Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[gimmick]

You're already doing all of this. It's called welfare. That's how it works. It's pragmatic purpose is stability of society.

Oh and the reason why everyone gets UBI is that their financial situation isn't constant. It's much cheaper to pay it monthly vs applying it whenever your financial situation changes. Like that's not even close. Saying it's infinitely cheaper isn't that much of an exaggeration. Now to make this all work a lot smoother US might have to join the 21st century. Rest of the western world has been there for a while. We have decent idea what are citizens are doing and our governments have actual bargaining power.

Welfare needs reform, but that's not the reform it needs.

How is it so expensive to "apply assistance to whenever your financial situation changes"?

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot cheaper to only give people aid when they actually need it?

It is not the government's responsibility to keep shoveling free money into the pockets of every citizen just in case they hit upon hard times. Assistance should come as needed, not in the form of "take this money every month, because who knows, maybe you might need it at some point".

Assistance comes when it's needed even with the model i presented. The applying process is expensive in relation to 12 yearly bank transfers because it can't be automated currently. It involves decision making and human supervision/contact. You also have what 120+ different welfare programs. It's expensive because it's a shitshow. Oh and something like half your citizens get more in government assistance than they pay taxes right now. This isn't a case where only a small minority needs support and rest are just fine. Small minority is fine on their own.

[gimmick]

Let's say the US had a UBI of $700 per month.

The population is 325 million.

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Obviously that money would have to come from somewhere, right?

Well, obviously it would have to come from a big tax increase.

All my posts in the last 4 pages are about UBI requiring a big tax increase. I gave a model where it's not needed. Jim posted a youtube video that gave another model. That one introduces VAT to US and taxing large tech companies without simplifying current welfare programs.

On that video there was also the reason why this isn't an issue you don't have to deal with. By 2030 it's estimated US will lose roughly a quarter of current jobs to automation.

Now if you think welfare is a moral issue or a maintenance/upkeep cost for the labor force then it's not that big of a deal. It's just a poor people problem. I tend to believe that welfare exists predominantly for the reason it has always existed. To stabilize society. Reduce crime and prevent civil uprising. Fun times ahead.

Oh and i have no idea if UBI is the best solution. And even if it is, which model. So i'm not even advocating it. I don't know enough about the issue and i don't care enough to find out. Mostly just correcting weird misconceptions about it.

[MumblesBadly]

Let's say the US had a UBI of $700 per month.

The population is 325 million.

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Obviously that money would have to come from somewhere, right?

Well, obviously it would have to come from a big tax increase.

All my posts in the last 4 pages are about UBI requiring a big tax increase. I gave a model where it's not needed. Jim posted a youtube video that gave another model. That one introduces VAT to US and taxing large tech companies without simplifying current welfare programs.

On that video there was also the reason why this isn't an issue you don't have to deal with. By 2030 it's estimated US will lose roughly a quarter of current jobs to automation.

Now if you think welfare is a moral issue or a maintenance/upkeep cost for the labor force then it's not that big of a deal. It's just a poor people problem. I tend to believe that welfare exists predominantly for the reason it has always existed. To stabilize society. Reduce crime and prevent civil uprising. Fun times ahead.

Oh and i have no idea if UBI is the best solution. And even if it is, which model. So i'm not even advocating it. I don't know enough about the issue and i don't care enough to find out. Mostly just correcting weird misconceptions about it.

I’m quite intrigued by such predictions. Because how many times within the past 200 years have experts predicted how a new technology was going to decimate the job market, resulting in massive unemployment, but were proven wrong because of the evolution of the demand for jobs given the new tech?

[gimmick]

All my posts in the last 4 pages are about UBI requiring a big tax increase. I gave a model where it's not needed. Jim posted a youtube video that gave another model. That one introduces VAT to US and taxing large tech companies without simplifying current welfare programs.

On that video there was also the reason why this isn't an issue you don't have to deal with. By 2030 it's estimated US will lose roughly a quarter of current jobs to automation.

Now if you think welfare is a moral issue or a maintenance/upkeep cost for the labor force then it's not that big of a deal. It's just a poor people problem. I tend to believe that welfare exists predominantly for the reason it has always existed. To stabilize society. Reduce crime and prevent civil uprising. Fun times ahead.

Oh and i have no idea if UBI is the best solution. And even if it is, which model. So i'm not even advocating it. I don't know enough about the issue and i don't care enough to find out. Mostly just correcting weird misconceptions about it.

I’m quite intrigued by such predictions. Because how many times within the past 200 years have experts predicted how a new technology was going to decimate the job market, resulting in massive unemployment, but were proven wrong because of the evolution of the demand for jobs given the new tech?

Yea they might just get replaced by new jobs. Automation is a tricky one because of how little human interaction it requires. Robots can build robots and automated processes can do simple coding already. We're also already above the point where earth can replenish what we consume. So we can't really do what we did with industrialization.

