How I Became a Progressive (New Topic 6/15 - Environmentalism) (1 Viewer)

TLDR version:  I'm old.  My political views have changed over time.  I'll try to explain why and how.

This is in some ways a follow up to a previous topic I started, https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/784983-what-party-am-i-today/

I've posted on these forums for, literally, decades.  I used cheatsheets.net.  I was here for Ol' Yeller.  So, I'll start by saying, Get Off My Lawn!  On a more serious note, it's interesting for me to reflect on the way I've changed over time, particularly with regard to some (many? most?) of my political views.  I'll be frank and say that I'm downright embarrassed by some of the views I've held at times in the past.  For those who know me, I don't think it's a secret that I've moved from what one might describe as "right-leaning libertarian" to "left-leaning libertarian" to "progressive with libertarian ideals".  Interestingly, and contrary to conventional wisdom here, past debates here on this forum have played a not insignificant role in changing my views.

My plan is to post a variety of topics, along with my "old" thoughts, my "current" thoughts, my arguments in favor of my current thoughts, and, if applicable, my analysis of why my thought process has shifted.  I won't post them all at once, as I don't want to write them all at once and because I don't want some to be overwhelmed by comments or debates on some of the more contentious items.

All I ask is that any discussion be civil and constructive.  Let's not do the "socialism!!!" and "but Trump/Obama/Biden" stuff.  If you're not planning to post constructive, meaningful, thoughtful discussion, I'd ask that you refrain from posting at all.  Hopefully, the mods will help me out if needed.

Universal Basic Income

Here's one where my thinking has stayed fairly similar over the last decade or so, and while my position is often denigrated as "far left", I think it's really much closer to libertarianism.  Frankly, I'm surprised that more conservatives haven't gotten on board.  In any case, it's no secret that I'm for Universal Basic Income (UBI), sometimes called Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), a belief that every citizen should get regular checks from the government without means testing.  The exact amount and frequency aren't as important to me as the qualification that it's every citizen, both rich and poor, for efficiency reasons and so as not to discourage those who want to from working and earning more.  The ideal is that this would replace other social safety net programs like welfare and unemployment (and possibly SNAp/foodstamps or similar programs).  Theoretically, it should also eliminate minimum wage laws.

My opinion is that we as a society do need a social safety net, and it would be immoral not to provide one.  People sometimes need help.  For those who believe a social safety net is needed at all, it seems to be a no-brainer that UBI/BIG are the best way to provide one.

Where I think that conservatives should be on board is that they frequently argue against welfare and unemployment on the grounds that it makes people not want to work because they can get paid more not to work.  This would immediately no longer be the case.  People that want more would be encouraged to work.  There would be no such thing as getting paid more not to work.  Conservatives also argue against minimum wage laws on the grounds that employers and employees should be able to negotiate whatever they want.  With a UBI/BIG in place, this becomes more true and an excellent argument against minimum wage laws.

Liberals should be on board in that the groups that most need it would now have a true social safety net, without a worry that those who independently improve their lot in life would lose the existing government support.

Libertarians (small "l") should be on board in that this would be a much more efficient way to achieve a social safety net, as there would no longer be a need for the bureaucracy that currently exists to determine eligibility for welfare and unemployment.

It goes without saying that the UBI/BIG amount should be indexed to inflation in some way, to prevent the need to revisit it like we currently revisit and relitigate minimum wage laws today.

The most common argument I tend to hear against UBI/BIG is that people will be lazy if they don't need to work.  My responses to that are:

• That's a fallacy.  People aren't going to suddenly stop working if they're being paid, say, $15K/year via UBI.  If it were true, we wouldn't see so many people striving for better paying jobs, working second jobs, etc.
  
• In the limited studies of UBI to date, it's been proven to be untrue.
  
• Even if true, that's not a bad thing.  Since the dawn of humanity, we've endeavored to produce more with less.  We've endeavored to create more "free time".  It used to be that nearly all of humanity's time was spent on subsistence, and we've gradually progressed in favor of less time spent on "have to" and more time available for "want to".  I would argue that we should encourage that trend.
  

