Justin Amash is an exercise in vanity (he is the anti-Ron Paul)

[oyarde]

He didn't advocate UBI that I have seen. Where did you see this? What massive welfare programs?

Uh , ya , I think he did . In fact sounded similar to Pelosi

 

[tebowlives]

He did, actually, on his Twitter feed. Perhaps not "UBI" in permanent sense but a continuing payment while people have been forced out of work.

On UBI, this is important info:
My 2 cents on UBI, fwiw, is that it IS YOUR MONEY already, so I don't necessarily oppose UBI, depending on how it's implemented. It's not the government's money, it's yours, you already earned it and you are entitled to your share of the Treasury trust fund that you have generated through your labor. To understand what's really going on, you have to understand that the Treasury operates a giant trust account. Read up on trusts! The Treasurer is the trustee and title holder of the trust and the trust property/money. Congress is the executor of the trust. You are the beneficiary of the trust. The money that YOU generate for government funding comes from YOUR LABOR and future potential to labor (and be taxed on), represented by Treasury bonds past and present. When/if Congress passes any statute pushing money out of the Treasury trust to you, the Congress is acting as executor of YOUR MONEY IN THE TRUST and is sending it to you, the beneficiary of the trust. If a UBI is implemented, in reality all it is doing is disbursing YOUR MONEY TO YOU, which the Treasury has held in trust for government use (ostensibly "for your benefit"). In this light, would you rather the government keep spending it on wars and handing it to Raytheon or would you rather the government disperse YOUR money to YOU?

This is important information to consider regarding general topics like federal welfare, UBI, etc.

lol Not perhaps. He didn't. He said if guv'ment is going to shut you down, they need to compensate the property holder.

 

[tebowlives]

Uh , ya , I think he did . In fact sounded similar to Pelosi

Incoherent and scatterbrained? I don't think that's him.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Granted election season can bring high emotions and hyperbole, hopefully Amash would avoid repeat of "speck of dirt" and "windbag" type provocative narratives when referring to globalist neocons funded pro socialism, pro big gov spending Dem politicians identifying as "R".

Actually I have railed against Rand when he pushes nonsense several times in the last few years.

Yes, have to say your stance on this has been more consistent and principled while some others libertarians have opted to take more eovolved, pragmatic, partisan or perhaps even 'tribal' stance wrt current GOPA wing leadership.

 

[oyarde]

lol Not perhaps. He didn't. He said if guv'ment is going to shut you down, they need to compensate the property holder.

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it

 

[tebowlives]

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it

"you have to be mindful of the way people react to it. So if I were a state governor—which I'm not running for to be clear—but if I were a state governor, I would give communities, particularly counties for example in the state of Michigan, more authority to make decisions along with the cities in those counties."

 

[trey4sports]

I think Justin's first couple of media appearances have gone well. He comes across as moderate more than libertarian - maybe by design.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, have to say your stance on this has been more consistent and principled while some others libertarians have opted to take more eovolved, pragmatic, partisan or perhaps even 'tribal' stance wrt current GOPA wing leadership.

Humanz gonna human.... I try and avoid being human as much as possible.

 

[Matt Collins]

Umm..Didn't like the Fed. Wanted to eliminate the Fed. Was the most prominent Fed critic in history. Not surprising you don't know that.

This quotes Milton Friedman supporting the Fed:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...paul-milton-friedman-federal-reserve-chairman



Maybe he changed his tune?

So at best he was inconsistent.

 

[Krugminator2]

This quotes Milton Friedman supporting the Fed:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...paul-milton-friedman-federal-reserve-chairman



Maybe he changed his tune?

So at best he was inconsistent.

None of those quotes support the Federal Reserve. They do show a fundamental understanding of monetary policy that Rand lacks. It is true Friedman wasn't a liquidationist, deflationista. He favored a mechanical rules based policy instead of the whims of gold being mined out of the ground in Africa.

This clip seem pretty clear. He literally says the words. I have long favored abolishing the Federal Reserve.



Or this interview

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/emfree-to-chooseem-a-conversation-with-milton-friedman/

The fundamental problem is that you shouldn’t have an institution such as the Federal Reserve, which depends for its success on the abilities of its chairman. My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, but that’s not going to happen.

 

[Matt Collins]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, I learned something new.



But that still doesn't change my original point, which still stands, that it doesn't matter what Friedman says, a UBI is a bad idea economically, is indeed socialism, and is unconstitutional.

 

[tebowlives]

None of those quotes support the Federal Reserve. They do show a fundamental understanding of monetary policy that Rand lacks. It is true Friedman wasn't a liquidationist, deflationista. He favored a mechanical rules based policy instead of the whims of gold being mined out of the ground in Africa.

This clip seem pretty clear. He literally says the words. I have long favored abolishing the Federal Reserve.



Or this interview

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/emfree-to-chooseem-a-conversation-with-milton-friedman/

Rand doesn't have a fundamental understanding of economics? lol What an absurd thing to say. So Rand doesn't understand the free market?

 

[devil21]

Justin better hurry up and rape someone if he's going to fit into this election season. He has a disturbing lack of sexual assault allegations against him. Tick tock Justin!

 

[devil21]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, I learned something new.



But that still doesn't change my original point, which still stands, that it doesn't matter what Friedman says, a UBI is a bad idea economically, is indeed socialism, and is unconstitutional.

The entire current economic/financial system is socialist, where money is earned by the people's labor, pooled under a trust and then redistributed. Why not disburse the current socialized money back to those who earned it in the first place, as part of dismantling that system, instead of letting the Beltway thieves keep it? I'd be ok with a UBI as long as the disbursements are commensurate with the amounts earned by each recipient. That would not be a socialist redistribution. You get back what you put in.

The ugly part of this current version of potential UBI is that the amounts in the trust earned by each person's past, present and future labor far exceed any paltry $2000 per month payment but that's for a different thread.

 

[Snowball]

Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

 

[devil21]

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it

They do, legally, if the business is registered with the state. How the state should act and/or critiques of the existing legal system is worthy of discussion but yes, under current legal system the state does have authority to shutter businesses.

Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

Wait, you're telling me that Amash's donors aren't Trumpkins? NO WAY THAT'S CRAZY TALK!

Do you have any other ground-breaking insights to share with us?

 

[oyarde]

Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

nah , they have biden

 

[PAF]

The entire current economic/financial system is socialist, where money is earned by the people's labor, pooled under a trust and then redistributed. Why not disburse the current socialized money back to those who earned it in the first place, as part of dismantling that system, instead of letting the Beltway thieves keep it? I'd be ok with a UBI as long as the disbursements are commensurate with the amounts earned by each recipient. That would not be a socialist redistribution. You get back what you put in.

The ugly part of this current version of potential UBI is that the amounts in the trust earned by each person's past, present and future labor far exceed any paltry $2000 per month payment but that's for a different thread.

^^ ^^