Welfare. Yes or No?

[Endus]

How is that different in you view than just just general welfare, such as say food stamps and or cash benefits for necessities?

Basic income covers everything, to a modestly comfortable living standard, and is far cheaper to administer because it only requires a simple standardized calculation that applies population-wide and a verification of identity on the individual level. Because of the simplicity, it also removes the dehumanizing factors of essentially making recipients beg for their benefits by constantly having to re-justify their need on a monthly basis, which contributes nothing of value.

Food stamps and necessity-based welfare payments still maintain hardship and suffering.

[Flarelaine]

I also believe we should move to UBI. But that would mean a complete overhaul of welfare systems which means we won't see politicians coming out for it for a long time and even then the mere implementation will still be a staggering task.

Until then, I support comprehensive welfare.

[Shadowferal]

an we go back to 94% over a million dollars again?

94% on all assets and monies equating more than $500million would do well.

[Daedius]

Imagine having those same unmotivated lazy fuckers as your coworkers. All because they're forced into jobs. It'd drive me insane. I'd rather they sit on their pittance of a welfare, than have to deal with them at work, ever.

I had to deal with them plenty at the Airport when we were short on staff, using an agency to cover for the unskilled slots (Ground handling agents)... said agency were using people that were on a "JOB SEEKER" allowance who weren't doing their task of getting a job.

And my God the majority of these people were infuriating to have, constantly disappearing, working at a snail's pace to flat out doing feck all. I've had a few telling them if they weren't going to work then they can fuck off, and I'd have them promptly let go.

Seriously can't stand lazy people.

[Flarelaine]

Imagine having those same unmotivated lazy fuckers as your coworkers. All because they're forced into jobs. It'd drive me insane. I'd rather they sit on their pittance of a welfare, than have to deal with them at work, ever.

Sometimes the guys just pretend to want to do a job. But sometimes the state just pretends to want to help them to a job.

I was part of such a project once. Three dozen job seekers set up in a building with barely any furniture and a single scanner for a project aimed at scanning archives. We had a rotation - not because anyone had to be forced to take a turn but because everyone wanted to.

[Twdft]

I had to deal with them plenty at the Airport when we were short on staff, using an agency to cover for the unskilled slots (Ground handling agents)... said agency were using people that were on a "JOB SEEKER" allowance who weren't doing their task of getting a job.

And my God the majority of these people were infuriating to have, constantly disappearing, working at a snail's pace to flat out doing feck all. I've had a few telling them if they weren't going to work then they can fuck off, and I'd have them promptly let go.

Seriously can't stand lazy people.

Now imagine the world had UBI and everyone had the real choice to be content with the basic coverage of needs it provides. Everyone then working for you would be there because they want to and chose to work for you. Motivated every last one of them.

[Kathandira]

That was my inspiration for this poll. I wondered if under the most optimum of conditions that another American was in need what the response would be.

Which I’m surprised because discussing this with friends plenty of them said no.

Some said leave it to the church others were more like Fencer.

I was pretty conservative when I was a kid. Even had a cheeky bumper sticker which read "Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you".

But that was before I had exposure to more people. I only knew the people in my small town. After moving a few times over my teens and twenties, I met more people and learned more about the various circumstances that lead to people needing government assistance.

In the end, I learned that those who do not support such programs lack empathy due to inexperience or ignorance, or are simply malicious.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I was pretty conservative when I was a kid. Even had a cheeky bumper sticker which read "Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you".

But that was before I had exposure to more people. I only knew the people in my small town. After moving a few times over my teens and twenties, I met more people and learned more about the various circumstances that lead to people needing government assistance.

In the end, I learned that those who do not support such programs lack empathy due to inexperience or ignorance, or are simply malicious.

Yeah I agree in many respects from the opposite end, I grew up on welfare, and not the EBT kind, I mean the book of Food Stamps and I remember the look of disgust and contempt from those around when simply buying food to survive.

I have zero problem with any initiative that Feeds, Cloths and Shelters those in need.

Had an Aunt who tried to convince me of the proverb of teach a man to fish vs just giving a man a fish. It's a cute idea, but doesn't change the fact if a man is hungry you should offer food when their is plenty, or at the least make sure he can feed himself.

Right now in society we have gotten too far away from that IMO.

[Anevers]

Voted no because the way you present it was bad, no I don't believe only natural-born citizens should be able to access the social safety net. I believe that should be available to everyone.

[cubby]

Welfare do you support it and what should it include?

Only natural born citizens who work if they can. Should be provided with food, cloths, shelter, and medical.

You're talking more about UBI than welfare - although the terms are relatively interchangeable.

I disagree wholeheartedly re "only natural born citizens", however.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You're talking more about UBI than welfare - although the terms are relatively interchangeable.

I disagree wholeheartedly re "only natural born citizens", however.

Well again it's not intended as ONLY natural born citizens, it's phrased natural born for the purposes of precluding any excuse that I anticipated in asking coming from some who might suggest well the only people coming here illegally would get it or something. Which pisses a lot of people that I didn't on the other end include ever possible circumstance for the need for welfare, such as disability, or different legitimate migrant statuses.

