(: This 2020 US President Candidate wants to give everyone $1,000 / month :)

[ET180]

Its easy to say all these things.... but you have to understand that a child that has not been brought up and taught these things will not know any better. Right or wrong.... thats the way it is. I mean it is.

That's a valid point. It used to be shameful to have children out of wedlock or for a guy to walk out on his family. Today, things have changed and bad behavior has become normalized. In Germany around the time that I was born (I did not live in Germany, but this is a story that I heard from my grandfather), people used to honk at you if your car broke down and blocked traffic. If your car broke down, other drivers would see you as negligent for not properly maintaining your car and causing other people to waste time caused by carelessness. I think that may be a bit extreme, but today's culture in the US tends to make victims out of everyone who made bad decisions. My point is that one should be able to learn right and wrong decision making through cultural values. But those have been removed because it makes some people feel bad or encourages judgement of others.

Sig, the guy you knew sounds like an admirable person. Sounds like he did everything right. But his dad and mom sound like irresponsible pieces of s**t for putting him in that situation along with his two siblings. I know a couple people too who came from a hard background, but still managed to stay in school, worked hard, built their dream home, and are a couple years away from enjoying a comfortable retirement. I wouldn't just assume that everyone screws around while relying on weak birth control to avoid becoming pregnant. Yes, it happens, but it's not responsible. And even if they are using two forms of birth control, there's always adoption...many good parents out there who want kids, but cannot have them. And why do you think that I actually have to make bad decisions in order for me to proclaim a bad decision as a bad decision? I can say that eating a Tide Pod or injecting whatever is in a random syringe is a bad idea without actually having done it myself. And I never gave statistics about how many people are lazy and how many are not. My argument doesn't rely on that. I'm just saying that people should not have kids who are not in a position to care for them. That doesn't mean that some people should never have kids...just not until they are ready for them. Seems pretty logical to me.

 

[Trader200K]

Just another EBT:

 

[Sig]

That's a valid point. It used to be shameful to have children out of wedlock or for a guy to walk out on his family. Today, things have changed and bad behavior has become normalized. In Germany around the time that I was born (I did not live in Germany, but this is a story that I heard from my grandfather), people used to honk at you if your car broke down and blocked traffic. If your car broke down, other drivers would see you as negligent for not properly maintaining your car and causing other people to waste time caused by carelessness. I think that may be a bit extreme, but today's culture in the US tends to make victims out of everyone who made bad decisions. My point is that one should be able to learn right and wrong decision making through cultural values. But those have been removed because it makes some people feel bad or encourages judgement of others.

Sig, the guy you knew sounds like an admirable person. Sounds like he did everything right. But his dad and mom sound like irresponsible pieces of s**t for putting him in that situation along with his two siblings. I know a couple people too who came from a hard background, but still managed to stay in school, worked hard, built their dream home, and are a couple years away from enjoying a comfortable retirement. I wouldn't just assume that everyone screws around while relying on weak birth control to avoid becoming pregnant. Yes, it happens, but it's not responsible. And even if they are using two forms of birth control, there's always adoption...many good parents out there who want kids, but cannot have them. And why do you think that I actually have to make bad decisions in order for me to proclaim a bad decision as a bad decision? I can say that eating a Tide Pod or injecting whatever is in a random syringe is a bad idea without actually having done it myself. And I never gave statistics about how many people are lazy and how many are not. My argument doesn't rely on that. I'm just saying that people should not have kids who are not in a position to care for them. That doesn't mean that some people should never have kids...just not until they are ready for them. Seems pretty logical to me.

It's interesting what you chose to read in what I wrote. I didn't say that your shouldn't comment on if it's a good idea to voluntarily have children when you can't afford it. Not only didn't say that, but I agree! What I did say is that your idea that somehow poor people can just work harder and stop being frivolous and they'll cease being poor comes from a position of profound ignorance of what it's like to actually be grindingly poor. Not just lower middle class, or a hard background, but truly poor, plus perhaps not blessed with even average intelligence (after all, almost by definition half of us aren't), and perhaps the recipient of a little bad luck (I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that it's possible to get pregnant using multiple forms of birth control, even as a highly educated, highly responsible married adult!). It's certainly possible to understand what this is like without personally experiencing it. It's clear, however, that you don't because you have this idea that somehow people in this situation could just pull on their bootstraps a little harder and all will be fine.
It's certainly possible to be dealt this hand and still succeed. A few exceptional people do manage, people who work far harder than you and I ever have and among those it's generally the one's who finally do catch a small lucky break (their car makes it to 175,000 miles while the other guy's transmission goes out at 125,000) who make it. The argument for universal income is that we as a society, are better off if everyone is afforded the basic dignity to be afforded the choice to do things like learn a trade or get an education, which is something a portion of our population isn't afforded now simply by accident of birth. Saying that poor people just need to work harder isn't really a legitimate argument against that. I'm not sure that universal income is the solution, but those arguments against it not only don't hold water but again come from a position of profound ignorance about what true poverty is like.

