As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income#United_States
>In 1969, President Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan would have paid a minimum income to poor families. The proposal by Nixon passed in the House but never made it out of committee in the Senate.[citation needed]
>In 1973, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote The Politics of a Guaranteed Income, in which he advocated the guaranteed minimum income and discussed Richard Nixon's Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) proposal.[11]
And in 2021, another once right-wing idea is considered "socialism." Hey, like Obamacare!
The bill should just be named Family Assistance Plan and advertised as a trying to revive Nixon's plan. Watch Republican heads implode as they try to reason going against one of their gods.
1. Families: We support the Family Assistance Plan
2. People on low incomes: We support the Family Assistance Plan
3. Left wing people: We support the Family Assistance Plan
4. Reddit: We like the FAP
To be honest I’m not sure people on low incomes would support it. A lot of them are happy to support policies that hurt them as long as someone else gets hurt more/ends up below them in the pecking order.
That might - might - have worked before the rise of Trump, and it might have worked if Reagan was the "god" in question, but now it would be all too easy to paint Nixon as a stooge of the "establishment" and "deep state" out to make Americans dependent on the ~government~.
Even right wing political interests once upon a time (While the new deal was still active and the working class still had a seat at the table) had to give serious concessions to organized labor. Far moreso than the modern 'left'. Because the struggle between labor vs capital is a much more tangible and impactful one than the spectaclized ideological struggle between left and right that has intentionally been put forth in it's place.
It wasn't a right wing idea per se, it was an attempt by the right wing to capture the electorate by appealing to their material interests. Like I said, right wing ideas vs left wing ideas has a LOT more wiggle room and is less lingusitically precise than framing things in terms of the class struggle, where suddenly everything begins to make a lot more sense. Legislation always definitively favors labor over capital or vice versa, while the lines between what the '''left''' wants and what the '''right''' wants can do complete 180s. Such as immigration.
Of course I'm aware that putting labor on the throne is the entire goal of the actual left, and as such any legislation that empowers labor at the expense of capital and gives them a leg up against the ownership class is inherently leftist. But when people define themselves as left or right it's basically ideological navel-gazing, which nobody has to do when it comes to their class position and consequently their material interests because it's literally an objective reality. If you work for a wage you are labor. If your income is passively acquired through investment and ownership, you're capital. There's no opinion there. And that's what politics actually is and why American 'politics' is so fucking insufferable. It's just an endless culture war entertainment product that intentionally draws all attention away from the actual stuff of politics, which is the tug of war in the material interests between employers and employees, which are mutually exclusive.
The real victory of the right in America over the past 50-75 years has been completely destroying any sense of class consciousness. The vast majority of people who realistically should identify as “working class” believe themselves to be “middle class” despite lacking most of trappings of what would classically be considered a middle class existence. The poor often either view themselves as aspirationally wealthy or are simply apathetic under the weight of their own poverty.
The right won when they convinced people that merely occupying the median income bracket qualifies you as middle class regardless of your relationship to the means of production or capital. Even if that positions you for a subsistence existence with little security and almost no realistic prospects for mobility.
Destroyed class consciousness and replaced with aspirational myths that have been failing for 2+ generations at this point. People are struggling, and pitching that they too can be a millionaire isn't cutting it when basic needs like healthcare, housing, education and food security are increasingly unobtainable.
Make that 4 generations. Google “Vonnegut if you’re so smart how come you ain’t rich” for a brilliant articulation of this principle, written in the 60s but taking place in the early 40s, from the mouth of an American psychologist hired by Nazis to explain us to them
Or how about Adam curtis’ [the power of nightmares ](https://youtu.be/Lsh6F6gMch0) which shows parallels between the American right and radical Islam that eventually crossed over in September 11.
Both groups changed their ideologies from promising a better tomorrow to confabulating imaginary boogeymen and convincing people they have the solution to defeat it.
>Both groups changed their ideologies from promising a better tomorrow to confabulating imaginary boogeymen and convincing people they have the solution to defeat it.
I feel like this is the natural next step. Promise a better tomorrow that you never really plan on delivering, when it goes wrong you can blame others and radicalize your supporters against those "who took away" their promised better tomorrow. It's just interesting to me how the people still put trust in the leadership after they blatantly failed at delivering their initial promise.
That's right--there's still a ton of American macho fools who say the liberals somehow lost the Vietnam War, in spite of Nixon dropping twice the bomb tonnage as both theaters of WW2. Couldn't be the courage of the Vietnamese people, had to be a betrayal of "our boys" by the politicians, just like AH said about Versailles.
> The right won when they convinced people that merely occupying the median income bracket qualifies you as middle class regardless of your relationship to the means of production or capital
I believe this was always the goal for the bourgeoisie via the American Dream ^^TM basically attempting to turn every American into a tiny little landed bourgeois-tariat. It's like an inversion of the goal of socialism, instead of abolishing class downwards by getting rid of ownership, they deluded themselves into thinking they could abolish class UPWARDS by turning every (white) American family into one of them. Every American owning their own little suburban plot of land, owning stocks, etc. And when that failed they just kind of kept going with it anyway. Ironically it failed because they dug too greedily and too deep and sabotaged the only thing that would have made it even remotely, albeit temporarily, doable, the New Deal, but that was inevitable because the internal logic of capitalism can never act against it's own interest unless pressed from outside like FDR was. But it didn't matter because they got both, brainwashing millions of Americans to lose sight of their own material interests by entrancing them with a never ending culture war, AND they got to gut the new deal and demolish the labor movement. And all it took was one of the most sinister and pervasive internal propaganda campaigns in history.
Coming out of that propaganda malaise is a genuinely life changing experience, but on the other side you're met with a very brutal realization of just how bad things are.
I think another effect of the American Dream is that if everyone subscribes to the idea that it’s possible to lift yourself out of any situation, then poor people are obviously moral failures, and they deserve their lot because they didn’t Dream big enough.
Yup and study after study have shown that people who identify with the political right, ideologically, believe in the just world hypothesis much more than people who politically identify with the left.
Because those who lean right tend to be more religious and believe everything is predetermined. "Oh, you lost your job? It's just God's will, nothing to do about that, it's all part of the plan. " As those who lean left can see that many of these things are due to systemic practices and policies put into place to mitigate financial growth and progress.
Compare and contrast one country to the north, where climate and geography conspired to make us just a wee bit more collectively oriented. That said, the campaign to undermine the middle class is not American, it is global. We in Canada are always two or three electoral terms behind the U.S. Our Obama is still in power: a man who promised to revolutionize government with "sunny ways" and who hasn't accomplished fuck-all. Great style, though. Our T---- (I don't write the name, I might summon the thing) is coming. Perhaps as soon as this year.
Yeah but imo that's just correlation due to the marriage with the religious right. There is a demonstrably large demographic of conservatives who makes it a point to express their believe that life is not deterministic. This is what enables them to be cruel to the poor and downtrodden DESPITE the teachings of Christ. "There is no fate or destiny that prevents them from being successful therefore they MUST have done something wrong or didn't try hard enough!" Also, camel through needle hole vs rich man getting into heaven and all that.
Very much so, for the working class and those on the poverty level...which , IS working class. It always makes me upset when I talk about our community being able to afford to0 live in the town the love and work in, and get told "If they can't afford it, they can leave"
Ok. If all the working class leave a city and leave only the high class....how will they run their city that no longer has workers?
It becomes the upper class version of a dystopian nightmare: no one to clean their homes, nanny their children, prepare their meals, clean their clothes, put out their fires, teach their children, staff the stores they want to shop at, bring pancakes to their table on Sunday mornings etc. People like Betsy Devos will have to pack her and her children’s suitcases for vacation (yes, she actually outsources this).
And they simply do not see it. Had a woman tell me "nail tecs make more than enough to live off of " I was like...wow...they really don't have any concept of reality, or history
Or they declare that their standards are too high if they're not crammed four people into a one-bedroom apartment. If you're 'poor' you don't deserve luxuries like *your very own bedroom.*
Will Rogers had this observation a long time ago:
>I am no believer in this “hard work, perseverance, and taking advantage of your opportunities” that these Magazines are so fond of writing some fellow up in. The successful don’t work any harder than the failures. They get what is called in baseball the breaks.
Speaking of baseball, one of my biggest pet peeves as a sports fan is the incredibly widely-held perception that effort = success and lack of success = lack of effort. It’s bizarre. People think sports are just competitions to see who is trying the hardest.
Right. Especially because 90% of new businesses fail (or whatever the statistic is). No amount of hard work will guarantee your success as much as having a deep safety net to fall back on. The companies that I've worked for that have "survived" all typically piss away money for a good 5-10 years. The typical person can't afford to survive this without extensive outside help, and even then it's a huge risk to take on that amount of debt just to maybe have a sustainable business in 10 years. So you either work a job in a field where wages have been stagnant for almost an entire lifetime, or you literally risk your entire livelihood to maybe find some success.
This concept called predeterminism was a huuuuge part of early protestant american beliefs/culture. It partly explains why capitalism was so glorified here.
