|
They're also a really great way to give money to your rich buddies.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:They're also a really great way to give money to your rich buddies. Tax credits are like Charter Schools. They are a favorite way to do that, but there is nothing intrinsically in their structure that requires it. The EITC is literally a $500 to $6,000 cash handout that you can only get if you make less than $14k a year or have kids. Lots of refundable tax credits are just ways to increase spending without making the numbers on the budget go up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's not a centrist fascination. Conservatives, Liberals, Leftists, Libertarians, and Centrists alike all love tax credits. i don't see leftists trotting them out as one of the only ways to solve problems like centrists do (chuck schumer's better deal with tax credits for retraining people for example). i guess it has more to do with cowardice then than anything else
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't see leftists trotting them out as one of the only ways to solve problems like centrists do (chuck schumer's better deal with tax credits for retraining people for example). i guess it has more to do with cowardice then than anything else Bernie had an entire thing about revolutionizing American R&D through tax credits, expanding the EITC to provide income to working families, and refundable credits for out of pocket medical expenses on certain hearing and dental procedures. Bernie also did it to keep the numbers on his budget down in his plans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Also - book reqs? You guys have a Clintonite flirting with socialism. Get me over the edge. Eagleton's Why Marx Was Right is very approachable. It also talks about Marxism in a specifically post-Great Recession context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you do this, what the heck happens to people who gently caress up with their finances? Many people have dependents, so they're not the only person who suffers for their financial mistakes (and that's assuming that you think anyone should go homeless or hungry due to financial mistakes in the first place, which is pretty hosed up IMO). I simply don't think this is something that would happen. You'd need protections in place against creditors being able to attach to the UBI, but if you have a guaranteed $2k (or whatever amount it came out to) coming in every single month, homelessness and starvation are essentially impossible absent severe mental illness or addiction and the like. And, in that case, there'd need to be some sort of system in place to help those people. Perhaps "replacing the welfare" state overstates it. I'd replace specific housing assistance, food assistance, and existing cash benefits (EITC, UI). There would still need to be public education, public healthcare, and social workers for the cases that need it. I think giving direct housing or food assistance really buys into GOP rhetoric about the causes of poverty. It's implicitly saying that the poor are not to be trusted with their money - or that they must be poor because of their own mistakes. The cause of poverty is lack of money. Give people money and they will buy what they need. It also allows for choice. What if I'm poor enough to need this money and I'm not picky about my food - I'm fine with rice and beans - but I want a lot of room to pursue my interest in woodworking or whatever. I'd spend more on housing and less on food, which would not be possible if I'm just given housing credits or food credits. Or the reverse - I'm a social butterfly with a passion for bodybuilding. I'm in my house basically to sleep and eat. I'd be fine renting a single room, and putting what I can towards the food that helps me grow. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Perhaps "replacing the welfare" state overstates it. I'd replace specific housing assistance, housing assistance, and existing cash benefits (EITC, UI). ¿porque no los dos?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Also - book reqs? You guys have a Clintonite flirting with socialism. Get me over the edge. More narrow than the other suggestions, but I work in academia so my suggestions are two Christopher Newfield books: Unmaking the Public University: the 40 Year Assault on the Middle Class The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We can Fix Them They are, like I said, narrowly concerned with higher learning, but they are still good. The first is especially good for showing the link between the culture wars and economics. I've said it before in this very thread, it is no coincidence we stopped funding universities as soon as they started becoming less white. Edit: maybe that was in the Trump thread. Who knows. alpha_destroy fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:¿porque no los dos? Every dollar you give in some type of specific assistance is less valuable than a dollar given in cash. Total benefit amount is most important, of course. Is 10k in cash and 10k in food/housing good? Of course, but not as good as 20k in cash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:While the free market system isn't "natural law" or anything of the sort... it does attempt to model an important aspect of human existence: namely that all value is subjective. It doesn't matter how much labor or materials went into an object, if I don't want it or don't need it, it is worth nothing. Conversely, something relatively cheap can be imbued with value not only through useless poo poo like social pressure, but also things like timeliness and relevance. An artists needs a paintbrush, not a boot, even if the materials and labor value for each is exactly the same. The artist's preference is what determines the value, not the inputs on creating the product. Out of curiosity, how do you explain the magnitude of equilibrium prices (when supply and demand are equal)? Would you seriously maintain that the artist's preference is determining the value of this equilibrium price, and not the inputs? Because I would say that the artist's preference is creating demand for paintbrushes, not value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