 

[ET180]

What I did say is that your idea that somehow poor people can just work harder and stop being frivolous and they'll cease being poor comes from a position of profound ignorance of what it's like to actually be grindingly poor. Not just lower middle class, or a hard background, but truly poor, plus perhaps not blessed with even average intelligence (after all, almost by definition half of us aren't), and perhaps the recipient of a little bad luck (I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that it's possible to get pregnant using multiple forms of birth control, even as a highly educated, highly responsible married adult!).

I guess I just believe that most people are more capable than you do. Yes, a very, very small percentage of the population is born with down-syndrome or some other horrible disease, but it doesn't require a high IQ or college degree to be a mail carrier. Here are some other alternatives:

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/jo...n_db42de6b-5746-5fd1-9b3d-2033f7249822.html#9

Regarding the pregnancy, even if an unplanned pregnancy happens, there are options. There are many people who can't have children of their own who want children. So I would recommend adoption in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. There are many religious charities working to save the unborn from abortion so the mother would have the option of birthing the child at no cost to her. Although I don't like abortion because past a certain point, it does involve killing a living human, it's currently legal everywhere in the US. So I don't think people getting trapped in poverty by unexpected pregnancy is a valid argument.

There is no need for universal basic income for the purpose of getting an education. The government has been providing student loans for decades (which has also served in driving up the cost of education by increasing demand). Anyone who wants to go to college and is willing to learn has the option. And since maybe college isn't for everyone, as I mentioned above, there are good jobs that don't require a degree. I highly doubt that universal basic income would be used productively. Although it probably would benefit pot shops, casinos, tobacco, and thrift stores. Would also allow some people to retire early and children to stay in their parent's basement for longer.

There is one good counter-example that you could have brought up regarding the poor not being able to find good jobs. That would be someone with a criminal background. There are people who have done bad things in the past and although have changed are still limited by their past. Maybe say a prayer that Martin Shkreli will be able to find a good job once he gets out of jail.

 

[Sig]

Anyone who wants to go to college and is willing to learn has the option. And since maybe college isn't for everyone, as I mentioned above, there are good jobs that don't require a degree. I highly doubt that universal basic income would be used productively. Although it probably would benefit pot shops, casinos, tobacco, and thrift stores. Would also allow some people to retire early and children to stay in their parent's basement for longer.

Again, this belief, which is false, comes from a position of deep ignorance of what true poverty looks like. First, you're simply too tired to do anything but eat, sleep, and work when you're doing 12-16 hours a day of manual labor. I was never desperately poor but did stand 12 hour watches and work the rest of my waking time for short periods in the military, and I can't even describe how draining that is. And I wasn't doing manual labor and it was only for a few weeks at a time!
Second, as I mentioned several times, the people working this hard are doing it because they have family to take care of. Whether it's siblings or parents, which they had no choice in, or children that apparently you feel they should be forced to put out for adoption (isn't that the ultimate stripping of human dignity) because they did have a "choice". They can't drop all that to go to school, a Pell Grant isn't going to cover life for them. The problem isn't paying tuition for college or a trade program, that's a first world problem and the fact that you see it that way is the crux of what I'm talking about. The problem is life. Food, clothes, a place to live, transportation to get to work or school, chronic medical care...all that plus time to do something that doesn't contribute to the above. For them and their family. These folks are at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy, which is something so foreign to you that you just assume everyone has it and focus on the next level up. A universal income does address that. It does put everyone at the level that you already assume everyone to be at, one where the very basics of life can be met so you can be free to make your own decisions with a little dignity.
Again I'm not sure universal income is the best solution. I'm inclined to think there are a raft of unintended consequences, beyond the simple minded "poor people will stop working because they're all naturally lazy" meme. But I does seem way more efficient than what it takes to support the current safety net, plus it provides some dignity of choice to those who by pure accident of birth really don't have it now and again I haven't seen any strong arguments against it.

 

[eves_banished_children]

I hate the left's glorification of the poor as if all poor people are martyrs working 12-18 hour days just to put food on the table for their kids, that they lead more authentic lives because of the trials they've faced, and etc.

Truth is, most of the actual poor, the desperately poor, live in places most leftists hate, mostly in places like Appalachia, and the only reason they are poor is because of where they were born and the opportunities available to them. They are just as smart as you, just as crafty, and just as ambitious for the most part, ... only they didn't grow up in a place where opportunities were surrounding them and they've had to make do with what they have available.

Most of the poor in this country (rural whites make up the overwhelming number of poor in the U.S.) would love for some bleeding heart leftists to come out and take pity on them, it would give them the chance to sucker you out of your money in a game of pool and seduce your bored girlfriend while you were lecturing the crowd about the benefits of .. [insert leftist -whatever- here].

If you're living in the city and you can't make it, you just aren't trying.

 

[Sig]

I hate the left's glorification of the poor as if all poor people are martyrs working 12-18 hour days just to put food on the table for their kids, that they lead more authentic lives because of the trials they've faced, and etc.

Truth is, most of the actual poor, the desperately poor, live in places most leftists hate, mostly in places like Appalachia, and the only reason they are poor is because of where they were born and the opportunities available to them. They are just as smart as you, just as crafty, and just as ambitious for the most part, ... only they didn't grow up in a place where opportunities were surrounding them and they've had to make do with what they have available.

Most of the poor in this country (rural whites make up the overwhelming number of poor in the U.S.) would love for some bleeding heart leftists to come out and take pity on them, it would give them the chance to sucker you out of your money in a game of pool and seduce your bored girlfriend while you were lecturing the crowd about the benefits of .. [insert leftist -whatever- here].

If you're living in the city and you can't make it, you just aren't trying.

You're absolutely right that many of the poor people I'm referring to are in Appalachia. I grew up in the very very rural PNW where many of the "tar heels" came for logging jobs around the turn of the century, so we had a good deal of the Appalachian culture in our little logging town.
As for the rest, I'm really not sure what your point is? You've said exactly what I've been saying. In fact if you look at my posts, you'll find that I almost always use a poor person in West Virginia as my prime example when talking about the impact policy has on the poor. I do that for two reasons, the first is because it parallels my experience and the second is because it disambiguates race and poverty. Everything I've said is aimed squarely at this type of poverty. Is there something I've said that isn't true or doesn't make sense, or you just want to get a jab in at "the liberals" even if it doesn't make any sense in the current context because you're pathological about it?

 

[eves_banished_children]

You're absolutely right that many of the poor people I'm referring to are in Appalachia. I grew up in the very very rural PNW where many of the "tar heels" came for logging jobs around the turn of the century, so we had a good deal of the Appalachian culture in our little logging town.
As for the rest, I'm really not sure what your point is? You've said exactly what I've been saying. In fact if you look at my posts, you'll find that I almost always use a poor person in West Virginia as my prime example when talking about the impact policy has on the poor. I do that for two reasons, the first is because it parallels my experience and the second is because it disambiguates race and poverty. Everything I've said is aimed squarely at this type of poverty. Is there something I've said that isn't true or doesn't make sense, or you just want to get a jab in at "the liberals" even if it doesn't make any sense in the current context because you're pathological about it?

What policy ? All I've seen you doing is pushing an agenda, not a policy. Short of taking everyone in Appalachia and busing them to the city, I don't see what you are proposing that is going to help a single person in Appalachia.

You've noticed, I assume, that they're voting against you, right ?

I know it's because they're uneducated, ill informed, and actively misled by evil people.

 

[Sig]

What policy ? All I've seen you doing is pushing an agenda, not a policy. Short of taking everyone in Appalachia and busing them to the city, I don't see what you are proposing that is going to help a single person in Appalachia.

You've noticed, I assume, that they're voting against you, right ?

I know it's because they're uneducated, ill informed, and actively misled by evil people.

What a bizarre statement. First this is a thread about a proposed policy called universal income and the discussion thus far is about what such a policy would accomplish. Not sure why you'd get into a semantics argument about a policy versus an "agenda" unless you're just trying to troll, which seems likely given the information free nature of your posts thus far? Interestingly it's a policy that's had a good deal of conservative support, starting with this fellow named Thomas Paine and continued up through the earned income credit, which is a form of this policy that was originally proposed and passed by conservatives under Ford in 1975. If you've got something concrete and interesting to say about the proposed policy, that would be welcome. I'd be happy to learn something I didn't know from someone who holds different views from me, how about you? Sadly all I'm hearing from you so far is "it won't help a single person", apparently because you said so I guess.

Also not sure what the voting records of the people of Appalachia have to do with anything? Is it your belief that if someone holds a different political view than you, then you shouldn't care about their welfare?

I'm pretty sure a good number of folks in Appalachia take advantage of the earned income credit, and medicare and social security and low cost school lunches, and a host of other government programs that have taken us from Living Hungry In America when there was actual malnutrition in Appalachia to now where we're at least past that. I'm sure a pretty good number of them would take advantage of a universal income were it to come about. And a good number of them may benefit greatly, no bussing to the city necessary. In fact one of the potential benefits of such a program would be that more people could be free to work in non-profits, teaching, and the like with their commensurate lower pay, and expand on the training programs that are already there but strapped for staff right now. Same thing for opioid treatment. I really couldn't care less if the people who are helped by a policy are in my political "tribe" or not, and frankly it's a pretty horrible person who would!

 

[eves_banished_children]

Also not sure what the voting records of the people of Appalachia have to do with anything? Is it your belief that if someone holds a different political view than you, then you shouldn't care about their welfare?

No, I'm of the belief that when someone is voting against you they're probably doing it for reasons that benefit them. I think that of Democrats, I believe they are voting for things that will benefit them. It's Democrats who make remarks about Appalachians not knowing what is best for them, or being too uneducated to vote "correctly", or being misled by evil conservatives who play to their culture, etc. Incorrect. Appalachians are voting against you because they know what is best for them, and your policies aren't it. Maybe instead of pushing universal income, more government programs, etc, you could sit down and listen to what they're telling you with an open mind sometime.