Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[little2add]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

missing the point

 

 

[fides' Jack]

20 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If you manage to bankrupt the government through an overly generous UBI...

I think it's clear now that the government already is bankrupt, before it even got to the point where even a slight UBI could be introduced.  If you want to try to apply an overly generous UBI, you don't just bankrupt the government, you destroy all of society, in a fairly quick period of time.

The government has no money, and hasn't for a while.  They're printing money to stave things off as much as they can.  It won't last indefinitely.

Cheerio, mate!

[Dennis Tate]

On 3/2/2022 at 7:57 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

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

I believe that a Basic Minimum Income that is created exactly as President Lincoln and President Kennedy did is the best way to begin to pay off the national debts of the USA and Canada. An Unconditional Income Supplement of five hundred dollars per citizen and legal resident from cradle to grave, that is taxable but created in the same way that President Lincoln and JFK did would need little bureaucracy because it is unconditional and goes to everybody... would turn around the scheming being done to reward people for not working. A single mother or father with one child would get a thousand dollars per month, but this not being attached to a restriction on his or her ability to work would soon lead to our nations being even more productive. 

The USA and Canadian dollars are backed up by PRODUCTIVITY so rewarding people to not work and produce... is a big part of the problem. 

The key is to educate three hundred and thirty million Americans to the fact that their productivity backs up the value of the USA dollar..... and the USA dollar belongs to Americans... .not to politicians.

An unconditional Basic Minimum Income supplement to all Americans that was taxable..... (for example of five hundred dollars per month)... could set in motion 330,000,000 x 500 dollars per month being put against the national debt.... because the national debt of the USA is significantly a practical joke that has been played on three hundred and thirty million Americans. (This principle also applies in Canada and in all democratic nations that I can think of.

 

Quote

If you are among the people who can benefit GREATLY from a Bear Market, (a stock market crash), by buying companies and real estate at ten cents or less on the dollar......
then standard wisdom is that you should:
1. print a lot of extra money
2. DECREASE PRODUCTIVITY
3 DECREASE PRODUCTIVY EVEN MORE
4. Create a supply chain crisis where fifty to seventy super tankers from Asia are waiting off the coast of California but cannot unload their cargo due to Covid 19 and / or various environmentalism regulations prepared just for a time like this.....
5. Anger truckers and have them DEMONSTRATING or striking as opposed to moving products from point A to point B....
6.... Start a WAR!!!!

So.... does it also look to you as if hyper-inflation and an economic crisis is being deliberately created and that Covid 19 was merely an excuse to set hyper-inflation in motion!!!!?????

 

John F. Kennedy
 

Quote

Melvin Sickler .... "No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so-called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F. Kennedy came into office.

On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.

Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfectly obvious that Kennedy was out to undermine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.

But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. President Kennedy must have had It in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money.

It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate, all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people." (Melvin Sickler,
by Melvin Sickler
Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy
Two great presidents of the United States Assassinated for the cause of justice

http://www.cidpusa.org/lincoln_JFK.htm

 

On 2/28/2022 at 5:21 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

This article may help you... it is written in very clear and simple English.  

 

Alain Pilote ... " First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the "Exception Clause", which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)

This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:

"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe."

Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887! " (Alain Pilote, The History of Banking Control in the United States).
https://www.michaeljournal.org/arti...story-of-banking-control-in-the-united-states

Edited March 7, 2022 by Dennis Tate
spelling....

[Tabby Cat]

I don't know about the abortion rate but minimum wage and slightly less than minimum wage social security is available in Australia, unsure what it does but without it I would be screwed as I'm on a government disability pension.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Tabby Cat
Government(missed word)

[Dennis Tate]

On 3/7/2022 at 4:16 AM, Tabby Cat said:

I don't know about the abortion rate but minimum wage and slightly less than minimum wage social security is available in Australia, unsure what it does but without it I would be screwed as I'm on a government disability pension.

Yes...  relative poverty is consider to be one major cause of women choosing to have an abortion in the western democracies.  

[little2add]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:47 PM, Dennis Tate said:

An unconditional Basic Minimum Income supplement to all American

Why Didn’t the Great Society or the modern welfare state minimize abortion and birth control?  

From my perspective it seems to of had an opposite effect.  

•  We are living through the collapse of the traditional family and marriage as the norm and expectation for millions of Americans, especially in low-income communities.
• the Great Society’s price tag had ballooned to a staggering $22 trillion. The annual cost of the entitlements alone, when coupled with Social Security and Obamacare, had helped contribute to a national debt surpassing $20 trillion—more than 100 percent of GDP—and growing. Leaving aside the monetary cost, it also has become clear that these programs have contributed to a steady erosion in American family life. 

• Marriage rejection rooted in the 1960s has real ramifications: among adults who are 34 years old or younger, some 46 percent have never been married.

  This syndrome had perhaps its most profound impact in some of America’s most difficult neighborhoods, where unparalleled family breakdown is, in part, the sad result of Lyndon Johnson’s well-meaning miscalculations. We are living through the collapse of the traditional family and marriage as the norm and expectation for millions of Americans, especially in low-income communities.

 

Did it have to be this way? When Johnson came to office in late 1963, more than 90 percent of American babies were in homes with married parents. The 1960 census showed that nearly 9 of every 10 children from birth to 18 years of age lived with married parents. While illegitimacy had grown to about 8 percent from 4 percent between 1940 and 1965, it then exploded. By 1990 the rate would be nearly 30 percent.

Today more than 40 percent of all Americans are born to unmarried mothers. More than 3 of every 10 children live in some arrangement other than a two-parent home. Cohabitation continues to climb, and has become the acceptable norm for millions of Americans. The most recent Census Bureau report says barely half of all American children are living with both married biological parents.

 

I believe that a Basic Minimum Income is idiotic and would be very harmful to traditional family and marriage as the norm.

 

 

[little2add]

On 3/27/2022 at 5:36 AM, little2add said:

Why Didn’t the Great Society or the modern welfare state minimize abortion and birth control?  

Anyone?