Originally Posted by MrTickle
Who is Michael Angelo? do you mean Michelangelo? it's just is first name
I only post from my phone, and one night while I was drunk my phone spelled out Michael Angelo instead of Michelangelo, these guys being art fags, they lambasted me about the typo, they turned it into some kinda boys in the hall nerd bit....
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
I love the current excuse they're peddling about this.
First they tried to claim that conservatives were doctoring the page, and they never wrote that.
Now that the doctoring claim has been disproven, they are now claiming they just accidentally left that part in, when it was part of a larger statement regarding retired people not wanting to work anymore.
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1094277833097121793
Bullshit.
There's no chance this was a retirement statement which was completely removed except those 3 words.
How stupid do they think everyone is?
They should just admit that a staffer wrote this in a draft without AOC's permission, that she doesn't support it, and they apologize for any confusion.
Instead, they're grasping at BS excuse after BS excuse in order to make it look like nobody ever meant to write that.
BTW, the "support those unwilling to work" isn't an obvious mistake or typo.
This is actually a far-left talking point.
It's known as "universal basic income", and it exists in Finland. You get money every month (only if unemployed) for simply existing. The belief is that it gives everyone the bare minimum to get by, and then they can work if they wish to have more money than that.
Simply put, the far left believes that you are still entitled to some form of government support, even if you're able-bodied and simply don't want to work.
Not surprisingly, those on the universal basic income in Finland reported being "happier", but very few of them wanted to get jobs: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/f...y-mark-n969211
That’s beyond a reach. UBI is a concept that I find personally nonsensical as far as the US as a whole presently, but it’s genesis as a talking point in politics in the US is in relation to automation and robotics replacing workers.
It’s only US real world application is the Alaska Permanent Fund set up by Republicans in Alaska to just give money to Alaskan citizens for existing because of the oil $ surplus. Some countries or states may able to fade it economically because of natural resources and low population. Finland and Alaska would both fit that category.
Also, you have people who somehow believe that people who receive a universal basic income will somehow just dedicate their time to the arts (lol), or doing something they love instead of being at a job they hate. The people propagating this idea have a romanticized idea of people who are working at dead end jobs or poor people in general.
Coming from a lower socioeconomic level, and growing up in the ghetto, I can give you a first hand account of people who would benefit from universal basic income. A large percentage of these people have PTSD of some kind and continuing a vicious cycle of some kind. Giving them a paycheck and free time might not be the best thing for everyone.
I'm for social programs that actually will have results for society, giving someone a paycheck to do nothing is only detrimental to the security of this country and more importantly, to the individual, in the long run.
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
There is no "universal basic income" in Finland. There never has been. There was a 2 year experiment that involved a few thousand randomly selected individuals, but that study wasn't about viability of UBI.
Oh and regarding AOC there actually exists thing called drafts. They often have mistakes and inconsistencies. That's kinda why they are called drafts. It's fairly helpful especially with large bodies of text that involve work from several individuals. Usually criticizing drafts as if they are the finished product is considered mildly retarded.
ergo it being a talking point on this alt right shithole.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
ergo it being a talking point on this alt right shithole.
How is this an alt right shithole unless ur basically admitting that I overpower all the libtards that bad it just seems like it
Long ago, Texas got smart with its oil wealth and set up a higher education fund from the state’s share of oil revenues. The smart part was that moneys from the fund can only be spent on equipment or buildings to be used in higher ed. That has allowed Texas to plow huge sums of money into developing the infrastructure of state colleges and universities, and included in that infrastructure are licenses for use of research databases and lab equipment. That has helped the Texas state universities become research powerhouses, with the benefits of such research capability spurring on the development of high tech industries in Texas in a variety of fronts.
That’s beyond a reach. UBI is a concept that I find personally nonsensical as far as the US as a whole presently, but it’s genesis as a talking point in politics in the US is in relation to automation and robotics replacing workers.
It’s only US real world application is the Alaska Permanent Fund set up by Republicans in Alaska to just give money to Alaskan citizens for existing because of the oil $ surplus. Some countries or states may able to fade it economically because of natural resources and low population. Finland and Alaska would both fit that category.
Meanwhile, individual Alaskans annually getting their personal share of oil revenues probably results in the kind of disincentivation of self-sufficiency, coupled with annual binge drinking/partying episodes when the annual oil royalty checks arrive.
(Thank you, Alaskan GOP!)
_____________________________________________
So why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
Most people thought the same of a 2000 mile wall that Mexico was going to pay for and locking Hilary up even though she was charged with nothing, but here we are.So why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
I assume the "experiment" happened because reasons. Why i know it wasn't about UBI was because the dude that supervised it said so. If it had been about UBI it would have gathered different information, structured differently and that type of stuff.So why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
It was "sold" as UBI because at the time when UBI was in the headlines for other reasons, it was the only experiment/study that gave away "free money". Sometimes journalists are lazy. We also don't vacuum our forests.
What i think about UBI depends. It's very wide subject and devil is almost exclusively in the details. In general i'm in favor of anything that's cheaper to society. There are UBI models that very likely are cheaper than current models in Northern Europe. It's not really a new idea to provide your citizens with bread and circus entertainment. In case you're not aware your government already "pays" to those unwilling to work.
