Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,404
Originally Posted by andros View Post
"Bla bla bootstraps bla bla work ethic bla bla incentives bla bla blaty bla."

Same bullshit, different day.
It's especially impressive, coming from a fat orange shitgibbon who never earned a goddamn thing for himself.
Old Yesterday, 04:09 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,524
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
This kinda paternalistic nonsense is why I'm in favor of replacing federal welfare programs with a large expansion of EITC. (Call it universal income or negative income tax or whatever if you please.) The amount saved over administering these asinine and complex programs would make up for the expense of just letting poor people manage their own damn lives with a little bit of help.
This is the original conservative idea about 'welfare', conservatives in the mold of Milton Friedman who coined 'negative income tax'.

Many things nowadays are more about the culture war for its own sake than either the Democrats nor GOP really sticking to what used to be known as 'liberal' and 'conservative' positions. In this case an at least nominally GOP president. (Supposedly) economizing on benefits by a method like this is populist not conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be based on thinking things through in terms of humanity as it exists not as one would like it to be. So, you'd first think through whether this really would be more efficient (transport, weight, so perhaps having to set up distributional channel duplicating private sector's; food types that might further increase govt-funded medical costs, etc). You wouldn't do it at a greater cost in order to make aid recipients less well off. Although you wouldn't not do it just because, as a side effect, it makes aid recipients feel less than proud. The culture divide has reached the point of some left-populist emotionalism seemingly (to me) saying people should be outright proud to be dependent on the govt. And lots of unreasonable stuff now is defended by the more reasonable left/right by 'well the seeds of this were sown by the other side's excesses'.

Back to EITC/negative income tax (which is a little different than UBI which would be unconditional, well off people would get it too in pure form*). It's based on the idea, 'do what you want with it' and that's better if it's more efficient. But the efficiency would be from reducing bureaucracy administering other more complicated subsidy schemes. That's never happened. The political fact is a lot of people do care the details about what aid recipients do with aid, not limited to rightist populists (a significant element of the Democratic base is govt workers, who only naturally don't prioritize finding ways to do things with fewer govt workers).

*and completely support people so completely unaffordable, one of the most ridiculous ideas IMO to be taken at all seriously. Making the welfare state more about direct means tested transfer payments, and cutting more complicated and duplicative poverty programs accordingly, might be politically unlikely but is sounder fundamentally IMO.

Last edited by Corry El; Yesterday at 04:14 PM.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to:

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to:

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017