Ten oz

I didn't imply anyone in here wasn't but "many" aren't. Yes, may mistake.

In lieu of all we have learned since the election about the sophistication of Cambridge Analytica in distributing fraudulent information and the targeted Russian attacks on the Clinton campaign it astonishes me a bit more people on the left are not utterly outraged. While many are many more continue tought the line Russian propaganda worked so hard to create, that Hillary Clinton was simply a bad candidate and the Democratic party mistreated Sanders. Surely whatever people believe the DNC did to Sanders or whatever imperfections people see in Clinton they are no where near the scale of criminality and anti democracy which supported Trump's campaign.

0.5% better when promised 3.9% better is nothing to brag about. Trump's tax cut is highway robbery.

They have. Trump is POTUS and has already further slashed regulations, taxes, and is moving to codify world power in cooperation with Russian oligarchs. They have brought it and we the people are rolling over.

Before concluding that way not go out and see for yourself. See if you can sail from North America to Europe, through the Mediterranean then red seas, out to India, through Indonesia, out to the Hawaiian Islands, and back to North America. If you can than you will have seen for yourself that the Earth is round. No need for satilites, astronaut testimony, geographical measurements, etc. You can literally just go out and see for yourself.

Unemployment went from 10% in 2009 to under 5% in 2016 under Obama. The DJIA (stock market) went from under 8,000 in 09' to over 17,000 in 16' under Obama. The whole time FoxNews and Republicans screamed from the roof tops that it wasn't good enough. That the economy was a mess. Soon as Trump got in office suddenly they changed their tune. Under Obama we consistently saw aboit 2.5% GDP growth per year . During the election Trump lambasted 2.5% as anemic and promised 6% due to his tax proposal. Now that Trump is in office and has his tax cuts in place suddenly 2.5% is terrific. The economy is strong! Unemployment has dropped every quarter since 2011, Trump has had no impact on that. GDP has consistently remained between 2 & 3 percentage points per quarter, Trump has had no impact. Where Trump has had an impact is in deficits. Obama started with a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit due to the bank bailout but deficits dropped year over year down to the low 400 billions. Trump's 2018 budget had a 1.4 trillion deficit and 2019's is project to be greater than 1.6 trillion. The reason for those deficits is that his team calculated for 5% GDP from the tax cuts and that hasn't happened. A lot of people read the room rather than read the facts. Under Obama the economy never felt good to many because Republicans (who held majorities in Congress and governorships) insisted that it wasn't. Reading the room it seemed like they was lots of uncertainty. Now that Trump is in office no one is agruing against the economy. So when reading the room there seems to be agreement. It is a simple trick and is used to muddy the waters on things like evolution and climate science as well.

Taxation as a solution in the absence of any sort of structure for what that taxation might be is a bit of a McGuffin. Since bibical times taxation has failed to be balanced, simplify bureaucracy, or consistently fund programs adequately. More taxation can be used as the proposed solution to any govt program. As such by itself it is not a strong justification or explanation for any program IMHO. The devil's in the details and taxation has a whole lot of details. As mentioned several pages ago I think different benefits would be most beneficial to different parts of the country. Some combination of free public transportation, free advanced education, free child care, free live in care, free educational/entrepreneurial supplies (internet, computer, 3D printers, office space, etc), and so on might better serve communities. I understand all things plus BUI can be accomplished but they would all have to build upon each other. IMO immigration, taxes, and criminal justice need to be reformed before any major improvements or additional can be made to social or safety net programs or send we run the high risk of making things worse. I said this on the first page. I have made it clear all along one of my main sticking points was that I didn't trust that everyone actually meant everyone. Honestly, I think over half the population of the country under 50yrs old. There are people in this country who could use it. Especially among older and imigrant communities but the majority of other communities are doing fine. A person feeling under employeed or wishing they could afford nicer things doesn't mean they need help. ...and then start a war. Power is seldom given up without a fight. I am not advocating violence. I am just making the observation.

Everyone who would receive it doesn't pay taxes. The value of money isn't a constant. The fed can adjust interest rates and limit borrowing. That is what determines whether it is better for those with money to sit on it or invest. That side of the economy it controlled by a small group of individuals. Their philosophy impacts economiea much as tax rates and social programs do in my opinion.

Read my comments in context to what I was responding to. So we are doing away with the monetary system?

A lot of people have money and or access to the things money affords (housing, food, transportation, etc) yet do not and have not worked. If everyone with residency (regardless of citizenship status) received it that would go an extremely long way towards selling me. Running a govt isn't simple. Bureaucracy is a necessary hassle just like paying taxes. Not everyone needs it and money doesn't come from a bottomless pit the govt can just draw from.

@iNow I mostly agree. I not sure about the finding a mate part. I think that one bleeds over into your point about Instagram and what not. I also think it is a contributing factor to less yound adults wanting to be married or have children. It is interesting to me. I have taken lots of leadership and career builder training through work and a constant them is that the words one use it the smallest component to communication. Which is why I suppose emojis and auto reply suggestions in our text software is becoming more popular. It just makes me wonder were it is heading.

I agree. Not all unemployed people are struggling to get by. I also think it would need to be scaled by location. I don't think giving someone living in Seattle WA the same amount of benefits as someone in Grand Isle LA makes any sense.

Everybody to include visa holders, green card holders, undocumented workers, felon, and people on probation? Would a 20yr old who lives rent free and has full access to every basic need via their parents who makes 200k get it?

