotels or didn't have food. Saw it. Local churches opened their doors, gave them places to sleep and free food, then claimed it was not good enough or destroyed the living space. I'm not a fan of passing out free money.

Most proposals are somewhere in the range of $5500-$10,000/year. And that goes for everybody--the homeless guy living under the bridge, Bill and Melinda Gates, everybody in between. One reason that it works is that our present welfare system is so overloaded with gatekeepers and administrators that you could actually do something like this for not that much more money than we are spending on welfare now. Combine this with Bismarck universal private health insurance, and you would have a much more comprehensive safety net than we have today, without the "welfare trap" provisions that make climbing out of poverty economically unattractive.

I would rather phase down the contributions through about 80,000 of gross income. Eliminate the layers of welfare, eliminate most, if not all tax deductions, and make it so that everyone is paying income taxes, even if it's a trivial amount, just to make it clear that they are stakeholders too. Increase the ubi to those that really need it and phase it down to nil for those that don't.

Funny how people have no qualms about spending someone else's money or treating something that someone else owns like crap - but with a little skin in the game attitudes change.......

yep, time for everyone to pay their fair share.

(03-03-2017 10:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 08:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  As an idea yes.

Do you question its effectiveness or need? or both?

I question its execution.

No kidding. Can anyone name ONE thing the Federal government actually executes in an efficient manner on an ongoing basis.........I can't think of one save wasting lots of money. Why would anyone expect efficiency with this?

I question the morality of it... If possible a man should work to feed himself. This spits in the face of that.

(03-03-2017 02:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I question the morality of it... If possible a man should work to feed himself. This spits in the face of that.

I don't think that does it at all.

(03-03-2017 04:29 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 02:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I question the morality of it... If possible a man should work to feed himself. This spits in the face of that.

I don't think that does it at all.

Here's the thing, the majority of people will still try and do better than this basic income level. However, for the least motivated, this is right up their alley - income for existing. I'm still not sold that this incentivizes positive behavior. The lazy continue getting something for nothing.....now, I'm not saying they don't to a large degree now, but that is what Imhate about today's safety net system. It doesn't encourage the right behaviors.