universal income....in a commencement speech

what will they think of next???


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.

Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."

sorry to burst your bubble Mark, we are people not robots, this is America. Don't let these power hungry control freaks change our society to fit them. FU, make your choices, work hard and get paid for it. You have to earn it, and when you are done earning it, if you make a choice to share your good fortune with others who are less fortunate and in need of assistance, then fine. What is wrong with how it has been?

Don't fall asleep America

thinks about the possibilities though!!!


millions of Americans being paid by the government to sit around and think about "stuff"....if one or two come up with an idea :spin:...it's a BIG win...and like... totally worth the "investment"

this must be very appealing to a kid graduating with 100k+ in student loan debt and a psychology degree

He is a Billionaire Sounds like a page from the Trump Campaign Spew BS to those who you want to support you (now with FB and maybe later)

universal income has as much chance as coal and manufacturing jobs coming back and cheaper better health care

A populist message for separate demographic

I don't know...sure sounds like a solid foundation for another democrat voter registration drive :hihi:

All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.

All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.


Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.
Hey! I resemble that remark! No need to get personable Bob.
I've got lots of ideas. The problem is, Zuckerberg hasn't come up with my paycheck yet. :D


Why don't we just go full socialism while we're at it. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard. What's wrong with folks working an honest job and earning an honest wage for their hard work and determination to better themselves?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just identifying the current crop of couch Potatoes

Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

running for president 2020

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you say is interesting. But I wonder how you arrived at your picture of how it is.

As far as the GOP goes, I don't get from what it says that it is the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" who are responsible for "this country going down the tubes." I hear arguments from the GOP, with which I agree, that the replacement of our Constitutionally limited government by a so-called "Progressive" system of government is the cause. I hear arguments from Trumpists that stupid politicians who promote stupid policies (especially economic and foreign policies) are the cause. And I hear the perpetual argument from establishment Republicans that the Democrat Party is the cause.

I do hear the same arguments from the Democrat party, but applied in reverse to the Republican party. As well, I hear from the Democrat Party, especially Bernie types, that the Republicans blame the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" for being responsible for the country's downslide. Perhaps, it's from that and from Progressive media (like Salon, etc.) that you get your perspective?

"[T]he corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth" have been hanging around in this country from its inception. Even through all the great years of expansion and creation of wealth and power which the world had rarely, if ever, seen. Maybe it would have been even better if none of our politicians and bankers had not been crooked. Maybe it would have been better if we had never allowed anyone to garner great wealth (I doubt that)--but I don't hear many, if any, with great wealth blaming poor people for destroying the country. I don't hear much from wealthy people that the country is going down the tubes. They seem to be interested in getting more money rather than bitching about poor people.

At any rate, per the topic of this thread, on the one hand, universal income, as Zuckerberg proposes it, didn't exist all those "great" years so therefor didn't contribute to nor create great wealth or the "middle class." On the other hand, there has always been some sort of universal income in the form of welfare or transfer payments. A large segment of our population is, as of now, receiving some sort of sustained government distributed income. It seems that the number of such folks has steadily increased over the past 100 years, give or take. And the increase seems to have taken a sharp turn up in the latter part of that 100 years. And the much beloved and sought after "middle class" is said to have shrunk during that increase. Do you see any connection?

Or, as is the constant Progressive refrain, not enough transfer of wealth has occurred which is necessary to reach that massive number of those in the greatly desired and admired "middle class."

Would it stop the country from "going down the tubes" if the government guaranteed everyone a universal "middle class" income? That's an interesting question, to me. And I'd like to hear if and how that would work.

Probably, some factors would be one's definition of "going down the tubes." And one's definition of class structure, of "middle class," of "social justice," and of "great."

People forget how "Progressive" Nixon really was. No doubt, the Dems didn't want folks to see that. That would have created a formidable competition against their own desire for power. But Nixon did propose a universal income scheme. It was very attractive to the more socialist minded. Many Dems supported his proposal. But he was given a lesson in history in where it had been tried in England in the mid 19th century and miserably failed. So he watered the idea down. Of course, he was impeached and resigned, so the Progressives eliminated any threat he might have imposed as an opposition candidate.

Some, Marxist oriented folks, argue that the English experiment was not, actually, a failure.

Are you saying, however, that insuring there are none in poverty, and that allowing illegal aliens, would stop the country from "going down the tubes", then how explain the original creation of wealth and power? And if we say that it takes an oppressed lower class to create wealth, then what happens to wealth if there is no such class? And without wealth, what happens to the "lifestyle" that you think we should all have?

Could it be that wealth is created by free people who are not encumbered from doing so, regardless if there is poverty, or if there are some forms of the inevitable crookedness that lurks in human nature? And that "poverty" in a free society is usually better than being in the middle classes in dictatorial societies.

Could it be that individual freedom is the greatest reason for lifting the "lifestyle" of societies, and that the suppression of freedom causes a form of "going down the tubes"?

Curious - who did you order sort?


What other sorts can we use?

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes"

Who is saying that, exactly? MSNBC likes to claim that the GOP is saying that, but who in the GOP is actually saying that? We think bad public policy is harming the country, not minorities.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant.

Nebe, a sincere question...if the GOP dislikes blacks and the poor, why do we tend to support school choice? Why do we give similar (slightly more actually, but that's besides the point) to charity than liberals?

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you and I can invest $500 in the same dividend-generating stock, and earn the same 6%.

The wealthy have more extra income to invest, Nebe, that is true. But is it bad?

If Bill Gates earns a million dollars in dividend income today, how exactly does that harm you or me?

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?Yes, but what about us who no longer have a mortgage bc we either took a less than normal term (like 15 or 20 years) or made extra payments to bring down the mortgage - housing expert say the average price of a house will fall 10% - 20%. The price of a house is where most of middle America has the majority of their wealth. Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? Those folks are not middle America. I actually don't think there sb a mortgage deduction.

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit. Like $ towards meals on wheels, WIC, fuel subsidies for the poor, etc. Otherwise we end up like Pakistan - The rich living in gated communities.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance. I don't either but that is what the CBO says will happen W/Trumpcare - 23M while the top 1% benefit from decreased taxes.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money. When taxes got cut in the past, much of the $ was given out as dividends so while I would benefit, the people that Pres Trump appealled to the most are prob. not going to get a dividend check.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.

Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.

"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means?

"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.

"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?

"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc.

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. Come on, he shoved him aside. I wouldn't let someone do that to me. He has no decorum. I would think most parents would not let their child do that or let another child do that to their child. I think there were even assigned places to stand. I think JK Rowling said "You tiny, tiny, little man" And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?Agreed - and why I thought the 1 page budget he originally released was a joke. In addition to no rates, there was nothing on the income levels for each tier.

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means? I'm saying that we can argue about how much $ NPR gets but the fact is that much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor and it is devestated by his budget.
"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.That is not a gotcha - the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget.

From a search
Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized,” the Hill's Alexander Bolton reports, “while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely

So let's look at the 2016 appropriations for the three programs identified in that quote above and compare them with the overall outlays of the federal government. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million in 2016. (It gets additional funding from donors like you.) NEA got $148 million. NEH requested the same. The Congressional Budget Office figures that about $3.9 trillion was spent by the government during the fiscal year.

Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10.



"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. I was in favor of Bush's 2008 and Obama's stimulas plans bc the economy was in the dumps. not 4.4% unemployment.Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?

What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.

What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.

Which is why I asked what you would do if you ran a business.

"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc."

Did they say that Obamacare would decrease everyone's premiums by $2500 a year? But I agree, they are considered non-partisan.

"Come on, he shoved him aside."

Not from what I saw.

"He has no decorum"

On that we agree. He's not a good guy.

"much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor ". I'd say much of the discretionary budget "is aimed at helping the poor". When I look at most of the cities in America compared to what they looked like 25 years ago, I question whether or not the money is making anything better. I think it's a valid question. But I completely agree with you, I want badly needed social services to have adequate funding. But I think we spend tons of money on things that aren't helping.

"the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget."

Agreed, it's tiny. But it's no longer necessary, IMHO.

"Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10."

There's a lot more waste than that. Maybe Trump's budget doesn't get at it, but there's a lot more fat than $10 out of $50k.

Paul, I remember when Bush was in office, he vetoed some spending bill that provided for free school lunch for poor kids. The press, naturally, made him out to be a heartless monster. If one bothered to learn the truth, one learned that Bush didn't like the proposed bill because some middle class families would qualify for free lunch that they didn't need. He wanted to spend MORE money on the truly poor. But it wasn't framed that way. And the press is WAY more invested in destroying Trump, than they were invested in destroying Bush. So I am skeptical of most of what I hear that isn't demonstrable fact. I don't believe Paul Ryan would sign anything that would hurt large numbers of vulnerable people. Trump might.

.

"Come on, he shoved him aside."

Not from what I saw.It was somewhere between a shove and a 1 arm maneuver to get it. I only saw it once and didn't pay that much attention. My brother (who doesn't like Trump) said the press are being too picky w/him. I agreed but said it is bc of his saying the press is evil and the enemy. They are pushing back.

"much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor ". I'd say much of the discretionary budget "is aimed at helping the poor". When I look at most of the cities in America compared to what they looked like 25 years ago, I question whether or not the money is making anything better. I think it's a valid question. But I completely agree with you, I want badly needed social services to have adequate funding. But I think we spend tons of money on things that aren't helping.Yes, prob. a lot of unnecessary spending.

I don't believe Paul Ryan would sign anything that would hurt large numbers of vulnerable people. Trump might.

It is Trump's budget and will be far different when it is passed.

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.


Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..

Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo. Thanks TDF...

It is Trump's budget and will be far different when it is passed.

"press are being too picky w/him. I agreed but said it is bc of his saying the press is evil and the enemy. They are pushing back."

I completely disagree. They started it and he's pushing back. Everything he does is sinister.

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I figure that much.. . Sure it make him feel better about the numbers ..
but thats not really what he point was .:kewl:

I figure that much.. . Sure it make him feel better about the numbers ..
but thats not really what he point was .:kewl:

Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist. The numbers make that clear with zero ambiguity. The numbers are not racist, they just are what they are.

An ignorant racist might say there's a genetic reason for that. Nonsense. But there is a cultural reason for that, starting with the fact that almost 75% of black children born today, are born into a home without a dad. That is staggering and appalling, and until we fix that, blacks will continue to live in poverty at a heartbreaking rate. When you give girls a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock, guess what? More of them will have kids out of wedlock.

In my opinion, liberalism also contributes significantly to this. Because instead of giving blacks the tools they need to actually rise out of poverty in big numbers (which is precisely what conservatives would love to do), liberals pat them on the head and say "there there, it's not your fault, here's your welfare check, and keep voting for me so the big mean republican doesn't take this check away from you". Liberals give blacks just enough to stay alive (and dependent, and therefore a reliable voting block), not nearly enough to get ahead. Liberals don't want blacks to get ahead, because if they did, many of them would no longer feel the need to vote for Democrats.

I remember what Hartford and New Haven and Bridgeport looked like 40 years ago. And I see EXACTLY what 40 years of pure, unchecked liberalism has done for those people. I say it's a disgrace and they deserve a different outcome. Liberals advocate for more of the same.

I'd say that makes liberals the racists, because I want a better outcome for all of them. But according to the media, somehow, that makes me the racist.

That makes all kinds of sense.

Where am I wrong, WDMSO? You may answer freely and openly, I am a big boy and can take it.

When the current form of welfare reform came about, a man in Washington, the late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a very liberal Democrat, who later was a senator from NY) warned that the welfare changes would annihilate the black nuclear family, which would lead to a cultural disaster in the black community. It was a bold thing to say. Moynihan was vilified by the left for saying what he said. He was called a racist and a bigot. And yet history shows that he was exactly, EXACTLY correct.

We're committing cultural genocide against them. It makes me sick. I don't see how my concern for their welfare makes me a racist.

Yup, liberals are the racist

Yup, liberals are the racist

(1) is there any discernible connection, between the fact that a) people who live in urban cities are doing horribly, and b) urban cities are almost unanimously hard core liberal?

