Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Explain modern country music to me then.

Umm, that's Hollwyooods fault Gunga din.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Will you two fuck already? 

Jesus, dude, nobody needs that visual.....

[FondrenRoad 4378]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What words have I used to give you this impression?

Quite a lot of words.  You continue to focus on "economic and social conditions" as the primary reason for depression and addiction.

And here again, in response to "Most of these people are trying to run away from themselves, and they would be doing so under any economic or government system. " you say.

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Fondren: King of made-up statistics, quotes, and arguments

So clearly, you don't have an understanding of what clinical depression is.  It is not a fleeting sense of sadness or anxiety tied to an event or financial woes.  Its a crippling feeling of hopelessness without a true underlying cause.  You could give a clinically depressed person 100 million dollars and a penthouse on 5th avenue, and they'd still be fighting the urge to down a bottle of painkillers with a side of vodka.

And what are your thoughts on incels?  How do you fix their "isolation" with socialism?  The answer is you don't.

 

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Stepping stones. The vulnerable tend to have a hard time hopping from one stone to another successfully. It's why they are there in the first place.

As someone who actually works with the vulnerable, this is not true of anyone except people who are mentally ill or addicts.  And as I already said, there is no good solution for the mentally ill.  They will be on the streets under your dream system as well.  So will addicts until they choose to come in.

 

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If intervention into the lives of the mentally ill is so pointless, why are you so excited about the NYC social programs meant to intervene into their lives?

You're confusing access with intervention.  The mentally ill have access to free mental health care in NYC.  They aren't forced to use it.  They are urged to do so, however, by outreach personnel and volunteers.  To be honest, for the very mentally ill, its better for them if they have a violent episode (so long as nobody really gets hurt by it) because they can be forcibly treated and medicated after that.

How do you imagine a single payer system working?  Personally, I expect access for everyone, but I don't expect people to be forced to go to the doctor nor do I expect doctors to bang on people's doors.  So I do fully expect for people to still die of preventable disease once we have single payer.  Frankly, I'm not even sure there will be a reduction in such deaths at all. 

We really aren't that far off in what we want for this country.  But you need to realize that all these services and plans are for people.  We aren't gonna make people do anything.  And people don't always do what you expect or want them to do.   Maybe you want a Star Trek utopia where scarcity doesn't exist.  Hey, I want that too, but at the end of the day, we only see the best and brightest Federation officers.  The human condition still happens on the planets even while everyone has enough to eat and money doesn't exist.

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Broke: Quoting Trotsky on the state of the people alienated in a finance capital system.
Woke: Quoting horrible 1980s sci-fi movies to dismiss the mentally ill as fundamentally hopeless.

Horrible?  Now I really know your opinions are worthless.

Edited July 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13193]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Quite a lot of words.

None of which you can seem to actually quote. Mysterious.

Quote

So clearly, you don't have an understanding of what clinical depression is.  It is not a fleeting sense of sadness or anxiety tied to an event or financial woes. 

Maybe that's why I advocate universal healthcare in order to help people with their mental disorders? Repeatedly?

Quote

But you need to realize that all these services and plans are for people.  We aren't gonna make people do anything.  And people don't always do what you expect or want them to do.   

When have I said otherwise? Who are you even talking to? You get very angry about arguments no one is making.

Many mental illnesses are treatable. Many mental illnesses are exacerbated by stress. Increasing access to treatment and reducing external stressors are both things to strive for. Understanding the dynamics of the mentally ill when designing social programs to help them is also important.

[Incredulity 11660]

Well I keep hearing about the left eating their own.

Example A1.  Amazing stuff.

[bad_teammate 13193]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Well I keep hearing about the left eating their own.

Example A1.  Amazing stuff.

This is nothing. You should see DSA on Twitter. Holy moly.

[Rimbo 25915]

darn

Edited July 24, 2018 by Rimbo
egads, dupe

[Rimbo 25915]

egads another dupe

Edited July 24, 2018 by Rimbo

[Rimbo 25915]

On 7/22/2018 at 5:31 PM, markstanco said:

 

Curious on how the leftsist and righties on here think about her.