The purpose in general was inspired by Last Week Tonight, concerning welfare. Thus the wording is basically meant as a straight up and down, under whatever would be the most optimal conditions I could think to word for a Yes, or NO!

Pretty surprised so far no NO's especially the way social safety nets are often the easiest to attack for say budget cuts.

- - - Updated - - -

Now imagine the world had UBI and everyone had the real choice to be content with the basic coverage of needs it provides. Everyone then working for you would be there because they want to and chose to work for you. Motivated every last one of them.

I think the fear is that people wont work for anything or that by giving enough to sustain human beings, that people still won't work.

My personal experience is that isn't how it works, and work I think will always be necessary to be upwardly mobile.

[Endus]

Well again it's not intended as ONLY natural born citizens, it's phrased natural born for the purposes of precluding any excuse that I anticipated in asking coming from some who might suggest well the only people coming here illegally would get it or something. Which pisses a lot of people that I didn't on the other end include ever possible circumstance for the need for welfare, such as disability, or different legitimate migrant statuses.

Again, what you meant was "citizen". Adding "natural born" means you're arguing to deny welfare coverage to any immigrant who earns citizenship.

If that's not what you meant, admit you misspoke and retract, stop trying to defend it as if it's justifiable. It's not. You're either a xenophobe, or you're using words incorrectly.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Again, what you meant was "citizen". Adding "natural born" means you're arguing to deny welfare coverage to any immigrant who earns citizenship.

If that's not what you meant, admit you misspoke and retract, stop trying to defend it as if it's justifiable. It's not. You're either a xenophobe, or you're using words incorrectly.

No I meant natural born as it would have been taken for the purposes of the most optimum reason for many to say yes.

The question as always are meant to be simple when it comes to a poll.

[Twdft]

I think the fear is that people wont work for anything or that by giving enough to sustain human beings, what people still won't work.

My personal experience is that isn't how it works, and work I think will always be necessary to be upwardly mobile.

I've been working now for more years than I care to admit and let me tell you I'd be happy to retire. If UBI was implemented today it certainly would be tempting to simply stay home. BUT... I eat out/get food delivered every day. I paid a premium for a noiseless PC that's better than I need for my main game WoW. I can spend recklessly if I want. That would not be possible on UBI. I would certainly keep working.

What would happen however is lots and lots of minimum wage slaves decide to stay at home. Today their "choice" is to work two shitty 30 hour jobs to not have their family starve. And after that you'll see working conditions for those "unskilled" labor skyrocket as well as the pay. Pay will rise so much that these people will come back to work and eat out every day too. And I'm all for that. I wouldn't be surprised if unskilled labor gets paid as much as any "skilled" job. More power to them. As I said, if everyone has the actual choice not to work anyone who does work is a happy worker. What's not to like about that.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I have zero problem with any initiative that Feeds, Cloths and Shelters those in need.

Provided they were born in America

Had an Aunt who tried to convince me of the proverb of teach a man to fish vs just giving a man a fish. It's a cute idea, but doesn't change the fact if a man is hungry you should offer food when their is plenty, or at the least make sure he can feed himself.

The bolded is what the proverb your Aunt was trying to convince you of is all about. Not surprised you never understood that.

The ideal should be to do both...give the man food when he needs it while also helping him get to a point where he can feed himself.

The problem with conservative philosophy on this is they aren't willing to "teach the man to fish"

[Doctor Amadeus]

I've been working now for more years than I care to admit and let me tell you I'd be happy to retire. If UBI was implemented today it certainly would be tempting to simply stay home. BUT... I eat out/get food delivered every day. I paid a premium for a noiseless PC that's better than I need for my main game WoW. I can spend recklessly if I want. That would not be possible on UBI. I would certainly keep working.

What would happen however is lots and lots of minimum wage slaves decide to stay at home. Today their "choice" is to work two shitty 30 hour jobs to not have their family starve. And after that you'll see working conditions for those "unskilled" labor skyrocket as well as the pay. Pay will rise so much that these people will come back to work and eat out every day too. And I'm all for that. I wouldn't be surprised if unskilled labor gets paid as much as any "skilled" job. More power to them. As I said, if everyone has the actual choice not to work anyone who does work is a happy worker. What's not to like about that.

Seeing this from both ends the 80's Reagan years about the fable of Welfare Queens using up and wasting valuable resources that could go to help more people.

However my experience being on welfare as a child and being around other kids also, I knew others who may or may not have spent wisely MAYBE, but I never met anyone who really though that the government doll was a way to live unless they had to.

On the other end when you do make enough there is the nickel and diming that can happen especially if you aren't used to a budget or used to not having anything and consequently over spend when you do have something.

Certain realizations such as retirement, savings, and out going expenditures like insurance, and medical bills like debt, that when you have more especially can bog the average home owner and tax payer down.

As a result you look at the same resources differently. When as you I think correctly pointed out, yeah it really is about the means from which to control people with the very basics or almost nothing to motivate them to DO what others want.

There certainly is that way of thinking from the higher end.

