Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Reading is hard yo......
    Yes, it clearly seems hard for you as you posted this two months after my post, and you still couldn't find what I stated was missing (that it's just a small percentage targeted).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Okay. And?
    As previously stated this is just a publicity stunt trying to push the false narrative of victimhood and historic problems as the only explanation of poverty and the worst simplistic solution of just giving people some money and then they can lift them-selves up by their bootstraps as all Americans should be able to do. I'm not denying that there are historic and racial issues in the US, just that this is a too simplistic narrative and their solution will thus fail.

    • Since it's publicity stunt there is no control - as it isn't an experiment in UBI; it's just pushing an idea.
    • Since it's pushing a specific agenda white people are excluded - as they don't fit the narrative.
    • Since it's pushing a simplistic solution they don't want control of how the money is spent (compare to very strict community pressure by successful microcredit institutions like Grameen) as it doesn't fit the narrative.

    If you actually want to help the poor, try solutions and see what works and what doesn't and ask people - don't use stupid grand gestures. Oh, and read 'Poor Economics' if you want some more facts.

  2. #82
    Banned Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    As previously stated this is just a publicity stunt trying to push the false narrative of victimhood and historic problems as the only explanation of poverty
    Nah, that's your opinion of it - but nothing about it is attempting to claim that poverty is solely a result of systemic racism, it's a program attempting to reckon with the problem of systemic racism.

    and the worst simplistic solution of just giving people some money
    You've yet to explain why this is bad.

    and then they can lift them-selves up by their bootstraps as all Americans should be able to do.
    The only part of this which remotely approaches the bootstraps mentality is that it's effectively a government endorsed private charity.

    I'm not denying that there are historic and racial issues in the US
    You kind of are when you're dismissing systemic racism as a "false narrative of victimhood and historic problems" when it is neither false nor historic.

    just that this is a too simplistic narrative and their solution will thus fail.
    If it fails it'll be because it's privately funded and as we've seen, private charity is woefully ill-equipped to address systemic problems.

    • Since it's publicity stunt there is no control - as it isn't an experiment in UBI; it's just pushing an idea.
    • Since it's pushing a specific agenda white people are excluded - as they don't fit the narrative.
    • Since it's pushing a simplistic solution they don't want control of how the money is spent (compare to very strict community pressure by successful microcredit institutions like Grameen) as it doesn't fit the narrative.
    - It is not intended to be an experiment in UBI because it's quite clearly a program aimed at mitigating the impacts of systemic racism.
    - Again, so what? White people are factually not victims of systemic racism in the United States, it's not a function of them not fitting a narrative.
    - Good. Spending controls on recipients of assistance violates their autonomy and basic dignity without actually doing anything to combat abuse, just like all other forms of means testing.

    If you actually want to help the poor, try solutions and see what works and what doesn't
    I'm sorry, is your complaint that this isn't UBI, or that direct assistance doesn't work? Lol.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Nah, that's your opinion of it - but nothing about it is attempting to claim that poverty is solely a result of systemic racism, it's a program attempting to reckon with the problem of systemic racism.
    My opinions are based on the facts of how the program is constructed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    You've yet to explain why this is bad.
    Simplistic solution generally fail, and in this case they aren't even planning to see whether it works or not.

    They really should have read 'Poor Economics' that explain why you need to test your solutions for combatting poverty and why simplistic solutions are bad.

  4. #84
    Banned Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    My opinions are based on the facts of how the program is constructed.
    Which is curious considering again nothing about the program's construction implies all poverty is the result of systemic racism.

    Simplistic solution generally fail
    Direct assistance seems to be an outlier to that generality, then, given the historical data.

    They really should have read 'Poor Economics' that explain why you need to test your solutions for combatting poverty
    Nothing about Poor Economics disputes the effectiveness of direct assistance.

    Also, I'm curious how they're supposed to test it if every test gets decried as a publicity stunt. Lol.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-06-06 at 09:17 AM.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    I'm curious how they're supposed to test it if every test gets decried as a publicity stunt. Lol.
    A "test" that state what the results will be ahead of time is decried as a publicity stunt.

    However, it's clear that no sensible argument will convince you - so the US will continue with ignoring solutions from other countries and wondering why it doesn't work.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2021-06-06 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #86
    Banned Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    A "test" that state what the results will be ahead of time is decried as a publicity stunt.
    Pointing out the success of previous direct assistance programs as justification for implementation is not "declaring results ahead of time" and, as said, this isn't a test of UBI anyway.

    I'm not seeing an actual objection to said effectiveness besides you personally disliking how it's being advertised.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-06-06 at 09:49 AM.

  7. #87
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    13,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Lemme know when there’s systemic oppression and erasure of white people that needs to be remedied.

    Otherwise no, it’s not racist. Y’all just don’t know what words mean.
    Racism is literally treating people differently based purely on race.
    It can (and most often is) used when talking about treating people worse than otherwise


    But, in order for someone to get a leg up (in this case, it's Oakland giving money only to non-whites), someone has to be at a disadvantage (In this case, it's Oakland not giving money to whites). In this case that's literally racist, as people are being treated worse (not being eligible for the money) based only on their race.

    Have whites had it better than non-whites? Generally yeah, but that is no excuse to now flip the table and exclude whites.

    What this money should be used for is to help the poor people in the city, but now it's being used to help the non-white poor people.

  8. #88
    Banned Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Temp name View Post
    Racism is literally treating people differently based purely on race.
    That's discrimination. Racism has a systemic component.

    But, in order for someone to get a leg up (in this case, it's Oakland giving money only to non-whites), someone has to be at a disadvantage (In this case, it's Oakland not giving money to whites).
    Citation needed.

    In this case that's literally racist, as people are being treated worse (not being eligible for the money) based only on their race.
    Did you know that when you take away 2 from a 5 and give it to a 1, they both end up with 3's?

    They are not being treated worse because they are not subject to the same structural disadvantage. It's like complaining that someone with a broken thumb is being 'treated worse' because the doctors are spending more on the hospital's budget operating on someone with a sucking chest wound.

    Have whites had it better than non-whites? Generally yeah, but that is no excuse to now flip the table and exclude whites.
    This is not flipping the table. Flipping the table would involve subjecting generations of white people to systemic erasure and oppression, denying them all but the most limited forms of social mobility while using them to build the rest of the country's wealth and stripping them of theirs whenever they accrue it.

    Targeted aid intended to partially help redress a continued structural disadvantage is most certainly not that.

    What this money should be used for is to help the poor people in the city, but now it's being used to help the non-white poor people.
    Well that sucks, but unfortunately the country has accrued a massive social debt through the exploitation of its residents of colour by denying them the opportunity to build generational wealth and some level of reparation is past due.

    You aren't a debt dodger, are you?

  9. #89
    Legendary! Frolk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norway, Lørenskog
    Posts
    6,505
    So, fuck low-income WHITE people?

    Or cant white people be poor?
    PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER, #2020Trump #MAGA
    PROUD TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER #SaveEuropeWithTrump
    PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE WALL
    BLUE LIVES MATTER
    NO TO ALL GUNCONTROL OR BACKGROUND CHECKS IN EUROPE
    /s

  10. #90
    Yeah... but it's Oakland.

  11. #91
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    20,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, it clearly seems hard for you as you posted this two months after my post, and you still couldn't find what I stated was missing (that it's just a small percentage targeted).
    You mean like how it says only ~600 families???? You just keep digging instead of actually reading don't you lol
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Frolk View Post
    So, fuck low-income WHITE people?

    Or cant white people be poor?
    That's not what this thing is supposed to do.

    1. We know that systemic racism has caused black people to be generationally poorer.
    2. This aims to give those people targeted assistance to see how that would change their situation in relative terms.

    Nobody, I mean not a single fucking person who is in favor of UBI style assistance programs argues that "fuck white people".

    On the fucking contrary... It's in the name, UNIVERSAL Basic Income.

    This program specifically is tied to UBI conceptually but is meant to address a different issue.

    You know how racists and conservatives have been pushing the black welfare queen and black thug narrative for literally centuries?

    What this is meant to do is simply prove that black people aren't inherently somehow magically worse than white people with money, and if you give them the resources they will close the gap that has always existed.

    If the program is successful, it can even be extrapolated into arguing that poor people in general aren't poor because laziness or stupidity or bad work ethics or whatnot. It's because they just don't have resources.

    Regardless of race.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    You mean like how it says only ~600 families????
    And where does it say how many poor live in Oakland? You have had two months to find it in the post.

    If you cannot find it, don't expect an answer.

    BTW: Do you know the number without looking it up? Do you expect everyone to know that?
    Last edited by Forogil; 2021-06-06 at 05:52 PM.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Temp name View Post
    Racism is literally treating people differently based purely on race.
    It can (and most often is) used when talking about treating people worse than otherwise
    It is literally not that. I love when people use the word literally when they are literally wrong. I've had this discussion before here regarding the distinctions between racism, prejudice and bigotry yet it never goes well because people are literally too stubborn to acknowledge what words mean.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Frolk View Post
    So, fuck low-income WHITE people?

    Or cant white people be poor?
    I'm sure that there's gotta be some well-meaning entity that's more than happy to give white people money. Besides local, state and federal governments.

  16. #96
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    20,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    And where does it say how many poor live in Oakland? You have had two months to find it in the post.

    If you cannot find it, don't expect an answer.
    So you are saying we can't find it saying it's a small percentage of the poor because it only tells us how many families it does help and now how many total poor families there are?


    LMMFAO thats about the dumbest shit I've read all week....
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    On the fucking contrary... It's in the name, UNIVERSAL Basic Income.
    Universal would imply you'd also be giving that money to people outside of your own country.

    I bring this up because people have started arguing the same for "Universal" healthcare, eg. that their hospitals should treat medical immigrants / refugees for free too. So, related to this subject, if they keep pushing through that narrative on the left this would eventually imply that refugees / immigrants should also be receiving UBI - which just isn't tenable in the longterm (neither is the universal healthcare for such groups).

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    Universal would imply you'd also be giving that money to people outside of your own country.

    I bring this up because people have started arguing the same for "Universal" healthcare, eg. that their hospitals should treat medical immigrants / refugees for free too. So, related to this subject, if they keep pushing through that narrative on the left this would eventually imply that refugees / immigrants should also be receiving UBI - which just isn't tenable in the longterm (neither is the universal healthcare for such groups).
    Why not? Refugees and immigrants already receive free healthcare in countries with universal healthcare systems. Would you want an immigrant dying of cancer on your street corner? Would you want a refugee bleeding to death in the street after an accident? Watch their children die in childbirth or pneumonia or whatnot?

    Furthermore, the words "refugee" and "immigrant" do not in fact imply an illegal status. Refugees are implicitly legal migrants by the fact that they are refugees, and immigrants that are gainfully employed or who have family members who are gainfully employed actually pay into the healthcare system, and not just into the healthcare system but into countless other welfare systems that they are often not allowed to benefit from.

    I am an immigrant. I happen to incidentally belong to a community of people who are so full of themselves (English speakers) that they made up a new word for themselves in "expat" to avoid being called an immigrant. But for all intent and purposes I am an immigrant. I am an American immigrant living in Spain. I pay taxes in both countries. Should I not have access to the Spanish national healthcare system despite having been paying into it since 2010?

    My parents were immigrants, my mother from Greece and my father from Hungary or more exactly a political refugee from communist Hungary, both ended up with 40 year careers in the US government. Still, they were both immigrants.

    And yes, UBI should be something implemented globally.
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2021-06-07 at 04:16 PM.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    Universal would imply you'd also be giving that money to people outside of your own country.
    Because we're ignoring all context and common sense? How would say, Finland issue monthly checks to everyone in the world? Do they have mailing information for people in Burundi? Do they have a list of people on-file living in Chile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    I bring this up because people have started arguing the same for "Universal" healthcare, eg. that their hospitals should treat medical immigrants / refugees for free too.
    People who are like, in the country, you know? Since these hospitals can't just pack up and move to another country, they're generally pretty stuck in a single place unless they close down or move operations or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    So, related to this subject, if they keep pushing through that narrative on the left this would eventually imply that refugees / immigrants should also be receiving UBI - which just isn't tenable in the longterm (neither is the universal healthcare for such groups).
    If they're within your borders, sure it is.

  20. #100
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    Universal would imply you'd also be giving that money to people outside of your own country.

    I bring this up because people have started arguing the same for "Universal" healthcare, eg. that their hospitals should treat medical immigrants / refugees for free too. So, related to this subject, if they keep pushing through that narrative on the left this would eventually imply that refugees / immigrants should also be receiving UBI - which just isn't tenable in the longterm (neither is the universal healthcare for such groups).
    Why on Earth wouldn't it be?

    Hell, your point on universal healthcare is obviously horseshit, as refugees and immigrants get covered for universal healthcare here in Canada. Here's Ontario's OHIP page for qualifying; https://www.ontario.ca/page/apply-oh...card#section-2

    You need to A> be a permanent resident of Ontario who lives there as their primary residence, and B> be any of the following; Canadian citizen, landed immigrant, have an active application for permanent residence that has not been denied, are in Ontario on a work permit and working full-time, are a refugee, and some other edge cases beyond that.

    When you're pushing a story that is obviously false on a base principle like that, it's pretty clear you're engaging in bad faith.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •