I'm sure the average Republican would say being alive isn't a birthright either.
Unless you’re an embryo.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
– US Declaration of Independence
I disagree with 3 (e: actually 4) words in that sentence, but I’m struggling to find a single phrase that modern conservatives agree with.
Republicans in 2024:
❌ Form a more perfect Union
❌ Establish Justice
❌ Insure domestic Tranquility
🙄Provide for the common defense
❌ Promote the general Welfare
🖕Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes.
Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders.
Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective
collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
Rampant sexism.
Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
Religion and government are intertwined.
Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
I’d put green ticks on nearly all of those, and the only ones I wouldn’t are only because they don’t have the unilateral power to do them yet. I’m confident they will do them the moment they can.
Surely gerrymandering and making voting as difficult as possible for working individuals gets at least partial credit to 15, no?
Yes, and J6 and the rhetoric that followed gets them all the way there. Trump has literally told his voters on multiple occasions there’s no point in voting because it’s all fraudulent.
Cool hope they all take his advise.
Same, but I’m concerned his real point was instead of voting, they should go straight to terrorism. The ballot box doesn’t work, so the next step is the ammo box (or whatever that phrase was).
I think the point isn’t so much just stop voting, but stop voting and start shooting when voting doesn’t work since we’ve sabotaged it.
If you aren’t desperate, they can’t exploit you
"A hungry dog is an obedient dog" is an actual quote from one of these ghouls.
Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.
This is what GOap fights against:
The literal improvement of peoples existence.
Never vote Republican. They hate you!
Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:
"Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?"
"Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?"
"Why does the government not understand debt!? They're going to bankrupt us!"
They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can't afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don't deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.
Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don't care one iota about. It's almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.
Survival is a birthright you absolute fucking vultures. We made money a requirement for that.
And it's not like you can screw off into the forest to live a self-sufficient life either, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most places in the world. If the forest isn't already devoid of resources due to human activity that is.
It's also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it's not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn't be able to actually live a full life - at some point you're vulture food without society. We're cooperative, tribal animals. That's our strength, and we've built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
I think the core problem is we’ve been giving all the power to sociopaths who use pretty words to fool the masses into allowing them to leech the fruits of their labour whilst contributing nothing themselves.
We need to start valuing empathy over bravado, intellectualism over shallow emotional stimulus, and humanity over populist fervour.
That would be a massive cultural shift that would require changes in our approach to many facets of society (education, media, religion, politics, etc), and we seem to be going in the wrong direction, unfortunately.
UBI is the perfect capitalist solution to the majority of problems. It should allow for less market distortion and could have some really interesting outcomes.
I'm very excited to see a first world country use UBI.
That an externalities can go a long, long way in this world.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function. UBI can definitely ameliorate the problems of capitalism, but capitalists will constantly fight it. UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it. We should be doing both - eliminate capitalism and provide UBI.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn't
UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it.
Maybe. But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it's a non starter.
UBI works very well with the market based capitalist system. That's where I think it will shine.
No it doesn’t
It kinda does. Do you think people enjoy working for near poverty wages? They don't. But they can't afford to say no to poor pay because it's still better than no pay. If people weren't worried about becoming homeless they'd demand for higher pays. In that sense capitalism does depend on the threat of homelessness to drive down the wage to make more profits.
But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
How to say you don't know anything about socialism without saying you don't know anything about socialism. I'm going to give you an example of it working on a smaller scale because US kept sabotaging most national attempts to have socialism. Worker cooperatives are socialist and I recommend looking up the history of Mondragon, a successfully ran cooperative for over half a century now.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Now economic policy, you'll be amazed to understand is about fixing inefficiencies that do not allow for optimal conditions. Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that's what economic testing is about. That's why it's better than socialism because it's competitive and strives for change.
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value. If everyone had UBI that would equate the negotiating position of workers and they wouldn't have to take poverty wages. That's why UBI is the capitalist solution to that problem in capitalism. It allows to market to work the way economists want it to work.
Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality...
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Optimal solution for whom? It's not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It's not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the "optimal" solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.
The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.
Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that's what economic testing is about. That's why it's better than socialism because it's competitive and strives for change.
Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.
The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called "middle class" is eroding into "lower class" as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where's the fix?
Where's the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the "fix" was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they're forced of oil, because it was the "optimal solution" for making a profit.
What you're talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that's what's taught to you. What is not taught is that it's not how capitalism actually works.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.
and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider "basic economic theory" is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.
as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner's dilemma,
1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both
2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke
3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits
4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits
and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
Hey, what's your contribution to the field?
I'm interested in reading a book of yours.
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
In short yes. There have been a 1000 years of development into the formal education system. That has lead to the industrial revolution and other other countless things.
Youtube videos are great but it's not quite the same.
Hey, what's your contribution to the field?
Fuck all. But it doesn't mean my knowledge of the field isn't in the top 1% of the world.
Bro, you're out here saying Marx was a 1000 year old pre-industrial economist... Might want to reconsider your placement in the rankings.
Pretty sure I didn't say that.
Oh, wow, your point was even worse then. At least there's some validity to calling Marxist models outdated, but trying to pull an appeal to authority from the University of Bologna is a pretty big stretch.
Idk man, maybe if you decide to continue your education so you can contribute to your field put a little more thought into the biases in your studies and reflect on the Socratic definition of wisdom?
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
Where that falls to shit is the assumption that "everyone works". Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That's just 40% of the population.
In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you're explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.
Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it's silly to think of "capitalism" and "socialism" as systems at all. They aren't. They are broad systemic feature sets. You've probably heard the phrase "mixed economy". That's actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That's fine, most people don't, it's pretty much the norm, but now that it's been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
Haha I have a degree in economics. That why I can see all the shit you tankies write as just plain wrong.
But I'm sure your youtube video on Karl Marx makes you an expert on these things.
People don't use words as absolutes. America is largely referred to as a capitalist country. My saying that isn't incorrect. But you can argue technicalities of words all you want, communism sucks or (mixed economies heavily leaning to communism sucks).
Dude, if you have a degree in econ I think your uni should lose its accreditation. I am dead serious.
a class of econ 101 does not a degree make, tho it is ironic that the economists with the most predictive power tend to not favor your view on economics
Where's your degree from, Hillsdale? I can't imagine it would be any serious school.
If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would be able to make a coherent argument, instead of announcing that you have a degree, like it's a magic talisman, to always make you right.
If you had a legitimate degree, you would probably know that there are people with more education than yourself who are socialists, and not believe that having a degree in economics necessarily makes one pro-capitalist.
If you had a legitimate degree, you would almost certainly have had at least one or two socialist professors on your way to that degree.
If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would have learned more intellectual discipline than to call anybody who doesn't agree with private capital a "tankie".
If you had a legitimate degree, you probably wouldn't be so unwise as to assume you were the only one. This thinking shows a really sheltered life, like somebody who has never even been to a university, or encountered new ideas. It connects back to the "magic talisman" view I mentioned above.
Sure, language is complex, and it isn't broadly wrong to refer to the US as a "capitalist country", as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that's intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying "But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it's a non starter." That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.
socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
Socialism is a very broad political movement that works extremely well in some nations.
Sure, there are also nations where it's a total disaster... but the same is true for capitalism. Socialism should be judged by the best implementations, not the shitty ones.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
Market economies don't. Capitalism OTOH by definition has an exploitative class and that class needs a whip to enforce their status. The two have been equivocated a lot by capitalist propaganda, same as they're equivocating free and unregulated markets (which couldn't be further apart in reality).
And it doesn't need to be homelessness as such, it can be many things. The actual question is one of power, whether workers have a realistic option to say "nope, not that shitty a job for that shitty a wage" and tell the bosses to shove it. Can't exploit someone who can say "fine by me, I'll get a table saw and start to do some carpentry".
"Money isn't a birthright" says political faction in favor of tax-free inheritance for its filthy rich members. More at 11:00.
EDIT: weird mobile correction typo
That's different. Those inter-generational landlords went out and earned it.
Could you do what they did? No, I didn't think so!
It's not easy being born to the right family, if it was easy everyone would do it and it wouldn't pay so well! Duhhhhhh
:P
'Is money a birthright now?'
