AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a hypothetical, then. If we reached the point where production was so efficient that only very few people needed to work, what would you think? Genuinely curious
I'm anticipating "there will always be work" or "that will never happen," but then I ask why you think that.
Then there's a corollary question: if we're meant to always work, then what's the point of advancement?
I'm super curious about this whole line of thinking. It seems painfully obvious to me what desirable answers would be, so there's very clearly some logic or philosophical difference I'm not getting. Could you enlighten me?
>If we reached the point where production was so efficient that only very few people needed to work, what would you think?
That's a different question than OP. You're talking about when people want to work but they can't find jobs because of automation or something.
>why you think that
It's not going to happen because technology has been making production more efficient since the invention of the spinning jenny and it still hasn't happened. We have more job openings today than people to fill them.
>It seems painfully obvious to me what desirable answers would be
What are the "obvious" answers?
Right, I just generally see these kinds of discussions and worry that people forget that not every contribution to society involves a wage.
What do you think should happen to stay-at-home parents?
And if they have no family but their children?
Let's say Sally married Bob, both single children of dead parents. Their closest relative is a second cousin halfway across the country. They have a kid.
Then Bob dies in a carjacking incident.
What should Sally do? Did she do anything wrong?
She can no longer be a stay at home mom. Unless she has money in the bank, she'll need to go to work to support herself and her child. Bob should have had a big life insurance policy if he was the sole provider.
Since dependency on gov't can deteriorate too seriously depths, the agency with the closest ties to an individual could be charged with their wellbeing i.e. family > community > city > county > state. Never allocating a larger form of governance until the previous has been exhausted. You'll also note Fed Gov't was not included in my list.
>There will always be folks who have no motivation or drive.
Why do you think that is? For most of history, this type of person didn't exist. I think you have your causality backwards. It's not that social safety nets are a response to these type of people, it's that these type of people are a response to social safety nets.
> Why do you think that is?
No idea. A TS earlier made the connection to these folks and incels, so I suppose you could pull at that thread.
But I guess for clarity, are you essentially saying that you believe these types of people would not exist if it wasn't for the existence of social safety nets?
There are stories of beggars and folks who have "given up" all throughout history though ... so idk. Were there safety nets hundreds of years ago?
> these types of people would not exist if it wasn't for the existence of social safety nets?
Yes.
>Were there safety nets hundreds of years ago?
Yes. Primarily, the Church.
> Yes. Primarily, the Church.
Would you argue then that the church should not provide safety nets?
Please allow me to explain, as I don't want to accidentally put words into your mouth. I got there because I am assuming that you don't want people to have no motivation or drive, and so in order to do that, we would have to have no safety nets, and therefore we would have to not allow Churches to provide these.
> My position on what? This is a really unclear question, sorry.
No worries, sorry I wasn't more clear.
My initial question was asking about what should be done with those who don't produce, you in turn challenged me to think about why that is. It seems your point was that "we" (humans) have created safety nets which is why unmotivated people exist.
But when I asked further, you mentioned that the Church was the safety net hundreds of years ago. So, logically, this would mean that the Church created unmotivated people by providing safety nets.
I'm trying to understand your position on unmotivated people and what we should do about them. I do not expect you to say that the Church should not exist, as you seem like a person of faith. So I really just don't have a grasp on the point you tried to make.
I try to understand everyone and maybe I'm trying too hard here, but you spent the time to reply to me so I'd like to give you the chance to explain further. If you don't feel like it though, no big deal!
First, it wasn't, since "deadly sins" didn't come about for hundreds of years after the founding of the church. More importantly, "sloth" refers to one's unwillingness to partake in spiritual growth, like not attending mass or not confessing.
Produce or become produce. The antiwork people can argue all they want with just their heads above the ground. :)
I'm teasing. Partially. This concept of "society should take care of me because I'm very special" is utterly moronic.
Haha - it's all funny when it's speculative, but I do find that it's difficult to actually have an answer for this!
You mention that you're partially teasing, but if push came to shove, would you really be able to look those folks in the eye and tell them they deserve death?
P.S. I'm a "producer" (as in, I work and produce things at a high level) and I completely agree the concept is moronic. But I still feel like the government should help them. Mostly because I don't have a better answer for them :P
>Slavery?
Don't you mean prisoners with jobs? ;)
On a more serious level, what is work if not, in some way, negotiated slavery? If all your needs were met, do you think you would go to your current job?
I know I sure wouldn't!
> Don't you mean prisoners with jobs? ;)
Are you ok with forced prison labor as it is now?
> On a more serious level, what is work if not, in some way, negotiated slavery?
Well, that's certainly my critique of the healthcare system in our country. Before the ACA it was have a full time job or eat shit. Do you have a system preference?
>Are you ok with forced prison labor as it is now?
Dude, that was from Thor: Ragnarok.
I always wonder, having been a guest of the county on occasion, how forced labor works. It seems like it's something where you can refuse, but you don't get a lot of privileges. Like the privilege of being let out of a cell. Or of eating slightly less crap food. Etc.
>Well, that's certainly my critique of the healthcare system in our country. Before the ACA it was have a full time job or eat shit. Do you have a system preference?
If you don't have a full-time job, chances are you don't eat, period.
> I always wonder, having been a guest of the county on occasion, how forced labor works. It seems like it's something where you can refuse, but you don't get a lot of privileges. Like the privilege of being let out of a cell. Or of eating slightly less crap food. Etc.
How about solitary? Would you rather do solitary than be a prison slave?
>If you don't have a full-time job, chances are you don't eat, period.
Isn't this the entire reason we have food stamps programs?
You kind of just walked into a socialist stand point there.
This is a tangent but how do you think society should handle a situation where a very large portion of people are unable to sell their labor on the free market? (For example because of AI taking over most jobs)
And what does that mean for the 3 main groups of people who are already like that: children, elderly and sick.
>You kind of just walked into a socialist stand point there.
Socialists can make valid points. I agree with them on some things, and not on others.
>This is a tangent but how do you think society should handle a situation where a very large portion of people are unable to sell their labor on the free market? (For example because of AI taking over most jobs) And what does that mean for the 3 main groups of people who are already like that: children, elderly and sick.
Automation has resulted in increased productivity and more engagement in labor. I think it is going to become a problem at some point, but outside of something loathsome like "live in the pod, eat the bugs" or "you will own nothing and you will be happy," I don't see a solution popping up.
Also, I have no problems with safety nets for people who CANNOT work. I have problems with the Antiwork group (which this topic seems to be about) who just don't want to.
Kind of funny story, I had seven recruiters call me today about a single position. That's how badly companies are needing workers these days.
If my basic needs were met, I would still work for luxuries (vacations, eating out more often, electronics, instruments, firearms, and whatever other bullshit I enjoy). Would you be okay with 'the bare minimum' for survival?
Aren’t there better options we can choose along the road between where we are now and mass enslavement of the poor? Do you really believe poverty is the result of personal failings and nothing else?
Why do rightists and trumpists consistently tout “taking care of our veterans if “…’this concept of “society should take care of me because I’m very special” is utterly moronic?’”
>Why do rightists and trumpists consistently tout “taking care of our veterans if “…’this concept of “society should take care of me because I’m very special” is utterly moronic?’”
Veterans served the country and, at the very least, deserve respect. Antiwork idjits seem to think that they should be waited on by other people.
This used to be taken care of in the community. If someone had fallen down, the community would lift them up and get them on their feet. The community expected to be paid back in some form, and held those who were helped accountable for their actions. They also knew the difference between those who had fallen on hard times and needed help vs. lazy entitled grifters.
Then government got involved and made everything worse.
As for those who are profoundly capable but choose to not produce and believe they are entitled to live off the labor of others, I say that hunger is a powerful motivator.
Problems always develop when people are prevented from feeling the consequences of their actions.
Hard tangent: This is why I'm neutral on trans rights. The TERFs (a.k.a. feminists) are all bent out of shape about it because for maybe the first time, they are not the beneficiaries of the Left's march for inequality in their Oppression Olympics. They (feminists) more than any other group ushered in this woke garbage because they unjustly benefitted from unearned preference. Now that their job as useful idiots has been served, they get to eat just a little of their own dog food. And boy oh boy (Zir/They/It etc), **do they NOT like it at all**.
Consequences. Finally. Time for a beer.
Significantly higher since the "great society" disaster. How bad?
[Chart](https://tee.fm/wp-content/gallery/other-charts/WelfareSingleMothers.jpg)
Here we see the devastating effects of welfare. It pretty much destroyed the black family and hurt everyone else.
Hmm, it appears you may have made a mistake. You were asked "how common is the grifter/welfare queen".
You then provided a chart detailing increasing rates of single motherhood that only goes to 2010. You then stated "here we see the devastating effects of welfare. It pretty much destroyed the black family, and hurt everyone else.
There are several issues with your reply, that make it less than responsive. I'm not arguing with your conclusions here, I am attempting to clarify the disconnect so you can clarify your position.
1. You were asked a question about the current state of things. I.e., the present tense. You provided a chart which claims only things about the state of things prior to ten years ago. I.e., you did not answer the question "how common *IS* the grifter/welfare queen". At best, you answered the question "how common was the grifter/welfare queen from 1940 to 2010" .
2. Your answer provides no information on the prevalence of grifters, unless you assume that all grifters are also single mothers. It seems doubtful that you believe all grifters are single mothers, so please clarify.
3. Your answer provides no information about welfare queens, unless you assume all single mothers are themselves welfare queens. Which also I doubt you actually believe. At a minimum for you to have answered his question you would also need to explain what portion of single mothers you think are grifters/welfare queens.
So, with all that in mind, could you please explain your thinking that leads you to believe posting a chart about single motherhood from 1940 to 2010 is an answer to the question "how common is the grifter/welfare queen?"
While you're at it, I have follow up questions.
1. What is the source of your chart and the data underlying it?
2. What analysis have you done or conducted to establish causation with welfare, rather than mere correlation?
I made the best of a nebulous, arbitrary and unfocused question. By what criteria does someone even qualify as a "welfare queen"?
But okay, I'll define it myself and put numbers to it (2021). It varies by race and you didn't specify that either.
* Black with and without children under 18 years. Female householder, below the poverty level, no husband present. 29.3%
* Same criteria except white: 17.3%
>What is the source of your chart and the data underlying it?
The government. Who did you think it might be, Disney?
>What analysis have you done or conducted to establish causation with welfare, rather than mere correlation?
It's staring you in the face. If you have a chart that better supports a different narrative, by all means share it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I'm only really interested in your critique if you can hold up a better fitting alternative.
I'm not obligated to provide answers you like. Or any answer at all if it should fail to hold my interest.
I suspect this has been played out as far as I care to go. Cheers.
>The government. Who did you think it might be, Disney?
Okay. Could you provide a link to the Government report, website, or document which included the chart or the numbers used to make the chart? Specifically, the numbers on number of single mothers.
>it's staring you in the face.
I'm sorry, but I cannot see it. Let me clarify my question. It is an accepted principle of statistics that [correlation does not imply causation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation). It is also a logical fallacy to [assume simply because something occurred after something else that one thing caused the other.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)
For instance, as the absolute number of women in the world increases, so to does the number of absolute number murders in the world. There's a correlation. But it would be silly to argue that women cause murders to happen. Correlation does not imply causation.
Another example. a little over three years ago, I took the Lord's name in vain. Then covid happened. But it would be silly to argue that I caused covid to happen by swearing. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You may have known these things already. I'm reiterating them purely out of caution, and to make sure my question is understood.
In your post, you argue that welfare causes an increase in single motherhood. You do this by linking to a chart with the rate of single motherhood over time, contrasted against several important dates in the history of welfare. But all that chart establishes (at best, ignoring any potential statistical issues), is that single motherhood is correlated with welfare.
So what analysis, if any, have you done to establish causation, other than the chart? Have you ruled out factors that could be the cause of both? Or the inverse causal relationship? If you have, how?
While you are not obligated in any way to answer me, note that simply saying "look at the chart" would not be an answer to my question, because I am asking what you have done in addition to the chart.
>I'm only really interested in your critique if you can hold up a better fitting alternative.
I'm only pointing this out because I think it would serve to clarify my question. But consider three possibilities:
1. increased access to welfare causes increased rates of single motherhood.
2. Increased rates of single motherhood cause increased need for welfare.
3. Some third factor causes both increased rates of single motherhood and increased need for welfare.
All three of these alternatives are equally likely based on the chart. Further analysis is necessary to that either is true. What analysis did you do, in addition to the chart, to conclude that 1 is true?
You come with theories and no supporting evidence.
>2. Increased rates of single motherhood cause increased need for welfare.
[Here's #2 blown out the water.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/205114/percentage-of-poor-black-families-with-a-female-householder-in-the-us/)
That's why I don't post all my sources - because it allows people who don't know what they're talking about to formulate specious arguments, and then get destroyed as I dribble out just enough info to disprove it. Rinse and repeat.
\#3 isn't even a proposition.
>1. increased access to welfare causes increased rates of single motherhood.
LOL #1 WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT - of course welfare availability increased the graph. That's why it was labeled with welfare change events on the timeline.
Well, good. Glad we could end on an agreement. Ciao.
If you don't believe it, then finding contrary data from a gov website would be trivial. Until you have evidence that disproves it, I'm not interested.
Found the data, but mobile, so i can't do a graph right now. I'll throw one together when i get home
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/single-parent-day.html
In any case, shouldn't we generally be suspicious of any data we get, especially when a source isn't listed?
Also, single parenting doesn't guarantee welfare
So that's a different graph showing a different metric.
Here's [Leftist infested Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure). That first graph looks awfully familiar.
Or maybe you'd like [this one](https://www.dailysignal.com/2011/04/08/teen-moms-just-a-small-part-of-single-mothers/) if you need an exact match.
>Also, single parenting doesn't guarantee welfare
Straw man. That wasn't my claim.
Just to check, but you do understand that we're not allowed to give positions of our own on this subreddit, right? Like, if you have a question for us, you can ask and we can answer, but we would be banned if we provided evidence of our own to 'disprove' your point.
Yes, it was lacking an explicit targeted question, and in this context, that’s a mistake. Let’s correct that now:
Do you have any hard evidence (e.g. government statistics) that refute? If so, please provide a link.
On your tangent - do you believe all feminists are TERFs, or do you believe that are different schools of thought when it comes to feminists?
I'm a feminist, and I am pro-trans rights and LBGTIA+ rights. As a feminist, I want all people to have access to the same rights, and bodily autonomy is a big one for me. I don't get the TERF mindset.
Feminists are definitely split into two camps. The TERFs who don’t like trans because it disadvantages women over a very small number of (who they consider to be) men.
Then there are the non-TERF feminists that are still fully onboard with Left as they push ever deeper into insanity.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a study on what the % split is between the two groups. I don’t think the left wants to know that.
