Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

I'm willing to consider the idea of giving women money, but only if there is some sort of guarantee that they will not just get an abortion if they get this money.

 

It's actually you who's interjecting all this irrelevant 'relationship' stuff, so I have no option than to assume you have some personal reason for doing so. It's so irrelevant to what I'm talking about that no other explanation suffices.

I'm discussing the realities of BIOLOGY and the FEMALE MAMMAL. That's it.

 

AI and automation are truly brilliant reasons to seriously discuss cooperation between the political right and the political left regarding a B.M.I and the effect that it could have on the rate of abortions.... but...... I have a really strange other topic to link this to.

In theory...... here in Canada.... eighteen billion dollars per month for the rest of our lives to all Canadians....... could be forgiven by the Bank of Canada..... and could translate at first into eighteen billion dollars per month going toward the deficit..... and then soon toward the national debt...... allowing over a five to ten year period....... for the significant reduction in our national debt....... our by definition operating IN THE BLACK..... as opposed to operating in the red.... which could translated into decrease levels of taxation at all income levels....... but especially for working poor Canadians!

Once this is pulled off here in Canada... it is fairly easy to adopt this concept to the USA!


Can the national debt of the USA be paid off in one year?

 

The idea of this five hundred dollars per month being for every month of the life of the mother... and the child..... if the child lives....... give the mother a major incentive to bring her baby to full term and then even want to raise her child if her health allows her to do so.

 

Are you proposing that Canada should deault on it's entire debt??

 

No.... just pay it off to the tune of eighteen billion dollars per month until Canada begins to operate in the black.... .as opposed to operating in the red.


“It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free.” (Economist John Hotson, Economist Harold Chorney and Economist Mario Seccarrecia, 1996)

 

Why no "no change" option? I would think that polls are not for the purpose of only allowing choices in agreement with your theory as a tactic.

 

The OPer is advocating giving millionaires and billionaires and their kids $500 a month each for free. Another person advocating for welfare for the richest people in his country.

 

It would have 100% support of every drug dealers, drug addicts and alcoholics.

 

Utterly unworkable. You can't force women to give up what the courts say is a basic right simply in exchange for government funds.

 

What these guys wrote in 1996 doesn't say anything about how the national debt of Canada would be paid.

It does suggest a different kind of monatary system that nobody in the world accepts today.

Also, I think some of their sub claims aren't justified. For example, they talk about how Canada allowed the national debt to increase due to their participation in WWII. Right or wrong, Canada saw their participation in that war as more important than the debt they incurred, and in 1996 Canada didn't see it's domestic spending issues as being of that kind of emergency. The authors may not agree with Canada's assessments in those two issues, but that is a tradeoff that the majority of first world nations involved in WWII have made.

So, I think we have to see this as a totally dead issue. It doesn't show how to resolve existing debt. And, for very good reasons supported by the majority of serious ecconomics experts Canada, the USA, and other countries aren't going to switch to that kind of monatary system.

 

Government support of adoptions (Financial support) instead of money for abortion homicides.

 

Yes I am....... it actually saves a huge amount of money to have virtually no bureaucracy..... and simply give a Basic Minimum Income to all citizens........ It also allows everybody to go to work as much as they want whereas the welfare state rewards not working........ and in many ways punishes a single mom who takes a job.

This idea comes from Economist Milton Friedman...... he knew that the bureaucracy that grows up around the welfare state gets bigger and bigger and bigger and it would be so much more simple to make a Basic Minimum Income unconditional.... but taxable.

It could also be connected to a voting registry.... because this is for ALL citizens and legal residents!


In 1973 a vision of the future was given that would fit with the trend that this type of policy would almost certainly set in motion.

 

Thank you for reading the article.


True... the authors of that article did not say what to do exactly with the vast sums of money that could be saved if Canada were to go back to the central banking policy that we used from 1938 to 1974 but... now in 2020 the political will seems to be there..... and more people than ever before are thinking at least somewhat along these lines.

COVID 19 and introduction of an unconditional income supplement

Ms. Betty Krawczyk wrote an excellent summary of the major points of that article that you read......

The advantage to this rather simple idea is that it is so simple that it has the potential to be sold to Canadians and..... if a poster on this forum was correct... the USA Federal Reserve may have been set up with similar goals in mind to that Bank of Canada policy????



http://www.politicalforum.com/index...and-why-that-must-end.211515/#post-1064784748

If dad2three was correct.. then it seems like the long term original goals for the Federal Reserve... were similar to that of the 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy.

 

That is what I do believe that an unconditional basic minimum would largely lead to but... it would be based on free choices... not on legislation that either stops abortions or enforces adoptions.

 

I like this general idea, because it seems to come from an analysis of the decisions made by those who choose abortion - instead of an analysis of a religious text or personal opinion someone desires to impose on others.

That's a very real improvement in how this issue is addressed.

I'm not so sure this is the only result of such an analysis or if the proposed solution for this one factor is sufficient to make a difference.

In the US, studies of the reasons for abortion include the fact that healthcare in the US is for profit and highly expensive. And, there is a highly active and quite possibly successful federal level assault on methods used to help those who can not afford healthcare such as prenatal and postnatal care. This assault has included more than 50 bills that have been voted on in congress - so far all losers, but the count shows dedication to remove healthcare support. Also, there is an executive branch assault that is currenty before the US Supreme Court.

