-
What do you want?
-
Quote from KW818
This is the reason I don’t answer you. Apparently you are too ignorant to realize that I made an argument as to why some people might not be buying the current climate crisis and that I was not arguing the merits of the science. You simply are too stupid to understand that or you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I don’t know which but you wear me out with your idiotic, wilful disregard for what was actually typed.
Quote from Frumious
Or make arguments without facts like supposedly scientists were predicting another Ice Age by 2000.
C’mon, man, at least include a link to the post where you claim you made your point clear. Otherwise, readers have no way of knowing if you’re telling the truth (leaving some to presume you are [i][u]not[/u])[/i].
-
start at post 86 in the thread about 1/3 of the public not believing global warming, where I say that the media promoted a global cooling crisis in the 70’s. In post 87 frum calls me a liar and says they never did.
then you can go to post 89 where I post a lengthy list of links to various news reports that people were subjected to in the 70’s, as well as a cia report about the impending cooling/freeze oh, and videos that were shown documentary type.
Then you can scroll down and see the time magazine cover from the 70’s that I posted..after that you can see me trying to explain to him that I am not arguing the merits of global warming/cooling or staying the same, I am simply pointing out that some people might not be taking it seriously because of the above mentioned scare.
You can read it, the links are there and my point is reiterated ad nauseum. Frum simply doesn’t get it and goes on and on.
have fun with it, I think I will move on to more intelligent conversation.-
In lookin back at this lil opus, one thing came clear, and that’s that our friends hate old stuff, old values, old people, and old ideas, unless they came from Karl, Vladimir, Mao, Che, Fidel, etc.
Maybe this is why:
[link=http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/10/08/why-the-left-hates-the-old-n1719132]http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/10/08/why-the-left-hates-the-old-n1719132[/link]
Note to the friends above. PLEASE DONT read this. It’ll get you all upset and stuff. This is more for the education of teh audience.
[blockquote] What, then, is at the core of the left’s contempt for the old, and its celebration of the new and of change?
There are two primary answers.
[b]One is the yearning for utopia.[/b] Since Marx, the left has sought utopia in this world. And that means constantly transforming every aspect of society. As then-Senator Barack Obama said prior to the 2008 election: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
By definition, those who seek to transform consider the old essentially worthless.
[b]The other answer is self-esteem[/b]. The left began the self-esteem movement in large measure because of its own high self-esteem. Those on the left are certain that they are smarter, kinder, more moral and more compassionate than — in every way superior to — their opponents.
[b]That is a major reason for the left’s problem with the old: If the old is great, then they and their new ideas are probably not that great.[/b]
Just about everyone who is not on the cultural left knows that all the great masters were incomparably superior to Jackson Pollock and other 20th-centuries artists who produced meaningless and talentless art. And because there are so few artists at any time who measure up to the old standards (standards that are synonymous with standards of excellence), the old standards have simply been abandoned.
[b]This applies equally to morality. The left doesn’t want to be bound or answerable to a higher moral authority[/b]. Rather, one’s heart and reason are the best moral guides. Here, too, the old codes, especially as embodied in traditional religion, must be overthrown.
Prior to the ascendance of the left, it was assumed that the old had more wisdom than the young. Indeed, even every leftist I have asked, “Are you wiser today than 20 years ago?” has answered in the affirmative.
Nevertheless the left has transformed “old” — a title that commanded respect in every civilization prior to the pre-1960s West — into a pejorative.
[/blockquote]-
Do you get paid to post this level of projection. Nothing educational here by the way (except that the author seems to have a thing for totalitarianism)
-
Told you not to read it!
-
The notion that a government could actually work to improve the lives of its citizen did not start with Marx.
[b]This applies equally to morality. The left doesn’t want to be bound or answerable to a higher moral authority[/b].[b]This applies equally to morality. R[/b]ather, one’s heart and reason are the best moral guides. Here, too, the old codes, especially as embodied in traditional religion, must be overthrown.
I agree with this. While traditional religion does not need to be “overthrown”, I certainly agree that religion should not have a role in the determination of public policy. Secular humanism is actually a better construct for maximizing the freedoms of a population.
