JJ Husker

Damn! He really needs some "me" time at the beach.

But if it is paid to everyone, in effect giving people who aren't already on the dole additional income and the only visible benefit being making our welfare system more efficient and, due to that administrative efficiency, eliminating many current government jobs, what do you think the effects of that would be? I think it causes; 1- Inflation due to more disposable income being in circulation. 2- Raises the poverty level so the needy people will still be a day late and dollar short on their buying power. 3- Many extremely rich people won't put their fair share back in to circulation so the rich just become richer. 4- Many of a whole bunch of former government employees, who used to be part of the inefficient system, will now be transferred to the government dole, in effect off setting much of any benefit. I'm not going to blindly follow the recommendation of a guy like Milton Friedman, no matter his name or supposed credentials, when it is so glaringly obvious that these things will happen as a consequence. I'm all for revamping or fixing our current system but I fail to see where this accomplishes anything meaningful and I can see all kinds of pitfalls that would likely make things worse than they are now. Fixing something by making it worse than it was is no solution. And to answer your question from a prior post, I learned about economics in high school and at DONU and mostly through my life which includes being a consumer and business owner. Milton Friedman doesn't mean sh#t to me. And wouldn't he be considered one of the guys who has helped shape our current system? Why did you assume it was not at a university? Just because I disagree with you or because I am not a fan of socialist policies or because I'm not all over Friedman's jock strap or...why?

Now what else can we do to piss off Saban?

In other words, I would come about the figure by looking at what level of help someone in this situation is already getting from the government to sustain themselves. Maybe that figure is $20,000. I have no idea, I just threw out the $30,000 figure for discussion purposes.We are already spending that money. It's not a new expenditure that all of a sudden goes on the budget. Then, we can eliminate the huge infrastructure of systems in our government put in place to supply the poor these services. I believe that would be a huge savings. Now, I don't know the exact numbers behind this and that's why I have said I would be interested in seeing how it all would work. I am all for reducing government and making it more efficient. That isn't being a socialist....that's just being smart about governing. This entire issue is caught up in a paradigm that people just can't get around. I wouldn't have a problem revamping our current system to make it more efficient. Reducing administrative costs by going to a form of lump sum payment could make sense if it was done right and targeted to only deserving people. Heck it would still be better even if the current undeserving people continued to live on the dole. BUT....that is not the program as explained in the linked article. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they proposing to give everyone, not just current aid recipients, the minimum income payment. I'm sorry but that would accomplish absolutely nothing good. It may seem more acceptable or tolerable to people who aren't on the dole and who have no understanding of economic principles but surely that is no reason for any sane person to seriously entertain this fantasy.

Another excellent synopsis of where we really are. +1

+1 to you sir. That may be the best summary of this list of POS candidates I have seen yet. Pretty much nails them all perfectly.

And please refresh my memory....BTN's prime time slot is NOT 11:00AM, right?

Might as well be Satan vs Hitler as far as I'm concerned. I just cannot develope a genuine interest in this election cycle. Any of the choices are so sad it is just plain pathetic that we as a country are in this position. I find it extremely annoying when the news coverage has been interrupting tv programs to give us updates on which liar/cheat/criminal/douchebag/poor excuse for a human being won a particular states primary. I don't care at all. They all suck terribly and it just seems an absolute waste of time to spend one minute more than necessary being reminded how futile this election cycle is.

I don't blame anyone for using every deduction and loophole to their advantage and trying to pay as little as possible in taxes. But yeah, it does highlight how messed up our current system is. I don't think that particular point makes him a hypocrite, it just shows how screwed up the tax code is. I will say that someone of his income, wealth and position should probably be giving more to charity than it looks like he did/does but I'm not going to crucify him for it. There is plenty to dislike about his socialist policies without creating things of which we don't know the whole story.