Only for some. Or are we outlawing inheritances as well?
Rich Republicans and their useful idiots: vampire hissing sound DEATH TAX! additional hissing
Sorry, helping the poor is too Christ-like for Republicans.
Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.
Nobody's going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.
and did Jesus decree, be strategic with when ye help those in need, so that they turn to private churches. No I don't think that's in there.
On the contrary, I think he said something about wherever two or three of his faithful gather in his name, so there is his church.
I'm a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you're already super rich and then it's OK to suck at the Government's Teat!
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
Is money a birthright now?
No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.
The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can't afford them - but that's changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.
there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money
This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it's something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital's ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.
When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter
Also you free up a ton of people from bureaucratic administration jobs so they might do usefull, productive work.
How do you live in Louisiana and not realize your government hates you
Please, ban it. I dare you. When other states introduce UBI, watch people across the political spectrum leave for greener pastures.
Except for the poor, who don't have the money to move, and who need it the most.
Yeah there's several states I'd move to if I could move my job there and I already had guaranteed affordable housing.
Unfortunately neither of those things are ever likely to be true, certainly not at the same time. I can't afford to move.
At which point, I wonder if the political representation would improve.
Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: 'Is money a birthright now?'
They do realize all that UBI eventually filters up to their capitalist overlords.
They are not that dumb. (Tuberville nonwithstanding)
They just like to fuel the culture wars, and to divide and conquer.
The real reason they oppose it (and other safety net things, like unemployment pay and health care that's not tied to a job) is that they don't want a mobile workforce that can easily quit or unionise if abused.
The power dynamics between employees and employers would shift dramatically if employees knew they could just stay home and still get a few $k to fall back on.
Heck, even the small stimulus checks during the pandemic had a huge effect like that that is still shaking out as increased union activity.
Capitalists depend on the threat of hunger and homelessness. UBI undermines that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In the past year, Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin legislators have introduced bills to ban income programs, arguing they are too costly and could make participants too reliant on the government.
GOP Rep. Lupe Diaz, who authored the bill, specifically attacked a 2022 Phoenix program that gave $1,000 to 1,000 low-income families each month for a year, pulling from federal relief funds.
The Arizona news comes shortly after Iowa GOP state Rep. Steve Holt introduced a bill banning basic-income programs, which he called "socialism on steroids" at a recent hearing.
GBI programs "undercut the dignity in earning a dollar, and they're a one-way ticket to government dependency," Republican state Sen. John Wiik, the bill's sponsor, said at a February committee meeting.
Bettencourt noted that Uplift Harris, which received over 48,000 applications within the first three days, could violate a section of the Texas constitution stating the legislature cannot give counties the authority to grant public money for individual aid.
Ivanna Neri, senior director of partnerships at UpTogether, which partnered with Austin for the pilot, told BI that attempts to ban basic-income projects don't often consider that these programs could have long-term impacts on wealth inequality and could power the economy.
The original article contains 1,242 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.
I think that's a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.
Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.
People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.
Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won't work.
The well-off will never be not well-off unless they literally depend on the people's exploitation. If they do, well, like they say, its like whoever the technological advances they depend on immediately put out of commission in terms of employment options off the table
The point of UBI isn't to sit in the pockets of the working class. It's to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It's meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.
The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can't be competitive, well they shouldn't be markets, they should be government agencies.
UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can't, because working means they're ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It's a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.
UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.
UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you'd get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.
It's not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.
Means testing means not universal.
I frankly don’t give a shit if Bezos gets a $1000 check from the government every month, as long as the old lady with cancer, the 40 year old chronic pain sufferer, the working family with a 80k/yr income, and the 35 year old jobless dude who lives with his parents all get theirs too.
And most importantly take people out of the job market.
Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That's just my opinion!
I agree. I wonder if we could create a class based Union. Like a union for anyone making x amount or less.
Source: trust me, bro.
I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don't think there is actual prevention of that
Of course it is. But only if you have rich parents.
This reminds me of arguing with a coworker once. I was saying we essentially have basic income for the wealthy. If you have a million dollars, you can turn that into ~$45k year with just high yield savings accounts. No risk. It's insured.