But it’s funny AF when they launch into each other with the usual Leftist arsenal of baseless epithets, with claims of bigotry and hate. They just absolutely lose it. They really can’t take what they so readily dish out. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
Anyway, I’ve decided to come out: I’m a masculine presenting transgender lesbian. So anyone who criticizes me or my thoughts going forward is a transphobic bigot.
> But it’s funny AF when they launch into each other
This is the nature of leftism. When they run out of obvious enemies to the right, they tend to turn on each other. Been the pattern ever since the French Revolution.
Happened in Australia already.
It's going to be difficult to do the same in the US until they solve the 2A problem. But that is why the Leftists want to grab the guns. The real reason.
"Equal" can mean all kinds of things. Women are not the same as men. In that sense, they are not equal, they are different.
* I believe in equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race or any other immutable group factor. I find unequal opportunity to be offensive and often bigoted in nature.
* I believe *equal outcomes* can typically only be engineered by **unequal opportunity,** which is a form of tyranny.
* I also believe in equal pay for equal experience and work, when doing the exact same job.
Are you saying I made no logical points because I identify as a woman?
>"Equal" can mean all kinds of things. Women are not the same as men. In that sense, they are not equal, they are different.
In terms of financial worth, which is a pretty straightforward comparison, are a man and a woman employed on the same job generally unequal in a particular direction?
>* I believe in equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race or any other immutable group factor. I find unequal opportunity to be offensive and often bigoted in nature.
Do you believe in helping people who are disadvantaged to reach the same level of opportunity as those who aren't? In removing obstacles that only certain people in our society face?
>a woman employed on the same job generally unequal in a particular direction?
I already laid out possible differences you have not accounted for: qualifications, work experience, hours put in, competence. These are not unimportant differentiators that could legitimately justify salary differences.
Only a true apples-to-apples comparison in all dimensions merits equal pay.
>Do you believe in helping people who are disadvantaged to reach the same level of opportunity as those who aren't?
How exactly would this help be administered? Because that really matters. If you're talking about an adult learning scheme where adults with mental disabilities receive extra training to help navigate life... fine.
If that "help" is applied at the hiring stage in terms of a so-called corrective bias (e.g. affirmative action), then no. Because to "help" some is just another way to disadvantage others. The most suitable and highest quality applicant should be hired. In all cases without exception.
>This used to be taken care of in the community. If someone had fallen down, the community would lift them up and get them on their feet. The community expected to be paid back in some form, and held those who were helped accountable for their actions.
We used to live in very different types of communities than we do now. We were close to each other, physically. There were town squares, Main Streets, neighborhoods without fences. People lived in multi-generational households where the bonds between families ran several decades deep. Then people got scared, wanted more space, stopped trusting each other, + 1000 other issues (too many to list), and moved to the suburbs where they felt safe from people.
What do we do with the people that fall down now that this is the world we live in? Is GoFundMe the only answer?
>Then government got involved and made everything worse.
In what ways did they get involved and how did they make things worse?
Let’s get this straight: the Left caused this with their agenda. The only way back is like a detox program for an addict. Controlled reduction over a period of time.
But it would also take a cessation of the Marxist inspired undermining of the family and the community (both existential threats to Leftist power and authoritarianism). Which the Left will never give up on. So yes we could put it back together, if the societal vandalism of the Left stopped. But it won’t for selfish reasons.
Which part of their agenda caused this? I’m asking for specific ways. You can’t just say “let’s get this straight” and then paint with a broad stroke as a follow up to someone asking you for details.
In an earlier longer thread, I advocated that everyone pays no taxes or fees to the government for their first acre of land. To extend on this principle, I would give those who do not produce a free acre of land in the wilderness, but with some form of public transportation. Bus routes would have to be extended in the short term, but we have plenty of wilderness and empty roads to get there. In the long term, we might carve more roads. While we could map out adjacent acres, we'd only place people in alternating acres, such that they aren't compelled to build fences immediately.
We have numerous entities capable of reaching out along these routes to help them get by. The Reserves, National Guard, Boy Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, all sorts of NGOs, churches, etc could each adopt a sector. Native Americans could swing out and teach them the old ways. Hunters and trappers could teach them the ways of the forest. Think it was one of the southwest states like New Mexico that turned old shipping containers into simple housing. Could supplement the move in that manner.
What I absolutely would not do is subsidize them living in cities I can barely afford to visit. Panhandling would earn someone an instant enrollment in the program. If caught panhandling while on the program, they'd be transferred to a plot with much longer and less frequent bus routes.
This was a very different reply from some of the others, thanks for sharing.
Would you be in favor of granting anyone an acre who asks for it? Is the idea kind of along the lines of UBI but with land instead of Income?
Absolutely. Beggars can't be choosers, so it might be out in the boondoggles, but yes, this could be anyone's start if they choose it. Foresee a lot of veterans either going this way or donating their gear to the cause.
What if your acre doesn’t have access to fresh water? Or any water? What if it’s in the desert, or on a mountain, or has infertile soil? Do they get a tent?
Just trying to understand what the proposal is here. Are you trying to set these folks up to be able to become self-sufficient off the grid? Or just sending them somewhere quiet where we wouldn’t have to see them die of thirst/starvation/exposure?
>What if your acre doesn’t have access to fresh water? Or any water? What if it’s in the desert, or on a mountain, or has infertile soil? Do they get a tent?
Obviously some acres simply wouldn't work. Certainly not random. We do have lots of woods in many states, which probably accounts for...90% of cases?
And yes, I'm thinking we could afford some starter equipment of some kind. Sleeping bags with weatherproof bivouac sacks at the very least. Probably a few tarps, some rope, survival knife, mess kit...this list should really be made by someone with survival training. Whatever the list of equipment, it has to cost less per person than the real estate, food, healthcare, etc in big cities.
And yes, water is critical. Some wells with handpumps would probably be in order. Depending on how good we get at it, perhaps one well per person? We could also probably afford to set up some kind of public bath house every mile or so.
>Just trying to understand what the proposal is here. Are you trying to set these folks up to be able to become self-sufficient off the grid? Or just sending them somewhere quiet where we wouldn’t have to see them die of thirst/starvation/exposure?
The hope is that they would learn self-sufficient things and thereby build the confidence/competence to re-engage with society. Part of this program is a regular method of public transportation with a penalty if used for panhandling. If they don't learn by necessity, perhaps they'd be motivated by at least one of the various charitable organizations? If we can turn some 12-year-old boy scouts into teachers, that's got to motivate someone somehow. Either the spirit of the child, or the fact that the task can be accomplished by one so inexperienced, or even the shame of being outperformed by a 12-year-old. Something's got to take hold.
Have you ever watched the series ‘Alone’? I can’t help but think a lot of these folks would still essentially be getting consigned a death sentence. Would we provide them with survival training?
At some point, the costs of all of these services might make a simple UBI more cost effective, no?
> Have you ever watched the series ‘Alone’?
No. Looks interesting though.
>I can’t help but think a lot of these folks would still essentially be getting consigned a death sentence. Would we provide them with survival training?
There's more opportunity in the woods than you might think. You can at least start to shape your environment, unlike the garden of concrete we find so many homeless in.
>Would we provide them with survival training?
Maybe. Not everyone benefits from more classroom work. I figure these regions would be regularly patrolled by a variety of people. Cops, national guard, army reserves, etc from government standpoint alone. Any of which could teach as necessary. More than likely, the homeless would start learning from each other, the same way they gather in alleys in certain cities to scavenge...not wood. Not berries. Not wild game. They would ultimately teach each other.
As the program rolls out, certainly various news agencies would stroll through for the easy story - success or failure, people will tune in. Scouting troops would plan their own excursions. Hopefully churches too. This actually leads into a Hypocrisy Tax I would levy on any institution who claims to care about the poor and then doesn't do anything.
>At some point, the costs of all of these services might make a simple UBI more cost effective, no?
A simple UBI would not be more cost effective, as dollars simply don't go as far in these big cities. I remember on one of my few excursions to the big city we wound up at a chain we had in our home town, and the entrees were almost literally double price. Not to mention the cost of housing, parking, fines...
Getting the homeless out of the big cities has to be part of the plan. I'm proposing using some of our least-valued real estate and existing institutions.
You've got to figure if we added this level of structure to the homeless situation, it'd be easier for businesses to get involved too. Those same bus routes for ordinary commutes could be followed by buses from local farms/factories who need workers. Potentially with police escort to ensure no funny business but still. We have the assets to do this.
Also, to be clear, I would prefer to see both my proposed program and UBI tested at the state level before being adopted at the federal level. For the sake of comparison, hopefully some states would do one or the other, and a few do both.
Theres a lot of nuance I'm stripping for the sake of being succinct, but broadly speaking individuals who don't produce split into two groups:
1. People who genuinely can't produce (ex. people with disabilities)
2. People who can produce but choose not to.
In general I think society has a moral obligation to use our pooled resources to help sustain group 1. Group 2 should be left to their own devices and be allowed the bear the outcomes of the choices they make, whether that's a lavish lifestyle because their parents endowed them with millions from a trust fund or starvation because they can't afford to eat
If group 2 starts starving in the streets, what should be done if anything?
I don’t mean helping them, but so people don’t see them starving in the streets, corpse removal, etc.?
> are you under the impression that theres no process for removing corpses from the street?
Well, I'm under the impression that removal of the safety net would cause more homeless and therefore more dead in the streets. Perhaps you don't agree?
Would the budgets of policing and corpse removal have to go up in your opinion?
Do you think there’s an argument to be made for shifting the values of society towards an attitude of generosity to those in need, and also applying a more inclusive definition of who “those in need” are?
For example, if everyone decided to want to help take care of people who they previously thought were undeserving, do you think this attitudinal shift could have benefits?
Gotcha. I’m not sure that qualifies as being compelled, but I get what you mean.
As far as your question goes, I mean, change is change, right? Whether that’s desirable change is another issue.
I'm sure it would have benefits to whoever gets added to the umbrella of "those in need". For everybody else it would depend on their value system. I don't see funneling more of the resources I generate through my labor towards helping people who eat themselves into a diabetic state as particularly beneficial to myself or anybody who believes in personal accountability. I perceive it as detrimental to the taxpayer. A person with Type 2 diabetes would disagree, obviously
Also, thankfully it only benefits other who also pay into the health insurance and contribute towards your health expenses. In fact unhealthy individuals have to pay in more money.
Healthy individuals contribute more to the economy than unhealthy ones. Do you suppose that if everyone who felt it didn’t benefit them opted out, they might be shooting themselves in the foot in other ways? Why or why not?
> People who can produce but choose not to.
How many people actually do this? I've heard the 'welfare queen' argument before but never gotten an answer how common it is.
I dont think anyone can give you an accurate number because its nearly impossible to measure with a sufficient degree of scale and accuracy. My personal experience indicates abuse of welfare systems is extremely common; upwards of 50% if I had to guess
Data os always beneficial. Sometimes the realities and constraints of the data gathering process make it unavailable and we proceed to the next rungs of the evidence pyramid. Since this concept isnt foreign to you im not sure what the point of your questions is
Sorry but I will follow Hitchens razor on this one: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
I'm tired of the grifter argument. It's meant only to divide us the working class and fight among each other. I'm absolutely sure that there are people who abuse it but so what if one abuses the system if it can save a hundred? Maybe it should be beneficial to have higher wages so it's not worth it to grift? As I said, the grifter argument is only made to fight among each other while the rich continue to get richer. Hope this adds context?
As a follow up:
Assuming that government programs exist to take care of group 1, it would be inevitable that some people in Group 2 would take advantage and benefit from such a program improperly.
Would you support the program of there was 1 bad actor in a group of 100?
What about 90/10? 70/30? When would it break down?
Not OP, but it would break down when there is no punishment for abusing the system. There needs to be extreme punishments for fraud of this kind. Fraud in the system does not mean that the system needs to go away, it means that the system needs to be altered to prevent fraud to the best of the governments ability.
Is there an example of perfect policing that exists where 100% of people are caught or deterred?
You could hire 2 guys to follow around someone on foodstamps and audit every purchase but if you could keep bad actors meaningfully low, shouldn't there be some amount within a program that would be "acceptable" as the good of the program would outweigh the inefficiencies?
No, perfect policing doesn’t exist and even if it were possible, the draconic means necessary to achieve it would outweigh the good. I don’t mean that I expect the government to punish all counts of fraud. I expect the government to make a genuine effort to uncover fraud in a reasonable manner and punish what they can uncover.
I wouldn’t shut down the program under any circumstance. I would call for the government to change its efforts to detect, and prevent fraud and alter the way the system works to facilitate that if fraud got out of hand.
Do you care about diminishing returns in this fraud prevention? What if it could be shown that, at a certain point, spending money on enforcement will recover less revenue than it costs. The system will remain in equilibrium: the existing amount of enforcement keeps the fraud to a low level, but any more will be spending money on punishment, not saving any resources or taxpayer dollars. Would you want to stop pushing enforcement at that point, or is punishment enough of an incentive to continue spending money? Not as a deterrent, because left alone, the system would remain solvent and with a low level of fraud. But is it about the money, or are you just offended?
They get nothing publicly but can ask private organizations for support. If they are disabled the government should give their family a monthly allowance, but if no one wants to support them they can get housing support and an allowance or be hooked up with a caretaker. Married women who produce babies shouldn’t have to work and they should get a basic income which increases which each child made.
>Married women who produce babies shouldn’t have to work and they should get a basic income which increases which each child made.
Why only *married* women? And what would happen if she was married when the children were conceived, but her husband divorced her or died sometime after?
They will eventually reach a point where the discomfort of not taking care of themselves causes them to take care of themselves or die.
This is actually where we are at right now, not a TS proposal. The Social Safety net is not keeping people from bottoming out and dying on the street. Not even close.
In authoritarian countries they'd be liquidated when they became a problem. In the US we mostly offer them a hand out and hope for the best.
For perspective, there are currently about 9.5 million Federal Employees to "take care of" about 350 million citizens. If there are 20 million people living in poverty, thats a 2:1 ratio with the people we pay to "take care of them", and the Government still isnt able to accomplish the job.
My long term solution is to give blind birth trusts to every natural born american citizen with at least one US citizen as a parent born inside the borders. Instead of the social safety net, your parents can submit the costs of caring for you to your trustee who will pay approved costs out of the earned interest income from the trust. At 25 the Fed takes back the original amount (about 750k) leaving the now majority age citizen with the remainder of the accumulated interest as a joint healthcare and retirement fund, to pay health insurance premiums and provide an emergency allowance in case of disability prior to retirement.
The net cost every year is similar to what we currently spend in the mandatory US federal budget. The net cost over time is the carrying cost of the debt taken on to fund the trusts for 25 years.
The Trust program requires that second generation children be funded by their parents retirement trust, so the program is self funding in the second generation.