I read through that topic...again. I had previously given up on it because it contained way too many (read as more than one) posts by cornholiographical. I typically feel myself getting stupider when I read his posts so I usually avoid any topic ghat he has a lot of posts in. But in summary, I have absolutely no respect for any of the top 5 presidential hopefuls. Can't stand Hillary, Cruz or Kasich and Trump and Sanders are both downright dangerous. As far as Bernie's tax plan and desired expansion of our already too socialistic system, I can't imagine a worse choice for president and that statement is made fully realizing how absurd Trump is.

I'm not sure if you're reading my post correctly. I have a full time job. What I'm saying is 30k is more than enough to live on for one person. It would be enough for me if I wasn't thinking about having $ when I retire and if I wasn't getting married soon. Therefore if it was given to me for free I wouldn't need to work except to make money for retirement. I lived on a lot less than 30k for 5 years while getting my B.S. and M.S., and I didn't find it difficult nor did I feel poor. Sorry. I understand better now. I kind of had rough day and came into this thread like a wrecking ball looking to take out some frustrations in an anonymous manner. I apologize for that. And I was being a bit arrogant too. I sure wouldn't sneeze at an additional $30k but it also wouldn't really change anything for me. I sent about twice that much into the feds and state about 2 weeks ago and still am wondering what I got out of the deal. And while I am at it, I want to apologize to cm and zoogs. I was a douche and there was no call for me to question anyone's intelligence simply because they recognize, as I do, that our current system has serious flaws. So, I'm sorry zoogs and cm.

I could've used that $30,000 last week to help pay my income tax bill. Yes, I said help. Basically 30k would not move my needle one inch. I can't imagine someone thinking they could sit around or work only part time on only 30k per year.

That is extremely disappointing. Please enroll in some economics classes. Start with a basic class, Supply and Demand, and then maybe a mid level class of "What causes inflation and how inflation cannot reduce the income gap". If you think this wild proposal would solve our problems and would have no harmful unintended consequences, you're wrong, but I would be interested (read as comically entertained) to see your reasoning on it. Where did you learn about supply and demand, by the way? I'm going to assume not a university. Here's a discussion by Milton Friedman on a related/very similar topic - the negative income tax. I don't think anyone can fairly accuse him of idiocy or socialist leanings: Some reading if you're actually interested in understanding the concepts rather than just attacking people for "idiocy." https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070#.nmjc9ms0z http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=0 To be clear, I am not saying it is necessarily socialist. I am saying the only system it would have chance in hell of working in would be a completely socialist system. No way, no way in hell this works in capitalist system not with giving the basic income to everyone. And if we're only talking about replacing current welfare programs with this new more efficient system well, that is not the program that was described in the linked article.

You must not have read the same article from the link you posted. The proposal is not to just revamp welfare programs and only replace the current inefficient unfair system with a new highly efficient system. At least that isn't what that article was proposing. Now if you are saying that is what should be done, then I might tend to be more in agreement with you and would likely ease to call the idea stupid and to question people's intelligence over it. However, there are still unintended consequences to be addresed even if all we'really talking about is removing government inefficiencies. For sake of argument, let's say the current system is 30% inefficient and those inefficiencies are tied to jobs. We solve them by eliminating those jobs. Consequence? Now we have those 30% of people out of work. We made the system more efficient but we also created a whole new class of pepole that will need to be on the government dole. Basically they were on it before by being paid to do their job and now they would still be on it by not having a job. What got fixed? But back to the reason for the tone of my prior comments. The article I read and the way it described "minimum income" or basic income or whatever you want to call it, was a basic stipend for all persons. I'll stick by my comments that would do nothing other than cause inflation and raise the poverty level. It is no solution whatsoever and that is why I would question the intelligence of anyone who thinks it would do any good at all.

There are no free lunches. None. Anywhere. Our whole economy can be thought of as one pool of water. You can't take a bucket full out of one end of the pool without replacing it with water from the same pool. That "other" pool of water where some of you think water magically appears from simply doesn't exist. Once you grasp this concept fully you will realize the futility of this asinine idea.

