So, do you really wanna?

[Naturyl]

Hey DU, I dunno if anyone would be interested, but just in case, let me just throw a few questions out there:

• Wanna end poverty immediately and permanently? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna get rid of the tattered welfare system and replace it with real economic security for all Americans? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna invigorate small business and open the door to massive job creation? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna improve working conditions and improve productivity and efficiency? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna protect the environment by giving people a real incentive to live sustainably? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna improve education, culture, and the tone of civil society by giving people a real option to pursue personal development? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna make America a worldwide example of progressive values, human rights, and compassion? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna make freedom a tangible reality in people's daily lives instead of just a slogan? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna jumpstart the economy with an infusion of cash from the bottom up, no bailouts necessary? Yes, it's possible!



• Wanna do all this for little or no net cost? YES, it's possible!

So, are you curious yet? If so, just click "The Case For a Guaranteed Minimum Income" in my sig below. :)

[Naturyl]

1. Bleh, there was an error during posting and this is absent from "Latest."

So now it gets to sink like a stone. Oh well, lol.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. k+r, n/t

[Odin2005]

3. K&R!!! Guaranteed Living Wage NOW!!!

[Naturyl]

4. It's not the same thing.

A guaranteed minimum income is independent of employment, which is what makes most of the benefits I listed possible.

[Odin2005]

5. DOH, my bad!

:banghead:

[Naturyl]

9. So does that mean you wouldn't support it?

If so, at least do me the favor of reading the arguments at the link before making your mind up.

[Odin2005]

49. No, no, no,, I favor the guaranteed minimum income.

[Naturyl]

6. If you unrec, please explain why.

I expected some unrecs on this just because of the subject matter. But at least have the decency to explain your objections.

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. I un-recced

Not even close to being great. Repetitive and eyelid-closing.

[Naturyl]

8. Yeah, definitely.

A thread advocating the one and only immediate and permanent solution to poverty is quite "eyelid-closing." Rather than simply ignoring it, we should definitely do our part to vote it down and bury it.

Thanks for the unrec, and for letting us know where you stand.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Well, you did ask.

No one knows why others also thought the post unworthy of the greatest page, but hey, it's not a vote against the cause, just against the content of the OP.

[Naturyl]

11. Yep, I did ask.

And I thank you for responding.

[dorkulon]

12. Is this the same thing as "Basic Income Guarantee"?

http://buffalobeast.com/137/BIG.html

If so I'm all for it.

[Naturyl]

13. Yes, BIG is one of the ways this could be implemented.

The other is "Negative Income Tax" (abbreviated NIT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income (BIG)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax (NIT)

[TheKentuckian]

14. I like it but you'd have to index it pretty aggressively to prevent it from

being inflationary and leaving everyone in the same relative place at the trough. Still, it is abundant, cheap, and available energy that will be what gets humanity off the treadmill but this is if done right a wonderful bridge/foundation for the next generation of civilization.

[Naturyl]

17. The inflation issue can be addressed

And has been addressed by the economists who support this. Google will turn up those arguments, if you're interested.

Abundant, cheap energy would definitely go a hell of a long way. But will the oil companies allow it? I dunno. Personally, I'm hoping for nuclear fusion. Done right, it could really revolutionize the world economy for the better.

[lame54]

15. you're not selling amway are you?

[Naturyl]

16. Haha, no, I gave that up. Too much religion.

I know my OP is pretty glossy, but I'm always experimenting with new ways to promote this just to see how they fly.

Next time, I'll probably go with some kind of satire/parody.

[BOG PERSON]

18. No thanks, liberal capitalism is working pretty well IMO

[Naturyl]

19. Where did I suggest getting rid of capitalism?

Most GMI proposals rely on capitalism. A GMI simply redistributes wealth, it does not change the basic socio-economic structure.

To imply that this is opposed to capitalism is no different than the "single-payer health care is socialism" claims.

[BOG PERSON]

20. I said *liberal* capitalism

as in the current regime.

[Naturyl]

23. Yeah, the current regime is working out just great, eh?

How about going down to the local homeless shelter and telling the residents there how great the current system is working out.

Or did you mean it's working out well for those who actually count?

[cliffordu]

21. HAHAHa hAH Ah AH AH aHaH aH aH aH AH AH a

Fucking perfect!!!!

:rofl:

[IrishBuckeye]

22. I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer

You want to take money and create a high tech school system that gives everyone the chance for a premier higher education for free, fine I'm on board with that. You want to throw money at hospitals to take care of the poor, I'm for that to. Let's create the tools to get people out of poverty instead of throwing money at the problem expecting it to be the fix on it's own.

[Naturyl]

25. What is education going to do for the disabled...

...and others who are out of the workforce long-term?

Education is great as a partial solution, but it won't eradicate poverty alone. And yes, the solution to poverty IS to "throw money at the problem." Poverty is caused by a lack of money. It has no other cause and no other definition. People need to understand this. Those who have an income above the poverty line *cannot* be poor. It is impossible by definition.

And, finally, do you realize that "I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer" is an absolute classic, verbatim right-wing talking point form the Reagan era? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it just is.

[IrishBuckeye]

27. First off what's with lableing phrases 'Republican or Democratic'?

Phrases don't have a political parties so come on, let's cut that type of shit. Besides it's the the context behind the phrase that matters. The plan posted to fix poverty is to literally to throw money at it hence my use of the phrase. It's honestly one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard to fix poverty. You remove what causes poverty, lack of money does not cause poverty...inequality, subpar education, bad health...these are the things that cause poverty and why poverty remains with us today.


Besides, The rules of supply and demand will remain in effect no matter how much money you give someone, we have limited resources and inflation will occur much more rapidily as more money is brought into a system and production value isn't increasing at the same rate.

[Naturyl]

29. Poverty remains with us today because people like you oppose the solution.

The inflation argument is addressed by economists who support a GMI.

"Lack of money does not cause poverty."

Yes it does. Poverty is DEFINED as a lack of money. It is literally *impossible* to be poor if one has an adequate income. Therefore, ensuring an adequate income ends poverty. It's absolutely incontestable.

The reasons WHY one might lack money are many and varied. However, in ALL cases, permanently resolving this lack of money resolves poverty. It does so by definition.

"It's honestly one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard to fix poverty."

It's the only one I've ever seen which will immediately and permanently end poverty with 100% success. What is ridiculous, in my opinion, is to imagine that band-aid half-measures such as the current pitiful welfare system, education, and similar solutions will get the job done. Any such approach will leave many people behind. A GMI will leave no one behind.

[IrishBuckeye]

32. Your plan devalues the dollar, it takes away it's purchasing power

Thus lack of money does not equal poverty, ask Brazil, Argentina, or any other country who has gone through the devaluation of their currency, peopel had lots of money but couldn't do anything with it because $1000 became $1 overnight. It's the value of the currency that is important. Giving away mass amount of money without an increase in production is going to cause the dollar to lose it's value. We have limited resources thus supply and demand, this cannot be defeated.

You sound very silly to claim that poverty remains with us today because people like me oppose a crackpot idea of handing out money without a production increase. Increasing the health of the poor which in turn will increase the general education of the poor (undeniable correlation between the two)will in turn increase their production value (in our society)and thus lift them out of poverty.

The plan you speak of would only move the poverty line to where it is now to a higher number due to the devaluation of the dollar.

[Naturyl]

36. Show me the evidence.

"Thus the lack of money does not equal poverty, ask Brazil, Argentina, or any other country who has gone through the devaluation of their currency, they had had money but couldn't do anything with it because $1000 became $1 overnight. It's the value of the currency that is important. Giving away mass amount of money without an increase in production is going to cause the dollar to lose it's value. We have limited resources thus supply and demand, this cannot be defeated."

Show me where any reputable economist, using hard numbers and figures, has demonstrated that supplementing poor people's incomes would produce such a drastic devaluation effect.

This canard comes up in every single discussion of a GMI, and so far, not one person has ever shown rigorous evidence that it would actually occur. Economists who support a GMI have shown that inflation would be minimal. Remember, a GMI is only supplementing the incomes of poor people. Progressive taxation will reclaim the benefit from those who do not need it; or, in the case of a negative income tax, they will not get it to begin with.

You sound very silly to claim that poverty remains with us today because people like me oppose a crackpot idea of handing out money without a production increase. Increasing the health of the poor which in turn will increase the general education of the poor (undeniable correlation between the two)will in turn increase their production value (in our society)and thus lift them out of poverty.

Are you aware that millions of poor people do not work for any number of reasons? Not all of them can qualify as officially "disabled," either (and the pitifully low sub-poverty benefits for those who do are another matter). I can't decide whether "increasing their production value and lifting them out of poverty" sounds like trickle down theory or Marxism. In either case, while it might be a valid approach to the working poor, it does nothing to address the reality of non-working poverty.

Eliminating poverty by supplementing incomes above the poverty line is hardly a "crackpot idea," and it's only in post-Reagan America that it could be considered such. Back in the 70's this got 9/10 of the way to Nixon's desk. It's also partially implemented in Brazil and under serious consideration in several other countries.

[Odin2005]

50. It only devalues the dollar if you don't increase taxes on the rich to help pay for it.

You only get inflation if you let the rich keep their money and then print money to give to the poor.

"crackpot idea of handing out money without a production increase"

Typical right-wing BS that dehumanizes people by using productivity as the measure of the worth of an individual. So us disabled people should be poor just because we are less "productive" in the eyes of our corporate masters? Fuck that BS. Everyone should have a right to a decent standard of living no matter how productive they are.

[leftstreet]

30. 'Get people out of poverty' ? Let's just abolish poverty instead n/t

[IrishBuckeye]

33. Sounds like Bush when he declared a war on a noun, now you want to abolish one. /nm

nm

[leftstreet]

34. No, but I'd abolish the phrase "the poor" which you use liberally n/t

[IrishBuckeye]

35. Uhhh, Why? Do you prefer 'financially challenged' instead?

Fking PC cops are really a great group.

[Naturyl]

37. Abolish poverty? What a crazy, crackpot idea.

It's not as if poverty could be immediately and permanently ended by passing a single simple bill.

Oh, wait... huh? It can? Ummm.... well, that might cost ME something. Better cook up some excuses and objections pronto!

Oh, ohhh, I got it! You're crazy! You're a silly crackpot! It would devalue the dollar by a thousand-fold! Poverty is not caused by lack of money anyway! It's ridiculous!

Phew, that was close. Glad we disposed of that. I almost lost my dime to some freeloader.

[IrishBuckeye]

38. Giving healthcare to the poor? Making quality education available? Removing inequality? How Crazy!

Why would you do all that when you can just throw money at the situatuion and the problem would get all better! And heck, if that doesn't work we can always throw more money at it! We can just print more! Why create the tools that eliminate the causes of poverty and increases the production of value of people (in an economic sense) when we can just throw money at it? How easy, yaaaaa!

[Naturyl]

39. I support all of that.

Health care? Check. Let's do single-payer. Education? Check. Let's make college free.

Oh, wait... we CAN'T, because that would require throwing money at those problems.

Crap... scratch that, then.

[IrishBuckeye]

40. Yes, with a return though, the production value of those enrolled increases

Which means they will have an opportuity to get a better job (means paying more in taxes) than those not enrolled, which means better health (less of a cost on the healthcare system), which means a much better chance for their children to increase their well being.

[Naturyl]

41. Ah, so is this an issue of the "unproductive" poor being a waste of money?

Have we gotten down to the core of it? Is helping the poor regardless of their circumstances a bad idea because it wouldn't produce tangible economic returns in some cases?

As I keep pointing out only to hear crickets, this "production value" approach is not relevant to all poor people. Some have no production value and never will. What of them?

Should poor people who are not going to "better themselves" (by your "production" standards) be left to starve? Should they be blamed for their own condition? Is a person's "production value" the sole determinant of their overall value? Do human beings not have inherent worth?

Just trying to sort out what's motivating your thinking here.

[IrishBuckeye]

42. It's partly an economic issue hence the use of the 'production' term

I agree some of my posts so a little like I'm talking about robots but I'm suggesting we create better avenues so people can escape poverty because at the end of the day it's not just about money. Example, you have drug dealers with money after all living in what is considered poverty (and yes plently of drug dealers in middle/rich class as well). Do you think money changes a culture? Will increasing the money those make change the scene that is riddled with an epidemic of violence, single mothers, and drug use? Or rather, does education and providing opportunities change that scene into a more peaceful and healthier one all while increasing the wealth status of those who partake?

[leftstreet]

43. So....if we had 'educated' Wall Street instead of throwing money at it

wait, what?

[IrishBuckeye]

44. No those fk'ers are just greedy and own the politicians. /nm

nm

[Naturyl]

45. Those problems should be adressed...

But leaving people in poverty while doing it isn't going to help.

I'll ask one last time, and then I'll give up - what about those among the disadvantaged who aren't in a position where "opportunity" and education mean anything to them? What happens in the cases where jobs and schools just won't help?

Things like education, training, jobs, and other half-measures will only work for a certain portion of the disadvantaged. The only truly universal one-size-fits all solution is to simply abolish poverty by law. It can be done, and a GMI will do it.

[IrishBuckeye]

46. Those who are disabled in one form or another should be taken care of

I don't view people as machines but humans. Those with such impairments need programs to help them survive, I certainly don't deny that. We will have to disagree on the major theme though and leave it for another day. Goodnight.

[LooseWilly]

47. Actually, I do rather think money changes a culture.

Drug dealers living in what is considered poverty?
"Will increasing the money those make change the scene that is riddled with an epidemic of violence, single mothers, and drug use?"... yes, actually it would. Most of the violence in those communities centers around... making money. One of the single biggest causes of the "single mothers" phenomenon that you seem to be trying to describe is actually the incarceration/deaths of the fathers... combined with a "I'm gonna get mine, and I'm not gonna let anyone get in the way of that" attitude (as expressed to me by a drug dealer/thug one day) that pervades the neighborhoods that you're talking about, leading to what often amounts to an antagonistic relationship between fathers and mothers... which itself wouldn't be fostered if there were a guaranteed income for everyone.
And, as for the "drug use" that you mention, plenty of people who are "productive" use drugs... especially if you include legal drugs, but even if you only consider illicit drugs. The notion of "drug use" being a behavior that is mutually exclusive of "productive" is an illusion that may be popular in the puritanical, neo-prohibitionist, popular mind... but it is hardly a "truth".

Meanwhile... as there are only some limited number of jobs to be filled... if everyone were "well educated", the fact is that many would still not be able to find jobs in their area of education. (How many college graduates find work in the field that they studied? I know I haven't.) Universal access to education is certainly not a bad thing... but the dynamics of a service based economy require a lot of retail workers, dishwashers, etc. ... and if everyone is educated, that just means educated retail workers, dishwashers, etc. Thus, universal educational opportunities would not, in fact, end poverty. (Or are you going to argue that there are opportunities for every human being to work as a lawyer, engineer, technocrat, or school principal... and there will be no more need of cash register workers at Best Buy, or busboys at Denny's? Let alone pot/heroin dealers?)

If everyone is guaranteed a minimum income, then not only would the desperation/ruthlessness of the "example community" that you mention evaporate, but it would mean a better standard of living, reduced stress, reduced levels of ambient societal hostility, the capacity of those who wind up doing the "less productive" work to at least enjoy life rather than stress their way through it... and it would also put more money in more pockets that would then be able to spend that money- and thus invigorate the overall economy.

Granted, it's a hard idea to get one's head around if one's been educated in the US (I'm not entirely sure that it isn't just the byproduct of an articulate junky's hallucinations on the nod, myself)... but there is a sort of cold rational sense in it, if one takes the radical step of considering human beings to have some inherent value.

It would be kind of "un-American" though, I admit...

[Naturyl]

48. Thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

It would definitely do wonders for crime. I'm going to add that to my list of arguments in the future. Thanks. :)

[leftstreet]

24. K&R

Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's The End of Work?

:hi:

[Naturyl]

26. No, does it support this?

[leftstreet]

28. In a way. He calls it a 'social wage.'

Here's from Amazon:

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
In this challenging report, social activist Rifkin (Biosphere Politics) contends that worldwide unemployment will increase as new computer-based and communications technologies eliminate tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traces the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees, with a chapter devoted to African Americans. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech global economy, the middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful, according to Rifkin. As the market economy and public sector decline, he forsees the growth of a "third sector"-voluntary and community-based service organizations-that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocates scaling down the military budget, enacting a value-added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers. 50,000 first printing; author tour.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
Global unemployment is now at its highest levels since the Great Depression. Rifkin (Biosphere Politics, LJ 5/15/91) argues that the Information Age is the third great Industrial Revolution. A consequence of these technological advances is the rapid decline in employment and purchasing power that could lead to a worldwide economic collapse. Rifkin foresees two possible outcomes: a near workerless world in which people are free, for the first time in history, to pursue a utopian life of leisure; or a world in which unemployment leads to an even further polarization of the economic classes and a decline in living conditions for millions of people. Rifkin presents a highly detailed analysis of the technological developments that have led to the current situation, as well as intriguing, yet alarming, theories of what is to come. Highly recommended for both general and business collections.
Gary W. White, Pennsylvania State Univ., Harrisburg
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

http://www.amazon.com/End-Work-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/1585423130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248760036&sr=8-1

It's an interesting read.

[Naturyl]

31. Not bad. It would be a step in the right direction. Thanks.

"Rifkin foresees two possible outcomes: a near workerless world in which people are free, for the first time in history, to pursue a utopian life of leisure."

Yeah, that's definitely what I'm shooting for 200 years down the road. Getting a GMI in is the first step. Too bad I'll be dead by the time any of it really gets rolling.