# Green New Deal: "Economic security for those unwilling to work"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [February 8, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189 "2019-02-08T17:53:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/61 "2019-02-09T01:09:20Z")
The quote:
> [@](#):
>
> Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
> A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
> High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
> Clean air and water and access to nature
> Healthy food
> High-quality health care
> Safe, affordable, adequate housing
> Economic environment free of monopolies
> Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part:[“Economic security for those unwilling to work.”](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html)
>
> There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are \*\*unwilling \*\*to work, this opens up a huge can of worms.
I agree with this criticism. There are quite a few people apparently living with family and **not** working (and not paying rent). Some of them are unpaid caregivers, some are mentally or physically ill, but others are just leeches. They wouldn’t qualify for welfare, but they are still tolerated.
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> This appears to be a manufactured outrage by the right wing, as the words “unwilling to work” do not appear in the legislation, but only in her press release
Why would she put that in her press release? That’s the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.
---
### Author:  [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/62 "2019-02-09T03:35:15Z")
> [@Kimera757](#):
>
> Why would she put that in her press release? That’s the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.
Maybe it was not an accident? You may not be entirely in touch with the popularity of such a proposal. One potential cite: [https://www.thenation.com/article/universal-basic-income-become-political-reality/](https://www.thenation.com/article/universal-basic-income-become-political-reality/)
You may notice the overwhelming support from African American voters and fair support from working-class whites.
A progressive and populist agenda may be exactly the thing Democrats are looking for in 2020. It will give college-educated whites and fiscal conservatives the willies (myself included in many cases), but it’s possible Trump has burned his bridges with suburban college-educated whites to the point that this kind of platform can win nation-wide.
I could see this being a sort of trial-balloon by including it in the press release. Something that can easily be walked back or refuted by Harris, Booker, Warren et al (who have signed up for the GND resolution) but if it catches on could be picked up as well.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/63 "2019-02-09T03:58:05Z")
Here is a data point, so to speak:
**Housing the homeless is cheaper than not doing so**
Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/64 "2019-02-09T04:23:55Z")
> [@Chingon](#):
>
> Oddly enough I was also raised in a similar neighborhood, and both of you are wrong.
Don’t think so. How can I be wrong about my own anecdote? You mean to tell me that in a terribly depressed neighborhood people weren’t wasting time getting drunk and high and were actually unrealized Mozart’s and Tchaikovsky’s that just needed a grant? That girls weren’t having 2 or 3 children by the age of 18? What slum did you live in? Sounds like a nice place.
Now nowhere in my post did I say everyone who was poor was unwilling to work. But to think that that attitude is rare in those environments is naive or myopic.
---
### Author:  [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/65 "2019-02-09T04:28:30Z")
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
Clearly you are not a conservative.
---
### Author:  [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/66 "2019-02-09T04:46:23Z")
Work is highly overrated.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/67 "2019-02-09T05:03:36Z")
Preach!
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/68 "2019-02-09T07:59:52Z")
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Here is a data point, so to speak:
>
> **Housing the homeless is cheaper than not doing so**
>
> Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
That link does not work, here is one that goes to the point:
> **[Giving housing to the homeless is cheaper than leaving them on the streets](https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheaper-to-give-housing-to-the-homeless-than-to-keep)**
>
> Addressing housing directly is cheaper than relying on cops and emergency rooms.
> [@](#):
>
> Giving housing to the homeless is three times cheaper than leaving them on the streets
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/69 "2019-02-09T08:08:06Z")
Here is another data point:
> **[The remarkable thing that happens to poor kids when you give their parents a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/08/the-remarkable-ways-a-little-money-can-change-a-childs-personality-for-life/?utm_term=.aeab6e775208)**
>
> Incredibly, the change is the most pronounced in the children who need it the most.
> [@](#):
>
> The remarkable thing that happens to poor kids when you give their parents a little money
>
> Twenty years ago, a group of researchers began tracking the personalities of 1,420 low income children in North Carolina. At the time, the goal was simple: to observe the mental conditions of kids living in rural America. But then a serendipitous thing happened.
>
> Four years into The Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth, the families of roughly a quarter of the children saw a dramatic and unexpected increase in annual income. They were members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and a casino had just been built on the reservation. From that point on every tribal citizen earned a share of the profits, meaning about an extra $4,000 a year per capita.
> [@](#):
>
> As part of the original study, the children and parents were asked a series of questions, designed to measure, among other things, a number of personality traits. The same questions were posed every other year, for a decade. Akee’s goal was to observe any changes—positive or negative—resulting from the extra household income. Their findings, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research last month, are nothing short of remarkable.
>
> "This was hugely important to the development of the children, to their wellbeing” said Akee. “And the effect wasn’t small either—it was actually fairly large.”
> [@](#):
>
> They know, based on the interviews with parents, that the relationship between spouses tended to improve as a result. They also know that the relationship between the parents and their children tended to improve. And they know that parents tended to drink less alcohol.
>
> “There is a lot of literature that shows in order to change outcomes among children you are best off treating the parents first,” said Simeonova. “And these are really clear changes in the parents.”
>
> There’s also the question of stress, which the extra money helps relieve—even if only a little. While the added income wasn’t enough to allow parents to quit their jobs, it’s a base level that helped with rent and food and other basic expenses. That, Akee said, is powerful enough itself.
>
> “We know that the thing poor couples fight about the most is money,” he said. “Off the bat, this means a more harmonious family environment.”
>
> And some of the families, given the boost, even moved to areas with slightly better census tracts in terms of both income and education. They were, in other words, able to expose their children to a different group of peers.
---
### Author:  [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/70 "2019-02-09T08:51:49Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> I grew up in a family of blue collar laborers. I was the only kid in my whole extended family to go to college. To people like that, work isn’t ‘empowering’, it’s what you have to do to survive. It’s hard, dirty work that is no fun at all. But it’s necessary work, and it’s honorable. Those people have no dreams of being writers or artists - they have dreams of having a boat and fishing instead of working, or just being able to watch TV and drink a few beers.
It would make sense for people who did hard, dirty work not to be motivated to do it.
A couple questions.
How did you (or someone like you if you don’t want to share personal information) take a different path than the people who no longer have dreams? That might give lessons on how others could do it.
What would be wrong with those people fishing on a boat or watching TV and drinking beers all day? (You may have partially answered in the next post I’m quoting. Is that the total answer?) I’m not saying they should. I’m just wondering about the downside if they did.
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> The utility curve of money means that if you gave people a UBI, they would demand to be paid even more for the same work. $30K per year when you’re making zero looks a lot different than an additional $30K when you’re already getting a $25K UBI. If I absolutely need a job, and I can get one at Tim Horton’s for $25K per year and nothing else, well, I’ll take that job. But if I’m already getting $25K without working at all, doubling it to 50K at the expense of having to work every day is going to look a lot different.
>
> And if you are going to means-test the UBI in any way, rather than sending a check every month to Jeff Bezos, there will come a point where the marginal taxation of income in your new job makes it even less appealing. If every dollar I earn over, say, $100K gets clawed back out of my UBI 1:1, guess what? I’ll never make more than $100K. And if you only claw it back at 50%, that’s essentially a 50% marginal tax on income over $100K, on top of whatever other income taxes I might have to pay.
OK, how is this a negative to society?
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Then you have the problem that at first, a lot of people might be seduced by the money to just lay around. Then later they might get restless and want to work, but they’ll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they’ll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
Would a jobs guarantee program, along with free job training or free education help to solve that problem?
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Now ask yourself what would have happened if someone had said to them, “We feel your pain. It’s impossible for you to survive without our help, so here is an income for life.” What would have happened is that we would STILL have masses of people living on defunct farms, essentially on welfare, but convinced that their lives were hopeless. It would be a cruel thing to do to them in the long run.
>
> We don’t have to guess about this, because we’ve seen it played out over and over again in the inner cities, on native reservations, and anywhere else where people have been incentivized with free money to drop out of society and live off the public purse.
I’m still learning about UBI, so I’ve only seen people talk about a few studies. But one guy I saw talked about how giving money to everyone made UBI better than other systems of distribution even if that meant giving money back to millionaires and billionaires because if it was equal to everyone then the people at the bottom still had their dignity, which is one of the big problems of handout programs, which leave people stigmatized. UBI was seen as just pushing the level of subsistence up a notch.
Might that solve at least some of the problems in your examples?
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/71 "2019-02-09T16:29:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> That link does not work, here is one that goes to the point:
>
> [Giving homes to the homeless is cheaper than leaving them on the streets - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheaper-to-give-housing-to-the-homeless-than-to-keep)
Dammit, I have to pay attention to what I am doing. [this was what I meant to link to](https://phys.org/news/2017-03-housing-homeless-cheaper-society.html). I have heard that Vox has a LW bias, not sure about phys•org.
---
### Author:  [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/72 "2019-02-09T17:50:20Z")
Finland ran a two-year UBI experiment and the preliminary results of the first year are in.
[Vox link](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/9/18217566/finland-basic-income)
[BBC link](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549)
The people in the experiment did not find more paid employment than the control group but neither did they find less. The former was a disappointment to some but the latter indicates that UBI does not make people lazy, either. Plus this only looked at official, government-reported paid work. It did not consider whether the people took more care of relatives, stayed with their children, helped their neighbours, volunteered, cooked and cleaned their homes better…
The other reported preliminary result was that the people in the experiment felt happier and healthier. I think the percentage difference was rather small. But surely a good and important (if obvious) outcome, too.
I think the survey didn’t ask whether the participants sat on their sofas watching TV more. Would have been interesting if they had asked.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/73 "2019-02-09T18:14:42Z")
A couple of RW sites are saying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has removed the faq from her official HoR website – but they are just showing a hastily assemble image of a 404, with no link to the missing page.
---
### Author:  [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/74 "2019-02-09T18:27:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> …they’ll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they’ll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
Panhandlers with lotsa bling. 😕
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/75 "2019-02-09T19:06:50Z")
Hmm, if society offers full economic security, why would there be panhandlers?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/76 "2019-02-09T19:33:02Z")
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Dammit, I have to pay attention to what I am doing. [this was what I meant to link to](https://phys.org/news/2017-03-housing-homeless-cheaper-society.html). I have heard that Vox has a LW bias, not sure about phys•org.
Just more evidence that reality has a liberal bias. 🙂
More seriously, I know enough history to know that being closer to reality now is just a happy coincidence; eventually, some day, a political party other than the Democratic one will have more evidence to support most of their policies, it is just that right now the Republicans in power are running with the [idiot ball](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) and [the idiot in chief.](https://progressive.org/magazine/on-the-line-a-bright-redd-line/)
---
### Author:  [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/77 "2019-02-09T20:10:48Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part:[“Economic security for those unwilling to work.”](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html)
> There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are \*\*unwilling \*\*to work, this opens up a huge can of worms. Many workers in America - perhaps even the majority - do not enjoy their jobs and work their jobs only because they have to make financial ends meet. If we provide enough financial assistance that Americans who don’t want to work, don’t have to work another day in their lives, then many millions of people (especially, those who work in minimum-wage industries, such as janitors, fast food, cashiers etc) would retire on the spot. That would be catastrophic for the economy.
>
> Perhaps one could argue that this is just another word for Universal Basic Income. But UBI would also be problematic if it is so generous that many people simply quit working altogether and leave a gaping hole in the workforce. (Unless Ocasio-Cortez is proposing massive automation that would let tens of millions of workers not have to work, but I don’t think she is suggesting that at all.)
Oh my gosh, it might mean that employers would have to start paying people a living wage to retain their staff! That would be tragic!
So, I’m a career retail worker. I do it because I mostly enjoy what I do, I’m good at it and feel like I make an impact on the quality of my customers’ experiences, and I find it’s less stressful and more rewarding on a personal level. When our company did a wage adjustment to account for the fast-paced rise of cost-of-living vs. income, my wage went up slightly, but my hours went down significantly. This means I actually make less now after the raise than I did before. Still I’m told that if I want more hours, I have to keep my availability open. For those who try to juggle a second job with the same expectations, it’s balancing act that often fails in some critical way. I haven’t found a way to make it work yet.
We have no appreciable savings that doesn’t routinely get tapped to cover bills or minor unexpected expenses. I get by but I can’t afford a car, because when it broke down I couldn’t afford to fix it or replace it. I have bikes to get around. I take cheap vacations backpacking in nearby forests. Though I’m insured, my credit is crap because medical care is costly after insurance pays. I have no consumer debt, all medical and I’m relatively healthy when we don’t have to rely on food assistance. Because I’m not dirt poor, I still pay taxes, but I don’t own a home and rent and utilities is near 65-70% of our income. We don’t live in a hovel, but it’s a meager space. Either one of us losing our job would be catastrophic. I went back to college (community) for awhile but did not complete because the financial stress on our household of a reduced income was too much to handle. I’m dumping as much as I can manage into my 401(k) because I’m scared about what my aged future looks like.
I have strong work ethic. I strive to make do my job as professionally and effectively as I can because I take pride in my efforts. But yeah, if I could earn the same amount of money I’m making now and spend my time on other pursuits like my volunteer work on trails or my efforts to advocate for safer bicycling infrastructure and improving livability in my community or going back to school to expand my knowledge and skills, I would leave my job in a heartbeat. But if they offered me more money to stay, so that my quality of life improved and I could afford to establish a nest egg for my future or maybe visit another country, that would probably be enough incentive to stay because again, I actually like my job. But just because I don’t have a college degree and I’m not in a “professional” job, I’m not working out of the kindness of my heart. I don’t owe my employer anymore loyalty than they owe me. The reality of life is that I have bills to pay that I can’t avoid without being a homeless vagabond. I should at least be able to reap some reward for my hard work and dedication to doing a job well.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/78 "2019-02-09T20:26:40Z")
> [@running\_coach](#):
>
> Why the quote marks? I didn’t say that. They’re not paid what they’re worth.
Few are. But that does not mean that they are not paid what they are worth based on what they are able to produce for their company
> [@](#):
>
> I’ll bet you wouldn’t be too thrilled to clean the office bathroom yourself or wash your own dishes at a restaurant.
As a business owner, I find myself cleaning the bathroom nearly every night, and I’ve moved out of food service, but I did quite a number of dishes in my time.
> [@](#):
>
> What the employer is willing to pay does not determine the employee’s worth only the power the employer has over the employees.
What an employer is willing to pay is also related to what a customer is willing to pay for the product or service produced.
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.
>
> I grew up in a welfare neighborhood, and I never saw anyone on welfare following their dreams to be an artist. I DID see a lot of people sitting around on sofas smoking, drinking, and watching TV.
That’s because you were there, with them, sitting around on sofas, smoking, drinking, and watching TV. You were not there with the other people who were not doing these things.
This is called sampling bias.
> [@](#):
>
> The idea that we will become a nation of artists and thinkers is ridiculous.
I don’t see why. I know a number of people who are writing books or short stories or poems or screenplays who do not have the time to devote to doing them well, as they spend 40-60 hours a week in a poor paying job that completely drains them of energy, both physically and mentally.
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Then again, if employers can not convince anyone to do a particular job for what the employers consider a “fair” wage the employers just might have to raise wages sufficiently to attract workers willing to do that job.
Which means raising prices.
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> The utility curve of money means that if you gave people a UBI, they would demand to be paid even more for the same work. $30K per year when you’re making zero looks a lot different than an additional $30K when you’re already getting a $25K UBI. If I absolutely need a job, and I can get one at Tim Horton’s for $25K per year and nothing else, well, I’ll take that job. But if I’m already getting $25K without working at all, doubling it to 50K at the expense of having to work every day is going to look a lot different.
So, what you are saying is that with a UBI, an employee and an employer are coming together in the labor market as equals, rather than the employer having the majority of the negotiating power? That’s not a bad thing, IMHO.
> [@](#):
>
> And if you are going to means-test the UBI in any way, rather than sending a check every month to Jeff Bezos, there will come a point where the marginal taxation of income in your new job makes it even less appealing. If every dollar I earn over, say, $100K gets clawed back out of my UBI 1:1, guess what? I’ll never make more than $100K. And if you only claw it back at 50%, that’s essentially a 50% marginal tax on income over $100K, on top of whatever other income taxes I might have to pay.
Right, but what you are saying is that if we implement it poorly, then it will be poorly implemented.
Even without UBI, I am against most of the cliffs that exist. I have employees complain about making “too much” money, as that will cause them to be disqualified from benefits, and the amount of money that I am paying them over that doesn’t make up for it.
I see no reason to have “claw backs” at all.
> [@](#):
>
> Then you have the problem that at first, a lot of people might be seduced by the money to just lay around. Then later they might get restless and want to work, but they’ll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they’ll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
The would only be unemployable if they lost skills. Your first complaint is that everyone will stop working, leaving the work force empty, then you complain that if people come back to work, then they will not be hireable because they have a gap in their resume.
If it comes to pass as you say, that the labor market is devastated by people laying about collecting UBI, then a gap in a resume will not prevent an employer from hiring a desperately needed employee.
A gap in a resume is a black mark to some employers now because it is not common. If it is common that people take a year or two off from time to time, then such a gap would not be remarkable.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/79 "2019-02-09T21:35:12Z")
So here’s something weird.
[https://twitter.com/JStein\_WaPo/status/1094238690782646272](https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1094238690782646272)
> [@](#):
>
> Incredibly strange dynamic rn. A zillion outlets have run w/ GND = mystery FAQ sheet, which includes things like $ for those “unwilling to work”
>
> But thats not in the plan the Senators signed off on. Now AOC is retweeting her adviser telling Fox the sheet is itself not theirs
And AOC responds:
> [@](#):
>
> There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there.
>
> Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text)
>
> Full text here: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text) When I talk about the GND, this is what I’m referring to - nothing else.
So… That’s interesting. It seems like this isn’t actually in the text of the bill (ctrl+f “work” and “economic security” both came up with nothing like what the articles describe).
I’d like to think the multiple news outlets who reported on this were going off of _something_, but this particular controversial proposal is not in the bill itself, and has been disavowed by AOC, so… definitely not something to actually be concerned about.
---
### Author:  [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/80 "2019-02-09T21:43:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> If you must know, my father left us when I was two, and spent his life mostly sitting on a barstool. He lived in a room in the Elk’s club. My mother worked her ass off, because that’s how she was raised. But we were one of very few families in the neighborhood who were not on welfare. Most of my friends had mothers on welfare, and they mostly sat around and smoked and talked with each other all day, if they weren’t parked in front of a TV watching their ‘stories’.
>
> And I knew plenty of young men who didn’t work, or who only worked sporadically when they absolutely needed the money, then would blow off work for partying. Those are the ones I really worry about, because it was hard to live that way so most eventually figured out that they needed a career of some sort and straightened out. If they had had a UBI, that might not have happened.
This is purely anecdotal evidence. Now, in my hometown, I did not see this. I saw that most people were raised to work their asses off too, including my mom, and my Dad, who literally never called in sick a day of his life. Also anecdotal evidence.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=5)