USPOL May: Two thugs interrupt elegant dinner in DC

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL May: Two thugs interrupt elegant dinner in DC

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

Another point on the side of GMI/UBI, food programs like SNAP and WIC are made redundant or get heavily revamped, which has impact on the private sector.

For example, there could possibly be a scenario where grocery stores no longer need to label WIC approved foods or do the song and dance with the WIC check and to process it as a separate transaction at the register and on the back end accounting side of things.

# ? May 25, 2016 20:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 13, 2024 07:22

GalacticAcid: Apr 8, 2013; NEW YORK VALUES

Scalawag magazine tweeted out this link that describes a project underway at Cornell to crowdsource information on runaway slaves based on advertisements in antebellum Southern newspapers.

Seems like a painstaking enterprise but the end result could be pretty interesting, thought some people here would be interested.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:02

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

The answer to all budget issues is "cut the bullshit military spending"
Like always.

Iron Rose needs to up his game.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:06

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Raerlynn posted:

I contend that the tax system we have rewards the people who have the money and resources to hire people with the explicit skill set of reducing their tax burden. As in, if you're rich you can afford to lobby for tax loopholes and you can afford to have people who will do nothing but find every possible way to get you out of paying taxes.

Poor people, hell even middle class people, can't afford that. Level the playing field, remove tax loop holes wholesale. All of them. There's how you pay for things like universal healthcare, guaranteeing housing, food, etc.

You're ducking the question, because it challenges the notion that a person's value isn't based on their income, sex, race, religion, or who their parents are. We are not nearly as poor as the GOP makes us out to be. We spend billions on aircraft we don't need, and cut education. We pass tax cuts to give to business owner and attract corporations, but then slash infrastructure and education and healthcare. Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas. Soon Illinois will be joining that list. All states that embrace the GOP platform. Illinois is bracing for massive education layoffs in its higher education. All four states have squandered opportunities to become better places, to attract residents, and to improve life for their constituents, C and all four failed to do so because they were too busy giving handjobs to big corporations and loving over anyone who isn't white, Christian, straight, male, and rich.

Whoa, slow down there, hoss.

Illinois most certainly did not 'embrace the GOP platform.' Rauner got in because Quinn (our previous governor and probably the only non-horribly corrupt politician in this state) alienated his base (unions, government workers) and Rauner cheated massively in Chicago with robocalls telling precinct judges not to show up to work (ironic for Republicans who love to shout about the Chicago machine and corruption on the Democratic side). He only won by 50k votes and Rauner's approval ratings are in the tank and I guarantee he won't win the next election. He is like cartoon evil literally taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable of the state.
The problem is Dems in this state are incredibly corrupt and everyone in the Assembly is terrified of raising taxes. Doesn't help that we have a constitutional prohibition on anything but a flat income tax. An assemblyman tried to raise a bill to change that and it got shot down.
That said there will probably not be massive higher-ed layoffs because tons of higher-ed professionals are fleeing the state. Illinois was a net population loser last year and the trend does not look to be slowing down. This is going to damage higher ed for at least a decade.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:06

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Ytlaya posted:

I don't really understand the emphasis by many liberals on a GMI. It seems like a better idea to just provide necessary social services (food, housing, etc) directly. If you provide a GMI (presumably as an alternative to existing welfare like food stamps) you'll end up with situations where people/households still gently caress up their finances and end up starving on the streets. It's all well and good to say "well they deserve it*", but many of these people would have children as well (not to mention the general societal problems caused by such a thing). GMI also results in a certain portion of the money inefficiently going to individuals and households that aren't in need of it. Like, what is the benefit (aside from appeasing some dumb conservatives who complain about "fairness") to giving a GMI to literally all adults and not just giving it to people under a particular level of income or wealth?

This isn't to say that there should be no direct cash payments; obviously people should have some money to spend as they please. But usually when I see GMI discussed it's brought up as an alternative to things like food stamps or fully/heavily-subsidized housing. The whole thing just feels like some bizarre attempt to find middle ground with libertarians or something. It seems like it unnecessarily introduces a bunch of problems that wouldn't exist with more social welfare that directly provides necessities.

* Though I would strongly disagree with this; many poor people simply don't have the experience necessary to know how to properly manage finances (largely due to the fact that society has repeatedly reinforced to them how pointless it is to even try).

Speaking for myself, the main reason I like a GMI is flexibility and simplicity. If somebody needs more or less food or rent or heating subsidy than the monolithic Welfare bureaucracy guesses they do, they're in trouble. If they've got a GMI, though, somebody who works in a grocery store 20 miles away just spends less on food and more on gas, no problems. You can't spend food stamps at some stores or for some items, only certain businesses participate in LIHEAP, but everybody takes cash. It removes from the government the responsibility to micromanage everybody to ensure they have a bed, a roof, 2500kCal/day, what have you, and strikes an adequate balance, IMO, between government support and personal freedom.

quote:

Like, what is the benefit (aside from appeasing some dumb conservatives who complain about "fairness") to giving a GMI to literally all adults and not just giving it to people under a particular level of income or wealth?

Like I said, simplicity. You don't have to ask for somebody's income and calculate how much money they should actually get, you just send them a check every month or so. Of course, now this raises the question of whether we'd rather pay around ten million for this sort of bureaucracy or several trillion to send everybody a check. (Also, IIRC when you just give everybody a check, it's a Universal Basic Income, a Guaranteed Minimum is one that is given to people under a particular level of income. :fishmech:

)

JerikTelorian posted:

I read an article some time ago (that I'm unable to find now) which suggested a basic income that declined as a ratio of your earnings. The goal was that the basic income provided a declining fraction of your wealth if you got a "real" job, but didn't decline so fast as to make the basic income always better than not working. I'm not sure it would work well in the US because of the distribution of wealth, though. I think it was a $1 reduction in the basic income for every $2 earned from other sources.

Oh poo poo, yes, this is what we really need, just an income floor to Guarantee a Minimum Income and standard of living.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:08

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Amergin posted:

Where are you going to get this money?

I propose that we get this money by taking some fraction of the assets of the extremely rich every year.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:20

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Want to know a few things about the upcoming RNC? Click Here!

Highlights:

The event zone is pretty fuckin' huge.
They're going to have a speaker's platform in Public Square where you can register to speak.
Guns aren't banned but canned goods and tennis balls are.
Protest parade route is barely downtown, and only skirts the outer southern edge.
Both demonstration areas are quite a few blocks from the main venue.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:24

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

Oracle posted:

Whoa, slow down there, hoss.

Illinois most certainly did not 'embrace the GOP platform.' Rauner got in because Quinn (our previous governor and probably the only non-horribly corrupt politician in this state) alienated his base (unions, government workers) and Rauner cheated massively in Chicago with robocalls telling precinct judges not to show up to work (ironic for Republicans who love to shout about the Chicago machine and corruption on the Democratic side). He only won by 50k votes and Rauner's approval ratings are in the tank and I guarantee he won't win the next election. He is like cartoon evil literally taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable of the state.
The problem is Dems in this state are incredibly corrupt and everyone in the Assembly is terrified of raising taxes. Doesn't help that we have a constitutional prohibition on anything but a flat income tax. An assemblyman tried to raise a bill to change that and it got shot down.
That said there will probably not be massive higher-ed layoffs because tons of higher-ed professionals are fleeing the state. Illinois was a net population loser last year and the trend does not look to be slowing down. This is going to damage higher ed for at least a decade.

Pretty sure there's some overlap between what we both said there.

As someone who lived in southern Illinois before finally moving to Missouri, Illinois would be a solid red state were it not for Chicago as a whole.

Also EIU is threatening to lay off some 217 staff I believe, and SIU Carbondale is similarly looking at slashing it's operating budget because the state cannot produce funding.

The rest of what you said is spot on though. I didn't mean to imply those policies reflect the will of the people, but rather their leader at the time.

What I'm trying to drive home is we have four states that have wholesale enacted GOP agendas and economic policies, and by what I'm sure is complete coincidence, four states that can't afford rudimentary education and are so broke they can't maintain basic infrastructure.

Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 25, 2016

# ? May 25, 2016 21:32

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

So what's going on with the new release about Hillary? It appears to me that it doesn't say anything new, it just reiterates that yeah, she did something she wasn't supposed to. But it seems like more of an indictment on the awful loving IT stuff for the government.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:44

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

So what's going on with the new release about Hillary? It appears to me that it doesn't say anything new, it just reiterates that yeah, she did something she wasn't supposed to. But it seems like more of an indictment on the awful loving IT stuff for the government.

The best way to figure out if Clinton email news is going to be a thing is to see how hard Fox News is pushing it, because it's only going to be a thing if Fox News pushes it.

# ? May 25, 2016 21:45

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation