HawkShack.com

in the Democratic Party.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/obama-slams-populist-right-wing-billionaires-touts-liberal-push-for-universal-income.html

Do not support the utter impoverishment of your nation. Obama is a socialist not even hiding it any longer that wants the productive people of the world to simply support the less productive whether they are willfully unproductive or not. No real requirement to work or produce, just get an income for being alive and human. Utter rubbish. And how will they pay for a universal income if every human goes, "Well, no need to work. I'm provided for." Yes, it's an exaggeration, but at the same time it illustrates a truth about socialist policy and ideas like universal income: if everyone took it, the world would literally collapse into poverty with everyone looking at each other expecting the other person to take care of them. When you push such policies, you most assuredly move the world closer to impoverishment and damage the world under the guise of being a moral, caring person. People that truly care about this world teach hard lessons even if they are not pleasant and that is not socialist policies that look at the wealthy as a means to pay for unproductive policies like the Catholic Church of old that would see the entire world impoverished under the care of the church rather than empowered and free.

Obama was not a good president. He needed to be locked up by Congress as he was and needed his "legacy" dismantled as it was a bad legacy with tons of holes in it and bad teachings. He was and is a well-spoken socialist that makes people feel good rather than demands analysis of whether the ideas he represents are affordable or desirable once the cost in productivity and moral attitudes is measured. Unproductive, poorly managed nations end up third world nations. Productive, well-run nations grow wealth and raise all boats. This tiresome refrain by socialists like Obama pushing a system of government that has led to social and economic stagnation wherever such a system has been practiced are tiresome. Right now nations like Norway, Canada, and the like are sucking at the tit of America while claiming how great socialism works, yet I would like to see how well their socialist elements work absent a giant consumer to sell to like America, a nation of enormous productivity driving the world economy. How much organic growth would they get with their tiny, less productive populations? I would bet money not much. People would be quite surprised to learn how ignorant socialists like Obama would find their chosen system failing absent a large productive trading partner to provide the economics to pay for their socialist trash system.

Norway especially will not look good if we move on from oil, which pretty much supports their socialist system. Something no one mentions when discussing Norway and most people don't know because they have never studied Norway's economics.

This is why I caution voters like Hawktawk and Riverdog when supporting Democrats just to challenge Trump. I do not encourage either of you to vote for Trump, but do not vote for the alternative. Use cold analysis and work to defeat Trump in a way that does not send us down some socialist spiral that will take years to crawl out of and will impoverish this nation in a manner worse than you can imagine under Trump. You already see a lazy electronically addicted generation of young folk being further pushed to greater laziness by people like Obama that consider having a job some kind of "right" giving dignity.

A job should be taught as a personal responsibility that must be earned, developed, and managed like every other choice an adult makes. No one should be guaranteed a universal income. An income should be earned and even social security is based on earning a retirement income through years of working a productive job and paying taxes towards that retirement income. This tiresome garbage pushed by the socialist community is a path to a world of humans enslaved to the mob and controlled by the state. A path we have already walked and seen the result of.

Socialism sounds great on paper. All these ideas sound so noble and good, yet once implemented they prove only that these good and noble ideas require implementation by stealing from the productive to pay for the unproductive with no requirement that the unproductive to become more productive or even learn anything of worth to society. This is all run by politicians and state workers that are themselves unproductive relying on the muscle of the mob of police and military forces to extract income from productive people at gun point under the guise of democracy.

Do not let this happen any further in America.

Economic policy must push production in humans. Democracy demands that production be self-directed motivated by a level of personal gain commensurate with your desire which capitalism encourages and teaches. We must temper this productivity with a moral center that does not allow extreme exploitation or criminal enterprises to mask themselves as capitalist endeavors such as the dealing of poison. We must ensure those services that allow dominance within society such as the bureaucrats, military, and police to be loyal to society and all people rather than the highest bidder. This is what you teach, not this garbage from Obama and these other socialists.

I see a link to faux news and see that as about as biased a piece as it could possibly be. No thank you.

The article was interesting. There were parts of Obama's speech that I liked, including his take on immigration:

Obama touched on the heated immigration debate, and acknowledged that “natural borders matter.”

“Laws need to be followed. Newcomers should adapt to customs of their new home. But that can’t be an excuse for immigration policies based on race or religion,” Obama said. “We can enforce law while respecting humanity of those seeking a better life.”

I can also see his point regarding some of the garbage coming over social media undermining our free press.

But that's about as far as I'll go. His "guaranteed income" spiel is right out of the Communist manifesto.