People are poor, but nobody plans on being poor in my experience, and nobody in my experience doesn't work. Even criminals, crime actually takes a lot more work than some legal jobs.

And sometimes people do criminal work because they can't get or aren't allowed to do or get legal jobs.

[Endus]

No I meant natural born as it would have been taken for the purposes of the most optimum reason for many to say yes.

The question as always are meant to be simple when it comes to a poll.

And that's not what "natural born citizen" means.

This is exactly what I meant; you're wrong, and you get to pick between admitting you were wrong and retracting/rephrasing, or we have to presume you really do mean what you say, which was "immigrants who earn citizenship are second-class citizens and cannot benefit from welfare". Because that's what you actually said.

"Natural born citizen" means someone who was born a citizen, rather than naturalizing later in life. There is no other meaning for the term. You either meant this, or you used words incorrectly. I'd like to believe you misspoke, but if you keep insisting you didn't, I'll take you at your word.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Provided they were born in America

Regardless, but as I said some of my own family members growing up felt that was where welfare went to and to pay people to have more kids.

The bolded is what the proverb your Aunt was trying to convince you of is all about. Not surprised you never understood that.

The ideal should be to do both...give the man food when he needs it while also helping him get to a point where he can feed himself.

The problem with conservative philosophy on this is they aren't willing to "teach the man to fish"

Well I don't think so with her and as with others I think it's just a way to come off as sanctimonious, if You are giving the fish, as opposed to teaching to fish you having the morally superior distinction of either.

What if the man fishing is starving and doesn't really want fish?

What if he doesn't want to fish at all and is hungry?

If a man is fucking hungry and has nothing and you have food to spare you give it PERIOD. Don't need to be thanked, you're not a hero, and if you want to solve the problem you have to do a hell of a lot more than giving a fish or food.

Unsurprisingly a lot of people really don't give a fuck about that.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And that's not what "natural born citizen" means.

This is exactly what I meant; you're wrong, and you get to pick between admitting you were wrong and retracting/rephrasing, or we have to presume you really do mean what you say, which was "immigrants who earn citizenship are second-class citizens and cannot benefit from welfare". Because that's what you actually said.

"Natural born citizen" means someone who was born a citizen, rather than naturalizing later in life. There is no other meaning for the term. You either meant this, or you used words incorrectly. I'd like to believe you misspoke, but if you keep insisting you didn't, I'll take you at your word.

OR OR, You can keep calling me a fucking Xenophobe for the 10th time or whatever, keep hammering that shit on OR fucking drop it and either answer to the question OR say FUCK that guy, I am not answering the question.

But instead what you do when I clearly laid out the reason in my reply why I put that wat in the OP, you and explained why I put it there, have no history nor inclination of hate or malice towards immigrants. I'm fine with feeding, clothing and offering shelter to anyone in need, but that isn't the point of the poll or over all question.


However if your position was honest and you legitimately has a problem with the wording I used to describe the question, and said yeah, I'd appreciate if you reworded it or took out the natural born citizen as without that specifically it would achieve the same result as I intended for a straight up and down.

I would have edited it out and removed that phrase.

But I think you and the typical just get off giving me shit no matter what I honestly do, and it has nothing to do with legitimate offense or concern. I done try replying to this and trying to appease you. If their is a legitimate complaints about anything I have said, or clarification on something PLEASE by all means say something if you like.

But I am done with the "Well you didn't offer Penguins" bullshit do you HATE PENGUINS!

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like a solid argument for expanding welfare in the US, tbh.

Maybe, It could also be a good reason to ask why welfare is needed so much in the first place. Maybe include it into the conversation about our environment. Because make no mistake more than Race, Sex, or Orientation, the one constant in war or civil conflict, along with criminal are RESOURCES.

[Endus]

OR OR, You can keep calling me a fucking Xenophobe for the 10th time or whatever, keep hammering that shit on OR fucking drop it and either answer to the question OR say FUCK that guy, I am not answering the question.

I am trying to give you an out, and you're the one insisting that you really meant "natural born citizen". I'm not the one identifying you as a xenophobe, you are.

But instead what you do when I clearly laid out the reason in my reply why I put that wat in the OP, you and explained why I put it there, have no history nor inclination of hate or malice towards immigrants. I'm fine with feeding, clothing and offering shelter to anyone in need, but that isn't the point of the poll or over all question.

Which isn't an admission of error or retraction, so you're still wrong, and insisting on your error. Which leads everyone to presume you really meant "natural born citizen", and it's not actually an error. All I'm doing is pointing out what you actually said. If you're insisting it's correct as-is, fine. We'll take you at your word. I was trying to do you a kindness, but apparently that offends you.

However if your position was honest and you legitimately has a problem with the wording I used to describe the question, and said yeah, I'd appreciate if you reworded it or took out the natural born citizen as without that specifically it would achieve the same result as I intended for a straight up and down.

I would have edited it out and removed that phrase.

That's literally what I suggested, and here you are, lashing out, so no, I don't believe you would have. I don't even have to guess, because that's literally this situation, and you're not doing that.