• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is Universal Basic Income the answer?

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
It is by definition not someone else’s money if they don’t have legal claim to it. Federal funds going towards the general welfare is something our nation was founded on. You seem to have the intuitive understanding that wealth ought to belong to the people who put in the labor to create it, not the people who set themselves up through legal machinations to receive it without working, and I agree. The capital owner class shouldn’t exist.

When you as an individual demand money from the government you are demanding that other people's money be given to you personally. That's covetous.

There is general welfare such as roads and bridges, a strong defense etc. And there is individual welfare.

Our nation was NOT founded on welfare as it is seen today. It was founded on freedom and individual responsibility with limited government. Welfare as we see it today didn't happen until the 1930s. In the time of the founding aid to the poor was left to the states and local governments. Often it consisted of assigning those who were indigent work. Or if disabled etc they were placed in alms houses or things if that nature. They didn't pay single moms to stay home. I'd you were able bodies you were expected to work and sometimes you were assigned to people to work for. Even road building by the federal government was questioned.

President Monroe echoed Madison’s views, and added some of his own, in vetoing a bill for maintaining the Cumberland Road in 1822. He denied that Congress had the power to do this. “If the power exist,” he said, “it must be either because it has been specifically granted to the United States or that it is incidental to some power which has been granted. If we examine the specific grants of power we do not find it among them, nor is it incidental to any power which has been specifically granted.” Among those from which he could not trace the power, he declared, was the clause “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare.”[8] In an addendum to his veto message, he included this thought: “Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. The Government of the United States is a limited Government, instituted for great national purposes, and for those only.”[9]

Madison said this:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

So no welfare as you and others refer to it as was NOT the intent of the founding of this country. Not of the constitution.

Jefferson said this:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

You have a woeful understanding of history.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I stand corrected. The top 20% pays the majority of taxes. Its also logical, regarding how much wealth they own compared to the rest 80% of Americans.

They pay more in the total amount, because they have so much more in the total wealth.

actual-wealth-distribution.jpg

Yes the top 50% pay about 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,602
European Union
✟236,139.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes the top 50% pay about 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%.
Seems like the very small percentage of the wealthiest Americans actually own the country and pay the gov. Like some kind of oligarchy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MorkandMindy
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
That’s not what unemployment insurance is, though, it’s “insurance”, it’s right there in the title.

It's insurance in case you can't get a job. Theses days there is no excuse for not getting a job if you are able bodied.

I've been on unemployment after being laid off. But I busted my hump to find a job when there were few jobs to be had. Unemployment is for those situations. But I went door to door business to business to find a job. And I did eventually.

Today there is even less excuse as there are help wanted signs everywhere. If you are able bodied and not working you are slacking. It would be one thing if there were no jobs. But that isn't the case.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Its not about "deserving" its about realizing that public insurance for eveybody or free education for everybody is more effective than "everybody for himself" in the long run. In developed societies.

And the most developed countries in Europe now experiment with the basic income as an alternative to various social benefits, it could be cheaper, because it will not need so many forms and office workers to administrate it. So instead of benefit for housing, benefit for electricity, retirement payments... there will be just one benefit.


What is the alternative:
a) abortion
b) taking her baby to work place
c) losing job and homelessness
d) being rich

In developed societies (USA is still not there) all citizens have elementary securities so that they do not have to fear their whole life that they will get sick, injured, pregnant or lose job.

It will make life good for everyone, not just for the few on the top like in the USA.

How about mom goes to school or trade school? I'd pay for child care for that. At least she is doing something to earn her keep. She will eventually get to the point where she will be better off and be able to provide for herself and her kids. Oh and by the way, she has to go to school for a career that actually pays.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
What we need is to round up the people that will not work and put them and their children in work camps to make sure they either pull their weight in society or face punishment or death if they do not comply.

This way every one works for their food. Don't comply with work orders no food. Do it too many times the children get to see their lazy mother shot in the fields.

