I would be shocked if the claim that “a basic universal income used to be a conservative idea” is true, unless you really stretch the definition of “conservative idea”. (Upfront: I would call something a “conservative idea” if most conservatives supported it, or even if a significantly higher percentage of conservatives supported it than liberals.)
If it doesn’t get rid of the “the whole “an empty belly improves attitudes towards work” issue”, then what problems does it solve? To my understanding, “the whole “an empty belly improves attitudes towards work” issue” is exactly the problem we’ve been discussing here.
Conservatives, at least some, in the 1970s did support a universal basic income as an alternative to what they saw as a very activist and politicized welfare bureaucracy.
Plus you can still make it so that people have an incentive to work. Just set the basic income at below minimum wage for full time work, like 20% lower, and that’s enough of an incentive for anyone able bodied to prefer work to the dole. Keeps people hungry, but no one starves.
I see that I need to correct some further misconceptions.
I personally don’t favor the NHS model and I believe that government should limit itself to running the single-payer insurance system and let hospitals be independent and the medical profession largely private-sector, though it needs to closely regulate both. But the reality is that from the stats I’ve seen, Britain has a surprisingly good health care system that actually outperforms Canada’s on certain metrics. Where I think they tend to come up short is on the comforts and amenities of the public hospitals, whereas the private ones are downright posh. Canada’s hospitals are in a single tier and tend to be somewhere in the middle, with a fair amount of variability between each other and between provinces. Quebec is arguably the worst at least in terms of overcrowding, while some Ontario hospitals are actually really nice places.
No, Canada is not “getting more private hospitals” AFAIK (in the sense of “for-profit”, as most hospitals are already independent), but most importantly, Canada is NOT going to two-tier health care, which would explicitly violate the basic precepts of the Canada Health Act. Where such private hospitals exist, at least in Ontario, they exist by virtue of being grandfathered and are allowed to operate provided that Canadian residents are treated without extra cost, with single-payer rates covering payment in full.
There may be some confusion about so called “executive health centres” and such, which purport to provide upscale health services and accept only cash or private insurance. But these are legal only if providing supplementary services that are not deemed medically necessary (maybe something like setting up a personal fitness and diet program). Some have tried to push the envelope to operate on the fringes of the law or beyond it, and some have been shut down. The problem is such enterprises draw medical resources away from the public system, and sometimes are nothing but thinly veiled enticements to the full-fledged profiteering of parent organizations in the US.
Two problems. One is that one argument is “welfare traps people in poverty”, and a basic income would not be completely taken away if you accidentally make too much, removing that aspect of the “trap”.
Two, less bureaucracy and red tape, a bugbear of governmental opponents. Despite being more expensive overall, it would require fewer workers to provide oversight since we could get rid of the infrastructure for unemployment insurance, disability benefits, most welfare to the poor, as well as streamline social security since everyone would eventually be getting the same benefit. These workers would be freed to perform work that adds to the economy, because the benefit they formerly brought has now been automated.
The issue with taxes is that government wastes quite a bit of it and there is no coherent plan to have a rational budget. It is hard to justify to people they should pay more taxes where for every dollar taxes are increased, spending is increased $1.10. You would find out that most conservatives would agree to no tax cuts if spending were cut but (and this goes to your side of the aisle) the liberals are completely irrational. Cite: Look at the threads on the debt ceiling.
I also object to the narrow view that I choose to live based on taxes. If you were correct all of the conservatives would be living in Florida, Texas and Washington. You may not believe but our though processes do go beyond “Gronk no pay taxes!”
Clearly you don’t actually read what the Conservative write in the poverty threads. Some people are poor because of circumstances and others are poor because of the choices they make. I don’t recall any Conservative equating poverty with morality. We just think that taxpayers should support continual bad decision making whereas liberals are co-dependent. Hey its ok that you blew $200 on movies and a new cell phone but your kids has no food because you need to make your life less miserable so reward yourself and you can’t think for yourself because your parents wasted money so you learned that behavior.
I will say that we believe criminals are morally inferior so don’t cry to me about you robbing a 7/11 or shooting that kid or raping that woman because your friend make you make bad choices and mama never showed you love.
First one: We want rational regulation. It’s not all or none.
Second one: I wish I could argue with you but I can’t
Third one: Completely wrong. Higher education is to provide you opportunities in the real world.
