In The News Today...

Pence is an experienced politician who used his experience to both get the VP job and effectively discharge his duties while Donny was at the helm;

Pence had a long view, hoping to use his VP tenure to help elevate him to the presidency.

The guy may be too religious / conservative for me to vote for him but I grudgingly respect him for his service and his smarts in weathering the storm.

Quote: Mission146

I think UBI may well become necessary as more processes (especially in the service industries) become automated, but that's probably at least two generations from now. We might also be able to afford it (collectively) one day if we ever start having balanced budgets and get national debt back to zero.

I was told that would happen by now as a kid. Hasn't happened. We can't afford it because the math simply does not work.

New work keeps getting invented and will keep getting invented.

Quote: AZDuffman

I was told that would happen by now as a kid. Hasn't happened. We can't afford it because the math simply does not work.

New work keeps getting invented and will keep getting invented.

I basically agree with you---not about the math, but the other stuff. I just see it as a possibility in the future. The thing about work is that it should exist only when it actually fulfills a purpose; I don't know that's there any value in just, "Busy work," or, "Work play," that doesn't actually achieve some sort of objective.

Anyway, we could afford it now, it just depends on how much of, "It,' there is. If you took the amounts that go into all of the various social programs, added them up, subtracted out the small costs of the Administration/Systems needed to actually cut the checks and then divided the final total by the number of (adult) recipients of any of these things and just cut them all checks whilst completely getting rid of the programs themselves---boom---afforded. Same cost.

Quote: Mission146

What did Pence do? I tend to think he reined Trump in about as much as anyone could. I obviously don't like his social positions, but I don't hold being Trump's Veep against him.

I thought he was a carpet. As yet, he's made no claim to reining in Trump and no one has provided any evidence that I've seen as yet.

He decided to not to do something he had no power to do anyway. But that's a pretty low bar.

Quote: rxwine

I thought he was a carpet. As yet, he's made no claim to reining in Trump and no one has provided any evidence that I've seen as yet.

He decided to not to do something he had no power to do anyway. But that's a pretty low bar.

High enough that it would clear any bar that I'd set for Trump.

Quote: Mission146

I basically agree with you---not about the math, but the other stuff. I just see it as a possibility in the future. The thing about work is that it should exist only when it actually fulfills a purpose; I don't know that's there any value in just, "Busy work," or, "Work play," that doesn't actually achieve some sort of objective.

Anyway, we could afford it now, it just depends on how much of, "It,' there is. If you took the amounts that go into all of the various social programs, added them up, subtracted out the small costs of the Administration/Systems needed to actually cut the checks and then divided the final total by the number of (adult) recipients of any of these things and just cut them all checks whilst completely getting rid of the programs themselves---boom---afforded. Same cost.

We can't afford it because it is unworkable. To give every person $1,000 you have to take $1,000+ from every person. So the net gain is actually negative per person to account for admin costs. The UBI supporters just ignore this simple fact of life.

Quote: Mission146

High enough that it would clear any bar that I'd set for Trump.

I'm open to hearing some supporting information about Pence, should it ever be made known. Otherwise, hard to see him as much more than a lackey.

Quote: AZDuffman

[

We can't afford it because it is unworkable. To give every person $1,000 you have to take $1,000+ from every person. So the net gain is actually negative per person to account for admin costs. The UBI supporters just ignore this simple fact of life.

Let's suppose you have a parent with two kids who both get healthcare through the state:

Does that healthcare cost a non-zero number, on average?

Of course it does.

Most kids go to public school, which is paid for by the Government and facilitated by tax money.

Do schools cost a non-zero amount?

Of course they do.

Some people get public housing assistance in the forms of both income-based housing and sometimes Section 8 vouchers---which can be simplified as the Government subsidizing the rent that they can afford to pay to what would sometimes even be private landlords.

Does that cost a non-zero amount?

Of course.

So, what I am saying is that we already have a form of UBI, it's just not direct and the amount varies somewhat depending on your personal circumstances---for most things, whether or not one has minor children. Children would only impact public housing to the extent of how many bedrooms you might be permitted to have.

So, once again, what I am saying is you could theoretically 86 all of these social safety net programs and instead just have UBI. I'm not saying that it's actually doable, especially not in any immediate sense, just that it's theoretically possible.

Quote: rxwine

I'm open to hearing some supporting information about Pence, should it ever be made known. Otherwise, hard to see him as much more than a lackey.

Any supporting information would still not change his status as a lackey.

Quote: Mission146

I basically agree with you---not about the math, but the other stuff. I just see it as a possibility in the future. The thing about work is that it should exist only when it actually fulfills a purpose; I don't know that's there any value in just, "Busy work," or, "Work play," that doesn't actually achieve some sort of objective.

Anyway, we could afford it now, it just depends on how much of, "It,' there is. If you took the amounts that go into all of the various social programs, added them up, subtracted out the small costs of the Administration/Systems needed to actually cut the checks and then divided the final total by the number of (adult) recipients of any of these things and just cut them all checks whilst completely getting rid of the programs themselves---boom---afforded. Same cost.

That wouldn't work. You have the same size pot spread over many more people. All of the people that are on some kind of government support now would get less money. The people that really need the support wouldn't have enough money to live on. So we have to put the bureaucracy back in place to service them and increase their payments. So you mention only adults get cheques, how are families going to support themselves? Too simple a solution Mission.