Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

What do poor people do with the money however?  If you e.g. give 30,000 people $10K to live on, they have to spend it. Say 2/3rds of that goes to creating minimum-wage jobs and you set those at $20K. That just made 10,000 jobs to feed/cloth/house the other 30000. But those 10,000 people are going to spend their money, and 2/3ds of that is also going to spent on wages, so you get another 6666 jobs happening, and those people spending create another 4444 jobs and so on. If you do the limit sum for that you get a total number of jobs created of .... 30000. Those are just rough numbers but they happened to work out that way. My point is that by setting the right minimum wage and welfare payments, you can in fact create more actual jobs than the number of "slackers" you create. Part of the reason this works is that labor is an under-utilized resource. People have plenty of time to spare, but we have finite limits of other resources. We can run out of steel, but it'd take a hell of a lot of effort for us to run out of people who have spare time.

How would you ensure people wouldn't use all this cash to fuel addictions?

Give it to them in a non-cash form. Like how food stamps work. So, a sort of credit card that has funds put onto it every month, with very limited cash withdrawal options. You can use it to buy anything that takes a credit card.

Last I checked, drug dealers haven't invested in credit card readers.

Cigarettes, alcohol, painkillers, gambling...

In saying that, I'm for universal income. If someone wastes it, that's their prerogative. So long as it's going toward some type of legitimate economic activity it's generating growth and/or taxes.

[Lord Shonus]

What do poor people do with the money however?  If you e.g. give 30,000 people $10K to live on, they have to spend it. Say 2/3rds of that goes to creating minimum-wage jobs and you set those at $20K. That just made 10,000 jobs to feed/cloth/house the other 30000. But those 10,000 people are going to spend their money, and 2/3ds of that is also going to spent on wages, so you get another 6666 jobs happening, and those people spending create another 4444 jobs and so on. If you do the limit sum for that you get a total number of jobs created of .... 30000. Those are just rough numbers but they happened to work out that way. My point is that by setting the right minimum wage and welfare payments, you can in fact create more actual jobs than the number of "slackers" you create. Part of the reason this works is that labor is an under-utilized resource. People have plenty of time to spare, but we have finite limits of other resources. We can run out of steel, but it'd take a hell of a lot of effort for us to run out of people who have spare time.

How would you ensure people wouldn't use all this cash to fuel addictions?

Give it to them in a non-cash form. Like how food stamps work. So, a sort of credit card that has funds put onto it every month, with very limited cash withdrawal options. You can use it to buy anything that takes a credit card.

Last I checked, drug dealers haven't invested in credit card readers.

Cigarettes, alcohol, painkillers, gambling...

You can't gamble with a credit card. Casinos either use cash directly or use a special card you have to load with cash. This has the effect of greatly reducing what you can carelessly spend (as you have to make a deliberate effort to keep going after you use up your initial funds) and thus reducing the publicity damage when people gamble too much. The only painkillers you can get OTC are things like asprin, ibuprofen, or Tylenol - they can't get you high, and are greatly needed by a lot of working people.

[penguinofhonor]

And SNAP money definitely gets traded for drugs. I'm not sure how widespread it is (it might be a very minor problem compared to the good SNAP does), but the digital card system doesn't guarantee the benefits get used properly.

[PTTG??]

Interesting news.

"Justice Democrats," a coalition of ideologically driven, meaningfully liberal Democrats, have stepped forward. It is, point-for-point, almost exactly what I suggested several pages ago. They gave the DNC the chance to get its act together, and when that failed, they took up the banner themselves. It's actually something positive! It's actually a political campaign I could vote for!

Acknowledging cynicism and skepticism, the mere fact that these ideals are growing so popular, so fast, is reassuring.

The best part is, these policies strike right to the heart of Trump's most reluctant supporters -- those who want to see their jobs protected and who were ignored by the Corporate Democrats.

I do wish there was a statement about the importance of space exploration, and perhaps something about a preparation for widespread automation. It would also likely serve the JDs well to step back on gun regulation and simply say "common-sense defense of second amendment rights," meaningless as the statement might be, because frankly terms like "assault weapons" are so vague that they have a faint toxicity on conversation.

[birdy51]

I have seen the light.

[Lord Shonus]

Interesting news.

"Justice Democrats," a coalition of ideologically driven, meaningfully liberal Democrats, have stepped forward. It is, point-for-point, almost exactly what I suggested several pages ago. They gave the DNC the chance to get its act together, and when that failed, they took up the banner themselves. It's actually something positive! It's actually a political campaign I could vote for!