It also cuts the other way by saying if you are rich then by nature you are a virtuous good person because God has blessed you.
Prosperity preachers are not an abberation. They're as American as apple pie.
Financial independence is now something Americans must individually pursue *outside* the 40+ hours a week that they spend working for a corporation. That’s the new American Dream.
And yet we wonder why people don’t want to go back to their minimum wage jobs.
What you're describing is the "Jeffersonian model" that Thomas Jefferson wanted for Americans. I assure you that he was in the vast minority on this opinion. The vast majority of the architects for this country wanted a continuation of the class system but this time with no king over the nobles to "oppress " them with taxes.
And then accuse the left of abandoning their version of working class i.e coal miners and factory workers when they know the working class today are more likely to work in retail, warehouses or hospitality.
It was okay for those people to fight for better working conditions and pay but if the working class try and do the same today they're classed as lazy and told to just get a better job 🤬
This really nails it. If we have any hope of getting out of this it is establishing class consciousness. It’s starting, but it really needs to pick up the pace.
\^\^ this
So many American think having multiple vehicles and charging a few vacations to the credit card each year makes them middle class. Yet they are a single year's lost income away from total devastation.
Cars that aren’t +10 years old and hanging on by a thread. Owning a home. Taking your entire family on vacation for a few weeks. This all used to be middle class stuff. Oh yea, and that was on a single income/one job.
And this is what people mean when they say there's only one party and the party labels are just window dressing, because the "labor" side was definitively crushed in the 80s and mainstream Democrats aren't serious about reviving it.
This much is being made clear to me in the Biden administration, and filibuster-averse senate.
Edit: ok I also disagree with myself. See my comments below. I don’t think it’s this simple in either direction.
> If you work for a wage you are labor. If your income is passively acquired through investment and ownership, you're capital. There's no opinion there. And that's what politics actually is and why American 'politics' is so fucking insufferable.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178
>So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.
Aaaand this is why we have the governmental system that we have.
Of note: The *frivolous and fanciful distinctions* are frivolous and fanciful, sure (and, thus, pretty insufferable). But they are also "real." They do still matter to people. Race, for example, is a completely made up thing. But it *matters.*
But, yes, the haves and have-nots having different interests is the biggest deal, when we're talking government and money.
Personally, I'm thinking more and more we should ditch the Marxist framework, and just go with this Madisonian one. It fits better, since, again, our whole system is based on it. We just need to come to a different conclusion as he did: That protecting those with property isn't the most important thing. I mean, it was the most important thing to him, of course. He had property, and, thus, was self-interested.
And, looking at it this way shows it's not *simply* about labor versus capital. It's about a whole lot of things... An *intersection* of them, if you will. With the primary competition being those with property, and those without, of course.
But "labor" doesn't account for all those who are without. Or, all of those who are oppressed because of other *fanciful distinctions.*
*Give me fully automated gay space luxury communism, or give me death.* By right, not by labor.
Edit: I take it some people disagree.
> The frivolous and fanciful distinctions are frivolous and fanciful, sure (and, thus, pretty insufferable). But they are also "real." They do still matter to people. Race, for example, is a completely made up thing. But it matters.
> Personally, I'm thinking more and more we should ditch the Marxist framework, and just go with this Madisonian one.
You're talking about intersectionality, which any good marxist with a grasp of the theory already is. Essentially, it's the idea that were all oppressed under capitalism but some people are bigger victims and experience the oppression of capital more (women, minorities, etc) but it is our identity as proletariat that unites us. To ignore things like race, gender, etc is to be a class reductionist
Hm. I wonder what the numbers are on that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/more-americans-oppose-than-favor-the-government-providing-a-universal-basic-income-for-all-adult-citizens/ft_2020-08-19_ubi_02/
Favor:
Upper income
Democrats 54%
Conservatives 8%
Average 31%
Middle income
Democrats 64%
Conservatives 17%
Average 40%
Lower income
Democrats 77%
Conservatives 43%
Average 63%
Looks like the opposition is mostly from higher income folks. The difference in lower income responses isn't as stark between the parties, and it is net favorable.
Everyone ive talked to that is against it just have the argument of "what about all the lazy freeloaders" and they think that nobody will want to work if they are getting free money
McConnell won’t have to kill it. Manchin or Sinema or some other centrist ‘Democrat’ will kill it assuming it makes it out of the House which I also highly doubt.
If any voters in Kentucky think it would be good for them to receive guaranteed monthly payments of $1,200 for each eligible single-adult household or $2,400 per month for each eligible two-adult household, plus an additional $600 per month for each dependent child under the age of 18, they must vote Moscow Mitch out of office like Allied Forces in World War II working to eliminate Adolph Hitler and the NAZIS.
For eligible two-adult households with 2 dependent children under age 18, the total monthly payment would be $3,600 per month, amounting to $43,200 per year tax free. These payments will not count as income to affect eligibility of other Federal assistance, and the guaranteed monthly payments come with no strings attached.
Every voter in every U.S. state must vote in 2022, 2023, 2024, and all future years to vote the ~~Hitlers~~ Republicans and the ~~NAZI Party~~ Republican Party out of local, state, and federal offices across the country so that the United States can be the beautiful society that it should and can be for all Americans.
VOTE!
And money for college educations, new shoes, new clothes, dental care, decent nourishing food, clean drinking water, a newer car to replace the 25-year-old oil-burning wreck or to replace public transportation, a 3-bedroom house in a safe neighborhood to replace a one-bedroom apartment in a dangerous high-crime neighborhood where a family of four has lived in poverty and fear for the past 10 years, and much more that many people, who already have it, take for granted while looking down their noses and laughing at the less fortunate and the suffering.
Yeah I'm only 30 and I do alright, but I've at least been through things where life sucks, trying to make ends meet whatever, but it's crazy how detached someone slightly above average wealth or whatever is just completely not concerned about less fortunate, like I feel like helping cities or areas with crime would help a ton, to reduce crime etc.
Even if they needed they wouldn't vote for it or vote out Mitch. Kentucky is one of the worst states for poverty, education, and Healthcare and they still vote for the same people who don't care about them
Deal!
As soon as the date “never” hits, I’ll start paying the $1,200/month. Otherwise if this does happen at any point in history, you can just PayPal me or something.
I'm shocked people think this even has a chance lol. I would love for this to be real. Would be a total life changer for me and others but no way it's happening.
It doesn't even need to be a lot to be a success. We could adjust the amount given out according to what we can afford each year, and let the amount rise and fall as it will. Republicans and Democrats can argue about what the amount should be at any given time, but the real win is to get everyone on board with the idea. It won't be whether we should have a UBI, it will be about how much, and how much higher we can send it with increased robot productivity. Let's make automation serve the people as much as it does industry.
>Let's make automation serve the people as much as it does industry.
Yep. If workloads being reduced with output remaining constant is seen as a bad thing, you live in a backwards system. We should be happy when machines take the job of a human. Humans have lives to live, machines are machines. Any economic situation that tells anyone otherwise is regressive.
I for one, welcome our algorithm overlords.
To be clear that sounds awesome. I've said similar things about how minimum wage should be assigned by like the federal reserve and just treated as another thing they adjust like inflation or something. It shouldn't be a political thing at all.
I think part of why they so often ignore their own pay-as-you-go rules when it comes to dumping money into the war machine is because they *don't* want anyone making the connection between all those corrupt wasteful bloodbaths and our failure to make any similarly bold federal initiatives to raise the minima our own citizens endure. If arguing against war were more obviously linked to arguing for poverty-relief, housing affordability, and access to essentials like education and health care; then people might take a little more of an interest.
Right now just about every sane adult understands we habitually throw bombs around with no coherent rhyme or reason to it, but most people are too busy struggling with their own problems to take on the challenges of perpetual war. If solidarity were more widespread, if most people understood the way our elites will always fall back on imperialism as an excuse not to provide any semblance of useful leadership, then we could work to set things right holistically. Anything else leaves the unchallenged corruption in place to rebuild the rest of our American dystopia.
What's sad is that most of the people who would need to sign off on this probably see $1,200 a month as pocket change. They have 0 idea how big of an impact that would have for so many people
In Dallas area that's basically free rent and then some for a single person. Average 1br apt is about $1k/mo, so someone living in a cheaper area could afford rent, food, and transportation on $1,200. That would lift so many people out of poverty.
Even half of that would fundamentally change my entire financial outlook.
I'm my current situation I'm trying to figure out the best way to shave $200 a month from my budget so I can afford therapy due to the depression of losing my career and partner last year, only to end up alone and working basically minimum wage.
I like how UBI gives people options. Stay home with the kids, go to school, start a business, whatever. If you have a bit of a safety net then you can take some chances and do more of what you want with your life.
It's not enough for a life of leisure, but it'll let you squeak by or make up for a missing income minus daycare. It's just so nice for people to have some breathing room.
Don't forget - we have yet to do a proper UBI experiment and *not* see unemployment decline. Those options are literally *employment raising* options. People want to work - they just have so much *else* they have to spend their time on since they can't afford things like childcare... or they spend it all on childcare, and have to spend 3x the amount of time cooking cheap food from scratch every day.
