Fiscal conservative...social liberal!

Are you alluding to Universal Basic Income? I haven't yet made up my mind on this.

 

Being socially liberal is concerned with gay rights, abortion, basically social libertarian values.

A welfare net is more a fiscal issue.

 

Yeah, I am. Some time soon...I expect we will be at a position where human labor will be almost without value in the general sense...particularly in the areas where most humans are able to labor. It makes no sense to have lots of grunt jobs; makes even less to pay decent wages to pepole to do grunt jobs...and the bottom line is that most humans cannot do more than grunt work...no matter how much training becomes available.

I think some form of the UBI will eventually become the norm...although like single payer universal healthcare, it will only come into existence with those opposed kicking, screaming, and tearing at their vestments.

You say you have not made up your mind. Is that because you think the need will not be there...or the will to enact it will never be obtained?

 

It's two separate entities that can't be compared. You're comparing human rights and then finance.

 

I understand and appreciate what you are saying...but most of the people I have question who assert the subject proposition...consider the notion of welfare and safety net to be VERY WORTHWHILE and laudable...l

...but do not want to pay for it.

That is the essence of the OP.

 

I am saying there are people who want things liberals stand for...

...but who do not want to pay for them.

And there are.

 

No, they can be a social liberal because they support gay rights, legalization, equality...

 

Ah, so your OP question is more accurately and honestly phrased "Why don't some people want to pay for socialist programs that I want?"

Because single payer healthcare and universal basic income aren't "safety nets" nor are they "socially liberal." They are plain old -socialism- by definition, as a matter of objective fact and not opinion. That's fine, there are hundreds of millions of socialists in the world, proudly take that mantle along with them. But don't weasel around about "safety nets" and "people wanting them but not wanting to pay for them," as if it's the other side and not you being hypocritical and deceptive when you phrase questions in such a slanted, dishonest way.

 

There is a large difference between a social safety net and social hammock. I think the people you are running across feel the system is abused.

 

Awe shucks, he's not gonna let you steal as much from your fellow citizens as you'd like.
Shame really

 

He's got fun things he'd rather spend his money on.

 

Now I'm getting the answers.

Interesting what I see coming up.

 

Well, I obviously hope for the former, but the latter is the reality for the foreseeable future.

This UBI concept I first heard about within science fiction circles. In fact, there's currently a show on the SyFy channel called The Expanse that uses it, and of course I remember Obama last year also briefly mentioning it in an interview.

There's no denying if we project current trends coupled with population growth that we face a future of many extremes. Just look at how rapidly technology has outpaced society's capacity to place tech in perspective to its needs.

Almost all of this populism that has fueled this election is a direct result of technology we do not yet completely understand. The social fabric of reality as we have known it is literally being shaped. We are on the edge of a dangerous precipice where one wrong move can send the whole world into chaos.

That other thread on here where the OP makes the observation that current Republicans are acting as sociopaths is very true. We need leaders with vision, but that is difficult when a significant portion of the population does not appreciate the roles of society and civilization. There is a self-centeredness zeitgeist in our society that has metastasized to almost every aspect of our culture. Whatever morality we thought we had is vanishing. We act like we are begging for a catastrophe to wake us up.

 

Amen.

I, too, hope for the former...but (reluctantly) accept that the latter is probably the reality for the time being.

I was kinda ahead of time on this...and referred to it in a long essay I wrote back in the 1080's. I submitted the essay to the head of the Economics Department of almost every major university...and got some response. I sent the essay to Milton Friedman, who was kind enough to respond. ( With a variation of heart is in the right place, but good luck with that idea.)

I am confident that eventually it will come to pass...but knowing human nature the way I do, I am sure it will not come into being until after catastrophe provides the impetus. I can only hope it is not a modern day variation of the type of thing that took place in late 18th century France or early 20th century Russia.

I don't even want to reflect on this stuff, because I have thought that a wrong person at a bad time could shift everything to total destruction. This is a "bad time"...Donald Trump is a very wrong person...and we've got more troubles than a one-armed paper hanger with the crabs.

We certainly do live in interesting times, though...don't we!

