Steven Crowder showing his true self

Men and women don't need equal rights in all things.

Why do women need a right to have urinals in a restroom? Why do men need a right to breastfeed in public?

I'm going to need some proof that is what he believes, because I believe that to be a lie.

LOL nice try bucko, you claimed I was using hate speech so now you change the focus to what Crowder and SNL said, no need to prove my point, but thanks.

because I wanted to see what your motive actually was, it wasn't to denounce speech or what was actually said, aka selective moral outrage, but rather an attack on Steven Crowder, plain as the nose on your face.  wataboutism doesn't fit YOUR definition of hate speech either.  Just can't keep your foot out of your mouth can you.

ohh well let me use your own words then "How is my fault that you didn't quantify(specifiy) how many grown-ups you meant (Crowder)? That fault is on you."  you see pedantic

no I understand, you think you can label people as you wish, when you wish and how you wish, I get that fully. 

I also get you think you are the last word on these arbitrary words as to what their definitions are.  Someone who claims to be a feminist but doesn't meet your criteria for one, therefore can't call themselves one, yeah I totally understand authoritarianism when I hear it.

That's a classic leftist trait.  

Nope, because people aren't impoverished intrisically, they are impoverished due to injustices within our economic system.

False. Children who are born into poverty will be poor. Might not be forever but the time they are born for sure. I don't see how you got to that conclusion.

it's always 1,000. Your assistance doesn't decrease as you climb out of poverty.

Okay but what if people need more than 1k?

Poor people aren't inherently irrational with money

That is not my claim. My claim is that poor people tend to make bad choices due to the circumstance they are in.

scarcity has been shown to lower a persons IQ by a standard deviation, and UBI helps to eliminate the scarcity mindset. I think you might have picked up some rather unfair views of poor people from Republican propaganda.

Giving someone 1k doesn't solve their problems but it can help. Do you agree?

Also, look at Alaska. UBI hasn't lead to either inflation or bad choices;

I said tend not will.

 people use the money to pay down bills or generally augment a responsible life.

If the bills are manageable or they are rational people then it can work but it does not solve their problems which is why in Alaska they are still working their jobs not deciding to do something else with their life because the UBI does not cover them to do something more important. This is based on people not liking their job and I think that assumption is fair.

The reason that UBI doesn't lead to price inflation is because while it gives consumers more money, it also revitalizes local economies to create more competition. There was no measurable inflation in the Finland trial.

Do you have evidence for Alaska? I would rather stick to one instead of another UBI trial in Finland.

I don't see poor people doing that, because everyone wants a better life and more money. 

This interview would help understand my concern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50z8H2RYe7s Starts at 5:11. Do tell me what you think of it. Basically people who get 300 already will only get 700 more from UBI. 

How do you differentiate between the systematically oppressed poor person and the gifted person choosing to be lazy to game the welfare system?

How does a fiat UBI remain stable over time?  I mean, if the dollar isn't tied to something of considerable value, eventually the effect of stimulus will wear off and the UBI amount will turn out to be worth less, right?

I'm also concerned about the potential for quasi-populist kickbacks, and there are other potential problems to be addressed as well, such as a government that exclusively controls critical means of production, presenting a liability in which the people lack the productive capacity to take a hit (from the government) and negotiate if necessary.

Another potential issue to be addressed, that the governing agents have an option to simply open the floodgates just enough to keep the masses at an "acceptable" standard of living.  I don't necessarily think we need to let the risks keep us from considering the implementation in a positive light either, but I think it should be considered whether the implementation burdens a liability onto future generations in a centralized application.

I'm about 25% certain that feminism is an affirmation in the superiority of the female race.

You're thinking of this within a capitalist paradigm, which isn't the only paradigm available. It's the one that we are currently living under.

Then they work to earn more. But the 1k baseline gives them the freedom to pursue other work that they may find more fulfilling, or to work more limited hours. And since Yang supports Medicare for all, it removes our idiotic pairing of employment with healthcare. If they cannot work at all, then other welfare programs exist that will give them more. But the number of people who will be on those is vanishingly small.

So change their circumstances with $1,000 a month to them and everyone in their family and community.

I do agree; I don't think that the government is good at solving people's problems. It's good at handing them a big pile of money though, and letting them work on their own problems.

If it tended to you would be able to produce an example of it happening. One not existing indicates that it tends not to.

Alaska's UBI is much smaller than what Yang is proposing. UBI isn't supposed to free you from labor, it's supposed to increase your negotiating power as a laborer.

I mean, I'm the one saying that there was no evidence of inflation. You're the one claiming that inflation would happen. The burden of proof is on you; find a study on the inflationary effects of a real world UBI program. There's no need to stick to one either, especially when we have so few examples to work with.

Yeah, but the end goal is that they become more wealthy while still receiving 1,000 in UBI.

it's supposed to revitalize local economies

help to fight systemic poverty

...but they can keep the welfare programs if they want them, and the UBI is there as an option if they, for example, get a second job and get cut off from welfare as a result.

What is the aim of UBI? I am getting an idea from what you said earlier but I want to make sure I am understanding your point correctly.