washington post washington posting https://t.co/EGMMFRqzIy?amp=1 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/912690502226587649
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
can't be said enough but, gently caress zuck
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
My issue with a UBI is both 1) its capability to be used to justify dismantling state social programs in pursuit of a free-market "here's some money, go choose the least terrible corporate solution", which is what Obamacare aimed for and why folks like Zuckerberg support it. And 2) it's a rather inefficient subsidization of capital decay. It doesn't solve the problem of "everything is too expensive, nobody is getting enough, there isn't a strong enough safety net", it just dishes out money for people to keep the gears of the economy artificially lurching. It just begs the question "why is the govt paying for a substandard service instead of nationalizing the service?". It feels like an attempt to marry awkward capitalist tendencies to socialism. On a smaller scale, it would be like if a government offered every citizen monthly vouchers for a privatized railway, rather than using/creating a public service. It's incredibly inefficient and at the whims of the companies. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:can't be said enough but, gently caress zuck Save a Duck gently caress a Zuck 2020
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
The push for UBI from people like Zuckerberg reads to me as a bone to throw to the masses while capital removes all of the remaining guardrails we have left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Is there any reason Democrats shouldn't push Puerto Rico to become a state after what's been happening after Maria? I mean once they've got a few branches of government under their control. If they had an electoral vote or someone in congress that mattered I feel like they would actually get the resources they need but it seems as if nobody has been talking about statehood to prevent things like this from being ignored.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
It would be an overall positive in the long term, but require immense short-term spending to stabilize them. Which is to say that neither party will push for statehood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Out of curiosity, how do you explain the magnitude of equilibrium prices (when supply and demand are equal)? Would you seriously maintain that the artist's preference is determining the value of this equilibrium price, and not the inputs? Because I would say that the artist's preference is creating demand for paintbrushes, not value. Yeah, this was an inaccurate/incomplete way of describing pricing mechanisms. Demand is part of the value calculation, not the entirety. At equilibrium, inputs probably determine the entirety of the value. Demand is still largely subjective, however. The problem for any system attempting to replace the free market is figuring out how to anticipate, respond to and meet subjective drivers of demand in the context of limited resources (because it isn't central planning!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Just a quick reminder that scarcity will always exist in a limited-resource universe (the one in which we live). In fact, even in a high-technology society, you will still see scarcity and resultant demand for the most complicated and sophisticated products. Yes, we shouldn't be seeing scarcity for things like food and water anymore, but you will always have limits on highly-trained human resources, complicated medical procedures and highly-advanced technical products to name a few.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:My issue with a UBI is both 1) its capability to be used to justify dismantling state social programs in pursuit of a free-market "here's some money, go choose the least terrible corporate solution", which is what Obamacare aimed for and why folks like Zuckerberg support it. And 2) it's a rather inefficient subsidization of capital decay. It doesn't solve the problem of "everything is too expensive, nobody is getting enough, there isn't a strong enough safety net", it just dishes out money for people to keep the gears of the economy artificially lurching. It just begs the question "why is the govt paying for a substandard service instead of nationalizing the service?". It feels like an attempt to marry awkward capitalist tendencies to socialism. It sounds like your problem is a problem with the very concept of money. So, let's just stick with food and housing for the discussion for now. I think we probably both agree that these are necessities for life, and should be granted to everyone on earth as a matter of right. Would you actually prefer the government give out housing and food directly? My problem there is that it provides no options for people to decide which foods or types of housing they like best, and then nothing left over after that to do anything else. Or, say, food allergies. If the government is giving out bread but you've got celiac, you're kinda hosed. As I've said a number of times, ultimately the benefit level is what's important. A skimpy cash benefit is less good than a generous housing/food benefit. Would you rather have the food and housing given directly, or would you rather have a cash equivalent of the same benefit to make your own choices about where it goes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:My problem there is that it provides no options for people to decide which foods or types of housing they like best people who need a house typically aren't too hung up on whether it's a cape cod or ranch
