General Discussion

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)

28. It certainly would let us 'downsize the government'

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 08:04 AM

Mar 2014

if indeed we did have one simple program that eliminated poverty, rather than dozens of different programs that are aimed at specific segments of those in poverty. Lots of paperwork and red tape could simply disappear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

5 Reasons to Consider a No-Strings-Attached, Basic Income for All Americans [View all] xchrom Mar 2014 OP

That would only be about one Trillion dollars/year in the USA seveneyes Mar 2014 #1

I think it would cost a lot less than that ... 300 bil./year, perhaps. n/t Laelth Mar 2014 #58

I think it metioned 3k/year for every man, woman and child seveneyes Mar 2014 #65

Not all of us will get the check. n/t Laelth Mar 2014 #70

Isn't that the idea of a no-strings-attached, basic income? whopis01 Mar 2014 #76

Dependent minors probably would not. nt tblue37 Nov 2015 #80

It would be a heckuva lot cheaper to administer... no more red tape as to who qualifies! reformist2 Mar 2014 #2

And you plan on getting the money for this from ... where? Angleae Mar 2014 #3

Taxes and/or print it. It actually wouldn't be much more expensive than our patchwork welfare system reformist2 Mar 2014 #5

+100000 And the benefits... woo me with science Mar 2014 #16

Amen.... daleanime Mar 2014 #53

A lot of the jobs that get done in our society are only done because Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #61

I love the shelter animal comparison! hunter Mar 2014 #66

This message was self-deleted by its author hunter Mar 2014 #67

I think you must be wrong about that Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #24

Actually, you don't need those programs. jeff47 Mar 2014 #37

People assume taxes paid is a function of one number - tax rates joeglow3 Mar 2014 #41

It's a reasonable shorthand when discussing topics on a web site. jeff47 Mar 2014 #42

People also assume (incorrectly) that we can pay for everything by simply raising Common Sense Party Mar 2014 #59

Don't say that jmowreader Mar 2014 #72

I think that makes much more sense than what we've been doing. Common Sense Party Mar 2014 #75

& from not as many needed to be jailed for illegal work activity. grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #56

Same place we get money for military, CIA, black ops eShirl Mar 2014 #7

As a SS recipient. SS is not enough to really raise dotymed Mar 2014 #4

they base your income based on an average of your best 35 years of employment magical thyme Mar 2014 #17

Unfortunately dotymed Mar 2014 #35

wow, I didn't realize that. magical thyme Mar 2014 #45

Those statements are true. dotymed Mar 2014 #77

The constant drumbeat of socialist propagangda Chico Man Mar 2014 #6

What's wrong with alternet? eShirl Mar 2014 #8

LOL, someone railing against "socialist" articles on a website for Democrats! reformist2 Mar 2014 #9

What do you expect a2liberal Mar 2014 #11

it is pretty funny though hfojvt Mar 2014 #43

! KG Mar 2014 #13

Thomas Paine was the first to promote basic minimum income RainDog Mar 2014 #18

Beautiful post. woo me with science Mar 2014 #21

+2 xchrom Mar 2014 #23

People are so afraid of great new ideas... even "new ideas" that are 200+ years old! reformist2 Mar 2014 #25

Sadly, he's not joking. HughBeaumont Mar 2014 #26

pitiful n/t RainDog Mar 2014 #55

you may have that backwards hfojvt Mar 2014 #44

no, I'm afraid you've misunderstood RainDog Mar 2014 #48

socialism, though, as I learned in graduate school hfojvt Mar 2014 #50

Socialism is part of social democracy RainDog Mar 2014 #54

+1 daleanime Mar 2014 #57

One correction: AAO Mar 2014 #68

Oh, cool. Red-Baiting for breakfast. Because THAT'S what was missing. HughBeaumont Mar 2014 #27

Yes, an idea proposed by Richard Nixon is socialist propaganda. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #39

Yeah.. god forbid we should consider anything that SomethingFishy Mar 2014 #78

I would argue Chico Man Mar 2014 #79

Shades of Richard Nixon Demeter Mar 2014 #10

The idea needs a new name demwing Mar 2014 #12

Well, it might get people interested in it. progressoid Mar 2014 #73

hmmm, apparently single, childless people need not apply hfojvt Mar 2014 #46

Sounds like an excellent idea to me A Little Weird Mar 2014 #14

Me too dotymed Mar 2014 #36

I'm 100% in favor lovemydog Mar 2014 #15

Free the (wage) slaves. n/t PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #19

I don't think the Kochs need any more, do you? WinkyDink Mar 2014 #20

My only concern would be that it would create a two-tiered society Victor_c3 Mar 2014 #22

So you prefer the 2-tiered society we have now? RC Mar 2014 #30

I thought those jobs were going to be replaced with robots? eShirl Mar 2014 #31

It certainly would let us 'downsize the government' Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2014 #28

Please include unicorns that fart glitter upaloopa Mar 2014 #29

Every little bit helps. RC Mar 2014 #33

I can't tell if your argument is that it's too little, or too much. n/t eShirl Mar 2014 #34

Iknowrite!? JoeyT Mar 2014 #47

I do not break wind, particularly of the glittery sort. nt Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #69

I love the idea of replacing basically all our entitlement programs with a minimum income Recursion Mar 2014 #32

Oh, they'll still make that argument jeff47 Mar 2014 #38

There's another reason they don't cover in the article. jeff47 Mar 2014 #40

The idea is a good one. However, unless we can elect an MineralMan Mar 2014 #49

Plan for the future.... daleanime Mar 2014 #62

Unemployment is a necessary part of capitalism, there fore, unemployed workers must be payed. grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #51

Fairy dust and unicorns taught_me_patience Mar 2014 #52

"Fairy Dust and Unicorns" . . . HughBeaumont Mar 2014 #63

Philippe Van Parijs has done quite a bit of work on this RainDog Mar 2014 #71

Inevitable if current trends in productivity continue. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #60

How much would the minimum income be? hughee99 Mar 2014 #64

Kickity. Lunacee_2013 Mar 2014 #74