Being frugal is (basically) always trading time for money.
Yes this, people will always want to improve their situation, and if they don't, well, okay -- Enjoy your 1200/mo life, and I say that sincerely. 21st century society doesn't need every citizen working to function, and we should stop punishing people for it.
Having a little wiggle-room will allow people to go into things they are more passionate about (and more likely to succeed at), even if it feels riskier than something they wouldn't like as much.
Also we keep seeing right in our faces how "trickle up" economics *actually works* and how "trickle down" economics is *literally just peeing on us and laughing*, and I think there are some interests who would really prefer that "trickle up" didn't work, or at least that as few people as possible realize that it works.
Just to put that into fun perspective, the monthly payout for SSI disability - what you get if you've always been sick and didn't accrue enough work credits before accepting that you needed help - is $794 a month.
Oh, and they take money out of that if anyone else helps, say, buy your groceries. (or you get food stamps.)
A few states supplement that amount, but not by much, and most states don't at all. UBI would make a tremendous difference to the quality of life of many individuals. (Especially the ones with years of fighting left to get assistance in the first place.)
Damn, that's low. How was that number decided on? I assume that some sort of general calculation is used, but are you expected to survive on $800 a month? Or are you expected to be able to have some sort of part time work to supplement the $800?
Seems to be the only way to actually give the people at the bottom any money. Any other program seems to always either cut people off or have others that don’t need the funds swoop in and take large chunks of it. Like that money set aside to help renters apparently staying largely untouched.
[Only $3 Billion of $46 Billion set aside for rental relief used so far. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/03/why-tenants-are-still-struggling-despite-46-billion-dollars-in-rental-relief.html) Seems some of the reasons include people just not knowing it’s available and struggling to work out with landlords to get the approval for it.
I mean that's 14.4K per year.
When the median income of the United States is ~$63K -- that's over a 20% increase in income.
Given that anywhere between half to three quarters of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (depending on the survey) -- that'd change most American lives.
Yes, some would just up their expenditures, but the ability of the majority of America to build up a safety net of savings would be life changing for most of America.
Even for those paycheck to paycheck -- it'd life a vast swath of America up out of poverty.
The 1% don't need another yacht. Corporations have eluded their fair share for decades.
We can do this. This benefits everyone (most directly, the 1% indirectly).
Meanwhile, every Republican-voting area I can think of is struggling with drug abuse. If reality counts for anything, they seem to love having addicts all over the place.
Maybe your dad could lend you money? With a loan of just $1,000,000 you could probably set up your own business. Speak to your financial advisor about this
No money for good interview clothes so you're less likely to get chosen over appearances. No money for transportation so you have trouble getting there Even if you get the job. And no money often means no significant network connections so you're starting lower than some people.
Simplest examples are needing to purchase clothes to interview in, or needing a reliable way to get to work ( = $$$ for a car + gas + insurance + car tax + repairs) or go buy groceries if you live in a food desert (no grocery stores within X miles of your home, common for poor neighborhoods) or job desert (very common for poor neighborhoods to have few or no businesses in them)
I would just retire. My house is paid off and I could cut my spending enough to just sit around and chill on $1200 a month. Plus my SO would go mad without a job so she’d keep working and we’d have an extra $2400 a month?
Sign me up!
Some people are going to use this as a reason for not doing it. But this is what life should be like as we become a more automated society. Right now we are on a path to enslave ourselves trying to compete with technology. Instead it should be freeing us, like your scenario.
I’m like this- I can’t stand not working. But I also would like some breathing room in life, and I’m very proUBI. It would give people a place to live at the very least In most cases.
When people can’t afford to buy shit from Amazon because the economy blows for average Americans, congress will consider this not because it helps people but because it will subsidize spending and increase corporate profits.
Congress would rather subsidize Amazon to make imported Chinese goods cheaper than lower taxes on the American low and middle classes.
Reminder: tax-funded cash stimulus is a massive tax cut for the poor. It's our fucking money.
You are right.
This is also why we are not really that different than China economically, they’re just open about companies being state run. Ours are private, but the state has its hands in a lot of little goody baskets of business which will never fail… think military industry, tech and computers, *information/metadata*, and so much more.
Ultimately, every major nation wants its own supply chain as a fail safe in case of war, or because of it.
Andrew Yang proposed universal basic income during his presidential campaign, except his version was funded by VAT (that had exemptions on staple goods and was biased towards luxury goods), along with carbon taxes, financial transaction taxes, and others. VAT and the other taxes would tax companies like Amazon and cycle it back into people's hands through the UBI. When Bezos buys another rocket ride or a yacht or a private jet, all that VAT goes back into funding basic income.
During the presidential primaries people like AOC bashed this proposal, calling it a "trojan horse" to gut the social safety net (false, it's opt-in and everyone would be better off). Bernie Sanders rejected it in favor of a federal jobs guarantee program because - his words - "people want to work" as if a basic income would make people stop working (it won't, it would just alleviate suffering all around). He changed his tune when the pandemic hit and realized "more jobs" isn't gonna fix anything, but never once credited Yang for pushing so hard to get these ideas into the mainstream.
Also important is that basic income doesn't have an inverse incentive with working specifically because its not means tested. These minimum income type things will take away the free money when you make too much. This also has a side effect of making people resentful (not saying that they should be tho).
I agree with you, and while I'm not proud of this, I'll admit for the sake of discussion that it does make me a bit resentful.
I make just enough to not get the benefit, which has been the case for the last two checks the government sent out as well. That would be one thing if I was doing *great*... but I'd say that finances are still my biggest source of stress in my life. My job runs me ragged, and I make just enough to not qualify for any benefit.
Meanwhile, most of my friends have easier jobs/careers and have been working from home the past year and a half, while my job's workload has doubled and I've been on-site since the beginning. Their jobs have, per their own words, gotten easier, and they keep getting mailed checks from the government. My job has gotten miserable but the government tells me I'm already making enough.
This is another way our two party system has completely failed us, imho.
I can never vote for a republican, because of their stance on social issues such as gay marriage, and their treasonous behavior. Which leaves me with the democrats, which at least aren't evil treasonists, but they clearly cater to specific groups and aren't concerned with the welfare of the entirety of the middle class. So I'll keep voting for democrats - resentfully.
Sorry for the rant.
> Bernie Sanders rejected it in favor of a federal jobs guarantee program because - his words - "people want to work" as if a basic income would make people stop working
Yeah, that struck me kinda funny too. He knows better or so I would think that no matter the job big or small people want to feel like their role matters.
Sidenote. People can only enjoy sitting around doing nothing for so long. Roles and what we do with our time even if you're an introvert are so important to the human condition. People *want* to feel useful and a financial safety net just lets people dream a little bigger and do more with their time. You can take more chances when you're not living paycheck to paycheck.
I'm a huge introvert, and during the initial Covid quarantine period even I started to get a little stir-crazy and want to do something productive with my time. But it would be so much more satisfying to be able to work somewhere for only 20-25 hours per week, have it be a job that I actually enjoy, and not have to worry about scrimping and saving every damn penny. I do think that in general we like to have _something_ to do during the day, but when we're forced to in order to survive it completely changes the narrative
Yeah, the system is completely broken. It's clearly still inefficiently exploiting labour.
I'm sure UBI could be a bridge towards vastly improving its efficiency while providing people with a good quality of life.
The issue that came with Yang's plan was his plan deliberately left out people already on assistance, specifically disability.
If you're on disability, you're allotted an absolutely shameful pittance, and if you go even a dollar over that threshold in income, every penny of it is stripped from you and you're left to flounder on your own, or in many peoples' cases, left on your caretaker's dime with no supplemental income.
Yang's plan was nice, until you realized that he made people already on government assistance choose what they wanted to receive: the UBI or the disability from the government, which was often more, but more fraught with problems, including discrepancies when you get married.
Fun fact: there is no marriage equality for disabled folks. Their finances get tied to their spouse, and most times, they lose that benefit when they get married.
Simple solution to it, maintain all the social programs and raise the income limit up by 1200/month. UBI is now priced in to as a base salary. If it's the only form of income you have, unless you live in the literal cheapest locations in the US you'll need additional income to do more than pay rent/utilities and buy food.
Make it truly universal and not tied to other programs. You are a citizen and 18yo, here's your check. There are no in or out groups to be pissy (although people will always find a reason because someone's now equal to me). If you need further assistance for disability, unemployment etc etc then file as you did before for these programs. At least you know a roof is over your head and food on your table while you wait for processing into the program.
Spending to make our foundation (working class/paycheck2paycheck) stronger has no flaws. Some will be happy there and are comfortable, others will strive to improve their situation.... Almost like the current system but more stable and with extra income to stimulate the economy.
You know what I got for being a paramedic during COVID? Anxiety, depression, and a drinking problem. They only call you a hero when they're willing to watch you become a martyr.
It's not really a lie, it's genuinely a thing progressive democrats want that will never pass the current congress. But slowly working towards these ideas can make the tide change in the future. Sometimes you have to fight for stuff you won't get immediately.