[Dan Druff]

Welfare needs reform, but that's not the reform it needs.

How is it so expensive to "apply assistance to whenever your financial situation changes"?

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot cheaper to only give people aid when they actually need it?

It is not the government's responsibility to keep shoveling free money into the pockets of every citizen just in case they hit upon hard times. Assistance should come as needed, not in the form of "take this money every month, because who knows, maybe you might need it at some point".

Assistance comes when it's needed even with the model i presented. The applying process is expensive in relation to 12 yearly bank transfers because it can't be automated currently. It involves decision making and human supervision/contact. You also have what 120+ different welfare programs. It's expensive because it's a shitshow. Oh and something like half your citizens get more in government assistance than they pay taxes right now. This isn't a case where only a small minority needs support and rest are just fine. Small minority is fine on their own.

Where are you getting your numbers that half of Americans are getting more government assistance than they pay in taxes?? I'd love to see a source for that one. I don't know the exact numbers myself, but that couldn't be right, unless you are going to massage the data by including public school/college as "getting government assistance", or crap like that.

Your model still does not explain why people who don't need UBI should be receiving it, nor does it explain the benefit of doing so.

Welfare needs to be reformed. I have already stated that. UBI is not the solution because it creates both a government dependence model and unjustifiably pays able-bodied people for simply existing.

I have a huge problem with the government distributing any form of assistance unless such assistance is completely necessary.

The basic policy should be, "Do everything you can to help yourself first, and if it is not possible to help yourself, we will help you."

It should NOT be, "We will help you whether or not you really need it, and whether or not you have the ability to help yourself."

[gimmick]

Assistance comes when it's needed even with the model i presented. The applying process is expensive in relation to 12 yearly bank transfers because it can't be automated currently. It involves decision making and human supervision/contact. You also have what 120+ different welfare programs. It's expensive because it's a shitshow. Oh and something like half your citizens get more in government assistance than they pay taxes right now. This isn't a case where only a small minority needs support and rest are just fine. Small minority is fine on their own.

Where are you getting your numbers that half of Americans are getting more government assistance than they pay in taxes?? I'd love to see a source for that one. I don't know the exact numbers myself, but that couldn't be right, unless you are going to massage the data by including public school/college as "getting government assistance", or crap like that.

Your model still does not explain why people who don't need UBI should be receiving it, nor does it explain the benefit of doing so.

Welfare needs to be reformed. I have already stated that. UBI is not the solution because it creates both a government dependence model and unjustifiably pays able-bodied people for simply existing.

I have a huge problem with the government distributing any form of assistance unless such assistance is completely necessary.

The basic policy should be, "Do everything you can to help yourself first, and if it is not possible to help yourself, we will help you."

It should NOT be, "We will help you whether or not you really need it, and whether or not you have the ability to help yourself."

It tipped over the 50% mark somewhere around 2014...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill.../#685666303e6c

https://mises.org/wire/more-half-ame...-it-pays-taxes

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53597

...or pick any other publication you feel like. It's only the federal side of things and it's based on that last report.

Fairly sure i've explained it multiple times why it's paid to everyone and why that's a much cheaper method than what you suggest. I assume you haven't been involved in any welfare program in any capacity in decades, because it's not hard to understand for anyone that has ever dealt with bureaucracy.

[gimmick]

Administrative costs for welfare are roughly 8%. For you to get $700 from traditional welfare programs it costs the government $60. For arguments sake let's say an automated bank transfer costs $0.5. Government can now send that $700 119 times when it isn't needed for every $700 that is needed where they don't need to use traditional channels to break even. I might have gotten some details wrong but let's just say the margin of error here is pretty wide. Maybe your government sucks so much that the best they can do is $3 per transfer. Doesn't matter at all. 19-1 ratio not even close to falling short of covering.

[Dan Druff]

Administrative costs for welfare are roughly 8%. For you to get $700 from traditional welfare programs it costs the government $60. For arguments sake let's say an automated bank transfer costs $0.5. Government can now send that $700 119 times when it isn't needed for every $700 that is needed where they don't need to use traditional channels to break even. I might have gotten some details wrong but let's just say the margin of error here is pretty wide. Maybe your government sucks so much that the best they can do is $3 per transfer. Doesn't matter at all. 19-1 ratio not even close to falling short of covering.

Even if 8% could be saved, the downsides to UBI (which I already stated) would be far too great to justify saving a whopping 8%.

[gimmick]

Administrative costs for welfare are roughly 8%. For you to get $700 from traditional welfare programs it costs the government $60. For arguments sake let's say an automated bank transfer costs $0.5. Government can now send that $700 119 times when it isn't needed for every $700 that is needed where they don't need to use traditional channels to break even. I might have gotten some details wrong but let's just say the margin of error here is pretty wide. Maybe your government sucks so much that the best they can do is $3 per transfer. Doesn't matter at all. 19-1 ratio not even close to falling short of covering.

Even if 8% could be saved, the downsides to UBI (which I already stated) would be far too great to justify saving a whopping 8%.

You don't have any downsides left that weren't based on misconceptions or criticism of bad welfare systems that aren't intrinsic to UBI.

If it helps i can concede that it would be preferable that there weren't any unnecessary transfers. For following that principle i'm willing to pay $0.0 extra. I'm fairly sure that's a reasonable compensation. If it costs more i'm not interested.

[GambleBotsSatire]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1095821965938569217

[lol wow]

maybe shell give you some more money that you can lose to us on draftkings

[TheXFactor]

[blake]

AOC just getting buried on MSNBC today, saying she's "economically illiterate" for celebrating the loss of $1,000,000,000 to NY a year.

did anybody actually watch the video of her celebrating this?

this will be a very unpopular opinion, but she's essentially a less intelligent donald trump.

i'm seriously beginning to loathe her and she will become the de facto candidate trump is running against in 2020. her idiotic statements -- like "the reason unemployment is low is because people work two jobs" (that actually happened) -- will be what trump runs against. eliminate air travel in 10 years? can you please shut the fuck up and not say this publicly?

you're fucking handing the election to trump, which i'm on record as saying i didn't think was possible.

she needs to clear every single word she wants to say by nancy pelosi before actually saying it

[devidee]

AOC just getting buried on MSNBC today, saying she's "economically illiterate" for celebrating the loss of $1,000,000,000 to NY a year.

did anybody actually watch the video of her celebrating this?

this will be a very unpopular opinion, but she's essentially a less intelligent donald trump.

i'm seriously beginning to loathe her and she will become the de facto candidate trump is running against in 2020. her idiotic statements -- like "the reason unemployment is low is because people work two jobs" (that actually happened) -- will be what trump runs against. eliminate air travel in 10 years? can you please shut the fuck up and not say this publicly?

you're fucking handing the election to trump, which i'm on record as saying i didn't think was possible.

she needs to clear every single word she wants to say by nancy pelosi before actually saying it

Much like the concept of intersectionality, she is a right-wing psyop.

[shortbuspoker]

Makes perfectly good sense to me what she did. Why would you possibly give away that $3 billion tax break in return for Amazon coming in. They were only going to spend$2.5 billion building and setting up. Then they were only going to hire 25,000 people. Worst case scenario, those people should average $50,000 per year. So that's only$1.25 billion a year in wages pumped into the area. Obviously not worth it when you in fact want citizens to be dependent on the government.

[Mintjewlips]

The cult of Hillary is still holding out hope





You cant make this shit up...

[blake]

Makes perfectly good sense to me what she did. Why would you possibly give away that $3 billion tax break in return for Amazon coming in. They were only going to spend$2.5 billion building and setting up. Then they were only going to hire 25,000 people. Worst case scenario, those people should average $50,000 per year. So that's only$1.25 billion a year in wages pumped into the area. Obviously not worth it when you in fact want citizens to be dependent on the government.

it's even worse than that. in addition to the Amazon jobs, between 40,000 and 60,000 additional non-amazon jobs (to support the new amazon employees) were expected to have been created.

oh and the amazon jobs were supposed to average $150,000 a year

but hey, no gentrification so AOC's happy

[Mintjewlips]

I could help AOC with her public perception, sex sells, just wear tight clothing with low cleavage and 50% of all men will vote for you just solely based on that.....there....don't say I'm all hate....

She is really underestimating her sex factor, God gave you that nice rack, socialize that cleavage.....one time...

[blake]

i'm going to need you all to actually watch this. only 90 seconds. you need to actually watch her talk to get a feel for her lack of intelligence.

"well we were subsidizing those jobs." what the fuck? NO YOU WEREN'T YOU FUCKING IDIOT. does she not understand basic economics, incentives, taxes?

she wants to take the $3,000,000,000 in tax breaks that amazon would get -- but only if they first brought in $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue -- and redistribute it to teachers, etc.?

what money?

tine don't ever defend this monstrosity again. congrats AOC, you've set back the progressive agenda 80 years.

[MumblesBadly]

Makes perfectly good sense to me what she did. Why would you possibly give away that $3 billion tax break in return for Amazon coming in. They were only going to spend$2.5 billion building and setting up. Then they were only going to hire 25,000 people. Worst case scenario, those people should average $50,000 per year. So that's only$1.25 billion a year in wages pumped into the area. Obviously not worth it when you in fact want citizens to be dependent on the government.

it's even worse than that. in addition to the Amazon jobs, between 40,000 and 60,000 additional non-amazon jobs (to support the new amazon employees) were expected to have been created.

oh and the amazon jobs were supposed to average $150,000 a year

but hey, no gentrification so AOC's happy

25,000 jobs at an *average* of $150,000??? Even if true, a number of upper management making many millions in pay can seriously skew the arithmetic average. What was the projected *medium* compensation?