The GOP are guided by them.
Income is not wealth.
Who do you think is going to wind up with that money in the end? It won’t be the poor folks.
“There is no party that is ... pro-death”
Since every abortion results in a death and Democrats are universally pro-abortion, isn’t the Democratic Party pro-death?
But this article is clearly a communist screed, so who expected logic of all things?
This should be financed from Obama’s ‘stash’.
Milton Friedman observing how means tested programs created a disincentive to work came up with the idea of a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Also, Charles Murray has a book on this. He claims if you take all the income redistribution programs you send each man, woman, and child in America a check for $10,000 per year. I would be in favor of this approach if it meant replacing all the current gov’t programs and firing all the case workers and bureaucrats.
right in the middle of the article “Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week”
Newsweek, why not give it away for free to everyone as part of the basic income check you cheap bastards?
Living on $2 a day?
I smell a rat. The po’ folk I see walking around spend more than that on soda pop at 7-eleven.
what an idiot.....how can he claim to be an economist when he obviously does not understand what a baseline is
Brilliant, George Soros bring your checkbook.
War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty wonIn 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.
Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher.
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
Communist garbage.
Anyone remember Richard Nixon who proposed a guaranteed income plan in the 1970s?
A basic income check? And in two years when inflation catches up to those worthless basic income checks and poverty is WORSE and not better - then what?
Its been said that if you took all the wealth from the rich and gave it to the poor - the rich would have it back within 2 years.
What happens when as a result inflation starts spiraling out of control?
Guess what happens when you flood the marketplace with extra money? Prices go up as more dollars chase the same resources.
This would do nothing to eradicate poverty, but sure would make more people dependent on their EBT card or equivalent.
Here's a simple IF/THEN statement that shows why this is a monumentally stupid idea.
IF $X = Amount of "Basic Income Check",
THEN $X = The NEW Zero.
moron, Moron, MORON!!!!!!
There will always be the rich and the poor. There is no fix. Cutting the outlay and length of freebies will eliminate a huge percent of the current lazy, um, poor.
Tax it. Tas the bleep outta those living in poverty.
Its well known that if you want MORE of something, then subsidize it. And that's what we do with poverty. We reward and grow it with subsidies.
If you want LESS of something - then tax it.
If we could blow up every single welfare and means-tested program, such an idea would seem reasonable.
However, the moment you issue a single check, that recipient will blow it all. ALL. In mere moments. On drugs, gambling, booze, women, etc.
Then, they will still be begging at government’s doorstep asking for food, housing, healthcare, etc.
The problem of welfare is not its construct.
The problem of welfare is its existence.
there already is a basic-income check. it’s the standard write-off on taxes. about $12k/yr is not taxed. this yields about $2400 annually (20%) of overlooked tax money