4 ms·

> Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points What was the rationale? It seems like a leftist issue to me.

protomyth 11y ago
I can imagine that control of how people spent the money (food stamps versus cash) would be a problem in the US. Programs versus direct payment does tend to show up as an issue. Look at the ND gaming compact with the tribes. The casino money can go into social service programs but not direct payments. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how that has gone.
- r00fus 11y ago
  DOesn't look like you really know why, but you're just asserting I think it's fiscal conservatives who are against it, and many Democrats as well. The "left" doesn't really exist politically in the US.. what you have remaining now is the non-rightists (mostly corporatist Dems).
  - protomyth 11y ago
    No, I know why. I spent a bit of time in the 90's doing the whole political thing. Programs and no-direct money were very important to the left (for the US definition). The right has its own issues with the concept of a lot of the programs.
    - r00fus 11y ago
      IF you know why, say so, with references. Your appeal to authority isn't very... appealing.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        This isn't Wikipedia. I'm sorry I offended your worldview of what a person on the left's representatives believe, but that's my observation and experience. The ND Tribal Gaming Compact is probably as good as an example as possible, or maybe the paradox you can buy a burrito at a gas station with EBT but not use the microwave to cook it. I once thought it was fun to put in footnotes and huge lists of references[1], but that's just work, and frankly, just stopped being joyful. Hell, after getting down voted for actually showing the reference + quote on why a certain religion has the name it does and what one of the words mean, I realized it was for the best. In another thread, I thought about doing the work last night because I cannot believe someone would actually think a particular way[2]. 1) I think my best was 12 in a thread with someone who was putting an equal amount of effort - that was fun, informative, and respectful 2) living on a rez will give a nice overview of all the ways the US government tried to kill the Native Americans
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Programs and no-direct money were very important to the left (for the US definition). As someone who also spent a "bit of time in the 1990s doing the whole political thing", that seems distorted. To the extent that was true of the party usually associated with "the left (for the US definition)" -- i.e., the Democratic Party -- it was largely because much of the Democratic Party was in a mode of strategic political "triangulation" by which it sought to mitigate traditional right-wing objections by presenting policies that could be sold out the gate as compromises, and also in part due to the fact -- especially after 1994 -- of resurgent Republican dominance which made it difficult, preference for triangulation aside, to get any traction for benefit program changes -- especially new programs or benefit increases -- that couldn't be sold as somehow instituting new limits or controls on the duration, kinds of people eligible, use of benefits, etc.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        The desire of the Democrats I ran into was control over how the money was spent since you couldn't trust the people to spend it wisely without a program or law. It really soured me towards them, particularly the corruption and death that followed not allowing tribes in ND to pay their members (the casino owners) direct dividends because they didn't trust the members to spend it properly.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The "left" doesn't really exist politically in the US.. what you have remaining now is the non-rightists (mostly corporatist Dems). The left does exist in the US, but the US center is so far to the right that the parties look a like a center-right party and a far-right party most of the time, by international standards. OTOH, on the NIT, pure NITs have never reached any significant stage of the policy debate in the US, from either major party, so "leftist politicians" haven't shot it down (unless you define "leftist" so unusually as to include most of both major US parties.) Variations on NIT (which, certainly, compromise some of its key features, in each case) have been proposed by politicians of both major parties (including a form that passed as the Earned Income Tax Credit) -- and also several minor parties (a negative income tax was, e.g., part of the 2010 Green Party platform.)
krupan 11y ago
Basic income takes a huge amount of power away from the government.
pc86 11y ago
It is almost always coupled with eliminating all other financial forms of the social safety net.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  Wow. Okay, that makes sense then, thanks.
malchow 11y ago
As a policy proposal, it is packaged with eliminating highly moderated welfare systems. That is, welfare systems that allow gov't policy to exert a lot of control over vendors, how/when/where aid is administered, and so forth. That and the fact that bureaucrats in Washington in charge of administering welfare aren't required anymore when it becomes merely a monetary transfer.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
It makes a lot more sense if you view the goal of leftist governments as paying leftist government workers, rather than actually helping the people allegedly being helped.

