Canada considering universal basic income

 

I came upon this tweet the other day to learn that the Senate Finance Committee is looking into a bill (S-233), An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, aka, guaranteed annual income (GAI) or universal basic income (UBI):

Canada to implement a universal basic income of $2,000 per month.

It doesn't matter how much money you make; you will be eligible for $2,000 per month.

"This is pretty crazy"

"This will be an influx into the economy that will be highly inflationary"

"We all remember what… pic.twitter.com/4uIlbZV9d1

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) December 26, 2023

Can this be a good, sound idea?

A GAI or UBI broadly refers to a cash transfer from government intended to ensure a minimum level of income for everyone. A universal basic income specifically gives everyone a flat cash transfer, regardless of their level of income.

In this case, it's for everyone in Canada over 17.

If enacted, what would be the price tag? According to a 2020 report from the Canadian Fraser Institute, which analyzed the costs of a UBI based on the $2,000 monthly benefit provided by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) program. If all Canadians aged 18 to 64 received annual payments of $24,000 with no strings attached, the annual price tag would reach $465 billion. For perspective, consider that the entire federal budget in 2019-20 including interest on the national debt was $362.9 billion.

About $100 billion more than all federal spending.

Proponents claim that the UBI would be an efficient replacement for the country’s bloated welfare apparatus, and so would actually reduce overall costs.

Unfortunately, a welfare state by any other name is still a welfare state. And the UBI is just replacing one pricey system for another. And unlike the current welfare state, which has standards for determining who qualifies for certain aid, a UBI would be given to everyone. This would dramatically increase the pool of citizens receiving benefits from the state and inflict massive expenses across the board.

Public opinion and social psychology indicate that adopting policies with a demonstrated track record of discouraging work would be a bad development.

Policy should be designed to reward work rather than replace it.

Evidence from the negative income tax experiment, which ran from 1968 to 1980, strongly suggests that a comprehensive universal basic income program would significantly reduce work and increase dependency.

'Capitalism is destroying the entire world': CSPAN Gen Z caller clearly confused or brainwashed

On Saturday morning while curiously listening to callers to CSPAN's Open Forum on Washington Journal, one call made me wonder what and how some people think,

The caller, a young man, said (starting at the 5:28 mark): "Today is my birthday., I'm turning 24. I'm part of Gen Z and to echo a earlier caller, my generation is feeling a pretty big sense of impending doom because all the old people in power want to destroy the world before they're all gone. Because people are starting to wake up and see how capitalism is destroying the entire world. There will be a breaking point soon." 

Capitalism is destroying the entire world? This is what they are teaching our youth in high schools and colleges?

Well the numbers don't really add up to confirm this man's statement. Capitalism has done wonders in improving lives around the world.

In 1820, over 90 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 1990 around 30 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, less than 10 percent (9.2%) of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. 

In the last quarter century, more than 1.25 billion people escaped extreme poverty - that equates to over 138,000 people being lifted out of poverty every day.

In fact, the poorest of the poor have seen the most improvement.

An article by Alexander Hammond outlines some of the specific improvements:

Since its economic liberalization reforms in 1991, India’s average income has increased by 7.5 percent per year. That means that average income has more than tripled over the last quarter century. As wealth increased, the poverty rate in India declined by almost 24 percent. But most significantly, for the Dalits – the poorest and lowest caste in Indian society – the poverty rate during this period declined even faster, by 31 percent. That means that in the nation that has by far the largest number of people in extreme poverty, it is the people at the very bottom of the social strata who are getting richer faster.

A similar trend can be seen in Nigeria. Since the new millennium, gross domestic income per capita has increased by over 800 percent, from $270 to over $2,450. There is much work to be done, but this level of progress shows that even in the poorest countries, the speed of economic growth is encouraging.

And this is attributed to countries embracing freedom, free markets and "capitalism", not to socialism, state-controlled or central planning.

It is allowing us to live longer, making us more equal, feeding us despite population growth and so much more.

The key question all concerned human beings must answer is this: which institution, the “government” or the “market” (an intangible consisting of freely acting individuals or groups), is better equipped to solve the problems confronting society today? Which kind of society, the command economy or the market economy, will generate the capital wealth necessary to eliminate social ills?

The answer should be self-evident.

The statement that "capitalism" is making the world worse is the most pernicious of misunderstandings and shame on people teaching the young people that it is so.

Karl Marx's 10 planks: How close is America?

In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the infamous Communist Manifesto. In this thesis, Marx describes the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to affect a communist socialist state. These are known as the 10 planks.

Let’s take a look at what Marx said and decide for yourself:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

What have we done: the Bureau of Land Management, zoning laws

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

What have we done: 16th amendment, Social Security Act

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

What have we done: Federal and State Estate Taxes

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

What have we done: Tax liens, IRS confiscation of property

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

What have we done: the Federal Reserve

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

What have we done: FCC, DOT, FAA

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

What have we done: Dept of Agriculture and probably numerous agencies I can’t recall or even know of.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

What have we done: Minimum wage laws, Dept of Labor

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

What have we done: Planning Reorganization act of 1949, zoning laws

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Speaks for itself.

I’m not personally saying that we are there or will be soon, nor am I pointing the finger at the right or the left because they are equally responsible.