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Is there any reason Democrats shouldn't push Puerto Rico to become a state after what's been happening after Maria? I mean once they've got a few branches of government under their control. If they had an electoral vote or someone in congress that mattered I feel like they would actually get the resources they need but it seems as if nobody has been talking about statehood to prevent things like this from being ignored. PR should be a state, even if it means a lot of cash invested up front.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:people who need a house typically aren't too hung up on whether it's a cape cod or ranch edit: I think we should built a lot of state owned housing, like enough to turn privately owned housing into a luxury, and have a UBI ideally high enough to afford state housing. twodot fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:https://twitter.com/PaulGottinger/status/912524947393826816 lmao hope they enjoy my loving shitposting
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's the town hall for those who missed it and want to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOEujpoBNrk I love that the number one recommended video for me after this is Nick Kroll and John Mullaney doing the "Oh, Hello!" bit. e: Listening to it now at work; best part of it so far is Sanders, saying about Graham and Cassidy, "We're gonna have a good debate, we like each other. Nah, we really do." e2: holy poo poo Sanders is on fire. Anybody who's skeptical about him needs to watch this. Klobuchar's doing well, too - I wish she'd get on the right side of history vis-a-vis Medicare for All, though. Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is absolutely not true. For any given medical procedure, there's a finite number of people who need them and a finite number of procedures a society is capable of performing a year. Whether or not society is capable of performing more procedures than people who need it is entirely a question of resource allocation. Your resources (whether in terms of humans trained to perform the operation, processed nuclear material required to run diagnostics of that particular type, etc) are in fact limited by the decisions you've made up to that point and the upper bounds on the kinds of resources you have available. Every resource allocation in a system of limited resources is an exchange. By moving resources from say construction to medical training, or from manufacturing of one good to another, you are making an exchange by lowering the output of one kind of item in favor of another. You still have limited resources, you've just restructured them in a different way. The ultimate question is "what is the best mechanism by which to allocate limited resources in society". It's clearly not the free market, but it's also not a command economy. twodot posted:You can argue that structuring resource allocation such that complicated medical procedures are scarce is a good way to structure society, but it's not in any way fundamental to the nature of complicated medical procedures or technical products. This is not the argument I am making. The argument isn't "we should make complicated things scarce", it's that scarcity is inherent the higher up the relative chain of complexity that you go. Making a polished rock spearhead is easy and easily scalable with modern technology. Making spaceships is not (yet). Anything that requires more training, more time, more rare materials, more intellectual effort, is by nature going to require greater resource allocation (and therefore probable scarcity). Not all resources equal other resources. Having lots of CO2 isn't the same things as having lots of lithium. Skilled construction workers aren't skilled doctors (and retraining requires decades). Taking resources from one location and transferring them to another simply creates scarcity somewhere else (although certainly resources can be used to decrease certain types of scarcity in the system as a whole...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:people who need a house typically aren't too hung up on whether it's a cape cod or ranch They might care about how many bedrooms, or location, etc. And, you know, it's not just for the homeless. It's also for people who are struggling. Some people have homes that they have chosen and like very much, but they are one disaster away from losing. Imagine you've got a place you like and your job gets offshored or whatever. Would it be better to have to move to some sort of government housing? Or would it be better to have cash to pay your rent/mortgage so you can stay put? Would you rather have housing provided or equivalent cash, and why? Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:It sounds like your problem is a problem with the very concept of money. So, let's just stick with food and housing for the discussion for now. I think we probably both agree that these are necessities for life, and should be granted to everyone on earth as a matter of right. Would you actually prefer the government give out housing and food directly? My problem there is that it provides no options for people to decide which foods or types of housing they like best, and then nothing left over after that to do anything else. Or, say, food allergies. If the government is giving out bread but you've got celiac, you're kinda hosed. As I've said a number of times, ultimately the benefit level is what's important. A skimpy cash benefit is less good than a generous housing/food benefit. Would you rather have the food and housing given directly, or would you rather have a cash equivalent of the same benefit to make your own choices about where it goes? I do think housing should be a right granted to every citizen, as well as food. UBI would be fine for food (so long as it didnt replace food stamps), but for housing we have a serious issue with how property values are rendering citizens homeless, forcing families out of their historic homes, encouraging teardowns of community-valued architecture, and racially segregating communities for decades. Even if it causes a crisisin the short term, something needs to be done to reform the system. I will take grievance with the suggestion that nationalized food would reduce variety; socialist projects don't need to emulate the soviet union or 50's food rationing, and it would still be possible to create competition via multiple overlapping branches dedicated to food service (with some sort of minor reward for being the most popular), as well as selling overstock to purchase other varieties (America is one of the biggest food providers in the world, after all).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:housing we have a serious issue with how property values are rendering citizens homeless, forcing families out of their historic homes, encouraging teardowns of community-valued architecture, and racially segregating communities for decades. Even if it causes a crisisin the short term, something needs to be done to reform the system. How would nationalized direct housing assistance address this in a way cash wouldn't? If there are structural issues with the way housing is valued and priced (zoning, car culture, etc.) those need to be addressed whether the benefit amount comes in the form of cash or in the form of direct housing assistance. Neurolimal posted:I will take grievance with the suggestion that nationalized food would reduce variety; socialist projects don't need to emulate the soviet union or 50's food rationing, and it would still be possible to create competition via multiple overlapping branches dedicated to food service (with some sort of minor reward for being the most popular), as well as selling overstock to purchase other varieties (America is one of the biggest food providers in the world, after all). Why would this system be preferable to just giving people sufficient cash? Neurolimal posted:UBI would be fine for food (so long as it didnt replace food stamps), This I really don't get. Would you rather than $1,000 or $500 and $500 worth of food stamps? Why is it important to give people assistance that is restricted in how they can use it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I'm being sarcastic because Socialism and Social Democracy sprung from the same wellspring that half of the member parties of socialist international are Social Democratic parties. Obviously the details are confusing, and it's changed over the centuries, but jesus, Lenin wrote a loving paper in 1905 on social democracy. It is leftism. Is it the same as socialism? No. But is it the same line of thought that cares about society, workers getting their fair share, and taking care of everyone equally? Of course it loving is don't be an rear end. But I wasn't an rear end, I literally said "I don't know if it falls under the umbrella of leftism." Also, if you define leftism as anything heading in the direction of fairness/equality, even mainstream liberals can apply, since they're also often in favor of some expansion of labor standards, social welfare, etc. The reason I wasn't sure is that it seems like a more useful distinction (if you're going to attempt to draw some line between groups of ideologies within what is considered "the left" in America in the first place) between what we have now and some hypothetical better system is that it would fundamentally change the power relationships in our society (like democratic workplaces, for example). Improving social welfare programs is good because it helps people, but it doesn't do much to actually change who in our society has wealth/power. Even wealth taxes would just close the gap between the top and bottom without actually fundamentally changing who is at the top and bottom. (Obviously improved social welfare would also probably result in improved social mobility, which would in turn result in more people going from "rags to riches," but generally speaking mostly the same people would have wealth/power regardless.) I mean, obviously I'm strongly in favor of stuff moving in the general direction of a social democracy, since it's a vast improvement over the status quo that would help many people. But there is an important distinction between that and something that actually fundamentally changes the power people have relative to one another in society, and it could easily be argued that things will always slip back in a right-wing direction in the long run as long as the power is still primarily held by those who own/control the most capital. Killer-of-Lawyers posted:As a Social Democrat Oh, this probably explains why you got kinda irritable at the suggestion that social democracy wasn't "leftist." Either way, I'm fine with using the term to include social democrats, since I think most people who call themselves leftists are just social democrats anyways (even many who call themselves "socialists" probably confuse "socialist" with "expansion of government social programs."
