![]() |
this is great
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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
|
Quote:
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"? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes we can and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079 feel better.. |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I completely disagree. They started it and he's pushing back. Everything he does is sinister. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com