Bernie Sanders, Economically Indefensible.

[Big Jim P]

Determining usefulness is easy: does the person in question contribute to society or not?

"Contribute to society."

That's a very nebulous term. What exactly do "useful" people contribute? If it's labor, poor people (who are more than likely to be on welfare) do work.

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

[Big Jim P]

Now, can anyone tell me why someone deserves a minimum guaranteed income, or any other freebies, paid for by others?

[Wallenburg]

"Contribute to society."

That's a very nebulous term. What exactly do "useful" people contribute? If it's labor, poor people (who are more than likely to be on welfare) do work.

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

You are dangerously skirting towards calling the unemployed subhuman.

[Valrifell]

Now, can anyone tell me why someone deserves a minimum guaranteed income, or any other freebies, paid for by others?

Because if people have money to spend, they're gonna spend it.

[Big Jim P]

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

You are dangerously skirting towards calling the unemployed subhuman.

Employment is not the only way to contribute to society.

[Big Jim P]

Now, can anyone tell me why someone deserves a minimum guaranteed income, or any other freebies, paid for by others?

Because if people have money to spend, they're gonna spend it.

Especially if the money is taken form someone else and given to them as opposed to earned.

[Trotskylvania]

"Contribute to society."

That's a very nebulous term. What exactly do "useful" people contribute? If it's labor, poor people (who are more than likely to be on welfare) do work.

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

Awfully collectivist of you.

[Wallenburg]

You are dangerously skirting towards calling the unemployed subhuman.

Employment is not the only way to contribute to society.

You claim that

When a persons [sic] consumption outweighs there [sic] service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society.

How does one serve, produce, or create outside of a job?

---

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

Awfully collectivist of you.

I'm good with collectivism. I'm just not good with it when it shits on the people.

[Big Jim P]

People create, produce, serve and consume. When a persons consumption outweighs there service, production and/or creation, they are a net drain on society. Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

Awfully collectivist of you.

Collectivism up to a certain point is not a bad thing. Humanity has long since moved beyond that point.

[Liriena]

Now, can anyone tell me why someone deserves a minimum guaranteed income, or any other freebies, paid for by others?

I'm going to let a libertarian speak on my behalf.

[Grave_n_idle]

Most poor people have jobs. They aren't just "sitting around collecting welfare."

Then there is no need for a minimum guaranteed income.

That's only true in a world in which the most basic needs do not have to be paid for.

[Kelinfort]

Most poor people have jobs. They aren't just "sitting around collecting welfare."

Then there is no need for a minimum guaranteed income.

An NIT is far more efficient than welfare and would replace programs that increase bureaucracy. It also increases individual choice.

All the arguments against an NIT are rooted in a paternalism towards the poor and the notion it will increase dependency. It won't. Milton Friedman knew this when he first proposed the idea

[Wallenburg]

Most poor people have jobs. They aren't just "sitting around collecting welfare."

Then there is no need for a minimum guaranteed income.

Believe it or not, employers often pay their workers below subsistence levels.

[Big Jim P]

Then there is no need for a minimum guaranteed income.

That's only true in a world in which the most basic needs do not have to be paid for.

Not a problem if people did not out-breed their resources.

[Valrifell]

Because if people have money to spend, they're gonna spend it.

Especially if the money is taken form someone else and given to them as opposed to earned.

Wait what? Where the money comes from has nothing to do about where it'll go, as soon as it is in your hands, it's yours, where it comes from doesn't change that fact, silly.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that, think about it, if everybody on welfare stopped getting it, crime rates shoot up and people stop spending money into the economy as much, which isn't good.

Not to mention the revolutions... or that's just me being dramatic.

[Big Jim P]

Then there is no need for a minimum guaranteed income.

Believe it or not, employers often pay their workers below subsistence levels.

And what part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

[Terminus Alpha]

People create, produce, serve and consume.

Yes, and the working poor create produce and serve through working, like most others. Again, the working poor are more likely to be on welfare.

Calling them useless is actually kinder than they deserve.

Are you implying that "welfare cheats" are sub-human? Or the unemployed are subhuman?

[Wallenburg]

Believe it or not, employers often pay their workers below subsistence levels.

And what part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

That fraction which the state and federal governments invest from your income and other taxes in order to help people survive.

[Kelinfort]

Believe it or not, employers often pay their workers below subsistence levels.

And what part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

A significant portion, in fact whatever our representatives decide, goes to numerous programs that we may or may not support.

I would propose legislation to allow you a free one way ticket to the destination of your choosing if you really want to leave. Just renounce your citizenship and go.

[Big Jim P]

Especially if the money is taken form someone else and given to them as opposed to earned.

Wait what? Where the money comes from has nothing to do about where it'll go, as soon as it is in your hands, it's yours, where it comes from doesn't change that fact, silly.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that, think about it, if everybody on welfare stopped getting it, crime rates shoot up and people stop spending money into the economy as much, which isn't good.

Not to mention the revolutions... or that's just me being dramatic.

Where to money comes from most definitely has something to do with it. hell, it has everything to do with it. What part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

[Liriena]

That's only true in a world in which the most basic needs do not have to be paid for.

Not a problem if people did not out-breed their resources.

Except humanity has not really out-bred its resources. We are even producing excess food, much of which is wasted. At this point, it seems more like a problem with distribution, and a problem that makes a pretty darn good case to stop treating certain basic resources as commodities.

[Valrifell]

Wait what? Where the money comes from has nothing to do about where it'll go, as soon as it is in your hands, it's yours, where it comes from doesn't change that fact, silly.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that, think about it, if everybody on welfare stopped getting it, crime rates shoot up and people stop spending money into the economy as much, which isn't good.

Not to mention the revolutions... or that's just me being dramatic.

Where to money comes from most definitely has something to do with it. hell, it has everything to do with it. What part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

If I had to buy food for me to live, I'm not going to spend my welfare money on a new Ferrari, surprisingly.

[Wallenburg]

Wait what? Where the money comes from has nothing to do about where it'll go, as soon as it is in your hands, it's yours, where it comes from doesn't change that fact, silly.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that, think about it, if everybody on welfare stopped getting it, crime rates shoot up and people stop spending money into the economy as much, which isn't good.

Not to mention the revolutions... or that's just me being dramatic.

Where to money comes from most definitely has something to do with it. hell, it has everything to do with it. What part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

Stop repeating yourself.

[Big Jim P]

And what part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

A significant portion, in fact whatever our representatives decide, goes to numerous programs that we may or may not support.

I would propose legislation to allow you a free one way ticket to the destination of your choosing if you really want to leave. Just renounce your citizenship and go.

Numerous programs that the government has no business in supporting in the first place.

Why should I e the one leaving? I meet my social obligations. Those who don't should bee the ones leaving.

[Big Jim P]

Where to money comes from most definitely has something to do with it. hell, it has everything to do with it. What part of MY income does anyone else deserve?

Stop repeating yourself.

Address the statement.