Maybe the children will learn to be hard working obedient members of society.

Yeah that's what we believe. :doh:

Your too funny:ebil:
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,602
European Union
✟236,139.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How about mom goes to school or trade school? I'd pay for child care for that. At least she is doing something to earn her keep. She will eventually get to the point where she will be better off and be able to provide for herself and her kids. Oh and by the way, she has to go to school for a career that actually pays.
Child needs to be with the mother, not in a daily child care. At least the first years of life. Its necessary for a healthy development. I am not sure why should moms go to school (or to work) during the early maternity. Sounds like some dystopian movie.

Early Mother-Child Separation, Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: MorkandMindy
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
My hospital is losing 4 department chiefs including one at the executive level in the next month. As a GenXer, I'm a bit hopeful that these roles will get filled by my generation as these are all folks in the boomer generation and honestly, they have held up a lot of progress because they really couldnt be bothered to do new things.

Ahhh... The constant complaint of the young. Just wait until you get there and then all the young will say the same thing about you! Lol.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I left out food, heating, phone, and transport.

Including those costs but omitting medical costs, I actually turned an overall profit.

I would have turned a small profit that year in any advanced country other than the US. The problem is the US has a for-profit healthcare system.

Getting government help with health care costs is not for most people a benefit but a necessity.

Profit-making off the healthcare system doubles our healthcare costs.

(and no, I don't know why Elizabeth Warren was claiming single-payer would cost more)

I do agree we need to do something about the cost of healthcare. I actually think private insurance has been a large part of the problem. The further we remove the patient from the doctor and the payments the worse it is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MorkandMindy
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
No there is not. and that is the point. The wealthy desire to rule over a vast pool of people too desperate and busy fighting with each other over the crumbs that they toss that they are easy prey for the wealthy to enslave.
They will not truly be content untill the working poor are so desperate that they are willing to sell themselves into slavery just to survive.

Yes there is. About 50% of Americans are middle class. As the middle class shrinks most of Those that leave the middle class usually go into the higher classes. A very small percentage drops into a lower class.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Child needs to be with the mother, not in a daily child care. At least the first years of life. Its necessary for a healthy development. I am not sure why should moms go to school (or to work) during the early maternity. Sounds like some dystopian movie.

Early Mother-Child Separation, Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families

They do it because they have to. Ideally dad would be the bread winner and mom found stay home. They may not have much money, but enough to get by. We did it. My wife stayed home to raise the kids. And we didn't have much money. No cable tv, no cell phones, one car, but we did it because we wanted to. Birthdays and Christmas was limited. Vacations were at Grandma's house. Clothes only when needed. But my kids got what was necessary and we survived.

It wasn't easy.

But sometimes you can't do that. Especially if you are a single mom. In that case mom needs to go to work or school. Not sit home while others foot the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bèlla
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,492
13,882
Earth
✟242,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
It's insurance in case you can't get a job. Theses days there is no excuse for not getting a job if you are able bodied.

I've been on unemployment after being laid off. But I busted my hump to find a job when there were few jobs to be had. Unemployment is for those situations. But I went door to door business to business to find a job. And I did eventually.

Today there is even less excuse as there are help wanted signs everywhere. If you are able bodied and not working you are slacking. It would be one thing if there were no jobs. But that isn't the case.
There, there.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟265,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I stand corrected. The top 20% pays the majority of taxes. It's also logical regarding how much wealth they own compared to the other 80% of Americans.

They pay more in the total amount because they have so much more in the total wealth.

They pay my share of the taxes because they have my share of the money.

The profit I made for the last company I worked in, was split in practice roughly 8% to me and 92% for the company. And yes, I did take into account all overheads.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟265,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Child needs to be with the mother, not in a daily child care. At least the first years of life. It's necessary for a healthy development. I am not sure why should moms go to school (or to work) during the early maternity. Sounds like some dystopian movie.