Again you fail to read what we right and what’s with the generalization? We object to is a system that fails to verify the right people (citizens 18 or older) vote. You don’t have to verify citizenship to register (Voter’s Rights Act) just promise you’re telling the truth. Without ID there is no way to verify the person is who they say they’re are (I lost my right to vote one year because of this). Liberals claim the system is self-regulating because illegal immigrants would never lie to vote and the clerk you recognize if someone else is using your name.
Now are we doing all we can to get people IDs? Nope but then again neither is your side. It took me, a conservative, to be the one to raise the idea that counties should be proactively out getting people photo ids, not only to vote but to open bank accounts, get jobs, etc. And you liberals on SD argue against that!
Two things here. As for the religious issues, you’re right in regards to social conservatives. They believe the Bible should run this country not the Constitution and that freedom of religion means every American has to be a good Christian. Oh and you left out “All Muslims are evil terrorists.”
As for the political issue, first of all don’t be a hypocrite and at least admit the Democrats have done the same thing in the past. I think you’re right about these two issues but not for the reason you believe. It is not a Democrat or Black President thing or an abortion/religion thing. I think the Republican/TeaBagger Party leadership is so deluded that they actually believe that their views represent America as a whole. So when they obstruct or are anti-SSM they honestly believe that’s what America wants.
The issue is when judges bend the Constitution to suit the conventence of the time rather than forcing Congress to do their job in passing better laws or amending the Constitution.
This seems to be a issue more with people of Cuban descent - not liberal/Conservative.
The police do seem to have carte blanche but I feel that is more because politicians don’t want to hold them accountable and piss them off. Again not a liberal/conservative issue.
“Dwayne, you’ve gotta learn to kick ass if you wanna be a peacemaker.”
You were aware of course that while he was President of Mexico, Vincente Fox said that Mexican nationals should have a right to come to the US to make a better life while at the same time stationing army troops along the Guatemala boder to prevent them from entering Mexico.
I don’t get why people feel we should let whomever want to walk across the border be a US resident. Every other country have entrance requirements and quotas and what not. For example, it is nearly impossible for an American to emigrate to the UK. What are your thoughts on that?
Not really. I think Conservatives are capable of coming up with extremely complex and nuanced responses in order to reconcile their position with objective facts and reality (or lack thereof). But IME, Conservatives are pretty intractable in those positions.
The main problem that Liberals have is that they attempt to use reason and logic to make their point. They believe that if they objectively explain the facts, people will deduce the correct decision. Conservatives don’t work like that. Conservatives understand the concept of “confirmation bias”. You tell people what they “know” loudly enough and repeatedly enough, they will nod their heads and agree with you.
Allow me to clarify some of those beliefs for you: The law of supply and demand can be repealed(minimum wage, anti-gouging laws)
-A system where 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth is not “working”.
-There is a society benefit to not having people work slave wages, even if it means taking away the rights of wealthy capitalists to get slightly richer.
-Economics is actually much more complex than the simple supply vs demand curve you learn in freshman year Econ. If a program isn’t working(at least if it’s one liberals like) it’s always because it needs more funding.
-If a program isn’t working because it’s underfunded, it needs more funding
-“Working” just has to mean “significantly helping a lot of people”, not "cures the problem once and for all.
-Austerity just exacerbates economic downturns by reducing services when they are needed most and increasing unemployment.
-Part of the role of government is to provide social safety nets so that temporary setbacks don’t become permanent catastrophes. People are poor through no fault of their own, yet apparently are too stupid to vote for their interests in many cases.
-I’m not sure what the basis of this statement is. But with an annual budget near $4 trillion, the Federal government has a great deal of power to improve many people’s lives through how and where it spends that money.
-Many poor people are poor due to bad policy and generations of institutionalized racism.
-Poor people are often taken advantage of by the powers that be (i.e. Flint, MI) Raising the cost of doing business doesn’t cost jobs.
-That cost is more than offset by benefit to society in terms of reducing losses due to fraud and corruption, reducing health issues due to pollution, safer workplaces, more sustainable work environments, safer products and better management of natural resources.