 

What I think is that this thread is useless without pics

and that the thread will devolve into the usual dead-horse-kicking rehashed debates that every thread here becomes

Anyway:

Totally would. In a heartbeat. And so would you

[Rimbo 25915]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well I keep hearing about the left eating their own.

Example A1.  Amazing stuff.

i totally would eat her out, so you got another example

[bad_teammate 13193]

Some would say reducing AOC to an object by commenting on her pretty face and sweet rack is bad praxis and uncomradely.

Well, I think those guys are queers.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

None of which you can seem to actually quote. Mysterious.

Maybe that's why I advocate universal healthcare in order to help people with their mental disorders? Repeatedly?

When have I said otherwise? Who are you even talking to? You get very angry about arguments no one is making.

Many mental illnesses are treatable. Many mental illnesses are exacerbated by stress. Increasing access to treatment and reducing external stressors are both things to strive for. Understanding the dynamics of the mentally ill when designing social programs to help them is also important.

But you don't understand the dynamics of the mentally ill.  That's abundantly clear.  If I asked you how you would maximize the yield of an apple orchard would you just say "grow more trees" or would you actually go to the apple orchard first and familiarize yourself with the way orchards operate in the first place?  

Your selective quoting is also tiresome.  All the answers you seek are right there in the post you are selectively quoting including a "mysterious" quote you are pretending doesn't exist.

Earlier I gave you a link with a phone number that anyone can call and have free access to mental health care in NYC.  When someone calls, they will be directed to a clinic where they can be treated.  If they are in immediate crisis, someone will come to them.  Every single homeless person in NYC as well as anyone residing or existing in NYC has the ability to call this number have universal access to mental health care already.  Yet there are still quite a lot of people wandering around the streets with untreated mental illness.  So why don't you finally get past your "many mental illnesses are treatable" and "access" strawmen?

So again, tell me how your dream system is better. And don't say "access."  They already have free access.  How do you go beyond access to forced use?  How do you go from forced consultation to forced medication?  Are you advocating for abduction?  

You should really do some outreach to the homeless and then come back with an informed opinion.  You play right into the hands of conservatives because you're only about disinterested policy.  In reality, we're trying to help real people with policy.  You should get to know some of them.

[bad_teammate 13193]

ugh forget it even I'm bored with this shit

Edited July 24, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Rimbo 25915]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Some would say reducing AOC to an object by commenting on her pretty face and sweet rack is bad praxis and uncomradely.

Well, I think those guys are queers.

Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for her too, probably. If I didn't live in another state and all.

I would likely enjoy hanging out, chit-chat, making fun of Trump, all that other stuff too. I could totally be her First Lord when she's El Presidente.

Just saying that if things ever moved towards the bedroom, I would absolutely enjoy the experience.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are trying to argue two contradictory things at once:

1) Increased access to mental healthcare doesn't matter

2) Increased access to mental healthcare has reduced NYC's homeless population

Which is it?

At no point have I advocated for any of these forced programs. Why do you keep bringing them up?

I've never once argued that access to mental healthcare has reduced NYC's homeless population.  In fact, I have consistently said that a mentally ill homeless population will always exist so long as we live in a land with the freedom to choose.

You've responded to that with access, access, if only they had access.

To which I replied they do have access.  They just don't go and they can't be forced.

So then you follow that up with something like "mental illness is treatable if they have access to care."  Yeah, no shit.  Already established. So again what is your solution to make that treatment happen?  The only actual way to solve it is to force treatment.   But you say you don't want that.  So then what?  Maybe you could just admit that your dream world will have mentally ill people living on the street too.  NYC does the best it can do.  Texas doesn't.

And still man, its really telling that you don't have any experience with outreach.  That is easily resolved.  Get out there and try to help people access the care available to them.  Even in Texas it isn't entirely hopeless.  By all means, keep fighting for policy.  But also get your ass out there and help people get to where they need to go.  