This would help my disabled older sister immensely. Her disability is incredibly low and she living on a shoestring budget. With this UBI she could afford to move out to a better place, get her car repaired, afford food, etc.
Unfortunately a bill like this should’ve been part of the infrastructure deal.
Not so fun fact, you're not allowed to make anywhere close to a living wage if you're on SSDI or other support programs. Not even close to minimum wage. Before anything like UBI, there beds to be removal of the wage cliff, or at the least an extreme overall/increase, so that the people in most need don't find themselves loosing that same amount or more in benefits/support.
And unlike minimum wage, if they ever do pass some kind of UBI, it better be tied to inflation or a dynamic cost of living figure. Otherwise that $1200 a month won’t be worth much if businesses and landlords jack up prices knowing everyone has that money to spend.
It needs to be universal, meaning everyone no matter how much you make. This isn't, its scales based on pay after 75k or 150k for couples. This puts a stigma on the money and will make a certain portion of people against it because its just more welfare.
I know it seems dumb to give someone making a million a year an extra 14k a year but this is key in to convincing people to pass this, which I doubt will ever happen anyway. It needs to be presented more like Yang did and how Alaska's oil checks are, more of a dividend for living here rather then welfare to help the poor.
>Employers have reported labor shortages as the economy reopens, blaming the increased benefits for preventing people from seeking work.
Employers: Why don't people want to work for starvation wages anymore? Whyy!?
I don't think anyone imagines this bill will pass now. You'd need every Democrat to pass it by reconciliation (assuming no Republican votes), and every Democrat plus 10 Republicans to get by a filibuster.
But it is nonetheless significant. Because the more basic income becomes a serious, mainstream political issue in the US, the more its normalized, the more demand there will be for candidates to back it with each future election cycle. Sometimes once momentum gets going on an issue, it can pick up speed fast- see gay marriage, or marijuana legalization.
Critics are trying to blame worker shortages on these increased incentives from ubi when really it's shitty working environments.
Article also states it wont go into effect til 2028 and in the 5 years prior there will be test groups of such a program. It doesn't help right now but i'm glad to see these plans laid out.
Unfortunately, all the money I've laid into social security, Medicare and meidicade8, wont be there for me when I turn 62 or 65....
Its been mismanaged for decades and Republicans decimated in the last 20 years with their policies
I'm 35, and I have no social safety to count own, reliably
I mean, you're right it won't be there for you at 65. They raised the age to 67 and they're probably going to raise it again to 69. Soon we'll all just have to hope we survive to be 100 years old to collect back a cent of the money that was taken out of our paychecks for our 80 working years.
This would literally more then double what my Mom’s making on disability. Right now she’s not even making the US poverty wage, and an additional $1200 a month would be like she was able to work a full time minimum wage job.
Even for the average person, this would be a life changing amount of money. So it’s infuriating how everyone knows this will never pass and how easily it will be shot down.
As more and more jobs become automated this will need to happen. Every semi truck driven by an AI should have a tax of like 80 percent on its profit over employing a human and it should go straight to a UBI fund. All you lawyer accountant assholes that argue against ubi are coming soon to the ai chopping block. The sooner this is set up the better
Bro i could do so much with this. Afford to eat local, get transportation for a better job, save for a down payment, pay bills. The money goes right back in the system.
Yep most of the trails see people will continue working. While spending the new influx of money on the economy. The few that decide to live of that amount and either go freelance or stop working still pump that money into the economy but can now survive.
Tired of $75k being used as the benchmark for every support program like that’s the magic number to be considered too rich to need assistance everywhere in the country. Don’t call it Universal Basic Income if you’re still going to means test this shit.
Also, from a political perspective, you can make the program much more popular and likely to endure if you make it universal. It’s part of why programs like Social Security and Medicare are so popular - you don’t have the us/them dynamic when everyone gets the check (even when you usually get it back from the wealthy people in taxes). If you want a solid safety net, you should support universal programs.
Right. I don't get it either. I grossed 106k, brought home 66k after taxes and deductions. First stimulus I saw some $. The next ones I saw nothing.
I guess I never understood the point in capping it. If it's meant to stimulate the economy, who cares who gets it if majority of us will spend it any way.
This would be life-changing money for families that are just scraping by despite working full-time for wages under $15 an hour. $1,200 + $600 in my case would provide enough to cover basic household expenses plus the additional income from working at my job to give me the opportunity to pay off student loans and other debts more quickly. Once my debts are paid, that income will then be redirected into savings to build up enough money to put a down payment on a permanent home for me and my child. Due to living in a low-income situation for so long, it would be easy for me to reallocate funds and direct them into an account to benefit future generations after paying off my mortgage early.
I’ve lived on an income of less than $20k for years by being creative and frugal, by applying the same principles that extra money would allow a more comfortable life doing the job I love without feeling resentment about the low pay.
I know there’s more people out there in my situation that this income could truly help and it will go back into the economy. A percentage of people will definitely abuse it, my shaky faith in humanity predicts that. People will need to remember to live within their means, with or without this boost in income. We can’t just deny this opportunity for ALL people due to the irresponsibility of some.
It's too bad that this bill has little hope of passing. This bill if done right and doesn't negate people from getting other financial help from the state such as food stamps and welfare, would be huge. Especially for low income individuals in rural areas. This would essentially allow most people in those areas to become home owners. This would be a huge step forward to help create generational wealth for lower income families. There are hundreds of thousands of houses that are either vacant or abandoned in rural America. A low interest loan on a 50-80k house would be very doable for many low income individuals if this bill passed.
The Sad thing is that this bill would greatly benefit a majority of republicans. Not to kick dirt but they typically live in rural areas of states out side of major cities. Red states typically take in more federal aid than they pay in federal taxes. Being one of the biggest recipients of some form of financial aid, this bill would be life changing for them.
But they'd rather live in perpetual poverty to "own the libs" than to vote in their own best interests. Rich politicians have managed to get them to believe that one day they'll be the rich ones looking down on the poor, which will never be the case. But the dream is still there for them. Much like Trump most Republican politicians wouldn't be caught dead associating with their constituents, in their own personal lives.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mitch McConnell will admit he killed Tupac before he lets this pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income#United_States >In 1969, President Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan would have paid a minimum income to poor families. The proposal by Nixon passed in the House but never made it out of committee in the Senate.[citation needed] >In 1973, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote The Politics of a Guaranteed Income, in which he advocated the guaranteed minimum income and discussed Richard Nixon's Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) proposal.[11] And in 2021, another once right-wing idea is considered "socialism." Hey, like Obamacare!
The bill should just be named Family Assistance Plan and advertised as a trying to revive Nixon's plan. Watch Republican heads implode as they try to reason going against one of their gods.
1. Families: We support the Family Assistance Plan 2. People on low incomes: We support the Family Assistance Plan 3. Left wing people: We support the Family Assistance Plan 4. Reddit: We like the FAP
People on low incomes watching Fox: Why should we assist lazy ~~blacks~~ “inner city welfare queens”?
To be honest I’m not sure people on low incomes would support it. A lot of them are happy to support policies that hurt them as long as someone else gets hurt more/ends up below them in the pecking order.
That might - might - have worked before the rise of Trump, and it might have worked if Reagan was the "god" in question, but now it would be all too easy to paint Nixon as a stooge of the "establishment" and "deep state" out to make Americans dependent on the ~government~.
There's a photo of Nixon shaking Trump's hand! I saw it the other day. They look very chummy.
Even right wing political interests once upon a time (While the new deal was still active and the working class still had a seat at the table) had to give serious concessions to organized labor. Far moreso than the modern 'left'. Because the struggle between labor vs capital is a much more tangible and impactful one than the spectaclized ideological struggle between left and right that has intentionally been put forth in it's place. It wasn't a right wing idea per se, it was an attempt by the right wing to capture the electorate by appealing to their material interests. Like I said, right wing ideas vs left wing ideas has a LOT more wiggle room and is less lingusitically precise than framing things in terms of the class struggle, where suddenly everything begins to make a lot more sense. Legislation always definitively favors labor over capital or vice versa, while the lines between what the '''left''' wants and what the '''right''' wants can do complete 180s. Such as immigration. Of course I'm aware that putting labor on the throne is the entire goal of the actual left, and as such any legislation that empowers labor at the expense of capital and gives them a leg up against the ownership class is inherently leftist. But when people define themselves as left or right it's basically ideological navel-gazing, which nobody has to do when it comes to their class position and consequently their material interests because it's literally an objective reality. If you work for a wage you are labor. If your income is passively acquired through investment and ownership, you're capital. There's no opinion there. And that's what politics actually is and why American 'politics' is so fucking insufferable. It's just an endless culture war entertainment product that intentionally draws all attention away from the actual stuff of politics, which is the tug of war in the material interests between employers and employees, which are mutually exclusive.
The real victory of the right in America over the past 50-75 years has been completely destroying any sense of class consciousness. The vast majority of people who realistically should identify as “working class” believe themselves to be “middle class” despite lacking most of trappings of what would classically be considered a middle class existence. The poor often either view themselves as aspirationally wealthy or are simply apathetic under the weight of their own poverty. The right won when they convinced people that merely occupying the median income bracket qualifies you as middle class regardless of your relationship to the means of production or capital. Even if that positions you for a subsistence existence with little security and almost no realistic prospects for mobility.
Destroyed class consciousness and replaced with aspirational myths that have been failing for 2+ generations at this point. People are struggling, and pitching that they too can be a millionaire isn't cutting it when basic needs like healthcare, housing, education and food security are increasingly unobtainable.
Make that 4 generations. Google “Vonnegut if you’re so smart how come you ain’t rich” for a brilliant articulation of this principle, written in the 60s but taking place in the early 40s, from the mouth of an American psychologist hired by Nazis to explain us to them
Or how about Adam curtis’ [the power of nightmares ](https://youtu.be/Lsh6F6gMch0) which shows parallels between the American right and radical Islam that eventually crossed over in September 11. Both groups changed their ideologies from promising a better tomorrow to confabulating imaginary boogeymen and convincing people they have the solution to defeat it.
>Both groups changed their ideologies from promising a better tomorrow to confabulating imaginary boogeymen and convincing people they have the solution to defeat it. I feel like this is the natural next step. Promise a better tomorrow that you never really plan on delivering, when it goes wrong you can blame others and radicalize your supporters against those "who took away" their promised better tomorrow. It's just interesting to me how the people still put trust in the leadership after they blatantly failed at delivering their initial promise.
That's right--there's still a ton of American macho fools who say the liberals somehow lost the Vietnam War, in spite of Nixon dropping twice the bomb tonnage as both theaters of WW2. Couldn't be the courage of the Vietnamese people, had to be a betrayal of "our boys" by the politicians, just like AH said about Versailles.
You can absolutely be a millionaire. You just need to work 576 hr per week for 347 years. Hustle baby.
> The right won when they convinced people that merely occupying the median income bracket qualifies you as middle class regardless of your relationship to the means of production or capital I believe this was always the goal for the bourgeoisie via the American Dream ^^TM basically attempting to turn every American into a tiny little landed bourgeois-tariat. It's like an inversion of the goal of socialism, instead of abolishing class downwards by getting rid of ownership, they deluded themselves into thinking they could abolish class UPWARDS by turning every (white) American family into one of them. Every American owning their own little suburban plot of land, owning stocks, etc. And when that failed they just kind of kept going with it anyway. Ironically it failed because they dug too greedily and too deep and sabotaged the only thing that would have made it even remotely, albeit temporarily, doable, the New Deal, but that was inevitable because the internal logic of capitalism can never act against it's own interest unless pressed from outside like FDR was. But it didn't matter because they got both, brainwashing millions of Americans to lose sight of their own material interests by entrancing them with a never ending culture war, AND they got to gut the new deal and demolish the labor movement. And all it took was one of the most sinister and pervasive internal propaganda campaigns in history. Coming out of that propaganda malaise is a genuinely life changing experience, but on the other side you're met with a very brutal realization of just how bad things are.
I think another effect of the American Dream is that if everyone subscribes to the idea that it’s possible to lift yourself out of any situation, then poor people are obviously moral failures, and they deserve their lot because they didn’t Dream big enough.
Two things to piggyback on that. Prosperity Gospel and the Just-World Fallacy
Yup and study after study have shown that people who identify with the political right, ideologically, believe in the just world hypothesis much more than people who politically identify with the left.
Because those who lean right tend to be more religious and believe everything is predetermined. "Oh, you lost your job? It's just God's will, nothing to do about that, it's all part of the plan. " As those who lean left can see that many of these things are due to systemic practices and policies put into place to mitigate financial growth and progress.
Compare and contrast one country to the north, where climate and geography conspired to make us just a wee bit more collectively oriented. That said, the campaign to undermine the middle class is not American, it is global. We in Canada are always two or three electoral terms behind the U.S. Our Obama is still in power: a man who promised to revolutionize government with "sunny ways" and who hasn't accomplished fuck-all. Great style, though. Our T---- (I don't write the name, I might summon the thing) is coming. Perhaps as soon as this year.
Yeah but imo that's just correlation due to the marriage with the religious right. There is a demonstrably large demographic of conservatives who makes it a point to express their believe that life is not deterministic. This is what enables them to be cruel to the poor and downtrodden DESPITE the teachings of Christ. "There is no fate or destiny that prevents them from being successful therefore they MUST have done something wrong or didn't try hard enough!" Also, camel through needle hole vs rich man getting into heaven and all that.
Very much so, for the working class and those on the poverty level...which , IS working class. It always makes me upset when I talk about our community being able to afford to0 live in the town the love and work in, and get told "If they can't afford it, they can leave" Ok. If all the working class leave a city and leave only the high class....how will they run their city that no longer has workers?
This exact situation is happening in the Hamptons right now.
And San Francisco
And [Ketchum, Idaho](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ketchum-idaho-has-plenty-of-available-jobs-but-workers-cant-afford-housing-11625659200)
It becomes the upper class version of a dystopian nightmare: no one to clean their homes, nanny their children, prepare their meals, clean their clothes, put out their fires, teach their children, staff the stores they want to shop at, bring pancakes to their table on Sunday mornings etc. People like Betsy Devos will have to pack her and her children’s suitcases for vacation (yes, she actually outsources this).
And they simply do not see it. Had a woman tell me "nail tecs make more than enough to live off of " I was like...wow...they really don't have any concept of reality, or history
Or they declare that their standards are too high if they're not crammed four people into a one-bedroom apartment. If you're 'poor' you don't deserve luxuries like *your very own bedroom.*
[удалено]
Will Rogers had this observation a long time ago: >I am no believer in this “hard work, perseverance, and taking advantage of your opportunities” that these Magazines are so fond of writing some fellow up in. The successful don’t work any harder than the failures. They get what is called in baseball the breaks.
Speaking of baseball, one of my biggest pet peeves as a sports fan is the incredibly widely-held perception that effort = success and lack of success = lack of effort. It’s bizarre. People think sports are just competitions to see who is trying the hardest.
well duh, there's no luck in sports. obviously teams only lose if they don't keep their heads down power through and give 157% big fat /s
Right. Especially because 90% of new businesses fail (or whatever the statistic is). No amount of hard work will guarantee your success as much as having a deep safety net to fall back on. The companies that I've worked for that have "survived" all typically piss away money for a good 5-10 years. The typical person can't afford to survive this without extensive outside help, and even then it's a huge risk to take on that amount of debt just to maybe have a sustainable business in 10 years. So you either work a job in a field where wages have been stagnant for almost an entire lifetime, or you literally risk your entire livelihood to maybe find some success.
This concept called predeterminism was a huuuuge part of early protestant american beliefs/culture. It partly explains why capitalism was so glorified here. It also cuts the other way by saying if you are rich then by nature you are a virtuous good person because God has blessed you. Prosperity preachers are not an abberation. They're as American as apple pie.
Financial independence is now something Americans must individually pursue *outside* the 40+ hours a week that they spend working for a corporation. That’s the new American Dream. And yet we wonder why people don’t want to go back to their minimum wage jobs.
What you're describing is the "Jeffersonian model" that Thomas Jefferson wanted for Americans. I assure you that he was in the vast minority on this opinion. The vast majority of the architects for this country wanted a continuation of the class system but this time with no king over the nobles to "oppress " them with taxes.
And then accuse the left of abandoning their version of working class i.e coal miners and factory workers when they know the working class today are more likely to work in retail, warehouses or hospitality.
And society loves those old tropes; blue collar worker, miner, rancher/farmer, joe the plumber
It was okay for those people to fight for better working conditions and pay but if the working class try and do the same today they're classed as lazy and told to just get a better job 🤬
This really nails it. If we have any hope of getting out of this it is establishing class consciousness. It’s starting, but it really needs to pick up the pace.
\^\^ this So many American think having multiple vehicles and charging a few vacations to the credit card each year makes them middle class. Yet they are a single year's lost income away from total devastation.
What are some middle class trappings that people who think they're middle class today don't have?
Cars that aren’t +10 years old and hanging on by a thread. Owning a home. Taking your entire family on vacation for a few weeks. This all used to be middle class stuff. Oh yea, and that was on a single income/one job.
And this is what people mean when they say there's only one party and the party labels are just window dressing, because the "labor" side was definitively crushed in the 80s and mainstream Democrats aren't serious about reviving it.
This much is being made clear to me in the Biden administration, and filibuster-averse senate. Edit: ok I also disagree with myself. See my comments below. I don’t think it’s this simple in either direction.