That is extremely disappointing. Please enroll in some economics classes. Start with a basic class, Supply and Demand, and then maybe a mid level class of "What causes inflation and how inflation cannot reduce the income gap". If you think this wild proposal would solve our problems and would have no harmful unintended consequences, you're wrong, but I would be interested (read as comically entertained) to see your reasoning on it.

Quite possibly the stupidest f'ing idea I've ever heard of. If you think this is a good idea, I'm afraid there is no help available for your particular lack of understanding basic economic concepts. And yes, I read the whole article. A few of the important questions that nobody supporting this seems to address; 1- where does the money come from to fund it? 2- If it the intent is to put more disposable income in everyone's hands, what pray tell do you think will happen to the cost of living? Let's close our eyes and ignore the obvious and pretend that this is not an extreme form of socialism. Everyone gets the same amount and we eliminate all kinds of inefficient government management of existing social welfare programs. Where do those people go for jobs when theirs are eliminated? How do the current poor (have nots) catch up to the current rich (haves)? The answer the income gap is not reduced, it simply grows and would then just be at a larger scale. The only effect would be moving the poverty line up to a higher income bracket. This has zero chance of working in an open market system of capitalism. It's only chance would be in a socialist/communist system and then you would just have the inherent problems associated with that type of system. Pretty sure that economic system has already been shown through history to fail 100% of the time. Where does the money come from to fund it. It has to come from somewher, some people. If you think it would not cause rampant inflation you are an idiot. Hey, I realize our current system leaves a lot to be desired. Government management of it is inefficient and it is not fairly administered. People game the system. Some truly needy people don't get the assistance they really need. Trust me, I get it. But this solution is so stupid it is laughable. Talk about out of the frying pan and into fire. If you really think this sounds good, please seek help for mental shortcomings and complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles. And for God's sake, please don't vote. You're already doing more than your share of damage.

I'm smoking a couple pork butts later on this week. Might have to whip up a batch of this alternate version and try it out.

Hey, I've got an idea; ignore social media, don't use it at all. I really don't other than the occasional tweet somebody may post here on HB and I don't feel like I'm missing a thing. Heck, if it wasn't for some of the stuff I've seen 2nd hand that KB has posted on twitter, I'd probably like him a lot more than I do. There is a whole body of work why no one should ever use it and very little evidence it is worthwhile at all.

Ours has a Pizza Hut Express in it....try eating one of those and making it out of the store before nature calls. Not gonna happen.

The TE (and FB) is a dying position among the highest producing offenses. And that's a gross mischaracterization of what he said. What he really said was that he doesn't work off of a script. Unlike some other OCs. You sure do take any criticism of the past, underperforming staff, quite personally. Pelini and Beck failed to move the program past a certain point. It really isn't debatable yet you constantly act like it is. Might be time to accept it and move on.

Whatever happened to the existence of objective truth. If you're born with a penis, you're a man. If your born with a vagina you're a woman. Those are the restrooms you should use and I don't care what mental condition you have that tells you that you "identify" as the opposite sex. And it is still classified as a mental disorder in case anyone was getting upset. That fact may well be on its way to being changed but I don't believe if it is changed that will be best for all Trans people. Some of them need the diagnosis so they can get the help they need for depression and other related issues. I don't want these people to feel put out or shamed but there are objective truths and if you were born with a penis, then you should use the men's room and vice versa. Others don't need to be subjected to your identity problems. Having said that, I don't think it is a huge issue. It really shouldn't be an issue at all if people would just use a little common sense. And emergency/panic situations with kids doing the peepee dance, or even adults in dire situations, don't belong in this discussion. I've used a women's room before and I've taken my kids into whatever restroom was available. Luckily it never happened when it was occupied by a woman because I would have felt bad. But a persons real gender is not a subjective thing. You're either a man or a woman. If you think you should be the other, that really shouldn't be society's problem.