Your theology and a Basic Minimum Income?

My question to you was "what does socialism have to do with the military"?

Your answer went off on a rant about Jewish history, the validity of Jesus, peace in the middle east and Canadians.

Can you write two or three lines to summarize WHAT IN THE WORLD YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Can you leave religion out of it? The question has nothing to do with religion. Its strictly about the military and socialism. Can you answer... sticking to those subjects alone? And alittle more concisely and succinctly? Please?

 

The Canadian and USA military are in the economic part of WWIII against Socialst China!!!

 

"Economic part of WWIII against China? Get a dictionary.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "war" as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations".
I've seen war... very loud, lots of blood, people dying, terrain being rearranged, people getting homeless....where is THAT HAPPENING BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA?

 

This is different.....
but if China can create and then release a virus on its own population... that can be used to convince the
corrupt political leaders in Ottawa and Washington to shut down our economies.... then China will have scored a major "economic" victory against the west...... because America cannot remain the number one military superpower.... if they radically decrease their productive capability.......... as their response to Covid 19 did indeed do......

 

I saw that movie! Biological Armageddon! YEE HA!!
THE ENDOF THE WORLD!!!!
Gees....

 

I believe that we are going into a vastly better world but......
there are some astonishingly powerful and corrupt people who have some terribly unethical plans for the majority of us......

For example.......

 

The military does work hard and is an essential part of a functioning democracy.

It is still socialism. People pay taxes, the taxes are used for the military, the military provides protection from external threats.

 

Infecting his own people in the hope of it reaching the US is flat out silly in many ways.

You're accusing them of being mind numbingly stupid.

 

That's not socialism.

Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. Even our war material is produced by private enterprise, not the government.

In the Iraq war, food service, transportation, etc., were provided by gigantic US corporations, let alone weapons (used by troops to fighter/bomber pilots) and ammunition.

>> How would you prefer to fund national defense?

 

You have to explain how that is corrupt and terribly unethical.

 

It's not so simple.

A Basic Income Minimum Income is worse than no income. A person who is physically able to work will not be a member of society and won't belong if he or she does not have an ability to work for that society. People need a healthy work environment. They need to feel like they are a part of society. A society which does not provide a healthy environment for its people to work will have unemployment either due to people not being able to find work or being unwilling to work. As a result, the prison population increases, homelessness rises, etc.

Basic Income minimum become an inadequate fix to a major problem - the society is not caring for its people.

And this brings about the most major problem our U.S. society has developed. We have failed to empathize with our own population. People in communities refuse to have multi-family-housing units. People paying as little as possible to their workers while complaining they can't find workers. Importing workers rather than paying a fair wage to your current workers. Allowing people to use our phone system to scam the vulnerable. Police committing highway robbery. Etc. This isn't going to be solved with a basic minimum wage. A basic minimum wage might make the problem worse.

 

I'm guessing from your second paragraph that you are thinking of a minimum that employers would have to pay, thus making it less likely that many on the margins would be able to find work.

But, that's not what a guaranteed universal minimum income is meant to signify.

You might look at what Canada is contemplating:

Canada and guaranteed income

The US has not given this any serious thought. Instead we have numerous separate bureaucracies that work with those in specific aspects of people's lives when they are not making enough money to live on.

I agree with some of what you are saying in your last paragraph, but one does have to remember that our economic system is capitalist. So, employers want to pay as little as possible for labor, home builders don't want to build homes for low income workers, etc., etc. And, the illegality you mention is being addressed, but only to the level that we are willing to pay to have it addressed.

 

The military has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism rips off achievers and gives free stuff to bums. That has nothing to do with the military. You seem to think that if tax dollars pay a salary, its socialism. So, in your view... postal workers are socialists? Toll booth workers are socialists. The gardeners that cut the White House lawn are socialists. Forest Rangers are socialists. Garbage men are socialist? Street sweepers are socialists. Police are socialists. Firefighters are socialists. Public school teachers are socialists? All these people are socialists. LOLOL... ok... run with that.... LOLOL

 

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. So, it doesn't have anything to do with workers except who their boss is.

Our government clearly owns the production of the national defense that we want.

But, the national defense we want is one unified decision making process subject to our civilian government. And, it is not judged by profit.

That just doesn't fit the capitalist model.

 

You would be very wrong.

The ones who would have to pay to most are everyone who on a fixed pension. They would all be screwed. Next would be everyone who works for a living - those who live paycheck to paycheck for the most part - not those who have tons of money and work for the fun of it. Small business owners would be hurt at first but should recover depending on how quickly they can raise their prices. Corporations would be completely unaffected. Federal government workers, commissioned military officers, and government contractors will feel like they won the jackpot. At least for a while. In the end, the only ones who will not suffer are the super-rich.

Although GDP will rise because it's a number which is completely made-up, the actual amount of housing, food, medicine, etc. will decrease.

Most people will have more money - except for the poor saps on a fixed pension. Fewer people will work because there will now be a minimum income everyone will be paid. Fewer workers means less stuff being made.

More Money + Less stuff = Inflation

Inflation is a tax on the poor.

U.S. economy is heavily socialist with a veneer of capitalism. The U.S. has a communist bank. The U.S. has abolished money and uses currency instead. Publicly-owned corporations control most of the means of production. And on and on. Using capitalism to make money is not completely illegal in a few selected areas of production.

When I said "People in communities refuse to have multi-family-housing units." The people are the government in that community - remember democracy?

When I said "People paying as little as possible to their workers while complaining they can't find workers. Importing workers rather than paying a fair wage to your current workers." When I said this, I was specifically mentioning how people would get their government to pass laws to help lower wages either by getting prisoners, desperate immigrants, or other measures to drive wages down through government action.

 

The military provides a product no one wants. This is why military veterans have become homeless despite being physically fit, having preferential hiring, and other bonuses.

No one would by what the military sell without a gun to their head which is why the military has guns.

Everyone else you mention would be able to find a jo doing the same thing in the private sector, they might make less money, but they provide services people actually want.

 

I'd refer you to this thread, which discusses some comments by Milton Friedman:
Universal Basic Income and Immigration (posted in Economics, Sep 25, 2023 )

 

I thank you for courageously expressing your opinion on this Mr. Bob Newhart!

My idea for an UNCONDITIONAL PLUS TAXABLE B.M.I. of 777 dollars Canadian for all thirty eight million Canadians......
would be so that they can create jobs for each other......

... because the billionaires and the sociopathic companies that billionaires have created......

... do NOT want to create jobs for humans.......

Billionaires and their BigCompanies want to fire humans..... and lay them off......
and maximize the amount of work being done by AI and robots.......

Even a Canadian family of four people would not be able or willing to actually attempt to live entirely off that
777
x 4 = 3108....... per month! But... it would certainly assist them to be able to pay down their debts and eventually fully own their homes.....
and then have the incentive to invest into that home.....
and IMPROVE THEIR HOME AND THE REAL ESTATE THAT THEY OWN!!!!!!!

All of this needs to be financed here in Canada in line with the rather BRILLIANT Bank of Canada policy that we had from 1938 to 1974!


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...better-canada-contest.589554/#post-1072743246

In the United States I believe that an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income must be financed in the same way as the rather brilliant Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment that was conducted by President Abraham Lincoln...... before his assassination.


https://www.michaeljournal.org/arti...story-of-banking-control-in-the-united-states

 

Basic income is like entering a second childhood. When we're young, our Parents provide all. But we're expected to do chores around the house. When we become adults, we take our house chore skills with us and are expected to provide for ourselves by working. At this point, a basic income is like entering a second childhood, adding an unnecessary dependency, discouraging personal accountability and instilling a sense of entitlement in the place of a personal constitution. But that is in a normal healthy upbringing. The idea of basic income is par for the course for a welfare state. And I think it simply expands and entrenches the sense of helplessness and dependency in people. That isn't healthy imo, because it robs us of growth and independence. And a people who are helpless, dependent, untried, and unproven, can hardly be said to have been helped, bettered, or prepared for what lies ahead.