He was like, "But they're taking risks with their money so that's not the same." I was like, "No risk. It's insured."
He was like, "But that money is being used on stuff. The bank invests it to start businesses." I was like, "If you just give money to poor people, they will spend it, and support businesses, and in better ways." But then we had to stop talking about it because we were at a work event. I think he started to reject the premise that poor people buying groceries is better for the economy than a bank investing in Snapcat (it's snapchat, for cats!), or whatever.
Social security for all!
Iowa has been dealing with automation and outsourcing problems for a long time. I’m surprised that the farming families aren’t asking for UBI. Considering how farming subsidies have been in place for decades it wouldn’t even be a big stretch.
You might want to look up how many tax subsidies and federal programs the farmers are protected by. They don't want anyone else to get a piece of that pie.
The alternative is "You can't afford to live? Then die." Or arguably worse, "Here, we'll give you a pittance so that you don't actually die, at least not immediately, but your life will be brutish and short, and treat you as though you're beholden to us."
Always has been
'Is money a birthright now?'
Hasn’t it always been, either directly or indirectly?
Now? When was it not?
"Small government" for us librul peasants but not for them.
Is money required to deal with Republicans ?
Yes but not much if it’s in Rubles.
Because the Koch brothers pay them for that?
UBI is interesting but I find that if you’re a free market traditional capitalist, its existence (as well as welfare) is kind of a distortion of market functions. The US in general seems reticent to collectivism as a concept, otherwise welfare and SS would not be looked at as a “I paid for this” entitlement. Now, the real question to ask politicians is if income inequality is a problem? I’d wager many in private would say no.
People having access to basic necessities is a distortion of market functions, so such the markets. The economy is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, so I really couldn't care less if it's distorted in ways that benefit ordinary people.
Don’t disagree, also pretty close to impossible to have a non distorted market place considering you’re dealing with people, not strictly rational forces. My point is more the perspective from people who may not consider a financial subsidy via UBI to be providing value as it distorts the value of income. I’m not a fan of UBI being “universal” in the sense that people who don’t need it still getting access (it’s main benefit is it simplifies access and avoids needing to prove income), but its certainly simpler and less distorting than say housing vouchers and food subsidies. That being said, I don’t think most people actually care about the well being of those less fortunate and that’s representative in our elected officials.
Regarding the idea of basic income being universal, it makes a lot more sense when you think of income tax and basic income being facets of a single system that decides how much each person owes the government in income tax; basic income is just negative tax. We already have a mechanism for making sure wealthier people pay more: tax brackets. People who don't need basic income automatically end up with a positive tax burden. You could describe it as gradually phasing out basic income for people who make over a certain amount, but that's mathematically equivalent to just adding a tax bracket for low income earners.
The thing I'd really want to avoid is a system where earning an extra dollar can put you over some threshold where lose all your basic income, becoming poorer as a result. A lot of real programs for low-income people work that way, and it creates what's known as a poverty trap, where people can't afford to get out of poverty because getting on a career track that would lead to them not needing benefits anymore leads to a short-term loss of benefits that they can't afford to lose.
To me, it always comes back down to what’s the objective, what’s are the options to solve or improve the results. If the goal is to provide basic fundamental needs for your population, define what basic fundamental needs are: is it housing, food security, a wage where people have the option to save? All of those things are moral, desirable things that I would argue every person on the planet should have. In reality, people are self interested, care about people closest to them or most similar to themselves, and we as a society don’t truly have the conversation about what impact solving that problem would have to their own social stature. Case in point, housing - among several reasons why housing is so scarce is that its in the interest of those with secure housing to limit access to it. I think UBI is similar in that it closes the gap in comparison between the middle class and the lower worker class - there’s a lot of arguably selfish justification for why that poor person deserves to remain poorer than thou. The other question which I personally think is somewhat justifiable, does UBI replace or supplement existing social safety net programs? Do you remove, say housing subsidies when you create a $2000/mo UBI? Does that establish a pricing floor for goods and services? Do businesses reduce their wages by the amount of UBI or do they decide to relocate to a place with lower taxation? Much like universal health care, I really think this is something that needs to be implemented at scale on the federal level due to the relative ease of people and companies relocating to places where their tax burden would be reduced. That being said, its insanity to ban UBI when its essentially just a reform of what we do today - republican posturing is out of control and doesn’t come with any conservative leaning solutions to the same social issues.
You might find Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman interesting, he certainly was no collectivist.
If they don’t want money to be a birthright they should make it so money isn’t necessary to stay alive
Hmm, that could definitely be phrased more powerfully.
Or whatever. Idk, I spent too much time on this. It was fun though!
Nah, theirs was better.
That's fair
Theirs was better, but I salute (and upvote) your effort, it's good to try and improve our messaging.
This other commenter did pretty good though:
https://midwest.social/comment/7716126
I'm sure the average Republican would say being alive isn't a birthright either.
Unless you’re an embryo.
I disagree with
3(e: actually 4) words in that sentence, but I’m struggling to find a single phrase that modern conservatives agree with.Republicans in 2024:
❌ Form a more perfect Union
❌ Establish Justice
❌ Insure domestic Tranquility
🙄Provide for the common defense
❌ Promote the general Welfare
🖕Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The 16* Characteristics of Fascism:
Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes.
Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders.
Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
Rampant sexism.
Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
Religion and government are intertwined.
Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
I’d put green ticks on nearly all of those, and the only ones I wouldn’t are only because they don’t have the unilateral power to do them yet. I’m confident they will do them the moment they can.
Surely gerrymandering and making voting as difficult as possible for working individuals gets at least partial credit to 15, no?
Yes, and J6 and the rhetoric that followed gets them all the way there. Trump has literally told his voters on multiple occasions there’s no point in voting because it’s all fraudulent.
Cool hope they all take his advise.
Same, but I’m concerned his real point was instead of voting, they should go straight to terrorism. The ballot box doesn’t work, so the next step is the ammo box (or whatever that phrase was).
I think the point isn’t so much just stop voting, but stop voting and start shooting when voting doesn’t work since we’ve sabotaged it.
If you aren’t desperate, they can’t exploit you
"A hungry dog is an obedient dog" is an actual quote from one of these ghouls.
Who said that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3tigF4RybI
This is what GOap fights against: The literal improvement of peoples existence.
Never vote Republican. They hate you!
Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:
"Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?"
"Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?"
"Why does the government not understand debt!? They're going to bankrupt us!"
They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can't afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don't deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.
Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don't care one iota about. It's almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.
Survival is a birthright you absolute fucking vultures. We made money a requirement for that.
And it's not like you can screw off into the forest to live a self-sufficient life either, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most places in the world. If the forest isn't already devoid of resources due to human activity that is.
It's also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it's not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn't be able to actually live a full life - at some point you're vulture food without society. We're cooperative, tribal animals. That's our strength, and we've built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
I think the core problem is we’ve been giving all the power to sociopaths who use pretty words to fool the masses into allowing them to leech the fruits of their labour whilst contributing nothing themselves.
We need to start valuing empathy over bravado, intellectualism over shallow emotional stimulus, and humanity over populist fervour.
That would be a massive cultural shift that would require changes in our approach to many facets of society (education, media, religion, politics, etc), and we seem to be going in the wrong direction, unfortunately.
UBI is the perfect capitalist solution to the majority of problems. It should allow for less market distortion and could have some really interesting outcomes.
I'm very excited to see a first world country use UBI.
That an externalities can go a long, long way in this world.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function. UBI can definitely ameliorate the problems of capitalism, but capitalists will constantly fight it. UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it. We should be doing both - eliminate capitalism and provide UBI.
No it doesn't
Maybe. But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it's a non starter.
UBI works very well with the market based capitalist system. That's where I think it will shine.
It kinda does. Do you think people enjoy working for near poverty wages? They don't. But they can't afford to say no to poor pay because it's still better than no pay. If people weren't worried about becoming homeless they'd demand for higher pays. In that sense capitalism does depend on the threat of homelessness to drive down the wage to make more profits.
How to say you don't know anything about socialism without saying you don't know anything about socialism. I'm going to give you an example of it working on a smaller scale because US kept sabotaging most national attempts to have socialism. Worker cooperatives are socialist and I recommend looking up the history of Mondragon, a successfully ran cooperative for over half a century now.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Now economic policy, you'll be amazed to understand is about fixing inefficiencies that do not allow for optimal conditions. Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that's what economic testing is about. That's why it's better than socialism because it's competitive and strives for change.
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value. If everyone had UBI that would equate the negotiating position of workers and they wouldn't have to take poverty wages. That's why UBI is the capitalist solution to that problem in capitalism. It allows to market to work the way economists want it to work.
Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality...
Optimal solution for whom? It's not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It's not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the "optimal" solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.
The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.
Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?
The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called "middle class" is eroding into "lower class" as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where's the fix?
Where's the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the "fix" was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they're forced of oil, because it was the "optimal solution" for making a profit.
What you're talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that's what's taught to you. What is not taught is that it's not how capitalism actually works.
So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.
and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider "basic economic theory" is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.
as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner's dilemma,
1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both
2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke
3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits
4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits
and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
Hey, what's your contribution to the field?
I'm interested in reading a book of yours.
In short yes. There have been a 1000 years of development into the formal education system. That has lead to the industrial revolution and other other countless things.
Youtube videos are great but it's not quite the same.
Fuck all. But it doesn't mean my knowledge of the field isn't in the top 1% of the world.
Bro, you're out here saying Marx was a 1000 year old pre-industrial economist... Might want to reconsider your placement in the rankings.
Pretty sure I didn't say that.
Oh, wow, your point was even worse then. At least there's some validity to calling Marxist models outdated, but trying to pull an appeal to authority from the University of Bologna is a pretty big stretch.
Idk man, maybe if you decide to continue your education so you can contribute to your field put a little more thought into the biases in your studies and reflect on the Socratic definition of wisdom?
Where that falls to shit is the assumption that "everyone works". Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That's just 40% of the population.
In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you're explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.
Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it's silly to think of "capitalism" and "socialism" as systems at all. They aren't. They are broad systemic feature sets. You've probably heard the phrase "mixed economy". That's actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That's fine, most people don't, it's pretty much the norm, but now that it's been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
Haha I have a degree in economics. That why I can see all the shit you tankies write as just plain wrong.
But I'm sure your youtube video on Karl Marx makes you an expert on these things.
People don't use words as absolutes. America is largely referred to as a capitalist country. My saying that isn't incorrect. But you can argue technicalities of words all you want, communism sucks or (mixed economies heavily leaning to communism sucks).
Dude, if you have a degree in econ I think your uni should lose its accreditation. I am dead serious.
a class of econ 101 does not a degree make, tho it is ironic that the economists with the most predictive power tend to not favor your view on economics
Where's your degree from, Hillsdale? I can't imagine it would be any serious school.
Sure, language is complex, and it isn't broadly wrong to refer to the US as a "capitalist country", as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that's intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying "But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it's a non starter." That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.
Socialism is a very broad political movement that works extremely well in some nations.
Sure, there are also nations where it's a total disaster... but the same is true for capitalism. Socialism should be judged by the best implementations, not the shitty ones.
Market economies don't. Capitalism OTOH by definition has an exploitative class and that class needs a whip to enforce their status. The two have been equivocated a lot by capitalist propaganda, same as they're equivocating free and unregulated markets (which couldn't be further apart in reality).
And it doesn't need to be homelessness as such, it can be many things. The actual question is one of power, whether workers have a realistic option to say "nope, not that shitty a job for that shitty a wage" and tell the bosses to shove it. Can't exploit someone who can say "fine by me, I'll get a table saw and start to do some carpentry".
It's literally a capitalist solution it's so funny.
"Money isn't a birthright" says political faction in favor of tax-free inheritance for its filthy rich members. More at 11:00.
EDIT: weird mobile correction typo
That's different. Those inter-generational landlords went out and earned it.
Could you do what they did? No, I didn't think so!
It's not easy being born to the right family, if it was easy everyone would do it and it wouldn't pay so well! Duhhhhhh
:P
Only for some. Or are we outlawing inheritances as well?
Rich Republicans and their useful idiots: vampire hissing sound DEATH TAX! additional hissing
Sorry, helping the poor is too Christ-like for Republicans.
Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.
Nobody's going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.
and did Jesus decree, be strategic with when ye help those in need, so that they turn to private churches. No I don't think that's in there.
On the contrary, I think he said something about wherever two or three of his faithful gather in his name, so there is his church.
I'm a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you're already super rich and then it's OK to suck at the Government's Teat!
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.
The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can't afford them - but that's changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.
This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it's something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital's ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.
When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter
Also you free up a ton of people from bureaucratic administration jobs so they might do usefull, productive work.
How do you live in Louisiana and not realize your government hates you
Please, ban it. I dare you. When other states introduce UBI, watch people across the political spectrum leave for greener pastures.
Except for the poor, who don't have the money to move, and who need it the most.
Yeah there's several states I'd move to if I could move my job there and I already had guaranteed affordable housing.
Unfortunately neither of those things are ever likely to be true, certainly not at the same time. I can't afford to move.
At which point, I wonder if the political representation would improve.
Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: 'Is money a birthright now?'
They do realize all that UBI eventually filters up to their capitalist overlords.
They are not that dumb. (Tuberville nonwithstanding)
They just like to fuel the culture wars, and to divide and conquer.
The real reason they oppose it (and other safety net things, like unemployment pay and health care that's not tied to a job) is that they don't want a mobile workforce that can easily quit or unionise if abused.
The power dynamics between employees and employers would shift dramatically if employees knew they could just stay home and still get a few $k to fall back on.
Heck, even the small stimulus checks during the pandemic had a huge effect like that that is still shaking out as increased union activity.
Capitalists depend on the threat of hunger and homelessness. UBI undermines that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In the past year, Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin legislators have introduced bills to ban income programs, arguing they are too costly and could make participants too reliant on the government.
GOP Rep. Lupe Diaz, who authored the bill, specifically attacked a 2022 Phoenix program that gave $1,000 to 1,000 low-income families each month for a year, pulling from federal relief funds.
The Arizona news comes shortly after Iowa GOP state Rep. Steve Holt introduced a bill banning basic-income programs, which he called "socialism on steroids" at a recent hearing.
GBI programs "undercut the dignity in earning a dollar, and they're a one-way ticket to government dependency," Republican state Sen. John Wiik, the bill's sponsor, said at a February committee meeting.
Bettencourt noted that Uplift Harris, which received over 48,000 applications within the first three days, could violate a section of the Texas constitution stating the legislature cannot give counties the authority to grant public money for individual aid.
Ivanna Neri, senior director of partnerships at UpTogether, which partnered with Austin for the pilot, told BI that attempts to ban basic-income projects don't often consider that these programs could have long-term impacts on wealth inequality and could power the economy.
The original article contains 1,242 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.
I think that's a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.
Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.
People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.
Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won't work.
The well-off will never be not well-off unless they literally depend on the people's exploitation. If they do, well, like they say, its like whoever the technological advances they depend on immediately put out of commission in terms of employment options off the table
The point of UBI isn't to sit in the pockets of the working class. It's to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It's meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.
The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can't be competitive, well they shouldn't be markets, they should be government agencies.
UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can't, because working means they're ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It's a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.
UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.
UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you'd get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.
It's not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.
Means testing means not universal.
I frankly don’t give a shit if Bezos gets a $1000 check from the government every month, as long as the old lady with cancer, the 40 year old chronic pain sufferer, the working family with a 80k/yr income, and the 35 year old jobless dude who lives with his parents all get theirs too.
And most importantly take people out of the job market.
Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That's just my opinion!
I agree. I wonder if we could create a class based Union. Like a union for anyone making x amount or less.
Source: trust me, bro.
I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don't think there is actual prevention of that
Of course it is. But only if you have rich parents.
This reminds me of arguing with a coworker once. I was saying we essentially have basic income for the wealthy. If you have a million dollars, you can turn that into ~$45k year with just high yield savings accounts. No risk. It's insured.
He was like, "But they're taking risks with their money so that's not the same." I was like, "No risk. It's insured."
He was like, "But that money is being used on stuff. The bank invests it to start businesses." I was like, "If you just give money to poor people, they will spend it, and support businesses, and in better ways." But then we had to stop talking about it because we were at a work event. I think he started to reject the premise that poor people buying groceries is better for the economy than a bank investing in Snapcat (it's snapchat, for cats!), or whatever.
Social security for all!
Iowa has been dealing with automation and outsourcing problems for a long time. I’m surprised that the farming families aren’t asking for UBI. Considering how farming subsidies have been in place for decades it wouldn’t even be a big stretch.
You might want to look up how many tax subsidies and federal programs the farmers are protected by. They don't want anyone else to get a piece of that pie.
The alternative is "You can't afford to live? Then die." Or arguably worse, "Here, we'll give you a pittance so that you don't actually die, at least not immediately, but your life will be brutish and short, and treat you as though you're beholden to us."
Always has been
Hasn’t it always been, either directly or indirectly?
Now? When was it not?
"Small government" for us librul peasants but not for them.
Is money required to deal with Republicans ?
Yes but not much if it’s in Rubles.
Because the Koch brothers pay them for that?
UBI is interesting but I find that if you’re a free market traditional capitalist, its existence (as well as welfare) is kind of a distortion of market functions. The US in general seems reticent to collectivism as a concept, otherwise welfare and SS would not be looked at as a “I paid for this” entitlement. Now, the real question to ask politicians is if income inequality is a problem? I’d wager many in private would say no.
People having access to basic necessities is a distortion of market functions, so such the markets. The economy is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, so I really couldn't care less if it's distorted in ways that benefit ordinary people.
Don’t disagree, also pretty close to impossible to have a non distorted market place considering you’re dealing with people, not strictly rational forces. My point is more the perspective from people who may not consider a financial subsidy via UBI to be providing value as it distorts the value of income. I’m not a fan of UBI being “universal” in the sense that people who don’t need it still getting access (it’s main benefit is it simplifies access and avoids needing to prove income), but its certainly simpler and less distorting than say housing vouchers and food subsidies. That being said, I don’t think most people actually care about the well being of those less fortunate and that’s representative in our elected officials.
Regarding the idea of basic income being universal, it makes a lot more sense when you think of income tax and basic income being facets of a single system that decides how much each person owes the government in income tax; basic income is just negative tax. We already have a mechanism for making sure wealthier people pay more: tax brackets. People who don't need basic income automatically end up with a positive tax burden. You could describe it as gradually phasing out basic income for people who make over a certain amount, but that's mathematically equivalent to just adding a tax bracket for low income earners.
The thing I'd really want to avoid is a system where earning an extra dollar can put you over some threshold where lose all your basic income, becoming poorer as a result. A lot of real programs for low-income people work that way, and it creates what's known as a poverty trap, where people can't afford to get out of poverty because getting on a career track that would lead to them not needing benefits anymore leads to a short-term loss of benefits that they can't afford to lose.
To me, it always comes back down to what’s the objective, what’s are the options to solve or improve the results. If the goal is to provide basic fundamental needs for your population, define what basic fundamental needs are: is it housing, food security, a wage where people have the option to save? All of those things are moral, desirable things that I would argue every person on the planet should have. In reality, people are self interested, care about people closest to them or most similar to themselves, and we as a society don’t truly have the conversation about what impact solving that problem would have to their own social stature. Case in point, housing - among several reasons why housing is so scarce is that its in the interest of those with secure housing to limit access to it. I think UBI is similar in that it closes the gap in comparison between the middle class and the lower worker class - there’s a lot of arguably selfish justification for why that poor person deserves to remain poorer than thou. The other question which I personally think is somewhat justifiable, does UBI replace or supplement existing social safety net programs? Do you remove, say housing subsidies when you create a $2000/mo UBI? Does that establish a pricing floor for goods and services? Do businesses reduce their wages by the amount of UBI or do they decide to relocate to a place with lower taxation? Much like universal health care, I really think this is something that needs to be implemented at scale on the federal level due to the relative ease of people and companies relocating to places where their tax burden would be reduced. That being said, its insanity to ban UBI when its essentially just a reform of what we do today - republican posturing is out of control and doesn’t come with any conservative leaning solutions to the same social issues.
You might find Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman interesting, he certainly was no collectivist.