The rest of the schlock about the left hating anything “old” is just a load of crap. It is true that many progressives when they hear the conservative refrain of “That’s the way things have always been done” and think “Well. That way is stupid, not evidence based, and is mean spirited toward many people. How about let’s not do it that way anymore.”
-
Quote from dergon
While traditional religion does not need to be “overthrown”, I certainly agree that religion should not have a role in the determination of public policy. Secular humanism is actually a better construct for maximizing the freedoms of a population.
Regardless of how strongly we might believe religion should influenece public policy, in the USA religion simply MAY NOT influence public policy, according to the First Amendment of our Constitution.
-
That is not true.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
While traditional religion does not need to be “overthrown”, I certainly agree that religion should not have a role in the determination of public policy. Secular humanism is actually a better construct for maximizing the freedoms of a population.
Regardless of how strongly we might believe religion should influenece public policy, in the USA religion simply MAY NOT influence public policy, according to the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Read the Constitution again, or, just live.
Either will show you the statement is false, for better or worse.-
[b][i]”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”[/i][/b]
– First Amendment of the US Constitution
Any federal law, on public policy or otherwise, that includes any deference to a religious establishment constitutes a flagrant violation of the US Constitution.
-
First off, let me state I am not for theocracy. But I have to be honest about the Constitution is and says.
People have a role in the determination of public policy, and people are multifaceted, including religion both god and anti-god based. Congress shall make no law means the US congress should not. Laws are influenced by many things and it always bothers me when people say “morality shouldn’t be legislated” because the basis of nearly every law is moral, because laws shape human actions, and humans have values.
Very straightforward concepts. Often it helps to provide examples, though, as you might think I’m something or arguing for something that I am not. -
Quote from Cigar
First off, let me state I am not for theocracy. But I have to be honest about the Constitution is and says.
People have a role in the determination of public policy, and people are multifaceted, including religion both god and anti-god based. Congress shall make no law means the US congress should not. Laws are influenced by many things and it always bothers me when people say “morality shouldn’t be legislated” because the basis of nearly every law is moral, because laws shape human actions, and humans have values.
Very straightforward concepts. Often it helps to provide examples, though, as you might think I’m something or arguing for something that I am not.
Who said “morality shouldn’t be legislated”? It’s as though you believe only religious people are moral.
My comment stands as is. It is a violation of the US Constitution to pass a law out of respect for any religious tenet. If Congress had anything to do with changing the provisions of ACA in order to console the Catholic church’s problem with contraceptives in ACA, then Congress violated the Constitution.
If Congress made any exceptions based on such a moral basis, it would be obligated by law to allow the exception for ANYONE that had that same moral (not religious) tenet, including atheists.
Of course, doing such a thing opens Congress up to any other moral objection, such as not paying a prorated amount of tax for capital punishment, war, water fluoridation, and any hairbrain moral objection some nut might conjure up just to save a few bucks in taxes.
Regardless of whethe a Catholic institution is subject to purchasing a health policy that includes contraception, no one is requiring a Catholic to USE contraceptvies in ACA. If the Church truly had its house in order and had its flock properly indoctrinated, the Church would not have to worry about having contraceptives available to its flock since the flock should have enough spiritual discipline to not use that component of the package. Just as Catholics are free to file as a conscientious objector and not participate in lethal warfare…even though they still must pay their share of the tax that provides for such warfare.
-
No. It says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Can you no longer read?
-
Quote from radmike
No. It says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Can you no longer read?
I don’t get your point. I interpret “establishment of religion” to mean “a religious establishment” as in the “Catholic Church” is an “establishment of religion”. Therefore if Congress passes a law that is requested by the Catholic Church, then that law was passed out of respect for an establishment of religion. What are we not agreeing on here?
-
Read about the origins of the Church of England, etc..
-
Quote from radmike
Read about the origins of the Church of England, etc..
If you are suggesting that the Amendment is referring to some kind of government sponsored religion, then I strongly disagree. If the founders were concerned that the government would establish a religion or that the government would become a theocracy, they wouldn’t wait until after the Constitution was ratified such that it required an amendment. They would have specifically put that clause into the primary text since that was one of the main tenets for them coming over here and creating the New World from the start. Rather, it seems pretty clear that it occured to them afterward that since the gov’t would not be intimately associated with any religious establishment, those religions started demanding that the government enact laws that respect the individual religious tenets and the founders realized that they should even stay away from THAT kind of association and so they enacted the First Amendment to nip that in the bud right away.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
-
Radmike, it sounds as if you are claiming that the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment of the Constitution only prevents the establishment of a “national church” such as the CoE.