Finally, my last argument in favor of UBI/BIG.  As automation continues to take hold, I suspect that unemployment will rise.  I believe that eventually, we may face 50%+ unemployment rates.  Yes, I know the standard arguments that technology has always created more jobs than it destroyed, but I don't believe that will remain true forever (and again, that isn't necessarily a bad thing).  In the event that automation does cause wildly unprecedented levels of unemployment (whether 20, 50, or 100 years from now), something like a UBI/BIG solution will be required.  Wouldn't we rather be the first country to figure out how to do it successfully than the last?

I'm not sure how I feel about UBI, mainly because of where the money would be coming from to pay for it, especially with the rampant waste already present in government spending, but I do feel that having people not starve or be forced to live on the street is an important cause.

Kal El said:

I'm not sure how I feel about UBI, mainly because of where the money would be coming from to pay for it, especially with the rampant waste already present in government spending, but I do feel that having people not starve or be forced to live on the street is an important cause.

Click to expand...

That's the other most common argument against, I think.  Figured I'd cover the "where does the money come from" when I get into the Taxation section.

Big fan of Rich Conway, even though we were at odds often back in the old yellar days.  I'm both excited that we're now rowing in the same direction, but also disappointed that the board has lost one of it's most thoughtful conservative voices.  

Rich Conway said:

Universal Basic Income

Here's one where my thinking has stayed fairly similar over the last decade or so, and while my position is often denigrated as "far left", I think it's really much closer to libertarianism. 

Click to expand...

UBI is a stone's throw away from Milton Friedman.  I'm extremely confident that he would support something along these lines if he were alive today.

Rich Conway said:

Universal Basic Income

Click to expand...

With ubi does welfare, Medicare, all other social programs go away?  What Stays?  Why?

UBI will never happen in the United States.  Socialism does not work.

  This will be one of the more interesting threads we've had in this forum for sure even if we can't make it to double digit posts respecting the wishes of the OP   

I've made some, what I consider significant, changes in the last 15 years to my views and am in the process of trying to figure out if  they really are significant or just seem significant now that what used to be my sounding board has sprinted faster to the extreme right than Usain Bolt in the 200M .  

djmich said:

With ubi does welfare, Medicare, all other social programs go away?  What Stays?  Why?

Click to expand...

Well, there is no single UBI proposal, so if you ask 10 people you may get 10 different answers.  In my head, I would see it replacing welfare, unemployment, and Social Security, at the least.  With Social Security, there would likely need to be a lengthy phase-in, to account for SS money paid in.  I could certainly see it replacing SNAP and TANF.

Personally, I wouldn't see it replacing Medicare.  I'll cover health care as one of the topics I mentioned above.  At the moment, however, if we intended UBI to replace Medicare, I would think the only way to accomplish that would be to give each citizen a voucher (or cash) with which to purchase health insurance.  That would very much go against one of the primary goals of UBI, to me, in that it would be far more efficient to simply give people health care directly rather than give them a health insurance voucher, thus invoking additional layers of complexity and middlemen.

I think the problem with the UBI is not what you wrote. I think people generally want to work and have purpose.

The problem is there are still going to be some people who are either incapable of providing for themselves with a UBI or are reckless and don't provide for themselves with the UBI. And then we again have to make the decision as a society if we want to let those people just die. And (I hope) we would decide we don't want to do that.

So while UBI is good in theory, I think we would end up with a UBI and another form of social safety net for those who can't or don't manage the UBI.

Don't Noonan said:

UBI will never happen in the United States.  Socialism does not work.

Click to expand...

Dude

Rich Conway said:

Well, there is no single UBI proposal, so if you ask 10 people you may get 10 different answers.  In my head, I would see it replacing welfare, unemployment, and Social Security, at the least.  With Social Security, there would likely need to be a lengthy phase-in, to account for SS money paid in.  I could certainly see it replacing SNAP and TANF.

Personally, I wouldn't see it replacing Medicare.  I'll cover health care as one of the topics I mentioned above.  At the moment, however, if we intended UBI to replace Medicare, I would think the only way to accomplish that would be to give each citizen a voucher (or cash) with which to purchase health insurance.  That would very much go against one of the primary goals of UBI, to me, in that it would be far more efficient to simply give people health care directly rather than give them a health insurance voucher, thus invoking additional layers of complexity and middlemen.

Click to expand...

Thanks makes sense in terms of replacing.  The question around healthcare efficiency is if you believe over the long term government will do it best vs the “cost” of a middle man.

Anyone know what we spend on average per person for the items you indicate will go away.  Would provide some idea of what needs to be made up.

whoknew said:

I think the problem with the UBI is not what you wrote. I think people generally want to work and have purpose.

The problem is there are still going to be some people who are either incapable of providing for themselves with a UBI or are reckless and don't provide for themselves with the UBI. And then we again have to make the decision as a society if we want to let those people just die. And (I hope) we would decide we don't want to do that.

So while UBI is good in theory, I think we would end up with a UBI and another form of social safety net for those who can't or don't manage the UBI.

Click to expand...

Yes, that will be a problem

whoknew said:

I think the problem with the UBI is not what you wrote. I think people generally want to work and have purpose.

The problem is there are still going to be some people who are either incapable of providing for themselves with a UBI or are reckless and don't provide for themselves with the UBI. And then we again have to make the decision as a society if we want to let those people just die. And (I hope) we would decide we don't want to do that.

So while UBI is good in theory, I think we would end up with a UBI and another form of social safety net for those who can't or don't manage the UBI.

Click to expand...

I've heard this argument before as well.  I struggle to understand how it's a criticism that's new to UBI versus our existing forms of social safety net.  That is, couldn't you make the exact same argument against welfare and unemployment?  If it's not an issue with welfare and unemployment today, I don't understand why it would become a problem with UBI.  If it is a problem with welfare and unemployment today, then UBI leaves us no worse off.

djmich said:

Thanks makes sense in terms of replacing.  The question around healthcare efficiency is if you believe over the long term government will do it best vs the “cost” of a middle man.

Anyone know what we spend on average per person for the items you indicate will go away.  Would provide some idea of what needs to be made up.

Click to expand...

I will get to health care as a topic, promise!  I've given this thread a lot of thought, and I'm pretty sure that adding topics slowly, 1 or 2 at a time, will lead to a better overall discussion.

Re: spending, I don't have all the numbers, but some quick research shows me:

• Social Security is estimated to be $1.15T in fiscal year 2021.
  
• Other federal welfare programs (not including SS or Medicare) appear to come to $375B, and incude SNAP, TANF, Child Tax Credit, EITC, Housing Assistance, and federal unemployment payments, as well as a few other programs.
  
• I believe that unemployment and welfare are mainly state-level programs, which makes them harder to track.  The second link below shows a figure of $2070 per capita spent on "public welfare" for the entire US in 2017, which would work out to $660B for 330M people.
  
• That same link also shows a figure of $2619 per capita spent on "all other", some of which might fall under the UBI replacement bucket, but hard to say.
  

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita

Figure the above comes to about $2.2T, give or take.  If we do some very rough assumptions on what UBI might cost:

• Say $1000 per month per adult, at 255M adults = ~$3T
  
• Say $500 per month per child, at 75M children = ~$450B
  
• Figure a total of about $3.5T annually
  
• $3.5T - $2.2B currently spent on "programs that would be replaced" equals about $1.3T in additional funding needed
  

Again, as noted above, there is no single UBI proposal, so those numbers ($1000/month/adult, $500/month/child) are just some that I've seen thrown around in the past.  Obviously, at 330M citizens, changing the numbers can change the total pretty quickly.  For example, my numbers above come to about $3.5T, yet switching from $12K per year per adult to $10K or $15K would change the total to ~$3T or $4.25T, respectively.

Rich Conway said:

 Interestingly, and contrary to conventional wisdom here, past debates here on this forum have played a not insignificant role in changing my views.

Click to expand...

 You’re welcome.

I've never understood that "conventional wisdom," either. If you stay in a community for 20 years like some of us have, you're bound to be influenced by the smartest posters here. If you're really interested in listening. 

Rich Conway said:

I've heard this argument before as well.  I struggle to understand how it's a criticism that's new to UBI versus our existing forms of social safety net.  That is, couldn't you make the exact same argument against welfare and unemployment?  If it's not an issue with welfare and unemployment today, I don't understand why it would become a problem with UBI.  If it is a problem with welfare and unemployment today, then UBI leaves us no worse off.

Click to expand...