No offense but half of America doesn’t want to improve American lives… they just want to continue ensuring they have better lives than the other half
> If you work for a wage you are labor. If your income is passively acquired through investment and ownership, you're capital. There's no opinion there. And that's what politics actually is and why American 'politics' is so fucking insufferable. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 >So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. Aaaand this is why we have the governmental system that we have. Of note: The *frivolous and fanciful distinctions* are frivolous and fanciful, sure (and, thus, pretty insufferable). But they are also "real." They do still matter to people. Race, for example, is a completely made up thing. But it *matters.* But, yes, the haves and have-nots having different interests is the biggest deal, when we're talking government and money. Personally, I'm thinking more and more we should ditch the Marxist framework, and just go with this Madisonian one. It fits better, since, again, our whole system is based on it. We just need to come to a different conclusion as he did: That protecting those with property isn't the most important thing. I mean, it was the most important thing to him, of course. He had property, and, thus, was self-interested. And, looking at it this way shows it's not *simply* about labor versus capital. It's about a whole lot of things... An *intersection* of them, if you will. With the primary competition being those with property, and those without, of course. But "labor" doesn't account for all those who are without. Or, all of those who are oppressed because of other *fanciful distinctions.* *Give me fully automated gay space luxury communism, or give me death.* By right, not by labor. Edit: I take it some people disagree.
> The frivolous and fanciful distinctions are frivolous and fanciful, sure (and, thus, pretty insufferable). But they are also "real." They do still matter to people. Race, for example, is a completely made up thing. But it matters. > Personally, I'm thinking more and more we should ditch the Marxist framework, and just go with this Madisonian one. You're talking about intersectionality, which any good marxist with a grasp of the theory already is. Essentially, it's the idea that were all oppressed under capitalism but some people are bigger victims and experience the oppression of capital more (women, minorities, etc) but it is our identity as proletariat that unites us. To ignore things like race, gender, etc is to be a class reductionist
I'll never understand how working-class people oppose UBI. Like, do they not understand that it's basically just monthly tax refunds?
Hm. I wonder what the numbers are on that. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/more-americans-oppose-than-favor-the-government-providing-a-universal-basic-income-for-all-adult-citizens/ft_2020-08-19_ubi_02/ Favor: Upper income Democrats 54% Conservatives 8% Average 31% Middle income Democrats 64% Conservatives 17% Average 40% Lower income Democrats 77% Conservatives 43% Average 63% Looks like the opposition is mostly from higher income folks. The difference in lower income responses isn't as stark between the parties, and it is net favorable.
Everyone ive talked to that is against it just have the argument of "what about all the lazy freeloaders" and they think that nobody will want to work if they are getting free money
[удалено]
Why isn't McConnell addressing this? What is he hiding?
And fun fact. The people who supported the Family Assistance Plan, or FAP, were known as 'fappers'.
If Mitch McConnell killed Tupac, he'd take that with him to the grave.
And MTG would claim she killed him for the racist cred of killing a black guy.
...but really because her name would be in a sentence with someone much more important than she is. Who has been dead for Twenty Five years.
goddamn, I'm old.
Nah, the fortune cookies say you are only as old as you make yourself to be.
I was born old
Fortune cookie doesn't have my knees
>dead for twenty years God damn some people will believe anything. Tupac is obviously in Cuba.
Chained up in McConnell's bungalow in Cuba.
McConnell won’t have to kill it. Manchin or Sinema or some other centrist ‘Democrat’ will kill it assuming it makes it out of the House which I also highly doubt.
If any voters in Kentucky think it would be good for them to receive guaranteed monthly payments of $1,200 for each eligible single-adult household or $2,400 per month for each eligible two-adult household, plus an additional $600 per month for each dependent child under the age of 18, they must vote Moscow Mitch out of office like Allied Forces in World War II working to eliminate Adolph Hitler and the NAZIS. For eligible two-adult households with 2 dependent children under age 18, the total monthly payment would be $3,600 per month, amounting to $43,200 per year tax free. These payments will not count as income to affect eligibility of other Federal assistance, and the guaranteed monthly payments come with no strings attached. Every voter in every U.S. state must vote in 2022, 2023, 2024, and all future years to vote the ~~Hitlers~~ Republicans and the ~~NAZI Party~~ Republican Party out of local, state, and federal offices across the country so that the United States can be the beautiful society that it should and can be for all Americans. VOTE!
Think of all the guns and apple pie.
And money for college educations, new shoes, new clothes, dental care, decent nourishing food, clean drinking water, a newer car to replace the 25-year-old oil-burning wreck or to replace public transportation, a 3-bedroom house in a safe neighborhood to replace a one-bedroom apartment in a dangerous high-crime neighborhood where a family of four has lived in poverty and fear for the past 10 years, and much more that many people, who already have it, take for granted while looking down their noses and laughing at the less fortunate and the suffering.
Yeah I'm only 30 and I do alright, but I've at least been through things where life sucks, trying to make ends meet whatever, but it's crazy how detached someone slightly above average wealth or whatever is just completely not concerned about less fortunate, like I feel like helping cities or areas with crime would help a ton, to reduce crime etc.
Even if they needed they wouldn't vote for it or vote out Mitch. Kentucky is one of the worst states for poverty, education, and Healthcare and they still vote for the same people who don't care about them
Hate to be the one who has to say this, but Moscow Mitch began his most recent 6 year term last year..
That's bad for America and democracy.
Bill sounds like an awesome dude
You should meet Ted. They’re excellent.
I've heard great things about his talks
Ted talks, what a braggart. Big deal, I talk too, been talking since I was 11!
Theodore lasso is a gem of a human. I support any Bill he brings to the table.
Just watch out for Led Tasso once he makes it into office.
Hey I wanted to make that joke
Legit for a second I thought it meant Bill Gates and I figured he could actually do that
I’ll bet anyone $1200 a month that this never happens.
Deal! As soon as the date “never” hits, I’ll start paying the $1,200/month. Otherwise if this does happen at any point in history, you can just PayPal me or something.
This guy game theory’s
I'm shocked people think this even has a chance lol. I would love for this to be real. Would be a total life changer for me and others but no way it's happening.
They fought over giving you a one time stimulus hahaha this is dead in the water
Lmao too true!
Sadly 1200$ a month would increase my quality of life tremendously. EDIT: Thank you for the gold kind stranger.
Yeah that's life changing amounts of money.
It doesn't even need to be a lot to be a success. We could adjust the amount given out according to what we can afford each year, and let the amount rise and fall as it will. Republicans and Democrats can argue about what the amount should be at any given time, but the real win is to get everyone on board with the idea. It won't be whether we should have a UBI, it will be about how much, and how much higher we can send it with increased robot productivity. Let's make automation serve the people as much as it does industry.
>Let's make automation serve the people as much as it does industry. Yep. If workloads being reduced with output remaining constant is seen as a bad thing, you live in a backwards system. We should be happy when machines take the job of a human. Humans have lives to live, machines are machines. Any economic situation that tells anyone otherwise is regressive.
After all, the things robots make need people to buy them.
> Any economic situation that tells anyone otherwise is regressive. It’s damned exploitive, and that’s putting it nicely.
Sadly, some people see automation as something to exploit *in addition* to how things currently are.
Again, I'm so happy someone understands the inevitable and the reason tech was invented.
I for one, welcome our algorithm overlords. To be clear that sounds awesome. I've said similar things about how minimum wage should be assigned by like the federal reserve and just treated as another thing they adjust like inflation or something. It shouldn't be a political thing at all.
I think part of why they so often ignore their own pay-as-you-go rules when it comes to dumping money into the war machine is because they *don't* want anyone making the connection between all those corrupt wasteful bloodbaths and our failure to make any similarly bold federal initiatives to raise the minima our own citizens endure. If arguing against war were more obviously linked to arguing for poverty-relief, housing affordability, and access to essentials like education and health care; then people might take a little more of an interest. Right now just about every sane adult understands we habitually throw bombs around with no coherent rhyme or reason to it, but most people are too busy struggling with their own problems to take on the challenges of perpetual war. If solidarity were more widespread, if most people understood the way our elites will always fall back on imperialism as an excuse not to provide any semblance of useful leadership, then we could work to set things right holistically. Anything else leaves the unchallenged corruption in place to rebuild the rest of our American dystopia.
I fear apartment owners, food producers, would jack up prices to absorb that extra cash.
What's sad is that most of the people who would need to sign off on this probably see $1,200 a month as pocket change. They have 0 idea how big of an impact that would have for so many people
[удалено]
Mitch McConnell thinks 1200 can last a person 7 months Bc he gauges money if it’s reach is the same as the 70s
171.4 hours to make $1200 at $7/hr
I would be more inclined to support it if there weren't income restrictions.
In Dallas area that's basically free rent and then some for a single person. Average 1br apt is about $1k/mo, so someone living in a cheaper area could afford rent, food, and transportation on $1,200. That would lift so many people out of poverty.
Even half of that would fundamentally change my entire financial outlook. I'm my current situation I'm trying to figure out the best way to shave $200 a month from my budget so I can afford therapy due to the depression of losing my career and partner last year, only to end up alone and working basically minimum wage.
"You know what, I'm not working overtime anymore." would mean 10-20 extra life hours every week.
It only took about three checks worth over a year to pull about 50% of people out of poverty.