-Left to their own devices, businesses would cut corners, abuse their employees, make shoddy and dangerous products, pollute, cheat and behave in a amoral manner. Voting is an absolute right, but the 1st amendment is subject to regulation.-Not really sure what you mean by this one. However Conservatives seem to gloss over the fact that the 1st Amendment specifically keeps a separation of church and state.
*Abortion is a unique medical procedure in that it should be completely between a woman and her doctor without government intereference. All other medical *procedures though, the government may intervene between doctor and patient.
-A small collection of forming cells is not a “human being”.
-A woman should not be forced to carry a child she didn’t want or plan for to term.
-Every other modern nation provides universal health care to all it’s citizens at a fraction of the cost. Rule of law is subordinate to achieving the “correct” outcome, regardless of the means because the Constitution is so like, 100 years old.
-The Constitution was designed by the Founders as a “living document” because they were wise enough to know that they couldn’t anticipate how the world might change over the centuries. That’s why it’s been amended 27 times.
-The purpose of the law is to promote freedom, liberty and justice for all.
-In certain cases, technology has outpaced the law beyond anything the founding fathers could have imagined (automatic weapons, cloning, mass media, internet, weapons of mass destruction, etc) and we as a society need to have intelligent discussions on how to move forward The government is good, except for the most visible agents of it, the police. Must be lack of funding.
-Police must be held accountable when they act in a heavy-handed or unethical manner
-The role of the police is to protect and serve the law for everyone. If a Democratic President does anything foreign policy related, it is smart policy. A Democratic President can bomb seven countries and that’s fine, and it’s not even really a war. A Republican President so much as insults another country and he’s obviously a warmonger.
-Invading two countries for questionable reasons, kicking off two the longest military quagmire in US history and destabilizing the entire region in the process is a pretty big insult.
-Not all foreign policy problems can be solved by Marines and smart bombs.
To go for what I was aiming at in this thread requires, I believe, a bit of humility – specifically, the humility to accept that one’s beliefs about the assumptions of those on the other political side from yourself could well be mistaken, and that those that are on the other side probably know better about the underlying assumptions than you do.
Some in this thread have taken this to heart, but unfortunately lots of folks have not. I’ll encourage everyone to strongly consider that the other folks may believe what they believe for different reasons than you thought they did, and to take their word for it if they tell you differently. Obviously not everyone on a side is going to have the same underlying reasons, but I would also encourage others to be inherently skeptical that anyone who presents different reasons for their own beliefs (which are opposite from yours) than you expected is an outlier – it’s probably more likely that they’re pretty typical.
This often masks or obscures an important debate about whether the program is being well-run, whether it is wasting money unnecessarily, whether it was a good idea to begin with, etc. Too often, people who run the program would rather have the easy path of increased funding than take the more difficult but more prudent steps of seeing if they are spending their dollars more efficiently.
Assuming you’re referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m not sure what was objectionable about the operations in Afghanistan after 9/11. They were much more justifiable than Iraq and I’m not sure what you proposing that the US do otherwise.
Of course it’s biased. If you want something unbiased, watch Rachel Maddow.
Conservatives are having a hard time being coherent. Somehow they say with a straight face that any spending increase must be paid for with tax cuts. They are all too willing to cut taxes by $1.10 while cutting spending by only $1.00.
Taken to the extreme, all of us would be living in zero-tax states. I’m just basing this on all the fear-mongering that conservatives have whenever tax increases are increased. “You can’t tax the rich! They’ll just move overseas.” “You can’t raise the state income tax, people will move out!”
One more thing- conservatives act as if balancing the budget will fix everything. It won’t put one person to work.
Some people do indeed think that poor people are morally inferior and incapable of making the right choices. Perhaps not you in particular but there are those that make that argument, particularly those that are pushing for drug tests. What I have a real problem with is innocent children going hungry because their mom can’t get welfare because she failed a drug test.
On the first, I agree to a point. But too often we see “we can’t do that! Think of the economy!” Look at coal producing states. Sorry, but coal has to go at some point. It’s killing the environment. There will be a coal-free future, and the miners will simply have to move on.
On the third, no. If you choose to learn pursue a career path like engineering, that’s well and fine. But liberal arts have their place, too. Tell that to Scott Walker, who wants to gut Wisconsin higher education.