Well, millions of people living and working in the U.S. wouldn't covered. Middle class and above are the bulk I believe would benefit for numerous reasons already listed.

I have my own thoughts, of course. I would like to see what others think. I don't have a grand design for where I hope this thread goes. I agree with this. It is hard to hate someone to their face. I think that is obvious. The atonomy of the internet has fueled divisiveness. What about communication as a skill. As a means to interview for a job, comfort someone, find a mate, or etc. Do you think anything is being lost there?

It has something to do with BUI. How can it be "universal" if it actually doesn't apply to millions? The poor are the only group I am interested in helping, yes. I am not interested is a program which would make middle class people even more comfortable while not doing anything for the millions of others.

It is a serious, perhaps not important, question. Humans evolved communicating face to face. That influences how we understand and empathize with each other. In today's world more and more people learning information, shaping their world view, judging, admiring, and etc almost entirely without face to face interaction. It is different that humans have been doing it thoughtout. Surely that has implications?

I have not proposed a system. I have been disagreeing with BUI. Everyone except people who could actually use it like immigrants which there are millions of living and working in this country. That group isn't one care about when at the voting both. Too many people have graver concerns that general dissatisfaction with their upper class life.

It is not any different which is one of the reasons I do not see it as any sort of improvement. Unemployed people do not pay federal taxes. Are you saying unemployed people would not be eligible? But a person making 200k in Saint George Utah doing the same for his kids would. A billionaire is the extreme example but there are youth adults all over the country who are currently being assisted by family members who are economically comfortable. Making middle class and upper middle class kids even more comfortable than they already are isn't something I am interested in.

$30,000 a year can be quite comfortable. It depends on where a person lives. When I was living in Idaho I knew people making under $25k a year that considered themselves middle class and we're doing fine, owned their own homes, saved money, and etc.. This is some thing where the stats are very tough to produce. What is required to be comfortable changes everywhere a person lives and varies by family sizes, background, health, and etc. There are people making $250k in San Francisco who struggle more than people than people making a third that living in Lexington, KY. A universal system that provides equally to all without consideration for current status simply makes zero sense to me. It would be a greater to benefit to people in the mid West And south than to everyone else. I simply cannot envision that as the outcome. With other programs politicians at both the local and federal levels constantly tweek who is eligible. We can say the word universal all we want but it won't be universal. It include everyone. Some combination of green card holders, undocumented workers, visa holders, felons, people on probation, and etc will be denied. Which means tens millions will be shut out forced to work harder than everyone else doing the jobs others will have no need for. Those shut out will be overwhelming immigrant and minoriy. While you envision BUI freeing people of burden empowering them to pursue education and entrepreneurship I see something far uglier where a caste system is created that does the opposite. Paying taxes wouldn't be a requirement to receive BUI. There are many people who receiving assistance, tax free, from their families. People are given cars, down payments from homes, have tuition paid for, bought clothes, and etc. Everyone doesn't pay taxes. My billionaire with 4 kids example - If I pay $20 dollars in taxes and receive $10 back and then my 4 adult kids each receive $10 which I would have just given them myself anyway my net benefits is $30.

The billionaire themselves may not receive a direct net income but there would be indirect net benefits. A billionaire with 4 kids that all live in one of the billionaire's many homes would be entitled to BUI and would use it as pocket change.savingbthe billionaire some expenses. There are nurmerous young adults with wealthy or well off parents who provide for them who themselves have no official income. They would receive BUI. In my opinion that would not be useful. Not useful to give a you don't adult who already has a cillege paid for, a car, and and lives rent free BUI. I believe there would be far more of those type of people, those who simply do not need it, receiving BUI than people at lower economic scales. That is why I keep asking different posters how many people they actually think need it. I see no reason to give 100% of people money just to ensure we help the 20% who could use it. I rather focus on the 20% directly. At 60/40 or 50/50 I would feel differently but I do not believe and no has provided data to show that anywhere near 50% of the population needs a govt provided income. As such the majority of of recpients would be other than the target audience I am interested in assisting.

Right, food stamps were an example. What I am asking is whether or not everyone, to include wealthy people, would receive BUI? If one must ask does that mean they can be told no? Taxes are where the govt gets money. If we (govt) are going to give everyone a universal income there will need to be taxes to pay for it. The two are associated.

Are any federal govt services truly universal? I can not think of a single one. Everything has caveats. As I think most things should. For example I personally do not think people who already have all the food they could ever need should receive food stamps. That is just a waste of resources. I absolutely think the government should afforded housing and food for those without. However teveryone isnt without out. Those without are not even a majority.

Right, but what percentage of people to you think currently don't already have that? Or are you saying the govt should provided regardless whether you could use it or not?.

I don't think the vote even needs to have been close for it to matter. 19 members of Trump's campaign have been already been indicted, 5 pled already guilty, Facebook's CEO already testified that 70 million users were impacted, Cambridge Analytica employee already testified that discouraging people from voting was part of their statedgy, voting machines were hacked, and Trump got 3 million less votes. Clearly there was illegality. Incredible amounts of money was illegally. In my opinion there is just no way so many risk and pay so much for something that doesn't demonstrably have an impact. People who can win fair and square don'tcheat and conversely those who cheat don't win fair and square. When cheaters win and it is discovered they cheated they should be disqualified. In the Olympics when an athlete tests positive for drugs they are disqualifed. Who cares how they could have done without the drugs? Arguing that they would have won without drugs is totally superfluous. If they could have won clean they should have been clean. In lieu of cheating they won cheating. It is a simple concept.