 

So, your hope is to jumpstart currently dormant areas of your economy?

Might I suggest you couple this with

1. A removal of restrictions and regulations to small businesses.
2. Removing all zoning laws concerning housing and business construction.
3. Removing licensing restrictions concerning professions regarding home building, alcohol, cosmetology, etc.
4. Eliminate the minimum wage.

There are probably more. But this might work if you actually allow the dormant areas of your economy grow unrestricted. Otherwise, you're simply flooding the market with currency.

More currency + same amount of goods = inflation.

So, 800 a month per person . . . or is it one of those things where marriage and 2? children are required?

So, this is so that everyone can buy a home whether they want one or not?

Are you recommending this only because of the housing shortage? A better solution might be to build more housing perhaps? Add multi-family zoning. Add infrastructure connecting the multi-family zoning?

 

Your suggestions are exceptionally helpful.......
Thank you......

I am going to copy and paste your entire message over to my discussion on my proposed campaign for Mayor of Mississauga.

I may actually be involved in that race within weeks or months.


Mayor Crombie announces resignation as Mayor effective January 12, 2024


Local government | December 13, 2023

Dennis Tait or Tate for Mayor of Mississauga?

 

The purpose of greenbacks was and is the same for currency now. Pay for war. Borrowing money for war was always a problem for governments. The idea for printing money to pay for war was not new for Lincoln. It also happened during war for independence.

$241,500,000 in continentals were printed. In the end, they lost 99% of their value. In this way, the continental army was able to tax their supporters at a rate of 99%.

Where a 99% tax would devastate the continental cause, sneaking the tax in through inflation worked. People are more likely to oppose war if they actually see the price up front.

 

Wow!!!!!!!!!

My first campaign for public office was back in 2004 and I was amazed how few Canadians or Americans knew about what you just wrote!!!!

Wow!!!!!!

Your understanding of this topic is profoundly encouraging to me.........

One important aspect of what happened during the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Experiment was relatively high inflation but.......

I believe that was significantly due to the fact that The USA Civil War took the most productive and well trained workers out of producing consumer goods and

put them instead into the job of shooting muzzle loaders and cannons at each other.


If the most productive workers in an economy receive money to be economically unproductive......
but the supply of money going into the economy remains high.......
a great deal of inflationary pressure is of course put on that economy.

That was one of the excuses that BigBanking would use to turn a sufficient number of people against President Lincoln to set the stage for him to be assassinated.

I tried my best to explain quite a bit about the situation in the USA during my 2004 and 2006 campaigns.......

partly because the British North America Act of 1867 took place after the most well informed Canadians had time to digest the implications of the President Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment......

a powerful case can be presented that the Fathers of Canadian Confederation visualized the Bank of Canada.. [even though technically the Bank of Canada did not even exist until later on ]... but it seems as if they wanted extremely low or even zero income tax... but instead a Canadian central banking policy based on the Lincoln Greenback policy.

Some very well informed Canadian historians interpret the British North America Act in that way......
and used their arguments to avoid paying Canadian Income Tax for years..... or even for decades.


www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.com/

 

The real ticket to lower housing prices in the urban setting is housing co-ops that fix rent at the current market rate. As time goes on the rates do not increase and as more and more housing coops become available it makes the rental market less volatile since there are stable options for people. Most of the major cities where housing prices are not ridiculous have a strong housing co-op market.

On the other hand in Canada the immigration is so crazy that I doubt there is a lot that could stop the housing cost increases. Perhaps a combination of co-op housing and increased supply through deregulation and incentivizing new building projects.


There is a city called Langford on Vancouver Island, near Victoria, that has done an amazing job of keeping housing costs reasonable due to committing to having all housing approvals done within three months. You can read a bit about it in this article if you want.

https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/langford-stew-young-development

 

For me it really isn't about theology, but I'm coming around on universal basic income as a potential thing. I've read it may be cheaper than other welfare solutions and, while I appreciate the free market, I also think we need some solution for those who get left behind by the market. I don't see the problem with, say, helping out coal miners while they are transitioning to new careers, for example.