[Ibon]

My concern is I'm not seeing credible workable solutions instead of the UBI. Just ignoring the problem is something we're good at, but leads to social disaster and then bankruptcy.

Yes, we have in the western hemisphere a perfect example of what happens if we do nothing; Brazil. Ever been there? I did about 50 trips there between 1989 and 2004. Got to know the culture very well, was invited into the homes and neighborhoods of my representatives I was managing and also spend time with my cousins and aunt who immigrated from Italy after WWII.

Perhaps my favorite country in Latin America, something about this giant melting pot and huge size and rich ethnic and racial heritage and irreverent humor and all the rest. Somehow like the USA but without all the uptight religious conservative hypocrisy. BUT the biggest price every Brazilian pays who lives in this country is the percentage of time and effort dedicated to personal security, neighborhoods sealed off, crime and robbery rampant, the upper middle class and wealthy living in prison like security ghettos, there is no respect to any piece of personal property that is not tied down, locked, secured and alarmed with triple military barb wire and broken off glass bottles lining the tops of stone walls... everywhere.

This is the future of the USA if we do nothing as OS states above. . Of course not for the 1% who will be able to afford the same security apparatus as their Brazilian 1% counterparts. But this will be the reality for the American middle class, that broad segment of the US population that already has been sacrificed to enable the 1% to reach astronomical wealth during the past 30 years. And now on top of that we want to target the programs that provide an imperfect safety net for the poor. OK, go right ahead.

As OS states it is easy to criticize any social safety net or welfare program. As inefficient and full of abuse as they are, as much as they do have the consequence of socializing and institutionalizing poverty, as much as all of that is true, go ahead and completely pull the rug out from under the poorest in the USA at the same time as we continue to erode the standard of living of the middle class as we have seen for the past 30 years and Brazil's reality is what we will end up having in the USA.....

Yep, so easy to criticize, not so easy to come up with viable solutions. if there are any.

I don't have any, just some observations here to try to broaden the perspective a bit.

[Tanada]

One last thought: If give-aways were any sort of solution, conditions in the inner cities would be improving, not deteriorating.

OK. I have no problem at all with the idea that a UBI won't work because it is a give-away, and give-aways for various reasons are a bad thing. That's a reasonable argument. Ironically, up to the point of the UBI discussion, I was consistently on your side re give-aways.

The thing that helped change my mind (and typical give-away liberals just HATE), is the idea of using the UBI to dismantle the vast majority of the EVER EXPANDING US welfare state, which is going to bankrupt us anyway, if we don't get it under control. (Just look at any credible long term US budget / debt projection based on the current system).

My concern is I'm not seeing credible workable solutions instead of the UBI. Just ignoring the problem is something we're good at, but leads to social disaster and then bankruptcy.

Ya wanna know a secret? The Western Roman Empire instituted this same idea in the last years of the Old republic by providing a basic minimum dole of free grain to residents of the city of Rome. The attendance of any public stadium whether it be gladiatorial combat, horse races, prisoner execution by combat, or dramatic plays/puppet shows/musical performances were 100% free to the public at large. You could get better food and better seats with a small purchase price, but your basic minimum food needs and bleacher equivalent stadium seating were free to all residents, even the slaves and lowest levels of the poor plebeians.

Doing these things kept the masses peaceable for the most part, but ultimately bankrupted the Western Empire where the practices were followed most closely. Byzantium i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire lasted a thousand years beyond the fall of Rome because the emperors on that side refused to bankrupt the Empire providing free 'bread and circuses' like their western counterparts had done. Constantinople the capital of Byzantium was the equal of Rome in population and diversity, yet fundamental public policy allowed it to prosper a full ten centuries longer. It certainly did not hurt that Egypt was in the eastern half of the Empire and was the breadbasket of the world at the time exporting more wheat than Italy could grow. The exporting of grain gave the Eastern Empire a steady income in addition to taxes for much of its existence creating a cash surplus state instead of a cash deficit state.

I would rather we follow the example of Constantinople than that of Rome, but my wishes are pretty much ignored by my government.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The thing that helped change my mind (and typical give-away liberals just HATE), is the idea of using the UBI to dismantle the vast majority of the EVER EXPANDING US welfare state, which is going to bankrupt us anyway, if we don't get it under control. (Just look at any credible long term US budget / debt projection based on the current system).

My concern is I'm not seeing credible workable solutions instead of the UBI. Just ignoring the problem is something we're good at, but leads to social disaster and then bankruptcy.

Ya wanna know a secret? The Western Roman Empire instituted this same idea in the last years of the Old republic by providing a basic minimum dole of free grain to residents of the city of Rome.

...

Doing these things kept the masses peaceable for the most part, but ultimately bankrupted the Western Empire where the practices were followed most closely.

Byzantium i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire lasted a thousand years beyond the fall of Rome because the emperors on that side refused to bankrupt the Empire providing free 'bread and circuses' like their western counterparts had done. Constantinople the capital of Byzantium was the equal of Rome in population and diversity, yet fundamental public policy allowed it to prosper a full ten centuries longer.

...

I would rather we follow the example of Constantinople than that of Rome, but my wishes are pretty much ignored by my government.

Ah, intelligent discussion about policy, history, etc. Thanks to the recent contributors for turning the thread back in that direction.

Excellent, clear points Tanada.

My instincts and core beliefs are all about trying to have a system which is a meritocracy, where work, thrift, and investment are rewarded, and everyone has a fair chance to prosper economically (and personally, as long as they're not hurting people).

But as I believe, and Ibon expanded on above, if you just yank away the safety net in the US NOW -- unless you want a social disaster on almost unimaginable scale for modern times -- then WHAT?

...

So at the risk of repeating myself -- what I'm mainly proposing we do is at least put a hard CONSTRAINT on the give-away programs, and prevent their growth (including corruption and political agendas). And it's a LOT more efficient than tracking the current growing mess.

...

Now, in the romantic days of the US in, say, the "Old West", we didn't have much social safety net. And there was lots of terrible poverty, and lots of people died young when something went wrong.

If you could convince the masses and the voters that this was better than the tyranny of high taxation and gradual bankruptcy of the system, and far less incentive to be successful -- I'd be all for it. Realistically though, I just don't see that happening. And I don't see our political system having enough patience to see a meaningful program of education and training and leading by example, etc. to make that happen in a decade or three. Not when it's hard to get the vast majority of politicians and voters to look beyond the next election cycle.

[Cog]

You need to run the math on UBI and get back to us on how it works. Going to means test it? Bill Gates gets his $1000/month? Does Laquisha with her five kids from five different fathers get $6000/month. Do you get it from birth onwards or is UBI part of your graduation present for finishing high school? What about kids who don't finish high school? Going to let them starve and no UBI for you.

I'm thinking I could live on $1000/month, as an 18 year old, with a bit of camping out, with still plenty of money for weed and booze. You really want to go down that road?

So if you don't get $1000/month until you are 18, how does baby momma feed those five kids until they get of age to collect? Going to let those kids starve or give the baby momma EBT(Food Stamps AND UBI AND free medical, AND subsidized housing?)

Nothing is more apparent to me then when you are start a government program its impossible to end it. OBamaCare, SSDI, and Medicare Part D are all good examples of programs with soaring costs that no one can eliminate. Any attempt to even modify them, results in accusations of racism, ageism, and ism's I haven't even heard of.

But wait, there's more. You think high cost of living states won't want a larger UBI than states like Arkansas or Missouri? It would be racist and unfair not to give someone in San Francisco more money because they need it to live there. I can hear the speeches on Capitol Hill already.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You need to run the math on UBI and get back to us on how it works. Going to means test it? Bill Gates gets his $1000/month? Does Laquisha with her five kids from five different fathers get $6000/month. Do you get it from birth onwards or is UBI part of your graduation present for finishing high school? What about kids who don't finish high school? Going to let them starve and no UBI for you.

I'm thinking I could live on $1000/month, as an 18 year old, with a bit of camping out, with still plenty of money for weed and booze. You really want to go down that road?

So if you don't get $1000/month until you are 18, how does baby momma feed those five kids until they get of age to collect? Going to let those kids starve or give the baby momma EBT(Food Stamps AND UBI AND free medical, AND subsidized housing?)

Nothing is more apparent to me then when you are start a government program its impossible to end it. OBamaCare, SSDI, and Medicare Part D are all good examples of programs with soaring costs and no one can eliminate.

Cog, you ask good questions, and you make good points. NO system is perfect.

A true UBI wouldn't be means tested. That would be part of the simplicity -- not needing an expensive and potentially wasteful, corrupt, or incompetent meanss testing structure. That seems to be what most folks talking about a UBI favor, thus the U (Universal) part.

Personally, I'd favor means testing. I'm pretty sure you, I, and everyone in the upper middle class and above can survive without a UBI. Like everything else, such decisions involve trade-offs.

I've seen examples when it's adults 21 or over, no one on SS, and its means tested, where it costs about a $trillion, which is roughly what we spend on wealth transfers excluding SS and Medicare today. So it could be roughly a wash if restricted thus, and those other programs are all eliminated. Liberals will go beserk as a group, of course. And of course, bigger groups cost more, and then "how do you pay for it?" is a key question, just like any other program (which liberals and conservatives BOTH tend to "forget" to ask if they like a government program).

In my mind, you don't get more money for having more kids. Period. Having kids should imply personal responsibility. Can't take care of them? Then don't have them. Or the state takes them away until you prove you're stable and CAN take care of them. Once people understand that such actions have consequences, I strongly suspect many poor people will behave more rationally re having kids they can't take care of. Obviously many liberals will have 9 kinds of fits over this -- but I don't see them coming up with a workable financial system over time by constantly increasing the pork.

And yeah, everyone won't use the money equally wisely. Do they today with money they earn (or get from social benefits)? HELL NO -- so that's not a new issue.

Don't like 18? We could go with 21, but if the parents throw them out and they can find no work when they're 18 that's kind of brutal, which is why I chose 18. Again, others will disagree.

Some folks, like me, don't have a problem with doing things like reducing or even eliminating SS if there is a UBI. If you can now get 1000 a month for life from age 18 on for not working, why should you get SS at all? Again, trade-offs.

Medical is a tough one. First world societies seem to have decided that people have a "right" to health care whether they pay for it or not. That's not a UBI issue, that's a societal issue.

To me, you don't have rights to things that cost society money like food, water, medical care, housing, etc. automatically just because some liberals think so, but that seems to be how the first world is now working.

The good news is there are various experiments with a BI for various groups. Such experiments will yield interesting data, hopefully. Hell, I just read that Stockton CA is cranking one of those up. Yes, recently BANKRUPT Stockton, CA. The article didn't mention how they're paying for that, OF COURSE.

...

OK. Here's a question for you. Let's say you're right and we just cut 'em all off and no one (at least who is healthy and mentally competent) gets ANY basic benefits from the government as far as wealth transfers which aren't paid for from now on. Period. (So I'm excluding SS and Medicare here for now, as beneficiaries "contribute" part of their paychecks over their working lives to receive those benefits).

So how do we handle it when then, predictably, the "poor" start rioting, looting, robbing, and killing people to "get what they need"? Do we go full constant police/military intervention and kill such people on sight? (The courts couldn't begin to keep up, even if they jails had a place to put such people, en masse).

Just pretending like that approach won't cause big problems is a non-starter, IMO.

[Cog]

Rioters, looters, robbers, and killers should be executed after their fair and impartial trial. I won't even charge the state for the bullets. Consider it a civic duty.

If the doomers are correct and peak oil results in more violence, I'm thinking the justice system will dispense justice a lot faster than you currently observe in action. Think Old West. Arrested in the morning, trial in the afternoon, drinks in the evening, and hanging the next day.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Rioters, looters, robbers, and killers should be executed after their fair and impartial trial. I won't even charge the state for the bullets. Consider it a civic duty.

If the doomers are correct and peak oil results in more violence, I'm thinking the justice system will dispense justice a lot faster than you currently observe in action. Think Old West. Arrested in the morning, trial in the afternoon, drinks in the evening, and hanging the next day.