I can imagine that control of how people spent the money (food stamps versus cash) would be a problem in the US. Programs versus direct payment does tend to show up as an issue. Look at the ND gaming compact with the tribes. The casino money can go into social service programs but not direct payments. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how that has gone.

r00fus 11y ago
DOesn't look like you really know why, but you're just asserting I think it's fiscal conservatives who are against it, and many Democrats as well. The "left" doesn't really exist politically in the US.. what you have remaining now is the non-rightists (mostly corporatist Dems).
- protomyth 11y ago
  No, I know why. I spent a bit of time in the 90's doing the whole political thing. Programs and no-direct money were very important to the left (for the US definition). The right has its own issues with the concept of a lot of the programs.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    IF you know why, say so, with references. Your appeal to authority isn't very... appealing.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      This isn't Wikipedia. I'm sorry I offended your worldview of what a person on the left's representatives believe, but that's my observation and experience. The ND Tribal Gaming Compact is probably as good as an example as possible, or maybe the paradox you can buy a burrito at a gas station with EBT but not use the microwave to cook it. I once thought it was fun to put in footnotes and huge lists of references[1], but that's just work, and frankly, just stopped being joyful. Hell, after getting down voted for actually showing the reference + quote on why a certain religion has the name it does and what one of the words mean, I realized it was for the best. In another thread, I thought about doing the work last night because I cannot believe someone would actually think a particular way[2]. 1) I think my best was 12 in a thread with someone who was putting an equal amount of effort - that was fun, informative, and respectful 2) living on a rez will give a nice overview of all the ways the US government tried to kill the Native Americans
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Programs and no-direct money were very important to the left (for the US definition). As someone who also spent a "bit of time in the 1990s doing the whole political thing", that seems distorted. To the extent that was true of the party usually associated with "the left (for the US definition)" -- i.e., the Democratic Party -- it was largely because much of the Democratic Party was in a mode of strategic political "triangulation" by which it sought to mitigate traditional right-wing objections by presenting policies that could be sold out the gate as compromises, and also in part due to the fact -- especially after 1994 -- of resurgent Republican dominance which made it difficult, preference for triangulation aside, to get any traction for benefit program changes -- especially new programs or benefit increases -- that couldn't be sold as somehow instituting new limits or controls on the duration, kinds of people eligible, use of benefits, etc.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      The desire of the Democrats I ran into was control over how the money was spent since you couldn't trust the people to spend it wisely without a program or law. It really soured me towards them, particularly the corruption and death that followed not allowing tribes in ND to pay their members (the casino owners) direct dividends because they didn't trust the members to spend it properly.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The "left" doesn't really exist politically in the US.. what you have remaining now is the non-rightists (mostly corporatist Dems). The left does exist in the US, but the US center is so far to the right that the parties look a like a center-right party and a far-right party most of the time, by international standards. OTOH, on the NIT, pure NITs have never reached any significant stage of the policy debate in the US, from either major party, so "leftist politicians" haven't shot it down (unless you define "leftist" so unusually as to include most of both major US parties.) Variations on NIT (which, certainly, compromise some of its key features, in each case) have been proposed by politicians of both major parties (including a form that passed as the Earned Income Tax Credit) -- and also several minor parties (a negative income tax was, e.g., part of the 2010 Green Party platform.)

krupan 11y ago

Basic income takes a huge amount of power away from the government.

pc86 11y ago

It is almost always coupled with eliminating all other financial forms of the social safety net.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
Wow. Okay, that makes sense then, thanks.

malchow 11y ago

As a policy proposal, it is packaged with eliminating highly moderated welfare systems. That is, welfare systems that allow gov't policy to exert a lot of control over vendors, how/when/where aid is administered, and so forth. That and the fact that bureaucrats in Washington in charge of administering welfare aren't required anymore when it becomes merely a monetary transfer.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

It makes a lot more sense if you view the goal of leftist governments as paying leftist government workers, rather than actually helping the people allegedly being helped.