Build Back Better Explained

Biden's Build Back Better Explained
Biden’s Build Back Better Explained

This perfectly explains Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, his and the Dems’ multi-trillion dollar boondoggle. It is, as it must be due to the nature of our federated political system, is doomed to be nothing but a hodge-podge of poorly – if at all – though patches to a system that the Dems’ have decided is broken. It’s just, at best, a bit of rhetoric to rationalize the theft of $3.5 trillion or more from the makers in order to fail to usefully give it to the eaters and takers within our borders.

But then, one does have to wonder if there ever was a point to Build Back Better beyond doing what the Dems have always stated their primary focus in politics was: stripping wealth from successful private citizens and enterprises in order to use it for their own agendas.

Honestly, if Biden and Dems actually wanted to help out the “lower and middle classes” they could just change the tax code so that nobody making less than $44,000 per year paid federal income tax. That would be a direct and easy benefit to the bottom %50 of taxpayers in America and would only cost the federal government approximately 3% of its total Personal Income Tax dollars. A few small and relatively painless tweaks to other parts of the tax code and enforcement policies could even make it cost-neutral.

But Build Back Better is meant to be Build On The Backs Of The Makers, if one can reasonably believe that anything at all will be built in the first place.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

The March Of Progressives

The March Of Progressives

With equal parts sarcastic hilarity and sadness, this sums up seeing the various breeds of Liberals, Progressives, Leftists, and “Woke” sorts’ constant march towards their vision of utopia. All they’re ever doing is plodding in a circle and digging a trench of repeated failure.

It is rather a, if not the definition of insanity; to do the same thing time and time again, expecting to get a different result. And that is what these “Progressive” sorts are and have been doing. At most/worst they try either variations on a theme or, having reached yet another failure point, they’ve expanded their criteria for either victimhood or oppression.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

He Broke Up With You…

He Broke Up With You...
He Broke Up With You…

Personally, I think that women have been trained to believe that the primary reason that they either can’t get a man or keep a man is their physical beauty since the first person realized that he or she could make a living off of convincing women of that idea.

It’s Reproductive Self-Selection

More often though, when it comes to a man breaking up with a woman, it’s not at all about her appearance. It’s about how she acts and what her ideology is. Most men, especially those men who are “worth anything as men” will leave post-haste as soon as they realize that the female they’re with is not a woman, but a womyn. They leave because socialists, feminists, “wokelings,” and similar sorts make piss-poor mates and should never be allowed into circumstances when and where they might bear children.

Then again, there is some truth to such womyn’s sentiments, just not in the shallow, venal, ephemeral context that they relegate men’s opinions to. Men have, do, and will break up with womyn because they’re ugly. It’s just that it’s the ugliness of their minds and souls, not of their features and forms, that drive good men away.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

UBI → UBM

Recently, The Portly Politico wrote a short piece entitled “Fast Food Premium” about Universal Basic Income (UBI) and some of what is grossly wrong with this particular Leftist idea.

There’s been a lot of discussion of UBI—Universal Basic Income—over the last few years, especially with the presidential primary run of Andrew Yang.  The concept is seductive in its simplicity:  gut the welfare state and its behemoth apparatus of bureaucratic pencil pushers and middlemen, and just cut every adult citizen a monthly check.

For fiscal conservatives, it’s a particularly toothsome Devil’s Bargain:  streamline an inefficient and wasteful bureaucracy and simply direct deposit a grand every month into Americans’ checking accounts.  Of course, it’s a siren song:  we’d just get the payments and still suffer from an entrenched bureaucracy, claiming $1000 a month isn’t enough to meet the specialized needs of whatever community they pretend to support.

Even if the deal were struck and every redundant welfare program was eliminated, there UBI would still be a bad idea.  Besides the absurdity of merely paying people to exist, it’s inherently inflationary:  if you give everyone $1000 a month, prices are going to go up.  Just as college tuition has soared because universities realized they could jack up the price and federal loans would expand to cover the costs, UBI would cause a similar rise in prices.  Sure, it’d be great at first, but the inflationary effects would kick in quickly.

— The Portly Politico
Fast Food Premium

Rather than comment on his post directly, I’ve chosen to put my thoughts out here, both to boost the signal of his post and to avoid clogging up his post with TLDR commenting and bringing in tangential and barely tangential facts and predictions to his discussion.

My Thoughts On His Post and Premise

He right; UBI is prima facie very seductive to those who want to increase efficiency and decrease the size of the federal government’s payroll. He’s also right in his allusion to the fact that such an improvement is unlikely in the extreme to happen. The realities of the Deep State’s power, the issues involved in putting a significant number of federal workers onto the unemployment rolls, and many of the several States each likely deciding that they need more than the proposed $1000 per month per person, all indicate that there would be little, if any, streamlining of the federal bureaucracy.

I also agree that UBI would be inherently inflationary. Any time you inject “free” money into an economic system, inflation will be the result. This is especially true when it’s perceived as a stable, recurring injection of said money.

Finally, I agree that UBI would devastate the many industries that rely upon – and are to some extent relied upon by – the unskilled, lowest tier of workers inside our borders, e.g., the fast food industry that was his example.

I disagree, however, that this would be simply a Direct Deposit of monies into people’s bank accounts. Even today, most form of government “largess” are offered through debit cards managed by various third-party firms who make a great deal of money off of proving that service. There’s just too many of the same sorts who have issues with Voter IDs who “need” that sort of card vs. having a banking account of some sort.

UBI - You All Get "Free" Money, No Effort Needed
UBI – You All Get “Free” Money, No Effort Needed

My Thoughts On Near-Term UBI

My first thought is that this very much wouldn’t be a replacement program in the near term. UBI, along with “free” college, pay per baby birthed (I believe this will be expanded and made more direct than the current refundable tax credit), and other subsidies will simply be added to the billions of dollars the federal government hands out as subsidies to the “poor” every year. I firmly believe that, if UBI is enacted, it will be an addition, not a replacement, to the current subsidies collectively referred to a “Safety Net.”

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

— President Ronald Reagan (Bl. 😉 )

No, my guess would be the only part of the “Safety Net” that might be removed (after a one-time, lump-sum payout) as redundant is Social Security (SSI), which is a largely worker-funded program that has been an issue for the government – as well as a cash cow – for some time now.

My second thought is that this, like minimum wage, unemployment, and a plethora of other nationwide programs, will actually increase the inefficiencies and sizes of state and local governments. After all, $1000 doesn’t go nearly as far in Manhattan, NY as it does in Gering, Ne. Hence, the more costly, Democrat-controlled states and localities will do whatever they can to get significantly (200% or more in some cases) increased UBI stipends.

Hellfire! That’s not even ridiculous or grafting. Just taking into account rent, there’s a huge difference. Apartments in Manhattan average costing 680% ($3670 vs. $540) of what they do in Gering. Other costs are similarly different. It would just make sense for NY politicians to demand more UBI money per resident, especially since UBI wouldn’t be means-tested in any way.

My third and final thought is that the proposed $1000 per month federal subsidy would only be the starting point. It would dramatically increase relatively quickly as increasing the monthly stipend would become a key campaign promise, especially for Democrat candidates.

Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) – America’s only long term experiment with any form or level of UBI and Mike Dunleavy landslide victory in the 2018 Alaska gubernatorial election after he promised to increase the PFD payout by more than 600% of the then-current payout and over 300% of the original payout, rather proves that point.

My Longer-Term Predictions: UBI → UBM

In the longer-term, I predict that, if UBI is enacted upon America by the Democrats now or in the near future, it will over the course of some amount of time morph into Universal Basic Maintenance (UBM), with specific subsidies, services, and products replacing all or most of the cash payout. The negative synergy between the Republicans’ desire to not spend taxpayers’ money on frivolous or immoral things and the Democrats’ ideology of benevolent tyranny, pretty much guarantees this, as do all the politicians’ perfectly logical desires for increased control over the populace.

So, those UBI monies that bureaucrats think would or should be spent upon food will, at some point, be replaced by actual, preselected, “appropriate” foodstuffs either available for pickup at government or government-authorized locations or delivered to people’s homes.

Remember, President Trump already floated this idea as a change in SNAP, and the only real reason Democrats lambasted it was that President Trump was the one putting it forth.

Similarly, I’d expect some hybrid of government credit system in POS’s for durable goods, e.g., toilet paper and cleaning supplies and home deliveries of the same to replace that expected portion of the UBI cash payout.

Rent could and might well be handled similarly to how NYC’s rent control works, with the landlords receiving federal monies but being required by fiat to limit their rents to a pre-specified level – a portion of the future iteration of the UBM program that they may not be allowed to opt-out of in most cases.

And, of course, even if healthcare doesn’t get moved to a fully government-controlled single-payer model, that portion of each person’s UBI allotment would likely end up under UBM being placed directly by the government into that person’s Health Savings Account (HSA). Additionally, the government will probably at that point completely control how much medical professionals and institutions can charge for individual procedures and medications.

Yes, my predictions is that UBI will mutated into UBM, a para-utero to grave support and control system ran by the government, without the need for- or use of money by the residents of the nation for their basic needs as defined by our government.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

College Economics 1001

College Economics 1001
College Economics 1001

This about sums up the rank and malodorous hypocrisy of Freshman Economics as it is now taught in the reeking cesspits of Leftism that are the vast majority of what are called colleges and universities in America.

Then, this is what had to happen since we allowed these institutions to degenerate to the point that they effectively and tacitly, though rarely overtly, run all professorial candidates and all course syllabi through their departments of Intersectionality, Gender, and Racial Justice for preapproval.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |