The Welfare Problem

[Kwing]

Over the past few years I've noticed people seeming to crack down more on any kind of government spending for the poor, which is argued to create a welfare state. Having talked to people from different walks of life I can definitely say that our welfare system IS indeed broken - oftentimes people get more money from welfare than from a job, which incentivizes people to stay on welfare rather than work. This is a serious problem.

On the other hand, the best so-called argument I hear is usually to cut these benefits and for the poor to stop being "lazy" without considering that the world just doesn't work like that and this country doesn't have the same kind of upward mobility that it used to.

There are some policies that I think push the issue in the right direction. Affirmative action certainly can (although there are definitely instances in which prioritizing diversity over qualifications has gone beyond what allows an institution to function properly, but I see this as a band-aid. Race is still tied to class to an extent, but location seems to be the bigger issue. People that grow up in the slums and "make it" aren't going to stay in the slums, and stimulate the local economy there - they're going to LEAVE. That means poor areas stay poor. More importantly, I feel like affirmative action isn't proactive enough - it slaps a band-aid on the problem but doesn't address the root issue, which is that impoverished areas have shitty schools that doom students before they have a chance to succeed in the first place (I'm referring both to the quality of education as well as the school to prison pipeline.)

So what CAN we agree on as a solution to poverty in this country? Personally I feel like the best thing we can do is increase spending on primary and secondary education - subsidizing teachers and give people incentive to go into education, providing better supplies for students, and increasing the quality and quantity of school breakfasts and lunches (after all, even if the child's parents are irresponsible with money, the child is a minor and doesn't deserve to go hungry as a result of their parent's poor decisions.)

College education is something that's a bit more controversial, but it makes sense to me to subsidize this as well. People argue (with some degree of validity) that this country is becoming over-inflated with degrees, but this overlooks the advantage we could have over other regions of the world by educating our own. Similarly, arguing that college is a privilege and that people ought to earn their own undersells the investment that it is in our country. Sure, an education benefits the person who has it, but it also allows them to be a more productive member of society. Education is an investment in the greater good and is an example of how a rising tide lifts all boats.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on poverty, welfare, and what we can do to address it?

[EdyKel]

We do have a welfare problem in this country, but the biggest problem with this discussion is that the narrative is being driven by the right, who use the term "welfare state" in a negative context that implies it's about the lazy poor who take money from hardworking people. It's meant to to embarrass people not to accept it, or vilify the ones who do or those who support it, while using it as an argument to trim it as much as they can from it because of what is perceived as abuse of the system, and a waste of tax payer money. What is lost in this right driven narrative is their hypocrisy.

Yes, there is waste in the welfare system, a lot of it; but that's pretty indicative of a lot of government programs, not to any particular ones you don't like. Just look at how much we spend on defense, which is often more than half a trillion a year, higher than than the next top 10 countries combined that spend on it, and accounts, overall, for 37% of worldwide military spending. We spend the most in the world on it, and yet, we hear more about the abuse of the welfare state, rather than the trillions that the pentagon loses track of, or when they try to hide hundreds of billions in waste on bureaucracy. And neither party seems to want to tackle it, because it may make them look unpatriotic for attacking the pentagon. But it's still waste and abuse.

There is is waste in every government program, and department. During the Obama years, the administration went after billions in medicaid and medicare fraud. There is also a government website that supposedly tracks government waste, paymentaccuracy.gov - though it is limited to certain departments, and to the whims of the OBM which promotes policies of the sitting president. Waste is everywhere, but welfare and social programs keep being singled out. I don't have a problem with people criticizing it, and wanting to do something to clean it up, but they need to do it to all Government programs, not just use one as a scapegoat to distract from other waste in other government programs.

I also hate the whole argument about how welfare enables lazy people to avoid work. I really hate that argument. It's less than one percent who do that shit, while the rest legitimately need extra help. 70% who receive welfare checks are women with Children, with a lot of them being single. I don't believe in letting them struggle and starve . That is unethical my opinion, in the most powerful and richest country in the world. We live in a system that produces a lot of poor - with a ever widening gap between rich and poor - and often times are given wages they can't live on, especially with children. But, the right just keeps trying to point them out as being lazy, so they can transplant government funds from the welfare program to other programs that benefit the wealthy, and investors.

People think that government handouts are just for the poor, when a lot of these handouts, under different names, are given to corporations. We give billions in government subsidies to the oil industry, who, at one point during the Bush administration, said they didn't need it anymore. There are farm subsidies, and government programs, that many millionaires benefit from; notably Clive Bundy, an Arizona millionaire Rancher, who took advantage of these government things, while not paying the government for the use of grazing his cattle on public lands, which were very very cheap rates compared to fees on private land to graze, and he complained about how tyrannical the government was, after taking all the benefits it gave him. Then you have investors, who benefit from the generous government contracts, such as defense contracts to companies. A company, called Halliburton, who got billions of tax payer dollars in no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq, after the US bombed the shit out of the cities and infrastructure, lost hundreds of millions of dollars of it, used cheap labor, and didn't follow building regulations - whose structures are now falling apart there, among other things.

But the kicker here is that these companies, these people who receive millions from the government, are constantly attacking government, attacking the welfare state, in which they benefit from, and are buying off politicians, with their wealth, to direct government policies that will continue to benefit them with tax payer money, while reducing it for the general public, who are often mislead by the far right media, and politicians, into thinking that the government welfare is bad for them. I'll admit, our welfare system is far from perfect, but I rather have my taxes go to the general public in some form, and to help the poor,rather that they go to a wealthy individuals, who are reliant on my taxes, and don't do any real work to get it other than buying off a politician's ear.

[1sky1heart]

Great post, @EdyKel.

There's a lot of assumption, guessing, stereotyping, and victimizing around this topic.

National Low Income Housing Coalition recently released their Minimum Wage to Rent Affordability data for 2017. In NO state can a minimum wage worker afford a ONE-BEDROOM rental home at Fair Market Rent, working a standard 40-hour work week, without paying more than 30% of their income. In NJ, where MW exceeds FMW, workers still have to work 106hr/wk to afford local rent. The graph reveals a very wide gap between wages and rental housing costs. This is part of the growing problem of those IN WORK facing debt, insolvency, food bank use, child poverty and rising homelessness. I began to see this happening more frequently in 1999 and was happy to leave my $6.10/hr job and $750/mo rent behind. Little did I know that the disconnect between wages and exploding housing and living costs would eventually become global.

In Canada, where the minimum wage of $15/hr is common, that is still a poverty wage, especially in areas like Vancouver where a studio apartment is typically $1500/mo and houses selling for $1.5m. In Australia, wages may be $30 in some areas, but is not a living wage in Melbourne. It would not be unreasonable to think that these hourly wages would be plenty if workers were willing to relocate from expensive metro areas. The fact is that wages are exponentially lower in areas where rents and living costs are lower, leaving workers no better off. Too, many workers are caught in a too-poor-to-move trap unable to save for security deposits, moving costs and in some cases, rent arrears.

Two days ago CNBC reported that 78% of all American workers live paycheck to paycheck and 71% are in debt -with over half of them saying that their debt is burdensome. Further analysis reveals that rising housing, food and daily living costs and medical insurance costs are fueling debt in the working class; luxury spending is not a factor. Increasing poverty among workers is also highlighted by the fact that less than 60% of those in work can manage to set aside savings of $100 or less each month.

In 2017 42m people were in receipt of SNAP. Recipients are more likely to be in work than not: 44% of those in receipt of supplemental food assistance are employed, but wages fall short of a living wage. In fact, eligibility for SNAP requires that able-bodied adults without children find a job within three months and work a minimum of 20hr/wk or lose their eligibility. Food pantry use has also rocketed in many states. 54% of those who use them have at least one family member in work; 71% of food pantry users are households with children. Ironically, Trump's budget proposal earlier this year proposed slashing $191 billion and wants families on food stamps to get jobs.