 

Completely agree.
2 things on that -
1)I feel we need to re-instate prisons under government, because "prisons for profit" is as bad an idea as "healthcare for profit".
2)Drugs use needs to be decriminalized. It didn't work for alcohol, it isn't working for opioids, and Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone. I still think drug dealing (not for pot) should be illegal, and there needs to be a crackdown on Drs writing drug prescriptions so readily.

 

Priceless. A gem for the ages. The unfiltered intent is absolutely priceless. You know, the mafia used to produce this service, called protection? They used to market it in just about the same way.

Here's the thing though. What happens when you run out of my money? When your delivery of safety net services crushes itself under its obvious bloat? Then what? Your solution is to demand yet more productivity, more taxation, and further regulatory protections for the fortunate few who dictate this drivel. And that, sport, is tyranny.

Here's an interesting thought bubble, just answer if you will.... Do you produce safety net as a compensating control for the privilege you artificially produce through the rest of your legislative agenda?

 

A general increase in criminal conduct could explain the increased prison population. Also, what is the per capita prison population and is this increasing as well?

 

In other words, you are willing to reap the countless benefits our country has to offer as long as you incur NO financial responsibility for benefits available to others.

Don't you feel IN THE LEAST BIT hypocritical when condemning ENTITLEMENTS???

Looking out for #1 may be YOUR interpretation of responsible citizenry, but NOBODY would call that PATRIOTISM.

 

Can that crap about when I run out of YOUR money, will ya. You aren't selling that snake oil to me.

If we can spend billions (perhaps trillions) on wars that make no sense; have no resolution; and seemingly no end...we can find a way to provide for people who do not have sufficient to live a decent life in a nation of almost endless bounty.

We can do it.

There are minds who can make it happen.

What we have to do is to get past the mindset of the "my hard-earned money is mine" (which really is, "I've got mine, screw you")...and move on to whatever is going to serve us reasonably in the future technology is taking us to.

We'll do it. We'll get past the mindset YOU exemplify.

Or, we will end up in class warfare that truly will make the "disquiet" of late 18th century France and early 20th century Russia seem like a cake walk.

 

Um...please explain the 50 or so percent of folks who don't contribute, at all, to federal income tax then. Spare us all the subversion about all the other taxes they incur because frankly all of the rest of us who do pay federal income tax do as well.

Face it. The folks receiving said social net experience dollars aren't exactly contributing to the experience either, something that you're perfectly willing to castigate those of us who complain about it for, but refuse to acknowledge the reality of this observation. Show us how folks who receive child care tax credits, ebt, etc who don't pay income taxes are in any way contributing? You seem willing to not have them contribute at all, or never work themselves out of these situations, or improve their prospects in any way, to further justify their dependence and subsistence. Do you not, in any way find that this immoral?

 

Dude.. "All we have to do is get past the mindset that my money is mine..." Sure. Just as soon as you get over the mindset that your labor then is yours. So, if I have money, it isn't mine, you have labor that isn't yours. See how grossly wrong this BS you spew can go? How about this. I expect you to make a difference. Make me proud. As opposed to, leech as long as you can, before they turn off the spigot.

 

More of the American conservative: I've got mine, screw you.

Okay...you are free to think that way.

But you have a big awakening coming your way.

 

You can't respond to the most basic challenge to your assumptions. Why? If my money isn't mine, then nothing we have is ours, which means that your labor then becomes something that is also available to me if I manage the demand side. You essentially become a slave inside your own paradigm. The conversation isn't I've got mine, screw you".. The conversation is I worked hard for mine. I'd like you to do the same thing. By threatening the rest of us because that is inconvenient then to you, seems to be a disturbing revelation about your morality. It is like the ramifications of helicopter parenting coming home to roost. For the oh so entitled youth who haven't ever had to worry about producing for themselves, I'm sure this comes as a rude shock to you. I blame the parents who never demanded anything from this generation.

 

Wrong. As we learned from Romney's tax returns, if you don't have to work for a living - if you just play with money - you don't pay "salary taxes" - SSI, etc. - because what you rake in isn't termed "salary". I believe S corps - a favorite of consultants - have similar loopholes.
It is NOT a level playing field.

 

Isn't it interesting that the rise of prisons-for-profit parallels the War on Drugs?

Even Nixon acknowledged the best way to treat the drug problem was through medical therapy, but that was not an effective campaign platform. Legislation and enforcement was far easier to sell.