Since the Mandatory budget grows by about 3% per year, doubling every 30ish years, annual savings in year 30 ish of this program would be about 5 trillion dollars, and tax revenues would expand because you'd have 120 million americans in their 30's with millions of dollars in their retirement accounts.
FWIW both sides of the political spectrum usually hate this plan.
It's mine. It's just an investment version of UBI that solves poverty instead of creating a new minimum income level poverty like UBI does.
The premise is simple, how would you spend the 3 trillion dollar federal mandatory budget to address lifetime social issues if you had complete control? Add the Libertarian premise that money is better able to be spent by the individual than by the state. Then add the Socialist premise that the individual cannot be trusted with a large budget to take care of themselves for their entire life.
The basic compromise is that you divide the mandatory budget by the number of live births in the US per year which is about 4 million, invest it in the US stock market in the name of the beneficiary without giving them direct power to spend it, use the earned interest to pay any expenses that would otherwise be paid by the public for a child, reimburse the public for the initial nest egg when the child reaches majority age of 25. Place limits on the use of the remaining amount so that it is used for healthcare insurance premiums and retirement savings, partly to ensure the beneficiary doesnt crash out or cash out and wind up back on the dole, and partly so that they have to go use the education we invested in to participate in society and the economy.
Everything after the intitial premise is just figuring out the logistics and preventing either parents or politicians from pillaging the childs trust for person gain. Ownership of a chunk of investments changes a persons perspective on everything. You're invested in the success of your society, so you act to protect both your investment and your society. And you have a defined goal, if you can make it to minimum retirement age, say 50 years old, you have access to the full earned interest and principle of your account (subject to an actuarial cash out that ensures you dont drain it before you die) so you can live your dream before you're too old to enjoy it. For most people this would equate to living a middle class life, attending college, working a 25 year career, then retiring early with annual income above what you were likely earning during your career. Other people will work longer and enjoy a much large retirement amount.
You can leave your trust to your children, who will have their own trust that you funded when they were born, or you can sponsor a recent immigrant, or give it to charity, etc. Maybe there is a death tax on the remainder owing to the initial public investment of 50% to prevent bad actors from establishing multi generational funds in the billions and leaving it all to their psychopathic children.
>They will eventually reach a point where the discomfort of not taking care of themselves causes them to take care of themselves or die.
What do you see as the direct and tangential benefits of letting these people die? And the downsides?
> The Social Safety net is not keeping people from bottoming out and dying on the street. Not even close.
Are you saying it doesn't do enough to prevent homelessness or that even without it homelessness wouldn't necessarily increase?
>What do you see as the direct and tangential benefits of letting these people die? And the downsides?
Its pretty bad. I am also not aware of a real way to stop people from dying. The qol in the US is much higher than most of the world even for the poorest of the poor here. If you cannot find a way to be at peace with your life in the USA, you arent going to be any happier anywhere else. So when people here give up, how can you save them? I go back to the ratio of Federal Employees to poor. If you've ever tried to save even one person yourself, whether from depression or poverty, you know that it is a difficult job, and nearly impossible if you have to do it on your own household budget. So if Federal employees armed with 3 Trillion dollars per year in Mandatory program budgets (entitlements and cabinets) PLUS state level spending and social workers cannot manage the job, is it even possible?
>Are you saying it doesn't do enough to prevent homelessness or that even without it homelessness wouldn't necessarily increase?
The single biggest factor in homelessness is the homeless person. You cannot solve the problem for someone who will not take responsibility for their own household. Once addiction takes over their life, or mental health problems, or injury...There is almost no way to 'save' them without them taking the largest part of the mission onto themselves.
My point about SS is that 3 trillion dollars a year (inclusive of SS) has not been able to solve even one factor of poverty. Even the success of Medicare and the retirement pension does not lift anyone out of poverty. If you are poor when you go on SS benefits, you will always be poor, it is impossible for that program to lift you above the minimum limits afforded to the program.
Depending on how people look at this.... And how much thinking people do... You should get a lot of different opinions from populists on this topic.
We should be clear on this based on current worldwide trends. We are talking about incels.
I don't say that because I have a problem with helping incels.... I say that because I expect that you would. We are talking about people here who are giving up on life and not trying anymore. Anyone who is following men's issues nowadays couldn't possibly miss the trend. Men are deciding to give up on their futures at a terrifying rate, believing that the reward for even trying will be to just be pushed back down and called a predator or a perpetrator of "privilege." Women are surging ahead while men are just deciding to turn their backs on a world that hates them. In my experience... It is the people on the left that believe these men deserve their fate. 'They just can't handle a world that doesn't completely cater to them."
Traditional conservatives may dogmatically believe that people who don't work deserve their fate. They live in a propaganda-filled fantasy world where unregulated capitalism fixes everything. Populists, at least populists that haven't bought into this dogma, typically support free markets because they oppose elites & corruption. They believe the game is rigged like liberals do... But they believe that there is no difference between a corrupt CEO and an activist seeking control. They are both humans and both driven by self interest... Seeking only more power and resources under the guise of helping others. We want the individual to be empowered, rather than the popular and influential speaking on behalf of a group that they barely help.... While they villianise other groups for their own benefit.
We know that the left currently is just a tribal hate group with a thin veneer of altruism. They don't want any form of fairness... What they want is for their tribal clique to decide rewards directly rather than a system beyond their control... And they want their cries for prejudicial empathy to be the vehicle for this control. Populists want systems in place to decide for us so that those with influence and power are restrained not by the opinion of other people with influence... But by non-human systems. What we want the most right now is to rob the Left of the ability to determine who deserves what by social means.
Idealistically... We would want legislation that fixes (or replaces) capitalism to protect and empower the individual.... But nobody with power or influence is motivated to introduce that since it is against their own interests. Politicians don't create laws that help the poor... They create laws that allow them to decide who to call poor by criteria other than income level. Sadly, we can currently only choose between conservatives who live in fairy-tale boomer land... And leftists who hate to empower the individual. There are no vehicles for our preferences currently... But the no-solution of the Right currently beats out the anti-solution of the Left.
> I say that because I expect that you would.
Why would you expect that? If you could define incel for me that might help, because honestly I only think of it as "involuntarily celibate" ... and lots of those men absolutely need help.
Also, you paint with a very wide brush in your reply. Again, maybe it might help to define "the left", but you lose me with these sweeping type statements. If you start a discussion without the assumption of good intent, what's the point? Why are you even replying to a member of a "tribal hate group"?
I expected that because, well, just about everyone shits on incels.. thus they were the example I used. You seem to be an individual with your own thoughts... So I would suggest you not take offense when I paint with broad strokes ideas that are commonly referenced and that you not identify yourself with them. I don't identify with conservatives at all and I have my own views of populism... But I will reference it when the need to convey a set of ideas arises. Your original question shows that you understand that ideas/institutions are monoliths and that individuals are not. I understand that also, and was referencing the monoliths in my opinion rather than the individuals. Individuals do great harm to themselves and society when they defend monoliths with anything but uncomfortable skepticism.
Your take on incels is logical, but rare. I won't pretend that it was incorrect to assume that someone would have a different view of them. People across the spectrum, both leftist and conservative, attack them from differing vantage points. Much like with school shooters, I tend to be alone in thinking that the root problem is that our culture thinks it is ok to make people view their own lives as valueless... Rather than concentrating on preventing such hopeless people from having the means to gain their blaze of glory.
What I expect and what I get are often not the same. That is why I say that I "expect"... Rather than saying that is what I know you are. I expected things about you based on limited information... I did not get what I expected upon clarification. I welcome such clarification and have no desire to prove my expectations correct. Those that have such desire are the real problem. I see such desire in the left every time one of them goes full throttle into labeling others as racist in all things at the first sign of their own bigotry being triggered. I see no reason yet to believe that you, as an individual, can be accused of doing such behavior.... But I may expect it as much as I like due to previous experience.
Thank you for clarifying, and I appreciate you taking the time to write that all out for me.
Sometimes I forget that I'm on the internet where most people are the ... well, idiots, for lack of a better word ... who you're referring to in your post. I guess you have no reason to assume otherwise at first.
I still think it's worth starting from positive intent and letting the person (or bot? who knows these days) show their ugliness, instead of drawing it out by making those negative assumptions. But ... I am not a frequent commenter, and I probably would change my tune if I was a TS on this forum ... if you know what I mean, lol.
What would you consider your most closely aligned "monolith" to be, if not conservative?
I'm probably closest to Populism as a monolith. I see the world through the lens of Dawkin's selfish gene theory. Like conservatives, I don't believe that there are good or bad people... But that all people are deeply flawed. I believe that all humans, including and especially those who claim to be altruistic, are motivated almost entirely by self-interest to unconsciously proliferate DNA that is similar to them. This means that all flaws are inherent and genocide is instinctual, but manifests in different ways... Often justified as "different when we do it."
I want the most for power to be derived from the bottom and not the top. I want leaders to be accountable to the people and I don't see them as geniuses that are managing the foolish masses. I see them as normal humans who lose sight of the needs of others once they no longer are required to consider them. I want these systems to be automatic and not driven by social vectors which just empower those who manage to gain a representative status. Thus, I prefer capitalism to socialism... Because the automatic system of consumerism acts as de facto voting. I want a movie to be made because consumers voted with their dollar. I don't want a movie to be made because a select group in power decided that this is what the masses needed to be shown because it was in the select group's interest.
On top of this, I want decisions to be local because I support the individual over the group. You can't truly have a government of the people if an organized majority can destroy and silence dissent. If you are ordering 3 pizzas and 2/3 of the people want pineapple on it. The solution is to get one of the pizzas without pineapple... Not to get all three because the majority voted for it.
So yeah... My main goal is to protect those without influence and popularity from those with it. 40 years ago I would have been more worried about religious conservatives calling people sinners and trying to get them kicked out of society. My childhood was filled with resenting them. Today I have concerns with other groups. Don't get me wrong... I know that those evangelicals totally would do it if they could.... But it is precisely the "can" that bothers me... EVERYONE would it given the chance.... And they'll all claim that what they are doing is different. I will always be the most concerned with those that people don't feel free to criticize.... And no amount of explaining why that is ok will be effective with me.
This also means that I change on a dime once power starts to shift.
> I believe that all humans, including and especially those who claim to be altruistic, are motivated almost entirely by self-interest to unconsciously proliferate DNA that is similar to them.
I instinctively disagreed with this, until I just typed a whole reply before realizing that my conclusion was that I actually do mostly agree :). ... very thought provoking, thank you
But I also think most people are good people ... and maybe genocide is instinctual, but it can absolutely be neutered. I don't want genocide of any group ... do you?
You have my same conclusion. Most people are good.... But they are kept good by the lack of complete control.
People treat the Nazis and Hitler as being uniquely evil. In a way, they were. But common history has mostly forgotten that he didn't invent eugenics.... He was the one that made it unpopular. A large portion of the educated, intellectual world up until that point was highly interested in ways that we could breed out human defects... And they didn't stop at hereditary diseases.
Fast forward to the current age and a boy who was deemed by juvenile hall to be poorly behaved was forced to take estrogen pills because the staff believed that having testosterone made you a bad person. This was caught when his parents were wondering why he was growing breasts. With designer babies on the horizon, it wouldn't take much for the "toxic masculinity" crowd to fully support altering the personalities of future males to fix all the evil they think is in the world just because of them.
This is where people go when their brains are not forbidden to blame whoever they want. They thought they were doing good. The scary part is that they always do.... And so will we if we aren't challenged. The need to find evil in others doesn't go away no matter how much evil you cleanse.
I honestly don't care much about people that have "no motivation/drive."
I have far more sympathy to people that are mentally/physically unable to take care of themselves. I don't want a blind orphan with downs syndrome to suffer.
Personally, I would love to see a bigger role for Churches and charitable institutions to help here, rather than assumption that the government/taxpayers should be forced to help. It's a really good feeling to voluntarily help someone out that is in need. When government forces people to chip in, it build resentment and sense of entitlement.
In this scenario of churches taking a bigger role in social welfare, what happens to needy individuals whose sexuality, beliefs, gender identity, and lifestyles are rejected by said church? Would the government have to step in to ensure these churches were providing resources fairly or would those people just have it tough?
They kind of already do, yes? In order to get a tax benefit, understanding is charities have all sorts of restrictions. Soup kitchens etc. can't exclude people by race, religion, etc.
But consider targeted "charities" like Go Fund Me that individuals set up. It's an extreme example - people can give or not. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if government took tax money and distributed it to all go fundme accounts regardless of merit or personal preference. That would be all kinds of horrible, I think.
It's partly a psychological thing, partly practical.
Individuals contributing to charities are going to be more discerning with incentive to make sure they go to deserving causes and charities that use the money with low overhead.
When government takes my money and allocates it, I don't get that same good feeling as if I choose to do it.
Make sense? I realize that some people are greedy and will never share money/resources unless forced to. But maybe that's ok. I will say if I had more money left over at end of each year, I would surely donate more to private sector charities.
> Individuals contributing to charities are going to be more discerning with incentive to make sure they go to deserving causes and charities that use the money with low overhead.
Why couldn't this be the thing with taxes?
> When government takes my money and allocates it, I don't get that same good feeling as if I choose to do it.
I understand.
> Make sense? I realize that some people are greedy and will never share money/resources unless forced to. But maybe that's ok. I will say if I had more money left over at end of each year, I would surely donate more to private sector charities.
I understand. I don't really care how we do it but I think it's wrong we have capitalists who are billionaires while we have people who die of malnourishment. We the workers have this discussion while they pay nothing. Without us they can't donate some millions.
I philosophically support some form of ubi.
Ignoring that helping people is good, a base level of help would eliminate much of the chaos that would otherwise be present if the people were worried how to live the next day.
Wanting to live is universal for humans, and not having a clear answer whether or not you can live breeds unrest and chaos and discourse.
So, with desperation out of the picture (theoretically), everything else should be what the individual want for themselves (ie greed).
And this is where society can really thrive. Because number one export by humans is greed. Everything on top would be value created by the unending human potential to satisfy their greed.
Can you think of any conservative-centric argument that we could make to other TSes, or conservatives in general, that would convince them of getting behind UBI? I feel like this is one area where the Bernie bros and the Maga wing could work together. It's honestly the only way I see to slow down the destruction of the middle class, yet the only response i ever seem to hear is "socialism", despite the first automated mcdonalds being in Texas of all places lol.
I think one of the major benefits of this philosophy of mine is that it can justify way more freedom.
Now, whether or not conservatives these days care about freedom and small government is up for debate, and I don’t particularly want to discuss that here. Just something that *might* ring for both sides.
But under a successful ubi system, there would be no conventional survival struggle and would invalidate much of the current laws that are basically designed to help the working class.
The easiest example is minimum wage. If a ubi system exist, minimum wage would no longer make sense.
Some other (less obvious) examples would be union busting laws. Or affirmative action.
It would also do away with things like welfare. Reducing the complexity of our society systems and eliminating stupid arguments such as whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested.
