Krystal Ball, co-host of MSNBC's the Cycle, was at it again; demonstrating clearly how Marxist and far away from the American Founders the network is, and as a result how far away from the American people they truly are, which is why no one watches. So what was the latest greatest suggestion from the Land of Misfit News Anchors, it was the Marxist Utopian idea of a 'mincome'.
What is a 'mincome' you might ask, well I'm glad that you did. It is the idea that every non-incarcerated adult should receive a check from the government so that no one has an income that is below the poverty line. Described by Krystal Ball as giving cash to the poor, with all "other safety net programs are jettisoned to pay for the 'mincome', and poverty is eliminated." Stating that there was a town in Canada in the 1970's who implemented the 'mincome' and "not only was poverty eliminated, but the disincentives to work has a minimal effect on productivity."
Let's start with this last comment, if this 'mincome' was such a wonderful idea, and it solved all the problems for this Canadian town, then why are there no Canadian towns today that implement the 'mincome.' Moreover, as the records demonstrate from the actual experiment that occurred in Dauphin, Manitoba in 1974 under Pierre Trudeau's Liberals and the NDP of Manitoba, the 'mincome' was ONLY given, NOT to every single person in society, but ONLY to those who fell well below the poverty line. So of course, if you give a 'mincome' to a bunch of people who don't work/can't work there is going to be little effects on the productivity of the town. Lastly, if a town or a state wants to implement a 'mincome' for everyone, then that is there prerogative, I just won't live there. Yet, when the Federal Government is tasked with coercing everyone into the 'mincome' across the nation, regardless of income or the poverty-line, then that is much different. So as one can see so far, we already have Krystal Ball misrepresenting the experiment in the Canadian town, much to no one's surprise.
Secondly, this notion that Ms. Ball put forth that there is conservative backing for such an idea is absurd, since while I also believe that services should be jettisoned for cash given directly to the poor, in order to teach the poor not only how to take care of money, but the consequences of personal responsibility, two key principles that are necessary if they are to succeed and get out of poverty; I am not for the 'mincome' and making poverty comfortable. Nor am I for giving everyone in society a 'mincome', and if any conservatives truly are making that argument then they are not really conservatives.
Since, I agree with Benjamin Franklin, that as soon as you make poverty comfortable, period. And when that type of poverty is available to everyone and anyone, as it was in the Soviet Union, the history is clear that people do become vastly demotivated, and the richest country on earth, quickly becomes the rotting country fit only for the ash heap of history. This is because, as history has proved, when I, as a fallen sinful man, can live comfortably without having to work the ground and suffer as a result of the fall as I work the six days that God has set out for me, then I simply won't.
Moreover, if I am currently rich and such a system becomes implemented, not only will the fruits of my labour be evermore consistently taken away from me; not by God who outside of myself is the only one that has a right to the fruits of my labour for He has blessed me with them, but through force under man's will who cannot see my heart; and thus I will become increasingly discouraged. I will also more often than not, and sooner rather than later, also leave for the comfort and laziness of poverty.
Finally, it must be noted, that it should be obvious to all, that a government that supports all within society with a 'mincome' is a government that is not supported by the people for the people, but a tyrannical government that will quickly die because they have eliminated all their sources of revenue by demotivating the populace and demonizing the rich into poverty.
So while this is dubbed the latest greatest idea from MSNBC, the idea is actually a very old, very Marxist one, that should remain in the ash heap that is the 1970's. Good thing no one watches MSNBC, yikes!
Creator & Founder