[SUBMITTED] The War on Welfare

[Jim the Baptist]

Hey guys, so a few weeks ago I posted a draft of an issue about Affirmative Action (AA) in the welfare system.
The issue was admittedly not very good and got a lot of negative feedback so I have changed it completely with a new write-up and options so I thought it also deserved its own new thread.
Again, as far as I am aware, there is no issue available which covers the same content as my proposed idea.
I have copy-pasted from my old thread the list of issues covering Affirmative Action (or something similar).

Issue:
- 29 (doesn’t enact AA policy change anymore but it’s about minorities on TV)
- 93 (about reduction of ethnic divisions in schools)
- 315 (about the entertainment industry)
- 464 (about nationalist symbols)
- 508 (about employment of ex-convicts)
- 775 (doesn’t enact AA policy but is about rights of minorities in parliament)
- 948 (about women in engineering, technology and science)
- 1258 (about freeing of the slaves)

Updated Issue

A recent inquiry by your Minister for Welfare into the demographics of @@NATION@@ has revealed certain ethnic minorities – in particular Bigtopians – have significantly lower workforce participation rates than the general population. People are now looking at you for answers on how to deal with this.

1. “These ethnic minorities have been excluded from the workforce too long, we need stronger backed welfare and employment programs in order to help them into jobs, especially Bigtopians.” @@RANDOMNAME@@ suggests, a long-term worker in your welfare program and part-time charity fundraiser. “It’s not just about finding them work but also helping them maintain it. We should give big businesses subsidies for meeting certain ethnic quotas plus offer incentives for Bigtopian people to start their own businesses. That’s the only way we are going to tackle this systemic issue.”
Adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Shops and restaurants are laden with signs saying “Bigtopian staff wanted”.

2. “Giving them a handout isn’t the answer!” famous corporate business mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@ exclaims. “Bigtopian immigrants are a burden on our social services, not to mention the least productive workers. I once caught one trying to eat his own shoe on the job! I say we build a wall and send them back to where they came from. They can come back when they aren’t going to drain taxes and exploit our already generous welfare system. Maybe.”
Removes policy: Affirmative action
Adds policy: No immigration?
Effect: Sewers and tunnels are frequently checked by police for Bigtopian infiltrators.

3. “The problem is accountability. A small increase to welfare funding for minorities or Bigtopians is okay, but let’s put all their money on a card so we can keep track of what they’re spending it on,” suggests your budget minister, meanwhile counting @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ while you’re not looking. “To compensate for the extra taxes, we can sell all the information about their spending behaviour and purchase patterns to big businesses for marketing purposes. People will lose a bit of privacy, but that’s the price we pay for a state-of-the-art welfare system.”
Sometimes adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: The government routinely interrogates welfare recipients regarding their purchase of a stick of gum.

4. “Won't somebody just be rational for once?!” interjects ultra centrist bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Bigtopians are not silly, they can handle their own money without it being put onto some card, nor do we need the bells and whistles of big employment programs. Let's compromise - moderately increase welfare funding for regions with large populations of Bigtopians. Sure, it’ll cost a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@, but what kind of society do we want to live in if we can’t even provide for our worst off? Anyway, more money going around also helps the economy right?”
Adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Fraudulent ancestry tests to claim benefits as a Bigtopian are rife in the welfare system.

5. “I think we’re forgetting the most important thing – the @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@!” a combative and stubborn welfare recipient retorts as he trots out of a welfare service centre (strangely next to a dam). “If Bigtopians can get more money, why can’t I get more? Poor people are poor no matter what colour they are. If we really want to be equitable here, it doesn’t make sense to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, and doing so is a form of reverse discrimination. Welfare should be fully assets and means-tested so it’s fair for everyone. Hasta la vista preservative fraction!”
Removes policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Welfare recipients are asked to show the contents of their coin purse as a result of rigorous means-testing requirements.

Requires capitalism and welfare validity check

Updated Issue

A recent inquiry by your Minister for Welfare into the demographics of @@NATION@@ has revealed certain ethnic minorities – in particular Bigtopians – have significantly lower workforce participation rates than the general population. People are now looking at you for answers on how to deal with this.

