The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 20 08:59PM -0700
> As technology increasingly makes workers obsolete, we should be
> looking to give everyone universal income, with the understand we are
> all entitled to food enough, shelter, and basic medical care.
1. Where does the money come from? Who's going to decide that we
should grow food rather than corn for ethanol? What if they decide that
it's immoral to grow meat? Or make candy?
2. Do the homeless get individual 3-bedroom homes or SRO rooms in a
high-rise? Do you want a "project" near your home? Are you willing to
pay for homeless people to live in better houses than you do?
3. How are we going to get enough medical care to provide DECENT care
for everyone?
We're already stealing doctors and nurses from other countries, and the
ones that are here are retiring or cutting back to a few days a week. I
have the luxury of being able to go elsewhere if I don't like a doctor,
but this is clearly not possible for everyone because there aren't
enough good doctors for everyone to have one and some people are just
too dumb to know the difference.
What DO we do with the surplus people who are no longer economically
productive? What do we do with the economically unproductive people
we're importing from third-world countries?
--
Cheers, Bev
"We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has
to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil)
|
Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Aug 20 09:50PM -0700
On 8/20/2016 8:59 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> What DO we do with the surplus people who are no longer economically
> productive? What do we do with the economically unproductive people
> we're importing from third-world countries?
And who are we to decide who is a productive member of society? Is
making money your only benchmark? How much? What do YOU do with people
YOU decide are surplus? Does retiring make you surplus? You are getting
into horror movie territory. I am sure the Koch brothers would be happy
to give us their "correct" answers. I hope they never get that opportunity.
Some people would say that immigrants are more productive than native
workers.
|
wilma6116@gmail.com: Aug 20 11:40PM -0700
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 8:59:18 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
> > looking to give everyone universal income, with the understand we are
> > all entitled to food enough, shelter, and basic medical care.
> 1. Where does the money come from?
Everyone gets $X amount of food stamps (enough for basic substance). If you are average earner, you'll get as much food as you are taxed. If you make more you'll be taxed more.
> Who's going to decide that we
> should grow food rather than corn for ethanol?
Common decency should be one factor determining.
> What if they decide that
> it's immoral to grow meat? Or make candy?
When has that happened? No one is deciding how you spend your food money.
> 2. Do the homeless get individual 3-bedroom homes or SRO rooms in a
> high-rise?
Shelter. Shelter, got it. Ain't no one going to be productive if they don't have a place to live.
Do you want a "project" near your home? Are you willing to
> pay for homeless people to live in better houses than you do?
Who said anything like that? Making up an argument where there is none? Look, Salt Lake City provided housing for its homeless. They wound up saving money by less hospital visits, less jail visits and some of the people able to stand up and get back on their feet. Look it up, plenty of articles on the subject.
> 3. How are we going to get enough medical care to provide DECENT care
> for everyone?
We do it now, anyway. If we provide preventative medicine, if we provide early diagnosis and treatment, we save a lot of money.
> What DO we do with the surplus people who are no longer economically
> productive? What do we do with the economically unproductive people
> we're importing from third-world countries?
I don't know. I'm not one to think we have "surplus people". I suppose we'll leave that type of thought to people like you.
As technology eliminates the need for labor, we are coming to a crossroad, we must determine if there are "surplus people" or if everyone is entitled to basic needs, without exception, without explanation and without judgement.
> Cheers, Bev
> "We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has
> to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil)
And I do make allowances. If you need more "slack", just ask, it's free, donchaknow?
|
fratermus <nntp2015.fratermus@spamgourmet.net>: Aug 21 06:43PM
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 12:42:51 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> When you can't distinguish the loons from the merely homeless, you have
> to assume that they're all loons.
True. And one could say the same about the general population.
|
fratermus <nntp2015.fratermus@spamgourmet.net>: Aug 21 07:06PM
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:24:41 -0700, wilma6116 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-7, fratermus wrote:
>> I do understand your point.
> I don't think you do.
It is possible to understand another's point without agreeing with it.
> My problem with blue tarp cities can be summed up by a few pictures.
> Look for pictures of the slums of Mumbai.
I am aware what they look like. I am not willing to try to control their
lives or cast (caste?) them out.
> Is this how we want to have a
> growing portion of our population to live?
Do we have control of how portions of our population live? If so, what
is to stop a majority from turning on the mortgaged and casting /us/ out?
> Will this become acceptable?
What I hope becomes acceptable is allowing others to live their own
lives, even if they are an eyesore.
1. repeal nanny state laws, including laws aimed at harrassing the
homeless and others the society doesn't like for whatever reason.
2. leave law-abiding folks alone
3. encourage and teach the unintentionally offending how to get right
with the communinty
4. take additional steps
> These encampments are breeding grounds for disease.
