Barack Obama advocates for universal basic income

Wow if Obama working on behalf of socialism and the democrats get their way, we'll all have an extra $500 in our budgets per month to work with for doing nothing!

But before rushing out to buy that new car you've had your eye on or signing a mortgage that's more house than you can afford, you might want to think that out. How plausible is that?

Who will pay the tab? Money doesn't just fall from the sky, someone has to foot the bill. Chicago is already 60+ billion dollars in debt and can't afford it so what is this REALLY about?

Funny this rhetoric comes just before the mid terms which democrats are praying will go their way because if so, then they can reverse everything Trump did, two of which was deregulations and cutting taxes meaning the economy will go back to snailing along, a recession will return, companies will have to cut their work force because no one will have money to buy anything. If that happens and these bozos also start handing out money like they always do to BUY VOTES, this will bankrupt this country even more than Obama has already done.

Obama who most democrats have been completely duped by, has two reasons for advocating for this.

1. He's relying on the greediness and stupidity of the average low uneducated voter that will not question who will pay for this but simply jump on this and run to the polls.

Hell I'm educated and even I thought, how nice it would be to have an extra $500 a month to work with until thank God my brain kicked and overshadowed my greed.

2. Anyone watching Obama's actions while in office knows he was NEVER working for America but appeared to be working for some outside source...my guess IRAN in the Middle East since his actions always seemed to benefit them, while tearing America apart.

NEWSFLASH: A NATION CAN'T SURVIVE ON GIVEAWAYS!

Think about that statement...Who will pay this humongous tab of $500 which will be astronomical?

Do you think rich people will stay in the U.S. spreading their money around for everyone?
If not them, who will pay the tab? Thanks to Obama, the country is already 21 Trillion in debt. And does anyone really think their mouthy all on board with the socialist movement Hollywood stars will foot the bill? All anyone has to do to know this won't work is grab a calculator and;

DO THE MATH:

325,000,000 million people live in the U.S

X 500 dollars to each per month
_______________

$162,500,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH

X 12 MONTHS A YEAR
______________
$1,950,000,000,000 TRILLION PER YEAR


Even if someone makes the argument that they mean $500 per household and we figure FOUR people to a household:

325 million divided by 4:

81,250,000 households

X 500 dollars per month
__________
$40,625,000,000 BILLION PER MONTH
X 12 months
______________

$487,500,000,000 per year

ALMOST A HALF A TRILLION PER YEAR, SO AGAIN, WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT?

Bottom line: THE COUNTRY WILL BE COMPLETELY DESTROYED in short order just like Venezuela and other socialist countries which is why,

SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!

some here are stating it's only people on welfare entitlements but if so, why would they care or think that's better or the taxpayers for that matter? We should be getting people off the couch to work not keep paying for them to be lazy.

And if it's ON TOP of the welfare they're already getting, then it will be a wash as well. No matter how anyone looks at it, it's NOT good for America and help to pay off the debt but will actually add to it.
https://mic.com/articles/190303/barack-obama-signals-support-for-a-universal-basic-income#.0gRO0rbC5

https://qz.com/1330077/barack-obama-mandela-lecture-on-universal-basic-income-inequality/

https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnso...g-running-a-universal-basic-income-experiment

 

Uh, UBI means that anyone who makes 'under' a certain amount gets the UBI. Not Every single person in the country.

 

I notice there’s no quote to support the claim. So it’s probably BS

 

My understanding is that a UBI is 1 government welfare program that can replace dozens of others. Eventually, as automation presses on, we will have to rely on something like a UBI, likely paid for by taxes on buying new and more sophisticated automation. But who knows?

 

even so, do the math if there's 0 in the till to start with, how will that work? And how many will then quit their jobs to lay on the couch all day which will raise that figure?

 

It will be one thing if the companies around the world pay the tab because what the save on sick days, people not showing up and other costs would probably offset..but that's NOT what the socialist in this country are pushing. They want the government to foot the tab.

 

It's a made up thread and topic......amazing that this is allowed to be posted in the current events forum instead of conspiracy or opine forum.

 

Social democracy is not socialism. If you insist it is it'll make the transition to true socialism much easier, something nobody wants.

UBI is arguable if it REPLACES the welfare state, but I'm guessing Barry wants it to supplement it.

 

"social democracy" is everyone just fooling themselves, if anything, it's the step before pushing for full out socialism. This is why the left these days are trying to silence conservatives basically taking away their first amendment rights unless of course they speak in favor of their socialist agenda and also why they're pushing so hard for the removal of the right to bear arms as well.