1. “These ethnic minorities have been excluded from the workforce too long, we need stronger backed welfare and employment programs in order to help them into jobs, especially Bigtopians.” @@RANDOMNAME@@ suggests, a long-term worker in your welfare program and part-time charity fundraiser. “It’s not just about finding them work but also helping them maintain it. We should give big businesses subsidies for meeting certain ethnic quotas plus offer incentives for Bigtopian people to start their own businesses. That’s the only way we are going to tackle this systemic issue.”
Adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Shops and restaurants are laden with signs saying “Bigtopian staff wanted”.

2. “Giving them a handout isn’t the answer!” Famous corporate business mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@ exclaims. “Bigtopian immigrants are a burden on our social services, not to mention the least productive workers. I once caught one trying to eat his own shoe on the job! I say we build a wall and send them back to where they came from. They can come back when they aren’t going to drain taxes and exploit our already generous welfare system. Maybe.”
Removes policy: Affirmative action
Adds policy: No immigration?
Effect: Sewers and tunnels are frequently checked by police for Bigtopian infiltrators.

3. “How does the saying go again? You can lead a Bigtopian to water but you can’t make it drink?” Interjects middle-aged, male townsman @@RANDOMNAME@@. “These primitive people are not clever and technologically advanced like us, they are more of a burden to businesses if they have to meet quotas, plus they don’t have the skills or interest in starting their own business anyway. Let’s just give everyone who is unemployed and at least 1/64th Bigtopian an extra 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ per fortnight and hope they shut up. Sure, it’ll cost, but more money going around also helps the economy right?”
Sometimes adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Fraudulent ancestry tests to claim benefits as a Bigtopian are rife in the welfare system.

4. “OK, settle down. I have the perfect plan.” Interjects your military leader. “Instead of just giving them free money, let’s brand it as a “loan”. It helps them out in the short-term, and in the long-term we’ll say they have to pay us back a certain amount every year, say 50%. If they don’t, we’ll send them to the front lines of war with Maxtopia. What could possibly go wrong?”
Effect: @@NATION’S@@ military is booming as trucks of Bigtopians are shipped off to war.

5. “The problem is accountability. A small increase to welfare funding for minorities or Bigtopians is okay, but let’s put all their money on a card so we can keep track of what they’re spending it on,” suggests your budget minister, meanwhile counting @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ while you’re not looking. “To compensate for the extra taxes, we can sell all the information about their spending behaviour and purchase patterns to big businesses for marketing purposes. People will lose a bit of privacy, but that’s the price we pay for a state-of-the-art welfare system.”
Sometimes adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: The government routinely interrogates welfare recipients regarding their purchase of a stick of gum.

6. “I think we’re forgetting the most important thing – the @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@!” A combative and stubborn welfare recipient retorts as he trots out of a welfare service centre next to a dam. “If Bigtopians can get more money, why can’t I get more? Poor people are poor no matter what colour they are. If we really want to be equitable here, it doesn’t make sense to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, and doing so is a form of reverse discrimination. Welfare should be fully assets and means-tested so it’s fair for everyone. Hasta la vista preservative fraction!”
Removes policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Welfare recipients are asked to show the contents of their coin purse as a result of rigorous means testing requirements.

Requires capitalism and welfare validity check

The Issue

A recent inquiry by your Minister for Welfare into the demographics of @@NATION@@ has revealed significant socioeconomic disparity and unemployment rates between the dominant ethnic group of @@NATION@@ and the indigenous population. People are now looking at you for answers on how to deal with this.

1. “We need stronger backed welfare and employment programs in order to help these indigenous people into jobs.” @@RANDOMNAME@@ suggests, a long-term worker in your welfare program and part-time charity fundraiser. “It’s not just about finding them work but also helping them maintain it. We should give big businesses subsidies for meeting certain ethnic quotas plus offer incentives for indigenous people to start their own businesses. That’s the only way we are going to tackle this systemic issue.”
Adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Shops and restaurants are laden with signs saying, “Indigenous staff wanted”.