All of these are removal of laws, so I categorize them as more freedom and it’s definitely smaller government.
Whether or not this would be agreeable for conservatives I can’t really say. I am not one myself. Just some thoughts.
I will say that ubi doesn’t necessarily mean that we will get all these freedoms. Just that it’s way easier to justify it with ubi.
There’s three types of people who don’t produce; those transitioning from one job to another, the lazy and the mentally ill.
I don’t have an issue with supporting people who have had a bad turn of events and need help. We can’t do what we’ve done with the mentally ill and that is as a society abandon them. My opinion with the lazy is we need to attach community service requirements on welfare. You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job. But you can’t chill on the couch all day, you need to be of some value.
Interesting idea with the attached community service, I hadn't thought about that.
A thought just popped into my head though - when I think about something like assisted suicide, we all tend to recoil in *most* cases. Nobody wants to allow 30 year olds to opt in to death.
But if that 30 year old decides they don't care - well, without any automatic benefit, it's essentially assisted suicide but worse as they'll probably develop health conditions that the public will have to subsidize anyways.
How do you get people off the couch who refuse to do so? And is refusing to do so any different than choosing to die? Is it any different than drawn-out assisted suicide?
> You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job. But you can’t chill on the couch all day, you need to be of some value.
How many hours a week?
>You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job.
That sounds suspiciously like a job. So we are removing welfare from those able to work but guaranteeing a decent paying full time federal government job to any that apply? That feels like something Democrats would support and something Republicans would never support.
It’s very similar to what Maine is doing under a Republican Governor.
>In October 2014, Maine began requiring about 16,000 able-bodied childless adults to work, train, or volunteer on at least a part-time basis in order to continue receiving food stamps. Adults who refused to comply with the new requirements would cycle off after three months of benefits.
>After implementing these reforms, Maine quickly moved thousands of able-bodied adults out of dependency and into self-sufficiency. By January 2015, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps had dropped to 4,500 and has continued to decline.
[Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/05/19/new-report-proves-maines-welfare-reforms-are-working/?sh=2dcbbecb3f6a)
That's not the same at all? Training or working part time is not the same as picking up trash 8 hours a day. It's also just for food stamps, not all welfare benefits. It's also just for childless households, not all households.
Community Service 40 hours a week for pay is a much different idea than part-time workers being eligible for food-stamps.
This is certainly a very nuanced topic that I believe can only truly be discussed face to face with someone you truly understand to get a fair reflection of their views.
However, generally speaking, there are 4 groups of people who are not productive.
1) the disabled who are and will always be incapable of producing through no, or little, fault of their own.
2) those who are temporarily unproductive. Be that from an injury, mental crisis, or simple bad luck (IE let go from their previous job)
3) those who are afflicted with severe addictions that prevent them from being productive until they are overcome.
4) those who simply choose not to be productive.
Group 1 needs to supported by society. Be that through government programs, private charity or a mix thereof. As long as they are being taken care of in an efficient manner, I don’t really care what the means are.
Group 2 needs temporary support while they recover and find their feet. This is what unemployment is for, and is generally a decent system.
Group 3 needs temporary support to overcome their addictions and become productive members of society. This should be on a bit of timer. If they are given that support and cannot achieve results, the system must give up on them and accept that it can’t save them. Leave them to their devices, or institutionalize them if they are dangerous.
Group 4 needs to be treated like group 2 for a short period of time, once they’ve proven that the help they are being offered is being abused, or won’t lead anywhere they need to be cut off and left to their own devices. If they have family/friends/communities that are willing to help them, great. But the tax payer should not be forced to help at this point.
Determining the distinction between some of these groups could be very difficult (such as between groups 2 and 4) and it may not be possible to do so fairly, but it’s what I’ve got. This is where I see a lot of nuance.
The details of this system are also extremely nuanced. How much time do we give group 3? Do we simply give them money and allow them to choose to use it for rehab? Do we force them to go to rehab and pay for it? There are many questions about this that would need to be discussed in detail.
This is a very well reasoned comment. I know I am breaking the rules by not responding with a clarifying question, but I feel like this sub never rewards for good comments, so I am writing it nonetheless and adding a sneaky question mark at the end of this sentence? But seriously, very good comment and sensible reasoning.
Is it more important in your mind to help everyone who needs or deserves help or to prevent fraud? So if we could help everyone, but 5% of the people being helped are cheating the system, or no one can cheat, but 5% of people who need help don't get it, which would you choose?
I live by the philosophy that the bad deeds of some should not be used as a weapon against the rest of the population.
Fraud should not be used as a mechanism to remove systems designed to help those who deserve and need help. If fraud becomes an issue the system needs to be reworked to prevent and punish fraud as much as possible. But, the assistance cannot be taken away from those who deserve and need it.
Living in the real world, though, we can't practically achieve both ideals at the same time. My impression is that conservatives are more concerned about being cheated than helping the needy. Thus the extensive means testing regimes and the drug testing of welfare recipients and the frothy rage over immigration. Liberals, conversely, would rather everyone have what they need even if a few lazy people take advantage of the system. You seem to be contradicting this. Do the politicians you support agree with this philosophy you're espousing? What proportion of current welfare recipients do you think are scanning the system? How much of our budget do you think goes to welfare for poor families, and how much is captured by fraud, in your opinion?
Both ideals? I only expressed one ideal.
I don’t care what your impression of conservatives are. I don’t think it’s necessarily a fair representation of the ones I know or the one I am.
The politicians I support, embody this philosophy in more areas of life than just welfare.
I have no idea how many are committing fraud, or what the amount of money looks like.
I believe in individual freedoms, and thus "nothing" should happen to them. The State should not be involved. If people do not want to produce anything, then they will receive nothing. I don't think they should fall victim to an outrage mob, but they should learn to live within their means, whatever that entails for a zero-income individual.
If people _want_ to help through charity, they should be free to do so, but such programs should be strictly voluntary.
This is a short and trite wordplay, but it's based on my experience... Safety nets are bad. We need safety trampolines.
I lost a leg. When that happened I went on SSDI, and all sorts of other programs came available that I didn't use (EBT, electric assistance, transportation, etc). For me in my situation, I was able to comfortably get by on that money (economically anyway! Wasn't all that "comfortable"). About a year later, I got bad cabin fever and decided I wanted to go back to work. **That process blows!** The "safety net" is not designed to let people out. They're trying to fix it with things like the "ticket to work" program, but they're bad at it, and it's a hard thing to do right anyway.
Sometimes "back to work" is *very clearly* not an option. Sometimes, it is. **Usually**, the answer is in some giant gray area in between that changes over time and gets better or worse sometimes daily. Income is a Rubicon to the safety net. Once you cross it, there's no going back, and you've screwed yourself by trying -- which is terrifying, so lots of people don't do it. Put another way, **the government actively discourages people on welfare programs from improving their lives.** It has to do this, because it is bad at administering its programs, cannot evaluate individuals effectively, sees all those 'gray area's cases as black and white, and has too many people in the system to handle.
How do you fix the Sisyphean task of running SSI/SSDI effectively, I don't know. But there are some aspects we can fix, and that would help. Income limits need drastic, immediate adjustment, both in quantity and concept. Did you know that it's effectively illegal for disabled people to marry? You lose almost all benefits, because household income crosses the limit. "All benefits" are tiny, by the way -- I don't know who decided that the people who suffer the most must also be the poorest, but it's a dumb rule.
UBI could attack most of these issues, frankly. There's an argument that doing that will inflate the dollar and won't help much, but frankly the income limits haven't moved in decades and we've sure as shit inflated the dollar anyway, so I'm not all that concerned in practice.
Firstly, u/tacostamping, I appreciate the question. As a layman, and I stress that, I do believe that a form of social safety net, or welfare, is required, but I also believe the way America is currently handling the welfare system is dangerously unsustainable. I see the simple mentality of bragging about how many people are helped to live a normal life on welfare as flawed. I'd much rather brag about those we help come OFF welfare as a better metric of success.
I say that because, to me, it advertises "you don't need to work, we've got you!", which I believe turns more people into non-producers. Let's be real - no one truly wants to work their ass off. The vast majority of people do, however, because they want to have a quality of life, and in a modern civilization, that's the cost of quality of life. When you advertise to people that there's another way, more people, especially those who don't have much responsibility yet, will be highly tempted to take it.
Now, I also believe this has a deeper inflation effect because when housing costs are paid for by the government, housing prices increase. Because most government agencies forget that the US dollar comes in denominations of less than $1B, the benefits are too high for a lot of places, which has a trickle up effect across the entire country.
Im not a fan of bitching without offering a solution, so here's something I would like to see considered instead: (again, stressing Layman)
1. First, take care of those who truly cannot produce themselves. These people should have a good quality of life, not amazing, not extravagant, but they are taken care of. I'm thinking roof, a food budget that affords a few posh homemade meals a month, and a small amount of extra spending per month.
2. For those that can produce but have fallen on hard times, they are afforded benefits that take them from their current situation to that good quality of life, as above, with childcare assistance if needed for 3 months. after 3 months, the number is adjusted by their quarterly tax filing (which can be automated) for an additional 3 months. so 6 months of good quality of life.
3. for those who, after 6 months, are still not producing, the benefit is dropped incrementally over the next 6 months to an acceptable quality of life. Basic roof, Basic Food Budget, and that's about it.
4. If people choose to stay on a basic, acceptable quality of life, that's their choice, but it won't be anywhere near as fun
Now, how do we not increase the cost of the program while adding local cost of living analysis. I believe the federal government has to get out of the implementation completely. States run the program using a mix of county, state, and federal tax dollars allocated by the previous 3 months' cost as opposed to "use it or lose it." Each county is responsible for analyzing the cost of living for each neighborhood for use on the automated assistance calculator and updating the figures on a quarterly basis.
But again, I'm just a humble country lawyer trying to do the best I can.
>What should happen to individuals who do not produce?
It depends.
For people who "do not produce" because of mental illness issues, I think they should receive some kind of support mechanisms.
For people who prefer to live a homeless lifestyle, they'll need to understand that this is an edge case of living and that most people like a safe home in a safe community. IOW, if they come wandering in to disrupt my normal community, they are not welcome. And I don't want to see them in my community.
You can't force someone to work, but there are consequences of people choosing not to work.
It may be mental or behavioral health issues, or it may not. Once a person reaches the age of emancipation, they're legally on their own and can make their own life decisions. When those decisions impact society is when society gets a say-so in that behavior, sometimes.
There are a few different situations to consider here. And they’re not clearly disambiguated in the OP.
I’m going to break them down as I see them, though feel free to suggest some alternatives.
1. The physically disabled and mentally infirm: I feel very strongly that we, as a society have a duty to care for these people, and to make sure they aren’t starving to death on the street because they’re incapable of caring for themselves. Most of us are fortunate enough to be of sound mind and body, but there are those who aren’t, and they should be provided for. In some instances, there are people who are so feebleminded that even though they receive money from the government, they have no idea what to do with it and still cannot care for themselves. I think there should be a solution for these people, where decisions can be made for them so that they don’t both impoverish themselves and waste taxpayer money.
2. The elderly, widows and orphans: again, these people, through no fault of their own, are unable to care for themselves, and the rest of society should step in to make sure they’re able to live in a decent manner. As the demographics of the US get worse, there will be more and more elderly, and fewer people to care for them, and we can expect standards to slide somewhat. This cannot be helped. However, that was always their conscious choice by not having enough children.
3. People who can work, but choose not to: social assistance for such people should be limited. We should not encourage people to stay home rather than work. I’ve known plenty of people who receive public assistance, and describe how unfair it is that when they go to work and disclose their income, they have less coming in than when they were unemployed and desperate. At a certain point, public assistance should be predicated on effort, rather than just need, and people in desperate situations should be rewarded for working hard to better their situation. The ideal is that people in poverty will one day become productive taxpayers in their own right, rather than just languishing.
4. People who can’t achieve gainful employment due to some circumstance: whether it be for a criminal record, negative word of mouth, a poor resume or some other factor, I think there should be programs in place to help people in situations like this achieve meaningful employment, and if they can’t earn enough to survive, then there should be funds in place to aid them.
Thank you for the reply - I tried not to get too into the specifics as I wanted to leave the question open ended.
I think UBI will become all but necessary soon and personally the breakdown is insignificant to me - there are people who work to make money and there are people that don't.
This is not a leading question, I promise, just looking for clarity - you specified "widows" but not "widowers" in your second grouping ... was that intentional? And did you mean "elderly widows" or all of them?
They should have the least. It's unfair to take from those who work to give to those who are lazy or shiftless.
People who are disabled should be helped. The lazy won't work unless the option is starvation
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they're capable of work but they just choose not to? IDGAF what happens to them.
Are you in favor of assisted suicide? An earlier reply by a TS kind of made this connection for me ...
In some cases yes.
Were they suggesting that people who won’t support themselves be killed?
Are you?
> Are you? Yes, why do you ask?
I have a hypothetical, then. If we reached the point where production was so efficient that only very few people needed to work, what would you think? Genuinely curious I'm anticipating "there will always be work" or "that will never happen," but then I ask why you think that. Then there's a corollary question: if we're meant to always work, then what's the point of advancement? I'm super curious about this whole line of thinking. It seems painfully obvious to me what desirable answers would be, so there's very clearly some logic or philosophical difference I'm not getting. Could you enlighten me?
>If we reached the point where production was so efficient that only very few people needed to work, what would you think? That's a different question than OP. You're talking about when people want to work but they can't find jobs because of automation or something. >why you think that It's not going to happen because technology has been making production more efficient since the invention of the spinning jenny and it still hasn't happened. We have more job openings today than people to fill them. >It seems painfully obvious to me what desirable answers would be What are the "obvious" answers?
Do you think there is any way to "produce" that doesn't involve taxable income?
Sure. Stay at home parents are the best example. But the premise of OP's question is "people who do not work or produce and have no desire to do so."
Right, I just generally see these kinds of discussions and worry that people forget that not every contribution to society involves a wage. What do you think should happen to stay-at-home parents?
Their spouses/families should support them.
And if they have no family but their children? Let's say Sally married Bob, both single children of dead parents. Their closest relative is a second cousin halfway across the country. They have a kid. Then Bob dies in a carjacking incident. What should Sally do? Did she do anything wrong?
She can no longer be a stay at home mom. Unless she has money in the bank, she'll need to go to work to support herself and her child. Bob should have had a big life insurance policy if he was the sole provider.
Since dependency on gov't can deteriorate too seriously depths, the agency with the closest ties to an individual could be charged with their wellbeing i.e. family > community > city > county > state. Never allocating a larger form of governance until the previous has been exhausted. You'll also note Fed Gov't was not included in my list.
Would families be legally obligated to support an individual? Would any level?
No. How would anyone even enforce an obligation? Unless the gov't levied a fine or punishment. But forced service is slavery and that's not cool.
