Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Techmomof2 wrote:Get ready to pay for this:

https://futurism.com/images/universal-b ... utomation/

Innovation and forward-thinking may be Hawaii’s two biggest exports in 2017. Earlier this month, the state earned the distinction of being the first in the U.S. to formally accept the provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement after President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the nation from it, and now, Hawaii is taking the lead in embracing yet another innovative idea: universal basic income (UBI).
Interested to hear the opinions of the states' rights people on this regarding the broader issue: If a state or local gov't passes a statist policy, is that 'okay'? Or, asked another way, is the problem with statist policy in Washington found in the fact that the policy is statist or the fact that it is being applied federally?
I'm confused. Statist =/= states rights. (not sure if that's what you were saying). The two are often times mutually exclusive.

I believe in the constitution. I believe in states rights and the 10A.

I think Hawaii is full of idiots if they do this, but as long as it's constitutional and I live somewhere that I don't have to pay for it, I'm OK with that. In the same way, I'm OK with Colorado legalizing pot - and I was OK with states legalizing gay marriage. Of course, statists screwed that up.
No I didn't mean to imply a connection between statism and states' rights. In fact, I was interested in hearing where people place more value between opposing statism and preserving states' rights.

So, as in this case, if a state gov't proposes a statist policy, what are the opinions of states' rights proponents who may very well also be anti-statist?

We can simultaneously think it's their right and their idiots. Why are you setting up a false dichotomy to play gotcha?
You mean they're idiots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by Hokie CPA »

The real problem is that if only one state does it, then people start moving there to take advantage of it. Hawaii at least has an ocean for a border, limiting the people who can make their way there for this purpose. God help Kalifornia if they ever make such a stupid move.


Sent from my Windows phone using Tapatalk.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by cwtcr hokie »

Hokie CPA wrote:The real problem is that if only one state does it, then people start moving there to take advantage of it. Hawaii at least has an ocean for a border, limiting the people who can make their way there for this purpose. God help Kalifornia if they ever make such a stupid move.


Sent from my Windows phone using Tapatalk.
kali is already broke, they can't even fix messed up dams!!
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Techmomof2 wrote:Get ready to pay for this:

https://futurism.com/images/universal-b ... utomation/

Innovation and forward-thinking may be Hawaii’s two biggest exports in 2017. Earlier this month, the state earned the distinction of being the first in the U.S. to formally accept the provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement after President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the nation from it, and now, Hawaii is taking the lead in embracing yet another innovative idea: universal basic income (UBI).
Interested to hear the opinions of the states' rights people on this regarding the broader issue: If a state or local gov't passes a statist policy, is that 'okay'? Or, asked another way, is the problem with statist policy in Washington found in the fact that the policy is statist or the fact that it is being applied federally?
I'm confused. Statist =/= states rights. (not sure if that's what you were saying). The two are often times mutually exclusive.

I believe in the constitution. I believe in states rights and the 10A.

I think Hawaii is full of idiots if they do this, but as long as it's constitutional and I live somewhere that I don't have to pay for it, I'm OK with that. In the same way, I'm OK with Colorado legalizing pot - and I was OK with states legalizing gay marriage. Of course, statists screwed that up.
No I didn't mean to imply a connection between statism and states' rights. In fact, I was interested in hearing where people place more value between opposing statism and preserving states' rights.

So, as in this case, if a state gov't proposes a statist policy, what are the opinions of states' rights proponents who may very well also be anti-statist?

We can simultaneously think it's their right and their idiots. Why are you setting up a false dichotomy to play gotcha?
You mean they're idiots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ya got me
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6027
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by Bay_area_Hokie »

Hokie CPA wrote:The real problem is that if only one state does it, then people start moving there to take advantage of it. Hawaii at least has an ocean for a border, limiting the people who can make their way there for this purpose. God help Kalifornia if they ever make such a stupid move.


Sent from my Windows phone using Tapatalk.
I was thinking that the likely result of this would be lots and lots of people moving to Hawaii. Next stop, Hawaii wants its own immigration policy to keep out all the American deadbeats. Problem.

At first they would combat this with some kind of long term residency requirement, and then you would get pregnant woman visiting in month eight of their pregnancy, creating a form of an anchor baby...I see nothing but problems. Dead beats will always find a way....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by awesome guy »

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:The real problem is that if only one state does it, then people start moving there to take advantage of it. Hawaii at least has an ocean for a border, limiting the people who can make their way there for this purpose. God help Kalifornia if they ever make such a stupid move.


Sent from my Windows phone using Tapatalk.
I was thinking that the likely result of this would be lots and lots of people moving to Hawaii. Next stop, Hawaii wants its own immigration policy to keep out all the American deadbeats. Problem.

At first they would combat this with some kind of long term residency requirement, and then you would get pregnant woman visiting in month eight of their pregnancy, creating a form of an anchor baby...I see nothing but problems. Dead beats will always find a way....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maine or another libtard haven already had this problem with welfare benefits. Forgot which one, but they were crying for border control. I think they had to drop the program as it was bankrupting them.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by HokieJoe »

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:The real problem is that if only one state does it, then people start moving there to take advantage of it. Hawaii at least has an ocean for a border, limiting the people who can make their way there for this purpose. God help Kalifornia if they ever make such a stupid move.


Sent from my Windows phone using Tapatalk.
I was thinking that the likely result of this would be lots and lots of people moving to Hawaii. Next stop, Hawaii wants its own immigration policy to keep out all the American deadbeats. Problem.

At first they would combat this with some kind of long term residency requirement, and then you would get pregnant woman visiting in month eight of their pregnancy, creating a form of an anchor baby...I see nothing but problems. Dead beats will always find a way....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
True ingenuity springs from laziness.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by BigDave »

awesome guy wrote:Maine or another libtard haven already had this problem with welfare benefits. Forgot which one, but they were crying for border control. I think they had to drop the program as it was bankrupting them.
Their Republican governor has reformed their welfare system and it has been a great success. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... del-nation

Maine, as northeast states go, is actually pretty moderate. Republicans have a one-seat majority in the Senate and Democrats have a 5-seat majority in the House. The current governor is a Republican.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by 133743Hokie »

BigDave wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Maine or another libtard haven already had this problem with welfare benefits. Forgot which one, but they were crying for border control. I think they had to drop the program as it was bankrupting them.
Their Republican governor has reformed their welfare system and it has been a great success. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... del-nation

Maine, as northeast states go, is actually pretty moderate. Republicans have a one-seat majority in the Senate and Democrats have a 5-seat majority in the House. The current governor is a Republican.
We had a welfare-to-work program until Obama dismantled it. And it's not coincidental that the changes in insurance coverage have coincided with Obamacare. That said it appears that 15% of the state is still on welfare.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by Hokie CPA »

133743Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Maine or another libtard haven already had this problem with welfare benefits. Forgot which one, but they were crying for border control. I think they had to drop the program as it was bankrupting them.
Their Republican governor has reformed their welfare system and it has been a great success. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... del-nation

Maine, as northeast states go, is actually pretty moderate. Republicans have a one-seat majority in the Senate and Democrats have a 5-seat majority in the House. The current governor is a Republican.
We had a welfare-to-work program until Obama dismantled it. And it's not coincidental that the changes in insurance coverage have coincided with Obamacare. That said it appears that 15% of the state is still on welfare.
Honest question here... is that so bad?

I mean, national unemployment is somewhere between 4-7%, depending on which numbers you believe -- call it 5%. That means roughly 10% of Maine's population has a job but isn't making enough to make ends meet and needs assistance. Considering the national average is upwards of 34% getting some kind of welfare assistance, Maine's 15% is low.

Assuming that 15% is accurate, that is.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by 133743Hokie »

Hokie CPA wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Maine or another libtard haven already had this problem with welfare benefits. Forgot which one, but they were crying for border control. I think they had to drop the program as it was bankrupting them.
Their Republican governor has reformed their welfare system and it has been a great success. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... del-nation

Maine, as northeast states go, is actually pretty moderate. Republicans have a one-seat majority in the Senate and Democrats have a 5-seat majority in the House. The current governor is a Republican.
We had a welfare-to-work program until Obama dismantled it. And it's not coincidental that the changes in insurance coverage have coincided with Obamacare. That said it appears that 15% of the state is still on welfare.
Honest question here... is that so bad?

I mean, national unemployment is somewhere between 4-7%, depending on which numbers you believe -- call it 5%. That means roughly 10% of Maine's population has a job but isn't making enough to make ends meet and needs assistance. Considering the national average is upwards of 34% getting some kind of welfare assistance, Maine's 15% is low.

Assuming that 15% is accurate, that is.
Depends on he definition of welfare and what is included to legitimately compare. I have no idea of the unemployment rate in Maine.But your 37% figure isn't welfare. It's a much broader collection of government services which didn't appear to be included in the article.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Hawaii in favor of Universal Basic Income

Post by VisorBoy »

133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Techmomof2 wrote:Get ready to pay for this:

https://futurism.com/images/universal-b ... utomation/

Innovation and forward-thinking may be Hawaii’s two biggest exports in 2017. Earlier this month, the state earned the distinction of being the first in the U.S. to formally accept the provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement after President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the nation from it, and now, Hawaii is taking the lead in embracing yet another innovative idea: universal basic income (UBI).
Interested to hear the opinions of the states' rights people on this regarding the broader issue: If a state or local gov't passes a statist policy, is that 'okay'? Or, asked another way, is the problem with statist policy in Washington found in the fact that the policy is statist or the fact that it is being applied federally?
I have no problem if a state wants to use its own revenues to create a "basic income", whatever that is. Likewise, if a state wants to fund universal health care insurance for all residents; again that's fine with me as long as they use internal dollars.

The caveat is don't come begging to the federal government for a bailout. Don't come crying to the federal government with an exploding Medicaid roll. When you fail, and you will fail, and when your state is deep in debt, and you will be deep in debt, you're on your own. And if the federal government wants to pull operations out of the state because it's a mess then so be it.
I've come across that opinion before and to be honest, I'm a little baffled by it.

It seems to imply that when a federal statist policy is debated, the issue anti-statists have with it is not the policy itself. Instead, it is the fact that the statist policy applies to a larger in-group than a US state (i.e. it applies nationally). To me, that means that the fundamental disagreement between statism vs. business freedom is, in fact, an argument over the size of the population affected by a given policy, not the increase in statism.

What do you think?
I disagree with the policy. But it isn't my decision to make. As to your question, I agree that the state has the right to implement a statewide policy that doesn't violate the US Constitution. I'm not sure what your question is?

As I stated, I disagree with the policy so by nature I don't want it to be applied nationwide. I disagree with the policy from a federal perspective because 1) it won't work on a large scale and 2) it will be an enormous financial burden on the US. It's much easier to do something for 3 million than 30 million, and for 30 million rather than 300 million. Some things just aren't scalable.
Gotcha, the scaleability consideration is a good point.

I wondered if the fact that a person who was fundamentally opposed to a given policy would speak out against it occurring in another state. After all, this policy is not less 'statist' just because the government that passed it represents a state instead of a nation. It's the same 'government entry into society'.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
Post Reply