And as far as my support for Democratic candidates goes, you need not worry about me turning into a socialist. My voting for Trump's opponents will allow me to look at myself in the mirror, as well as look other friends of mine in the eye, and declare that I am not like Donald Trump, that I reject what he represents, and that he is not a reflection of who I am. It's more of a personal thing for me, an act of defiance, than it is a rational act based on policies. If we can't get him out of office, I want to at least pull his stinger and support the opposition party. Besides, like burrton pointed out, my vote is unlikely to change the course of any election, but it means something to me.

I've lived in a couple of Socialist countries and I've seen first hand how the system steals the souls of the citizens.

I've actually watched a chef step over an egg that he dropped while he cooked the entire dinner. I asked him why he didn't pick up the egg because it was a safety hazard. His reply, "if I do that, what will Lena (the floor cleaner) do?

I've also looked into the eyes of 60 and 70 year old women at the market begging for alms and food because the system they put their whole life into had collapsed and their savings literally withered in a few short months. (NOTE: The currency when I go to that country was the Russian ruble and the exchange rate for it was 2 Rubles to the dollar. They exchanged the Rubles for what they called a Coupon 1 to 1. By the time I left that country a couple years later, the coupon was trading at 27,000 to the dollar. Any savings someone had was worthless in less than 18 months. The average subsistance for the old people like the women I mentioned was equivalent to $3/month. Talk about breaking the will, heart and sould of the populace.)

c_hawkbob wrote:I see a link to faux news and see that as about as biased a piece as it could possibly be. No thank you.

Did you read the article? The characterizations were biased, something that you have to expect from a conservative news outlet, but roughly half of the text was direct quotes from Obama's speech. Overlook what's not in quotes if you must and give us your opinion on what Obama said rather than dismissing the entire article as biased. I'd honestly like to hear your take.

As I said earlier, there was some of what Obama said that I could agree with, but the nuts and bolts of his proposal was nothing more than a re-distribution of income, and I'm shocked that a seasoned politician like Obama would even entertain the idea let alone advocate it. I guess I didn't realize that Obama was that far to the left, and I would love to hear from NLBM as he once reacted strongly to my suggestion that Obama was a socialist.

The Universal Income discussion is outside the box thinking.
We know the status quo isn't working that well, so maybe this could help.
It would end the welfare bureaucracy involved so who knows if it has any merit.
People think that legalizing drugs would create a nation of addicts, but look at the Portugal model. Their problems are now under control.
The point I'm making is things that don't look like they would be successful on the surface might be part of a greater solution so they shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

NorthHawk wrote:The Universal Income discussion is outside the box thinking.
We know the status quo isn't working that well, so maybe this could help.
It would end the welfare bureaucracy involved so who knows if it has any merit.
People think that legalizing drugs would create a nation of addicts, but look at the Portugal model. Their problems are now under control.
The point I'm making is things that don't look like they would be successful on the surface might be part of a greater solution so they shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

With an unemployment rate around 4%, I would argue that it's working pretty darn well. Anyone that wants to work, can work.

I don't know how you drew a relationship between this subject and legalization of drugs. They are completely different issues, unless you want to argue that by legalizing drugs and giving people the money to buy them is going to reduce crime.

You're not doing the recepient any favors by simply giving him money with no strings attached. All you're doing is giving him a reason not to work and making him a dependent of the government.

With an unemployment rate around 4%, I would argue that it's working pretty darn well. Anyone that wants to work, can work.

I don't know how you drew a relationship between this subject and legalization of drugs. They are completely different issues, unless you want to argue that by legalizing drugs and giving people the money to buy them is going to reduce crime.

You're not doing the recepient any favors by simply giving him money with no strings attached. All you're doing is giving him a reason not to work and making him a dependent of the government.

Employment rates and the economy is cyclical so in 2 years or so we will probably saying something quite different.
The relationship with the drugs example was simply about thinking outside of today's accepted norms. The idea has been around, but Portugal is one of the few if only country to actually take the step to try it.
A universal income would replace welfare and maybe food stamps. Some country somewhere will try it and we will see how it works out but we are going to have to consider how we are going to adapt to a society
where automation and AI makes larger inroads into the job market pushing traditional jobs aside.

NorthHawk wrote:Employment rates and the economy is cyclical so in 2 years or so we will probably saying something quite different.
The relationship with the drugs example was simply about thinking outside of today's accepted norms. The idea has been around, but Portugal is one of the few if only country to actually take the step to try it.
A universal income would replace welfare and maybe food stamps. Some country somewhere will try it and we will see how it works out but we are going to have to consider how we are going to adapt to a society
where automation and AI makes larger inroads into the job market pushing traditional jobs aside.

Unemployment in this country has been on a steady decline since the end of the recession in 2010, so it's not exactly cyclical as 8 years is a pretty long cycle.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

It's about as low as it can get now as there's always going to be people that are changing jobs and there are some that do like my neighbor does, which is work long enough to qualify for unemployment benefits then take a paid 6 month vacation. He'll openly say that he won't go back to work until his unemployment runs out.

Food stamps is a program through the USDA and part of the motivation was to help prop up agricultural prices. Even being the fiscal conservative that I am, I favor the program as it has strings attached and for a government program, there's not a lot of abuse as there's a good guarantee that they won't be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco products, drugs, etc.

I'm not the type of person that favors drug testing for welfare receipents like so many of my conservative friends are, but there has to be some sort of accountability as to how public assistance money is spent or a good deal of it will be spent on non essentials like drugs and alcohol. I'm open to outside the box thinking regarding welfare reform, but this idea of a guaranteed minimum income with no strings attached is insane and not the way to go. I would rather give those that are trying to stay off public assistance by working at a low paying job a supplement than I would a no strings attached handout.

I think we already have a guaranteed income system in the U.S. in the form of Food stamps, living assistance, WICS, etc. There's strings attached as River pointed out to those systems - e.g. you have to spend the money on what it is meant for. So I'm with River on not just giving money to everyone with no way of knowing what my tax dollars is paying for.

I do think there's massive abuse on those systems though. E.g. people selling their food stamps to shady corner stores for other things. I think that technology is at a point where we could more tightly control those systems to root out most if not all of the abuse of the system.

We're nearing the end of the bull market and with interest rates rising, the end is nearer every day.
One thing that's a good indicator is the US Treasury Yield curves.
Basically long term yields (10 year) are normally higher than short term yields (2 year), but when they swap places, or invert, recessions usually occur.
This difference hit a low just recently and the trend is showing the spread is narrowing even more.
What that basically means is a recession might be just around the corner.

I think we all have a repulsion to giving people money as a matter of course and not for some type of productivity, but I'm open to see if it works in whatever country
has the guts to try it. It may be one of those things that works even though it seems to defy common sense.

NorthHawk wrote:We're nearing the end of the bull market and with interest rates rising, the end is nearer every day.
One thing that's a good indicator is the US Treasury Yield curves.
Basically long term yields (10 year) are normally higher than short term yields (2 year), but when they swap places, or invert, recessions usually occur.
This difference hit a low just recently and the trend is showing the spread is narrowing even more.
What that basically means is a recession might be just around the corner.

I think we all have a repulsion to giving people money as a matter of course and not for some type of productivity, but I'm open to see if it works in whatever country
has the guts to try it. It may be one of those things that works even though it seems to defy common sense.

I may be wrong on this NorthHawk but I think there is a city in California (Lake Tahoe area) called Stateline that is doing this already.

Edited: My bad, it is Stockton CA not Stateline. A town that recently filed bankruptcy and is one of the wealthiest cities in the US is going to give $500 a month to 100 people to establish a floor on income. Here's a link: https://www.keyt.com/news/economy/this-california-town-will-give-a-500-monthly-stipend-to-residents/765532637

Personally, I don't think it matters if it works or not, the only thing we'll see is how it was successful because of the people involved and invested interests of those who want this. Branson, Musk, etc. are pretty powerful people and I'm sure they want people to be OK with automating their jobs out of existence.

Yah, with the right accountants, things can be made to look differently than they really are.
I suspect it really depends on what the goals are and the metrics used to define success (or failure).

idhawkman wrote:I do think there's massive abuse on those systems though. E.g. people selling their food stamps to shady corner stores for other things. I think that technology is at a point where we could more tightly control those systems to root out most if not all of the abuse of the system.

The federal government is usually one of the last institutions to embrace new technology. It took them forever to adapt direct deposit.

They can set up electronic accounts that do not rely on actual stamps or coupon books along with accounting mechanisms at major retailers that only accepts those funds for certain approved items. A side benefit would be the embarrassment a lot of people experience because it's pretty obvious to others in the check out line that they're using food stamps for payment.

