Thank you for the compliment.

(January 8, 2024 at 11:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: a flood of immigrants would not actually recieve ubi.  

That's ridiculously naive. Of course they would. It's not like they come to western countries because they like the culture. They come to do what they do best, which is "receive".

(April 1, 2024 at 2:59 am)requiredfield Wrote:

(January 8, 2024 at 11:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: a flood of immigrants would not actually recieve ubi.  

That's ridiculously naive. Of course they would. It's not like they come to western countries because they like the culture. They come to do what they do best, which is "receive".

The majority of immigrants to the US are from western countries, you dolt. And immigrants to the US actually receive (both in raw numbers and on a percentage basis) less aid than native-born Americans.

Did you inherit that racism from your parents, or did you come to it on your own?

Boru

(April 1, 2024 at 2:59 am)requiredfield Wrote:

(January 8, 2024 at 11:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: a flood of immigrants would not actually recieve ubi.  

That's ridiculously naive. Of course they would. It's not like they come to western countries because they like the culture. They come to do what they do best, which is "receive".

Why don't you post an introductory post so that we can learn a little about yourself?

(January 6, 2024 at 5:14 am)neil Wrote: I am for a form of a UBI if it's implemented in an economically feasible and valid way.

That's the problem. There's isn't one. If you give free money to degenerate, lazy fucks for sitting on their asses all day, that's just what they'll do. And self motivated people who are already likely to become successful anyway don't need it. 

UBI is attractive only to people who resent the successful and who are destined for failure not matter how much money you shove up their asses. It's a half baked pipe dream by people who don't think ahead. Not surprising. 

Just my 2 cents.

(April 1, 2024 at 6:59 am)requiredfield Wrote:

(January 6, 2024 at 5:14 am)neil Wrote: I am for a form of a UBI if it's implemented in an economically feasible and valid way.

That's the problem. There's isn't one. If you give free money to degenerate, lazy fucks for sitting on their asses all day, that's just what they'll do. And self motivated people who are already likely to become successful anyway don't need it. 

UBI is attractive only to people who resent the successful and who are destined for failure not matter how much money you shove up their asses. It's a half baked pipe dream by people who don't think ahead. Not surprising. 

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with you about lazy fucks and self-motivated people. 

There may be more types of people than that, though. I'd like to avoid a false dichotomy. 

There seem to be people who are doing their best, but are still having a hard time. 

I spent years of my life, when I could have been A LOT more productive financially, taking care of my elderly mom-in-law. I was fortunate in that I did have some income, and my wife had more, but not everybody can make money the way I did. I suppose I could have spent more time making money and then handed her care over to strangers, but I'm glad I didn't. 

In an ideal world I guess there would be charities or other generous people who could take care of people who are not lazy fucks but are still struggling. I think the idea behind UBI is that it is actually more efficient to create a general minimum for safety's sake.

Granted, limiting abuse of such a system would be tricky.

(April 1, 2024 at 7:23 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 1, 2024 at 6:59 am)requiredfield Wrote: That's the problem. There's isn't one. If you give free money to degenerate, lazy fucks for sitting on their asses all day, that's just what they'll do. And self motivated people who are already likely to become successful anyway don't need it. 

UBI is attractive only to people who resent the successful and who are destined for failure not matter how much money you shove up their asses. It's a half baked pipe dream by people who don't think ahead. Not surprising. 

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with you about lazy fucks and self-motivated people. 

There may be more types of people than that, though. I'd like to avoid a false dichotomy. 

There seem to be people who are doing their best, but are still having a hard time. 

I spent years of my life, when I could have been A LOT more productive financially, taking care of my elderly mom-in-law. I was fortunate in that I did have some income, and my wife had more, but not everybody can make money the way I did. I suppose I could have spent more time making money and then handed her care over to strangers, but I'm glad I didn't. 

In an ideal world I guess there would be charities or other generous people who could take care of people who are not lazy fucks but are still struggling. I think the idea behind UBI is that it is actually more efficient to create a general minimum for safety's sake.

Granted, limiting abuse of such a system would be tricky.

Well, the most generous people are usually "the" rich (aka : successful people), that lazy lefties love to criticize. I wonder how their worldview would work out in the stone age. 

By the way that's always a good way of gauging if lefties' utopian* pipe dreams are workable and realistic : would it work in the stone age, without the technology invented by and financially provided by successful people? 


* Fun fact : Utopia means "no place". Aka : in no place would it work.

(April 1, 2024 at 7:31 am)requiredfield Wrote:

(April 1, 2024 at 7:23 am)Belacqua Wrote: I agree with you about lazy fucks and self-motivated people. 

There may be more types of people than that, though. I'd like to avoid a false dichotomy. 

There seem to be people who are doing their best, but are still having a hard time. 

I spent years of my life, when I could have been A LOT more productive financially, taking care of my elderly mom-in-law. I was fortunate in that I did have some income, and my wife had more, but not everybody can make money the way I did. I suppose I could have spent more time making money and then handed her care over to strangers, but I'm glad I didn't. 

In an ideal world I guess there would be charities or other generous people who could take care of people who are not lazy fucks but are still struggling. I think the idea behind UBI is that it is actually more efficient to create a general minimum for safety's sake.

Granted, limiting abuse of such a system would be tricky.

Well, the most generous people are usually "the" rich (aka : successful people), that lazy lefties love to criticize. I wonder how their worldview would work out in the stone age. 

*citation required*

(April 1, 2024 at 7:31 am)requiredfield Wrote:

(April 1, 2024 at 7:23 am)Belacqua Wrote: I agree with you about lazy fucks and self-motivated people. 

There may be more types of people than that, though. I'd like to avoid a false dichotomy. 

There seem to be people who are doing their best, but are still having a hard time. 

I spent years of my life, when I could have been A LOT more productive financially, taking care of my elderly mom-in-law. I was fortunate in that I did have some income, and my wife had more, but not everybody can make money the way I did. I suppose I could have spent more time making money and then handed her care over to strangers, but I'm glad I didn't. 

In an ideal world I guess there would be charities or other generous people who could take care of people who are not lazy fucks but are still struggling. I think the idea behind UBI is that it is actually more efficient to create a general minimum for safety's sake.

Granted, limiting abuse of such a system would be tricky.

Well, the most generous people are usually "the" rich (aka : successful people), that lazy lefties love to criticize. I wonder how their worldview would work out in the stone age. 

By the way that's always a good way of gauging if lefties' utopian* pipe dreams are workable and realistic : would it work in the stone age, without the technology invented by and financially provided by successful people? 


* Fun fact : Utopia means "no place". Aka : in no place would it work.

Were there rich people in the Stone Age? Generally people say that agricultural surplus is necessary for things like social hierarchies, an aristocracy, things like that. So if we're talking hunter-gatherers, it makes sense that some could hunt and gather more than others, but what do we know about whether they shared with their family or not? Do weaker people get to eat, or is it good to just put them out to die? 

As for utopia, again, I want to avoid a false dichotomy. Fantasies about solving all the world's problems and keeping us giddy with joy all the time are not possible. But we might be able to create systems that improve things somewhat.