Feeding America helps families find resources to combat food insecurity and highlights statistics and facts about hunger in America. The Feeding America nationwide network of food banks and partner food pantries distributes 4 billion meals a year. Every year 46m people in the US use the Food Network services to either find resources or extra resources to address their and their family's lack of access to food. Hunger is not limited to race, age, employment status, physical fitness, or location. Low wages fuel most food insecurity and rising rents and rising costs of daily living make it almost impossible for workers to 'work themselves out of poverty'. Many workers are simply one paycheck or medical crisis away from food insecurity, homelessness and destitution.

Even on college campuses, the use and need for food pantries is massive. Membership in the College and University Food Bank Alliance has quadrupled in the past two years. It currently has 398 members. Studentsagainsthunger.org reported that 22% of those who responded to a survey reported food insecurity and 13% were homeless -and most food insecure students are working and receiving financial aid, and many are on meal plans. Far too many students are struggling with meeting very basic needs, at a time when adequate housing and proper nutrition are necessary for still-growing bodies and the physical and mental rigors of succeeding in a demanding learning environment.

The problems of low wages, poverty, hunger, homelessness and concomitant disenfranchisement won't be resolved by spending more on welfare. That's not to say that the solution to poverty is not more money -because the definition of poverty is not having enough money. Income equality plays a huge part in this. When food, retail and factory workers are worked into the ground over 60-90 hour work weeks and struggling to keep food on the table and a roof to their name, but CEO's and upper management are earning salaries in the millions and annual bonuses to match, or being paid sometimes 10k an hour to shuffle paperwork in lux offices (and resentful that intrusive phone calls are interrupting their on-line game marathons) a sharp correction is needed in how capitalism defines and connects the words 'labor' and 'value'.

In-work poverty also owes a lot to un-affordable rents which leave far too many workers without enough resources to access affordable, nutritious food, quality medical care, and basic provisions of clothing and transportation for their families. The US is heading for another housing bubble, and record numbers of families and workers are finding themselves homeless, again only a paycheck or three from living on the streets or frantically seeking a place in a shelter. A sharp correction in the housing market is needed, and rent controls will both help.

The previous Administration seemed to be making inroads in both income equality and wage fairness, but many swathes of the country got left behind. I think that poverty and income inequality will only increase under the current Administration where the direction seems to be more corporate profit and more profit for key Administration officials at everyone else's expense. There will always be people out of work, capitalism does not function with no available labor market, and a certain percentage of workers are disabled and cannot work. For these, a basic universal income to a decent standard of living is an obvious solution. But until the conversation changes from blaming the poor for their poverty and normalizing astronomical corporate pay to one of correcting economic imbalances, I don't think much progress can be expected.

[Kwing]

I think I heard that under a communist regime, everyone would be making $250,000 annually in the United States. Currently that amount would put you in the top 1.5% percentile. Now of course the value of the dollar would go into severe flux if we were to adopt a communist economy, but I think it's interesting to show how that figure compares to the median of $37,900 annually.

ALSO - and what I think really interesting - is a famous study that shows that money only buys happiness up to an income of $75,000 annually. (I know bashing sources is all the rage now so if you don't like the source I used you can Google the study and you'll find tons of articles about it.)

As @1sky1heart noted, these figures don't mean much unless compared to the price of real estate in the area (it looks like $959/mo is roughly the median,) but I feel like it's a starting point. For one, I don't see why people need to hold onto more money than what makes them happy. Of course, since the average US income is 250k, simply truncating income over 75k (while in theory would not affect happiness but would give an absurd amount of federal income to spend on just about anything we would need) would again plunge this country into communism.

Then again perhaps this is a useless conversation since the issue has more to do with our budget than anything - our government is far from broke or being UNABLE to support the poor; the argument has more to do with what we're WILLING to give, and right now, well...

