You say that like they don't all flip flop when it suites them.
|
|
|
Donald or Kamala?
- Thread starter Mad Mike
- Start date
Shaman
Well-known member
You know what's funny to me? People saying that trickle-down doesn't work (it has its limitations certainly) but as soon as you bring up welfare or universal basic income, suddenly trickle-down is amazing and UBI will lift all the small businesses up because people would have money to spend.
Uh-huh. I won't even go into where the money'd have to come from or how much it would be. Just let that part sink in.
As for capitalism, it's the best of the worst ideas we have had so far. History dictates that you don't want socialism or communism, no matter how much you think you do.
Last edited:
Imo, the interesting path for welfare or UBI would be a time-limited plan. Along the lines of "We will fund you for five years. After that, all funding is ended and you are ineligible for the program in the future". You've got a hand-up to change your life and get out of the rut. If you can't do it, that's on you and no amount of help will ever fix that. That drastically reduces the cost of the program over time as you aren't paying every lazy deadbeat forever. You could probably have intermediate checkpoints along the way to further reduce cost of program. Something like "After each year one we expect an interview along with a transcript from a pre-approved educational institute or letter from employer or . . . to show that you are working on advancing in life." If you aren't moving ahead each year, there is no point running out the five years as you're doomed. You can reapply after you have struggled for two years and the remainder of your five year funding is still available to you.
You have to be honest and explain that there’s a spectrum of policies that stretches from “property is theft” all the way up to “I’ve got mine, **** you!”.
Most thriving democracies have economic policies that are nowhere near the fringes of this spectrum and have a healthy mix of social and individual initiatives.
Trump border czar calls eastern Ontario border crossing an 'extreme' security vulnerability
U.S. president-elect Donald Trump's incoming border czar is calling one of Canada's busiest border crossings in eastern Ontario an "extreme vulnerability" for the United States as he intends to crack down on illegal immigration and increase border agents across the U.S.-Canada border.
If Canada doesn't tighten it's border as the US does.. We're going to end up with an influx of migrants and asylum seekers.
If the US puts agents at unofficial border crossings at least there will be someone there. JT has proven that he has zero intent of enforcement.Trump border czar calls eastern Ontario border crossing an 'extreme' security vulnerability
U.S. president-elect Donald Trump's incoming border czar is calling one of Canada's busiest border crossings in eastern Ontario an "extreme vulnerability" for the United States as he intends to crack down on illegal immigration and increase border agents across the U.S.-Canada border.ottawa.ctvnews.ca
If Canada doesn't tighten it's border as the US does.. We're going to end up with an influx of migrants and asylum seekers.
Shaman
Well-known member
I like that idea better than I like a lot of the others. However, human nature is such that once you cracked this door open, a million grifters would immediately put their foot in it and endlessly lobby to find a way to extend and increase UBI to fund life in the Carribean with free drinks. You know it, I know it - and fortunately for us, most of the level heads in government know it.
Trickle-down is about cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy on the assumption that this provides them with an incentive to invest and this will create more wealth. It is generally accepted that trickle-down economics does not work as there is little evidence that foregone tax revenues are ever invested, they just line the pockets of corporate CEOs, shareholders and the already wealthy.
Welfare or a basic income is a completely different thing. Poor people spend virtually 100% of what they receive and most of this goes for basic services and goods purchased local to them. Poor people, unlike the wealthy, are not investing new net money in capital or financial investments, in the unlikely event that ever happens.
Last edited:
I believe it's a house of cards. trump goes and it all collapses.
Shaman
Well-known member
As you would, if it were your money. However, there's plenty of evidence that it's re-invested, so that's a fallacy. It's invested in the stock market where it drives new business (this is where your business funding comes from) and it's invested in existing corporations to expand globally, etc.
Wealthy people NEVER let money sit and molder.
You're missing the point, they're all against "trickle down" until it's money they are spending. "Trickle down" isn't just about investment, it's about the idea that a rising tide floats all boats - aka the more the big companies make, the more they will spend in the economy.
The rest I more or less agree with, and that's another powerful reason why UBI isn't workable: the government struggles really hard to get any of that investment back in taxation, because the people getting UBI exclusively won't be spending it on taxed items. At best they'll get some of it back by worker wages etc. while the big organisations soak up larger profits and use it to expand. It would be a gift to big business and a huge drag on everyone else.
How about the 1% paying their fair share of taxes?
We got the 'social net" when we were governed by keynesian economics, where everyone pays taxes... then came "trickle down" economics, where the rich got tax breaks (with the understanding that they would reinvest the profits in business and jobs, thereby providing for the country, but instead they hoard the money in off shore accounts, which benefits no one but the account holder and the bank where the cash is).
It worked great for the 1%. What about the other 99% of us?
The 1% found, or rather built in, a loop hole to get out of their responsibilities in the economic landscape, so they can pay taxes, just like us plebes.
ya see... another issue is the 1% can afford to hire the best lawyers and accountants to "beat" the system, the 99% can't afford that, so we formed a government that was supposed to act in our behalf, to give us access to the same knowledge, but he 1% has prostituted the system so the government now works against the 99%... because they have all the money and all the power, and now all that money and power means they run the government, which wasn't the plan... for the people, of the people
Every country that adopted "trickle down" is in the same boat.
The problem with "trickle down" economic is it does trickle down, but flows UP with great volume. Us on the down side will eventually run out of money. This is not an infinite system
Our whole economic system is built on un-ending growth, so our whole economic system is built on a lie
Read the Panama Papers and get back to us.
Canada has a lower re-investment rate than the US does too
TK4
Well-known member
Whatever happened to middle-of-the-road, non-partisan politicos that had a grasp of the bigger picture instead of listening to the extremists ON BOTH SIDES ? Not so arguably, the best Premier this province ever had was Bill Davis, a Progressive Conservative. We have common infrastructure, it must be built, maintained and improved. If that's socialism then bring it. I'll gladly pay my fair share if the money is used wisely and everyone chips in as required and to the best of their abilities.
TK4
Well-known member
Like what kind of pizza to order.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
That's not exactly how it works. Democracy isn't a board room. You can participate — or not — when you have your chance to give input to the government.
Another civics lesson for you. Your conclusions look to be based on each candidate winning 1/2 the popular vote. That doesn't mean 1/2 the people hate Harris, and 1/2 hate Trump.
The last election was the electorate saying the Democratic agenda is not the direction they want to go, they prefer a more conservative approach. Holy cow, they won the Whitehouse (which is Trump), but they also won the Senate, the House of Representatives, and State Governors. There is no more to win.
Now, on the electoral college, what part of that is hard to understand? It's a state affair, they decide on how their delegates participate.
|
|
|
|
|