If so, that is a very, very narrow interpretation that strays far from rulings of the Supreme Court on the matter. (That is what Renquist thought it meant and probably how Scalia feels about it too though).
Currently, there are 4 criteria that the Court evaluates when looking as to whether the establishment clause is violated — the [i]Lemon,[/i] coercion, endorsement and neutrality tests.
Using the [i]Lemon[/i] test, a court must first determine whether the law or government action in question has a bona fide secular purpose.
The coercion test — whether a law would be coercive in favor of pushing people toward one religion has seen ruling disagreeing on it’s intent.
The endorsement test asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion.
The neutrality test asks if the government would treat religious groups the same as other similarly situated groups in the same situation.
The notion that the first ammendment only prevents the formation of a national church is view held on by a small number of conservatives and presently (and at no time in the last century) has been reflected in actual judicial rulings.From 20th Century SCOTUS rulings we have:
[blockquote]The establishment of religion clause means [b]at least [/b]this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.
[/blockquote]
-
-
-
-
-
So I guess that means you agree with my take…
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
That is not true.
I can’t imagine how you can read the First Amendment and interpret it any other way.
-
Thought of this thread today.
Biden certainly seems to be delivering on the technocracy part.
Week one is a furious blitz of experts moving as quickly as possible to undo the last four years.
So far so good.-
Okay, these threads are really getting out of hand with only liberals patting each other on the back so I will be civil and I hope we can have some real conversations. That means both sides answering questions honestly (all of them – the tough ones too).
Do you believe in temporary safety nets when something goes bad – lose a job, get a divorce, death of the breadwinner, etc.?
Or,
Do you believe that there should be a long term safety for everyone?
If no. 2, how is dependency upon the government freedom in any sense of the word? Freedom is being able to make your own choices, which you can’t do when someone is giving you free money to do nothing.
I firmly back no. 1 – a temporary solution. But if you want to see true change from the lower 25% of society (which we all do), then that isn’t going to happen through government handouts. Can’t we come up with a real plan to help these people move upward?
-
The market takes a steaming hot dookie on Dead Man Joe
and kpack and the three amigos blame Trump
boring posters, boring circle jerk for a decade already
Cubs I’m starting to think you love wasting your time-
I favor a broad safety net. At no point in time should services run out in a way that would leave any American homeless, hungry, or in abject poverty.
I can appreciate that there is an intuitive “well, why should anyone work at all?” in the ide of a large safety net. But that intuition isn’t necessarily correct. There is some component of decreased incentive to work with full wage replacement (as we attempted to some degree by design during the height of the pandemic), but it does not hold that a large social safety net decreases the overall work rate of a society.
If there was a high entry-level wage rate for basic jobs, you could still have a safety net while not discouraging work.
-
Quote from dergon
I can appreciate that there is an intuitive “well, why should anyone work at all?” in the ide of a large safety net.
This is a silly argument as if the majority of people would prefer to be not useful to anyone and let everyone around them support them. 1st question then if this is a “normal” human desire, WTF is wrong with all of us who work?
Yes, there are individuals who live off, sponge off their spouses or siblings or mom & Dad while living in Mom & dad’s basement. Are they the majority? No. But there are a very large number of people who do work very hard in multiple minimum wage jobs trying to support themselves and their families. Like “essential workers” earning $10/hour with no sick days or 401K’s or paid time off for seminars, etc. and no paid time off for anything. Think those new fab jobs called the gig-economy or just the old Walmart jobs. Let’s just pay people living wages with benefits like sick time and enough wages to save money.
Then again, we do have people who just cannot work due to physical or mental disability, whether permanently or temporarily. Those with chronic conditions and diseases? Are they just mooches who should be thrown to the side?
It’s an idea in search of evidence. There are ways to address the real mooches but not all in need are mooches. Cardiac Event’s original post about contributing to religious charities are good but insufficient for what we see around us now, the pandemic as Exhibit A. What church organizations would be up to snuff for addressing the pandemic’s problems?
None. Not a one. Even together they are insufficient. And they still need money to do their charity work. Where does that money come from? The quarters and dollar bills in the collection plate? Better than nothing but insufficient.-
You guys understand there is a pretty significant portion of those in poverty who are “multi-generational welfare” right? It’s not a high percentage of society at large but it’s a significant percentage of those in poverty.
I think the term safety net just isn’t encompassing it correctly. Even most Republicans believe that there should be something that people can fall back on in hard times. The issue is the portion of society that becomes dependent upon the government for more than 6-12 months at a time. You can squawk all you want that it isn’t true, but it is. Heck, even Obama made a terribly received cartoon about how he wanted people to be able to be dependent upon the government from cradle to grave.
I do agree though that in general, humans want to be useful and providing an opportunity is the way to help them. That’s why before I had suggested a “Civil Corps” idea where the government would fund a new part of the military that would be devoted to maintaining infrastructure, labor projects, etc. that any person could sign up for and make a living wage as per the current military payscale + benefits.
The minimum wage is too low in most places and has stagnated due to cheap labor from SA and Asia over the 40 years. Everyone knows that. The issue is that a blanket raise to $15/hr isn’t right or fair.
The dollar amount needs to be taken as a percentage of the median income level in that person’s county. For example, minimum wage in NYC should be like $22 or something and in Ashtabula, OH it should be like $9-10. The other issue is that many people have worked hard to get to the 16-20 dollar range over years of pay raises and they will get nothing. If you want to raise the minimum wage, you really should be giving every hourly worker about that minimum, a 10% raise or something as well.
The other problem is that raising minimum wage now is going to further destroy small businesses due to the covid shutdowns so they need to wait on it.-
Multi generational as in WV & Mississippi & Alabama, etc? The original War on Poverty targeted those multi generational in WV.
I am sure local politics has zero to do with persistent poverty.
-
I’m trying to have a serious discussion here, Frumi. Those places have poverty and so do the inner cities of every single metro area. Why do you think there’s such extreme violence in those places? Why do they have to turn to drugs and violence?
It’s seriously okay to not be extremely Left wing on every single thing and to actually be able to view an issue in a non-partisan way.-
I have been giving serious answers to your question on this board for years. I am not stopping now.
Why do you suppose poverty is so persistent?
This list showing poverty rates in 17 states from highest to less poverty are virtually all states from the South, 2 Northern states & 2 Southwestern states. Why do you suppose they have such high and persistent poverty?
-
Let me add that most all these states have Republican government.
Coincidence?
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
You guys understand there is a pretty significant portion of those in poverty who are “multi-generational welfare” right? It’s not a high percentage of society at large but it’s a significant percentage of those in poverty.
Answered above.
Quote from Cubsfan10
I think the term safety net just isn’t encompassing it correctly. Even most Republicans believe that there should be something that people can fall back on in hard times. The issue is the portion of society that becomes dependent upon the government for more than 6-12 months at a time. You can squawk all you want that it isn’t true, but it is. Heck, even Obama made a terribly received cartoon about how he wanted people to be able to be dependent upon the government from cradle to grave.
I do agree though that in general, humans want to be useful and providing an opportunity is the way to help them. That’s why before I had suggested a “Civil Corps” idea where the government would fund a new part of the military that would be devoted to maintaining infrastructure, labor projects, etc. that any person could sign up for and make a living wage as per the current military payscale + benefits.
I am not sure that Republicans support assistance since it is always redefined as robbing from the rich to give to the poor. AKA, “redistribution.” And invariably, receivers of assistance as virtually always defined as lazy and moochers who’d rather receive support instead of working. Regardless of the reality of many holding multiple jobs. I recall a cartoon in the HWBush administration where George talked about “thousand points of light” in regards to jobs and thw waiter in that cartoon serving George is thinking how he holds 3 points of light. The waiter must one of those persistent poverty types.
Quote from Cubsfan10
The minimum wage is too low in most places and has stagnated due to cheap labor from SA and Asia over the 40 years. Everyone knows that. The issue is that a blanket raise to $15/hr isn’t right or fair.
The dollar amount needs to be taken as a percentage of the median income level in that person’s county. For example, minimum wage in NYC should be like $22 or something and in Ashtabula, OH it should be like $9-10. The other issue is that many people have worked hard to get to the 16-20 dollar range over years of pay raises and they will get nothing. If you want to raise the minimum wage, you really should be giving every hourly worker about that minimum, a 10% raise or something as well.
The other problem is that raising minimum wage now is going to further destroy small businesses due to the covid shutdowns so they need to wait on it.
Republicans have been screaming how increasing the minimum wage would impoverish business for decades now & yet, in spite of some states raising the minimum, those states’ businesses have not gone bankrupt.
And it’s not just wages, it is also PTO. What’s the logic of “essential workers” being paid minimum wages and not having sick time available for when they actually might get COVID for example? The economic pressure is to go to work, not stay in isolation, no?
But then those living in poverty are there due to their own faults, no? That’s what I’ve been reading for decades now anyway from the Right.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How does something like this happen?
[link=https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/poorest-states-in-the-us-by-median-household-income-2019-8]https://www.businessinsid…ousehold-income-2019-8[/link]
The average American household earns about $61,000 per year, according to Census data.
But the typical resident of many US states earns less than that.
According to the [link=https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h08.xls]US Census Bureau[/link]’s 2017 data on each state’s median income, 15 states are at the bottom of the list. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of them also reached the top of the Census Bureau’s list for the [link=https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html]highest poverty rates[/link].
[b]Only one New England state, Maine, makes the bottom 15, while states in Appalachia, the South, and the Midwest tend to dominate. The states with the lowest incomes tend to be clustered together geographically, and it shows just how unequally wealth is distributed across the US. [/b]
-
Trump country
Home of the seditious under educated types
-
I’ve only been posting on this board for about 10 months so I’m not sure where you’re coming from there.
As far as the poverty thing goes, again, I am not making this a partisan issue. I don’t care what state or what party the people are in. I’m trying to address the problem.
Do you truly think years/lifetimes of government dependency is the solution?
What problem do you have with my minimum wage plan?
What problem do you have with the creation of something like a Civic Corps?
These are discussions I want to have. I don’t want to talk about “Trump country” or whose fault it is.-
Thats correct
You were posting as raduser1 before that
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Thats correct
You were posting as raduser1 before that
I don’t know why I have to keep repeating myself, but I was not. That’s not me. I’m a recent grad and just starting posting in March due to covid.
Also, as far as the other stuff above, I know what Republicans have been saying. I’m saying otherwise. That’s the point of the discussion I wanted to have.
I wanted all of us to discuss the issue and not inject any political party into it.
For example, why is a blanket $15/hour minimum wage better than a plan that adjusts the minimum wage based upon the cost of living in your area?
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Do you truly think years/lifetimes of government dependency is the solution?
Non sequitur. Except for severely disabled and ill, etc, no one is proposing lifetime of dependency as any sort of solution.Quote from Cubsfan10
What problem do you have with my minimum wage plan?
I question whether Ashtabula requires only $9/hour wages with no benefits, etc. The same argument can be made for Florida against reality. I have not found Florida that cheap for people to earn only $9/hour. I did not find Publix substantially cheaper than supermarkets in NJ. Housing isn’t that much cheaper either nor clothing. So what? No state income tax? Not exactly a livable argument.Quote from Cubsfan10
What problem do you have with the creation of something like a Civic Corps?
Republicans have been opposed to any sort of government program like that for decades.
-
Raduser1 was an anonymous account created several years ago when I was applying for fellowship
There were multiple users
We would post on the residents forum our experience
It died out after we all got our positions then it resurfaced a few years later
You obviously knew about this because several
Of us realized our old handle was being recycled by a political guyYou got found out
Then resurfaced within minutes as cubsfan
Cut the bull you arent that smart and it was easy to figure out
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Raduser1 was an anonymous account created several years ago when I was applying for fellowship
There were multiple users
We would post on the residents forum our experience
It died out after we all got our positions then it resurfaced a few years later
You obviously knew about this because several
Of us realized our old handle was being recycled by a political guyYou got found out
Then resurfaced within minutes as cubsfan
Cut the bull you arent that smart and it was easy to figure out
For the last time, I did not do this and I have never posted under that name. I don’t know how I can prove this to you but I promise I did not. I don’t see any reason why I would even lie. I have always been forthcoming about things.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Cubsfan10
Do you truly think years/lifetimes of government dependency is the solution?