Sure, IF things get bad enough, we could certainly head strongly in that direction.

However, from what I've observed generally in the US over the past several decades, unless things get a LOT worse, the trend is in the other direction, even if that eviscerates the middle class over time.

[Cog]

I don't know we have all that much time left. And I'm not even a doomer per se.

[KaiserJeep]

Some Racism Is More Equal Than Others
DANIEL J. FLYNN | August 3, 2018, 12:03 am

The New York Times named anti-white racist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board earlier this week.

The new hire’s social media history reads like something David Duke might write, if only the reader substitutes “white” for all mentions of his disfavored groups.

Her posts featured the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople,” proclaimed Caucasians “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” and fantasized of the coming extinction of the race she seeks to erase. “Oh man,” she tweeted, “it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

Rest of article: https://spectator.org/evolution-more-certain-than-gravity/

Note, she's an Affirmative Action hire intended to correct a surplus of old white men on the Editorial Board at the Times.

[KaiserJeep]

It Wasn’t Just a Few Tweets
ROBERT STACY MCCAIN | August 3, 2018, 12:03 pm

In the uproar over Sarah Jeong’s hiring by the New York Times, the focus on her history of hateful rhetoric against white people overlooked her many other expressions of hatred — toward males, Christians, and police officers, among others. While her new employers have apparently accepted Ms. Jeong’s disingenuous excuse that she was “engaged in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling… intended as satire,” this cannot explain away her demonstrable habit of deliberately insulting entire groups of people. It is not true, as she claimed, that she merely “mimicked the language of my harassers.”

Consider, for example, Ms. Jeong’s oft-expressed contempt for Christians, including her own parents. She “grew up in a conservative evangelical Christian bubble,” but “became an annoying atheist” as a teenager, when she was “trapped in a fundamentalist Christian school.” After attending the University of California-Berkeley and graduating from Harvard Law, Ms. Jeong pronounced herself a member of the “educated left wing elite.” She says she has now “mostly cut myself off from the conservative evangelical community,” and condemns Christians who “indoctrinate children” with “reality-denying belief systems.” Ms. Jeong’s spiteful denunciation of her parents’ faith was not “counter-trolling,” nor was it “intended as satire.” These anti-Christian remarks appear to express her sincere beliefs, no different from her many similar expressions of contempt for other groups.

Remainder is at: https://spectator.org/it-wasnt-just-a-few-tweets/

[Plantagenet]

The New York Times named anti-white racist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board earlier this week.

This is where liberalism is at these days. Its not just the NY Times...the D party is obsessed with skin color and gender and sexual orientation to the point that they are setting quotas.

It doesn't matter these days to Ds who is better qualified or who backs which policies or even who wins the most votes. What really matters to Ds is the tint of a person's skin and their sexual self-identification---thats the basis they use.

quotas-for-male-democrats-


Even with quotas the Ds are screwing over women. IMHO D women should demand that their quota be set at 60%---not 50%-----

[Cog]

According to left thinking theology, it is impossible for any non white person to be racist and it's impossible for any white person to be non-racist. This is the mental disease prevalent on the left.

[SeaGypsy]

Same goes for women & 3rd gender people can't be sexist, young adults can't be ageist, gays don't discriminate on sexual preference, socioeconomic discrimination only effects the poor etc etc..

[dissident]

The development of these insane beliefs on the background of political correctness is a sad testament to the weakness of the human intellect. These beliefs are transparent BS, yet somehow have become rooted in the minds of people who view themselves as progressive.

It reminds me of the answers to physics questions given by young children which mirror those that would be given by people during the middle ages. The human brain is not really wired for rational thought. Normal thinking (i.e. not magical thinking) is the product of sober education. In the milieu of the last 40+ years all sorts of nonsense has been indoctrinated into the minds of millions. None of them rejected this obvious crap.

[KaiserJeep]

To harken back to the thread topic, what you said applies to all forms of Reverse Racism. When you decide that the government will treat people unfairly according to what race they are, until those same people treat each other fairly by ignoring race, then government policy is complete and obvious crap.

Those most vulnerable to the government-imposed crap are those that have the least education and the most to gain from it. I have noticed that those folks I have met in my life who are the most prejudiced are themselves minorities. Plus they get away with such behavior, because pretty much the government only enforces "hate crime" prison sentance enhancements against the White Majority. If the government were color blind, the minority jail population would be higher than what it is because of the hate crime sentance extensions. Such things amout to Affirmative Action in prison "admissions".

[KaiserJeep]

Same goes for women & 3rd gender people can't be sexist, young adults can't be ageist, gays don't discriminate on sexual preference, socioeconomic discrimination only effects the poor etc etc..

Here in Kalifornia, we have 7 genders. That would be the two conventional ones, plus LGBTQ. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered, and Queer. I'm not even sure I know what the "Q" means, other than it seems to mean "undecided" or possibly "uncertain" or possibly "I refuse to say".

[Outcast_Searcher]

Here in Kalifornia, we have 7 genders. That would be the two conventional ones, plus LGBTQ. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered, and Queer. I'm not even sure I know what the "Q" means, other than it seems to mean "undecided" or possibly "uncertain" or possibly "I refuse to say".

These things can be looked up, like anything else on Google.

The Q generally means "questioning", which a 74 year old friend learned chatting with a young person a while back.

This stuff evolves. When I saw "gender queer", for example, I had to look at the definition, having nary a clue.

https://ok2bme.ca/resources/kids-teens/ ... gbtq-mean/

[Plantagenet]

Here in Kalifornia, we have 7 genders. That would be the two conventional ones, plus LGBTQ. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered, and Queer. I'm not even sure I know what the "Q" means, other than it seems to mean "undecided" or possibly "uncertain" or possibly "I refuse to say".

Just wait....soon you will have two more genders and three more letters.

Theres A for asexual.

And there's I for intersex.

And you are no longer considered to be a "conventional" gender. Oh no....that would privilege your gender above all other genders. You are now an H for heteronormative....just another initial in the great rainbow pastiche of life.



Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Just wait....soon you will have two more genders and three more letters.

Theres A for asexual.

And there's I for intersex.

And you are no longer considered to be a "conventional" gender. Oh no....that would privilege your gender above all other genders. You are now an H for heteronormative....just another initial in the great rainbow pastiche of life.



Cheers!

Is it still "correct" to just try to be tolerant of everyone? That meme from my childhood is what I try to fall back on, as I don't keep up with all that stuff as an older retired guy, any more than I keep up with, say, modern bands, since I don't keep up with "the new music".

Like a few years back when playing in a Magic the Gathering tournament (which is dominated by the, say, 15 to 30 year old set) when I made a new friend, who needed a partner to play in a magic tournament. No one would play with "her" and players seemed to shun "her".

So being tolerant scored me points. But my poor brain had problem. So this is a guy who looks just like a guy (no sex change, hairy armpits, etc.) but identifies as a girl. Dresses like a girl. Kind of talks and acts like an effeminate guy. When I first saw "her", I mentally went through a "OK, what is THIS?", moment. Then I just fell back on the "Just be nice, and respectful" mode, which worked great until we got to the "rules".

Now, where I blew it was "she" wanted to be called she, but my poor brain has LOTS of neurons that sees a guy and wants to use the pronoun "he". And "she" wanted to be called "Nat", short for ("her" words) "the fabulous Natilie Portman. I initially, trying to be friendly, would call "her" "Nate" until "she" corrected me. Oops.

So after being corrected on the gender and the name, and sitting in front of a whole bunch of magic players within earshot, I said something like: "No disrespect intended. Things just weren't like this when I grew up where any of this stuff was out in the open OR talked about."

And "she" said something like, "Oh, that's OK. I can tell when someone is being a jerk about it."

So I guess that makes me tolerant, but stupid/clueless.

Is it just me, or is the world becoming kind of unrecognizable compared to the 60's and 70's, when I grew up?

[KaiserJeep]

It's YOU, and ME and everybody else who grew up in a different time. Just as your grandparents, while publicly doting on you, privately despaired that the "young people" of yesterday would ever amount to anything.

It's the circle of life, and you transcended the entire arc and are now on the other side.

You old fart, you.