[1sky1heart]

At 8/26/17 12:00 PM, Kwing wrote:

1. Of course, since the average US income is 250k,

2. simply truncating income over 75k (while in theory would not affect happiness but would give an absurd amount of federal income to spend on just about anything we would need) would again plunge this country into communism.

I like facts and links.

1. I understand you are speaking of the hypothetical 250k annual income. But what is the real income of most US workers as of this year?

In January, Todd Campbell, founder of E.B. Capital Markets, LLC, and contributor to SmartMoney, Barron's, and CNN/fn, wrote in fool.com "nationwide, the average American under age 65 is earning $46,409 per year, according to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey."

The IRS breaks up tax return data into income groups of adjusted gross income. When we look at the average earners with AGI's of $50k, we see that there are 64.2% other earners with lower AGI's.
Looking at earners with AGI's of $200,000 we see that there are 95.8% other earners with lower AGI's.

Improving income equality and ensuring that everyone gets their needs met to a decent standard of living doesn't need to be politicized. The problem of poverty and the necessity of having to rely of assistance in various forms isn't about democracy vs socialism or capitalism vs communism. The problem of poverty is about greed at the top of the income scale, a tendency to drive the conversation toward blaming, shaming and victimizing those in poverty for their own misfortune of being poor. The fact that over 70% of workers are poor despite working in excess of 40 hours a week means that capitalism in its current manifestation is failing the majority.

2. I don't recall the country ever being "plunged into communism" in the past. And I been around quite a while, too.
That said, I'm not in favor outright theft of property and money from those better off than average. But that's just me, pitchforks might see things differently if pushed far enough, though.

[sharpnova]

At 8/24/17 04:20 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: three words universal basic income...

that's not even a bandaid. that's just pure economy-destroying nonsense.

[sharpnova]

At 8/26/17 04:25 PM, 1sky1heart wrote: Improving income equality and ensuring that everyone gets their needs met to a decent standard of living doesn't need to be politicized.

Huh? The government isn't going to manage this..? And the government doesn't operate by elected politicians?

You're just like the college know it all hippies from South Park.... "can't you like imagine like a society where like one guy does like something in exchange for like something else?"

Sorry I guess we haven't taken our survey courses in political science yet. Our profs haven't opened our eyes.

ROFL

[Kelpalots]

I can only make so much money and work so many hours on disability, but a disability system in other countries allows people to work what they can work, not what makes status quo. I can't make more money off of welfare anyways, because it's not even enough money to begin with to pay for bills, food, necessities, everything needed gets shrugged off with I can't afford it, and people even starve because of it. Disability SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MONEY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO GET A LIFE [and it's necessities in survival]. Disability should be the stepping stone from your disability to a productive life in society as a whole. No one should be told they can not be provided care in order to operate at 100%. Even the patent laws for medical science has stonewalled this. I can't think str8 right now enough to continue on, so I'll come back to it later. It makes me mad sitting here doing nothing because I can't get proper diagnosis as soon as I possibly can to snuff out my illness from never seeing 100% again, then if I were functional on the right stuff, I would be able to get a job and I would be stuck with too much energy in me and that's why I create a lot of music lol. It actually requires tons of effort, unless you are experienced enough, but it still opens up new doors to even more effort-needing adventures. But I want to work a job in the IT field, and I probably can't do that on disability too easily. Even then, I'm not always 100%, and neither is my forms of medications. At 100%, I tend to jump up to 500% real freaking quick, and then exhaust all my resources and drop below 100% again. I did made this season's MS episodes worse by working super hard on an hour long produced track, no mix, just all pure production. But like I said, other countries have systems in place to gaurantee jobs to an extent and allow you to work what you can work. There's systems already in place, but too much corruption happening, the system is collapsing, and the natural woe's of system failure in general happen, and so even if there was a perfect system, it could still fail, but the way we perceive the disability system is wrong all together anyways.