The suburbs are breeding grounds for obesity, heart disease, and
diabetes. Schools are breeding grounds for illness and lice. Get out
the bulldozer!
> They are fire
> hazards.
As are wood-shingled houses. Out with them!
> They instill a sense of hopelessness, that breeds crime and a
> lack of respect for others.
Like upside-down car loans and subprime credit mortgages?
I argue the intentionally homeless do not live in hopelessness. Those
that don't *want* to be homeless are the ones that live in hopelessness.
> The camps are ecological disasters,
> chemicals and waste is discarded easily as possible with out regards.
As are many home and storm drains. And Hummers and SUVs and big trucks.
And houses that waste power and water.
> And then it comes down to me, where I don't feel safe using public
> spaces, my property is not safe, I even have to make sure I don't dally
> putting my trash to the curb,
What if people in SUVs make me feel unsafe because they are heavy and
generally not designed with driving dynamics in mind? What if I feel if
driving a unnecessarily huge vehicle is, practically speaking, an
aggressive act?
I do not think legislation should be based on the fear of the
constituents.
> because the trash pickers will be coming
> on to my property to go through my containers and take what they find-
> trash or otherwise.
Sidewalk easements are generally not considered private property,
although the homeowners usually have to maintain them.
I have no problem with trash-pickers as long as they don't leave a mess.
Indeed, they are keeping materials out of the landfill and getting
further use out of items cast out by consumer society. I have put out
man useful items on my sidewalk easement and pickers take them away
quickly and with no drama.
> As technology increasingly makes workers obsolete, we should be looking
> to give everyone universal income, with the understand we are all
> entitled to food enough, shelter, and basic medical care.
I disagree, but I do understand your point. :-)
|
fratermus <nntp2015.fratermus@spamgourmet.net>: Aug 21 07:31PM
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:59:13 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> 1. Where does the money come from?
Taxpayers, or the Fed (making money (POOF!) in the reserve accounts of
whichever institution sells them tbills.
> Who's going to decide that we
> should grow food rather than corn for ethanol?
Well, congress has been putting their thumb on the scale in ethanol's
favor. Gotta keep midwesterners voting your way, amirite?
> What if they decide that
> it's immoral to grow meat? Or make candy?
I think it's more likely they'd say it's unhealthy. Therefore anyone who
partakes would have to pay a penalty under obamacare. As with smokers.
I will say that factory farming teeters on the edge of immorality. I
have raised my own animals for meat (chickens, rabbits, etc) so I am not
squeamish about butchering, but those factory animals have a craptastic
life.
> 2. Do the homeless get individual 3-bedroom homes or SRO rooms in a
> high-rise?
I would think lightweight shelters would be a good start.
In my area public transit provides lockable shelters for bicycles:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dickdavid/8461993280
I find it bizarre that we could provide these for free to protect a
bicycle but not a human. If built a bit differently it would be
practically rainproof, waterproof, etc. Lock it from the inside and you
don't get stabbed or your stuff stolen while you sleep.
> Do you want a "project" near your home?
I do not mind the presence of *any* law-abiding citizens. If folks start
acting wild (mortgaged or homeless) I call the cops.
> Are you willing to
> pay for homeless people to live in better houses than you do?
I am not sure that is what wilma is advocating. Some kind of baseline
minimal housing to keep people safe and out of the elements.
> 3. How are we going to get enough medical care to provide DECENT care
> for everyone?
By making *basic* medicine free (setting broken arms, appendicitis,
whatever, generic meds) and letting people buy fancy procedures and name-
brand Rx on their own.
> but this is clearly not possible for everyone because there aren't
> enough good doctors for everyone to have one and some people are just
> too dumb to know the difference.
Dunno about stealing. It's a market that responds like any other. And I
would argue it is not my job to protect the stupid from the repercussions
they bring onto themselves.
> What DO we do with the surplus people who are no longer economically
> productive?
Careful now, or you'll have an army of bluehairs and fat-ass walmart
scooter riders out for blood! Muh Beetus!
> What do we do with the economically unproductive people
> we're importing from third-world countries?
In general, first-generation immigrants consume fewer resources than
"natives".
nominally Conservative source:
http://www.cato.org/blog/cis-exaggerates-cost-immigrant-welfare-use
nominally Liberal source:
https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts
|
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 21 01:55PM -0700
On 08/20/2016 09:50 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> we're importing from third-world countries?
> And who are we to decide who is a productive member of society? Is
> making money your only benchmark? How much?
Can you support yourself without charity or governmental subsidy? Not
all that complex.
> What do YOU do with people
> YOU decide are surplus? Does retiring make you surplus?