Edited July 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13193]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I've never once argued that access to mental healthcare has reduced NYC's homeless population.  In fact, I have consistently said that a mentally ill homeless population will always exist so long as we live in a land with the freedom to choose.

"Reduce" and "eliminate" are separate concepts. Reduction is an attainable goal. Pure elimination of mental illness and homelessness is not an attainable goal.

Quote

So again what is your solution to make that treatment happen?  The only actual way to solve it is to force treatment.   But you say you don't want that.  So then what?  Maybe you could just admit that your dream world will have mentally ill people living on the street too.  NYC does the best it can do.  Texas doesn't.

Is that my dream? Did I say that was going to happen or even possible? Jesus Christ why do I keep talking to someone who just lies incessantly about my arguments?

I regret everything.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Reduce" and "eliminate" are separate concepts. Reduction is an attainable goal. Pure elimination of mental illness and homelessness is not an attainable goal.

Is that my dream? Did I say that was going to happen or even possible? Jesus Christ why do I keep talking to someone who just lies incessantly about my arguments?

I regret everything.

I haven't lied about your arguments.  You've basically argued that NYC doesn't do enough while advocating for the exact things that NYC already does.  And the only reason that we are having this argument is because you had no clue about NYC's homeless and mental illness programs in the first place.  Neither did O-C.  And then you got caught up trying to defend her because I guess you believe she couldn't possibly ever be wrong about something.  So instead of just agreeing with me, you kept arguing, and also displayed that you've never done any homeless outreach and have little understanding of how depression and addiction work.  So since then, you selective quote and keep saying they just needed better "access" to mental healthcare over and over even though you know they have access.  Or the best one.  Maybe if abusive alcoholics had a guaranteed job, they wouldn't drink.  Right.  That's exactly how alcoholism works.  Even you don't really believe that shit.

Really, even your first sentence here in the post I'm quoting is exactly what NYC has, so why come back confrontational at all?

And I'll argue around the minutiae because I'm an asshole just like you.  But really, you didn't need to start this argument in the first place if you didn't want to.  So by all means, feel free to bow out.

And really, in the summer, half the perceived homeless people aren't homeless.  There aren't actually 20 veterans that need 12 dollars for a train ticket home to NJ every day.  There aren't actually 100 women with children who just got kicked out of their house by their husband and have no place to go.  Real women in that situation have a place to go.  There aren't 70 year old women who are forced to hold up signs begging for money in Times Square because they have no place to go.  They also have a place to go.

Edited July 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Chrispy 132]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

What I think is that this thread is useless without pics

and that the thread will devolve into the usual dead-horse-kicking rehashed debates that every thread here becomes

Anyway:

Totally would. In a heartbeat. And so would you

Yep. Plus, her service is free and available to everyone. 

[Rimbo 25915]

bigger boobs: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's chest, or the people rehashing arguments in this thread?

 

everyone's a winner

[Anastasis 23464]

I'm pos repping BT for overall body of work in this thread. Last few pages were awesome.  Fuck the naysayers. 

[Anastasis 23464]

And if yall want to talk about something else, can yall provide a somewhat granular policy proposal for how UBI would actually work.  I couldn't get a policy proposal for how vacant condos were going to solve homelessness, but maybe we can tackle this one. 

[bad_teammate 13193]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

I haven't lied about your arguments.  You've basically argued ...

You just wrote this without a hint of fucking irony and it deserves to be printed, framed, and hung in the fucking Louvre.

Your entire game is to straight up make shit up about people's arguments and either not quote them at all, attribute their quotes to someone else, or use a couple of words in an overall re-casting and mischaracterization of their position. And you can't own up to any of it. You're a lost cause who has bored even me, the idiot dog who cannot stop barking at cars.

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And if yall want to talk about something else, can yall provide a somewhat granular policy proposal for how UBI would actually work.  I couldn't get a policy proposal for how vacant condos were going to solve homelessness, but maybe we can tackle this one. 

Two different issues, but I'll take a swing at both.

1) UBI

There are a lot of ways to approach this. Some are good, and some are awful.

