The Clinton astroturfing is strong with this one.
Very much so. Putin's political power comes from opposing oligarchs (who were self-made billionaires in the post-Soviet collapse). It is the fact that so many people couldn't adjust to the market-based economy which fueled frustration with the few who did. His power is maintained almost exclusively through dictatorship-style extra-judicial confiscation of wealth created by oligarchs and handing it over to his political cronies. These cronies are much better described as apparatchiks than "oligarchs."
If anything, just take away the parents' basic income if they have too many kids. The disincentive would probably work very well.
Not for the kids. If the point of basic income is to alleviate suffering of the least able, then taking it away from the care takers of children would also accomplish the opposite of the intended goal.
This assertion is a load of crap
Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.
And holding down a job and being rewarded for it also feels nice for your self-esteem
So does playing video games which reward you for doing meaningless tasks while you do nothing useful with your time.
If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?
A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.
I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.
Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.
Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?
He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.
If I were pretending to be a lawyer, I would have said that this was what the Turkish constitution stated rather than saying that this is what I heard on the news. For the sake of disclosure, I'll make the unnecessary disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.
"Morality is one thing. Ratings are everything." - A Network 23 executive on "Max Headroom"