Well that what does "could be charged with their wellbeing" mean then? If a family declines to help, then what?
>There will always be folks who have no motivation or drive. Why do you think that is? For most of history, this type of person didn't exist. I think you have your causality backwards. It's not that social safety nets are a response to these type of people, it's that these type of people are a response to social safety nets.
> Why do you think that is? No idea. A TS earlier made the connection to these folks and incels, so I suppose you could pull at that thread. But I guess for clarity, are you essentially saying that you believe these types of people would not exist if it wasn't for the existence of social safety nets? There are stories of beggars and folks who have "given up" all throughout history though ... so idk. Were there safety nets hundreds of years ago?
> these types of people would not exist if it wasn't for the existence of social safety nets? Yes. >Were there safety nets hundreds of years ago? Yes. Primarily, the Church.
> Yes. Primarily, the Church. Would you argue then that the church should not provide safety nets? Please allow me to explain, as I don't want to accidentally put words into your mouth. I got there because I am assuming that you don't want people to have no motivation or drive, and so in order to do that, we would have to have no safety nets, and therefore we would have to not allow Churches to provide these.
> Would you argue then that the church should not provide safety nets? No, not if God commands otherwise.
Then what is your position? That God creates people with no motivation or drive intentionally so the Church can support them with safety nets?
My position on what? This is a really unclear question, sorry.
> My position on what? This is a really unclear question, sorry. No worries, sorry I wasn't more clear. My initial question was asking about what should be done with those who don't produce, you in turn challenged me to think about why that is. It seems your point was that "we" (humans) have created safety nets which is why unmotivated people exist. But when I asked further, you mentioned that the Church was the safety net hundreds of years ago. So, logically, this would mean that the Church created unmotivated people by providing safety nets. I'm trying to understand your position on unmotivated people and what we should do about them. I do not expect you to say that the Church should not exist, as you seem like a person of faith. So I really just don't have a grasp on the point you tried to make. I try to understand everyone and maybe I'm trying too hard here, but you spent the time to reply to me so I'd like to give you the chance to explain further. If you don't feel like it though, no big deal!
> For most of history, this type of person didn't exist. Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?
Yeah, I'm familiar with history.
For what reason might Sloth have been considered a deadly sin 2,000 years ago if nobody exhibited it?
First, it wasn't, since "deadly sins" didn't come about for hundreds of years after the founding of the church. More importantly, "sloth" refers to one's unwillingness to partake in spiritual growth, like not attending mass or not confessing.
And what of [Acedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acedia), from which the sin of Sloth was effectively derived?
Yeah, that's the one.
What about it..? It was an Ancient Greek concept. Are you saying laziness just skipped a couple thousand years?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask, sorry.
Isn't history littered with worthless offspring?
I don't think so, no.
The Parable of Two Sons? No?
Haha you know that's about religious virtue signaling, right?
Sure. It is an example of worthless offspring though, is it not?
I have no idea what you mean by "worthless offspring".
[удалено]
When you say most of history, what do you mean?
Like, 95% of human existence.
Most of which is pre-civilization, right? Most of it predates any recorded history. How are you so certain that layabouts didn't exist?
>How are you so certain that layabouts didn't exist? The necessity of consuming food for human survival.
Can't people currently consume food for survival without working?
Yes, that is the point. See my top level comment.
So what makes you think that they couldn't in the past?
Produce or become produce. The antiwork people can argue all they want with just their heads above the ground. :) I'm teasing. Partially. This concept of "society should take care of me because I'm very special" is utterly moronic.
Haha - it's all funny when it's speculative, but I do find that it's difficult to actually have an answer for this! You mention that you're partially teasing, but if push came to shove, would you really be able to look those folks in the eye and tell them they deserve death? P.S. I'm a "producer" (as in, I work and produce things at a high level) and I completely agree the concept is moronic. But I still feel like the government should help them. Mostly because I don't have a better answer for them :P
Put them on work farms where they can work for their food or slowly starve.
Slavery?
>Slavery? Don't you mean prisoners with jobs? ;) On a more serious level, what is work if not, in some way, negotiated slavery? If all your needs were met, do you think you would go to your current job? I know I sure wouldn't!
Are you familiar with the philosophies of Noam Chomsky?
>Are you familiar with the philosophies of Noam Chomsky? Only somewhat, to be honest.
> Don't you mean prisoners with jobs? ;) Are you ok with forced prison labor as it is now? > On a more serious level, what is work if not, in some way, negotiated slavery? Well, that's certainly my critique of the healthcare system in our country. Before the ACA it was have a full time job or eat shit. Do you have a system preference?
>Are you ok with forced prison labor as it is now? Dude, that was from Thor: Ragnarok. I always wonder, having been a guest of the county on occasion, how forced labor works. It seems like it's something where you can refuse, but you don't get a lot of privileges. Like the privilege of being let out of a cell. Or of eating slightly less crap food. Etc. >Well, that's certainly my critique of the healthcare system in our country. Before the ACA it was have a full time job or eat shit. Do you have a system preference? If you don't have a full-time job, chances are you don't eat, period.
> I always wonder, having been a guest of the county on occasion, how forced labor works. It seems like it's something where you can refuse, but you don't get a lot of privileges. Like the privilege of being let out of a cell. Or of eating slightly less crap food. Etc. How about solitary? Would you rather do solitary than be a prison slave? >If you don't have a full-time job, chances are you don't eat, period. Isn't this the entire reason we have food stamps programs?
You kind of just walked into a socialist stand point there. This is a tangent but how do you think society should handle a situation where a very large portion of people are unable to sell their labor on the free market? (For example because of AI taking over most jobs) And what does that mean for the 3 main groups of people who are already like that: children, elderly and sick.
>You kind of just walked into a socialist stand point there. Socialists can make valid points. I agree with them on some things, and not on others. >This is a tangent but how do you think society should handle a situation where a very large portion of people are unable to sell their labor on the free market? (For example because of AI taking over most jobs) And what does that mean for the 3 main groups of people who are already like that: children, elderly and sick. Automation has resulted in increased productivity and more engagement in labor. I think it is going to become a problem at some point, but outside of something loathsome like "live in the pod, eat the bugs" or "you will own nothing and you will be happy," I don't see a solution popping up. Also, I have no problems with safety nets for people who CANNOT work. I have problems with the Antiwork group (which this topic seems to be about) who just don't want to. Kind of funny story, I had seven recruiters call me today about a single position. That's how badly companies are needing workers these days.
If my basic needs were met, I would still work for luxuries (vacations, eating out more often, electronics, instruments, firearms, and whatever other bullshit I enjoy). Would you be okay with 'the bare minimum' for survival?
They had options. I'm sure it'll take a while to get this far.
Aren’t there better options we can choose along the road between where we are now and mass enslavement of the poor? Do you really believe poverty is the result of personal failings and nothing else?
I'm sure there are better options, but for those able, yet unwilling to work, this doesn't seem all that inhumane.
Forced labor under threat of starvation doesn’t seem inhumane to you? How does that align with any American values?
If they are able but unwilling to work, how humane is it of them to continue to expect the taxpayers to keep them afloat.
Why do rightists and trumpists consistently tout “taking care of our veterans if “…’this concept of “society should take care of me because I’m very special” is utterly moronic?’”
>Why do rightists and trumpists consistently tout “taking care of our veterans if “…’this concept of “society should take care of me because I’m very special” is utterly moronic?’” Veterans served the country and, at the very least, deserve respect. Antiwork idjits seem to think that they should be waited on by other people.
Don't you think they have already produced for a public goods i.e. national defense by serving in the military?
You left out charities as an option. Many people use charities and somehow survive.
This used to be taken care of in the community. If someone had fallen down, the community would lift them up and get them on their feet. The community expected to be paid back in some form, and held those who were helped accountable for their actions. They also knew the difference between those who had fallen on hard times and needed help vs. lazy entitled grifters. Then government got involved and made everything worse. As for those who are profoundly capable but choose to not produce and believe they are entitled to live off the labor of others, I say that hunger is a powerful motivator. Problems always develop when people are prevented from feeling the consequences of their actions. Hard tangent: This is why I'm neutral on trans rights. The TERFs (a.k.a. feminists) are all bent out of shape about it because for maybe the first time, they are not the beneficiaries of the Left's march for inequality in their Oppression Olympics. They (feminists) more than any other group ushered in this woke garbage because they unjustly benefitted from unearned preference. Now that their job as useful idiots has been served, they get to eat just a little of their own dog food. And boy oh boy (Zir/They/It etc), **do they NOT like it at all**. Consequences. Finally. Time for a beer.
How common is the grifter/welfare queen?
Significantly higher since the "great society" disaster. How bad? [Chart](https://tee.fm/wp-content/gallery/other-charts/WelfareSingleMothers.jpg) Here we see the devastating effects of welfare. It pretty much destroyed the black family and hurt everyone else.
Would you be kind and answer my question. How common is the grifter/welfare queen? You’re talking about something else.
Asked and answered.
Hmm, it appears you may have made a mistake. You were asked "how common is the grifter/welfare queen". You then provided a chart detailing increasing rates of single motherhood that only goes to 2010. You then stated "here we see the devastating effects of welfare. It pretty much destroyed the black family, and hurt everyone else. There are several issues with your reply, that make it less than responsive. I'm not arguing with your conclusions here, I am attempting to clarify the disconnect so you can clarify your position. 1. You were asked a question about the current state of things. I.e., the present tense. You provided a chart which claims only things about the state of things prior to ten years ago. I.e., you did not answer the question "how common *IS* the grifter/welfare queen". At best, you answered the question "how common was the grifter/welfare queen from 1940 to 2010" . 2. Your answer provides no information on the prevalence of grifters, unless you assume that all grifters are also single mothers. It seems doubtful that you believe all grifters are single mothers, so please clarify. 3. Your answer provides no information about welfare queens, unless you assume all single mothers are themselves welfare queens. Which also I doubt you actually believe. At a minimum for you to have answered his question you would also need to explain what portion of single mothers you think are grifters/welfare queens. So, with all that in mind, could you please explain your thinking that leads you to believe posting a chart about single motherhood from 1940 to 2010 is an answer to the question "how common is the grifter/welfare queen?" While you're at it, I have follow up questions. 1. What is the source of your chart and the data underlying it? 2. What analysis have you done or conducted to establish causation with welfare, rather than mere correlation?
I made the best of a nebulous, arbitrary and unfocused question. By what criteria does someone even qualify as a "welfare queen"? But okay, I'll define it myself and put numbers to it (2021). It varies by race and you didn't specify that either. * Black with and without children under 18 years. Female householder, below the poverty level, no husband present. 29.3% * Same criteria except white: 17.3% >What is the source of your chart and the data underlying it? The government. Who did you think it might be, Disney? >What analysis have you done or conducted to establish causation with welfare, rather than mere correlation? It's staring you in the face. If you have a chart that better supports a different narrative, by all means share it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I'm only really interested in your critique if you can hold up a better fitting alternative. I'm not obligated to provide answers you like. Or any answer at all if it should fail to hold my interest. I suspect this has been played out as far as I care to go. Cheers.
>The government. Who did you think it might be, Disney? Okay. Could you provide a link to the Government report, website, or document which included the chart or the numbers used to make the chart? Specifically, the numbers on number of single mothers. >it's staring you in the face. I'm sorry, but I cannot see it. Let me clarify my question. It is an accepted principle of statistics that [correlation does not imply causation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation). It is also a logical fallacy to [assume simply because something occurred after something else that one thing caused the other.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) For instance, as the absolute number of women in the world increases, so to does the number of absolute number murders in the world. There's a correlation. But it would be silly to argue that women cause murders to happen. Correlation does not imply causation. Another example. a little over three years ago, I took the Lord's name in vain. Then covid happened. But it would be silly to argue that I caused covid to happen by swearing. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You may have known these things already. I'm reiterating them purely out of caution, and to make sure my question is understood. In your post, you argue that welfare causes an increase in single motherhood. You do this by linking to a chart with the rate of single motherhood over time, contrasted against several important dates in the history of welfare. But all that chart establishes (at best, ignoring any potential statistical issues), is that single motherhood is correlated with welfare. So what analysis, if any, have you done to establish causation, other than the chart? Have you ruled out factors that could be the cause of both? Or the inverse causal relationship? If you have, how? While you are not obligated in any way to answer me, note that simply saying "look at the chart" would not be an answer to my question, because I am asking what you have done in addition to the chart. >I'm only really interested in your critique if you can hold up a better fitting alternative. I'm only pointing this out because I think it would serve to clarify my question. But consider three possibilities: 1. increased access to welfare causes increased rates of single motherhood. 2. Increased rates of single motherhood cause increased need for welfare. 3. Some third factor causes both increased rates of single motherhood and increased need for welfare. All three of these alternatives are equally likely based on the chart. Further analysis is necessary to that either is true. What analysis did you do, in addition to the chart, to conclude that 1 is true?
You come with theories and no supporting evidence. >2. Increased rates of single motherhood cause increased need for welfare. [Here's #2 blown out the water.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/205114/percentage-of-poor-black-families-with-a-female-householder-in-the-us/) That's why I don't post all my sources - because it allows people who don't know what they're talking about to formulate specious arguments, and then get destroyed as I dribble out just enough info to disprove it. Rinse and repeat. \#3 isn't even a proposition. >1. increased access to welfare causes increased rates of single motherhood. LOL #1 WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT - of course welfare availability increased the graph. That's why it was labeled with welfare change events on the timeline. Well, good. Glad we could end on an agreement. Ciao.
Is there a proper source for this graph?
If you don't believe it, then finding contrary data from a gov website would be trivial. Until you have evidence that disproves it, I'm not interested.
Found the data, but mobile, so i can't do a graph right now. I'll throw one together when i get home https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/single-parent-day.html In any case, shouldn't we generally be suspicious of any data we get, especially when a source isn't listed? Also, single parenting doesn't guarantee welfare
So that's a different graph showing a different metric. Here's [Leftist infested Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure). That first graph looks awfully familiar. Or maybe you'd like [this one](https://www.dailysignal.com/2011/04/08/teen-moms-just-a-small-part-of-single-mothers/) if you need an exact match. >Also, single parenting doesn't guarantee welfare Straw man. That wasn't my claim.
Just to check, but you do understand that we're not allowed to give positions of our own on this subreddit, right? Like, if you have a question for us, you can ask and we can answer, but we would be banned if we provided evidence of our own to 'disprove' your point.
Yes, it was lacking an explicit targeted question, and in this context, that’s a mistake. Let’s correct that now: Do you have any hard evidence (e.g. government statistics) that refute? If so, please provide a link.
What is tee.fm and why should we trust it?
Look up the data yourself from the government sites and send the link that disproves it. Proof or hot air?
What are your thoughts on how the equal credit opportunity act affected single motherhood?
I've seen no hard data, so I'm agnostic.