You be the Judge…

Ted Lieu's dishonest embryo tweet

Remember back in April when California Congressman Ted Lieu tweeted the below claiming the photo was a pregnancy at 9 weeks?:

Of course, this is not even close to being true, but that did not stop Lieu from putting it out there for his more than 1 million followers.

A quick jaunt over to Langman's Medical Embryology, 12th Ed shows what a 9 week old fetus looks like:

So dishonest and deceitful and many followers likely believed what he is posting. What a shame.

So much for the party of "science".

‘Abortion access journalist' skirts answering CSPAN viewer's question about surgical techniques

Earlier this year, CSPAN had “abortion access” journalist with The Nation, Amy Littlefield on to discuss abortion access in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision.

One inquiring caller asked: I’m kinda on the fence with abortion. What I would like to know is what the actual, when the doctor and the woman gets together for the abortion, what are the actual surgical techniques that happen?

CSPAN is supposed to educate, this is your opportunity to tell us what exactly is done to the fetus and to the woman and to the fetus afterwards.

This segment starts at the 31:57 mark of the video

Littlefield replied: I have worked in clinics before and I can give an interview of what happens. In a rising number of cases we’re talking about abortions accomplished with the use of pills or medication and the majority of abortions now, especially since the pandemic with people who can access telemedicine, doing so at home and with easing restrictions around the abortion pill, a lot of people are self-managing or through consultation with a medical provider, talking pills to have an abortion at home.

What that consists of is taking a pill, Mifepristone, which stops the growth of the pregnancy by blocking the pregnancy hormones. And a certain time later taking misoprostol pills, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy.

That tend to happen in the first trimester of pregnancy.

In terms of patients who might choose to have an in-clinic procedure if it’s available to them, what’s happening the doctor is dilating the cervix and using a vacuum aspirator to remove the pregnancy in most cases. And then it’s disposed of in accordance with whatever medical regulations in the state and federal jurisdiction where that clinic is. I hope that answers the callers question.

Unfortunately, Ms. Littlefield did not answer the caller’s question, which referred to surgical techniques.

First, after discussing the use of the abortion pill, she went into Suction Curettage (the in-clinic procedure she described), which she kinda glossed over. In this procedure, the doctor inserts a hard plastic tube into the uterus, then connects this tube to a suction machine. The suction pulls the fetus’ body apart and out of the uterus. The doctor may also use a loop-shaped knife called a curette to scrape the fetus and fetal parts out of the uterus.

She totally ignored the surgical procedures the caller wanted to know about, not surprising since it’s pretty gruesome.

I’ll describe them here for you:

First there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. At this point in pregnancy, the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting numerous thin rods made of seaweed a day or two before the abortion. Once the cervix is stretched open the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus’ skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue.

Second, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedure, aka partial birth abortion. This procedure takes three days. During the first two days, the cervix is stretched open using thin rods made of seaweed, and medication is given for pain. On the third day, the abortion doctor uses ultrasound to locate the legs of the fetus. Grasping a leg with forceps, the doctor delivers the fetus up to the head. Next, scissors are inserted into the base of the skull to create an opening. A suction catheter is placed into the opening to remove the brain. The skull collapses and the fetus is removed.

Incredibly grotesque and morbid.

Now you see why Ms. Littlefield declined to tell viewers about the surgical options.

On the Fed's anniversary, social media personality gives uninformed praise

On December 23, 1913, the king of the progressive movement in the early 20th century and then president, Woodrow Wilson, signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.

In response to this dubious anniversary in our history and the destruction it has caused, leftist in centrist clothing, Ed Krassenstein took to Twitter (X) to say:

What a lot of people don't realize is that: 

1) The federal reserve has likely prevented some massive recessions and even depressions over the past century. 

2) Certain levels of inflation are healthy for the economy.

Hmmm..

Isn't it the Fed's inflationary policies that caused some of the most economically destructive times in our country--the 1920-1921 depression, the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession? Clearly a result of loose Fed monetary policies and a huge inflationary boom.

All the suffering and misery shoved on untold millions of Americans over the past century.

So, what is Krassenstein talking about?

In the second part of the tweet he says "certain levels of inflation are healthy for the economy". In previous tweets he states:

2% inflation is considered healthy by the vast majority of economists. Some think it's closer to 3%. Moderate inflation helps with debt relief, and encourages investment and spending. It works to keep an economy moving forward in many ways.

Not clear if Krassenstein can prove any of these things, other than regurgitating what he read on the internet. 

So, what is the best rate of inflation? I don’t know, Krassenstein doesn't know, and neither does the Federal Reserve know.

Lastly, a definition of inflation. Krassenstein, who claims to have an Economics degree from Rutgers, graduating with honors, said, "The inflation that we saw in 2022 and 2023 is mostly caused by the supply shock we saw due to COVID, and the workforce shortage that we endured due to COVID. When supply is held low and demand jumps due to COVID subsiding, prices have no where to go but up" (saying he is backed up by none other than Jerome Powell. 

Not hilarious at all!!??

In reality--Price increases in specific sectors of the economy may be caused by a variety of factors, but economy-wide price increases are always the result of the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies. Inflation is actually the act of money-creation by the central bank. Widespread price increases are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation.