3 ms·
As with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not t
by 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
As with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not those people. They would just squander the opportunity! Best we all suffer rather than someone I do not like getting the same benefit.
- jojobas 2y agoSupporting others works as long as the majority is prosperous, provides assistance (taxes) voluntarily, and receiving help is sort of shameful and still keeps you kinda needy. You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.
- derelicta 2y agoand how does it end?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- drewcoo 2y agoUbiquitous televisions and beer. Or smartphones and fentanyl in the 21st century.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoso you're saying we've hit that point already then?
- readthenotes1 2y agoBread and circuses
- simonsarris 2y ago> As with everything in America Who do you think the 7.5 million on SSI are, if not those people? We already have Basic Income scheme for people we deem unfit for doing any kind of work. (Note this is different from the 7.3 million on SSDI, though people sometimes confuse the two, or simply don't know SSI exists)
- shrimp_emoji 2y agoToo many people are on SSRIs.
- maxerickson 2y agoIs it your argument that it's good that we make it complicated and spend resources making decisions? Because typically the argument for a universal benefit is that it's simpler and reduces administrative overhead.
- simonsarris 2y agoNo, its that "As with everything in America" is either extremely uninformed or a lie. The US spends an extraordinary amount on poverty reduction schemes of all kinds. It is not an outlier.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]