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? They think it appeals to the "middle class" and dodges many right-wing criticisms. It allows them to present their ideas as tax reductions rather than government spending, it allows them to present their ideas as slight tweaks to existing payments rather than all-new programs with all-new bureaucracies, its not as clearly tied to the budget as spending is, and the upper classes they're trying to appeal to don't care about most of the drawbacks of tax credits. I'm sure it would probably be a brilliant strategic move if not for the fact that few people actually care about any of that stuff, as well as the fact that they use the tax credit framing for basically everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:How would nationalized direct housing assistance address this in a way cash wouldn't? If there are structural issues with the way housing is valued and priced (zoning, car culture, etc.) those need to be addressed whether the benefit amount comes in the form of cash or in the form of direct housing assistance. It's not about cash being unable to handle the issue, it's about how that system provides the leadt value for the government and citizen, and the most value for the class least likely to actually use the new wealth. A nationalized housing assistance program would provide the most long-term value for the government and the citizen. quote:Why would this system be preferable to just giving people sufficient cash? See above, and take notice that this wouldn't be replacing the current food economy. quote:This I really don't get. Would you rather than $1,000 or $500 and $500 worth of food stamps? Why is it important to give people assistance that is restricted in how they can use it? Because food stamps are more resillient to price hikes, and poor people are more than willing to starve if they have to in order to afford other necessities (speaking as someone who grew up very poor). Food stamps reduce that incentive to starve (provided you crack down on trading food stamps). "Just give them a ubi instead of programs" is a terrible idea when accountibg for multiple costs all capable of dramatically increasing at any time. Especially considering we cant even convince politicians to keep wages in line with inflation, let alone a UBI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I think giving direct housing or food assistance really buys into GOP rhetoric about the causes of poverty. It's implicitly saying that the poor are not to be trusted with their money - or that they must be poor because of their own mistakes. The cause of poverty is lack of money. Give people money and they will buy what they need. It also allows for choice. What if I'm poor enough to need this money and I'm not picky about my food - I'm fine with rice and beans - but I want a lot of room to pursue my interest in woodworking or whatever. I'd spend more on housing and less on food, which would not be possible if I'm just given housing credits or food credits. Or the reverse - I'm a social butterfly with a passion for bodybuilding. I'm in my house basically to sleep and eat. I'd be fine renting a single room, and putting what I can towards the food that helps me grow. It's not so much about expecting people to make financial mistakes as it is protecting the tiny minority who do get themselves into trouble. I feel like an ideal situation would be one where core needs were directly supplied (like housing or healthcare) and people receive a stipend for food + disposable spending. The key thing is to just ensure that everyone keeps fed and a roof over his/her head regardless of any mistakes they make, and people can gently caress up their finances without being mentally ill. edit: Also, it's not so much that the poor will make more mistakes than more well-off people, but that the mistakes they do make take a greater toll. If a person making six figures fucks up and overspends, it's usually not a problem (unless they did someting completely insane). Hellblazer187 posted:They might care about how many bedrooms, or location, etc. And, you know, it's not just for the homeless. It's also for people who are struggling. Some people have homes that they have chosen and like very much, but they are one disaster away from losing. Imagine you've got a place you like and your job gets offshored or whatever. Would it be better to have to move to some sort of government housing? Or would it be better to have cash to pay your rent/mortgage so you can stay put? I think you're making the mistake of looking at things in terms of "how would I feel personally" or what would be ideal for a specific individual instead of properly accounting for the potential downsides. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Would you rather have housing provided or equivalent cash, and why? i'd rather housing be completely divorced from the market or at the very least no longer viable as a form of capital
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's not about cash being unable to handle the issue, it's about how that system provides the leadt value for the government and citizen, and the most value for the class least likely to actually use the new wealth. A nationalized housing assistance program would provide the most long-term value for the government and the citizen. So, you're presupposing an insufficient benefit, which defeats any program. Why do people sell/trade food stamps now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
Those other necessities must be pretty important too if people are willing to starve for them! Restricting what benefits can be spent on doesn't actually address the fact that people can't afford necessities, it just shifts what they're unable to afford.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:i'd rather housing be completely divorced from the market or at the very least no longer viable as a form of capital OK, fair enough. Under this system who decides when housing gets repaired/replaced, and where new builds come in? This isn't snark - I don't think "the market" has done a terrifically efficient job of figuring this one out either. Until such time as housing is completely divorced from the market, ei, given the system we have in place now, pre-revolution, would you rather have the cash assistance or the direct housing assistance and why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So, you're presupposing an insufficient benefit, which defeats any program. Because our food stamp program is pretty good and usually well funded, whereas government support in other fields is much less so. People selling food stamps usually aren't doing it to buy different food. It's not so much "this program is too inefficient to work" and more "rhis program is less efficient than this program, with the added downside of giving money to the class least likely to put it back into the system" It's about futureproofing so that our current situation is less likely to happen in the immediate future
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think you're making the mistake of looking at things in terms of "how would I feel personally" or what would be ideal for a specific individual instead of properly accounting for the potential downsides. And I think you're making the exact opposite mistake - instead of putting yourselves in the shoes of someone needing the benefit, it seems like you want to "deal with'" them. Giving them housing and food directly would deal with them, and be vastly better than the system we have in place. But I think the vast majority of people, me included, and presumably you included, would rather have 20k in cash than 20k equivalent in housing/food assistance that otherwise limits choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:56
|
|