See above. Did you pay into SS and Medicare? Those were extracted from
you on the assumption that you would get payback in retirement. Had my
mom invested her lifetime SS contributions in appropriate stocks she
would have been making far more than ~$3K/month in dividends.
> to give us their "correct" answers. I hope they never get that opportunity.
> Some people would say that immigrants are more productive than native
> workers.
Do you actually have a solution or are you just hoping that everything
will work out because people want to be nice?
--
Cheers, Bev
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
|
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 21 02:13PM -0700
> Everyone gets $X amount of food stamps (enough for basic substance).
> If you are average earner, you'll get as much food as you are taxed.
> If you make more you'll be taxed more.
I see. It rains down from heaven, provided by The Unicorns.
>> Who's going to decide that we should grow food rather than corn for
>> ethanol?
> Common decency should be one factor determining.
Again, unicorns. How are you going to ensure a sufficient supply of
common decency, assuming such actually exists?
>> candy?
> When has that happened? No one is deciding how you spend your food
> money.
But you're suggesting some sort of central authority that would make
these decisions. How would that work?
>> a high-rise?
> Shelter. Shelter, got it. Ain't no one going to be productive if they
> don't have a place to live.
Probably not. OTOH, how are the unskilled and mentally "challenged"
going to become productive? Ditch-digging used to be a viable low-skill
occupation, but then somebody invented machines that could do it better
and faster. Same with an increasing number of low-skill jobs.
> wound up saving money by less hospital visits, less jail visits and
> some of the people able to stand up and get back on their feet. Look
> it up, plenty of articles on the subject.
Around here developments are required to provide a certain percentage of
"affordable" units. The one currently in negotiation claims that the
"affordable" units will be the same as the regular ones, which means
that the regular tenants will be subsidizing the poorer ones. The
government might save money on these things, but at the expense of the
taxpaying public who are actually providing the subsidies.
>> care for everyone?
> We do it now, anyway. If we provide preventative medicine, if we
> provide early diagnosis and treatment, we save a lot of money.
No we don't. When was the last time a doctor actually FIXED your
problem? How many truly incompetent doctors have you met. In taking
elderly relatives and others to doctors, I've met a LOT -- one of whom
might have actually killed my husband had he not moved out of town,
enabling us to find a GOOD one purely by accident.
Preventive medicine is pretty much a crock. Don't smoke, exercise more,
eat less. Keep wounds clean. Don't do dumb shit. There, you've got
preventive medicine. You don't need a doctor for that. Been to an
Urgent Care installation recently? Even less competence there, but you
don't need an appointment to have them tell you -- after a reasonably
long wait -- that you need to go to the ER. Or that they'll give you a
band-aid. Or prescribe useless antibiotics.
>> unproductive people we're importing from third-world countries?
> I don't know. I'm not one to think we have "surplus people". I
> suppose we'll leave that type of thought to people like you.
I would have thought that, given your strong opinion, you had a viable
answer.
> crossroad, we must determine if there are "surplus people" or if
> everyone is entitled to basic needs, without exception, without
> explanation and without judgement.
Given the decreasing need for people, how do you feel about such
benefits being granted only to those who agree to be sterilized? I see
a difference between charity for those who are already here and
subsidizing the creation of more and more people who need charity.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
|
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 21 02:13PM -0700
On 08/21/2016 11:43 AM, fratermus wrote:
>> When you can't distinguish the loons from the merely homeless, you have
>> to assume that they're all loons.
> True. And one could say the same about the general population.
Indeed!
--
Cheers, Bev
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
|
wilma6116@gmail.com: Aug 21 04:42PM -0700
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
> > making money your only benchmark? How much?
> Can you support yourself without charity or governmental subsidy? Not
> all that complex.
So all those people who were good horse people should perish once the automobile took hold?
And those who'll be excellent space travelers should perish because their aptitude is not presently needed?
You would have us all remain at the present state without respect of just being human.
> you on the assumption that you would get payback in retirement. Had my
> mom invested her lifetime SS contributions in appropriate stocks she
> would have been making far more than ~$3K/month in dividends.
Or she might have invested in RCA and KMart, in which case she would destitute on the streets and she would have sold you for what the market would bear.
> Do you actually have a solution or are you just hoping that everything
> will work out because people want to be nice?
Because, we hang together or we hang separately.
|
wilma6116@gmail.com: Aug 21 04:44PM -0700
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:13:06 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
> > If you are average earner, you'll get as much food as you are taxed.
> > If you make more you'll be taxed more.
> I see. It rains down from heaven, provided by The Unicorns.
Might as well. Money has only the meaning we give it as a society. We all agree pieces of green paper has value. One day we may decide it has no value and marijuana seeds is the holder of value.
|