2. “Giving them a handout isn’t the answer!” Famous corporate business mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@ exclaims. “The problem is that our welfare rules and regulations are far too lenient, and these people are a burden on our society. I say we build a wall and banish them from @@NATION@@, they can come back when they aren’t going to drain taxes and exploit our already generous welfare system. Maybe.”
Removes policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Sewers and tunnels are frequently checked by police for indigenous infiltrators

3. “How does the saying go again? You can lead a Bigtopian to water but you can’t make it drink?” Interjects middle-aged, male townsman @@RANDOMNAME@@. “These primitive indigenous people are not clever and technologically advanced like us, they are more of a burden to businesses if they have to meet quotas, plus they don’t have the skills or interest in starting their own business anyway. Let’s just give everyone who is unemployed and at least 1/64th indigenous an extra 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ per fortnight and hope they shut up. Sure, it’ll cost, but more money going around also helps the economy right?”
Sometimes adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: Fraudulent ancestry tests to claim indigenous benefits are rife in the welfare system

4. “OK, settle down. I have the perfect plan.” Interjects your military leader. “Instead of just giving them free money, let’s brand it as a “loan”. It helps them out in the short-term, and in the long-term we’ll say they have to pay us back a certain amount every year, say 50%. If they don’t, we’ll send them to the front lines of war with Bigtopia. What could possibly go wrong?”
Effect: @@NATION’S@@ military is booming as trucks of indigenous people are shipped off to war

5. “The problem is accountability. A small increase to welfare funding for indigenous people is okay, but let’s put all their money on a card so we can keep track of what they’re spending it on,” suggests your budget minister, meanwhile counting @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ while you’re not looking. “To compensate for the extra taxes, we can sell all the information about their spending behaviour and purchase patterns to big businesses for marketing purposes. People will lose a bit of privacy, but that’s the price we pay for a state-of-the-art welfare system.”
Sometimes adds policy: Affirmative action
Effect: The government routinely interrogates welfare recipients regarding their purchase of a stick of gum

[Candlewhisper Archive]

My first thought is that in many nations, the dominant ethnic majority IS the indigenous population.
My second thought is that the whole premise feels a bit generalised, and needs to have more human interest.

[Jim the Baptist]

My first thought is that in many nations, the dominant ethnic majority IS the indigenous population.
My second thought is that the whole premise feels a bit generalised, and needs to have more human interest.

With regards to your first comment, what about if I just wrote "socioeconomic disparity and unemployment rates between the indigenous population of @@NATION@@ and other ethnic groups"? That way I don't assume any particular group is dominant or the majority, just that the indigenous people of @@NATION@@@ are disadvantaged.

Alternatively, I could change the whole idea of indigenous population to be refugees/separatists from a neighbouring country who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. But you would also have to make the issue not applicable to nations that have no immigration.

What do you think about those two ideas? Also, what do you mean by human interest? You mean the premise should be more detailed and specific with more context?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm probably expressing myself poorly.

What I mean to say is that while the word "indigenous" in itself implies a non-dominant and disadvantaged native society, not every nation has the native society as being non-dominant. For example in France and England, there's no indigenous population as such, and the native population (such as they can be termed that, given that both countries have absorbed genetic material from all over the world over the millennia) are socioeconomically dominant.

Generally, as a premise "the ethnic minority are disadvantaged" isn't a sufficiently focused narrative. Rather, you should try to build a premise around one specific way in which they are disadvantaged.

For example, Issue 93 talks about how they're underrepresented in further education. 774 talks about immigrants' qualifications aren't being recognised, 953 talks about how they're much more likely to be prosecuted as criminals, 775 mentions underrepresentation in parliament, 1038 addresses domestic workers below the minimum wage line. There's other examples too, but the point is that you'll need to pick a single angle of approach, rather than just saying that they're broadly disadvantaged.

An angle you could focus on is employment. You could have "A report has noted that certain ethnic minorities -- Bigtopians in particular -- have much lower workforce participation rates than the general population."

That premise avoids any assumptions that haven't been made before, and gets straight onto a single point which can then be addressed with specific solutions. Feel free to use that phrasing, if that's the angle you were aiming for.

[Australian rePublic]

Once again, poor people are poor irrespective of race

[Jim the Baptist]

I'm probably expressing myself poorly.

An angle you could focus on is employment. You could have "A report has noted that certain ethnic minorities -- Bigtopians in particular -- have much lower workforce participation rates than the general population."

That premise avoids any assumptions that haven't been made before, and gets straight onto a single point which can then be addressed with specific solutions. Feel free to use that phrasing, if that's the angle you were aiming for.

