Small government, Big heart

no you haven't, but carry on

 

Yes, I have. Not seeing anything, anything at all from you that supports your position.

Zip, zilch nil. And by the by, your 'opinion' isn't support of your... opinion.

 

in your own mind maybe, lol

guess we have to agree to disagree

 

It isn't my job to prove your position. That's your job, which you have not done.

I posted my information. You haven't. So there is no 'agree to disagree' since you have provided nothing to agree or disagree over.

 

never said it was, you're free to post your opinions and I mine, don't get upset if others don't buy yours over their own.... it's not their job to prove your position that you failed to prove

 

It is an interesting question as to whether the government power and bureaucracy
that has arisen in so many communist countries is unavoidable,
or was just a result of going directly from an agrarian economy into a socialist one.

 

Thomas Paine in 1797 suggested a system where every person in the nation received a division of
the wealth of the nation, in the form of a dividend for the land they theoretically owned
from those currently farming land.

My exposition of that idea is if say every person's share of the land was 40 acres then they could farm that and keep all proceeds.
They could then farm another 40 acres by paying a certain rent on it, perhaps 10% of the proceeds.

It is similar to Universal Basic Income, but the income is derived from a dividend, so could be called UBD.

The source is defined as a dividend, but the distribution is also universal.

Paine explained, “It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; he made only male and female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance.”
The idea that God had ordained some to wretched misery and some to opulent luxury turned Paine’s stomach.

 

I don't think socialism has to involve massive bureaucracy,
nor revolution as there is a simple short and smooth transition from where we are to a UBD.

Nor does it involve removing incentive to work, not at all.

I know people who were living on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, and doing OK,
until they were paid more on condition of not working at all, so quit,
and with more spare time spent more money, and now also have rent
arrears to pay was well.
That's the Democrat's idea of left,
it isn't the only or best or simplest way to do it.

 

Looking at the citizens' end, a UBD or UBI of $16,000 a year means a person can then
survive on a job that pays very little, perhaps join a litter squad.
Any money made on top of the UBI would be beneficial, taxed yes, but
the person would end up with more money than without working.

And you know with time they will work their way up the ladder to higher paid jobs.
I've seen that happen too.
After a few years one person got their GED and got a higher paid job and then
on the experience from that moved up yet again.

I think there should be a route from very low skilled work upward without the complexities
of the current system with it's traps and pit falls.

 

What happened to me was

my job went from 16,500 a year to 18,000 a year and then I had to quit because I was thrown out of Medicaid
and it was a few weeks too late to join the company healthcare system, which would have cost enough to
put me back at 15,000 a year if I had caught the enrollment period.


And that's what makes being on the left in the US so complicated:
it's a patchwork quilt of rules dictated by lobbyists.

 

See, that's a funny thing, I post data, and you call in an opinion. You post your opinion and call it facts. I've proven my position. You haven't.

Here's another gift - further sinking your ship of opinion. And here I am, all fresh out of life preservers.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

 

sure you have, lol, you have posted nothing that countered what I said

 

I have proven my point and supported what I've said. Your opinion that raising MW will fix the situation IS countered in the the links I provided.

You have done nothing to support your opinion.

Since you continue to be intentionally obtuse about what 'supporting your opinion' means, I will accept your concession.

 

Some people feel the income and wealth inequality in the US is excessive,
yet healthcare costs are effectively a negative income,
which if taken off earned income, makes the disparity even greater.

 

And prices the US out of doing manufacturing work.
Then the country has to invent better paid but pointless administrative tasks
which earn the country nothing,
and often waste the time of people doing actual useful work,
and so we end up 31.5 trillion dollars in debt.

 

Healthcare is excessively expensive. One of the driving factors is insurance administration, and the litigiousness that prevails. One can find less expensive healthcare by paying cash as the need arises for basic or low level incident care.

But everyone thinks insurance is healthcare. It's not, it's a front loaded payment mechanism that does nothing to actually take care of you.

 

you haven't, but let's move on