Acknowledging cynicism and skepticism, the mere fact that these ideals are growing so popular, so fast, is reassuring.

The best part is, these policies strike right to the heart of Trump's most reluctant supporters -- those who want to see their jobs protected and who were ignored by the Corporate Democrats.

I do wish there was a statement about the importance of space exploration, and perhaps something about a preparation for widespread automation. It would also likely serve the JDs well to step back on gun regulation and simply say "common-sense defense of second amendment rights," meaningless as the statement might be, because frankly terms like "assault weapons" are so vague that they have a faint toxicity on conversation.

This is literally "here's exactly the same platform we've been pushing for years, but we're rebranding it to insult anyone who disagrees with us". Never mind that some of that (such as "legalize EVERY drug", for example) has no solid support base, and they're blatantly cherry-picking polls on other issues to make themselves look like the "real face" of America.

[smjjames]

Here's a similar thing. Their site homepage.

The Run for Something group isn't so much about a specific platform other than a Progressive playform rather than building a grassroots bench. However, BOTH of these groups, this one and the Justice Democrats (the name kind of brings on tones of SJWs to me a little, or lawyers) are about grassroots movements and rebuilding the Democratic bench.

edit: I guess Lord Shonus was right about it bringing on tones of SJWs... At least the one I linked is actually trying to be a grassroots movement.

[ChairmanPoo]

Does Theresa May really believe that this guy is going to help her?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The problem I see with this is that I feel like these grassroots movements are going to drive hard left, much like how the Tea Party drove hard right.

Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Dogmatic extremism is problematic, yes, but...

Look at it this way. Would you rather have evolutionary anarchists, or revolutionary anarchists? (Assuming you're not one yourself.) One of them works within the system to alter it democratically. The other tears down the system from outside. If you disagree with anarchism, you want the anarchists inside and listened-to. Otherwise they'll just tear the state down themselves.

[smjjames]

The problem I see with this is that I feel like these grassroots movements are going to drive hard left, much like how the Tea Party drove hard right.

"For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies to politics as well as physics.

Does Theresa May really believe that this guy is going to help her?

No idea. If she was frustrated or angry or anything, she didn't show it.

[smjjames]

The problem I see with this is that I feel like these grassroots movements are going to drive hard left, much like how the Tea Party drove hard right.

Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Dogmatic extremism is problematic, yes, but...

Look at it this way. Would you rather have evolutionary anarchists, or revolutionary anarchists? (Assuming you're not one yourself.) One of them works within the system to alter it democratically. The other tears down the system from outside. If you disagree with anarchism, you want the anarchists inside and listened-to. Otherwise they'll just tear the state down themselves.

What the heck is an 'evolutionary anarchist'? Is that like evolution run amok or something?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk.

or (gasp) real life.

Utilizing language that on their homepage really makes it seem, to me at least, that they do not know what they are getting themselves into.  Yes, Trump was elected, but even he seems a bit more professional than this.

[Lord Shonus]

edit: I guess Lord Shonus was right about it bringing on tones of SJWs... At least the one I linked is actually trying to be a grassroots movement.

Not quite how I would have phrased it - I would say it feels more like the "Trump for the Left" approach. It doesn't have the egotistical center that Trump provides, but both of the two come across as having the same arrogant attitude.

Granted that that arrogant "I can take care of anything" attitude did seem to go a long way toward winning the last election, but I don't think it's a good force in our political system.

That said, the one you linked is far better, at least in the sense that they recognize that some of their sacred cow issues are political poison in a lot of places, and the effort to build up a young force of movers and shakers is an excellent strategy for reform.

[Strife26]

Honestly I'd rather not have anarchists at all.


Are there any moderates left in politics?

Not until one personally joins that second oldest of professions.

[smjjames]

Honestly I'd rather not have anarchists at all.


Are there any moderates left in politics?

Tim Kaine is pretty centrist/moderate as Democrats go, and theres certainly some of the moderate 'old guard' around in the Republicans like maybe John McCain, but I'm not sure who qualifies as Moderate in the Republican side. Some of the more moderate Dems would be found in the red states.

Also, Trump told a lie right to May's face during the joint press conference, and not some vague diplomatic or political edging that every politician does, it's a straight up verifyable lie.

Honestly I'd rather not have anarchists at all.


Are there any moderates left in politics?

Not until one personally joins that second oldest of professions.

One would argue politicians or perhaps the priesthood, but I know you mean the military.