(2) if the answer to question (1) is yes, and of course it is...then what would motivate anyone to look at how blacks are faring in our cities, and not conclude that we need to try something different?

Not all liberals are racist Paul, obviously. But the ideology of liberalism, has been an abject disaster for blacks. I say they deserve better. I presume that liberals, by virtue of identifying as liberals, believe that liberalism is working for blacks. Right?

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

True. Parse stuff down to facts and remove the happy snowflake talk and try to get people to work together. Then stop turning a blind eye to importing the competition of those lower paying, lower skilled "workers" and increasing the pressure at the bottom. We should offer assistance to those that need it but it should be assistance on top of earned, not in place of (with limited exceptions). We can then tune and allow for more legal immigration.



Yup, liberals are the racist

Sometimes they are. The Diversity Industry at large

Paul and WDMSO, let me put it another way.

A huge percentage of poor blacks in this country, live in places that are liberal.

So, here's my question...is liberalism working well for those poor blacks, in your opinion?

My answer to that question (which is hell, no) is a big part of what caused me to switch from being a registered Democrat to a registered Republican.

Here in my home of CT, the liberals can't bring themselves to admit that liberalism has been an economic failure in all of our cities. Instead of suggesting that we try something different, they say that the failures are because rich white hedge fund managers in Greenwich aren't paying their fair share. Liberals don't care that those folks pay a ton more in CT than they would if they lived in Florida, so many of them are moving to Florida, which is why now, on top of all our other problems, our income tax receipts are finally dropping like a rock. So we have far less revenue than we thought, and even what we thought we were going to get, wasn't nearly enough to fund all the liberal pet projects.

In business, when you are in a self-perpetuating state of increasing debt and decreasing revenue, we call that the "death spiral". It is a perfectly accurate term. And because my elderly parents refuse to leave, I will be the last sucker left here, paying a 500% income tax rate.

Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist. The numbers make that clear with zero ambiguity. The numbers are not racist, they just are what they are.

An ignorant racist might say there's a genetic reason for that. Nonsense. But there is a cultural reason for that, starting with the fact that almost 75% of black children born today, are born into a home without a dad. That is staggering and appalling, and until we fix that, blacks will continue to live in poverty at a heartbreaking rate. When you give girls a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock, guess what? More of them will have kids out of wedlock.

In my opinion, liberalism also contributes significantly to this. Because instead of giving blacks the tools they need to actually rise out of poverty in big numbers (which is precisely what conservatives would love to do), liberals pat them on the head and say "there there, it's not your fault, here's your welfare check, and keep voting for me so the big mean republican doesn't take this check away from you". Liberals give blacks just enough to stay alive (and dependent, and therefore a reliable voting block), not nearly enough to get ahead. Liberals don't want blacks to get ahead, because if they did, many of them would no longer feel the need to vote for Democrats.

I remember what Hartford and New Haven and Bridgeport looked like 40 years ago. And I see EXACTLY what 40 years of pure, unchecked liberalism has done for those people. I say it's a disgrace and they deserve a different outcome. Liberals advocate for more of the same.

I'd say that makes liberals the racists, because I want a better outcome for all of them. But according to the media, somehow, that makes me the racist.

That makes all kinds of sense.

Where am I wrong, WDMSO? You may answer freely and openly, I am a big boy and can take it.

When the current form of welfare reform came about, a man in Washington, the late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a very liberal Democrat, who later was a senator from NY) warned that the welfare changes would annihilate the black nuclear family, which would lead to a cultural disaster in the black community. It was a bold thing to say. Moynihan was vilified by the left for saying what he said. He was called a racist and a bigot. And yet history shows that he was exactly, EXACTLY correct.

We're committing cultural genocide against them. It makes me sick. I don't see how my concern for their welfare makes me a racist.

So let see I post numbers and whites are listed before black and people take exception .. and questioning the Order ? then you post

"We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit."




"Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist."

