Posted on 10/12/2017 6:34:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
So 8 years x $2.5 trillion per year = $20 trillion dollars of spending to get, with extremely optimistic assumptions, 13.1% total growth of GDP, or $2.43 trillion. And now the country is $40 trillion in debt because resource royalties are already part of the budget that is spent, so delivering it to the people means that much has to be borrowed.
And since Obama had a history of reducing the US government owned resources being sold by putting more and more areas off limits the amount available for this program had been reduced.
Next, I do not recall Hillary every putting this plan out. I admit, I had a tendency to turn the channel whenever her nails on a chalkboard voice came on the TV or radio, but I don't think I ever heard this plan.
OK, this is not a kind, Christian thought. I thought it, so I will type it: Why doesn’t this Marxist b*tch do the US a favor and drop dead?
I said it was unkind and un-Christian.
P.S. Not sure HE looks upon typing as an out. 8>) I'll pray that he forgive you for your transgressions & suggest you do the same. 8>) I will also ptay for me for sharing your sentiment & hope you reciprocate for me. 8>)
We’ll damn, guess I’ll have to send my check to the Infernal Revenue Service tomorrow to help pay for this foolishness.
How many times do such scheme’s have to fail before the socialists realize it’s impossible?
Who am I kidding. They are incapable of learning.
So Hillary would have started out with 'income for everyone' but it would have DEVOLVED TO 'income for the democrat base' and 'jobs administering the program for liberal elites...
We know how democrats do their dance... it's 'all of us' until they're elected - - then it's BENEFITS FOR THEM AND 'THE CHECK' FOR US.
Un-Christian maybe, but I'm with you.
The only guaranteed income there is for the government workers. Everybody else is just getting a portion of their taxes returned to them.
So they want to rename welfare? Because there are generations that have been on it already without working.
As I think Will Smith used to say on Fresh Prince, "No sh#t, Hillary."
“We decided it was exciting but not realistic and left it on the shelf. That was the responsible decision. I wonder now whether we should have thrown caution to the wind and embraced ‘Alaska for America’ as a long-term goal and figured out the details later.”
Not gonna happen. You couldn't get that legislation through Republican Congress (unless those polaroids of McConnell and Ryan are really scandalous), and it would bankrupt a country that's already trillions in debt.
Imagine every time you made any financial transaction from paying for your groceries to transferring money between bank accounts you would be taxed. I would also bet your “free government “ money would have been like Social Security benefits subject to federal income tax. Hillary’s plan would have been essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If you instituted a ‘basic income’ in the US, you know that not long after it went into effect there would be an increase in the cost of living such that it would eat up the ‘basic income’ very quickly. Then there would be a push from the left to increase the ‘basic income’, and this dance would be played out over and over.
It will also have the name Peter on it....
She’d be robbing Peter.
But to add insult to injury, she’d FORCE Peter to sign the check then take all the credit for her charity!
Shouldn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out why this wouldn’t work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.