Early Mother-Child Separation, Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families

That is usually true and for mothers to remain at home for at least the first three years would be good for the future of the country. UBI would help with this as well as helping lower-income people afford to make good choices. And I have known women to study and work while at home and looking after children.

And the US could easily afford it, but most of the rich are just taking as much as they can get now and don't care at all about the country.

But there are some rich people who do care about the country: (6m 56s)
 
  • Useful
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
They pay my share of the taxes because they have my share of the money.

The profit I made for the last company I worked in, was split in practice roughly 8% to me and 92% for the company. And yes, I did take into account all overheads.

And that's not fair?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
That is usually true and for mothers to remain at home for at least the first three years would be good for the future of the country. UBI would help with this as well as helping lower-income people afford to make good choices. And I have known women to study and work while at home and looking after children.

And the US could easily afford it, but most of the rich are just taking as much as they can get now and don't care at all about the country.

But there are some rich people who do care about the country: (6m 56s)

It's one thing when a person does something on their own to help. That is how it should be. But people shouldn't be forced to do more. Especially when they are already footing the vast majority of the bill already.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,602
European Union
✟236,139.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Especially if you are a single mom. In that case mom needs to go to work or school. Not sit home while others foot the bill.
But thats the point of common social insurance. Your money are helping the mom to raise a good child and the child when adult will pay your retirement or your medical expenditures or your unemployment benefits if you lose your job.

If the child will be with a caring full time mother (and later in childhood with father who will not be at home just on some weekends or late in the evenings), then the child has much higher probability not to be a criminal, not to be in drugs, to get higher education and to have a better paid job and create next stable generation/family.

The social part of taxes is simply an investment into the society as a whole in which you all live in. Its the common project of all, like one big family, so that you do not have to struggle with various life events like in the past, because the net of others is keeping you standing.

Also, do you think its possible that the high abortion rate in the USA has something to do with the fact that you are so tough on each other and resisting to have some common share of the wealth?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brihaha
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,602
European Union
✟236,139.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We did it. My wife stayed home to raise the kids. And we didn't have much money...my kids got what was necessary and we survived. It wasn't easy.
Thats the point. Why not to make it easy?

I understand that it was rough in the past, practically for the whole existence of humanity.

But we want the next generations to have a better life than us, dont we? And the society is so developed today that its possible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GreekOrthodox
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,241
9,090
65
✟431,854.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
But thats the point of common social insurance. Your money are helping the mom to raise a good child and the child when adult will pay your retirement or your medical expenditures or your unemployment benefits if you lose your job.

If the child will be with a caring full time mother (and later in childhood with father who will not be at home just on some weekends or late in the evenings), then the child has much higher probability not to be a criminal, not to be in drugs, to get higher education and to have a better paid job and create next stable generation/family.

The social part of taxes is simply an investment into the society as a whole in which you all live in. Its the common project of all, like one big family, so that you do not have to struggle with various life events like in the past, because the net of others is keeping you standing.

Also, do you think its possible that the high abortion rate in the USA has something to do with the fact that you are so tough on each other and resisting to have some common share of the wealth?

And as long as mom keeps having babies we will keep ponying up the dough.

Common social insurance should be for the emergency or based on real need. I lose my job through no fault of my own. And I need a bit if help in the short term as I get another one. I become perminently disabled and can't survive on my own. My husband dies and I've been a stay at home mother and have no income. So I need a bit of assistance until I get a job to pay the bills or go to school to be able to get a good job.

It's not meant for "I want to stay home with my kids, so everyone else should support me and give me their money."

Come on a LOT of parents have two working parents and the kids are okay. Is it best? No. But we are are going to pay for mom to stay home? What unmitigated Gaul!

As long as I pump.out babies I am going to tell everyone else they have to pay for my choices.

And no abortion is high because people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

And that next stable family you are talking about will further perpetuate the desire to make other people pay me for my choice to have children and stay home. Realism tells you that people are selfish. People will and have chosen to have kids just to get more money.
 
Upvote 0