So Why would I not Like that bit of info ?? But I'll be clear Was I to infer you're meaning was what you wrote in your follow up response? I made the statement "but thats not really what he point was ..." . but if you say your only point was "blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites" we'll leave it at that

True. Parse stuff down to facts and remove the happy snowflake talk and try to get people to work together. Then stop turning a blind eye to importing the competition of those lower paying, lower skilled "workers" and increasing the pressure at the bottom. We should offer assistance to those that need it but it should be assistance on top of earned, not in place of (with limited exceptions). We can then tune and allow for more legal immigration.





Sometimes they are. The Diversity Industry at large

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...




What do you base that on? have you ever worked in corporate America?

I have worked at Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford, and 2 small companies. Those companies creates thousands and thousands of good, middle class, white collar jobs, with good, dependable benefits.

Is corporate America perfect? Far from it. Is there widespread "fleecing" of the employees? Not even close.

As to the welfare stats. Most people thought you put whites first to imply that whites are the biggest welfare drain based on absolute numbers. I'd bet money that's what you were trying to convey, but I can't know. Many people feel that you need to look at how many welfare recipients there are for a given race, relative to the proportion that race make sup of the entire population. If whites make up X% of the general population, but more than X% of those on welfare, that whites are disproportionately on welfare. I don't think I said that well, hopefully it made sense.

I wasn't just trying to say that blacks are disproportionately poor, I tried to say other things too.

Some people lack a simple understanding of economics. Hopeless souls with doomsday attitudes is not the solution. Some choose to rise up,rather than wallow in their destiny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you base that on? have you ever worked in corporate America?

I have worked at Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford, and 2 small companies. Those companies creates thousands and thousands of good, middle class, white collar jobs, with good, dependable benefits.

Is corporate America perfect? Far from it. Is there widespread "fleecing" of the employees? Not even close.

As to the welfare stats. Most people thought you put whites first to imply that whites are the biggest welfare drain based on absolute numbers. I'd bet money that's what you were trying to convey, but I can't know. Many people feel that you need to look at how many welfare recipients there are for a given race, relative to the proportion that race make sup of the entire population. If whites make up X% of the general population, but more than X% of those on welfare, that whites are disproportionately on welfare. I don't think I said that well, hopefully it made sense.

I wasn't just trying to say that blacks are disproportionately poor, I tried to say other things too.


Its called History .. if you think there isn't widespread fleecing of workers you need to expand your search . 1 or 2 examples of Good business are no longer the norm they are the exception ..

Yup, liberals are the racist


How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its called History .. if you think there isn't widespread fleecing of workers you need to expand your search . 1 or 2 examples of Good business are no longer the norm they are the exception ..

Maybe YOU need to expand your search:

http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

Its called History .. if you think there isn't widespread fleecing of workers you need to expand your search . 1 or 2 examples of Good business are no longer the norm they are the exception ..

I'm not sure why hourly compensation is expected to move in exact proportion to productivity...and if it doesn't, I'm not sure why that's indicative of companies "fleecing" their workers.

I do know that we have all kinds of laws that regulate how companies must treat employees, and that many companies go beyond what's required by law. Not every private company is a sweat shop owned by a sinister billionaire.

I'll ask again, have you aver worked in corporate America?

How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lyndon Johnson, it turns out, was correct. So was Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a diehard liberal) when he predicted what it would do to the black culture.

Lyndon Johnson, it turns out, was correct. So was Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a diehard liberal) when he predicted what it would do to the black culture.



It's not so much a prediction, he was stating the lefts game plan.
It is pretty well documented he was as big a racist as they get.
He used the N word the way a lot of people talk today and every sentence includes the word f***
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62


Yes. The immigrants coming here illegally are not taking up large swaths of middle class or upper class jobs. Surely they are working somewhere, right?

So then where are they working? I am talking about lower skilled jobs which includes some manufacturing but we are now more a service economy which means they are taking service jobs in addition to some manufacturing.

Yes, this has been going on for 100 years but break that down into legal and illegal immigration, please.

As for the wages, I worked for under 3 in HS, 4-6 in my late teens, and commission for years after that had lower hourly pay then asking if you want extra salt with your fries. But I worked my way out of that and chased skills and positions that allowed me to grow.

Grow so I would not have a family in the projects or on welfare. So yes, I know precisely what this is about.

It's not so much a prediction, he was stating the lefts game plan.
It is pretty well documented he was as big a racist as they get.
He used the N word the way a lot of people talk today and every sentence includes the word f***
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He made a prediction that the Democrats would secure that vote for 200 years if they expanded welfare, and so far, he was correct.

Its called History .. if you think there isn't widespread fleecing of workers you need to expand your search . 1 or 2 examples of Good business are no longer the norm they are the exception ..

I think you need to rethink your word "fleecing ". Getting the most out of a worker is good business . If you ran a company you would do the same thing or you wouldn't own company for long . You always need to be competitive . Nowadays workers feel they are protected from being fired and some take advantage of that .
Bottom line... if you don't work hard , always strive for better and never settle , then I have no sympathy for you and niether should the government or anyone else .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

WDMSO, do you think that every single job in our economy, should pay a wage that can support a family in minimum comfort? Tell that to a guy who owns a small pizzeria, that he needs to pay his bus boys and cashier $40k a year.

Some jobs just don't add that much value to the business. They just don't, not even close. But businesses need people in those roles. And it's still a good thing to put people in those jobs, as an entry level experience to learn basic skills.

I don't want anyone trying to raise a family on $12 an hour. But SOME jobs cannot pay more than that. It's not about what we want for the individual (we all want them to thrive)...if the job is in the private sector, then the pay must be connected to the economic value added by the person in that role. That's how the private sector works. And it's not all bad.

We can't all work in public labor unions. Most of us have to work in the private sector, and in the private sector (unlike public labor unions) we must get our customers to freely choose to exchange their money for our services. And to do that, the customer has to feel like he's getting his money's worth. Which means that business owners can't pay more than the economic value (as perceived by the customer) for each job.

WDMSO, if I owned a pizzeria and paid everyone who works for me at least $40k a year so they could support a family, how much am I going to then need to charge for a large pie? Are you going to pay $50 for a large pie so that I can pay my cashier $40k a year?

Your idea (pay every single person a livable wage regardless of the job they are in) sounds great. It's not remotely possible in the real world.

Liberals seem to think that every single business owner is fabulously wealthy, and can easily absorb the impact of paying every single employee a wage that a family can survive on. It's just not so. If that were the case, I would be screaming at the top of my lungs that minimum wage should be $20 an hour. But if we made that the minimum wage, huge numbers of businesses would go out of business, and millions of people would be unemployed. And many businesses that remained, would have to triple their prices.

I think you've spent too much time in the public union sphere, and not nearly enough time in the private sector. The next time you go out to eat, ask the restaurant manager what would happen if he had to pay everyone 40k a year, or whatever it would take to support a family the way you think they should be supported.

The liberals aren't putting any thought into this. It's not even close to being realistic. Part of me says, fine, let's make minimum wage $20 an hour, and then watch what happens, just so liberals can't claim that there's no downside. Part of me wonders if they propose these idiotic things on purpose, knowing that conservatives will oppose it, just so libs can say "see, I want to pay everyone a fair wage, but that mean white guy over there is opposed to it. So vote for me, hooray!!"

How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you point me to something showing me where he said that bc I know I have heard that previously (except he used the N word) but everytime I try finding that quote it is always in stories on like Alr right websites or by the KKK, etc.?

I know he did say when the civil rights act was passed that he thought they just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Can you point me to something showing me where he said that bc I know I have heard that previously (except he used the N word) but everytime I try finding that quote it is always in stories on like Alr right websites or by the KKK, etc.?

I know he did say when the civil rights act was passed that he thought they just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.

What do you suppose he meant by that?

I don't think there are official White House recordings of LBJ saying wither of the quotes you refer to Paul. The one where he supposedly said he'd get those people to vote Democratic for 200 years, appears in a biography of LBJ by Ronald Kessler. There are many, many, many White House recordings where LBJ used the "n" word. That was the world then.

If LBJ said the South was delivered to the GOP for a generation, it would appear he was correct on that, too, wasn't he? Both quotes appear to have come true.