Along with lack of employment level recognition of the needs of those who are pregnant, it's more than just logical for any pregnant woman to recognize the thin ice she is on when it comes to healthcare.

That assault on healthcare also exists at the state level in many states, and that is exacerbated every time we have issues such as COVID, recession, etc., especially since states have significanly limited rights to borrow money.

 

For how inflation works, if you give everyone $500 by government debt spending, actually you gave everyone $490 for the inflation factor combined with debt interests - and then every year they have to pay $10, $11, $12, $14, $16 as the debt on the interest grows and the principle never paid.

The GREAT fraud is anyone claiming there is such a thing as free money. Free money by the government always costs MORE then what is given - and then more and more and more by interest on the debt money.

Why don't you "give" yourself a "free" $1000 by getting a loan for it? You wouldn't turn down free money, would you? Get the point? There is no free money. Free money is the most costly money of all if it is created by debt.

 

I think there are two separate issues going on here. The proposed changes to the whole monetary system of Canada is one of those.

The proposal concerning how to go about reducing abortion is the other one.

As you point out there are various issues with how we go about allowing pregnant women who have little income to see their way through. What is solved (and how well solved) by a system of guaranteed income is certainly a discussion point.

The same goes for healthcare. We could discuss the Republican idea that healthcare is no more than a product that those with significant income can choose to buy.

 

I'm not going to divert to debating healthcare.

How do single parents afford raising a child if how income? I do not believe the answer is to pay them to have children they can't afford - and we know single women who deliberately have children on the most welfare profitable schedule to do so - carefully picking where they live based upon which offers the most welfare in various forms.

I would prefer the government pay for the childcare directly to the licensed child care facility, so the single parent can work a job - even if government make-work jobs. Picking up litter, sweeping, mopping and waxing government building floors and cleaning the windows, washing government vehicles. Then possibly enough housing assistance - paid directly to who is providing the housing etc.

If the single parent just refuses to work when that is no possible and if not truly fully disabled? Take the children away for adoption for foster care because a lazy ass single parent living on welfare because of laziness is going to be such a rotten parent that child likely also is going to become a single welfare mother herself as a generation to generation career as a welfare recipient for life.

In many ways, free money - or free anything - usually is the most expensive of all, including how it harms the recipient. Making it so a person can live just on welfare destroys the person and is a social harm in my opinion. As for adults who can work for which their are jobs, but don't? They can starve or freeze to death for all I care as they will have done it to themselves. I will not live my life and work to give my money to serve their lazy ass.

 

Your standard Republican hate comes through loud and clear. You don't really have to go on and on about it.

I'd point out that here in Seattle a signifcant percent of those who are living outdoors in tents in the rain have jobs. So, your Reaganesque nonsense about driving Cadilacs and giving births as if that means income is just more disgusting nonsense by those who don't know or care what's actually going on.

Stil, the larger issue is that the discussion here is about how to reduce the number of abortions.

Do you care about that issue??

And for that, healthcare is a significant issue - whether you want to dodge that or not.

 

I have something of a challenge in mind for my Latter day Saint friends who I have noticed do an astonishing amount of volunteerism in some form or another.

If... President Russell Nelson were to degree a token sum for potential students to take online courses by LDS officials or friends... I would be very interested. I completed eighteen courses online in 2020 by near death experiencer Dr. Kevin Zadai and I loved his courses. Here is a video by him that I found to be especially interesting... that is also indirectly related to this topic........




Former Satanist John Ramirez has stated that abortions somehow give fallen angels more power to deceive all of us as a nation?! Whether that assertion is true or false is one way to look at it.... but another way is if that idea has "ARTISTIC VALUE" that perhaps can be transformed into educational, diplomatic, psychological or yes....... ECONOMIC VALUE??????

 

If you can't create a concrete definition of your proposed economic system without dragging in religion then I don't believe you have anything at all.

Economic systems might be constrained by religion (such as prohibition against borrowing and the various ways around that). But, religion doesn't form a basis for an economic system.

And, encouragement by some religion to do more volunteerism is great, but I don't see anything to suggest that is a solution even just to helping those who need help. For example, Catholic Charities is huge and does great work, but it doesn't displace the need for a higher level of organization to assure that people who need help can get that help. And, it is a small fraction of the need that exists - including before COVID.

I think you need to focus on one problem at a time and actually come up with an answer. Mixing in the dreams of dying brains doesn't help with that.

 

You have a good point... but I am reaching out to readers who would identify with the opening posts in this discussion......


Was Moses - Moshe a brilliant economist?

I could be wrong..... and I do try my best to put something in my posts for fans of Richard Dawkins Ph. D. but........ i do think that my idea can take off and go viral without their assistance or support!?

 

So far, I don't see where you've described your idea of a new economic system for Canada.

Volunteerism is great, but it isn't an economic system.

And, Dawkins is a philosopher, so I'm not sure why you would mention him when discussing economics.

 

I agree entirely, that 'free money' is the most harmful thing you can do to a human being. It's utterly despicable, and NEVER comes from compassion, respect, or care. It comes from an altogether dark place. The same place that drives parents to sit kids in front of tvs with junk food, rather than get down on the floor and play with them.

As for the 'poor' starving, I'm inclined to agree. Some real hunger is sorely needed at this juncture. It's not a pretty cure, but then neither is chemotherapy. If we truly loved our fellows, we wouldn't hesitate to treat the 'cancer'.