NorthHawk wrote:The Universal Income discussion is outside the box thinking.
We know the status quo isn't working that well, so maybe this could help.
It would end the welfare bureaucracy involved so who knows if it has any merit.
People think that legalizing drugs would create a nation of addicts, but look at the Portugal model. Their problems are now under control.
The point I'm making is things that don't look like they would be successful on the surface might be part of a greater solution so they shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

Universal income is not thinking outside the box. It's mob tyranny and thievery looking to redistribute income without any kind of requirement. What do you mean not working? How do you become the most powerful economy and nation in the world and likely in history as not working? How exactly do you rate not working on a nation scale level? How do you rate the world economy collapsing because the "not working" nation's economy collapsed? Seems a lot of dominoes rely on us "not working." Sorry, that analysis doesn't hold water.

Our nation works very well. These smaller nations collapse with their socialist BS in a much worse fashion. Get that garbage out of here. People have to work and be productive or the nation produces nothing and accomplishes nothing.

NorthHawk wrote:Employment rates and the economy is cyclical so in 2 years or so we will probably saying something quite different.
The relationship with the drugs example was simply about thinking outside of today's accepted norms. The idea has been around, but Portugal is one of the few if only country to actually take the step to try it.
A universal income would replace welfare and maybe food stamps. Some country somewhere will try it and we will see how it works out but we are going to have to consider how we are going to adapt to a society
where automation and AI makes larger inroads into the job market pushing traditional jobs aside.

How do you consider Portugal's problem solved? How exactly are you rating that? Some article? Is there any real data? And I don't want crime data as it's useless to legalize something then claim you reduced a particular type of crime. The extreme example being legalizing murder then claiming murder rates are down. It's pointless. What data do you have showing a real improvement from the legalization of drugs? And what structure? How exactly do you measure the success of drug legalization on society?

This is the problem with such changes. How do you measure their effectiveness?

NorthHawk wrote:We're nearing the end of the bull market and with interest rates rising, the end is nearer every day.
One thing that's a good indicator is the US Treasury Yield curves.
Basically long term yields (10 year) are normally higher than short term yields (2 year), but when they swap places, or invert, recessions usually occur.
This difference hit a low just recently and the trend is showing the spread is narrowing even more.
What that basically means is a recession might be just around the corner.

I think we all have a repulsion to giving people money as a matter of course and not for some type of productivity, but I'm open to see if it works in whatever country
has the guts to try it. It may be one of those things that works even though it seems to defy common sense.

Why do you think the end of the bull market means the end of prosperity? Or that a short-term bear market won't be beneficial for weeding out weak companies? You don't need a sustained bull market for economic health. Your reasoning is making no sense empirically. It seems like you read some article in inverted yield curves as they've been putting out lately to try to forecast the end of the bull market. No one is sure when such things end. They have tons of metrics speculating as to when it will end. Then once we do enter a bear market they will put out tons of articles speculating as to when it will reverse again. None of that matters.

It's not a repulsion. It's a very real understanding that breeding generations that expect to be handed money for doing nothing is a bad idea and always has been. Humans naturally learn to expect something they are given, then when you try to take it away when it doesn't work they freak out. Politicians should know better than to ever create the idea of a universal income or even guaranteed jobs or medicine. These ideas are not new and that is the sad part of someone like you showing you don't know it's already been tried.

What do you think Communism was? It was an attempt to provide a universal income. Any society that teaches its people that they get something for nothing simply by virtue of being alive is a society that creates self-entitled people that do not learn to work and produce. Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations have a universal income based on oil. As oil declines the Saudis will have nothing because all they know is oil. Even the Saudi Prince is calling young Saudis lazy and they are.

Universal income is not a new concept. It's merely an old concept that has already failed multiple times in multiple places with a new name as is socialism. Humans need to be prodded into productivity otherwise they will sit about like cattle doing nothing. The current economic system drives the human animal to produce making life better as a whole because of the constant push for productive improvement. This is also an old concept that always works.

Nothing is new under the sun. All this garbage is just old stuff with a different name that continues to fail and work as it had ages ago. America need not change to understand the basic human psyche. Give humans no reason to work and they won't. Give them a reason to work and they will. Universal income is just encouraging a lazy environment.

c_hawkbob wrote:I see a link to faux news and see that as about as biased a piece as it could possibly be. No thank you.

All I read was the Obama speech embedded. His own words as you like to judge Trump for. No passes for any president in this country. These tiresome clowns we keep voting in need to be checked. And Americans need to remember what makes a nation rich and productive and it is not laziness as would be produced by this garbage idea of a universal income. Get this place out of the hands of these loons like Trump and Obama preaching to the rich and poor and forgetting all the people that want to make a living without getting stuck between champagne drinking blowhards and lazy, unproductive needle-hole armed, bottle-drowning welfare addicts.

