Actually, Keynes' theories ARE working... The problem is that because of it's success we are not familiar with what the system would look like if they failed and we wind up taking the success for granted.

We will always have some people that work harder than others. We will always have some people that earn more than others and often enough, the harder working people are not the highest earners... For instance, I'm taking a break from work to respond to some of these posts but I'm still technically being paid $60/hr. Woe is me - such hard work! Yet, the woman who is cleaning the bathrooms as I write this is working hard, scrubbing and cleaning and she probably makes less than $10/hr.

My point is that it's senseless to make the kind of character judgments I see being made here on this thread - unless the point is to bitch and moan. I don't agree with the idea of supporting or opposing an idea on the basis of stereotypes and gripes.

I base my position on this...

Fact: There is a considerable percentage of our population who do not have marketable skills nor the money/credit to acquire such skills.

Fact: Telling them they have to work won't make entry-level jobs magically appear for them.

Fact: There is no "pause" button on starvation and disease.

Fact: Humans are self-preserving... if they can't work for what they need they will find other ways to get what they need, such as stealing.

Fact: In every society desperate people have always proven to be a threat to other persons and their property.

Fact: controlling crime costs money.

Fact: dealing with the sick and homeless costs money.

Fact: The object of my "liberal ideas" is not to simply take money from hard workers so it can be handed to lazy sods. The object of my "liberal ideas" is to provide security for hard workers and their property.

Now... for the reasons I listed (plus other reasons I haven't stated), I *do* agree with the premise of an unconditional basic income. I am *not* saying that it could work necessarily because I haven't done the math, which the part of the equation that seems to get a lot of attention here and for good reason. But when coupled with my suggestion of taxing wealth not income (see the thread on Winston Churchill where I shed some light on Churchill's support for wealth tax and the reasons behind it), I can make an educated guess that there *IS* enough wealth concentrated in the top 5% to where 20%-30% of it can fund an unconditional basic income for everyone living in this country

Another possible answer is to kill everyone who isn't economically viable. I don't like that option as much, but it *could* solve the problem of supporting them.

I personally know three software engineers that are not US citizens that work hard and make over 100K/year - guess what? They pay taxes. Probably more than just about everyone on this site. The money they earn then give to a government that does not represent them gets spent on things that citizens use, like schools and roads, defense and welfare checks for citizens that choose to sit at home and smoke crack. Unlike the Tea Party citizens that use the phrase as a prop, these engineers actually ARE taxed without representation.

So do you really think the only people who earn money are citizens? Do you really think the only people who work are Americans?
Do you really think all non-citizens have nothing to contribute to the system?

No, more like the school of Keynes who's suggested regulation of money flow saved capitalism and created the vast middle-class that is most often associated with the idea of America being a great nation.

The answer depends on the person. Many liberals *do* read and many of them *do* comprehend.

So... having fun with your hateful stereotypes?

So... taking money from an American citizen who earned it and giving it to a "wetback" who hasn't...

Yeah - that's not a liberal idea.

Aw, there's your problem... Smoking dope isn't the answer jack. Lot's of reading and learning is the way to liberal thought. ;)

You're right... I guess it would have been more accurate to say that their intellect is often eclipsed by their emotion - keeping in mind that an eclipse is not a state of being, but a point of view. (When the moon eclipses the sun it it only from out point of view on Earth that we see it.)


I don't agree. Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say that conservatives do not commonly associate emotions with the conservative side. Perhaps this get's back to points of view again.




LOL - Well, first of all, that's hard advice to take in a forum where much worse has been thrown at me.... OFTEN. Compared to the direct insults that come at me with names like moron, idiot and scumbag, saying "well, duh" somehow seems light-natured. But more importantly, when I say things like that it's rarely (if ever) an inadvertent slip or a case of getting carried away. Usually, I'll issue "incendiary" phrases when I know the other person is already shut down. At that point I'm not expecting the other person to open up to *my* view. But sometimes if I turn the heat up a little the other person makes a bigger effort to explain his/her view and I might even learn something which is a bigger win for me anyway. I actually like the rough nature of some of the conversations, even when people are trying insult me. It's a more honest form of communication and it reminds me of the House of Commons LOL.

But thanks for the advice anyway... Generally speaking, it *is* good advice.

Not a stretch. It's very simple... Everywhere around the world only ONE thing stopped the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries... only ONE thing... LAW. And there is only ONE place where that law came from... ONE place... government. You might say in this country it was the absolutists, but despite their protests slavery didn't actually stop until it became illegal.

In South Africa slavery was banned by the British government and so many of the people there formed a new place called the Orange Free State, where they could escape British law and be "free" to use slaves.

The free-market is a general term that refers the absence, or relative absence of laws that dictate how commerce is conducted including the use of slaves.


of course.



I think the biggest challenge in finding a balance comes when we realize that everyone has a different idea about where that balance is.

Yes, the prohibition of alcohol is a superb example of why a war on drugs will only create problems.

Not at all... it's exactly what Jefferson was worried about. The difference might only be in the way the facts are presented... Your professor may have presented the conflict of interest as an international struggle, which is easy to understand considering that we are currently two separate nations. But in the time leading to the revolution, that separation didn't exist. Jefferson himself was technically British and the conflict of interest that concerned him was between two classes of people in the same sovereign nation and legal domain. The London-based corporations influenced Parliament the same way U.S. corporations influence Congress today and it was that corporate influence that drove things like the Stamp Act. What this corporate influence made clear to the colonists is that whatever representation they were told they had in Parliament was marginalized the greater influence of the established banks and corporations in London. Jefferson knew that the same thing could happen in the new American nation... He was right.


What do you mean "the kind we know now"? Corporations in the 18th century had the same basic structure and intentions that they do now. People were more apt to call an enterprise a "company" back then while the "corporation" was a more exact and technical term referring to the legal arrangement upon which the company is founded. Today we just call the entire operation a corporation and anything related is "corporate". So the use of the terms have changed the nature of the beast is the same.

The colonies themselves were in fact founded as corporations. The Plymouth Company that established Massachusetts and the Virginia Company that established Virgina were both based on corporate charters in London... and I believe they were publicly traded too.

If anyone in the world would be worried about the power being gained by corporations today you would *think* it would be us Americans, but it seems our vision of our own history has become clouded.

Huh. Do you think babies deserve to live? They don't *do* anything.

Maybe this is about improving the condition of our society as a whole. Maybe not all of us are wrapped up in the obsessions over "what I got" and "what he's got". Are you so insecure in your own ability to provide that you feel you have to compete with invalids? How pathetic.


I'm not sure, but the idea seems to be to free up money from a lot of other expenses we currently pay such as welfare and prison systems.


Well everyone in the system. Not sure if it would be world-wide.


So? Did you read the first part of the article that explained how the idea of a basic income is predicated on the collapse of the entry-level job market and the ever-increasing cost of education? Everything you just described yourself doing when you got out of high school requires conditions that are known to be disappearing. Apparently, college didn't do much for your reading comprehension.


Good grief...


The USSR buried itself and it was the last thing the Reagan Administration wanted. Gone was their once dependable fear factor that justified their cash cow arms race.


Reagan's economic policies had some small benefits but they ultimately failed in the long run bringing the nation to the brink of disaster and we are still recovering from it.


Yeah, when it was shut down.


SDI (Star Wars) did in fact produce some technology as a byproduct that was used in later systems. Likewise, the microwave oven came from technology developed under Kennedy's space program. Neither our modern day missile system nor the microwave oven were visions of either president.


Wow - billhuggins - glad you were able to dump all that animosity there. Feel better ;)

Honestly, the idea that you can apply labels to people is itself an act of feeling. A more "thoughtful" perspective would reveal that these labels are more applicable to modes of thought, than people as a whole. I would say progressive thought is a subset of liberal thought.

Well, I was referring to the "state" as in any instance of government. But I understand where you're coming from. I agree that we should push as much law down to the state level as possible, in the constitutional spirit of minimizing federal power but from a logical standpoint, I suppose it depends on who is funding the basic income. If it's the federal government then it wouldn't be fair that some states are keeping the numbers down and other's aren't.

Libertarians don't really have a character of their own. They sound like conservatives when discussing economics and they sound like liberals when they talk about social issues. Unlike either of them, they stay consistent across all issues... less regulation. Liberals want more regulation on the economy and conservatives want more regulation on society.

The only problem I find with Libertarians is that they have great ideas that never touch the ground. It's nice to think that once you push the government out of the way the free market becomes a free place for everyone, but that never happens. The government isn't the only form of tyranny, wealth can often be another form of tyranny, one with out any democratic principals at all and it's just waiting for the government to get out of the way so it can take over.

A good example from our own history of wealth-driven tyranny on the free-market is slavery. 'Can't say I'm down with that.

Exactly... Like the scare of terrorism today. Even Hell was invented to scare people into submission. Same ol' shit.


I believe the potential "invasion" the founders had in mind was of the domestic variety. Jefferson in particular seemed quite concerned about the development of corporations and central banks within the country. I suppose it makes sense considering the fact that the American Revolution wasn't a struggle against foreign invaders (the colonists *were* actually British) but a struggle against the oppression of the British merchant system.

Yeah... kind of like a 3rd grader asking Einstein about his thoughts on the universe. It's better to take baby steps. ;)