I don’t entirely disagree with that. Democrats were at one time on the wrong side of SSM. But Republicans seem hell-bent on not only being on the wrong side of history, but in turning the clock back to the 1950s. Great time for straight white Christians, not so much anyone else.
o a point. But the dreadful Citizens United ruling that “by God James Madison didn’t foresee corporations buying elections so damned if we can lift a finger” is disconcerting. The Constitution was not brought down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, it was written by fallible men who need the help of judges who view the Constitution as a living document.
It became a conservative issue when it became apparent to Republicans that the only prayer they had to carry a diverse state like Florida was to genuflect to the anti-Castro Cuban community in Miami.
It wasn’t the liberals cheering when cops shot a twelve year old boy for playing with a toy gun.
I agree that the Mexican govennment is a bit hypocritical on immigration. Nobody is pushing for completely open borders, but only one side is trying to create panic over an issue where there should be none. In the UK’s defense, they’re a pretty small nation geographically so assimilating tons of immigrants is a little more difficult.
And yes, I forgot to add “All Muslims are evil terrorists” to the list.
It’s interesting that you said that “no one is pushing for open borders”, which brings up another psychological issue in regards to how people view the issues. No, almost no one supports open borders explicitly. But there are people who don’t want deportation of harmless individuals at all, which is de facto open borders, since almost anyone can get in with a tourist visa and then just overstay.
Conservatives definitely have issues like that of their own. Cases where we think we’re supporting something reasonable, but the implications of what we support take us to a place that on one sane should want to go. A good example is abortion, which cannot be dealt with as pro-lifers want without putting women in jail. And yeah, that brings up yet another problem with the way we deal with the world: sometimes we want to pass all kinds of laws, but then lack the stomach to enforce them. Some libertarianish conservatives point out that both conservatives and liberals love to pass laws without understanding the basic consequences of laws: people’s lives will be ruined, some will even die to enforce the law. We should pass laws with the same reluctance that we declare war, because when you pass a law, you are essentially declaring war on a certain group of people who the law is designed to stop.
Because providing entitlements is within the scope of constitutional powers and compelling businesses to act should not be (but is). This is a discussion about what assumptions and philosophical positions people take. It should not be within the role of government to compel a business in this fashion.
That’s fine - but not responsive to what I was talking about.
That’s wonderful that you dismiss the stated position of major party candidates. If you are comfortable speaking for their heart of hearts, feel free. I base my assessment on what they’ve stated. You said there was no serious person that supported a flat tax. If you don’t think the ones I’ve referenced are really Scotsman, okay. Not sure what difference it makes other than to deny your claim was inaccurate.
Vehicle maintenance isn’t the same as negotiating with hostage takers. Does that make the analogy more clear?
When CA early releases criminals due to overcrowding, that’s justice not being done. The solution should be a combination of reducing services to free up more funding and building more prisons. At the same time, I also think there should be dramatically fewer crimes, but the crimes that remain should be punished much more harshly.
Well Milton Friedman was more of a libertarian than a modern day conservative but Reagan and Thatcher seemed to like him.
I’m saying that a basic income removes the incentive of hunger. You don’t work because you need to eat, you work because you are willing to trade your labor for what the market is paying for that labor. If that means that you spend your time on leisure instead of labor until the price of labor creeps up to an acceptable level. Hunger can lead to a fire sale on labor.
What you are identifying is the corner Republicans have painted themselves into when it is “All Hail St. Ronald Reagan!” who was one of the worst spenders of all time. Compound that with Bush “Read my lips, no new taxes” the First who lost re-election after reaching an agreement with the Dem House on raising taxes and lowering spending. The Republicans honestly don’t know what to do to have a rational spending plan except we are pretty sure raising the debt ceiling all the time is probably not sustainable.
Again, I have never seen Conservatives equate poverty with morality sicne the 1960’s. And the only people I see that claim the poor are incapable of making good choices are liberals who want to shift the blame to their upbringing or society or whatever contributes to the learned helplessness. Conservative say that those with the poverty mentality could make good choices (cook at home rather than eat out for twice the cost) if they wanted to.
I don’t believe I negated liberal arts as a degree that offers opportunities. And Scott Walker is an outlier. Something happened to him as a student and he has hated every teacher since.
It’s not turn-back-the-clock thinking. It ignorant people thinking that if two guy are having sex that somehow that violates their freedom of religion.
Living sure but judges are still bound to follow the Constitution. I’d have to look up the case but SCOTUS had a case committed in the Idaho section of Yellowstone. According to the Constitution the case should have been heard in the Federal District of Idaho but under federal law it was heard in the Federal District of Wyoming. SCOTUS should have ruled “Hey, not our fault Congress wrote a bad law. Unconstitutional!” And if I were CJ of the United States I would have called the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader ahead of time so they could rewrite the law ahead of time*.
But instead, declaring it unconstitutional would have been inconvenient and so the Constitution was effectively rewritten to adjust for an unconstitutional law.
*Part of the decision was based on if they did follow the Constitution then the strips of Yellowstone in Idaho and Montana would be lawlessness. I disagree, they would be handled by the corresponding Federal District. If Congress wanted all of Yellowstone in one district, just change the law for the district borders, There is no rule other than imposed by Congress saying district borders need to follow state borders.
Political issue =/= liberal/conservative issue.
But conservatives did?
As a conservative, I just want a rational immigration plan that is enforced. And I do believe liberals are happy the immigration laws are laxly enforced.
So it’s one guy whose conservative credentials are that some conservatives liked him? That doesn’t cut it as “used to be a conservative idea” in my books. (By that definition it probably still is a conservative idea - I’ll there are people out there who like the idea.)
But if it encourages more people to “spend [their] time on leisure instead of labor” then the productivity of society as a whole has decreased. And that means that those who are actually being producers have to work all the harder to support those who’ve chosen to spend their time on leisure. Which is exactly the problem being discussed here.
I thought we were making economic arguments, not constitutional ones.
If you want to make constitutional arguments, then I think you are probably on even shakier ground.
Or are you saying that you would have written and interpreted the constitution differently than our founding fathers and the supreme court?
So you think its bullshit to prohibit the fire department from using a swimming test to determine who they hire to firefighters if the swimming test has a disparate impact on minorities?
Trump is the likely nominee for that party. Am I to take everything HE says seriously?
I’m not reading their minds. I’m saying they I don’t think they know what they are talking about.
but if it makes life easier I will officially amend my claim (again): no serious person (on tax policy) supports a flat tax. It is the assault weapons ban of the tax world and anyone that supports it is not to be taken seriously on tax policy.
How are they hostage takers? They aren’t demanding the money, we are giving them a carrot. Do you see the difference?
OK, I may or may not agree with that depending on which inmates are getting early release and how it is being done. But in the context of our discussion of paying criminals not to commit crimes, what crime is going unpunished?
Milton Friedman was not just some guy. He was the more or less the intellectual powerhouse behind conservative thought in economics. Similarly, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were not just a couple of conservatives that liked him.
It seems like you think that productivity might be more important than freedom. People are compelled by hunger, perhaps into accepting trades for their labor that they would not make if their children were not going hungry. That is not a willing buyer and seller making a trade. That is a willing buyer and a highly motivated seller making a trade.
The basic income removes the benefits cliff (and the need for a minimum wage). If I get a basic income that approaches the poverty line and I get to keep that income no matter how much I make then there is no structural disincentive to my working for extra income. I won’t refrain from working for fear of losing benefits. Furthermore, there is no need for a minimum wage because we have a basic income because I am already making enough to put me at the poverty level and the rest can be made up with whatever I can earn flipping burgers and the burger joint is going to have to pay me enough to make it worth my while and cannot rely on my empty stomach to get a cheap price on my labor.
That’s all true, but MF doesn’t define conservatism. As indicated by your very cites to RR & MT. They may have admired and been influenced by MF, but that doesn’t mean they supported a guaranteed basic income.
As above, a conservative idea is one that had significant support in conservative circles (at least as compared to liberal circles), not one for which you can point to this or that conservative supporter.
That depends on how you define freedom.
To the extent that you define having to work to support yourself as a lack of freedom, then I have no problem at all with not having “freedom”. If “people are compelled by hunger, perhaps into accepting trades for their labor that they would not make if their children were not going hungry” that’s perfectly fine with me. And it’s certainly a lot preferable to “people are compelled by [the need to pay taxes to support other other people who sit around and enjoy their leisure], perhaps into accepting trades for their labor that they would not make if [they didn’t have this tax burden]”.