How do you consider Portugal's problem solved? How exactly are you rating that? Some article? Is there any real data? And I don't want crime data as it's useless to legalize something then claim you reduced a particular type of crime. The extreme example being legalizing murder then claiming murder rates are down. It's pointless. What data do you have showing a real improvement from the legalization of drugs? And what structure? How exactly do you measure the success of drug legalization on society?

This is the problem with such changes. How do you measure their effectiveness?

Look up Portugal's success in the opium issue.
They went from one of the worst countries in Europe for addictions and crime to one of the best.
Even the most ardent conservative in their country is surprised and pleased at the success.
Their crime is down (addicts are no longer wreaking havoc in society trying to find enough money to get their next fix).
Their medical system costs are down.
Some of the addicts are getting back into the work force.
Their justice costs are down.
Many have got off drugs because they come into contact with authorities who can point them to clinics.
Because it's treated as a medical and not a criminal issue, more addicts are seeking help.

That's outside the box thinking.
A definition from Cambridge Dictionary is "to think imaginatively using new ideas instead of traditional or expected ideas"

Universal income is not thinking outside the box. It's mob tyranny and thievery looking to redistribute income without any kind of requirement. What do you mean not working? How do you become the most powerful economy and nation in the world and likely in history as not working? How exactly do you rate not working on a nation scale level? How do you rate the world economy collapsing because the "not working" nation's economy collapsed? Seems a lot of dominoes rely on us "not working." Sorry, that analysis doesn't hold water.

Mob tyranny? Please temper the hyperbole.
We already have welfare and other support systems. This replaces it.
Like I said, though, I have an aversion to it, but am open minded enough to see if it works and if it does, maybe consider it.

Our nation works very well. These smaller nations collapse with their socialist BS in a much worse fashion. Get that garbage out of here. People have to work and be productive or the nation produces nothing and accomplishes nothing.

Are you implying that America is immune to recessions? Look at world history. No nation is immune.
There's a big one coming and it's sooner than many think and a lot of people will be in financial trouble.
Companies already are having problems refinancing and the business insiders are selling their stocks at a rate 8 times their purchases.

The guaranteed income proposal isn't new. People give money to panhandlers all the time. Do some research, find out how that money is spent.

I've read articles from people that run homeless shelters and food kitchens. Many are saying that if you give money to a panhandler, chances are that they're going to use that money to buy drugs and/or alcohol and are encouraging people to save their dollars and loose change and instead give it to charities that serve homeless shelters or provide meals for low income families. Some cities are erecting signage to this effect. One person even suggested that if you feel obligated to give directly to a panhandler to make a little baggie that contains some packaged food like Granola bars, trail mix, bottled water, toothpaste and toothbrush, sanitary wipes.

I feel much the same way with this guaranteed income proposal. Use the money to help assist outreach groups, churches, homeless shelters, etc, where you know that the money will be put to use helping people get out of their predicaments rather than the uncertainty of how that money will be spent, in many cases, used to support their current lifestyle. Or give them vouchers for renting an apartment, paying utility bills, tuition, etc. Anything but a no strings attached cash.

RiverDog wrote:The guaranteed income proposal isn't new. People give money to panhandlers all the time. Do some research, find out how that money is spent.

I've read articles from people that run homeless shelters and food kitchens. Many are saying that if you give money to a panhandler, chances are that they're going to use that money to buy drugs and/or alcohol and are encouraging people to save their dollars and loose change and instead give it to charities that serve homeless shelters or provide meals for low income families. Some cities are erecting signage to this effect. One person even suggested that if you feel obligated to give directly to a panhandler to make a little baggie that contains some packaged food like Granola bars, trail mix, bottled water, toothpaste and toothbrush, sanitary wipes.

I feel much the same way with this guaranteed income proposal. Use the money to help assist outreach groups, churches, homeless shelters, etc, where you know that the money will be put to use helping people get out of their predicaments rather than the uncertainty of how that money will be spent, in many cases, used to support their current lifestyle. Or give them vouchers for renting an apartment, paying utility bills, tuition, etc. Anything but a no strings attached cash.

That's my gut reaction to it, too, but I'm not averse to having some community try it and find out if it's just pie in the sky or has some merit.

Like I said, though, I have an aversion to it, but am open minded enough to see if it works and if it does, maybe consider it.

