In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote: Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.
and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?
The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.
I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.
and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?
but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.
edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous
I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.
The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?
so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins
I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.
I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
@zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).
I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before.
let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160. alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI.
based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go it looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs. with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person. Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that. And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work)
The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works). Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent)
I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well.
So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested.
so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI.
Would like to hear some dishonest arguments from Trump supporters about how this is a coordinated media/establishment campaign and not victims reacting.
On October 15 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote: I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing.
I used 60% as a base line of party committed population.
Reality is probably more like 20% actually vote in primaries? But someone could probably provide that number.
Vote or don't, but a vote for no one is a vote for apathy. Besides the separate issue of voter suppression, you can only blame the people who didn't express their preference for their preference not being considered.
Except many (slight majority?) of primaries are limited by party registration, so quite a few people can't actually vote even if they wanted to, without committing to a party or excluding themselves from the other candidates.
Would like to hear some dishonest arguments from Trump supporters about how this is a coordinated media/establishment campaign and not victims reacting.
I'm no fan of Gloria Allred that's for sure.... this is like my nightmare scenario... literally allred vs trump will give me nightmares.
On October 15 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote: I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing.
I used 60% as a base line of party committed population.
Reality is probably more like 20% actually vote in primaries? But someone could probably provide that number.
Vote or don't, but a vote for no one is a vote for apathy. Besides the separate issue of voter suppression, you can only blame the people who didn't express their preference for their preference not being considered.
Except many (slight majority?) of primaries are limited by party registration, so quite a few people can't actually vote even if they wanted to, without committing to a party or excluding themselves from the other candidates.
That is a valid argument in favor of easy party registration, but beyond that it's clear that the bigger issue is simply that people don't vote in primaries.
Would like to hear some dishonest arguments from Trump supporters about how this is a coordinated media/establishment campaign and not victims reacting.
I would like to hear about arguments about giving weapons to Alqaeda in Aleppo and why any american should vote for hillary , her foreign policy sucks hairy orange balls.
Trump is going into full antimedia mode, which is not going to do a single thing to expand his base, but I do like watching the trust in media continue to decrease. I hope after this election is over their ratings go straight to the dirt.
On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote: The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference.
Yeah that sounds right. I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years. Bernie was an outsider coming in. The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense.
Well they also favored Hillary over all other possible establishment candidates which didn't give them any chance of victory. I saw not that much of O'Malley, but he seemed like a pretty good, principled candidate with some oratorical prowess. But no one cared about him because he didn't have a chance because Hillary took the establishment vote by having all the superdelegates support her from the start.
The most likely result was decided before any votes were even cast.
How much of that is (1) HRC's strength and lifelong network building in Democratic party circles and (2) Democrats colluding for HRC. I think it is a lot more (1). Yeah, HRC did clear the field of any real challengers ahead of time by using her network power and loyalty. But that is because she really is that strong in Democratic circles. I also would have liked to see O'Malley get farther. But he just didn't have the donors or decades of connections.
EDIT: Obama level talent did beat the Clinton machine in 2008, but I didn't see anyone with Obama's skills this year. Bernie organizational skills were simply inferior to community-organizer-Obama.
Hillary built a truly impressive coalition in her favor this election, nowhere near what anyone else had before. In fact Nate Silver called her the "most establishment favored candidate in history" based on endorsements. She really did crowd out all the establishment opposition.
All that connection building is, of course, a big ugly game of political favor trading, especially over the past eight years. There are worse things that could be done, but the notion that establishment favoritism got Hillary a primary win is perfectly valid.
I think favoritism is a rather reductive/ narrow way of putting it. It's just how the world works.
Let's say a company has a C-suite position open. They put an application on the job boards, but also notify their employees. Clinton has been with the company for 20 years, she's a hardworking SVP who has a great record at the company, and she was passed over for promotion a couple times. She applies, and a bunch of the people involved with the hiring process are like "yeah we know Hillary she's a great candidate".
On the other hand, Bernie is an external consultant who has a history with the company, but people don't know him all that much. He's got a solid record of delivering what he's been asked to do, but the relationship is somewhat transactional. Moreover, Clinton has a better record - all the times she delivered projects ahead of schedule under budget and ahead of time already make her more qualified. The great office holiday party she planned or the fact she brought cookies when her team worked late are just gravy.
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote: so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian?
Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?
I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.
because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.
@whitedog
i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.
Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.
I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw.
Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ?
this facile critique is the opposite of "stalinist commune or gulag? what do you do?" how about college is free and there are plenty of valuable jobs that you might wish to take but you are also going to be provided with a minor stipend to spend as you see fit to create a less deprived space for you to pursue yur own goals rather than living where we tell you to live, working where we tell you to work, and consuming what we tell you to consume. the danger in having a welfare system determined by the state is falling into the productivist trap that destroyed 20th century socialism
20th century socialism failed for various reasons. You misunderstand the role of social security ; it was not, at its origin, a state program. It was built as a secondary form of payment, taken on wage and used by collective associations (in France called les caisses de sécurité sociale) managed by elected workers. It was not a state program, but a socialized pay. This is the essence of socialism. My point is, the UBI, much like the poor laws, will put the poor in a state of complete dependancy, deplete them of their collective power, individualized without any social value aside from their consuming power.
A growing distrust of news sources and informed commentary is not a net gain for the US. It is a net loss. Distrusting “the media” is akin to saying you distrust “the scientific community”.
If the scientific community is infiltrated by political bias to the point where it is obvious, then yes the scientific community should be distrusted as well. Also it is a net gain, people will stop and think for themselves for a change hopefully.
On October 15 2016 05:08 ragz_gt wrote: Murica foreign policy sucks is a given though. Every single one, it's like a national trait.
Obama was better than average, to give some credit where credit is due.
Obama sucked as well Libya and Syria are the most blatant cases.
But i find it funny that not a single american i find online answers my question, "Should the american people support Alqaeda ?" That's what hillary says she will do. Last debate she told the world that the US should arm the rebels in Aleppo. Why would any freedom loving american vote for a person that openly wants to support the biggest enemies of the united states in the last decades? Also why would anyone support a person that gets donations from the Saudis and then says she wants to champion and empower women.
On October 15 2016 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party.
So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates.
Nothing was rigged.
Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position? Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues?
and see my edit. What is your custom definition of rigged?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go.
On October 15 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism. I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton.
Which comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "rigged"
And much of this comes at me as a hangover from reddit posts that are superimposed on top of my arguments.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
What are you talking about?
The foreigner part meaning I don't expect him to understand the implications of the rhetoric regarding race in America.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged
But I know you know what's both wrong with that statement and how it gives credibility to the argument that I was making regarding plenty of the same crap we get from the right coming out of Hillary supporters regarding racism in America.
On October 15 2016 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
"Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing.
Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party.
So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates.
Nothing was rigged.
Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC.
It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me.
The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes.
She went and stumped for the person in charge overseeing all of the stuff that resulted in both the person she stumped for and other having to resign due to their inappropriate behavior. This is why I typically don't bother with your posts. Every single one of your posts to/about me has created a disingenuous strawman to argue with and it's grown quite tiresome.
No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying.
I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC".
Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did.
Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes.
Anyway. I'm talking to a nice, solid, brick wall.
I think there was some miscommunication because if the request was for what's wrong with Hillary I would have given you that instead. I didn't even have any real interest in this conversation, I really wanted to know what, if anything, would stop someone who is going to vote for her from doing so, then what they would do instead. That rehashing the DNC was the preferred topic of her supporters comes as no surprise though.
If she starts acting as stupid, racist, and elitist as Bernie Sanders then I would be more willing to vote for someone else; but being that someone else is Trump I would still vote for her even then.
So *IF* she turned into bernie 2.0 and was facing off against someone like Romney, McCain, then I would vote for Romney and McCain. But right now, the past 8 years has been the best that's happened to this country in a long time and I would vote for 16-32 more years of Obama if I could, so someone aiming to maintain, expand, and defend his policies would be fantastic.
Pretty much I would only vote against her if she turned into Bernie.
When asked about how to save Muslims in Syria, Bernie responded that we should throw more muslims into the grinder. When told Dodd Frank was already doing what he was promising, he said that was crazy, when asked what he would do instead he said Dodd Frank. When asked how he would convince the majority republican congress to cede where Obama could not, he emphasized that it will magically happen anyway. He's an isolationist old white guy who pretends globalization does not happen and goes against the scientific consensus on food science research.
So the only way I would not vote for Hilary would be if she turned out to be sanders in disguise.
But the Hilary we have now? The one who will say anything to get what she wants, the one willing to mingle with deplorables to find middle ground, the one whose aims are to find what works and not what looks good on a tweet. The Hilary who, when asked about minimum wage, references research studies and PhDs over youtube videos. The Hilary who when asked what her plan is, goes to it in depth, tells us to go to her website where more details are at, and whose emphasis is on providing scientific backing to her statements. I am willing to vote for that Hillary.
hillary wants to arm the rebels in Aleppo that are spearheaded by Alqaeda, you americans never learn.. do you really want to give more weapons and support to Alqaeda? Would that be your grand plan to "save muslims".
"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess.
On October 15 2016 01:34 kwizach wrote: Thanks to Biff, Stratos_speAr and Thieving Magpie for their sensible comments on the topic of rape culture.
do you really find magpie's explanation for why so many women like dominant men (eg see enthusiasm for 50 shades of grey) to be satisfying? that women only like aggressive play because theyve assimilated rape culture into their subconscious?
For what it's worth, I did. Society teaches us what to find arousing, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Male nipples vs female nipples for example. Hell, even heterosexual women find women sexy when measuring involuntary responses, a product of a lifetime of being told what is desirable. It's particularly troubling in minority communities which end up having their members not included in the societywide programming do you end up with black women wearing white hair because they got the memo that frizzy hair isn't desirable.
It's not necessarily a problem to me that girls who grew up watching women get swept off their feet by a strong man tend to sexualize and normalize that dynamic. You do you, whatever. But it is a problem is people learn that they can take what they want and that consent doesn't matter. Society teaches us how to treat other people and we need to do a better job in making a society that promotes a healthy respect for other people and for consent.
On October 15 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote: A growing distrust of news sources and informed commentary is not a net gain for the US. It is a net loss. Distrusting “the media” is akin to saying you distrust “the scientific community”.
With how consolidated and financially linked American media is I think a healthy level of skepticism is always good. Of course I would never suggest waving away a news source simply because it's mainstream, but it's important to consider the source, who's telling it, and what motivations they could have for it. Unlike science, it's a lot easier to let biases seep into media.
Distrust entire intuitions without a cause clear and specific cause not a good thing. Unless you are talking about basic skepticism that all people have, which I don’t believe you are. Simply distrusting every branch and aspect of science because they might be biased is lazy. It lacks any critical thinking or effort to separate the bias from the data.
On October 15 2016 05:13 biology]major wrote: If the scientific community is infiltrated by political bias to the point where it is obvious, then yes the scientific community should be distrusted as well. Also it is a net gain, people will stop and think for themselves for a change hopefully.
I'm all for skepticism towards media, but you overestimate people if you have the impression that distrust of the media is making people stop and think for themselves instead of going to whichever blog says what they want to hear and shunning everything else as shills and propaganda.
EPT
