California city to experiment with 'universal basic income'

Al Bore would have guessed seeing as though he invented the internet.

That's one.

 

Things like "Get a 'real' job!" when underpaid workers demand a living wage.

 

Why is it that you lib/progs ignorantly thinkbelieve that equal opportunity and equal outcome are the same thing?

 

I don't advocate giving them $500 (or a minimum income). You're getting your panties wadded up rather easy.

 

And your premise for that statement is what?

 

Five hundred a month really is not that much. I make more than that and I'm still struggling to get by. I would imagine the cost of living in California would be higher too so this really isn't doing much at all.

It's been a long time since I've last said this but I think a good alternative is to have a government owned and operated grocery store for people with little to no income. Instead of cash just tag things with a point system. You can either have an account for everyone who shops with a max point cap per week/month or everyone can just be issued vouchers of some sort. Furthermore it would provide some people in the community with the opportunity to apply and work there as well.

 

In this case it is being funded by a private group but it does beg the question to the mayor that if this works and all the people receiving the money had much more self esteem and identity, then where are you going to get the money?

And yes I guess if you like to sit around and collect your government welfare check and now the government is taking money from those evil successful people who actually get up and go to work every morning of who you are so jealous your "esteem and identity" might be picked up. And I bet you will vote for the mayor next election.

 

How much of your money are you willing to give up TO SUPPORT OTHER ABLE BODIED PEOPLE to live off it instead of working?

 

Why? What's wrong with the current system other than people can work the system to much instead of going out and getting a job.

Well let's talk about the able bodied ones, why can't they work?

We have no moral duty to provide subsistance to able bodied persons. In fact we have a moral duty to insure that able bodied people do NOT live of the labor of other working people or other people's wealth.

 

Why is it we with so little should have to give up our meager incomes to support these people? Why don't those with billions of dollars to their names, those who can afford to produce and sell "flamethrowers" at a whim, purely for fun, give up some money to support those able-bodied people in need?

Why do you act like everyone has a choice about whether they can work, regardless of their circumstances? You think people living in a poor area can just go out and get work, and earn enough through that work to have all their needs met? If that's the case, why did Trump win the Rust Belt? Seems those able-bodied people felt that their situation wasn't conducive to their earning a living, either.

 

And where does the money come from when this grant runs dry? There seems to be plenty of liberals who support a universal income, but would they be willing to support it with their own money?

This is not specifically aimed at you, but liberals want refugees but don't take them into their homes, same with illegals, so they're someone else's problem. Liberals want to end global warming but tell everyone else to walk to work while they still drive their car. Liberals support tons of government programs but itemize their tax returns trying to get back the largest amount possible.

As we saw during the last election, there are 63,000,000 democrats out there, some of them hideously rich, who could pony up their own money for all the programs liberals support and not impact the people who don't support them. Now I'm sure people are going to say that they don't support the military so why should they pay tax money to them? The answer is the military, along with police, teachers, firemen, etc all directly support our communities and country equally.

I strongly suspect that many liberals are content with just being for all these special programs without actually doing anything to financially support them.

 

I'm curious,, why do you think it's being funded by a private group? I've known others in other states who excess money on pell grants.

 

Why should they? They already do a lot for those who cannot work.

Trump won the rust belt because those able bodied people who voted for him do NOT want to live of government transfer payments.

 

Read the OP.

 

I thought you were replying about the pell grants for education, whoops

 

Hell, even the French (of all people) had it right at one time.

This short article is from the Afro-American newspaper (St. Louis area or Baltimore, I forget which) on 1/4/1902...

 

Imagine that... When I went to the local community college here in '98 and '99, one of the chicks that hung out in our little group received a pell grant and took us all out to an expensive dinner and then blew the rest on stuff she didn't need. She told us that as long as she passes, she wouldn't have to pay it back.

 

How did they do it before we started babysitting them? Plus if we're babysitting, we should have a say in what the money is spent on.

 

Liberals have financially supported Republican projects for decades through their taxes - and vice-versa. It's not as though this is a one way street.

 

What's wrong with you, dude?

 

Able bodied? What about able minded? I'd prefer all of my tax dollars go to supporting Americans in need, in lieu of funding foreign militaries or foreign military ventures.

Cut the military funding to be strictly DEFENSE spending, for example.

 

Who's babysitting anyone?

I already posited why we need a universal income, and instead of trying to counter my points all I've seen is repeat questions about how much aid, not why we should or should not give aid in the first place.

You voted for Trump. How can you promote "America first" if you are willing to let americans die of starvation, while funding military ventures in the ME?

 

But it will be the middle class who pays for this.

So basically theft via wealth redistribution.

Or another way to look at it: partial slavery.

But I want to see how this program plays out.

I want to see if the criminals stop being criminals.

I want to see if people will spend time giving back, beautifying their neighborhoods, enriching their communities.

I want to see if illegals get free money.

And I want to see how long it takes before the recipients demand more.

 

No one is dying of starvation. They might if you take away the food stamps and start giving them cash instead. Between food stamps, WIC, commodities, and local charities, no one is starving.

 

This has nothing to do with our national security spending do keep on topic and address the TOPIC.

How much of your money are you willing to give up TO SUPPORT OTHER ABLE BODIED PEOPLE to live off it instead of working?