I'll grant you it was posted with a large grain of salt. While "it's not fair" is a rallying cry, another reason Dems wouldn't support it is that those dollars go farther in smaller cities and communities, again reducing the power base and their voting bloc in large cities. But what other argument is there for not supporting it?
Hell, even the Koch brothers would like people to buy homes (and rehab them), heat the homes, etc. and line their pockets with more profit.
Are you suggesting that a democrat that moves from a large city to the suburbs to stretch his/her UBI will suddenly become a Republican simply based on location?
If everyone has a guaranteed income, they're free to move somewhere they can afford to live without being tied down by a job. You shouldn't be rewarded with more money for choosing to live somewhere expensive.
I'd love an iPhone and a trip to Vegas but it seems I just have dirt and plastic... Do you take dirt at the Bellagio?
Hahahaha wow. Who has proposed it? Who has rejected it? You're talking like Dems blocked a UBI bill. I'm pretty sure the mention of the term would get you stoned for communism in the fucking House.
No, I'm saying it would reduce Dem votes from major metropolitan areas, improving chances for Republicans in areas such as NYC, Chicago, etc.
No, but Dems are not even lukewarm to the idea in many instances. It's a center/center-right something (not sure if calling it a movement, idea, proposal or what is appropriate).
Truly bizarre. UBI is a right wing idea? Who knew? I'm glad our active legislators have been pushing it. I'll have to write Mitch and thank him. Too bad those big city Dems are blocking it?????? I guess it makes sense since fascism is liberal. Good idea = conservative, bad idea = liberal (and vice versa, fuck endogeneity).
Am I missing which top politicians are really excited about it? I feel like you've made about a dozen citation-worthy claims in two posts.
Apparently Nixon had a UBI plan that he changed his mind on before presenting it, and Friedman advocated it. Acting like liberals, populists, and progressives haven't historically supported it is a bit much, though.
Yeah I mean just on its face the people who whine about government in the market claiming sole ownership of the idea that *the government literally supply an income to everyone* is hard to believe. I was surprised to hear Friedman advocated it, but sole ownership of the notion-- much less the weird implication that Democrats are the practical issue-- is staggering.
Can you explain this being a center/center-right idea? Or the idea that left wouldn't go crazy supporting it if they thought they could get it through? Or are you referencing like, global centrists, which would be extremely progressive for the US? I guess it makes sense if you're viewing it as a means of getting rid of the vast majority of social programs in the US, which is an odd primary focus. Dems and the American left fight for social programs that the right wants to defund or remove all together. Much of American progressive policy is also behind removing the hindrance to using these same benefits, by allowing people to use them in the ways they see fit. You see where this is going? If it was feasible the Dems would cut a check each month to people, they'd be over the moon to be able to get rid of all the programs they've had to cobble together to try to find a baseline of livability for the impoverished. One of my grad school professors would literally speak on this issue in classes, would lobby in DC, and she was absurdly left.
no Dem in power would even mention it because the right would immediately say they want to give cash for addicts to buy drugs its the auto-response to any time people want to lessen restrictions on social support
Gary Johnson would consider pardoning Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning http://www.vocativ.com/345479/gary-johnson-pardon-computer-crime/
People that have to depend on something like UBI to survive aren't exactly going to have many job prospects though.
I'd go into a career change that took less money for sure. I live on my own frugally in a really low cost of living area, give me $1K in UBI and something I can make like $1-2K a month in and I guarantee I'd be living a much happier life. I don't need much to keep me happy. Give me a decent place to live with internet and cable or satellite and I'm good.
if you told me I would have enough money to eat and rent a spot for an RV, I'd keep up the professional grind for half a decade, stash cash, buy an RV and vehicle and toys outright, then get the fuck out of dodge and, like, podcast or volunteer at natty parks til I kick the bucket.
Why not sponge holders since the one you got from Amazon was a disappointment? Imagine the lifestyle, just going about life trying to find the perfect sponge holder. You could blog and podcast about it, maybe start up a YouTube channel.
Good idea. I'd consider something like that. One of my friends came up with an idea for a podcast but neither one of us have the time for it with our jobs. I'd probably roll it into my idea for a Virginia Sports online media operation. The whole state of Virginia, not just UVa. I really only have time to commit to it mid May - mid August so it would fail from the get go given my current station in life.
The sponge holder has ended up being a pretty good sponge holder. I shouldn't have judged it so quickly.
Wait just a second, half of the positive responses in this thread have been some form of "it'll eliminate bureaucracy as well as give me a reason to say you got your check so I no longer have to care", but the spin is that it doesn't happen because the dem's don't want to lose a voting bloc? Let's be clear, UBI doesn't already exist because of certain conditions and mythologies, talking about a world in which it actually managed to be implemented without acknowledging the changes in mindset that would have to happen first is just a perverted vision. Unless of course the primary thing you care about is no longer having to be bothered by guilt.
He's saying that people believe stupid shit (poor people are lazy, everyone is greedy, welfare queens are a thing, rich people earned every penny). UBI can't be implemented until those are addressed. Pretending that it would be if it weren't for the greedy Dem politicians is deluded or cynical.
I agree if you're saying it's not a simple black and white issue.... Lazy poors exist as well greedy people and welfare queens and there are rich people that work hard but the opposite also exists. I don't really see why this needs to be made into a partisan issue as the concept of basic income can (at least in theory) cut through both party lines and I don't see any of the candidates talking about it other than Gary Johnson (albeit briefly). I would definitely agree that you would have by far the most difficulty getting the republicans to come around on this.
If I'm a Republican, I might look at that and say - UBI is perfect, give those lazy, greedy, welfare queens their own money and let them sink. Then everyone will see that we were right, they are lazy, they are stupid, they have been milking the system for years and now that they are given free money they have no idea what to do with it. Don't cry to me, we are giving you thousands of dollars a month and you are spending it on Jordan's and weed. But I honestly don't see much support for this from either side of the aisle, which makes me think it's a great idea.
The two sides love it because depending on the amount, it should cover basic needs for the poor and it also is meant to take over for other major government programs that are overly complex, thereby taking away the need for a lot of government employees and overall size of the bureaucracy.