What UBI does, is it comes in and makes up the difference when welfare gets cut so it always equals $1,000 no matter what.

This is on the assumption that Republicans won't cut costs for UBI right? They are cutting social security and their voters don't care so what is stopping someone like Trump to cut UBI a social security if I am not mistaken?

I live in a pretty working poor area, a lot of people do second jobs for under the table cash so that they can keep their welfare benefits and make more money; if they had to declare that money the government would decrease their benefits. UBI says 'oh, the government cut your SNAP and TANF benefits to $400? here's $600 to make up for what they cut'. If someone uses more than $1,000 a month UBI doesn't effect them directly at all.

You do know this is an anecdote right? I want to remind you above of my question. What is stopping people in the future to cut UBI like they do to other social securities?

A lot of people who I personally know qualify for programs like SNAP and TANF don't take it and survive paycheck to paycheck because they think that it's immoral to take it.

Do you have evidence for this because this is an anecdote as well? I can say I live in the richest area in the country and I would say why are people so poor can't they simply ask their parents to pay for anything? You wouldn't agree with it but there are teenagers or adults like this so either I choose to accept your anecdote or the rich adult or teenager. I rather not accept either and see the evidence.

My point is that the ADMINISTRATIVE costs of SS alone far, far outweigh the cost of giving billionaires 1,000 a month.

Has this been shown in Alaska, Finland or some other UBI trial?

It's not a welfare program, and it's not supposed to keep up with the cost of living. It's supposed to subsidize reduced work hours and pump money into main-street economies.

The problem here is that everyone who is eligible will get the money so the poor would still be poor and the middle class would still be the middle class. Now they have 1k more just like people who are much better off as well. Doesn't help actual problems like wage stagnation or healthcare so I don't see how UBI is more important than unions and public healthcare. Do you concede unions and public healthcare are more important that UBI?

You're thinking of this within a capitalist paradigm, which isn't the only paradigm available. It's the one that we are currently living under.

That is the paradigm the United States is living on so it is fair to have that approach. Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal because UBI will be placed if occurs in a capitalist paradigm. If there was another system that you think would be taking place during UBI do tell because I think the United States will remain in a capitalist paradigm.

Then they work to earn more. But the 1k baseline gives them the freedom to pursue other work that they may find more fulfilling, or to work more limited hours. And since Yang supports Medicare for all, it removes our idiotic pairing of employment with healthcare. If they cannot work at all, then other welfare programs exist that will give them more. But the number of people who will be on those is vanishingly small.

Where is the evidence from Alaska or Finland to even suggest people take up jobs that they want to do? The burden is on you to provide something that states that and from what I have read about Alaska it mentions they kept their current jobs not used their added freedom to commit to new ones. Yes public healthcare is good.

So change their circumstances with $1,000 a month to them and everyone in their family and community.

1k is not going to reduce wage stagnation since everyone is going to get the 1k if they are not on better welfare programs.

It is not going to improve schools.

It is not going better the justice which unfairly sentences minority groups.

It is only going to give them 1k more and even that is not that good because from what I read about Alaska that added freedom meant nothing to their jobs since they carried on working the same jobs that they did already.

Maybe because the place that they were working at offered them company sponsored healthcare and to risk that for several families would be detrimental. Yang has said he is for public healthcare so that can offer freedom. I would like to bring in Finland because that I think has public healthcare and from this links said that added freedom of UBI did not make the unemployed find jobs. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

"Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really."

Guess we need to wait a little longer for more in-depth look at what occurred with this statement "Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. They are still trying to work out exactly why this is, for the final report that will be published in 2020."

To help people rise out of poverty and to create consumer markets in impoverished areas. To increase negotiating power of both individuals and unions. The aims are manifold.

This argument can be used against literally any social program.

Yeah it's an anecdote. An anecdote is a good argument against an inaccurate absolute statement.

All evidence which is not sensory is ultimately based on anecdotes. The problem with individual anecdotes is that they are limited in scope. They're  not good for proving trends, but they are good for disproving inaccurate statements with a counter example. If someone says 'there are no northern lights', saying 'I've been to Alaska and I saw the northern lights' is a good counter argument.

What on earth do you mean? We KNOW how much it costs to administer SS now. We also know how many billionaires there are in the US. If we multiply that number by 12,000, we know how much the UBI will cost and we can compare that number to the administration figure.

Some unions enthusiastically endorse UBI because it increases their negotiating power. Think about a strike. If people have UBI, they can strike and then survive short term on the UBI. Without it, it is much harder to strike. I think that getting rid of private health insurance companies is really important, but they're two completely different problems.

https://basicincome.org/news/2016/09/uk-major-trade-union-federation-endorses-ubi/

https://onlabor.org/andy-stern-on-universal-basic-income/

I don't. Capitalism is based on a proletariat class which needs to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in return for a wage. As automation increases efficiency, what you are going to end up with is a large working class which wants to labor but which cannot (if we don't intervene). The American economist Henry George covered this extensively in his book 'Poverty and Progress'.