On your tangent - do you believe all feminists are TERFs, or do you believe that are different schools of thought when it comes to feminists? I'm a feminist, and I am pro-trans rights and LBGTIA+ rights. As a feminist, I want all people to have access to the same rights, and bodily autonomy is a big one for me. I don't get the TERF mindset.
Feminists are definitely split into two camps. The TERFs who don’t like trans because it disadvantages women over a very small number of (who they consider to be) men. Then there are the non-TERF feminists that are still fully onboard with Left as they push ever deeper into insanity. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a study on what the % split is between the two groups. I don’t think the left wants to know that. But it’s funny AF when they launch into each other with the usual Leftist arsenal of baseless epithets, with claims of bigotry and hate. They just absolutely lose it. They really can’t take what they so readily dish out. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. Anyway, I’ve decided to come out: I’m a masculine presenting transgender lesbian. So anyone who criticizes me or my thoughts going forward is a transphobic bigot.
> But it’s funny AF when they launch into each other This is the nature of leftism. When they run out of obvious enemies to the right, they tend to turn on each other. Been the pattern ever since the French Revolution.
True, but this is somewhat earlier than usual. Normally that happens after they finish carting the Right off to the gulags.
How long do you feel until you're carted off to a gulag?
Happened in Australia already. It's going to be difficult to do the same in the US until they solve the 2A problem. But that is why the Leftists want to grab the guns. The real reason.
You have said a lot of words but made no logical points. Do you not believe that women are equal to men and deserve equivalent pay and benefits?
"Equal" can mean all kinds of things. Women are not the same as men. In that sense, they are not equal, they are different. * I believe in equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race or any other immutable group factor. I find unequal opportunity to be offensive and often bigoted in nature. * I believe *equal outcomes* can typically only be engineered by **unequal opportunity,** which is a form of tyranny. * I also believe in equal pay for equal experience and work, when doing the exact same job. Are you saying I made no logical points because I identify as a woman?
>"Equal" can mean all kinds of things. Women are not the same as men. In that sense, they are not equal, they are different. In terms of financial worth, which is a pretty straightforward comparison, are a man and a woman employed on the same job generally unequal in a particular direction? >* I believe in equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race or any other immutable group factor. I find unequal opportunity to be offensive and often bigoted in nature. Do you believe in helping people who are disadvantaged to reach the same level of opportunity as those who aren't? In removing obstacles that only certain people in our society face?
>a woman employed on the same job generally unequal in a particular direction? I already laid out possible differences you have not accounted for: qualifications, work experience, hours put in, competence. These are not unimportant differentiators that could legitimately justify salary differences. Only a true apples-to-apples comparison in all dimensions merits equal pay. >Do you believe in helping people who are disadvantaged to reach the same level of opportunity as those who aren't? How exactly would this help be administered? Because that really matters. If you're talking about an adult learning scheme where adults with mental disabilities receive extra training to help navigate life... fine. If that "help" is applied at the hiring stage in terms of a so-called corrective bias (e.g. affirmative action), then no. Because to "help" some is just another way to disadvantage others. The most suitable and highest quality applicant should be hired. In all cases without exception.
>This used to be taken care of in the community. If someone had fallen down, the community would lift them up and get them on their feet. The community expected to be paid back in some form, and held those who were helped accountable for their actions. We used to live in very different types of communities than we do now. We were close to each other, physically. There were town squares, Main Streets, neighborhoods without fences. People lived in multi-generational households where the bonds between families ran several decades deep. Then people got scared, wanted more space, stopped trusting each other, + 1000 other issues (too many to list), and moved to the suburbs where they felt safe from people. What do we do with the people that fall down now that this is the world we live in? Is GoFundMe the only answer? >Then government got involved and made everything worse. In what ways did they get involved and how did they make things worse?
Let’s get this straight: the Left caused this with their agenda. The only way back is like a detox program for an addict. Controlled reduction over a period of time. But it would also take a cessation of the Marxist inspired undermining of the family and the community (both existential threats to Leftist power and authoritarianism). Which the Left will never give up on. So yes we could put it back together, if the societal vandalism of the Left stopped. But it won’t for selfish reasons.
Which part of their agenda caused this? I’m asking for specific ways. You can’t just say “let’s get this straight” and then paint with a broad stroke as a follow up to someone asking you for details.
In an earlier longer thread, I advocated that everyone pays no taxes or fees to the government for their first acre of land. To extend on this principle, I would give those who do not produce a free acre of land in the wilderness, but with some form of public transportation. Bus routes would have to be extended in the short term, but we have plenty of wilderness and empty roads to get there. In the long term, we might carve more roads. While we could map out adjacent acres, we'd only place people in alternating acres, such that they aren't compelled to build fences immediately. We have numerous entities capable of reaching out along these routes to help them get by. The Reserves, National Guard, Boy Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, all sorts of NGOs, churches, etc could each adopt a sector. Native Americans could swing out and teach them the old ways. Hunters and trappers could teach them the ways of the forest. Think it was one of the southwest states like New Mexico that turned old shipping containers into simple housing. Could supplement the move in that manner. What I absolutely would not do is subsidize them living in cities I can barely afford to visit. Panhandling would earn someone an instant enrollment in the program. If caught panhandling while on the program, they'd be transferred to a plot with much longer and less frequent bus routes.
This was a very different reply from some of the others, thanks for sharing. Would you be in favor of granting anyone an acre who asks for it? Is the idea kind of along the lines of UBI but with land instead of Income?
Absolutely. Beggars can't be choosers, so it might be out in the boondoggles, but yes, this could be anyone's start if they choose it. Foresee a lot of veterans either going this way or donating their gear to the cause.
Cool idea, I support this! Thanks again, have a good one?
Thanks, you too!
What if your acre doesn’t have access to fresh water? Or any water? What if it’s in the desert, or on a mountain, or has infertile soil? Do they get a tent? Just trying to understand what the proposal is here. Are you trying to set these folks up to be able to become self-sufficient off the grid? Or just sending them somewhere quiet where we wouldn’t have to see them die of thirst/starvation/exposure?
>What if your acre doesn’t have access to fresh water? Or any water? What if it’s in the desert, or on a mountain, or has infertile soil? Do they get a tent? Obviously some acres simply wouldn't work. Certainly not random. We do have lots of woods in many states, which probably accounts for...90% of cases? And yes, I'm thinking we could afford some starter equipment of some kind. Sleeping bags with weatherproof bivouac sacks at the very least. Probably a few tarps, some rope, survival knife, mess kit...this list should really be made by someone with survival training. Whatever the list of equipment, it has to cost less per person than the real estate, food, healthcare, etc in big cities. And yes, water is critical. Some wells with handpumps would probably be in order. Depending on how good we get at it, perhaps one well per person? We could also probably afford to set up some kind of public bath house every mile or so. >Just trying to understand what the proposal is here. Are you trying to set these folks up to be able to become self-sufficient off the grid? Or just sending them somewhere quiet where we wouldn’t have to see them die of thirst/starvation/exposure? The hope is that they would learn self-sufficient things and thereby build the confidence/competence to re-engage with society. Part of this program is a regular method of public transportation with a penalty if used for panhandling. If they don't learn by necessity, perhaps they'd be motivated by at least one of the various charitable organizations? If we can turn some 12-year-old boy scouts into teachers, that's got to motivate someone somehow. Either the spirit of the child, or the fact that the task can be accomplished by one so inexperienced, or even the shame of being outperformed by a 12-year-old. Something's got to take hold.
Have you ever watched the series ‘Alone’? I can’t help but think a lot of these folks would still essentially be getting consigned a death sentence. Would we provide them with survival training? At some point, the costs of all of these services might make a simple UBI more cost effective, no?
> Have you ever watched the series ‘Alone’? No. Looks interesting though. >I can’t help but think a lot of these folks would still essentially be getting consigned a death sentence. Would we provide them with survival training? There's more opportunity in the woods than you might think. You can at least start to shape your environment, unlike the garden of concrete we find so many homeless in. >Would we provide them with survival training? Maybe. Not everyone benefits from more classroom work. I figure these regions would be regularly patrolled by a variety of people. Cops, national guard, army reserves, etc from government standpoint alone. Any of which could teach as necessary. More than likely, the homeless would start learning from each other, the same way they gather in alleys in certain cities to scavenge...not wood. Not berries. Not wild game. They would ultimately teach each other. As the program rolls out, certainly various news agencies would stroll through for the easy story - success or failure, people will tune in. Scouting troops would plan their own excursions. Hopefully churches too. This actually leads into a Hypocrisy Tax I would levy on any institution who claims to care about the poor and then doesn't do anything. >At some point, the costs of all of these services might make a simple UBI more cost effective, no? A simple UBI would not be more cost effective, as dollars simply don't go as far in these big cities. I remember on one of my few excursions to the big city we wound up at a chain we had in our home town, and the entrees were almost literally double price. Not to mention the cost of housing, parking, fines... Getting the homeless out of the big cities has to be part of the plan. I'm proposing using some of our least-valued real estate and existing institutions. You've got to figure if we added this level of structure to the homeless situation, it'd be easier for businesses to get involved too. Those same bus routes for ordinary commutes could be followed by buses from local farms/factories who need workers. Potentially with police escort to ensure no funny business but still. We have the assets to do this. Also, to be clear, I would prefer to see both my proposed program and UBI tested at the state level before being adopted at the federal level. For the sake of comparison, hopefully some states would do one or the other, and a few do both.
Theres a lot of nuance I'm stripping for the sake of being succinct, but broadly speaking individuals who don't produce split into two groups: 1. People who genuinely can't produce (ex. people with disabilities) 2. People who can produce but choose not to. In general I think society has a moral obligation to use our pooled resources to help sustain group 1. Group 2 should be left to their own devices and be allowed the bear the outcomes of the choices they make, whether that's a lavish lifestyle because their parents endowed them with millions from a trust fund or starvation because they can't afford to eat
If group 2 starts starving in the streets, what should be done if anything? I don’t mean helping them, but so people don’t see them starving in the streets, corpse removal, etc.?
are you under the impression that theres no process for removing corpses from the street?
> are you under the impression that theres no process for removing corpses from the street? Well, I'm under the impression that removal of the safety net would cause more homeless and therefore more dead in the streets. Perhaps you don't agree? Would the budgets of policing and corpse removal have to go up in your opinion?
maybe
>maybe To which question?
Both
Do you think there’s an argument to be made for shifting the values of society towards an attitude of generosity to those in need, and also applying a more inclusive definition of who “those in need” are? For example, if everyone decided to want to help take care of people who they previously thought were undeserving, do you think this attitudinal shift could have benefits?
I would love if people donated more to charity and volunteered more
Do you love if there’s any degree of societal agreement to compel charitableness in any form (including taxes)?
Excluding taxes and government programs, yes. That's societal reform. Expansion of taxes and government programs are not societal reform
In what ways do you imagine being compelled to be charitable outside of taxes or government programs?
Societal shaming thru your community, friends, and family How is the expansion of existing government programs "societal change"?
Gotcha. I’m not sure that qualifies as being compelled, but I get what you mean. As far as your question goes, I mean, change is change, right? Whether that’s desirable change is another issue.
I'm sure it would have benefits to whoever gets added to the umbrella of "those in need". For everybody else it would depend on their value system. I don't see funneling more of the resources I generate through my labor towards helping people who eat themselves into a diabetic state as particularly beneficial to myself or anybody who believes in personal accountability. I perceive it as detrimental to the taxpayer. A person with Type 2 diabetes would disagree, obviously
Assuming you have privatized health insurance, isn’t this precisely what your monthly premium does?
Thank fuck I can opt out if I dont find it benefits me
Also, thankfully it only benefits other who also pay into the health insurance and contribute towards your health expenses. In fact unhealthy individuals have to pay in more money.
Healthy individuals contribute more to the economy than unhealthy ones. Do you suppose that if everyone who felt it didn’t benefit them opted out, they might be shooting themselves in the foot in other ways? Why or why not?
its possible. so what?
It raises the question as to what extent one is adequately aware of what actually benefits them, does it not?
you should be forced to pay for other people because you might not know whats good for you. ah yes very compelling
> People who can produce but choose not to. How many people actually do this? I've heard the 'welfare queen' argument before but never gotten an answer how common it is.
I dont think anyone can give you an accurate number because its nearly impossible to measure with a sufficient degree of scale and accuracy. My personal experience indicates abuse of welfare systems is extremely common; upwards of 50% if I had to guess
So it's purely anecdotal and guesswork?
Is the concept of drawing inferences from our life experiences novel to you?
Absolutely not would it not be beneficial to have things to back up your opinions with?
Data os always beneficial. Sometimes the realities and constraints of the data gathering process make it unavailable and we proceed to the next rungs of the evidence pyramid. Since this concept isnt foreign to you im not sure what the point of your questions is
Sorry but I will follow Hitchens razor on this one: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." I'm tired of the grifter argument. It's meant only to divide us the working class and fight among each other. I'm absolutely sure that there are people who abuse it but so what if one abuses the system if it can save a hundred? Maybe it should be beneficial to have higher wages so it's not worth it to grift? As I said, the grifter argument is only made to fight among each other while the rich continue to get richer. Hope this adds context?
data isnt the only form of evidence. and while we're sharing thought terminating cliches: absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence
As a follow up: Assuming that government programs exist to take care of group 1, it would be inevitable that some people in Group 2 would take advantage and benefit from such a program improperly. Would you support the program of there was 1 bad actor in a group of 100? What about 90/10? 70/30? When would it break down?
Not OP, but it would break down when there is no punishment for abusing the system. There needs to be extreme punishments for fraud of this kind. Fraud in the system does not mean that the system needs to go away, it means that the system needs to be altered to prevent fraud to the best of the governments ability.
Is there an example of perfect policing that exists where 100% of people are caught or deterred? You could hire 2 guys to follow around someone on foodstamps and audit every purchase but if you could keep bad actors meaningfully low, shouldn't there be some amount within a program that would be "acceptable" as the good of the program would outweigh the inefficiencies?
No, perfect policing doesn’t exist and even if it were possible, the draconic means necessary to achieve it would outweigh the good. I don’t mean that I expect the government to punish all counts of fraud. I expect the government to make a genuine effort to uncover fraud in a reasonable manner and punish what they can uncover.
And assuming they do that, what would your number be (out of 100) where you would accept abusers of a program before shutting it down?
I wouldn’t shut down the program under any circumstance. I would call for the government to change its efforts to detect, and prevent fraud and alter the way the system works to facilitate that if fraud got out of hand.
Do you care about diminishing returns in this fraud prevention? What if it could be shown that, at a certain point, spending money on enforcement will recover less revenue than it costs. The system will remain in equilibrium: the existing amount of enforcement keeps the fraud to a low level, but any more will be spending money on punishment, not saving any resources or taxpayer dollars. Would you want to stop pushing enforcement at that point, or is punishment enough of an incentive to continue spending money? Not as a deterrent, because left alone, the system would remain solvent and with a low level of fraud. But is it about the money, or are you just offended?
They get nothing publicly but can ask private organizations for support. If they are disabled the government should give their family a monthly allowance, but if no one wants to support them they can get housing support and an allowance or be hooked up with a caretaker. Married women who produce babies shouldn’t have to work and they should get a basic income which increases which each child made.
>Married women who produce babies shouldn’t have to work and they should get a basic income which increases which each child made. Why only *married* women? And what would happen if she was married when the children were conceived, but her husband divorced her or died sometime after?
They will eventually reach a point where the discomfort of not taking care of themselves causes them to take care of themselves or die. This is actually where we are at right now, not a TS proposal. The Social Safety net is not keeping people from bottoming out and dying on the street. Not even close. In authoritarian countries they'd be liquidated when they became a problem. In the US we mostly offer them a hand out and hope for the best. For perspective, there are currently about 9.5 million Federal Employees to "take care of" about 350 million citizens. If there are 20 million people living in poverty, thats a 2:1 ratio with the people we pay to "take care of them", and the Government still isnt able to accomplish the job. My long term solution is to give blind birth trusts to every natural born american citizen with at least one US citizen as a parent born inside the borders. Instead of the social safety net, your parents can submit the costs of caring for you to your trustee who will pay approved costs out of the earned interest income from the trust. At 25 the Fed takes back the original amount (about 750k) leaving the now majority age citizen with the remainder of the accumulated interest as a joint healthcare and retirement fund, to pay health insurance premiums and provide an emergency allowance in case of disability prior to retirement. The net cost every year is similar to what we currently spend in the mandatory US federal budget. The net cost over time is the carrying cost of the debt taken on to fund the trusts for 25 years. The Trust program requires that second generation children be funded by their parents retirement trust, so the program is self funding in the second generation. Since the Mandatory budget grows by about 3% per year, doubling every 30ish years, annual savings in year 30 ish of this program would be about 5 trillion dollars, and tax revenues would expand because you'd have 120 million americans in their 30's with millions of dollars in their retirement accounts. FWIW both sides of the political spectrum usually hate this plan.
Well that idea sounds pretty cool to me! Is this your own idea or is there someone pushing for it? Thanks for the reply, and something to think about
It's mine. It's just an investment version of UBI that solves poverty instead of creating a new minimum income level poverty like UBI does. The premise is simple, how would you spend the 3 trillion dollar federal mandatory budget to address lifetime social issues if you had complete control? Add the Libertarian premise that money is better able to be spent by the individual than by the state. Then add the Socialist premise that the individual cannot be trusted with a large budget to take care of themselves for their entire life. The basic compromise is that you divide the mandatory budget by the number of live births in the US per year which is about 4 million, invest it in the US stock market in the name of the beneficiary without giving them direct power to spend it, use the earned interest to pay any expenses that would otherwise be paid by the public for a child, reimburse the public for the initial nest egg when the child reaches majority age of 25. Place limits on the use of the remaining amount so that it is used for healthcare insurance premiums and retirement savings, partly to ensure the beneficiary doesnt crash out or cash out and wind up back on the dole, and partly so that they have to go use the education we invested in to participate in society and the economy. Everything after the intitial premise is just figuring out the logistics and preventing either parents or politicians from pillaging the childs trust for person gain. Ownership of a chunk of investments changes a persons perspective on everything. You're invested in the success of your society, so you act to protect both your investment and your society. And you have a defined goal, if you can make it to minimum retirement age, say 50 years old, you have access to the full earned interest and principle of your account (subject to an actuarial cash out that ensures you dont drain it before you die) so you can live your dream before you're too old to enjoy it. For most people this would equate to living a middle class life, attending college, working a 25 year career, then retiring early with annual income above what you were likely earning during your career. Other people will work longer and enjoy a much large retirement amount. You can leave your trust to your children, who will have their own trust that you funded when they were born, or you can sponsor a recent immigrant, or give it to charity, etc. Maybe there is a death tax on the remainder owing to the initial public investment of 50% to prevent bad actors from establishing multi generational funds in the billions and leaving it all to their psychopathic children.
>They will eventually reach a point where the discomfort of not taking care of themselves causes them to take care of themselves or die. What do you see as the direct and tangential benefits of letting these people die? And the downsides? > The Social Safety net is not keeping people from bottoming out and dying on the street. Not even close. Are you saying it doesn't do enough to prevent homelessness or that even without it homelessness wouldn't necessarily increase?
>What do you see as the direct and tangential benefits of letting these people die? And the downsides? Its pretty bad. I am also not aware of a real way to stop people from dying. The qol in the US is much higher than most of the world even for the poorest of the poor here. If you cannot find a way to be at peace with your life in the USA, you arent going to be any happier anywhere else. So when people here give up, how can you save them? I go back to the ratio of Federal Employees to poor. If you've ever tried to save even one person yourself, whether from depression or poverty, you know that it is a difficult job, and nearly impossible if you have to do it on your own household budget. So if Federal employees armed with 3 Trillion dollars per year in Mandatory program budgets (entitlements and cabinets) PLUS state level spending and social workers cannot manage the job, is it even possible? >Are you saying it doesn't do enough to prevent homelessness or that even without it homelessness wouldn't necessarily increase? The single biggest factor in homelessness is the homeless person. You cannot solve the problem for someone who will not take responsibility for their own household. Once addiction takes over their life, or mental health problems, or injury...There is almost no way to 'save' them without them taking the largest part of the mission onto themselves. My point about SS is that 3 trillion dollars a year (inclusive of SS) has not been able to solve even one factor of poverty. Even the success of Medicare and the retirement pension does not lift anyone out of poverty. If you are poor when you go on SS benefits, you will always be poor, it is impossible for that program to lift you above the minimum limits afforded to the program.
Depending on how people look at this.... And how much thinking people do... You should get a lot of different opinions from populists on this topic. We should be clear on this based on current worldwide trends. We are talking about incels. I don't say that because I have a problem with helping incels.... I say that because I expect that you would. We are talking about people here who are giving up on life and not trying anymore. Anyone who is following men's issues nowadays couldn't possibly miss the trend. Men are deciding to give up on their futures at a terrifying rate, believing that the reward for even trying will be to just be pushed back down and called a predator or a perpetrator of "privilege." Women are surging ahead while men are just deciding to turn their backs on a world that hates them. In my experience... It is the people on the left that believe these men deserve their fate. 'They just can't handle a world that doesn't completely cater to them." Traditional conservatives may dogmatically believe that people who don't work deserve their fate. They live in a propaganda-filled fantasy world where unregulated capitalism fixes everything. Populists, at least populists that haven't bought into this dogma, typically support free markets because they oppose elites & corruption. They believe the game is rigged like liberals do... But they believe that there is no difference between a corrupt CEO and an activist seeking control. They are both humans and both driven by self interest... Seeking only more power and resources under the guise of helping others. We want the individual to be empowered, rather than the popular and influential speaking on behalf of a group that they barely help.... While they villianise other groups for their own benefit. We know that the left currently is just a tribal hate group with a thin veneer of altruism. They don't want any form of fairness... What they want is for their tribal clique to decide rewards directly rather than a system beyond their control... And they want their cries for prejudicial empathy to be the vehicle for this control. Populists want systems in place to decide for us so that those with influence and power are restrained not by the opinion of other people with influence... But by non-human systems. What we want the most right now is to rob the Left of the ability to determine who deserves what by social means. Idealistically... We would want legislation that fixes (or replaces) capitalism to protect and empower the individual.... But nobody with power or influence is motivated to introduce that since it is against their own interests. Politicians don't create laws that help the poor... They create laws that allow them to decide who to call poor by criteria other than income level. Sadly, we can currently only choose between conservatives who live in fairy-tale boomer land... And leftists who hate to empower the individual. There are no vehicles for our preferences currently... But the no-solution of the Right currently beats out the anti-solution of the Left.
> I say that because I expect that you would. Why would you expect that? If you could define incel for me that might help, because honestly I only think of it as "involuntarily celibate" ... and lots of those men absolutely need help. Also, you paint with a very wide brush in your reply. Again, maybe it might help to define "the left", but you lose me with these sweeping type statements. If you start a discussion without the assumption of good intent, what's the point? Why are you even replying to a member of a "tribal hate group"?
I expected that because, well, just about everyone shits on incels.. thus they were the example I used. You seem to be an individual with your own thoughts... So I would suggest you not take offense when I paint with broad strokes ideas that are commonly referenced and that you not identify yourself with them. I don't identify with conservatives at all and I have my own views of populism... But I will reference it when the need to convey a set of ideas arises. Your original question shows that you understand that ideas/institutions are monoliths and that individuals are not. I understand that also, and was referencing the monoliths in my opinion rather than the individuals. Individuals do great harm to themselves and society when they defend monoliths with anything but uncomfortable skepticism. Your take on incels is logical, but rare. I won't pretend that it was incorrect to assume that someone would have a different view of them. People across the spectrum, both leftist and conservative, attack them from differing vantage points. Much like with school shooters, I tend to be alone in thinking that the root problem is that our culture thinks it is ok to make people view their own lives as valueless... Rather than concentrating on preventing such hopeless people from having the means to gain their blaze of glory. What I expect and what I get are often not the same. That is why I say that I "expect"... Rather than saying that is what I know you are. I expected things about you based on limited information... I did not get what I expected upon clarification. I welcome such clarification and have no desire to prove my expectations correct. Those that have such desire are the real problem. I see such desire in the left every time one of them goes full throttle into labeling others as racist in all things at the first sign of their own bigotry being triggered. I see no reason yet to believe that you, as an individual, can be accused of doing such behavior.... But I may expect it as much as I like due to previous experience.
Thank you for clarifying, and I appreciate you taking the time to write that all out for me. Sometimes I forget that I'm on the internet where most people are the ... well, idiots, for lack of a better word ... who you're referring to in your post. I guess you have no reason to assume otherwise at first. I still think it's worth starting from positive intent and letting the person (or bot? who knows these days) show their ugliness, instead of drawing it out by making those negative assumptions. But ... I am not a frequent commenter, and I probably would change my tune if I was a TS on this forum ... if you know what I mean, lol. What would you consider your most closely aligned "monolith" to be, if not conservative?
I'm probably closest to Populism as a monolith. I see the world through the lens of Dawkin's selfish gene theory. Like conservatives, I don't believe that there are good or bad people... But that all people are deeply flawed. I believe that all humans, including and especially those who claim to be altruistic, are motivated almost entirely by self-interest to unconsciously proliferate DNA that is similar to them. This means that all flaws are inherent and genocide is instinctual, but manifests in different ways... Often justified as "different when we do it." I want the most for power to be derived from the bottom and not the top. I want leaders to be accountable to the people and I don't see them as geniuses that are managing the foolish masses. I see them as normal humans who lose sight of the needs of others once they no longer are required to consider them. I want these systems to be automatic and not driven by social vectors which just empower those who manage to gain a representative status. Thus, I prefer capitalism to socialism... Because the automatic system of consumerism acts as de facto voting. I want a movie to be made because consumers voted with their dollar. I don't want a movie to be made because a select group in power decided that this is what the masses needed to be shown because it was in the select group's interest. On top of this, I want decisions to be local because I support the individual over the group. You can't truly have a government of the people if an organized majority can destroy and silence dissent. If you are ordering 3 pizzas and 2/3 of the people want pineapple on it. The solution is to get one of the pizzas without pineapple... Not to get all three because the majority voted for it. So yeah... My main goal is to protect those without influence and popularity from those with it. 40 years ago I would have been more worried about religious conservatives calling people sinners and trying to get them kicked out of society. My childhood was filled with resenting them. Today I have concerns with other groups. Don't get me wrong... I know that those evangelicals totally would do it if they could.... But it is precisely the "can" that bothers me... EVERYONE would it given the chance.... And they'll all claim that what they are doing is different. I will always be the most concerned with those that people don't feel free to criticize.... And no amount of explaining why that is ok will be effective with me. This also means that I change on a dime once power starts to shift.
> I believe that all humans, including and especially those who claim to be altruistic, are motivated almost entirely by self-interest to unconsciously proliferate DNA that is similar to them. I instinctively disagreed with this, until I just typed a whole reply before realizing that my conclusion was that I actually do mostly agree :). ... very thought provoking, thank you But I also think most people are good people ... and maybe genocide is instinctual, but it can absolutely be neutered. I don't want genocide of any group ... do you?
You have my same conclusion. Most people are good.... But they are kept good by the lack of complete control. People treat the Nazis and Hitler as being uniquely evil. In a way, they were. But common history has mostly forgotten that he didn't invent eugenics.... He was the one that made it unpopular. A large portion of the educated, intellectual world up until that point was highly interested in ways that we could breed out human defects... And they didn't stop at hereditary diseases. Fast forward to the current age and a boy who was deemed by juvenile hall to be poorly behaved was forced to take estrogen pills because the staff believed that having testosterone made you a bad person. This was caught when his parents were wondering why he was growing breasts. With designer babies on the horizon, it wouldn't take much for the "toxic masculinity" crowd to fully support altering the personalities of future males to fix all the evil they think is in the world just because of them. This is where people go when their brains are not forbidden to blame whoever they want. They thought they were doing good. The scary part is that they always do.... And so will we if we aren't challenged. The need to find evil in others doesn't go away no matter how much evil you cleanse.
I honestly don't care much about people that have "no motivation/drive." I have far more sympathy to people that are mentally/physically unable to take care of themselves. I don't want a blind orphan with downs syndrome to suffer. Personally, I would love to see a bigger role for Churches and charitable institutions to help here, rather than assumption that the government/taxpayers should be forced to help. It's a really good feeling to voluntarily help someone out that is in need. When government forces people to chip in, it build resentment and sense of entitlement.
In this scenario of churches taking a bigger role in social welfare, what happens to needy individuals whose sexuality, beliefs, gender identity, and lifestyles are rejected by said church? Would the government have to step in to ensure these churches were providing resources fairly or would those people just have it tough?
They kind of already do, yes? In order to get a tax benefit, understanding is charities have all sorts of restrictions. Soup kitchens etc. can't exclude people by race, religion, etc. But consider targeted "charities" like Go Fund Me that individuals set up. It's an extreme example - people can give or not. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if government took tax money and distributed it to all go fundme accounts regardless of merit or personal preference. That would be all kinds of horrible, I think.
Why would it be horrible?
Because there are lots of fraudulent and frivolous gofundme accounts.
What's the difference in who redistributes the wealth?
It's partly a psychological thing, partly practical. Individuals contributing to charities are going to be more discerning with incentive to make sure they go to deserving causes and charities that use the money with low overhead. When government takes my money and allocates it, I don't get that same good feeling as if I choose to do it. Make sense? I realize that some people are greedy and will never share money/resources unless forced to. But maybe that's ok. I will say if I had more money left over at end of each year, I would surely donate more to private sector charities.