This is exactly what those trying to overthrow governments do when trying to change to socialism or communism. By the time the people realize they've been duped, between not being able to assemble because their 1st amendment rights have been taken and not having guns to revolt against a government gone rogue, they're FUBAR.

 

This is basically unfair taxation. Obama is a moron. Hes the smartest of his flock.

 

I am not a fan of the idea of basic income but I think it will be inevitable. Technology and globalism is going to eliminate more and more jobs. New jobs will be created but transition to these jobs will take time and not everyone will be able to make the shift. There will be vast percentages of the population that will be unable to find work.

 

I've read that if we simply gave everyone the poverty level income and eliminated the entire social network, except for social security, that we would eliminate poverty in this country and come out ahead. But, of course no ones this, where would be the opportunities for graft?

HOW IS IT RACIST TO CALL HIM SOCIALIST? ONLY THE LEFT THINKS TAN EQUATES WITH COLLECTIVISM. IT’S ONE OF THEIR CRAZIER DELUSIONS:

Obama, Who’s Totally Not a Socialist and It’s Racist to Suggest He Is: Hey, Let’s Give Everyone a Income from the State for Doing Nothing At All.

Oh, yeah, and Obama is still intellectually deficient particularly in economics. But it’s no more than I’d expect from a socialist. Never met one who could add up two and two without dipping his hand in his neighbor’s wallet.

 

Still no quote? Yah, must be BS

 

Social Democracy is an effort to prevent Socialism by giving the proletariat free ****. Socialists ****in' hate it. They want revolution. They want the means of production out of private hands.

 

The idea is: the government is **** at actually providing services, welfare is essentially redistributive, so why not stick to what you're good at and just redistribute. Let the market actually provide services.

Works for me. Unfortunately, practically everyone advocating for a UBI wants to supplement the existing system, not replace it. If they did legitimately want to abolish all current welfare and replace it with a UBI I'd likely go for it.

 

Milton Friedman was the patron saint of small-government conservatism.

His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings).

Mr. Friedman emphasized the superiority of the negative income tax over conventional welfare programs on purely practical grounds. If the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money, he reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. He saw no advantage in hiring armies of bureaucrats to dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent subsidies.

Mr. Friedman’s policy prescriptions were shaped by his desire to minimize adverse economic incentives, a feature that architects of earlier welfare programs had largely ignored. Those programs, each administered by a separate bureaucracy, typically reduced a family’s benefits by some fraction of each increment in earned income. Rates of 50 percent were common, so a family participating in four separate programs might see its total benefits fall by $2 for each extra dollar it earned. Under the circumstances, no formal training in economics was necessary to see that working didn’t pay. In contrast, someone who worked additional hours under Mr. Friedman’s plan would always take home additional after-tax income.

The negative income tax was never adopted in the end, because of concern that a payment large enough to support an urban family of four might induce many to go on the dole. With a payment of $6,000 per person, for example, rural communes of 30 would have a pooled annual payment of $180,000, which they could supplement by growing vegetables and raising animals. Because these groups could live quite comfortably at taxpayer expense, there would be an eager audience for accounts of their doings on the nightly news. Political support for such a program would be difficult to sustain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html

 

Maybe because it is a current event. er

http://fortune.com/2018/07/18/universal-basic-income-chicago-trial/

I have a better idea: Deduct $500.00 from the money that is already being forcefully confiscated from me. By the time the money filters through the sticky government fingers and gets to the recipient, how much will it cost to deliver $500.00?

 

And show me in your link where Obama is advocating this specifically? My post still stands per forum rules for thread creation.

 

no, theres -21 Trillion in the till

 

Heres one with your hero:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...come-gets-nod-from-obama-bezos-should-fund-it

It is still irresponsible and by the time the recipient gets $500.00, it took several inefficient government employees to get it there. We should just cut taxes and let people keep the whole thing!

 

lol yup that's true

 

Did you really expect there to be direct quote ? Why ruin a possibly good lie with a direct quote when you can just MUS!

 

There is no basic income coming at a federal level, democrats have no power to pass legislatively.

 

Actually it is a like warm mamby pamby name yes maybe no kinda endorsement or not of that idea!

Still UBI is a stupid counterproductive idea that will crash upon itself if ever implemented.

 

No there isn't at the moment but Obama, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other democrats the like, are throwing it out there as bait hoping to attract more voters to the democratic party so they can take the midterms and beyond.