So your point is that we are just eliminating unemployment in exchange for a UBI? What is the cost difference, do you know?

whoknew said:

So your point is that we are just eliminating unemployment in exchange for a UBI? What is the cost difference, do you know?

Click to expand...

This is the first question that comes to my mind and I go immediately to the cost of maintaining the individual programs.  All of them have workforce.  All of them have technology resources.  I am curious what kind of overhead costs we would save if we got rid of a ton of these programs for one...lump it all together and have a one stop shop.

Rich Conway said:

Universal Basic Income

Here's one where my thinking has stayed fairly similar over the last decade or so

Click to expand...

After my stray comment that the "Prebate" in the Fair Tax proposal looked an awful lot like a tiny basic income  you and @roadkill1292 jumped out of the woodwork as early vocal supporters around here.  So while there are many that claim to have always been on board I think that...

Rich Conway said:

past debates here on this forum have played a not insignificant role in changing my views.

Click to expand...

... you can take some small amount of pride in contributing to the changing perceptions on this topic around here.  It might not yet have majority support around here but it isn't laughed off the same way it used to be.

Rich Conway said:

Re: spending, I don't have all the numbers, but some quick research shows me:

Click to expand...

Speaking of that "prebate" there are also replaceable "welfare programs" hidden in the tax code.   Now I know that there is always  blow back when one uses the term "tax expenditure"  but there is a trillion dollars of "spending" there which should largely go away with a UBI.   However you have to be careful because that trillion dollars is used to pay for a lot of UBI proposals, almost all Medicare for All proposals, by all tax reforms (including the Fair Tax) and obviously when one starts to support multiple varieties of these you can't reallocate that same trillion dollars for each of them.  So probably good that you didn't here on the funding side, but an UBI would likely eliminate a lot of welfare hidden in the tax code.    

whoknew said:

So your point is that we are just eliminating unemployment in exchange for a UBI? What is the cost difference, do you know?

Click to expand...

I think the idea is that UBI would replace a number of existing social safety net programs, certainly including unemployment.  In the post following the one you quoted, I added some rough numbers on costs.

My original point in responding to your post regarding people squandering the UBI is that I think that's an argument against social safety nets in general rather than against UBI specifically.  If we look at any proposal, it's fair to criticize intended or unintended consequences of said proposal, as long as those consequences are new.  If the consequences already exist, then the criticism doesn't really apply to the new proposal.  For example, if "current program" results in A and B, and "proposed new program" results in A, B, and C, it's not really fair to argue that the new proposal causes A and B, since those already exist.

The Commish said:

This is the first question that comes to my mind and I go immediately to the cost of maintaining the individual programs.  All of them have workforce.  All of them have technology resources.  I am curious what kind of overhead costs we would save if we got rid of a ton of these programs for one...lump it all together and have a one stop shop.

Click to expand...

Right, meaning the total difference in government expenditure for UBI is lower than we think, once we account for the bureaucratic costs of maintaining the programs.  I suspect, however, the difference here isn't terribly meaningful on a percentage basis.

Rich Conway said:

I think the idea is that UBI would replace a number of existing social safety net programs, certainly including unemployment.  In the post following the one you quoted, I added some rough numbers on costs.

My original point in responding to your post regarding people squandering the UBI is that I think that's an argument against social safety nets in general rather than against UBI specifically.  If we look at any proposal, it's fair to criticize intended or unintended consequences of said proposal, as long as those consequences are new.  If the consequences already exist, then the criticism doesn't really apply to the new proposal.  For example, if "current program" results in A and B, and "proposed new program" results in A, B, and C, it's not really fair to argue that the new proposal causes A and B, since those already exist.

Click to expand...

My point, though, wasn't that people will squander and squander is bad. My point was people will squander and so this will just be another large cost that we can't afford.

I was initially in favor of a UBI but my concern is that it will just be another safety net - not a replacement. And I worry we can't afford it. Because it will be an expensive one. 

So my concern is an economic one. Its not clear from me - in your numbers post - which of the other programs you think a UBI will replace. Did I miss that?

whoknew said:

My point, though, wasn't that people will squander and squander is bad. My point was people will squander and so this will just be another large cost that we can't afford.

I was initially in favor of a UBI but my concern is that it will just be another safety net - not a replacement. And I worry we can't afford it. Because it will be an expensive one. 

So my concern is an economic one. Its not clear from me - in your numbers post - which of the other programs you think a UBI will replace. Did I miss that?

Click to expand...

I'll hit on the "at this point, UBI is more of a concept, and there is no single UBI proposal" theme again, meaning different people will have different answers for "what programs should/would UBI replace".  I didn't specifically list the items in the costs post, but my thought is UBI would replace: welfare, unemployment, minimum wage laws, Social Security (with a lengthy phase-in here), probably SNAP and TANF, and potentially a number of other programs.  Meaning, with respect to "people will squander it, do we just let them die", I don't see that as a new argument/criticism with respect to UBI, as the same argument/criticism should exist relative to welfare and unemployment, shouldn't it?  I think the answer is we continue doing what we do now; private charities, soup kitchens, shelters, etc. would continue to exist.

Put another way, I would argue that UBI by itself isn't going to solve all problems with respect to poverty, but in all ways, it is better than or at least equal to what we have now.  Does that make more sense, particularly the italicized bit?

Rich Conway said:

Right, meaning the total difference in government expenditure for UBI is lower than we think, once we account for the bureaucratic costs of maintaining the programs.  I suspect, however, the difference here isn't terribly meaningful on a percentage basis.

Click to expand...

Agreed.  My thought on all this is really on the administrative cost given how bloated and terribly inefficient we are in the federal government.  I figure, it's a good thing if we can get Joe Smith his $X dollars at a cost of $5 because it's one system vs getting them that same $X at $20-25 because the overhead is duplicated over several systems.  That would add up over time.

I wonder how many of the people who are greatly opposed to UBI are also cashing their Coronavirus unemployment checks.

On UBI - I think it's a non-starter if you don't replace existing safety nets.  That's one of the appeals to me - you eliminate all the unnecessary management of some existing programs.  And it's "fair" - for those people who care about those things.

Seems like the government could set up some processes that might diminish the problem of the squandering of UBI payments:

1) Any loan taken using future UBI payments as collateral is unenforceable. 

2) Landlords of delinquent tenants can have past and future rent payments garnished from UBI payments.

These rules wouldn't solve every problem but I think they would help with those concerns a lot.  

AAABatteries said:

I wonder how many of the people who are greatly opposed to UBI are also cashing their Coronavirus unemployment checks.

On UBI - I think it's a non-starter if you don't replace existing safety nets.  That's one of the appeals to me - you eliminate all the unnecessary management of some existing programs.  And it's "fair" - for those people who care about those things.

Click to expand...

100%

Quick thoughts on UBI...

When you give people money, it creates dependence, and complacency....that isn't some conservative made up lie. It's simply true....

Now replacing all the other welfare with UBI, that is an interesting concept I could potentially get behind.  As long as the system promotes moving beyond the UBI.....one of the reasons I like SS is it's designed for you to pay into and it's there for you after retirement.....good idea, but it's a #### system because our federal government is bad with money.....

My biggest concern with any of this is the federal government is horribly run by beuracrats who cannot balance any kind of budget, and don't care, because they don't have to produce the money themselve.....they have an endless cash flow from tax payers.  But that's a whole other can o worms.

I would like to see an overhaul of the SS system.....promote people to earn their own way, and succeed as able bodied adults. Then be rewarded at retirement...... unfortunately, the federal government is more about making things overly complicated and creating more government jobs that suck up the tax revenue(overhead)......private industry doesnt have that luxury, unless the gub deems u too big to fail I guess...haha

I know a lot of the tree huggers don't want to hear this, but gub de-regulation, and allowing private industry to go about their business (within reason) is how you put people to work......but muh global warming!  I will only say this, cuz it's all intertwined.....HOW MUCH of an impact we have on global warming is what's up for debate.....I know I know another can o worms.

Manster said:

Quick thoughts on UBI...

When you give people money, it creates dependence, and complacency....that isn't some conservative made up lie. It's simply true....

Click to expand...

You cannot declare something true because you wish it to be. Show your work, lets see some studies. 

huthut said:

You cannot declare something true because you wish it to be. Show your work, lets see some studies. 

Click to expand...

I saw it first hand during the economic shutdown of covid.....I personally know people who didn't want to work because they were getting free money...not because they were afraid of getting sick, but because it was a free ride.......when it was going to go away, they went back to work.  It's human nature.....you get stuff for free, OR you don't reward hard work (government employees), it takes away motivation...

Manster said:

When you give people money, it creates dependence, and complacency....that isn't some conservative made up lie. It's simply true....

Click to expand...

For some....not all.  And, in my experience, not nearly as many as people think, but it DOES do this for some people.

Manster said:

I would like to see an overhaul of the SS system.....promote people to earn their own way, and succeed as able bodied adults. Then be rewarded at retirement...... unfortunately, the federal government is more about making things overly complicated and creating more government jobs that suck up the tax revenue(overhead)......private industry doesnt have that luxury, unless the gub deems u too big to fail I guess...haha

Click to expand...

Agree with this too....we need to work on evening the playing field to allow this to happen, but once everyone is treated the same way I'm good with the "earn your way" philosophy.  I'll say that I don't share your view of the SS system...it's running well, but has an issue coming soon with all the boomers retiring.  That needs to be addressed, but that's not overly complicated....you increase the progressive nature of the payout scale already in place and do the needful.  

Rich Conway said:

For those who know me, I don't think it's a secret that I've moved from what one might describe as "right-leaning libertarian" to "left-leaning libertarian" to "progressive with libertarian ideals".

Click to expand...

Or from a classic liberal to just a liberal  

Manster said:

I saw it first hand during the economic shutdown of covid.....I personally know people who didn't want to work because they were getting free money...not because they were afraid of getting sick, but because it was a free ride.......when it was going to go away, they went back to work.  It's human nature.....you get stuff for free, OR you don't reward hard work (government employees), it takes away motivation...

Click to expand...

My main hangup is on the wording "it is simply true". It sounds like that is more your opinion/anecdotal experience than anything with numbers behind it, so stating that it is unequivocally true seems a bit strong for the evidence (or lack thereof). It might be true, but it also might not be. 

huthut said:

My main hangup is on the wording "it is simply true". It sounds like that is more your opinion/anecdotal experience than anything with numbers behind it, so stating that it is unequivocally true seems a bit strong for the evidence (or lack thereof). It might be true, but it also might not be. 

Click to expand...

There's no question we have free loaders in this country.  There's no need to debate that.  The number is what needs to be debated.  In my experience this is EASILY the exception rather than the rule.  Studies and research also back that position.  The 80s gave a handful of cases of abuse that people refuse to let go of.  People are convinced those cases are the rule....they aren't.

The Commish said:

There's no question we have free loaders in this country.  There's no need to debate that.  The number is what needs to be debated.  In my experience this is EASILY the exception rather than the rule.  Studies and research also back that position.  The 80s gave a handful of cases of abuse that people refuse to let go of.  People are convinced those cases are the rule....they aren't.

Click to expand...

Most freeloaders I know are a bunch of in-law relatives in rural areas abusing disability (who trend towards being conservative incidentally), not actual welfare queens in cadillacs or whatever Reagan was making up. Sure, can go for a 7 mile uphill hike, and spend an hour in the gym, but still use the disability placard to park in front of the grocery store and cannot sit in a desk to work due to a bad back, but can spend 8 hours a day in front of a computer on facebook. They still complain about freeloaders, but they earned it, not like those other people who just want free stuff.

huthut said:

Most freeloaders I know are a bunch of in-law relatives in rural areas abusing disability (who trend towards being conservative incidentally), not actual welfare queens in cadillacs or whatever Reagan was making up. Sure, can go for a 7 mile uphill hike, and spend an hour in the gym, but still use the disability placard to park in front of the grocery store and cannot sit in a desk to work due to a bad back, but can spend 8 hours a day in front of a computer on facebook. They still complain about freeloaders, but they earned it, not like those other people who just want free stuff.

Click to expand...

Wow....weren't you just giving me crap for generalizations?  And I didn't use any derogatory descriptions in mine.....a simple example.....this is pretty sketch.

So are you saying that it's mostly white "rural" people taking advantage of the system?  Did I misunderstand? Where's ur studies?  

To be fair, I'm not saying white folks aren't taking advantage.....I doubt it's a race thing, prolly more a cyclical thing based on break down of nuclear families.....don't have the study in front of me though

Manster said:

.I personally know people who didn't want to work because they were getting free money...not because they were afraid of getting sick, but because it was a free ride

Click to expand...

Our job force would be better off without these people in the way!  But I think a lot of people exaggerate in their minds the number of people that could do this for extended periods of time.  Most of us are wired to accomplish things.   We do best when our jobs are aligned with that sense of accomplishment.  If the job market loses some talented people that are misplaced because today they need a job to survive then we as a society are probably much better off when those individuals are applying those talents to task that fill them with a sense of accomplishment.  

ETA:  And working the welfare system is a job for some.  Just a job that we would be better off wasn't available and more importantly needed.

Manster said:

Wow....weren't you just giving me crap for generalizations?  And I didn't use any derogatory descriptions in mine.....a simple example.....this is pretty sketch.

So are you saying that it's mostly white "rural" people taking advantage of the system?  Did I misunderstand? Where's ur studies?  

To be fair, I'm not saying white folks aren't taking advantage.....I doubt it's a race thing, prolly more a cyclical thing based on break down of nuclear families.....don't have the study in front of me though

Click to expand...

I was not trying to make any broad claims, just my own anecdotal experience. I think in general there is a lot of hypocrisy about people thinking that they deserve whatever government benefit because they earned it while everyone else are just freeloaders that don't want to work. Sort of the concept of other people game the system, while not realizing that they are other people to someone else.  

huthut said:

I was not trying to make any broad claims, just my own anecdotal experience. I think in general there is a lot of hypocrisy about people thinking that they deserve whatever government benefit because they earned it while everyone else are just freeloaders that don't want to work. Sort of the concept of other people game the system, while not realizing that they are other people to someone else.  

Click to expand...

I don't think the left and right world views are going to agree on the causes, for the most part.  The way I see it, the left wants to blame the system, and the right wants to blame the individual.....the truth is usually somewhere in the middle I think.....strong, involved parents are a good start to breaking the cycle of bad things

Manster said:

huthut said:

Most freeloaders I know are a bunch of in-law relatives in rural areas abusing disability (who trend towards being conservative incidentally), not actual welfare queens in cadillacs or whatever Reagan was making up. Sure, can go for a 7 mile uphill hike, and spend an hour in the gym, but still use the disability placard to park in front of the grocery store and cannot sit in a desk to work due to a bad back, but can spend 8 hours a day in front of a computer on facebook. They still complain about freeloaders, but they earned it, not like those other people who just want free stuff.

Click to expand...

Wow....weren't you just giving me crap for generalizations?  And I didn't use any derogatory descriptions in mine.....a simple example.....this is pretty sketch.

So are you saying that it's mostly white "rural" people taking advantage of the system?  Did I misunderstand? Where's ur studies?  

To be fair, I'm not saying white folks aren't taking advantage.....I doubt it's a race thing, prolly more a cyclical thing based on break down of nuclear families.....don't have the study in front of me though

Click to expand...

Think you need to reread his comments.  He was SPECIFIC about "in-law relatives" and the "derogatory descriptions" he is referring to is the "welfare queen" label placed on those famous ladies in the 80s that MANY are convinced are the rule rather than the exception.  Then he refers to what his in-law relatives call "freeloaders".  

His anecdote is just as relevant as yours...not sure why you'd take issue with him throwing it out there right after you did the same  

Manster said:

I don't think the left and right world views are going to agree on the causes, for the most part.  The way I see it, the left wants to blame the system, and the right wants to blame the individual.....the truth is usually somewhere in the middle I think.....strong, involved parents are a good start to breaking the cycle of bad things

Click to expand...

The beauty of a UBI is that we don't need to blame anyone.  (Or since the check goes to everyone equally everyone is to blame!)  It breaks cycles of working the system as there is no system to work.  If people choose to stay at a minimal level of existence provided by a UBI then so be it, but there are no disincentives to break away and do better.  If you cannot depend on people to choose on their own to make good choices then the entire premise of the free market offering the best solutions collapses.  A UBI is favored in such a system because it creates no distortions in the market. I know that the UBI is typically viewed as favored by those on the left as "socialism".  Maybe that is true today.  But I just posted yesterday a NY Times article from 1978 that ends with this-

Favored by Conservatives

The idea of a negative income tax has been favored for years by conservative economists as a simple substitute for the complex present welfare system. It was espoused by Mr. Moynihan as long ago as 1962, when he served in the Kennedy Administration as an assistant secretary of labor.

Click to expand...

Now a "negative income tax" simply changes the mechanism for the payment.   It is simply a refundable tax credit rather that results in a check for some and less of the higher taxes to support this actually paid for by everyone else.   Carter's plan was a variation of that which morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit we have today.  I think putting this in the tax code has largely fallen out of favor with the exception of various flat tax schemes (not necessarily on income) which use a scaled down version to compensate for the regressive nature of flat taxation.  

Manster said:

I don't think the left and right world views are going to agree on the causes, for the most part.  The way I see it, the left wants to blame the system, and the right wants to blame the individual.....the truth is usually somewhere in the middle I think.....strong, involved parents are a good start to breaking the cycle of bad things

Click to expand...

People either see the uneven playing field or they ignore it.  That generally dictates which side they end up on...it's not left/right in my experience

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Our job force would be better off without these people in the way!  But I think a lot of people exaggerate in their minds the number of people that could do this for extended periods of time.  Most of us are wired to accomplish things.   We do best when our jobs are aligned with that sense of accomplishment.  If the job market loses some talented people that are misplaced because today they need a job to survive then we as a society are probably much better off when those individuals are applying those talents to task that fill them with a sense of accomplishment.  

ETA:  And working the welfare system is a job for some.  Just a job that we would be better off wasn't available and more importantly needed.

Click to expand...

How many people are actually content to live in poverty? Conservatives apparently feel that this is a much higher percentage of the population than I do. 

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The beauty of a UBI is that we don't need to blame anyone.  (Or since the check goes to everyone equally everyone is to blame!)  It breaks cycles of working the system as there is no system to work.  If people choose to stay at a minimal level of existence provided by a UBI then so be it, but there are no disincentives to break away and do better.  If you cannot depend on people to choose on their own to make good choices then the entire premise of the free market offering the best solutions collapses.  A UBI is favored in such a system because it creates no distortions in the market. I know that the UBI is typically viewed as favored by those on the left as "socialism".  Maybe that is true today.  But I just posted yesterday a NY Times article from 1978 that ends with this-

Now a "negative income tax" simply changes the mechanism for the payment.   It is simply a refundable tax credit rather that results in a check for some and less of the higher taxes to support this actually paid for by everyone else.   Carter's plan was a variation of that which morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit we have today.  I think putting this in the tax code has largely fallen out of favor with the exception of various flat tax schemes (not necessarily on income) which use a scaled down version to compensate for the regressive nature of flat taxation.  

Click to expand...

Thats assuming the the federal government would run UBI correctly, and efficiently....

Why is the tax code so complicated?  Oh yea, it's cuz the federal government is a bloated monster!

The Commish said:

Think you need to reread his comments.  He was SPECIFIC about "in-law relatives" and the "derogatory descriptions" he is referring to is the "welfare queen" label placed on those famous ladies in the 80s that MANY are convinced are the rule rather than the exception.  Then he refers to what his in-law relatives call "freeloaders".  

His anecdote is just as relevant as yours...not sure why you'd take issue with him throwing it out there right after you did the same  

Click to expand...

Really?  His was directed at certain kind/race of people....am I wrong?...I simply pointed out I've seen folks take advantage of free money without making any judgements based on race.  Not the same.

Manster said:

Really?  His was directed at certain kind/race of people....am I wrong?...I simply pointed out I've seen folks take advantage of free money without making any judgements based on race.  Not the same.

Click to expand...

Maybe we are talking about two different posts?  This is the one I am talking about....race isn't mentioned once:  

Most freeloaders I know are a bunch of in-law relatives in rural areas abusing disability (who trend towards being conservative incidentally), not actual welfare queens in cadillacs or whatever Reagan was making up. Sure, can go for a 7 mile uphill hike, and spend an hour in the gym, but still use the disability placard to park in front of the grocery store and cannot sit in a desk to work due to a bad back, but can spend 8 hours a day in front of a computer on facebook. They still complain about freeloaders, but they earned it, not like those other people who just want free stuff.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Maybe we are talking about two different posts?  This is the one I am talking about....race isn't mentioned once:  

Click to expand...

Whatever you say commish