Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[Dennis Tate]

On 2/22/2022 at 5:41 AM, little2add said:

who would receive this  B.M.I money, everyone?

Or would only be only for low income/underprivileged people.   If so, what would be the cutoff threshold to receive benifits?

would this B.M.I be provided to adults only?

would non-citizens receive it too?

what about convics in prison?

In order for this to prevent abortions wouldn't the B.M.I have to be extended to newborn babies?

 

just asking for a friend

Yes...  this has to be to ALL CANADIAN AND USA CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS and soon to all citizens and legal residents in Israel and Australia and then it goes on and on and on from there!!!!

This has to be UNCONDITIONAL BUT TAXABLE..... (this is really NOT my idea but I got this from Economist Milton Friedman but then tweaked his theory slightly for our somewhat different time period).  Dr. Friedman saw how bureaucracy eats up the vast majority of the money that is intended for the poor and bureaucrats tend to increase and increase and increase their power and control over the lives of people which causes them to set in motion a monster bureaucracy that imprisons people in poverty..... and underemployment... but Dr. Friedman's idea can be used to fulfill a verse in Isaiah chapter forty five where all chains are broken and every captive is set free........ and the citizens of four nations to begin with and soon all nations will no longer be vulnerable to aspiring Fidel Castro type of political leaders who do a good job of controlling the media narrative and make it look like they are trying to protect people but they are actually just increasing and increasing and increasing their own level of power and control.  

 

So five hundred dollars per month to all legal residents and citizens from the cradle to the grave and I would suggest that the legalities be done in such a way that mimic the way that the Child Tax Credit is administered here in Canada, (with some legal exceptions in unusual cases), but what I mean is that generally the Child Tax Credit is given to the mother of the child until the child is a certain age, (that idea is kind of brilliant).

This will cost eighteen billion dollars Canadian per month in Canada with our thirty seven point six million citizens and legal residents but....  as that unconditional but taxable B.M.I. turns over three times in the economy it will be taxed back into the treasury and...... if this is plainly and clearly financed in the same way as done from 1938 to 1974 by the Bank of Canada THEN.....

we are now in a position to begin to pay off the national debt of Canada to the tune of eighteen billion dollars or so each month.

Once this is proven to be effective in Canada the USA will adopt our system.... and soon Israel and Australia will follow suit... .(and in spite of all of their many, many, many, many flaws Trudeau and Biden did play the role of bad guys who prepared us to understand all this)!!!!

Most of my ideas on this topic I got from The Michael Journal and are largely founded on top of their explanation for the ..... History of Banking Control in the United States because the brilliant Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment by President Lincoln was obviously being observed by Canadians who seemingly adopted the implications of the President Lincoln Greenback Experiment into our British North America Act that formed the basis for the Constitution of Canada!

The History of Banking Control in the United States Written by Alain Pilote on Saturday, 31 August 1985. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

 

 

Mr. Alain Pilote.... "  

Quote

 

The History of Banking Control in the United States 

Written by Alain Pilote on Saturday, 31 August 1985. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

In this age of plenty - Chapter 49 

The dictatorship of the bankers and their debt-money system are not limited to one country, but exist in every country in the world. They are working to keep their control tight, since one country freeing itself from this dictatorship and issuing its own interest- and debt-free currency, setting the example of what an honest system could be, would be enough to bring about the worldwide collapse of the bankers’ swindling debt-money system.

This fight of the International Financiers to install their fraudulent debt-money system has been particularly vicious in the United States of America since its very foundation, and historical facts show that several American statesmen were well aware of the dishonest money system the Financiers wanted to impose upon America and of all of its harmful effects. These statesmen were real patriots, who did all that they possibly could to maintain for the USA an honest money system, free from the control of the Financiers. The Financiers did everything in their power to keep in the dark this facet of the history of the United States, for fear that the example of these patriots might still be followed today. Here are some facts that the Financiers would like the population not to know:

The happiest population

Benjamin Franklin

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming "New England", a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: "Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe."Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

"That is simple," Franklin replied. "In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.

"In one year," Franklin stated, "the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:  

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War."

 

 

[little2add]

 

Sounds like a pipe dream, to me.  (crack pipe)

[little2add]

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

five hundred dollars per month to all legal residents and citizens from the cradle to the grave

 

“tax the rich, feed the poor, till they are no rich no more”

 

 

 

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

ALL CANADIAN AND USA CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS and soon to all citizens and legal residents

The national debt in the US, today is 30.0 trillion—or more precisely—$30,012,386,059,238

 This amounts to:

$90,271 for every person living in the U.S.

$230,987 for every household in the U.S.

71% more than the combined consumer debt of every household in the U.S.

8.2 times annual federal revenues.

 

so your saying B.M.I. Would be like a “perpetual motion’ machine on the economy?  

 

 

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

Once this is proven to be effective

I have some doubt about this idea’s, effectiveness…

Serious doubts

[fides' Jack]

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Well this idea of yours that poor people should not be given special consideration, that tax dollars should only be spent in a matter in which all people benefit equally from the expenditure

Another straw man.  I never said that poor people should not be given special consideration, or that tax dollars should only be spent in a manner in which all people benefit equally.

Even for firefighters or military, not all people benefit equally...

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

What specific government programs are racist?

Affirmative action.

Among others...

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. 

I agree with this, but this document from the Church is specific to justice, not government handouts.

Nor would I disagree if you find one specific to government handouts saying the same thing.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Every man would look out for the other families in his community, voluntarily give out of his excess, and the needs of everyone would be met by voluntary action.

Very much like the early Christian communities.  Christian communities, as far as I know, are the only ones who have ever been able to accomplish this.  That could be a false statement, but I've never seen evidence of anyone else doing so.

And Christians remain, by far, more generous even than the US government.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Now, obviously there is no special care of poor people by the government, if all laws and tax expenditures must be doled out equally regardless of class, as you suggest above.

I didn't suggest it.  You inferred it based on insufficient evidence.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Why, exactly, would it be wrong to give a special preference to the poor?

I've never thought, at any time in my life, that we should not give special preference to the poor.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Again, it is coming back to "I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to someone else" right?

No, clearly you've misunderstood everything that I've said.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

The idea seems to be "it is my money and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it.

If it seems to you to be that way, that's on you, not me.

Although, this specific statement is true to a degree.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Is your position that the State, in principle, should have no power to take money from the stingy rich person, and use it to buy food specifically for the starving child?

Oh, finally a question about what my position is. 

I don't think the state has or should have the power to take money from a stingy rich person just because he is stingy, or just because he is rich.

What I do believe is that the more the state is involved, the more, and obviously so, we see the failed systems that we have in place today in the US, and in Canada, and in Europe - where the poor suffer more than they would have otherwise.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

I think that type of view of "freedom" is inconsistent with what the Church teaches with respect to the universal destination of goods, if that is your view.

I agree, and no, that is not my view.

[fides' Jack]

In truth, there are really two different arguments here, as I see it.  One is regarding the moral teaching of the Church as regards the power of the state, and what powers a government should be able to have from a moral standpoint, theoretically.  The other argument is regarding the practical applications of those theoretical limits. 

The Church's teaching on this matter presupposes that the governments are benign, and that they have their citizens' interests at heart.  I think it's fair to say that all or nearly all the governments in the world are now past that point.  The theoretical moral laws no longer apply when the governments are out to kill their own citizens, as is quite painfully clear now. 

All, or nearly all of them, should be stripped of all power.  BUT we can't do that ourselves.  It's not a war we can win.  What we can do is strive, within our legal limits, to remove all rights of government, as best we can - including the ones that we think they might theoretically have a moral right to.  However, we should keep in mind, we are beyond the point where human intervention can save us.  Thankfully, a supernatural intervention is coming soon.  

[Peace]

58 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't think the state has or should have the power to take money from a stingy rich person just because he is stingy

Why? The Church clearly teaches that the right to private property is not absolute, that the right to private property is subordinate to the common destination of goods, and that the right to tax is proper.