In theory, I'm with ya, but the problem with a large handout/entitlement is that it doesn't matter if it works or not- it will never, ever go away.

Hell, we can't even make small, reasonable adjustments to a program like SS to keep it solvent- how difficult would it be to pull the plug on something as ubiquitous as a UBI?

NorthHawk wrote:That's my gut reaction to it, too, but I'm not averse to having some community try it and find out if it's just pie in the sky or has some merit.

The other problem with a proposed experiment like that is that j/b it may be successful on a very small scale in a specific community doesn't mean that it's going to be successful nation wide.

One of the problems some people have is acknowledging the fact that there's nothing you can do about a certain percentage of the population that will keep them from choosing to abuse drugs/alcohol and choosing a lifestyle of living on the streets. The goal should not be to end poverty and homelessness. The goal should be to give everyone an opportunity to live a normal life.

One of the problems some people have is acknowledging the fact that there's nothing you can do about a certain percentage of the population that will keep them from choosing to abuse drugs/alcohol and choosing a lifestyle of living on the streets.

This reminds me of something I've read a few times that rings undoubtedly true:

If you took every penny in the country and 'redistributed' it evenly to the population, in a couple years the same people would be rich and the same people would be broke.

Absolutely true, burrton. People who aren't good at managing money aren't going to get any better at it with more of it handed to them. I am much more in favor of welfare benefits that are spent on a specific purpose. Food and housing are the two big ones. And, we already supplement incomes with the EIC at tax time. I don't know what else they feel is needed.

burrrton wrote:If you took every penny in the country and 'redistributed' it evenly to the population, in a couple years the same people would be rich and the same people would be broke.

Although it's impossible to prove, I have no doubt that your statement is absouletly true.

And Mack, I'll add a third item to your biggies of housing and food: Education. There's an old wise tale that says "If you give a man fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

The other problem with a proposed experiment like that is that j/b it may be successful on a very small scale in a specific community doesn't mean that it's going to be successful nation wide.

One of the problems some people have is acknowledging the fact that there's nothing you can do about a certain percentage of the population that will keep them from choosing to abuse drugs/alcohol and choosing a lifestyle of living on the streets. The goal should not be to end poverty and homelessness. The goal should be to give everyone an opportunity to live a normal life.

I can't disagree with either of those statements, but with the first one, if it works on the small scale, someone somewhere will try it on a larger scale and that's when it can really be evaluated.
It may end up costing the taxpayer less. On the surface it doesn't look like it would, but it puts different wheels in motion, so who knows. Like the Portugal drug model, I would have never expected
that many of those who are addicted now hold down jobs and are productive members of society paying taxes instead of only costing taxpayers.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Absolutely true, burrton. People who aren't good at managing money aren't going to get any better at it with more of it handed to them. I am much more in favor of welfare benefits that are spent on a specific purpose. Food and housing are the two big ones. And, we already supplement incomes with the EIC at tax time. I don't know what else they feel is needed.

The most efficient and self supporting welfare system is the one run by the Mormon church. The church owns the land and it's welfare recipients that pick the crops, drive the trucks, work in the canneries mills and outlets and what have you. If you want welfare, you work for it by supplying the manpower to run the system.

Our government could, instead of requiring welfare recipient to work or go to school as is the new requirements, recipient to work or go to school or work within the welfare system itself.

Here's an opinion piece from an Historian.
It's interesting reading, if just to get some historical perspective.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions ... index.html

c_hawkbob wrote:The most efficient and self supporting welfare system is the one run by the Mormon church. The church owns the land and it's welfare recipients that pick the crops, drive the trucks, work in the canneries mills and outlets and what have you. If you want welfare, you work for it by supplying the manpower to run the system.

Our government could, instead of requiring welfare recipient to work or go to school as is the new requirements, recipient to work or go to school or work within the welfare system itself.

I doubt that would work Bob. People wanting handouts running the system as to who gets the handouts. It works for the Mormon church because there's a morality that is inherent in the church. There are consequences to not performing in the church, too.

Additionally, there's a hefty tithe to the mormon church which is only excused if you have 7 or more kids. The mormon church aslo has a job placement system that helps them find work.

c_hawkbob wrote:The most efficient and self supporting welfare system is the one run by the Mormon church. The church owns the land and it's welfare recipients that pick the crops, drive the trucks, work in the canneries mills and outlets and what have you. If you want welfare, you work for it by supplying the manpower to run the system.

Our government could, instead of requiring welfare recipient to work or go to school as is the new requirements, recipient to work or go to school or work within the welfare system itself.