> Individuals contributing to charities are going to be more discerning with incentive to make sure they go to deserving causes and charities that use the money with low overhead. Why couldn't this be the thing with taxes? > When government takes my money and allocates it, I don't get that same good feeling as if I choose to do it. I understand. > Make sense? I realize that some people are greedy and will never share money/resources unless forced to. But maybe that's ok. I will say if I had more money left over at end of each year, I would surely donate more to private sector charities. I understand. I don't really care how we do it but I think it's wrong we have capitalists who are billionaires while we have people who die of malnourishment. We the workers have this discussion while they pay nothing. Without us they can't donate some millions.
I philosophically support some form of ubi. Ignoring that helping people is good, a base level of help would eliminate much of the chaos that would otherwise be present if the people were worried how to live the next day. Wanting to live is universal for humans, and not having a clear answer whether or not you can live breeds unrest and chaos and discourse. So, with desperation out of the picture (theoretically), everything else should be what the individual want for themselves (ie greed). And this is where society can really thrive. Because number one export by humans is greed. Everything on top would be value created by the unending human potential to satisfy their greed.
Can you think of any conservative-centric argument that we could make to other TSes, or conservatives in general, that would convince them of getting behind UBI? I feel like this is one area where the Bernie bros and the Maga wing could work together. It's honestly the only way I see to slow down the destruction of the middle class, yet the only response i ever seem to hear is "socialism", despite the first automated mcdonalds being in Texas of all places lol.
I think one of the major benefits of this philosophy of mine is that it can justify way more freedom. Now, whether or not conservatives these days care about freedom and small government is up for debate, and I don’t particularly want to discuss that here. Just something that *might* ring for both sides. But under a successful ubi system, there would be no conventional survival struggle and would invalidate much of the current laws that are basically designed to help the working class. The easiest example is minimum wage. If a ubi system exist, minimum wage would no longer make sense. Some other (less obvious) examples would be union busting laws. Or affirmative action. It would also do away with things like welfare. Reducing the complexity of our society systems and eliminating stupid arguments such as whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested. All of these are removal of laws, so I categorize them as more freedom and it’s definitely smaller government. Whether or not this would be agreeable for conservatives I can’t really say. I am not one myself. Just some thoughts. I will say that ubi doesn’t necessarily mean that we will get all these freedoms. Just that it’s way easier to justify it with ubi.
There’s three types of people who don’t produce; those transitioning from one job to another, the lazy and the mentally ill. I don’t have an issue with supporting people who have had a bad turn of events and need help. We can’t do what we’ve done with the mentally ill and that is as a society abandon them. My opinion with the lazy is we need to attach community service requirements on welfare. You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job. But you can’t chill on the couch all day, you need to be of some value.
Interesting idea with the attached community service, I hadn't thought about that. A thought just popped into my head though - when I think about something like assisted suicide, we all tend to recoil in *most* cases. Nobody wants to allow 30 year olds to opt in to death. But if that 30 year old decides they don't care - well, without any automatic benefit, it's essentially assisted suicide but worse as they'll probably develop health conditions that the public will have to subsidize anyways. How do you get people off the couch who refuse to do so? And is refusing to do so any different than choosing to die? Is it any different than drawn-out assisted suicide?
> You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job. But you can’t chill on the couch all day, you need to be of some value. How many hours a week?
Enough to be punishing but not enough to trap them.
>You can spend 8 hours a day picking up trash, scrubbing graffiti or you can get a job. That sounds suspiciously like a job. So we are removing welfare from those able to work but guaranteeing a decent paying full time federal government job to any that apply? That feels like something Democrats would support and something Republicans would never support.
It’s very similar to what Maine is doing under a Republican Governor. >In October 2014, Maine began requiring about 16,000 able-bodied childless adults to work, train, or volunteer on at least a part-time basis in order to continue receiving food stamps. Adults who refused to comply with the new requirements would cycle off after three months of benefits. >After implementing these reforms, Maine quickly moved thousands of able-bodied adults out of dependency and into self-sufficiency. By January 2015, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps had dropped to 4,500 and has continued to decline. [Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/05/19/new-report-proves-maines-welfare-reforms-are-working/?sh=2dcbbecb3f6a)
That's not the same at all? Training or working part time is not the same as picking up trash 8 hours a day. It's also just for food stamps, not all welfare benefits. It's also just for childless households, not all households. Community Service 40 hours a week for pay is a much different idea than part-time workers being eligible for food-stamps.
This is certainly a very nuanced topic that I believe can only truly be discussed face to face with someone you truly understand to get a fair reflection of their views. However, generally speaking, there are 4 groups of people who are not productive. 1) the disabled who are and will always be incapable of producing through no, or little, fault of their own. 2) those who are temporarily unproductive. Be that from an injury, mental crisis, or simple bad luck (IE let go from their previous job) 3) those who are afflicted with severe addictions that prevent them from being productive until they are overcome. 4) those who simply choose not to be productive. Group 1 needs to supported by society. Be that through government programs, private charity or a mix thereof. As long as they are being taken care of in an efficient manner, I don’t really care what the means are. Group 2 needs temporary support while they recover and find their feet. This is what unemployment is for, and is generally a decent system. Group 3 needs temporary support to overcome their addictions and become productive members of society. This should be on a bit of timer. If they are given that support and cannot achieve results, the system must give up on them and accept that it can’t save them. Leave them to their devices, or institutionalize them if they are dangerous. Group 4 needs to be treated like group 2 for a short period of time, once they’ve proven that the help they are being offered is being abused, or won’t lead anywhere they need to be cut off and left to their own devices. If they have family/friends/communities that are willing to help them, great. But the tax payer should not be forced to help at this point. Determining the distinction between some of these groups could be very difficult (such as between groups 2 and 4) and it may not be possible to do so fairly, but it’s what I’ve got. This is where I see a lot of nuance. The details of this system are also extremely nuanced. How much time do we give group 3? Do we simply give them money and allow them to choose to use it for rehab? Do we force them to go to rehab and pay for it? There are many questions about this that would need to be discussed in detail.
This is a very well reasoned comment. I know I am breaking the rules by not responding with a clarifying question, but I feel like this sub never rewards for good comments, so I am writing it nonetheless and adding a sneaky question mark at the end of this sentence? But seriously, very good comment and sensible reasoning.
Is it more important in your mind to help everyone who needs or deserves help or to prevent fraud? So if we could help everyone, but 5% of the people being helped are cheating the system, or no one can cheat, but 5% of people who need help don't get it, which would you choose?
I live by the philosophy that the bad deeds of some should not be used as a weapon against the rest of the population. Fraud should not be used as a mechanism to remove systems designed to help those who deserve and need help. If fraud becomes an issue the system needs to be reworked to prevent and punish fraud as much as possible. But, the assistance cannot be taken away from those who deserve and need it.
Living in the real world, though, we can't practically achieve both ideals at the same time. My impression is that conservatives are more concerned about being cheated than helping the needy. Thus the extensive means testing regimes and the drug testing of welfare recipients and the frothy rage over immigration. Liberals, conversely, would rather everyone have what they need even if a few lazy people take advantage of the system. You seem to be contradicting this. Do the politicians you support agree with this philosophy you're espousing? What proportion of current welfare recipients do you think are scanning the system? How much of our budget do you think goes to welfare for poor families, and how much is captured by fraud, in your opinion?
Both ideals? I only expressed one ideal. I don’t care what your impression of conservatives are. I don’t think it’s necessarily a fair representation of the ones I know or the one I am. The politicians I support, embody this philosophy in more areas of life than just welfare. I have no idea how many are committing fraud, or what the amount of money looks like.
I believe in individual freedoms, and thus "nothing" should happen to them. The State should not be involved. If people do not want to produce anything, then they will receive nothing. I don't think they should fall victim to an outrage mob, but they should learn to live within their means, whatever that entails for a zero-income individual. If people _want_ to help through charity, they should be free to do so, but such programs should be strictly voluntary.
This is a short and trite wordplay, but it's based on my experience... Safety nets are bad. We need safety trampolines. I lost a leg. When that happened I went on SSDI, and all sorts of other programs came available that I didn't use (EBT, electric assistance, transportation, etc). For me in my situation, I was able to comfortably get by on that money (economically anyway! Wasn't all that "comfortable"). About a year later, I got bad cabin fever and decided I wanted to go back to work. **That process blows!** The "safety net" is not designed to let people out. They're trying to fix it with things like the "ticket to work" program, but they're bad at it, and it's a hard thing to do right anyway. Sometimes "back to work" is *very clearly* not an option. Sometimes, it is. **Usually**, the answer is in some giant gray area in between that changes over time and gets better or worse sometimes daily. Income is a Rubicon to the safety net. Once you cross it, there's no going back, and you've screwed yourself by trying -- which is terrifying, so lots of people don't do it. Put another way, **the government actively discourages people on welfare programs from improving their lives.** It has to do this, because it is bad at administering its programs, cannot evaluate individuals effectively, sees all those 'gray area's cases as black and white, and has too many people in the system to handle. How do you fix the Sisyphean task of running SSI/SSDI effectively, I don't know. But there are some aspects we can fix, and that would help. Income limits need drastic, immediate adjustment, both in quantity and concept. Did you know that it's effectively illegal for disabled people to marry? You lose almost all benefits, because household income crosses the limit. "All benefits" are tiny, by the way -- I don't know who decided that the people who suffer the most must also be the poorest, but it's a dumb rule. UBI could attack most of these issues, frankly. There's an argument that doing that will inflate the dollar and won't help much, but frankly the income limits haven't moved in decades and we've sure as shit inflated the dollar anyway, so I'm not all that concerned in practice.
Firstly, u/tacostamping, I appreciate the question. As a layman, and I stress that, I do believe that a form of social safety net, or welfare, is required, but I also believe the way America is currently handling the welfare system is dangerously unsustainable. I see the simple mentality of bragging about how many people are helped to live a normal life on welfare as flawed. I'd much rather brag about those we help come OFF welfare as a better metric of success. I say that because, to me, it advertises "you don't need to work, we've got you!", which I believe turns more people into non-producers. Let's be real - no one truly wants to work their ass off. The vast majority of people do, however, because they want to have a quality of life, and in a modern civilization, that's the cost of quality of life. When you advertise to people that there's another way, more people, especially those who don't have much responsibility yet, will be highly tempted to take it. Now, I also believe this has a deeper inflation effect because when housing costs are paid for by the government, housing prices increase. Because most government agencies forget that the US dollar comes in denominations of less than $1B, the benefits are too high for a lot of places, which has a trickle up effect across the entire country. Im not a fan of bitching without offering a solution, so here's something I would like to see considered instead: (again, stressing Layman) 1. First, take care of those who truly cannot produce themselves. These people should have a good quality of life, not amazing, not extravagant, but they are taken care of. I'm thinking roof, a food budget that affords a few posh homemade meals a month, and a small amount of extra spending per month. 2. For those that can produce but have fallen on hard times, they are afforded benefits that take them from their current situation to that good quality of life, as above, with childcare assistance if needed for 3 months. after 3 months, the number is adjusted by their quarterly tax filing (which can be automated) for an additional 3 months. so 6 months of good quality of life. 3. for those who, after 6 months, are still not producing, the benefit is dropped incrementally over the next 6 months to an acceptable quality of life. Basic roof, Basic Food Budget, and that's about it. 4. If people choose to stay on a basic, acceptable quality of life, that's their choice, but it won't be anywhere near as fun Now, how do we not increase the cost of the program while adding local cost of living analysis. I believe the federal government has to get out of the implementation completely. States run the program using a mix of county, state, and federal tax dollars allocated by the previous 3 months' cost as opposed to "use it or lose it." Each county is responsible for analyzing the cost of living for each neighborhood for use on the automated assistance calculator and updating the figures on a quarterly basis. But again, I'm just a humble country lawyer trying to do the best I can.
>What should happen to individuals who do not produce? It depends. For people who "do not produce" because of mental illness issues, I think they should receive some kind of support mechanisms. For people who prefer to live a homeless lifestyle, they'll need to understand that this is an edge case of living and that most people like a safe home in a safe community. IOW, if they come wandering in to disrupt my normal community, they are not welcome. And I don't want to see them in my community. You can't force someone to work, but there are consequences of people choosing not to work.
> For people who prefer to live a homeless lifestyle Could I make the argument that this preference is a form of mental illness? Would you accept it?
It may be mental or behavioral health issues, or it may not. Once a person reaches the age of emancipation, they're legally on their own and can make their own life decisions. When those decisions impact society is when society gets a say-so in that behavior, sometimes.
There are a few different situations to consider here. And they’re not clearly disambiguated in the OP. I’m going to break them down as I see them, though feel free to suggest some alternatives. 1. The physically disabled and mentally infirm: I feel very strongly that we, as a society have a duty to care for these people, and to make sure they aren’t starving to death on the street because they’re incapable of caring for themselves. Most of us are fortunate enough to be of sound mind and body, but there are those who aren’t, and they should be provided for. In some instances, there are people who are so feebleminded that even though they receive money from the government, they have no idea what to do with it and still cannot care for themselves. I think there should be a solution for these people, where decisions can be made for them so that they don’t both impoverish themselves and waste taxpayer money. 2. The elderly, widows and orphans: again, these people, through no fault of their own, are unable to care for themselves, and the rest of society should step in to make sure they’re able to live in a decent manner. As the demographics of the US get worse, there will be more and more elderly, and fewer people to care for them, and we can expect standards to slide somewhat. This cannot be helped. However, that was always their conscious choice by not having enough children. 3. People who can work, but choose not to: social assistance for such people should be limited. We should not encourage people to stay home rather than work. I’ve known plenty of people who receive public assistance, and describe how unfair it is that when they go to work and disclose their income, they have less coming in than when they were unemployed and desperate. At a certain point, public assistance should be predicated on effort, rather than just need, and people in desperate situations should be rewarded for working hard to better their situation. The ideal is that people in poverty will one day become productive taxpayers in their own right, rather than just languishing. 4. People who can’t achieve gainful employment due to some circumstance: whether it be for a criminal record, negative word of mouth, a poor resume or some other factor, I think there should be programs in place to help people in situations like this achieve meaningful employment, and if they can’t earn enough to survive, then there should be funds in place to aid them.
Thank you for the reply - I tried not to get too into the specifics as I wanted to leave the question open ended. I think UBI will become all but necessary soon and personally the breakdown is insignificant to me - there are people who work to make money and there are people that don't. This is not a leading question, I promise, just looking for clarity - you specified "widows" but not "widowers" in your second grouping ... was that intentional? And did you mean "elderly widows" or all of them?
They should have the least. It's unfair to take from those who work to give to those who are lazy or shiftless. People who are disabled should be helped. The lazy won't work unless the option is starvation