BoberFett
Lifer
So you're saying it makes them participating members of the economy?
:hmm:
Economies are based supply and demand. If you want everyone on the demand side and nobody on the supply side, I wish you luck with that.
So you're saying it makes them participating members of the economy?
:hmm:
Economies are based supply and demand. If you want everyone on the demand side and nobody on the supply side, I wish you luck with that.
I thought if everybody was on the demand side the supply side would self generate. What you are saying is that markets don't work.
No I think he's saying he doesn't want to subsidize other people's drug, booze and gambling habits so that someone else can snarkily pretend that's the same as participating in the economy by carrying one's own weight in it.
That's my problem with the idea too. Too many people (especially spoiled pricks in this country) are just shamelessly ruthless exploiters to a level that most people can't quite grasp.
Economies are based supply and demand. If you want everyone on the demand side and nobody on the supply side, I wish you luck with that.
You can put your hand on one side of a scale to make a sinngle feather weigh 10 lbs.
Does that mean scales don't work?

As Herbert Spencer once said "The consequence of subsidizing fools is to populate the world with fools."...
Everything government touches turns turd.
War on PovertyEntitlement Mentality: The federal government wants more Americans using food stamps. To what end? Washington has been fighting a war on poverty since 1964 and has gotten nowhere with it.
Unless of course establishing a culture of dependency is the goal. If that's the federal government's real objective, then it's doing a fine job.
This sounds like a sort of guaranteed national income the likes of which Switzerland recently put forth. I'm for it.
Ok, if you're down for swapping all social welfare programs for a single cash stipend, at what amount are you willing for the stipend to top out? And how are you going to resist jumping back in with checkbook in hand when someone fucks up and uses their stipend on hookers and blow rather than rent and utilities? This plan only works if you're willing to literally let people who make bad choices despite government assistance starve to set the paradigm. If you can't let them starve the plan is completely unworkable otherwise.
I would have to get back to you on the number. Probably a few grand a month.
As for letting them starve that's fine (and something that could be handled by private charities anyway). If someone endangers their kids with that behavior, take their kids away.
You say that now, but if you're honest with yourself you know that bleeding hearts would never let that happen.
replace all of the payments with a stipend. either in the form of a job, or a bullet to the head.
Welfare needs to be phased out and later abolished. Too many people use it as a way to live off the taxpayer and not work.
Ted Kennedy proposed a guaranteed job for everyone in exchange for ending welfare, but of course Republicans wouldn't do it.
What would Republicans complain about if there was no welfare?