It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama signals support for a universal basic income

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.


Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.


OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.


Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.

What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?

Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?

Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?

If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.


You have to be able to define what you mean by a basic standard living. I'd argue in the US, we generally already provide it as our standard of living is so high. In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries.


What a BSL might be, could be a whole subject onto itself. Am not prepared to get into that tonight.

You're kidding about the: "In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries", right? (It's sometimes hard to catch quirky humour in this format).




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

After he isn't POTUS anymore. I mean it's all well and good that Universal Basic Income is on the table or at least being mentioned more and I do think a form of it would be a smart idea, the fear of having no money is something that most people fight with and some form of this would help ease a lot of worries for most people (I also believe housing should be somewhere in there as well) but like any former politician, it's only AFTER they aren't in power that they agree with these sorts of programs.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Can you show evidence of this? I can only take your word for it and it seems somewhat unrealistic, can you show us how you came to this conclusion that American ghettos are of a higher standard than most other countries upper class ? Just between you and me I think you have no idea of what you are saying...

edit on 18-7-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 04:29 AM
link   
The only way I'd support a UBI is if it comes directly out of the pockets of the politicians that propose it. Time for them to put their money where their mouths are. Put up or shut up, Obama.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So...........

Why wasn't this a thing he could try for while president? A tad late, if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.


Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.


OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.


Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.

What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?

Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?

Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?

If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.


You have to be able to define what you mean by a basic standard living. I'd argue in the US, we generally already provide it as our standard of living is so high. In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries.


What a BSL might be, could be a whole subject onto itself. Am not prepared to get into that tonight.

You're kidding about the: "In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries", right? (It's sometimes hard to catch quirky humour in this format).


no, he is not kidding. most if not all people in ghetto housing, have running water, electricity, appliances like refrigerators, stoves and ovens, microwaves, more than one tiny room, TV's, VCR's telephones, indoor toilets, hot water, beds for different family members, and beds that are not on the floor, furniture, etc. that certainly counts as things that only rich people have in many countries. i kid you not. i have been in houses, where they are lucky enough to be able to afford electricity for one lightbulb, as well as houses with no light, except for maybe a fire that they use to cook. houses that are barely big enough for the entire family to sleep together on a thin mattress on the floor. seriously not even big enough to park a Smart car in. houses where they still use outhouses. houses where the only furniture was cheap plastic chairs and a cheap plastic table, as well as houses without even that. houses with no fridge, or stove (and no room for them either, with cooking done on an open wood fire built on a sand table, or a coal fire in a small box to cook on, and they might have a cheap Styrofoam cooler with ice to keep a small amount of food cool, if that. heck even most rich people may possibly only have a hot water heater for a shower, where most poorer people go to a well to get water and use a small pan to pour water on themselves to bath. homes who's sole "entertainment" is an old radio, if they even have one of those. in fact i see many people all the time that actually live with their family on the side of the road, sleeping in the hand cart they use to collect garbage to sell to junk venders, to hopefully earn enough to eat. even most housing for many "middle class" people may have only one or two rooms, and is smaller than a 1 car garage in total. and that is for a family with kids. even most expensive condo apartments are smaller than a 2 car garage, and may only have 1 or two rooms. most are smaller than the smallest apartments you can even find in North America. seriously i see these news items about people living in tiny homes and i laugh because they are so much bigger and far more luxurious than many middle class people with families live in. even those old, small, Sheetmetal garden sheds are bigger than many people's homes.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

So let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that that we as a people should look around the world and look for places worse off than we are, and wait until we're literally the worst place to liver ever before doing anything about it? Are you suggesting that these places you use for examples of horrible worse living are something we should aspire to? That unless we are living like some third world cesspool we should have nothing to complain about?

I find how they live horrid, I find it wrong, and I think it's long past time the standard of living be raised everywhere, not just here. Unfortunately the US is where I live and I have little influence over there and thus right now the US is where we're talking about.

What I find sick is, most of those people are living even worse lives than many slaves did in the south, and you're holding them up on some kind of pedestal as a marker of how good we have it. All you're really demonstrating is how bad the world is, and where we'll end up if we DON'T do something to stop it.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Why not Eliminate currency .... Everything is free to everyone.

But then how could we be held down ?

The Party Of NO Ideas ... Still has none



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




This, in my opinion, is the foundation for the Democrat platform.

UBI.

Universal Basic Income.

Free money!


Like... bailing out banks and injecting QE after QE into the highly addicted financial market?

Democrat platform? Why didn't the Rapepublicans stop this madness of socialism yet?
edit on 18-7-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Democrat platform? Why didn't the Rapepublicans stop this madness of socialism yet?


Because those douche-bags want it also.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
It’s not just money that a job provides,” Obama said in a portion of his speech devoted to economic policy. “It provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose.

So, If you are a stay at home parent, a child living at home, unemployed, ect… you have none of those things?

KMA Obama

They really hold no value for those they claim to represent.
People are beginning to see that.
I hope they get Obama to make a circuit around the entire usa.
He would ensure a super majority in congress, just not for his party.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A combined effort to destroy values for the status quo, look at that!

Quite the achievement right there, let's blame the poor people and not tackle wealth inequality with an UBI then?



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Absolute total price controls from penny gum to sky scrappers is the only way a UBI couldn’t disrupt economics by inflation. But that would also have to include wages and profits for those that choose to work and produce.

But let’s look at reality for a second. If for any reason (EMP, solar flare, fuel shortage) the supply lines to NYC was cut and food and other goods could not be trucked in for six months. How many years do you think it would take before you saw a squirrel in Central Park after the crisis was over?

Who is going to do the menial, low wage jobs when UBI will meet their needs even if it doesn’t cover any wants? Or conversely, who is going to do the high risk dangerous jobs that pay very well when that UBI plus an average safe job will cover the income difference?

We don’t have Star Wars type droids to do such things. Even the Roomba just randomly vacuums until it bumps into something. An area is usually missed before it returns to base to recharge on the hope it will hit it on the next run. Even Alexa doesn’t listen to your beer consumption and automatically order you another case to be delivered to further enable your budding alcoholism like a doting Stepford Wife, yet.

Then again perception is always the key element. UBI sounds utopian until you realize it is just an allowance from daddy government for being good and doing your chores. Guess what happens when a little bit of angst ridden rebellion to the authority creeps into the mix like speeding or running a red light...
edit on 18-7-2018 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy

A combined effort to destroy values for the status quo, look at that!

Quite the achievement right there, let's blame the poor people and not tackle wealth inequality with an UBI then?



It's redistribution of wealth.


You want to rob Peter to pay Paul.


edit on 18-7-2018 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
To say that UBI is "far to the Left" is really inaccurate. It has support in right-wing circles too. Milton Friedman was a supporter for instance.


So was that notorious leftie Hayek.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?


edit on 18-7-2018 by peter_kandra because: typo's



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: generik

So let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that that we as a people should look around the world and look for places worse off than we are, and wait until we're literally the worst place to liver ever before doing anything about it? Are you suggesting that these places you use for examples of horrible worse living are something we should aspire to? That unless we are living like some third world cesspool we should have nothing to complain about?

I find how they live horrid, I find it wrong, and I think it's long past time the standard of living be raised everywhere, not just here. Unfortunately the US is where I live and I have little influence over there and thus right now the US is where we're talking about.

What I find sick is, most of those people are living even worse lives than many slaves did in the south, and you're holding them up on some kind of pedestal as a marker of how good we have it. All you're really demonstrating is how bad the world is, and where we'll end up if we DON'T do something to stop it.


No, we are saying you need some perspective. Being "poor" in America or most 1st world countries is not the same thing as being poor in second or third world countries. What you have to look at is standard of living.

The poorest Americans based on income would be considered part of the richest 1% globally. This alone should tell you that the poor in America are not really poor all things considered. To be part of the global 1% in income, you only need to make like $30k/yr. Let that sink in for a moment.

Almost everyone in America has running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, public school access, air conditioning, cars, clothing, food, drinking water, cell phones, televisions, video game consoles, etc. Plenty of space to live. Rich or poor, it doesn't matter. The Heritage Foundation did a study on this across all income groups. Here is a video that breaks down the findings.



Being poor in America means instead of having five pairs of Jordans you may only have 1 pair. It means instead of central air, you might have window unit. Instead of 2 baths, you might have 1 bath. Instead of driving a late model BMW, you may have a 10 year old Honda Civic. Instead of an Iphone 9, you got a Samsung 6 or something.

This is not to say that America does not have problems, but anyone who has traveled abroad knows that the poor in America really have no concept of what real poverty looks like. No one in America lives in a hut with dirt floors. No one has an outhouse (except for people purposely living off grid). No one has to digging for food in a trash heap. No one is bathing in a river. Kids in America don't have distended bellies because they don't get enough to eat. These are simply not normal conditions in America.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?



A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.


Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.


OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.


Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.

What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?

Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?

Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?

If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.


You have to be able to define what you mean by a basic standard living. I'd argue in the US, we generally already provide it as our standard of living is so high. In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries.


What a BSL might be, could be a whole subject onto itself. Am not prepared to get into that tonight.

You're kidding about the: "In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries", right? (It's sometimes hard to catch quirky humour in this format).


Even poor people in America have larger homes with more amenities than most of Europe.

Sure, our housing projects aren't nice due to crime and neglect, but that is a PEOPLE issue. The actual properties themselves actually offer a high standard of living all things considered. Electricity. Running Water. Multiple Bedrooms and bathrooms. Refrigerators. Ovens. Microwaves. Large square footage.

Here in Chicago, the housing stock is virtually the same in rich neighborhoods as it is in poor neighborhoods. Literally, the same houses architecturally for the most part. The difference is in rich neighborhoods, you don't have hordes of feral teens hanging out on corners dealing drugs and shooting at each other. However, the actual accommodations are very similar.

The main difference is that in the rich neighborhood, the houses will be better maintained and have luxury finishes but the actual square footage will be similar to the house in the ghetto.

Again, we are talking standard of living.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?



A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).



I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join