I already said, Alaska gives people roughly 1k A YEAR. That's not enough to supplement part time work, but it does help people pay down debts and invest a bit in the local economy. So I wouldn't expect that effect to show up.

It's not supposed to; wages are going to become increasingly obsolete.

Yes it will, since student success has more to do with parental involvement than with school funding. Taking people out of a scarcity mindset allows them to focus on small but important things like their child's school performance.

Obviously not, that's a different program which requires different policies.

That's because Alaska didn't give them 1k a month. 1k a month is enough to hold you over working a job with pay that isn't quite as great. 1k a year is not. And I don't get this bizarre fascination that you have with people quitting their jobs as a sign of success. Maybe people kept their jobs because they liked them? I wouldn't quit my job if I got $1,000 a month. I doubt my father or brother would either. But there is a small minority of people who want to quit but are afraid to. UBI would help them, which would put more pressure on businesses to treat their workers better as a result.

Of course, how do they define 'jobs'? The entire point of UBI is that it frees people to pursue unorthodox ways to make money, like artisan work or part-time work. Yangs UBI also includes a huge boost to trade schools as well, which would help to increase the number of self-employed people doing difficult to automate work. Your standards for success also seem rather bizarre. You complain about the Alaskan trial not leading to people leaving their jobs, and then complain about the Finnish one not leading to people working more. Which is your standard for a successful UBI program? Because both are exactly what I would expect: increased happiness, reduced anxiety and stress, a bit more part time work, but no huge change in standard, old-fashioned employment.

A government is bad with money by definition, because there is no real controlling factor aside from elections, which are easily manipulatable.

I don't support single payer because I think that the government will be more efficient, I support it because private insurance companies are evil, vampiric middlemen who contribute absolute zero positive things to health care while obscuring pricing signals and hiding the true costs of our ridiculous healthcare system, then slurping a huge cut for themselves off the top of the whole mess. They deserve to die, and while I would prefer to see their executives executed by firing squad I will settle for seeing their companies dismantled.

... that actually proves my point. People, I imagine retired people and mothers, got part time jobs because the 1k a year put them in a more comfortable position. But then again I'd have to see more statistics as there are a lot of confounding variables. But once again; a huge number of people dropping out of employment wouldn't be a good thing. That's not what UBI is meant to do; it's meant to supplement a full time or part time wage. As automation-driven unemployment increases, the UBI could be raised. 

Alaska gives people roughly 1k A YEAR. That's not enough to supplement part time work, but it does help people pay down debts and invest a bit in the local economy. So I wouldn't expect that effect to show up.

Why don't you think that?

Yeah, it's up to them to make themselves wealthy. This just gives everyone a leg up.

It's basic economics. Consumer economies drive economic growth, and handing people money creates a consumer economy.

...once again, this is just basic logic. Poverty is defined as a lack of wealth. Giving people money by definition fights poverty. This is an improvement of the system. There are claims that you don't ask for 'evidence' for because they are self-evident.

He says he will cut taxes for middle class but more taxes were cut for the rich.

So I can understand, in the current context we have debt to pay off, and greater tax cuts at the high end of income essentially shield some people from that burden, arguably unfair.  I have to ask though, what do you have against tax cuts?

So I can understand, in the current context we have debt to pay off, and greater tax cuts at the high end of income essentially shield some people from that burden, arguably unfair.  I have to ask though, what do you have against tax cuts?

My problem was that he said a bill was for tax cuts for the middle class but his cut the rich more than the middle class. 

 Do you likewise have an issue when people with high income have a greater increase in taxes than the middle class?

This is based on the assumption that the inflation rate won't increase and the people who need it the most will use the money rationally? The only way you can prove inflation rate won't increase is to provide a trial that also gave people 1k a month. Didn't realise Alaska got 1k a year. How about Finland?

How does it improve negotiating power? I think it is fair to say most people carry on with their job because of the healthcare they. 

UBI would be a lot more acceptable if it didn't discourage charity within the community.  If under a certain threshold of income, people could opt out and get full tax refunds for their charity, what have you, this would make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

I mean it's the rich people that create jobs, not the middle class. So if you have to bribe the middle class with a taxcut to get them to look the other way while you purchase jobs with tax cuts for the rich, then it's totally justified.

There is no free anything. Consequences exist. If you want to tax the rich at confiscatory rates, it is going to cost the country jobs. The tradeoff is you can have a big bloated government running everything and be unemployed...or you can have the opposite.

All the real world instances that I know of are accounted from something of considerable value, like a publicly owned resource

All studies that I know of simply redistributing fiat are not oriented towards economics in real world application, but rather effects that result from transitioning to a theoretical UBI like adapting to free money, behavior, and stress.   My experience has been that in a functional state, it does not make a whole lot of tangible difference in the studies, but of significance is that I have not seen a study in which sloth became a pervasive issue, suggesting that impersonal welfare may not translate to an endorsement of counter productivity in itself.  Although, the studies did not account for multigenerational implications.  The results typically indicated that people go on about their lives, and a significant amount report a higher quality in some intangibles, or less stress.