[1sky1heart]

At 8/26/17 09:06 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 8/26/17 04:25 PM, 1sky1heart wrote: Improving income equality and ensuring that everyone gets their needs met to a decent standard of living doesn't need to be politicized.

Huh? The government isn't going to manage this..? And the government doesn't operate by elected politicians?

You're just like the college know it all hippies from South Park.... "can't you like imagine like a society where like one guy does like something in exchange for like something else?"

Sorry I guess we haven't taken our survey courses in political science yet. Our profs haven't opened our eyes.

Well, whatever.
If you'd like to join in discussion rather than snark, name-calling and insult, you're welcome to.
But I see no links, no facts, no reference to other comments, so -there's no content in your post to respond to.

ROFL

[Kwing]

At 8/26/17 09:06 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 8/24/17 04:20 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: three words universal basic income...

that's not even a bandaid. that's just pure economy-destroying nonsense.

The first time I heard that term I thought the same thing, but in practice it seems to work.

[1sky1heart]

At 8/28/17 01:57 PM, Kwing wrote:

The first time I heard that term I thought the same thing, but in practice it seems to work.

Thanks for that link.
Really interesting. Instead of becoming lazy and dependent, quite a few people given this BIG started their own business, and overall there was an increase in economic activity. Reduced childhood malnutrition, access to medicine and clinics, higher school attendance rates and lower community crime. That's a lot of positives. Access to food seems to be a common denominator in all these.

One of the things I know about poverty is that lack of nutritious food has a profound effect not just on physical stamina and health, but also mental health. Deficiencies in key nutrients such as B vitamins -particularly B12 and B9 (folate) have a detrimental effect on cognition -symptoms which worsen with time.

People who have lived in poverty for a long time are often malnourished, but it's not widely acknowledged. I am irritated when people say to someone unemployed who's been living on the breadline for a year, 'well, get a job'. After WWII Europe, Canada and the US recognized how years of hunger and rationing took it's toll on millions across Europe, most everyone was effected by food shortages. The food donations from Canada, US and other countries helped millions as people gradually regained their strength and began rebuilding their lives.

[sharpnova]

At 8/28/17 11:44 AM, Zornuzkull wrote:

At 8/26/17 09:06 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 8/24/17 04:20 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: three words universal basic income...

that's not even a bandaid. that's just pure economy-destroying nonsense.

prove it...

Lol. The onus is on me to prove that a massive economic change won't hurt things? Lol.

Nice try, libtrash.

[Swag-in-a-Bag]

There are most definitely 'money traps' set up all over the place to take advantage of certain people, and I do believe the more you know, the more you can see through all the BS.

[1sky1heart]

At 8/28/17 07:30 PM, sharpnova wrote:

Lol. The onus is on me to prove that a massive economic change won't hurt things? Lol.

Nice try, libtrash.

You still got nothin'.

[sharpnova]

At 8/29/17 08:46 AM, 1sky1heart wrote:

At 8/28/17 07:30 PM, sharpnova wrote:

Lol. The onus is on me to prove that a massive economic change won't hurt things? Lol.

Nice try, libtrash.

You still got nothin'.

Onus is not on me to prove it. It's on you to prove it won't hurt the economy.

[Kiros01a]

Welfare creates lazy workers. Its reason why socialist countries have bad work ethics. They rather live on welfare than actually work, and even if they do work there is nothing to motivate them to work harder. They are all equals like good commies. Its not rewarding you for your work, it is just a means.

[Kwing]

At 8/29/17 11:51 AM, Kiros01a wrote: Welfare creates lazy workers. Its reason why socialist countries have bad work ethics. They rather live on welfare than actually work, and even if they do work there is nothing to motivate them to work harder. They are all equals like good commies. Its not rewarding you for your work, it is just a means.