Thanks for your ideas, I have been a bit slack editing this draft but I will definitely get around to it and take your feedback on board when I get a chance to revise it properly. Watch this space!

[Jim the Baptist]

Once again, poor people are poor irrespective of race

I'm sorry but that is just a complete fallacy. You can look at statistics from many countries (including Australia which is in the name of your nation), and it is obvious there are major differences between income based on race/ethnicity. Aboriginal communities and people in Australia earn astronomically less than the average non-indigenous Australian. We could debate the reasons for that all you like, but that is a fact. And I would add, that if there was no difference in income earned based on ethnicity/race, there would be no need for affirmative action in the welfare/education system in the first place, but we know that that exists in Australia anyway because of the statistical discrepancies in wages that you can see for yourself. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean an issue can't be written about it.

[Trotterdam]

You can look at statistics from many countries (including Australia which is in the name of your nation), and it is obvious there are major differences between income based on race/ethnicity. Aboriginal communities and people in Australia earn astronomically less than the average non-indigenous Australian.

On average, sure, but how much of that is due to them being actively discriminated against, and how much of that is simply due to poor parents having a hard time educating their children, which makes it harder for those to be successful so the next generation stays poor? It's also a fact that people from rich or at least middle-class families have an easier time at life than people from poor families, so poor families tend to stay that way for a while even if they're not (or no longer) being deliberately oppressed.

There may be more poor families from minority races than from the majority race, due to their history, but there are still poor families from the majority race too (and, however few, still some rich people from minority races), and can you really say that the poor people from minority races are worse-off than the equally-poor people from the majority race?

Measures to help the poor should help the poor, not help a demographic that is on average associated with being poor.

[Jim the Baptist]

On average, sure, but how much of that is due to them being actively discriminated against, and how much of that is simply due to poor parents having a hard time educating their children, which makes it harder for those to be successful so the next generation stays poor? It's also a fact that people from rich or at least middle-class families have an easier time at life than people from poor families, so poor families tend to stay that way for a while even if they're not (or no longer) being deliberately oppressed.

There may be more poor families from minority races than from the majority race, due to their history, but there are still poor families from the majority race too (and, however few, still some rich people from minority races), and can you really say that the poor people from minority races are worse-off than the equally-poor people from the majority race?

Measures to help the poor should help the poor, not help a demographic that is on average associated with being poor.

What you just said proves my point - "on average, sure". It's irrelevant whether it's because of the parents or not, and whether they are being actively or intentionally discriminated against is also irrelevant. It's not important why. All I'm saying is that there is a correlation between ethnicity/race and level of income. That's a fact. And you can still help the poor meanwhile lifting up a certain group of people - no one is saying let's not help the poor (that's a separate welfare issue and my proposed draft cannot address both). I'm specifically addressing one issue which is the over-arching income disparity between ethnic groups. That is also prevalent in real life - that is the is lifting up out of poverty a certain group of people. Of course affirmative action and welfare can be means tested as well, meaning that filthy rich ethnic minorities cannot necessarily claim if they have a lot of assets. I'm just saying that this is something that that group should be eligible for because there is a real disparity between ethnic groups, but if you think they shouldn't be eligible then that's fine - that's an option in the issue. Lots of legitimate governments have a welfare system which I am proposing - take your dispute up with them if you have a philosophical issue with it.

[Australian rePublic]

Once again, poor people are poor irrespective of race

I'm sorry but that is just a complete fallacy. You can look at statistics from many countries (including Australia which is in the name of your nation), and it is obvious there are major differences between income based on race/ethnicity. Aboriginal communities and people in Australia earn astronomically less than the average non-indigenous Australian.

Firstly, I created a whole thread about white privlidge in Australia. I don't believe it exists, but that's not the point of my criticism. I'll adrress.

We could debate the reasons for that all you like, but that is a fact. And I would add, that if there was no difference in income earned based on ethnicity/race, there would be no need for affirmative action in the welfare/education system in the first place, but we know that that exists in Australia

Affirmative action is both discrimination and bullshit, and I say this as an unemployed, disabled ethnic minority.

anyway because of the statistical discrepancies in wages that you can see for yourself. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean an issue can't be written about it.