I'll start with the the bad, which is the libertarian techbro futurist "give the masses a handout so we can rape everything and pretend that's equity" scenario. In that scenario, the government gives everyone a check and then shuts down all/most/many social services and regulations. Work is now "optional" because of UBI so OSHA and labor rights are gutted. You live in giant corporate campuses that you never "have to" leave and hell, why not revive company scrip but it's Elon Musk handing it to you (not literally, he won't look at you) so it's cool because he builds rockets (using government money) and literally hires Pinkertons to crack organizer skulls.

My view on the utility of the UBI is to essentially save free market enterprise in a society full of people alienated by the stratifying effects of capitalism. As much as we want to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that history has ended (middle finger to Fukuyama), the reality is that we are facing the age-old choice of socialism or barbarism, and while under Trump we are heading towards a more complete capitalist barbarism, we will more likely end up in the worst form of anarchist or totalitarian Communism if we ignore the needs of the people and crush them for so long that they see no recourse but literal revolution (which is not possible for a handful of fat gun nuts, but is EXTREMELY possible for literal millions of pissed of city dwellers). UBI, as a tool for saving free enterprise, would bring the bottom end of the wealth curve up automatically and instantly. This would not be accompanied by any elimination of social welfare, because the mentally ill are going to keep being mentally ill, well-intentioned people will still fuck up, and we should never accept kids suffering because their parents are irresponsible.

I could talk about this for 60,000 more words, but I'll stop and listen.

2) Empty Housing & Homelessness

I understand why seeing those two things together would lead one to think, "Well, why not put the homeless in the empty house?"

In some cases, that would make perfect sense. There ARE homeless people out there who would make great use of empty housing. A mother leaving an abusive husband with her kids. An economic or social refugee from another country who has the mental acuity and physical ability to work. Etc...

Other cases, however, make no sense. The dude who lives have his life in a ketamine hole has no  use for an apartment until his terrible addiction and the underlying issues that led to that addiction are addressed (if they even can be).

What putting the empty luxury apartment and homeless problem next to each other does is raise very important questions:

- How is a market economy actually functioning properly if we are profitably creating an excess of a good that goes unused?

- What are the supply and demand curves actually like?

- What is the role of wealth/income disparity in building this incongruous outcome?

One way to deal with the specific issue is rent stabilization, rent control, and a regulatory setting of rents outright (i.e., a regulatory commission looks at the available housing, the available market demand, and decides (either by fiat or cooperation) what reasonable rents would need to be charged to achieve a desired occupancy rate). The purpose of this would be to ensure that the market forces are working together in a rational way. Obviously this is an intrusion into the "free" market.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And if yall want to talk about something else, can yall provide a somewhat granular policy proposal for how UBI would actually work.  I couldn't get a policy proposal for how vacant condos were going to solve homelessness, but maybe we can tackle this one. 

While it's called UBI, I dont think it works if it's just a simple monthly lump sum.  Youd have far too many people who blow it. Instead, it has to be separated into basic vouchers for housing, food, clothing, and utilities.  Have it scaled for cost of living differences. Everyone in each cost region gets the same thing regardless of their income. That means a few things. It should cover the cost of living somewhere in the area, but not the most expensive part of the area. So no Manhattan without additional income. You get more for dependents. 

For many it would end up being a 1 to 1 trade on the new tax for it.  However, I still think everyone should still get vouchers to eliminate stigma. 

Also, for welfare, that's it. If you blow it, you're on your own. There does have to be a line somewhere. 

[bad_teammate 13193]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also, for welfare, that's it. If you blow it, you're on your own. There does have to be a line somewhere. 

[bad_teammate 13193]

Now that I'm done laughing at the self-described leftist who thinks UBI is a good opportunity to end social welfare and literally says "you're on your own" like a cartoon villain version of Grover Norquist...

It absolutely is vital to end means testing. EVERYONE should get the UBI (and have exactly the same access to all social welfare programs), from the dirtiest bum under the bridge to the oil exec deciding which luxury car to drive to work that day.

 

[Anastasis 23464]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) UBI

There are a lot of ways to approach this. Some are good, and some are awful.