I like that idea a lot better than the no-strings-attached cash proposal, and personally, I'd much rather see a church or organization providing these type of services rather than the federal government and would like to see welfare funding diverted to reputable organizations such as you have described where they exist.

I'm not sure how practical it is, but I would like to start paying welfare recipients in vouchers or credits that can be used for rent, utilities, education, etc, rather than cash. When my wife and I used to visit my now deceased dysfunctional step son who was always living on the edge, we would never give him cash, rather we'd take him to the grocery store or Costco and fill a couple of shopping carts full of groceries, pay his rent or utility bill for him, and so on, but never give him cash or bail him out of jail.

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an opinion piece from an Historian.
It's interesting reading, if just to get some historical perspective.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions ... index.html

Why don't you spend some time reading history and not articles that are provably incorrect. Since when do most Americans consider the New Deal the foundation of our stability? I would be surprised if many Americans knew what it the New Deal was. Where are they even getting this information from? This article is a puff piece for those that accept what is written as true. It isn't. That fact that you think this is relevant is why I fear for this nation.

Millions of people run their own life in small businesses or regular jobs on a daily basis. Trump doesn't care to run them at all. Why exactly this person believes Trump thinks a few wealthy men should run the nation I do not even begin to comprehend since it is provably untrue.

What horsecrap masking as educated opinion.

Never before has a president sided with a foreign oligarch..

Really? We've never had a president side with a foreign oligarch? I guess all that military aide we sent to Saddam Hussein, the Shah, the klepocrat in Tunisia, and countless other foreign oligarchs around the world wasn't the president siding with them. I guess they don't have pictures of presidents shaking hands with foreign oligarchs, dictators, monarchs, and the like as we agree with their rule of their nation.

What is this person even talking about? The Democrats are handing over powers over this nation to the United Nations, which I guess doesn't fall under the idea of selling us out to foreign powers.

This is a dog and pony show that shows how easily Americans are manipulated according to the need of a particular party. You wait and see when the next Democratic president is in office. I feel bad for that guy because he will be hammered as payback for what the Democrats are doing to Trump right now. The dog and pony show will continue until Americans rebuke both these jokes we know as political parties.

burrrton wrote:This reminds me of something I've read a few times that rings undoubtedly true:

If you took every penny in the country and 'redistributed' it evenly to the population, in a couple years the same people would be rich and the same people would be broke.

Sure and no one would have a job because it would destroy the wealth of the nation. Not to mention all the people that would find out they don't have a clue how to run a company or keep a phone network running or build computers or planes or the like.

The people that think wealth is some kind of finite number don't even understand wealth. I could query the majority that bang the drum of wealth inequality and they wouldn't even know that it was not a finite number, maybe not even know what the word finite means. The vast majority are so uneducated and dumb when it comes to economics, they think Bezos being the richest man in the world means he has that cash sitting in his bank account in a spendable form rather than the value of a company he started that has made thousands of people wealthy and better off while improving the means by which society shops and does a variety of activities.

It's unfortunate they don't understand how much socialism would make their life worse in the long run. That the experiment of socialism and communism has been attempted and failed dramatically because the fundamental method by which you must implement requires violent oppression of your populace to ensure you can take all the property or money the productive class builds and owns. It's literally a requirement of the system which leads to a level of systemic oppression that anyone who has read on the methods of implementing such foul systems should reject.

NorthHawk wrote:Look up Portugal's success in the opium issue.
They went from one of the worst countries in Europe for addictions and crime to one of the best.
Even the most ardent conservative in their country is surprised and pleased at the success.
Their crime is down (addicts are no longer wreaking havoc in society trying to find enough money to get their next fix).
Their medical system costs are down.
Some of the addicts are getting back into the work force.
Their justice costs are down.
Many have got off drugs because they come into contact with authorities who can point them to clinics.
Because it's treated as a medical and not a criminal issue, more addicts are seeking help.

I could support treating it as a medical issue. The hardline stance was never going to work.

That's outside the box thinking.
A definition from Cambridge Dictionary is "to think imaginatively using new ideas instead of traditional or expected ideas"

It's not a new idea or outside the box. The new idea was treating drugs as criminal. If you look up much of older society engaged in drug use often. The war on drugs and complete illegality was the new idea that failed. Drugs used to be treated as a medical condition and tolerated within the confines of society. You ever watch old westerns with people buying cocaine and laudunum (opium) over the counter?

I've never been of the mind that drug use should be treated as a criminal endeavor throwing people in jail. I would rather it be treated as a medical issue with dealers dealt with in the same manner as someone selling a hamful substance.

At the same time, Portugal is hardly a sign of a well run nation.

Mob tyranny? Please temper the hyperbole.
We already have welfare and other support systems. This replaces it.
Like I said, though, I have an aversion to it, but am open minded enough to see if it works and if it does, maybe consider it.

Where does money come from to pay a universal income? I want you explain how it is morally sound to use the power of the voting mob to take money off people in the form of taxes to pay others that earn nothing? That is in essence mob tyranny. It should be outlawed.

Taxes themselves for services rendered that we agree upon and benefit from are something else. Just straight up taking money off people to give to others is mob tyranny. It's why so many have questioned it and do not care for it. It fueled welfare reform and the like. It's absolutely wrong to just hand people money for doing nothing. Society should not ever reward laziness through taxation.

Are you implying that America is immune to recessions? Look at world history. No nation is immune.

As you stated, no nation is immune. Are you saying a recession means the nation isn't running well? A recession is not a sign of a nation not running well. It's the cyclical nature of an economy. They are to be expected and should not result in a huge panic where we change everything hoping to prevent them while at the same time destroying the wealth building aspects of our economy that far exceed most other nations.

There's a big one coming and it's sooner than many think and a lot of people will be in financial trouble.

How do you know this? Are you saying there is a big one coming because that's the doomsayers making the claim over and over and over again until they're right? Do you know this from an empirical standpoint?

Do you know the economic collapse of 2008 was the second biggest recession in history after The Great Depression. That occurred from 1929 and early 1930s. It was nearly 80 years since even close to a comparable recession/depression occurred.Do you know that the modern economists handled the most recent recession in a far more intelligent and focused manner using lessons learned from the previous recession. Do you know this?

Companies already are having problems refinancing and the business insiders are selling their stocks at a rate 8 times their purchases.

Where are you getting this information? And for what companies? You are making a nebulous claim so general as to question its validity. I want to see your data? It very much depends on the company. I've already stated this multiple times, but I follow daily economic news. This isn't reported save by quack articles looking to call the next collapse which they do so often it's the equivalent of Armageddon theory by religious nuts. Fortunately for the quacks recessions really happen and fortunately for us the end of the world has not.

Do you know that earnings beats are at historically high levels? Cash levels are at historically high levels? The economy is very, very healthy right now. In fact, there are very few headwinds to economic growth at the moment other than this trade war Trump seems intent on fighting.

How much financial news do you actually follow? Where do you get your information from? Do you have money in the market? Are you educated on finance and economics well enough to determine if the data you are reading is accurate? Are you engaging in speculation based on "sky is falling" articles using very loose analysis drawn from some source that purports to tell you a given metric is the one that will tell you this is going to happen for this reason? Like your inverted yield curve metric which I've seen touted lately.

A recession will occur again at some point. It is unknown when. The scale of it is also unknown. There are no metrics that predict these things with any degree of accuracy, which is why no one can time the market very well. You're considered one of the greatest traders in history if you even time the market once, but you're a better trader if you know how to manage your money when the market collapses.

You want to read intelligent economic analysis, read Warren Buffett, not articles by doom and gloomers looking to call the next Great Depression or Recession. Articles are garbage. Knowledge is obtained by reading and practicing base knowledge so you're capable of doing analysis for yourself rather than relying on the analysis of biased individuals trying to sell you on a particular idea.

And as far as our nation not doing well, please stop buying the Malarkey. We're the last remaining Super Power. We're the worlds biggest and most powerful economy. We're the fattest nation in the world having too many calories. We extremely wealth,live extremely well, and have a life other nations dream of and try to obtain by coming here. The only reason you think we have major problems is because you're an Americna and the only acceptable outcome is perfection. It's how you've been mentally trained your entire life. It's why I laugh at happiness indexes by worldwide organizations. Americans are taught to never be happy, always want more and better, and never remain content. And we're always seeking to get better and be as perfect as possible. It's why in our spare time we spend so much time and energy trying to improve.

Just remember while you're pushing to get better and know everything, spend some time realizing how good you have it in this nation. As much as we all complain, we don't live a bad life at all. And we'll likely be taken care of by very powerful and capable robots at some future point built by our insanely productive entrepreneurs.

Sure and no one would have a job because it would destroy the wealth of the nation. Not to mention all the people that would find out they don't have a clue how to run a company or keep a phone network running or build computers or planes or the like.

No kidding?