Although the US ranks 3rd in worker productivity, the two countries that beat it lean pretty hard left. Similarly, other left-leaning countries functioning under the Nordic model rank very high on this list. Communism may have had the issue you're describing under USSR's practices, but consider that during the Soviet Union there were tons of people trying to defect and escape, whereas these so-called socialist Scandinavian countries have to deal with a massive influx of people trying to get INTO their country. Clearly they're doing something right.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/28/17 07:30 PM, sharpnova wrote: Lol. The onus is on me to prove that a massive economic change won't hurt things? Lol.

If you're claiming it definitely will? Then yes, the onus does switch to you. Making a an absolute claim like this behooves that you then prove the claim.

[1sky1heart]

At 8/29/17 11:51 AM, Kiros01a wrote: Welfare creates lazy workers. Its reason why socialist countries have bad work ethics. They rather live on welfare than actually work, and even if they do work there is nothing to motivate them to work harder. They are all equals like good commies. Its not rewarding you for your work, it is just a means.

It helps to define both welfare and UBI because they are different with fundamental differences.

Welfare is a government subsidy derived from collected taxes, and given to the unemployed, the sick and disabled, or those in work, but with income below a certain level such as a % of poverty level. Welfare is almost always conditional, with the exception of sickness or disablement support. It is the very conditionality of welfare that disincentivizes those in receipt of welfare to take up work. Who would logically go to work if in-work earnings, or the total end-of-the-month result, are not much better than receiving welfare? Qualifying for most welfare in the US is also conditional on work: for a great many welfare programs recipients must be in work to qualify.
In their book, $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer write about this and the vast numbers of Americans trying to survive on $2 a day or less -because they have no work and do not qualify for any form of welfare at all.

World Economic Forum has some interesting insight about UBI.

UBI is different to welfare because, while it is also derived from collected taxes, is akin to social security for everyone, regardless of income, economic or employment status. Everyone in a society receiving UBI pays varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI. For those on the bottom of the economic scale, taxes are very little or nothing. For those at the top of the economic scale, their UBI greatly offsets the higher taxes they pay.

What about motivation for people in receipt of UBI? It might seem logical to think that UBI creates laziness or lack of motivation in those in receipt of it. Actually, the opposite is true. Because it removes the existing disincentive to work that conditional welfare creates. UBI actually improves incentives to work because income derived from work is additional to the UBI that recipients receive. Unlike welfare, where recipients lose welfare income for every % of income derived from work, UBI recipients are more likely to engage in creative work, engage in community work that directly benefits their cities, towns and neighborhoods, and are more likely to have less pressure to find work that they really enjoy doing -and so, stay on those jobs longer, work more productively and enhance their employer's company production and its economic stability.

Canada, Namibia, India, Brazil, Finland, and the Netherlands have all trialed or used UBI and the results prove that UBI is neither a disincentive to work, nor an expensive experiment that produced no social and economic results.

[sharpnova]

At 8/29/17 01:58 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/28/17 07:30 PM, sharpnova wrote: Lol. The onus is on me to prove that a massive economic change won't hurt things? Lol.

If you're claiming it definitely will? Then yes, the onus does switch to you. Making a an absolute claim like this behooves that you then prove the claim.

Maybe you don't understand how debate works. The onus is on the person making the absurd claim.

Atheists don't need to prove god doesn't exist. They aren't even making that statement.

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

[FUNKbrs]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare

Well, that settles that.

Welfare with a capital "W" too, so you know they meant it.

But hey, fuck the Constitution, am i rite?

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/30/17 08:58 AM, sharpnova wrote: Maybe you don't understand how debate works.

Says the person who averages at least one ad hominem attack in every post....I kind of missed you sharp, you're always good for a couple laughs at first.

The onus is on the person making the absurd claim.

The person has been providing links, trying to justify their point. All you've done is the equivalent of "nu uh stupid face!" But since YOU are making a claim that it WON'T work, that it can't work, the ball heads to your court to show how it won't.

Atheists don't need to prove god doesn't exist. They aren't even making that statement.

That's not really the same thing though. That's an impossible statement of belief that can't possibly be proven. Here we are talking about an idea that has been tested and we can actually way factors and if not know the answer for sure without actually doing it, we can make a very educated guess. You're doing apples to oranges my friend.

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/30/17 10:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

Missed this bit:

I'm not good at economics. I admit that, and that wasn't really the point of why I was replying to you. I was just trying to keep you honest/point out your usual tactics when you come back from one of your vacations.

If you are claiming that it'll wreck the economy, how about grab some mathematical economic models that show us it will? Why not convince us with some facts rather then attack people on a personal level? I mean, I'm sure I know the answer, but I think it's more better and fair to let you provide an answer.

[FUNKbrs]

At 8/30/17 11:52 AM, Jurornumber3 wrote: Fuck dem bums.

Why aren't you at work?

[Kwing]

At 8/30/17 01:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/30/17 10:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

Missed this bit:

I'm not good at economics. I admit that, and that wasn't really the point of why I was replying to you. I was just trying to keep you honest/point out your usual tactics when you come back from one of your vacations.

I dislike this. First of all, the actual economics under the hood are a shell game specifically designed to keep you doubting your own judgment and trusting so-called experts that will magically take care of everything for you. In some ways they may be complicated but they're certainly not beyond the capacity of the average person to grasp. Second of all, the information that is prepared for the public eye has been specifically chosen to support a narrative rather than to objectively inform.

Also this.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

[sharpnova]

At 8/30/17 10:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/30/17 08:58 AM, sharpnova wrote:

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

[sharpnova]

At 8/30/17 02:22 PM, Kwing wrote: they're certainly not beyond the capacity of the average person to grasp

That is such a stupid and intellectually dishonest thing to say.

It's meant to empower people and increase suspicion of "the powers that be"

But it's horse shit. There are plenty of aspects to it that the average person could not grasp due to inferior intelligence. Get over it. If that bothers you then this is NOT a domain you should dabble in.

[EdyKel]

At 8/30/17 05:18 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 8/30/17 10:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/30/17 08:58 AM, sharpnova wrote:

Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

Why would it wreck the economy? Or, would it wreck it any more than the current system already does, or will do? In the last 100 years, we've already had the market crashed several times, the most recent one being in 2008. And at the rate of automation and AI, humans workers will be displaced, leading to a lot of out of work people, who won't be able to afford anything because they can't buy anything unless they get some sort of basic income from something - and it's unlikely to come from corporations, or wealthy people, who got us into that mess in their blind pursuit to cut costs to stay competitive with other corporations, while blaming government and others for the mess they created, as they have repeatedly done so far.

So, I'll let you do the math- and no fudging.

[sharpnova]

At 8/30/17 06:27 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, I'll let you do the math- and no fudging.

Nice try. Nope. Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy.

[EdyKel]

At 8/30/17 06:56 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 8/30/17 06:27 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, I'll let you do the math- and no fudging.

Nice try. Nope. Now prove, via mathematical economics, that this wouldn't wreck the economy..

Repeating something over and over doesn't make you look smart, it just makes you looked like a trained animal that responds in a predictable way, with out putting any actual intelligence behind it.

There is no way to mathematically prove or disprove it, it's all theoretical and speculative - like any economic idea. It may work under certain condition, and not in others. And then you have different views (partisan/social economic) on what defines success and failure. It also depends how big, and how wide ranging it is. There are a lot of unknowns involved.

There is plenty of evidence that it would work in the US, as there are a dozen countries in the top 20 GDP countries, in the world, that already have a version of it, and there economies are not wrecked by it.

There is also evidence that it would pad the market from future crashes. The reason why the 2008 financial crisis was not as devastating, even though it was comparative to the Stock Market Crash of 1929, was because there were millions more government jobs, and millions taking in government subsidies of some sort.

So, the ball is in your court to dispute, or offer counter argument, for why you think it will wreck the economy. But I have you pegged down as a dog who will bark in a predictable way. So, I'm waiting on any sort of mathematical gymnastics from you, which I don't think you can deliver.