I'll start with the the bad, which is the libertarian techbro futurist "give the masses a handout so we can rape everything and pretend that's equity" scenario. In that scenario, the government gives everyone a check and then shuts down all/most/many social services and regulations. Work is now "optional" because of UBI so OSHA and labor rights are gutted. You live in giant corporate campuses that you never "have to" leave and hell, why not revive company scrip but it's Elon Musk handing it to you (not literally, he won't look at you) so it's cool because he builds rockets (using government money) and literally hires Pinkertons to crack organizer skulls.

 My view on the utility of the UBI is to essentially save free market enterprise in a society full of people alienated by the stratifying effects of capitalism. As much as we want to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that history has ended (middle finger to Fukuyama), the reality is that we are facing the age-old choice of socialism or barbarism, and while under Trump we are heading towards a more complete capitalist barbarism, we will more likely end up in the worst form of anarchist or totalitarian Communism if we ignore the needs of the people and crush them for so long that they see no recourse but literal revolution (which is not possible for a handful of fat gun nuts, but is EXTREMELY possible for literal millions of pissed of city dwellers). UBI, as a tool for saving free enterprise, would bring the bottom end of the wealth curve up automatically and instantly. This would not be accompanied by any elimination of social welfare, because the mentally ill are going to keep being mentally ill, well-intentioned people will still fuck up, and we should never accept kids suffering because their parents are irresponsible.

I could talk about this for 60,000 more words, but I'll stop and listen.

This isn't a policy proposal, this is you building a libertarian techbro strawman to rhetorically posture against.  Tell me how this shit is suppose to actually work.  What does UBI actually look like, and where does the funding come from.  Break out out the cost benefit analysis. Feel free to use numbers. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23464]

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

While it's called UBI, I dont think it works if it's just a simple monthly lump sum.  Youd have far too many people who blow it. Instead, it has to be separated into basic vouchers for housing, food, clothing, and utilities.  Have it scaled for cost of living differences. Everyone in each cost region gets the same thing regardless of their income. That means a few things. It should cover the cost of living somewhere in the area, but not the most expensive part of the area. So no Manhattan without additional income. You get more for dependents. 

For many it would end up being a 1 to 1 trade on the new tax for it.  However, I still think everyone should still get vouchers to eliminate stigma. 

Also, for welfare, that's it. If you blow it, you're on your own. There does have to be a line somewhere. 

Fondren is already doing better than you are BT. Still not a lot of numbers, but at this point we are dealing in baby steps. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Oh man, now Fondren is winning! This game is coming down to the wire! 

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Oh man, now Fondren is winning! This game is coming down to the wire! 

Fondrens gonna have to make up a lapping by my score keeping, but I give differential scoring for rhetorical posturing and prowess over being "right".  If we are only scoring the latter Fondren wins. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[FondrenRoad 4378]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You just wrote this without a hint of fucking irony and it deserves to be printed, framed, and hung in the fucking Louvre.

Your entire game is to straight up make shit up about people's arguments and either not quote them at all, attribute their quotes to someone else, or use a couple of words in an overall re-casting and mischaracterization of their position. And you can't own up to any of it. You're a lost cause who has bored even me, the idiot dog who cannot stop barking at cars.

Two different issues, but I'll take a swing at both.

1) UBI

There are a lot of ways to approach this. Some are good, and some are awful.

I'll start with the the bad, which is the libertarian techbro futurist "give the masses a handout so we can rape everything and pretend that's equity" scenario. In that scenario, the government gives everyone a check and then shuts down all/most/many social services and regulations. Work is now "optional" because of UBI so OSHA and labor rights are gutted. You live in giant corporate campuses that you never "have to" leave and hell, why not revive company scrip but it's Elon Musk handing it to you (not literally, he won't look at you) so it's cool because he builds rockets (using government money) and literally hires Pinkertons to crack organizer skulls.

My view on the utility of the UBI is to essentially save free market enterprise in a society full of people alienated by the stratifying effects of capitalism. As much as we want to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that history has ended (middle finger to Fukuyama), the reality is that we are facing the age-old choice of socialism or barbarism, and while under Trump we are heading towards a more complete capitalist barbarism, we will more likely end up in the worst form of anarchist or totalitarian Communism if we ignore the needs of the people and crush them for so long that they see no recourse but literal revolution (which is not possible for a handful of fat gun nuts, but is EXTREMELY possible for literal millions of pissed of city dwellers). UBI, as a tool for saving free enterprise, would bring the bottom end of the wealth curve up automatically and instantly. This would not be accompanied by any elimination of social welfare, because the mentally ill are going to keep being mentally ill, well-intentioned people will still fuck up, and we should never accept kids suffering because their parents are irresponsible.

I could talk about this for 60,000 more words, but I'll stop and listen.

2) Empty Housing & Homelessness

I understand why seeing those two things together would lead one to think, "Well, why not put the homeless in the empty house?"

In some cases, that would make perfect sense. There ARE homeless people out there who would make great use of empty housing. A mother leaving an abusive husband with her kids. An economic or social refugee from another country who has the mental acuity and physical ability to work. Etc...

Other cases, however, make no sense. The dude who lives have his life in a ketamine hole has no  use for an apartment until his terrible addiction and the underlying issues that led to that addiction are addressed (if they even can be).

What putting the empty luxury apartment and homeless problem next to each other does is raise very important questions:

- How is a market economy actually functioning properly if we are profitably creating an excess of a good that goes unused?

- What are the supply and demand curves actually like?

- What is the role of wealth/income disparity in building this incongruous outcome?

One way to deal with the specific issue is rent stabilization, rent control, and a regulatory setting of rents outright (i.e., a regulatory commission looks at the available housing, the available market demand, and decides (either by fiat or cooperation) what reasonable rents would need to be charged to achieve a desired occupancy rate). The purpose of this would be to ensure that the market forces are working together in a rational way. Obviously this is an intrusion into the "free" market.

You cant set that type of rent control in an extremely finite area without also restricting movement. Let's say your rent control plan is introduced in NYC.  Anastasis gets a job in Manhattan. His employer wants him to start next week. Rather than being able to rent one of those current market rate apartments, he instead has to wait list for a rent control unit. Since hardly anyone moves out of one, the wait list becomes a years long process.  So instead, the market finds a way.  One of the people in a rent controlled unit moves in with his girlfriend and illegally sublets his unit to Anastasis at many times the rent ceiling. And those who want to move to NYC without Anastasis' well heeled educational background have to move into makeshift illegal housing while they are waitlisted.  Joe Schmoe who just graduated from UT and wants an entry level job in NY is completely shut out. He will have to stay in Texas because he isnt going to do the shanty town.

So what the rent control plan does is essentially close the city to newcomers. It might work better in places where you have greenfield to build on. The best we can do is have percentage set aside for low income people and lottery them which we already do. But at the end of the day, the rest of the nation has to do better so that places like NYC who mandate homeless services dont become magnets for the homeless from other places. 

There also isnt actually a high vacancy rate in NYC. Even in luxury buildings, units stay vacant only for a few months after a move out. In older more affordable buildings, units rent within a month of becoming vacant. There is turnover with periodic months of vacancy. There isnt actual vacancy. For residential at least. There is really not enough room to fit everyone that wants to live here, but the building boom has started to lower rents slightly in some areas. 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[David Dennison 18851]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This isn't a policy proposal, this is you building a libertarian techbro strawman to rhetorically posture against.  Tell me how this shit is suppose to actually work.  What does UBI actually look like, and where does the funding come from.  Break out out the cost benefit analysis. Feel free to use numbers. 

This is just one breakdown for purposes of giving you something to look at. There are many others out there on the internets.

[bad_teammate 13193]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This isn't a policy proposal, this is you building a libertarian techbro strawman to rhetorically posture against.  Tell me how this shit is suppose to actually work.  What does UBI actually look like, and where does the funding come from.  Break out out the cost benefit analysis. Feel free to use numbers. 

Did you not see Fondren's post immediately after mine in which he advocated the abolition of social welfare and then "fuck off, you deserve it" to the children of irresponsible parents, just like I said? Interesting that you call it a "strawman" when he validated it immediately. And the Silicon Valley vision of sprawling, "never leave" campuses and company towns is not something that is obscure or conspiratorial.

As for how it works.

- Everyone 18+ gets the payment bi-monthly. (Money, not vouchers. No extra money for having kids.)
- There is no regional variation. Everyone in the nation gets the same check.
- It is funded by increased taxes on wealth, income, and inheritance.
- Most social welfare is not just untouched, but increased. The UBI is not a replacement for social safety nets.

Ask me anything you like as far as the kind of granularity you're looking for.

[Anastasis 23464]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 This is just one breakdown for purposes of giving you something to look at. There are many others out there on the internets.

So this proposal, if I am tracking is basically distilled down to:

In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. Three thousand dollars must be used for health insurance (a complicated provision I won’t try to explain here), leaving every adult with $10,000 in disposable annual income for the rest of their lives.

The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.

 

 

[Anastasis 23464]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you not see Fondren's post immediately after mine in which he advocated the abolition of social welfare and then "fuck off, you deserve it" to the children of irresponsible parents, just like I said? Interesting that you call it a "strawman" when he validated it immediately. And the Silicon Valley vision of sprawling, "never leave" campuses and company towns is not something that is obscure or conspiratorial.

As for how it works.

- Everyone 18+ gets the payment bi-monthly. (Money, not vouchers. No extra money for having kids.)
- There is no regional variation. Everyone in the nation gets the same check.
- It is funded by increased taxes on wealth, income, and inheritance.
- Most social welfare is not just untouched, but increased. The UBI is not a replacement for social safety nets.

Ask me anything you like as far as the kind of granularity you're looking for.

This is not any like the proposal that DD linked. 

 

What are the payments under your proposal? What are the tax increases on wealth, income, etc. Give some rates and thresholds? What are the increases to social welfare?

[Anastasis 23464]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I like the idea of being upper middle class and still getting the $13k or whatever it is that the poors get. I think this sounds better than regular welfare.

That's the argument in the article for the "break even" so nobody gets their feels hurt. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you not see Fondren's post immediately after mine in which he advocated the abolition of social welfare and then "fuck off, you deserve it" to the children of irresponsible parents, just like I said? Interesting that you call it a "strawman" when he validated it immediately. And the Silicon Valley vision of sprawling, "never leave" campuses and company towns is not something that is obscure or conspiratorial.

As for how it works.

- Everyone 18+ gets the payment bi-monthly. (Money, not vouchers. No extra money for having kids.)
- There is no regional variation. Everyone in the nation gets the same check.
- It is funded by increased taxes on wealth, income, and inheritance.
- Most social welfare is not just untouched, but increased. The UBI is not a replacement for social safety nets.

Ask me anything you like as far as the kind of granularity you're looking for.

Who said anything about telling children to fuck off? Did I say I was abolishing CPS? If you cant properly feed your kids from their allotted vouchers, then the state can certainly do it instead. 

The UBI doesnt work unless it replaces social safety nets. It needs to be everyone's social safety net. Perhaps you're talking about token amounts which would be entirely pointless. If someone already has UBI to cover all their necessary food, why do we need food stamps on top of that?  UBI also should replace social security and public worker pensions. 

[bad_teammate 13193]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

So, you want “regulatory commissions” that centrally plan what housing occupancy should be and then sets prices by “fiat or cooperation”.  

There's a difference between outlaying what someone "wants" and offering a vision as to how something could work.

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What are the payments under your proposal? What are the tax increases on wealth, income, etc. Give some rates and thresholds? What are the increases to social welfare?

$1k/mth UBI for all (no means testing)

I'd start with moderate (by my standards tax increases)

70% inheritance tax on estates $2-$4.9M/child, 99% inheritance tax on estates over $5M/child

90% income tax on annual income over $20M

My goal would not be immediate revenue neutrality. It would be nice, but not a necessary feature.

[EuroHorn 3259]

7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I like the idea of being upper middle class and still getting the $13k or whatever it is that the poors get. I think this sounds better than regular welfare.

Except your taxes go up to pay for it. Much more than what you’re getting back 

[bad_teammate 13193]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Who said anything about telling children to fuck off?

This guy did:

"Also, for welfare, that's it. If you blow it, you're on your own. There does have to be a line somewhere."

What an asshole, right?

Quote

If someone already has UBI to cover all their necessary food, why do we need food stamps on top of that?

In case someone fucks up. That's literally what safety nets are for.

[edit]

Holy shit I just realized what you meant when you said when you said "Did I say I was abolishing CPS?"

You meant taking people's kids away.

Holy fucking shit.

Edited July 24, 2018 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13193]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Wait, central planning and price controls by fiat in the housing market were your idea of outlaying a practical proposal of how something could work?  What then, is your pie in the sky ideal that you want if that was your grounded realistic proposal?

I don't know enough about the specifics of the NYC housing market to give a detailed policy proposal. I was asked how it might work, so I offered ideas as to how it might work. Calm yourself down.

[bad_teammate 13193]

Coming up with policy proposals is very easy for people whose entire moral worldview is, "Just fucking die already you poor pieces of shit."

[Anastasis 23464]

UBI seems to have a strong reliance on financial planning and rational budgeting by individuals.  Otherwise you need BT's backstops on the backstop for when people "fuck up". Building a policy around the concept of rational financial planning by Americans, much less among specifically the lower educated and less financially literate strata of Americans, doesn't really sound like a particularly strong basis for policy making.  Sounds kinda nonsensical. 

[seven 1367]

BT, maybe you could respond to why food stamps are needed if ubi covers food, instead of this "he wants kids to die!" bullshit that's making you look foolish. 

 

Just a suggestion. 

[seven 1367]

Oh look, Ana did it for you 

[bad_teammate 13193]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

UBI seems to have a strong reliance on financial planning and rational budgeting by individuals.  Otherwise you need BT's backstops on the backstop for when people "fuck up". Building a policy around the concept of rational financial planning by Americans, much less among specifically the lower educated and less financially literate strata of Americans, doesn't really sound like a particularly strong basis for policy making.  Sounds kinda nonsensical. 

Part of our inability to plan financially is that we don't have reliable income either modeled for us as we grow or given to us as we age. It's a chicken and egg thing in that circumstance.

The concept behind the UBI as it makes sense in my diseased brain is that it is essentially the government saying, "Hey, we're creating a ton of wealth and we can't really distribute it equitably without tearing everything apart, so here's a baseline income that can be easily provided to everyone that's a little token towards all of us universally sharing in our national largesse."

Think of it like profit-sharing, but for a whole country. Not dissimilar to Alaska's oil dividends and such.

Just now, seven said:

BT, maybe you could respond to why food stamps are needed if ubi covers food, instead of this "he wants kids to die!" bullshit that's making you look foolish. 

You need safety nets explained to you?

[bad_teammate 13193]

7 minutes ago, seven said:

Oh look, Ana did it for you 

From my first post about UBI:

"This would not be accompanied by any elimination of social welfare, because the mentally ill are going to keep being mentally ill, well-intentioned people will still fuck up, and we should never accept kids suffering because their parents are irresponsible."

[bad_teammate 13193]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

For the record, this thread makes me very sad because I despise Trump, and the people on the BT side of the argument are convincing me he’s going to win in 2020.  Can you all just not talk publicly about central planning command economies and 99% tax rates to support a UBI for two more years?  Calling everyone racist would actually be preferable.

When you don't have any values or ideals of your own, there are always pearls to clutch!

 

[Anastasis 23464]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Part of our inability to plan financially is that we don't have reliable income either modeled for us as we grow or given to us as we age. It's a chicken and egg thing in that circumstance.

This is total nonsense. 

 

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You need safety nets explained to you?

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Chrispy 132]

So, everyone’s poor? No thanks.