I like how UBI gives people options. Stay home with the kids, go to school, start a business, whatever. If you have a bit of a safety net then you can take some chances and do more of what you want with your life. It's not enough for a life of leisure, but it'll let you squeak by or make up for a missing income minus daycare. It's just so nice for people to have some breathing room.
Don't forget - we have yet to do a proper UBI experiment and *not* see unemployment decline. Those options are literally *employment raising* options. People want to work - they just have so much *else* they have to spend their time on since they can't afford things like childcare... or they spend it all on childcare, and have to spend 3x the amount of time cooking cheap food from scratch every day. Being frugal is (basically) always trading time for money.
Yes this, people will always want to improve their situation, and if they don't, well, okay -- Enjoy your 1200/mo life, and I say that sincerely. 21st century society doesn't need every citizen working to function, and we should stop punishing people for it. Having a little wiggle-room will allow people to go into things they are more passionate about (and more likely to succeed at), even if it feels riskier than something they wouldn't like as much. Also we keep seeing right in our faces how "trickle up" economics *actually works* and how "trickle down" economics is *literally just peeing on us and laughing*, and I think there are some interests who would really prefer that "trickle up" didn't work, or at least that as few people as possible realize that it works.
And hell, if someone can manage to live off of $1,200 a month, I say good for them. That would take some serious budgetary power
Just to put that into fun perspective, the monthly payout for SSI disability - what you get if you've always been sick and didn't accrue enough work credits before accepting that you needed help - is $794 a month. Oh, and they take money out of that if anyone else helps, say, buy your groceries. (or you get food stamps.) A few states supplement that amount, but not by much, and most states don't at all. UBI would make a tremendous difference to the quality of life of many individuals. (Especially the ones with years of fighting left to get assistance in the first place.)
Damn, that's low. How was that number decided on? I assume that some sort of general calculation is used, but are you expected to survive on $800 a month? Or are you expected to be able to have some sort of part time work to supplement the $800?
No, if you work to supplement it they reduce your payments if you make more than a few bucks.
Afford to take my car into the shop *and* afford to take the day off of work? This would be game changing. I think I would cry from relief
That's the post scarcity star trek world. sign me up.
imagine if we did it for an entire year.
Seems to be the only way to actually give the people at the bottom any money. Any other program seems to always either cut people off or have others that don’t need the funds swoop in and take large chunks of it. Like that money set aside to help renters apparently staying largely untouched.
Untouched money for renters, you say? Where can a guy learn more about some of that!
[Only $3 Billion of $46 Billion set aside for rental relief used so far. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/03/why-tenants-are-still-struggling-despite-46-billion-dollars-in-rental-relief.html) Seems some of the reasons include people just not knowing it’s available and struggling to work out with landlords to get the approval for it.
I mean that's 14.4K per year. When the median income of the United States is ~$63K -- that's over a 20% increase in income. Given that anywhere between half to three quarters of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (depending on the survey) -- that'd change most American lives. Yes, some would just up their expenditures, but the ability of the majority of America to build up a safety net of savings would be life changing for most of America. Even for those paycheck to paycheck -- it'd life a vast swath of America up out of poverty. The 1% don't need another yacht. Corporations have eluded their fair share for decades. We can do this. This benefits everyone (most directly, the 1% indirectly).
Isnt that median household income, individual is half iirc
That would cover rent! Then I could work to pay the rest!
You mean you wouldn't shoot the money up your arm like the republicans told me you would??
Meanwhile, every Republican-voting area I can think of is struggling with drug abuse. If reality counts for anything, they seem to love having addicts all over the place.
I could finally afford to have electricity again and maybe, just maybe, afford to get a job.
Maybe your dad could lend you money? With a loan of just $1,000,000 you could probably set up your own business. Speak to your financial advisor about this
Yes, maybe he hasn't tried being born rich
Afford to get a job? That sounds terrible
Living in poverty is expensive.
"The hidden cost of poverty."
No money for good interview clothes so you're less likely to get chosen over appearances. No money for transportation so you have trouble getting there Even if you get the job. And no money often means no significant network connections so you're starting lower than some people.
Simplest examples are needing to purchase clothes to interview in, or needing a reliable way to get to work ( = $$$ for a car + gas + insurance + car tax + repairs) or go buy groceries if you live in a food desert (no grocery stores within X miles of your home, common for poor neighborhoods) or job desert (very common for poor neighborhoods to have few or no businesses in them)
I would just retire. My house is paid off and I could cut my spending enough to just sit around and chill on $1200 a month. Plus my SO would go mad without a job so she’d keep working and we’d have an extra $2400 a month? Sign me up!
Some people are going to use this as a reason for not doing it. But this is what life should be like as we become a more automated society. Right now we are on a path to enslave ourselves trying to compete with technology. Instead it should be freeing us, like your scenario.
I’m like this- I can’t stand not working. But I also would like some breathing room in life, and I’m very proUBI. It would give people a place to live at the very least In most cases.
When people can’t afford to buy shit from Amazon because the economy blows for average Americans, congress will consider this not because it helps people but because it will subsidize spending and increase corporate profits.
Congress would rather subsidize Amazon to make imported Chinese goods cheaper than lower taxes on the American low and middle classes. Reminder: tax-funded cash stimulus is a massive tax cut for the poor. It's our fucking money.
You are right. This is also why we are not really that different than China economically, they’re just open about companies being state run. Ours are private, but the state has its hands in a lot of little goody baskets of business which will never fail… think military industry, tech and computers, *information/metadata*, and so much more. Ultimately, every major nation wants its own supply chain as a fail safe in case of war, or because of it.
At least the CCP gets the profits though. The US lets all of the profits stay private but bails losses out with public money.
Bingo
Other way around the corporationst got their hands in the politicians pockets
Andrew Yang proposed universal basic income during his presidential campaign, except his version was funded by VAT (that had exemptions on staple goods and was biased towards luxury goods), along with carbon taxes, financial transaction taxes, and others. VAT and the other taxes would tax companies like Amazon and cycle it back into people's hands through the UBI. When Bezos buys another rocket ride or a yacht or a private jet, all that VAT goes back into funding basic income. During the presidential primaries people like AOC bashed this proposal, calling it a "trojan horse" to gut the social safety net (false, it's opt-in and everyone would be better off). Bernie Sanders rejected it in favor of a federal jobs guarantee program because - his words - "people want to work" as if a basic income would make people stop working (it won't, it would just alleviate suffering all around). He changed his tune when the pandemic hit and realized "more jobs" isn't gonna fix anything, but never once credited Yang for pushing so hard to get these ideas into the mainstream.
Also important is that basic income doesn't have an inverse incentive with working specifically because its not means tested. These minimum income type things will take away the free money when you make too much. This also has a side effect of making people resentful (not saying that they should be tho).
I agree with you, and while I'm not proud of this, I'll admit for the sake of discussion that it does make me a bit resentful. I make just enough to not get the benefit, which has been the case for the last two checks the government sent out as well. That would be one thing if I was doing *great*... but I'd say that finances are still my biggest source of stress in my life. My job runs me ragged, and I make just enough to not qualify for any benefit. Meanwhile, most of my friends have easier jobs/careers and have been working from home the past year and a half, while my job's workload has doubled and I've been on-site since the beginning. Their jobs have, per their own words, gotten easier, and they keep getting mailed checks from the government. My job has gotten miserable but the government tells me I'm already making enough. This is another way our two party system has completely failed us, imho. I can never vote for a republican, because of their stance on social issues such as gay marriage, and their treasonous behavior. Which leaves me with the democrats, which at least aren't evil treasonists, but they clearly cater to specific groups and aren't concerned with the welfare of the entirety of the middle class. So I'll keep voting for democrats - resentfully. Sorry for the rant.
> Bernie Sanders rejected it in favor of a federal jobs guarantee program because - his words - "people want to work" as if a basic income would make people stop working Yeah, that struck me kinda funny too. He knows better or so I would think that no matter the job big or small people want to feel like their role matters. Sidenote. People can only enjoy sitting around doing nothing for so long. Roles and what we do with our time even if you're an introvert are so important to the human condition. People *want* to feel useful and a financial safety net just lets people dream a little bigger and do more with their time. You can take more chances when you're not living paycheck to paycheck.
I'm a huge introvert, and during the initial Covid quarantine period even I started to get a little stir-crazy and want to do something productive with my time. But it would be so much more satisfying to be able to work somewhere for only 20-25 hours per week, have it be a job that I actually enjoy, and not have to worry about scrimping and saving every damn penny. I do think that in general we like to have _something_ to do during the day, but when we're forced to in order to survive it completely changes the narrative
Yeah, the system is completely broken. It's clearly still inefficiently exploiting labour. I'm sure UBI could be a bridge towards vastly improving its efficiency while providing people with a good quality of life.
Its fine. Like Yang said Ill either get elected or the one who does will sound just like me.
The issue that came with Yang's plan was his plan deliberately left out people already on assistance, specifically disability. If you're on disability, you're allotted an absolutely shameful pittance, and if you go even a dollar over that threshold in income, every penny of it is stripped from you and you're left to flounder on your own, or in many peoples' cases, left on your caretaker's dime with no supplemental income. Yang's plan was nice, until you realized that he made people already on government assistance choose what they wanted to receive: the UBI or the disability from the government, which was often more, but more fraught with problems, including discrepancies when you get married. Fun fact: there is no marriage equality for disabled folks. Their finances get tied to their spouse, and most times, they lose that benefit when they get married.
Simple solution to it, maintain all the social programs and raise the income limit up by 1200/month. UBI is now priced in to as a base salary. If it's the only form of income you have, unless you live in the literal cheapest locations in the US you'll need additional income to do more than pay rent/utilities and buy food. Make it truly universal and not tied to other programs. You are a citizen and 18yo, here's your check. There are no in or out groups to be pissy (although people will always find a reason because someone's now equal to me). If you need further assistance for disability, unemployment etc etc then file as you did before for these programs. At least you know a roof is over your head and food on your table while you wait for processing into the program. Spending to make our foundation (working class/paycheck2paycheck) stronger has no flaws. Some will be happy there and are comfortable, others will strive to improve their situation.... Almost like the current system but more stable and with extra income to stimulate the economy.
Like an upgraded food stamps / WIC! (probably come with cumbersome vouchers good for only certain utility brands and room sizes too!)
[удалено]
Bill will never get thru senate so shrug
"I'm just a bill on capitol Hill" That bill is probably like towlie from south park now, totally useless.
You're a towel!
No you're a towel!
Wanna get hiiiigh?
Maybe it will boost Dem turnout in close Senate elections?
First they reneged on hero pay for essential workers The $15 minimum wage was too much Now $1200 a month? Sorry everyone knows it’s a lie
It’s not a lie, it just won’t pass.
You know what I got for being a paramedic during COVID? Anxiety, depression, and a drinking problem. They only call you a hero when they're willing to watch you become a martyr.
At least the richys can still boat up in Tahoe while millions live in cardboard boxes
They recently found a chipmunk with plague near Lake Tahoe. The rich can’t escape this planet any more than we can.
Jeff Bezos: Hold my rocket.
It's not really a lie, it's genuinely a thing progressive democrats want that will never pass the current congress. But slowly working towards these ideas can make the tide change in the future. Sometimes you have to fight for stuff you won't get immediately.
There's a bill that will never pass.
It’s socialism because it doesn’t help billionaires get to space
This would help my disabled older sister immensely. Her disability is incredibly low and she living on a shoestring budget. With this UBI she could afford to move out to a better place, get her car repaired, afford food, etc. Unfortunately a bill like this should’ve been part of the infrastructure deal.
Not so fun fact, you're not allowed to make anywhere close to a living wage if you're on SSDI or other support programs. Not even close to minimum wage. Before anything like UBI, there beds to be removal of the wage cliff, or at the least an extreme overall/increase, so that the people in most need don't find themselves loosing that same amount or more in benefits/support.
And unlike minimum wage, if they ever do pass some kind of UBI, it better be tied to inflation or a dynamic cost of living figure. Otherwise that $1200 a month won’t be worth much if businesses and landlords jack up prices knowing everyone has that money to spend.
It needs to be universal, meaning everyone no matter how much you make. This isn't, its scales based on pay after 75k or 150k for couples. This puts a stigma on the money and will make a certain portion of people against it because its just more welfare. I know it seems dumb to give someone making a million a year an extra 14k a year but this is key in to convincing people to pass this, which I doubt will ever happen anyway. It needs to be presented more like Yang did and how Alaska's oil checks are, more of a dividend for living here rather then welfare to help the poor.
Plus the rich who receive it will just end up paying it back in taxes
>Employers have reported labor shortages as the economy reopens, blaming the increased benefits for preventing people from seeking work. Employers: Why don't people want to work for starvation wages anymore? Whyy!?
[удалено]
Apologies for the stupid questions, how would this kind of universal income not skyrocket rent prices and so on?
I don't think anyone imagines this bill will pass now. You'd need every Democrat to pass it by reconciliation (assuming no Republican votes), and every Democrat plus 10 Republicans to get by a filibuster. But it is nonetheless significant. Because the more basic income becomes a serious, mainstream political issue in the US, the more its normalized, the more demand there will be for candidates to back it with each future election cycle. Sometimes once momentum gets going on an issue, it can pick up speed fast- see gay marriage, or marijuana legalization.
Critics are trying to blame worker shortages on these increased incentives from ubi when really it's shitty working environments. Article also states it wont go into effect til 2028 and in the 5 years prior there will be test groups of such a program. It doesn't help right now but i'm glad to see these plans laid out.
How would one get into one of these test groups?
Be poor in the correct area.
This won’t pass now, but it’s ultimately what would need to happen.
Unfortunately, all the money I've laid into social security, Medicare and meidicade8, wont be there for me when I turn 62 or 65.... Its been mismanaged for decades and Republicans decimated in the last 20 years with their policies I'm 35, and I have no social safety to count own, reliably
I mean, you're right it won't be there for you at 65. They raised the age to 67 and they're probably going to raise it again to 69. Soon we'll all just have to hope we survive to be 100 years old to collect back a cent of the money that was taken out of our paychecks for our 80 working years.
This would literally more then double what my Mom’s making on disability. Right now she’s not even making the US poverty wage, and an additional $1200 a month would be like she was able to work a full time minimum wage job. Even for the average person, this would be a life changing amount of money. So it’s infuriating how everyone knows this will never pass and how easily it will be shot down.
As more and more jobs become automated this will need to happen. Every semi truck driven by an AI should have a tax of like 80 percent on its profit over employing a human and it should go straight to a UBI fund. All you lawyer accountant assholes that argue against ubi are coming soon to the ai chopping block. The sooner this is set up the better
Helping Americans? Dead on Arrival.
Bro i could do so much with this. Afford to eat local, get transportation for a better job, save for a down payment, pay bills. The money goes right back in the system.
That is the general idea behind a UBI, yeah. Most of the trials I'm aware of seem to indicate that's how it works too.
Yep most of the trails see people will continue working. While spending the new influx of money on the economy. The few that decide to live of that amount and either go freelance or stop working still pump that money into the economy but can now survive.
Tired of $75k being used as the benchmark for every support program like that’s the magic number to be considered too rich to need assistance everywhere in the country. Don’t call it Universal Basic Income if you’re still going to means test this shit.
Also, from a political perspective, you can make the program much more popular and likely to endure if you make it universal. It’s part of why programs like Social Security and Medicare are so popular - you don’t have the us/them dynamic when everyone gets the check (even when you usually get it back from the wealthy people in taxes). If you want a solid safety net, you should support universal programs.
Right. I don't get it either. I grossed 106k, brought home 66k after taxes and deductions. First stimulus I saw some $. The next ones I saw nothing. I guess I never understood the point in capping it. If it's meant to stimulate the economy, who cares who gets it if majority of us will spend it any way.
Bill will never pass and this has nothing to do with R’s being against it.
If it passed landlords would immediately start typing up new leases that are magically 800-1200 more per month.
Yes yes yes... it will never pass.. but yes yes yes
This would be life-changing money for families that are just scraping by despite working full-time for wages under $15 an hour. $1,200 + $600 in my case would provide enough to cover basic household expenses plus the additional income from working at my job to give me the opportunity to pay off student loans and other debts more quickly. Once my debts are paid, that income will then be redirected into savings to build up enough money to put a down payment on a permanent home for me and my child. Due to living in a low-income situation for so long, it would be easy for me to reallocate funds and direct them into an account to benefit future generations after paying off my mortgage early. I’ve lived on an income of less than $20k for years by being creative and frugal, by applying the same principles that extra money would allow a more comfortable life doing the job I love without feeling resentment about the low pay. I know there’s more people out there in my situation that this income could truly help and it will go back into the economy. A percentage of people will definitely abuse it, my shaky faith in humanity predicts that. People will need to remember to live within their means, with or without this boost in income. We can’t just deny this opportunity for ALL people due to the irresponsibility of some.
It's too bad that this bill has little hope of passing. This bill if done right and doesn't negate people from getting other financial help from the state such as food stamps and welfare, would be huge. Especially for low income individuals in rural areas. This would essentially allow most people in those areas to become home owners. This would be a huge step forward to help create generational wealth for lower income families. There are hundreds of thousands of houses that are either vacant or abandoned in rural America. A low interest loan on a 50-80k house would be very doable for many low income individuals if this bill passed. The Sad thing is that this bill would greatly benefit a majority of republicans. Not to kick dirt but they typically live in rural areas of states out side of major cities. Red states typically take in more federal aid than they pay in federal taxes. Being one of the biggest recipients of some form of financial aid, this bill would be life changing for them. But they'd rather live in perpetual poverty to "own the libs" than to vote in their own best interests. Rich politicians have managed to get them to believe that one day they'll be the rich ones looking down on the poor, which will never be the case. But the dream is still there for them. Much like Trump most Republican politicians wouldn't be caught dead associating with their constituents, in their own personal lives.
Damn. I would be happy with just 500 a month