5 ms·

>> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/

>> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier-for-us-economy.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier... (April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-confidence-low-gallup/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con... (June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already-here-and-there-isnt-much-the-fed-can-do-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already... I'm all for a basic income for lower income families, but I'm not sure how routinely volatile our economy is, we really afford this long term. What happens when you put something like this in place, and then can't afford it? There's a long list of government programs already awash in waste and mismanagement. I'm not sure another program (which would have to take the place of other programs - WIC, TEFAP, HUD, etc) is really going to solve the problem.

specialist 10y ago
I'm all for a basic income for lower income families Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.
- newjersey 10y ago
  > Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now. Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself. This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
The whole point of UBI is universal. If it's just moving some bits into everyone's account monthly, entire layers of bureacracy, with their buildings, staff, forms, and fraud checking departments, can be removed. It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively. Make it lower income only and you have to bring all that back.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively. You're assuming that it would be possible to simply eliminate government and state services and institutions, both politically and practically. Instead, everyone working within an organization works to serve their own personal interests. This means that it's practically impossible for an elected official to eliminate all this state cruft, as every single person within the organization would fight tooth and nail to sabotage the project.
- 1024core 10y ago
  You're further reinforcing his point, that people in SV have no clue about politics and government. Ronald Reagan is supposed to have said that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life that we’ve ever seen on Earth. Government programs never die. Period. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-programs-never-die/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-p... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-budget-cuts-these-government-programs-wont-die/2011/04/20/AFYOtwEE_print.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-bu...
makomk 10y ago
The US economy is certainly looking pretty dire, but it's not for a lack of resources: there's enough food, land, etc to support everyone. That's probably part of the problem. The economy is founded on an expectation of growth forever and there's nowhere left to grow within the US. The current output is likely enough to supply everyone with all the food, water and consumer gadgets they care to consume.

specialist 10y ago

I'm all for a basic income for lower income families Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.

newjersey 10y ago
> Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now. Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself. This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

The whole point of UBI is universal. If it's just moving some bits into everyone's account monthly, entire layers of bureacracy, with their buildings, staff, forms, and fraud checking departments, can be removed. It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively. Make it lower income only and you have to bring all that back.

geezerjay 10y ago
> It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively. You're assuming that it would be possible to simply eliminate government and state services and institutions, both politically and practically. Instead, everyone working within an organization works to serve their own personal interests. This means that it's practically impossible for an elected official to eliminate all this state cruft, as every single person within the organization would fight tooth and nail to sabotage the project.
1024core 10y ago
You're further reinforcing his point, that people in SV have no clue about politics and government. Ronald Reagan is supposed to have said that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life that we’ve ever seen on Earth. Government programs never die. Period. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-programs-never-die/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-p... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-budget-cuts-these-government-programs-wont-die/2011/04/20/AFYOtwEE_print.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-bu...

makomk 10y ago

The US economy is certainly looking pretty dire, but it's not for a lack of resources: there's enough food, land, etc to support everyone. That's probably part of the problem. The economy is founded on an expectation of growth forever and there's nowhere left to grow within the US. The current output is likely enough to supply everyone with all the food, water and consumer gadgets they care to consume.