Oh and i very much get the point with AOC. You want this to be something it may or may not be. I don't quite recollect when Trump (or any of his relatives/employees) said my bad i was wrong and fix that shit the next day. Because that's what AOCs staffer did. That's what responsible people do.
I don't know why pro-business conservatives don't support UBI.
- Destroys the inefficiencies of the welfare state if nobody has to qualify for certain things. Everyone just gets the same. (saves money, paperwork)
- Given to everyone equally (fair)
- Most people will spend every single penny of their UBI because they need the cash (helps the economy)
- Businesses like small shops will be able to survive with new customers
- Restaurants and other businesses who suffer in financial crisis will have more business as people aren't counting pennies and choosing whether to feed or clothe their kids.
- The poor will spend it all (goes back into economy), the middle class will use it for things like occasionally affording to go out to eat/theatre/cinema (goes into businesses)
It's excellent as most money goes back into the system (and is taxed!). It's great for the poor, for business and for efficiency of public spending.
Should be supported by left and right alike.
This isn't really a political talking point, more an aspect of human psychology. For whatever reason when you "give people" stuff they abuse it and are miserable, and when someone is "working for something" they feel good about it and their lives feel more fulfilled. If you don't account for human psychology all those talking points you brought up are potentially valid. But when you do consider human psychology there is real concern UBI could make society, especially the poorer segments, much more dysfunctional. I think it is pretty obvious generational welfare has absolutely destroyed the happiness and productivity of a significant % of our society, and poorly implemented UBI (even if well meaning) could exasperate this situation.
I think in designing a future functional society we need serious, honest psychologists to consider these factors. Unfortunately, psychology (especially at the research level) is currently corrupted by political activism, and there is nothing honest coming out of it, so this can't really happen in today's political climate.
I only post from my phone, and one night while I was drunk my phone spelled out Michael Angelo instead of Michelangelo, these guys being art fags, they lambasted me about the typo, they turned it into some kinda boys in the hall nerd bit....
a typo huh?
look, i never claimed to be the Leo Nardo of mathematics but at least there were news articles saying that romney got more votes than trump, which you can google right now. and i will not have my intelligence questioned by you, even if you're living the good life working for a company with $5 billion in profits
Just say you're wrong jfc, i don't need a long winded explanation.
I spelled michelangelo wrong because im not a sophisticated art fag, and you foolishly thought mitt romney got more popular votes then trump, it's ok life goes on.
We get it.....you're an obsessed art fag.......move along....
Last edited by Mintjewlips; 02-10-2019 at 12:50 PM.
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
That's why UBI should be at a level where it doesnt make anyone comfortable but means you dont have to worry about being homeless.This isn't really a political talking point, more an aspect of human psychology. For whatever reason when you "give people" stuff they abuse it and are miserable, and when someone is "working for something" they feel good about it and their lives feel more fulfilled. If you don't account for human psychology all those talking points you brought up are potentially valid. But when you do consider human psychology there is real concern UBI could make society, especially the poorer segments, much more dysfunctional. I think it is pretty obvious generational welfare has absolutely destroyed the happiness and productivity of a significant % of our society, and poorly implemented UBI (even if well meaning) could exasperate this situation.
I think in designing a future functional society we need serious, honest psychologists to consider these factors. Unfortunately, psychology (especially at the research level) is currently corrupted by political activism, and there is nothing honest coming out of it, so this can't really happen in today's political climate.
While I agree that the money will go back into the economy, LOL at saying restaurants will benefit from this. Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!
But that aside, I'll tell you why the right (and the mainstream American public, for that matter) doesn't support UBI.
First off, it's using tax dollars to pay people unwilling to work. That's honestly what it's doing. That's not where our tax dollars should be going.
But past the moral objection to this, it creates a problem that many on the left don't want to acknowledge.
We can all agree that most minimum wage jobs suck. They're unpleasant, they're boring, there's little satisfaction in doing them, the rules are rigid, and you don't tend to be treated with respect by either your employer or the customers. Suffice to say that people take these type of jobs out of necessity and usually hate being there.
If you give someone UBI, even if they're not receiving the equivalent of minimum wage, they're close enough to where their life is honestly better to forego the difference in money and have the extra 40+ hours per week to themselves.
Furthermore, when the difference in money IS needed, they can always take under-the-table cash jobs, and work for fewer hours.
This already happens in the US all the time when people are on other forms of government assistance. It also occurred in 2009 during the financial crisis, when 99 weeks of unemployment pay was authorized. I personally knew people who purposely chose not to work for that entire 99 week span, rather than look for a job, because the difference between their unemployment pay and expected pay at a new job wasn't large enough to justify working full time.
I don't even blame these people. I would do the exact same in their shoes. It's easy to say, "Let's provide for the less fortunate" and feel good about yourself, but if you don't do it correctly, you're both wasting tax dollars and entering them into a cycle of dependence (or alternatively, susbistence through abusing the system).
In general, it's a big mistake for the government to provide for anyone who is making a conscious choice not to work, and that shouldn't require much of an explanation.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote
