Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

The problem with enforcing "live through the consequences" is the hungry babies.  They didn't do the squandering and it wasn't their fault they were born to idiot parents.

Exactly. Let babies starve, or there needs to be welfare of a different sort. Hence UBI without welfare doesn't work.

But any suggestion that people shouldn't breed babies they won't support gets screamed down as elitist and classist and even racist when it is noticed those babies correlate with brownness.

One major consequence of a welfare or UBI system to tackle persistent high unemployment is that lots of people are rendered redundant economically on a permanent basis. They don't contribute productively to the economy. Inevitably there's going to be suggestions about eugenics to get rid of the redundant underclass. (As an aside, how do Yang's principles apply in such a situation?)

Not at all enthused about such an outcome, I think there should be a different approach to the problem of persistent high unemployment.

[ipecac]

Until central america becomes a lot more stable there will always be people trying to enter the US on the mexican border. Central america (plus parts of south america) are in the US's sphere of influence, so if the US isn't trying to help them get rid of their corruption/gang/instability problem the immigrants will keep on coming.
If you don't want immigrants, help develop central/south america. As for the migrants that have arrived, the choice is between humiliating them or not humiliating them. The Obama administration chose the latter, the Trump administration the former.

They take a treacherous journey through Mexico and possibly other countries aided by gangs, a journey none too safe itself, because there's something waiting for them on the other side: access to welfare, jobs, and possibly citizenships. Remove these and the flow will magically drop.

[ipecac]

What do you mean by the US helping them get rid of their corruption/gang/instability problem' anyway? Invasion followed by change of government?

[T-hawk]

Okay, first off, I have never heard of any Costco that's open at midnight, nor of anyone ever blowing their food benefits on "Cheez-wiz", much less this being a symptom some sort of epidemic.  This entire anecdote is specious.

Bob, you're doing yourself and the argument a disservice by nitpicking around obviously metonymical points like that.  Maybe Costco specifically isn't open at midnight, but Walmart certainly is and sees exactly that rush from welfare recipients.  It doesn't have to be literally Cheez-wiz, it can be any food product poor in nutrition for its cost that people will and do buy over better choices.

One major consequence of a welfare or UBI system to tackle persistent high unemployment is that lots of people are rendered redundant economically on a permanent basis. They don't contribute productively to the economy. Inevitably there's going to be suggestions about eugenics to get rid of the redundant underclass. (As an aside, how do Yang's principles apply in such a situation?)

I would think Yang would go right ahead with the eugenics. As for the starving babies, I think Yang would put child rearing under state control, either with mandatory parental licenses or directly with Brave New World style nationalized children's creches.

[Bacchus]

They didn't do the squandering and it wasn't their fault they were born to idiot parents.

To be sure, but I would say that the community has not only the right, but even the obligation to take care of such children directly. If parents, having means to feed their children, elect to have those children starve -- the community has to save the children from such abuse. The last thing the community should do is shower additional material support on these parents.

I say community rather than state, because ideally, and normally, such children will be rescued from abuse by their other relatives or, if this fails, by other associations that family is a member of. In a modern anonymised world such an association might not be present, so the state could step in, but only as a last resort. Even there, the state would do much better to promote and empower community-building, than to send out social workers.

As such, I don't think this issue proves the necessity of other forms of welfare.

[Bobchillingworth]

Okay, first off, I have never heard of any Costco that's open at midnight, nor of anyone ever blowing their food benefits on "Cheez-wiz", much less this being a symptom some sort of epidemic.  This entire anecdote is specious.

Bob, you're doing yourself and the argument a disservice by nitpicking around obviously metonymical points like that.  Maybe Costco specifically isn't open at midnight, but Walmart certainly is and sees exactly that rush from welfare recipients.  It doesn't have to be literally Cheez-wiz, it can be any food product poor in nutrition for its cost that people will and do buy over better choices.

I understand that Commodore may not have meant to be taken literally; hence why I also called the above points "minor details". That said, I don't think it's too much to ask that an argument be based on more than an anecdote which in turn is predicated on fiction; repeating or inventing myths does everyone a disservice.

Additionally, I'm still uncertain as to how the above relates to his evident horror that people are using EBT benefits to purchase baby formula, regardless of the hour. Is the argument that people misspend their benefits on frivolous items, but then that they also use those same benefits to feed infants? Is Commodore's consternation that people will wait until their children are on the brink of starvation before purchasing formula when new funds are added to their accounts? This point, already lacking in clarity, should be grounded in fact, not lazy fantasy scenarios.

[T-hawk]

The midnight run isn't the problem, it's the symptom and the observational proof that illustrates how poorly people will plan.  The argument is that people spend their own money on frivolous items, leaving nothing but the state backstop to support the baby.  This is indistinguishable from lacking that money in the first place, unless we gate those benefits on a personal financial probe and audit.  We have the political will to force the state to enact that backstop (the horror of starving babies) but not to grant it the investigative power to stop abuses or the coercive power to nationalize child rearing.

Now that I worded it that way, the same contradiction occurs for health care. Squandering the money for self-care is indistinguishable from never having it. We have the horror-led will to force the state to provide a backstop but not to grant it the coercive power to set its price.  The latter is why nationalized health care works in other places.

[Bobchillingworth]

That sounds like an argument for government enforcement of a living wage, so that the state is not forced to subsidize insufficient incomes paid by private employers (or, at least, not to the present degree).

We already place significant, even onerous, restrictions on how EBT and other benefits can be spent, and have Child Protective Services to investigate cases of child abuse, which certainly includes not feeding one's children.

[Bacchus]

That sounds like an argument for government enforcement of a living wage, so that the state is not forced to subsidize insufficient incomes paid by private employers (or, at least, not to the present degree).

You can magic money out of thin air, but you can't do the same with goods. The people you will be subsidizing the most through any wage increases are the landlords.

Also, earners at below 'living wage' levels are mostly employed not in some fat-cat, high-margin businesses, but in small, local enterprises with minimal-to-zero profits. These are precisely the enterprises that provide goods and services to the very people you are attempting to benefit. Raise the wage, and labour largely goes to call centres, cleaning, security and other corporate behemoth non-jobs.

[Gavagai]

They didn't do the squandering and it wasn't their fault they were born to idiot parents.

To be sure, but I would say that the community has not only the right, but even the obligation to take care of such children directly. If parents, having means to feed their children, elect to have those children starve -- the community has to save the children from such abuse. The last thing the community should do is shower additional material support on these parents.

This. In fact, in an ideal world that would be the solution to this children crisis on the border: separate these children from their parents permanently and let Americans adopt them. Last time I checked, America had more people willing to adopt a child than orphans.