SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TechDirt reports:
In a letter sent recently from Senator Ron Wyden to two of his colleagues who head the Committee on Rules & Administration, it's noted that (incredibly) the ID cards used by Senate Staffers only appear to have a smart chip in them. Instead of the real thing, some genius just decided to put a photo of a smart chip [PDF] on each card, rather than an actual smart chip. This isn't security by obscurity, it's... bad security through cheap Photoshopping. From our Senate.
Moreover, in contrast to the executive branch's widespread adoption of PIV cards with a smart chip, most Senate staff ID cards have a photo of a chip printed on them, rather than a real chip. Given the significant investment by the executive branch in smart chip based two-factor authentication, we should strongly consider issuing our staff real chip-based ID cards and then using those chips as a second factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:44PM (7 children)
...then there's the flip-side of that.
A black gal who has lived in Irvine[1] for years was asked by a white grocery checkout girl if she was going to use food stamps. [google.com]
She was indignant.
The manager made excuses--but nobody ever apologized.
She's suing, of course.
[1] A mostly-white Orange County city.
...then there's the convenience store in Santa Ana that didn't think the feds would notice that their little hole in the wall joint wasn't actually doing $2M in EBT trade. [google.com]
Arrests have been made.
It's been interesting around here lately EBT-wise.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:49PM (6 children)
If only there were some way to replace EBT fraud with UBI fraud.
BASIC INCOME NOW!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:12PM (5 children)
It seems to work just fine in Alaska--since 1976.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:16PM (4 children)
Good start. Next step: implement a planned economy with price fixing such that the cost of living in Alaska is $2 per day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @12:18AM (1 child)
Then have a source of income that allows for it.
I do not mind your programs of giving away things but you better have a way to pay for it or we are done talking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:15AM
We got these "tech" "geniuses" Bezo and Musk and Zuck. I propose we tax the "tech" "geniuses" until everyone has enough basic income to live. Let the "tech" "geniuses" work out the details of how they will afford to pay. Those guys are "tech" "geniuses" so they can solve anything.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @12:35PM (1 child)
May as well issue UBI as amazon gift cards. Not entirely joking.
The deal is if your benefit program is the same size or bigger than its economic sector it just causes inflation. A voucher for college tuition merely results in higher college tuition until the same supply and demand is reached as before except now you have a bunch of deadweight in the government administering the unkillable program and people pay more money in taxes (or possibly guaranteed loans)
On the other hand if your benefit program is smaller than the economy its a part of, there won't be much of an inflation effect. Streaming propaganda content isn't any more or less expensive in Alaska. "Importing" electronic parts from digikey or tigerdirect isn't any more expensive (other than shipping "obviously"). Imported anime from Japan isn't any more or less expensive in Alaska.
There is some logic in creating a UBI where it categorically can't be spent locally. Go buy a car made in Tokyo. Go import wine from Islamic France. Eat some genuine Parmesan cheese imported from Italy. Whatever you do, don't spend a penny of UBI on local stuff like real estate or bulk food, that'll just cause inflation.
If you really want to stir the pot, the "inflation in stuff you need" effect solely affects poor people who spend all their UBI on inflatable local commodities. As a well off dude I/we can spend half our UBI on hookers and blackjack and waste the other half and there won't be nearly as much inflation.
There's also the exchange factor. Lets say before UBI I am poor and eat rice every day. After UBI the store owner can try to extract my UBI from me by raising the price of rice. However that dumbass doesn't realize I now have money and can simply buy donuts every day. There's not going to be as much inflation as people think. And its turtles all the way down. The guy who ate donuts and the donut guy thinks he is going to be an ahole and raise his prices, well, former donut buyer is going to exclusively buy organic beef. The local supermarket owner thinks he's going to screw me out of my UBI by raising his beef price, but I'm going to either spend it on blackjack and hookers or on a new car, so he's not going to get an extra penny from me ... or I'll spend it on grass fed bison or elk purchased from the specialty butcher shop across town.
Really poor people have debts and collections and they'll never see the garnished money. So UBI is bailing out hospitals and debt collection agencies and banks and legal fees, and the grocery story is not going to get away with raising the price of rice to collect that UBI because poor people at the very bottom won't get a penny of the UBI, they'll just have a slightly less negative net worth, probably only temporarily.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday May 08 2017, @09:15PM
[...] a bunch of deadweight in the government administering the unkillable program [...]
A major reason for having a UBI scheme is the expectation that it would be simpler, and hence have less administrative overhead than the programme(s) it replaces.