Non sequitur. Except for severely disabled and ill, etc, no one is proposing lifetime of dependency as any sort of solution.Quote from Cubsfan10
What problem do you have with my minimum wage plan?
I question whether Ashtabula requires only $9/hour wages with no benefits, etc. The same argument can be made for Florida against reality. I have not found Florida that cheap for people to earn only $9/hour. I did not find Publix substantially cheaper than supermarkets in NJ. Housing isn’t that much cheaper either nor clothing. So what? No state income tax? Not exactly a livable argument.Quote from Cubsfan10
What problem do you have with the creation of something like a Civic Corps?
Republicans have been opposed to any sort of government program like that for decades.
Thanks for the tempered responses. I am happy to have the discussion.
I do think there are some on the Left that are wanting lifetime government dependency. I’m glad that you think otherwise and are not one of those people but that thought is out there – even if it is fringe at the moment. You can look at guaranteed income as an example of that thought process.
I don’t know what the actual numbers are for each city/county. I was just giving examples that $15/hr doesn’t make sense in every city/county across the country. Don’t you agree?
I don’t care if Republicans like it or not. I think it’s a good idea. Do you?
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
I do think there are some on the Left that are wanting lifetime government dependency. I’m glad that you think otherwise and are not one of those people but that thought is out there – even if it is fringe at the moment. You can look at guaranteed income as an example of that thought process.
??? Where do you get this silly idea? Provide some links showing your argument of “leftists” desiring dependency. Does helping your neighbor mean you have designs to make your neighbor dependent upon you? That Boy Scout helping that elderly lady cross the street makes her dependent on that Boy Scout to cross streets???
No. Hayek was writing about actual Russian Communism as was Orwell, not about some government cabal introducing government dependence starting with wearing masks.
Constant hyperbolic arguments are not serious arguments.Quote from Cubsfan10
I don’t know what the actual numbers are for each city/county. I was just giving examples that $15/hr doesn’t make sense in every city/county across the country. Don’t you agree?
I think more than $15 as the minimum makes better sense across the country. And benefits like PTO. And $15/hr is $31K per year. Not exactly a lot of disposable income there. What would it mean? A slight increase of WalMart’s prices? McDonald’s dollar meals for a couple of dollars? A bit less income for Bezos and company? A bit less investment returns in the short run for investors? Like the story of Ford who wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy a Ford, they need the income.
Earning a living wage was once the normal for “essential” workers like bus drivers & short-order cooks and retail workers. It did not put the country into bankruptcy then & it won’t now.Quote from Cubsfan10
I don’t care if Republicans like it or not. I think it’s a good idea. Do you?
Some sort of mandatory public service? A Draft just not necessarily for the military? Yes, a very good idea. Who has proposed anything like that?
-
You don’t admit that people on the Left want guaranteed income? That’s a lifetime safety net isn’t it?
The second part here is just a matter of numbers and I think we could agree to something. The point is that a living wage varies from place to place and so the solution to that problem needs to vary from place to place. However, there are minimum wages for a reason. If everyone was paid 75k then that would become the new minimum and over time, prices on everything else would rise and they would be back in the same level of poverty they were before. Like it or not, there has to be a gradation of income. We just hope to stamp out extreme poverty.
Also, yes it would be like a draft. The idea would be that when you turn 18, you had different options: 1. college 2. full time job (32 hours/week or more) 3. military 4. medical/family exemption (disability, etc.). If you didn’t meet one of those 4 things, then you would be “drafted” into the civic corps and you would provide service to the country in a civil (non-military) capacity and be paid the same military payscale. Every 12 months, you could renew or “get out” by going to college, getting a different job, etc.-
You claim to have always been forthcoming
Uhhhhhhh you lied about having 3 kids
Please you arent that smart. This stuff is too easy to figure out
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
You don’t admit that people on the Left want guaranteed income? That’s a lifetime safety net isn’t it?
Guaranteed income?
Who is. Context.
-
-