Again "it is my money can I should be able to do whatever with it as I please"? This view of one's property seems completely contrary to everything that the popes have taught over the past 100 years.

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

The Church's teaching on this matter presupposes that the governments are benign, and that they have their citizens' interests at heart.

I do not think it does. The Church's teaching is informed by our historical persecutions as much as our political ascendency. When St. Paul wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God", Christians were being systematically exterminated by the Roman governing authorities.

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Why? The Church clearly teaches that the right to private property is not absolute, that the right to private property is subordinate to the common destination of goods, and that the right to tax is proper.

Again "it is my money can I should be able to do whatever with it as I please"? This view of one's property seems completely contrary to everything that the popes have taught over the past 100 years.

So long as what you please to use your money for is rightly-ordered, it's not a completely bad slogan, nor is it contrary to what any of the popes have written.

You're correct in that the Church states the right to private property is not absolute, but it also states that the right to private property is very important.

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think it does. The Church's teaching is informed by our historical persecutions as much as our political ascendency. When St. Paul wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God", Christians were being systematically exterminated by the Roman governing authorities.

That's certainly worth consideration.  But I don't think it necessarily negates what I said.  

Clearly there is a point at which revolution is acceptable.  I believe it was good that the US claimed independence in 1776, and fought a war to make it happen, and thus denied the rights of the British rulers over them.

Edited February 28, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Nihil Obstat]

27 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's certainly worth consideration.  But I don't think it necessarily negates what I said.  

Clearly there is a point at which revolution is acceptable.  I believe it was good that the US claimed independence in 1776, and fought a war to make it happen, and thus denied the rights of the British rulers over them.

I agree that revolution can be a moral option at some point, but I do not think that it is at all clear where that point is. I have serious doubts that the American revolution can be fully justified from a Catholic perspective.

[fides' Jack]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I agree that revolution can be a moral option at some point, but I do not think that it is at all clear where that point is. I have serious doubts that the American revolution can be fully justified from a Catholic perspective.

You may be right.  I used it because in my mind it seemed like a clear example on the spot.  But I haven't put it to the test against Catholic objective morality.

On that specific point, I think we agree.

I don't think it can be denied, though, that most governments, at least in the West, are way more corrupt now than the British were in the mid-to-late 18th century or even the Roman Empire at the height of its persecution of Christians or even the height of its depravity (which are probably at least roughly the same time frame - I'm not an historian).  I mean, I could be mistaken, but although the Romans may have dabbled with something like what we might call "transgenderism", they certainly weren't so far off that they tried to completely deny the dual nature of sex and gender.  It wasn't mainstream.  They didn't try to legislate the acceptance or enforcement of what I can and can't call someone I've never met.  At least, I haven't read of it going that far.  You probably have a better understanding of it than I do.  Did they go that far?

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

You may be right.  I used it because in my mind it seemed like a clear example on the spot.  But I haven't put it to the test against Catholic objective morality.

On that specific point, I think we agree.

I don't think it can be denied, though, that most governments, at least in the West, are way more corrupt now than the British were in the mid-to-late 18th century or even the Roman Empire at the height of its persecution of Christians or even the height of its depravity (which are probably at least roughly the same time frame - I'm not an historian).  I mean, I could be mistaken, but although the Romans may have dabbled with something like what we might call "transgenderism", they certainly weren't so far off that they tried to completely deny the dual nature of sex and gender.  It wasn't mainstream.  They didn't try to legislate the acceptance or enforcement of what I can and can't call someone I've never met.  At least, I haven't read of it going that far.  You probably have a better understanding of it than I do.  Did they go that far?

I would not be able to answer specific historical questions, far from my area of relative expertise (and I will emphasize relative, because I do not claim true expertise in any area). 

At the end of the day I think it is worth bearing in mind that our injunction to obey the political powers was not qualified by St. Paul, and in fact was given at one of the most objectively unjust moments in our history. St. Paul certainly could have incited violent revolution, or even some kind of nonviolent resistance. That is, as we are all aware, what the Jewish people expected of the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies. But what he did was subtler than that. What he (and Christ) emphasized was obedience to just commands, rejection of the unjust, and pious veneration of authority as instituted by God. Our piety towards ruling authorities was not predicated on those authorities being fundamentally just, or just to a certain acceptable point. We can and often do have to obey and venerate unjust authorities, we simply cannot join them in their injustice (and in fact resist that injustice, as a deeper and more complete veneration of the authority).

We trust, at the end of the day, that to whom much is given, much will be expected. Those in authority have a grave duty towards the common good, and yes, most contemporary and historical authorities have failed in that duty, either sometimes or most of the time, but that is between them and God.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

You may be right.  I used it because in my mind it seemed like a clear example on the spot.  But I haven't put it to the test against Catholic objective morality.

On that specific point, I think we agree.

I don't think it can be denied, though, that most governments, at least in the West, are way more corrupt now than the British were in the mid-to-late 18th century or even the Roman Empire at the height of its persecution of Christians or even the height of its depravity (which are probably at least roughly the same time frame - I'm not an historian).  I mean, I could be mistaken, but although the Romans may have dabbled with something like what we might call "transgenderism", they certainly weren't so far off that they tried to completely deny the dual nature of sex and gender.  It wasn't mainstream.  They didn't try to legislate the acceptance or enforcement of what I can and can't call someone I've never met.  At least, I haven't read of it going that far.  You probably have a better understanding of it than I do.  Did they go that far?

Here we go with the good old days again. Dude, that government practically denied that African people were human beings.

[little2add]

On 2/9/2022 at 7:19 PM, Peace said:

its silly to suggest that economic factors do not play a role in the decisions of individual women to have a child.

I object to supporting abomination. 

on a side note, have ever noticed abortion and abomination, first and last three letters of the word are the same?

just saying...

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, little2add said:

I object to supporting abomination. 

on a side note, have ever noticed abortion and abomination, first and last three letters of the word are the same?

just saying...

Well I object to tax dollars being used to fund things like Planned Parenthood, etc. too.

What exactly is your point? UBI gives money to people, not Planed Parenthood.

[little2add]

16 minutes ago, Peace said:

UBI gives money to people, not Planed Parenthood.

 

UBI is funded by yours and my Taxes, so...

In the context of this discussion, UBI could be or would be used to subsidize and/or finance abortions/planned parenthood. 

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

 

UBI is funded by yours and my Taxes, so...

In the context of this discussion, UBI could be or would be used to subsidize and/or finance abortions/planned parenthood. 

 

Well, if that's your rationale, then you have to eliminate practically every social program. My younger brother is disabled. He "could" take his SSI check and use the money to help a woman have an abortion. The same thing for unemployment benefits. Heck, if a person is on Medicare and gets any type of reimbursement for a medical procedure, that can be used to fund an abortion.People can trade in food vouchers and use it to fund an abortion. The same thing for that nice check that most people got from President Trump.

I'm guessing we would probably have to eliminate whatever government benefits you have or will receive as well, if "could" is your rationale.

[little2add]

Are you forgetting the title or theme of this thread?  

The President Biden State Of The Union Address , he said “ Women's right to abortion in the United States is "under attack as never before," 

President Biden has disavowed “ The Hyde amendment”

5 hours ago, Peace said:

government benefits

I do not want to participate in the funding of abortion.   It is my constitutional right to object,  and refuse and to practice my religion without interference.

Edited March 3, 2022 by little2add

[Nihil Obstat]

46 minutes ago, little2add said:

 

I do not want to participate in the funding of abortion.   It is my constitutional right to object,  and refuse and to practice my religion without interference.

If you manage to bankrupt the government through an overly generous UBI, there will not be any money left over to fund abortion. 

[little2add]

Actually it already has, The birth rate in this country is the lowest it’s ever been.   
All those little fetuses would’ve grown into taxpayers.

Americans are having fewer babies than ever, or at least than since the government began tracking the general fertility rate in 1909. The total fertility rate ticked down to 1.7 in 2019, meaning that the average number of babies an American woman would have over her lifetime is well below replacement level.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

That is supposed to be a "missing the point" gif. Looks like it did not copy and paste like I expected.