Replacing U.S. Welfare system with a Basic Income Guarantee

I'm sorry, but your anecdotal evidence is just not enough to say a BIG would not be an improvement. What drug are you referring to? What therapies? What kind of infection do you have? What is your medicaid premium? What is your disability that makes you so unable to work? There is no way I can know if anything you are saying is true or made up.

 

Not merely $10-$20K, and additional $10-20K. You are referring only to people who make $10-$20k but nothing more, which has nothing to do with my argument. In fact, I already stated in the very post you quoted that "people need a certain base level of income to meet basic survival and housing needs. Thus anyone making that income or lower will have nothing to save to begin with."

I am talking about what happens when money exceeds that basic survival requirement. $10-20K given to someone that already has an income is enough to bump someone up an entire quintile. It is completely irrational to believe that people will receive 20k more in money and not save any of it, and the data proves it.

 

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could simply be socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. Why not simply have more Faith in executing a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will.

 

a single mother of 1 with no job in PA can get over 45K a year worth of benefits from the government
our poor here in America is better off then the middle class in most other industrialized nations

 

It's just a scheme to get more money for providing nothing in return...

 

You just proved that BIG, at $10k/year, doesn't cover healthcare, as you didn't show what it costs per person, or include it in the BIG numbers.

 

Unemployment compensation not only uses Socialism to bailout Capitalism, like usual--it also provides market friendly metrics when in the form of a minimum wage that can be applied for whenever labor can claim to be unemployed. By using socialism to correct for capialism's, laissezz faire attitude toward full employment of resources in the market for labor--and known as Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Promoting the general welfare includes correcting for market based inefficiencies in our political-economy.

 

The economy and the government are two separate entities. The economy is going to do whatever results from consumer actions...period. If a government does not like unemployed people, or people on welfare, etc. then this is a government problem...not an economy problem!!!

 

You make it seem like the economy has no effect on government or government policies. Fiscal policies directly impact out economy.

Are you against lowering our tax burden through efficiency gains on our economy through government policies? Full employment of resources in any given market is a metric and Standard that should be fixed by our elected representatives, not just more government programs that offer no actual solutions to our social dilemmas.

 

You read my post...don't fabricate your own story. I merely said 'the economy and the government are two separate entities'.

In my own economy, in which I can buy and sell stuff all day long, it might be an up day or a down day. If I have a down day, and don't have enough money to buy food, it's 100% the government's decision if they wish to provide aid to me. The government can say yes or no. No matter their decision, the economy continues day to day on it's own merits no matter what government is doing. Yes both entities can effect the other but so what? Go back 50-60 years and the government was not providing a million different welfare programs no matter that back then there were people in poverty, without education, without jobs, without incomes, without health care, etc. Today the government has chosen to provide billion$ in welfare programs which shows that no matter the economy or society, government decides if they wish to provide welfare and how much. They are two separate entities!

 

The government and our economy cannot be separate, even if they are separate entitities. There are no true AnCaps, for comparison, contrast, and analogy. Some on the right even complain that there is no real poverty in our republic. Socialism bailing out Capitalism has that effect.

 

They are separate entities...period!

I don't discuss politics...right left etc. is a waste of my time...

 

So, why not solve for a natural rate of unemployment by using socialism to bailout capitalism?

 

Of course. I don't know where people get this idea that corporatism=capitalism. I'd even go as far as to abolish privileges like patents and IP law.

Chances are I'm too anti-corporate for the Progressives haha - was one myself.

 

Interesting reply.

I'm all for eliminating corporate welfare especially as it involves the military industrial complex. As for patent and intellectual property, I would have these laws on a restricted basis as they do help promote the creation of technological advancements in society. However, they may also have a tendency to limit distribution of such advances and I'm against that.

 

I believe we should lower our tax burden by only have a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation, instead of our current regime.

 

Capitalism is doing just fine...

 

Why do you believe that? Corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to persons who were nowhere near our poverty thresholds and could afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, if necessary.

Socialism bailing out Capitalism, like usual; the right doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with socialism bailing out capitalism, as long as the least wealthy receive little to no benefit from that "social spending". Capitalism only works with the Socialism and that form of Nurture, of States and State-ism.

 

The economy is a separate entity from government...period! Don't mess with the economy! Capitalism is doing just fine. Government is not...

 

You are being disingenuous. They are separate fields of discipline, but they cannot be separated in any given political economy. Even truer forms of Socialism have "problems" with the black markets of Capitalism.

The public sector simply hiring labor competes with the private sector in those markets and has the effect if circulating those monies in our economy. We have a de facto, duopoly of a public sector and a private sector operating within the Socialism of our republican form of Government.

 

If you believe government trying to control the PRIVATE economy is an answer to anything then I suggest you give it more thought.

The ONLY thing government should do is collect applicable taxation and make sure industry is acting in such a manner to not cause harm to employees or society...this would be OSHA and the EPA. Government dictating minimum wage is MEDDLING!

If government does not like how much unskilled people earn in the private sector, then let government 'separately' subsidize their citizens using taxpayer dollars. But don't meddle with the economy!

 

I don't believe in extremes, as business as usual. It may be politics as usual; but you sometimes seem to claim to abhor politics. I am saying that we should be promoting the general welfare with our tax monies; especially in a market friendly manner.

I agree that we should solve simple poverty with existing infrastructure instead of more government programs.

 

I always abhor politics...not sometimes!

Politics is nothing...it's not a thing...it's an enigma.

Every problem or issue we have today can be defined in it's lowest root level sans politics. Adults can find solutions to these root problems...politics will not. If so, then ignoring and/or avoiding politics should be the primary goal of 'reasonable' people...

 

Wrong, most laws are passed willy nilly with most legislators ignorant of much of what is in the bill they are voting on. It should be just as easy, or hard, to get rid of a law as to pass one. It would be a good thing if all the laws not passed unanimously by a legislature were subject to a time limit so that succeeding legislatures could reflect their constituencies views on these laws by being required to vote to continue them or not on a regular basis. Previous legislation passed unanimously in a re-authorization would be exempt from future re-authorization requirements.

Requiring legislatures to reauthorize all previous legislation every ten years or so would certainly go a long way to alleviating excesses that politicians are prone to when they find themselves suddenly and temporarily in control. It would make all the legislators and their staffs actually read all the previous legislation, put it in the public view and solicit their opinions, which would not be a bad thing. Many states and their people would benefit enormously from this.

 

Laws require many people and months/years to create and pass...it's not 'willy-nilly'? There must be consensus from everyone involved otherwise the laws cannot be created or enforced. For example, do you actually think a few people in the federal government can create a law requiring speed limits to be set at 55mph? Maybe temporarily in a national emergency but not day-to-day laws. Creating laws, enforcing laws, changing laws, is must more complex than you imagine.

All legislation at any time is subject to modification or continuation or termination...