But that's not what this issue is about. This issue is about poor individuals, not poor demographic groups. We can argue day and about whether or not certain demographic groups are poorer than others. Demomographic groups are massive and individual circumatances will vary significiantly within groups. Just because there are billionare white people, it doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people, and just because there aren't poor white people. Just because there are poor black people, it doesn't mean there aren't billionare black people. This issue addresses poverty on an individual level, and poor are poor, irrespective of, and indipendantly to how the rest of their demographic group is performing, which brings me back to my original point- poor people are poor irrespective of race. The fact that there are white billionares doesn't make a white homeless person any less homeless than a black homeless person. An unemployed white person isn't less unemployed just because some white people are wealthier than some black people. A white person livibg in social housing isn't living in amy less social housing than his balck peer, just because some other white people make more money than other balck people. Poor people are poor irrespective of race. A white homeless person is still homeless, irrespective og the preportion of white billionares. That's the point I'm trying to convey

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think the debate shows that there's an Issue there.

I think a good approach might be to incorporate what Aussie is saying, but to succinctly summarise that position and make it the position of one of the options. That is "poor people are poor people no matter what colour they are, and so-called affirmative action is actually just negative discrimination against poor people from the ethnic majority."

Of course, you can then refute that argument in character with another option.

[Jim the Baptist]

Australian rePublic - I am not going to quote you because the post is too long but I will address what you said directly.

YES there are poor white people. There are poor Asian people, there are poor black and indigenous people. Of course. You can be poor no matter what your race. BUT the point of affirmative action is that there are MORE poor indigenous people in Australia, for example, than white people. That's a fact which you have already agreed with.

Affirmative action is not concerned with the individual, it's about generalisations targeted at certain groups in relation to trends, patterns and statistics.
The whole concept of affirmative action is about addressing a group of the so-called "disadvantaged" who are statistically speaking shown to be in a lower position to their counterparts socio-economically. That's the whole point of affirmative action, and that's what this issue is about.
Poor people who are part of an ethnic majority (like "white or European people" in Australia) are not necessarily thrown to the way-side like you may imply, depending on your welfare system they also qualify for help and support financially from the government (like in Australia) but a different kind of support.

If you don't believe in the idea of affirmative action targeted at a specific ethnic minority who are (as a group) in a lower socio-economic position, then as Candlewhisper Archive suggested then that in itself is an option which is partly addressed by option 2 although could possibly be incorporated into a potential fifth option.
If you think it's not a good idea, you can choose to not introduce affirmative action as an option for your nation. But some people do in fact believe welfare benefits targeted at certain groups who, as a whole, earn less money, can bring those people up to a financial position where there is more income equality for all regardless of race or ethnicity (which is not currently the case in Australia i.e. indigenous people vs. other ethnic groups).

[Trotterdam]

Affirmative action is not concerned with the individual, it's about generalisations targeted at certain groups in relation to trends, patterns and statistics.

Yes, that's the entire probem. "Positive" discrimination is still discrimination, in that it judges people by broad, inaccurate generalizations rather than who they are individually.

If you don't believe in the idea of affirmative action targeted at a specific ethnic minority who are (as a group) in a lower socio-economic position, then as Candlewhisper Archive suggested then that in itself is an option which is partly addressed by option 2 although could possibly be incorporated into a potential fifth option.

The current option 2 is not even remotely a good representation of this viewpoint. It's loudly vitriolic about both poor people and ethnic minorities, rather than trying to help poor people in a non-discriminatory way.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Right - while I'm actually of the opinion that affirmative action is a good thing, I think the issue would be better if it were written with a more reasonable voice on that option.

[Jim the Baptist]

I just completely edited it, targeting the issue now at ethnic minorities (focused on Bigtopians) instead of native/indigenous people.
I also introduced a sixth option which encompasses what Trotterdam/Australian rePublic suggested.
Thoughts?

[SherpDaWerp]

I've got a few suggestions here for various parts of the issue:

@@RANDOMNAME@@ suggests, a long-term worker in your welfare program

This (and indeed, the entire issue) assumes that @@NAME@@ already has a welfare program. A validity to check for this is definitely needed. Furthermore, a Capitalism validity is also needed.

Effect: Shops and restaurants are laden with signs saying, “Bigtopian staff wanted”.

I would remove the comma, effect lines tend to be single sentence fragments and this works even without the comma.

Let’s just give everyone who is unemployed and at least 1/64th Bigtopian an extra 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ per fortnight and hope they shut up.

The return of the heritage fractions! Surely this could be simplified by just saying

let's just give everyone who is unemployed and has Bigtopian heritage

Also giving an extra 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ makes an assumption about how much 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ is worth. In a country with already-high wages, this would be not enough, but in a country where the average worker gets 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ a week anyway this would be a massive bonus. As with the 1/64th bigtopian, this should be less specific and more "let's just give them a little bit more money".

6. “I think we’re forgetting the most important thing – the @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@!” A combative and stubborn welfare recipient retorts as he trots out of a welfare service centre next to a dam. “If Bigtopians can get more money, why can’t I get more? Poor people are poor no matter what colour they are. If we really want to be equitable here, it doesn’t make sense to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, and doing so is a form of reverse discrimination. Welfare should be fully assets and means-tested so it’s fair for everyone. Anyway, all this talk about affirmation faction is very confusing, I say we kick it to the curb. Hasta la vista preservative fraction!”

The last two sentences are redundant, and in a 6-option issue, the options should as short as possible. The option has already presented a suggestion and explained said suggestion, so going back and saying 'affirmative action is confusing, hasta la vista!' seems like just duplicating what they've already suggested to happen.

[Jim the Baptist]

Hey SherpDaWerp, thanks for your comments and I am sorry for being so late in replying to this. I have added some of your proposed changes but am not so sure about others.

The return of the heritage fractions! Surely this could be simplified by just saying

let's just give everyone who is unemployed and has Bigtopian heritage

I hear what you're saying but I think Bigtopian heritage is vague. What does Bigtopian heritage even mean? If you have distant Bigtopian heritage do you qualify for the benefits? Or do you need to have an immediate family member? Having such a vague term does not make it clear to what extent you are extending those privileges and how that will affect your nation.

Also giving an extra 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ makes an assumption about how much 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ is worth. In a country with already-high wages, this would be not enough, but in a country where the average worker gets 50 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ a week anyway this would be a massive bonus. As with the 1/64th bigtopian, this should be less specific and more "let's just give them a little bit more money".

With regards to the currency, other issues use values when they are talking about money. For example, issue 908 in option 3 (with regards to political bribery) says “We could permit politicians to receive small gifts, inconsequential sums totalling a maximum of 50 Prayers per person, per annum." (my currency is Prayers). Also, the value of currency is arbitrary because cost of living is not a factor on NationStates anyway so who knows how much money is worth in the first place.

[Jim the Baptist]

I have not received any more feedback on this for over a week, so I am making last call on this issue before I look at submitting it.
Any further comments would be appreciated from anyone.

[Australian rePublic]

Australian rePublic - I am not going to quote you because the post is too long but I will address what you said directly.

YES there are poor white people.

Yes, and they need welfare just as much as poor black people. A homeless person needs welfare, irrespective of his race

There are poor Asian people, there are poor black and indigenous people. Of course. You can be poor no matter what your race. BUT the point of affirmative action is that there are MORE poor indigenous people in Australia, for example, than white people. That's a fact which you have already agreed with.

Yes, and welfare is helping all people, irreseptive of race.

Affirmative action is not concerned with the individual,

But welfare is

It's about generalisations targeted at certain groups in relation to trends, patterns and statistics.

And welfare is not. Are you going to start giving welfare to black billionares? Are you going to take welfare away from white homeless, because that's what this issue is implying

The whole concept of affirmative action is about addressing a group of the so-called "disadvantaged" who are statistically speaking shown to be in a lower position to their counterparts socio-economically.

Which is all people on welfare, irrespective of race, save for those cheating the system

That's the whole point of affirmative action, and that's what this issue is about.
Poor people who are part of an ethnic majority (like "white or European people" in Australia) are not necessarily thrown to the way-side like you may imply, depending on your welfare system they also qualify for help and support financially from the government (like in Australia) but a different kind of support.

Yes, under the current system. What [b]your issue wants to remove all help and support from the majority race, even though they need it just as much as every other race

If you don't believe in the idea of affirmative action targeted at a specific ethnic minority who are (as a group) in a lower socio-economic position, then as Candlewhisper Archive suggested then that in itself is an option which is partly addressed by option 2 although could possibly be incorporated into a potential fifth option.

This isn't about affirmative action, this is about denying white people welfare

If you think it's not a good idea, you can choose to not introduce affirmative action as an option for your nation. But some people do in fact believe welfare benefits targeted at certain groups who, as a whole, earn less money, can bring those people up to a financial position where there is more income equality for all regardless of race or ethnicity (which is not currently the case in Australia i.e. indigenous people vs. other ethnic groups).

This is not about affirmative action. It's about denying welfare to the mahority race

[Jim the Baptist]

I don't really understand your point, are you saying there is a problem with the issue OR you just don't agree with the idea of affirmative action? If you don't agree with affirmative action, you are free to say no and choose option 6 (that's why it's in there). The issue does not say we are taking anything away from white people or anyone else. It's about offering an additional service to a certain group of people (that's what affirmative action is). Governments all over the world have lots of pro affirmative action policies so a lot of people may want to have it in their nations too. Again if you don't agree with affirmative action then choose option 6 when you get the issue.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't really understand your point, are you saying there is a problem with the issue OR you just don't agree with the idea of affirmative action? If you don't agree with affirmative action, you are free to say no and choose option 6 (that's why it's in there). The issue does not say we are taking anything away from white people or anyone else. It's about offering an additional service to a certain group of people (that's what affirmative action is). Governments all over the world have lots of pro affirmative action policies so a lot of people may want to have it in their nations too. Again if you don't agree with affirmative action then choose option 6 when you get the issue.

I have a problem with the issue

[Jim the Baptist]

I have a problem with the issue

But the only reason you have a problem with the issue is because it is clear you don't like affirmative action. No worries whatsoever, don't implement it then. As Candlewhisper Archive said, the fact there is a debate shows there is an issue here, he seems to think it's fine and he's an issues editor so..

[Australian rePublic]

I don't really understand your point, are you saying there is a problem with the issue OR you just don't agree with the idea of affirmative action? If you don't agree with affirmative action, you are free to say no and choose option 6 (that's why it's in there). The issue does not say we are taking anything away from white people or anyone else. It's about offering an additional service to a certain group of people (that's what affirmative action is). Governments all over the world have lots of pro affirmative action policies so a lot of people may want to have it in their nations too. Again if you don't agree with affirmative action then choose option 6 when you get the issue.

Once again, the problem is that your issue fails to address my concern. Trott explained it far better than I did. Perhaps he'll be willing to clarify further

[Jim the Baptist]

Your problem being that you don't like the implementation of affirmative action in the welfare system (FYI Australia has affirmative action policies in their welfare system), the issue addresses your concern because there are enough options for you to express your opinion.

[The Grim Reaper]

This is a six-option issue where 3 options add affirmative action, 2 remove it, and one has no policy impact. That's quite a long issue.

If you want to keep the six-option panel, you're going to really need to make the options much more clearly distinct in approach.

I'll demonstrate for the pro-AA options. The first option is already fine in that regard - it's pro-business, pro-AA. But options 3 and 5 are both paternalistic and subtly racist pro-AA - you need to make them more distinct from each other. Perhaps have one be a paternalistic, big-government approach (welfare cards) and remove the corporate fluff around it, and the other a light-touch, pro-Bigtopian "Bigtopians have the ability to handle their own money provided they are able to get some allowing them to overcome discrimination etc." that is in a social welfare context or a common good context rather than the context of the first option where the ability to handle money is defined as participation in the corporate world or entrepreneurial culture.

As far as the two anti-AA approaches, consider rolling one of them into the no-policy impact option - having a no-policy impact option is fine, but this is such a long issue you should consider the extent to which it deserves a spot. The no-policy impact option, 4, has a subtle but extremely significant racial connotation to it - it might be a natural fit to roll that in with 2 if you can figure out a common approach. On that note, 4's focus on using a loan to justify military service feels really awkward - the loan really shouldn't be an important part of the discussion of whether or not you compel a particular ethnic minority into military service. Flip the focus, perhaps.

@Aussie: you've provided a lot of critique but at this point further discussing your position isn't identifying new problems with the issue over the ones that the OP believes they have acknowledged by writing the last option; rather it might be more helpful for you to suggest what specific fix you think needs to be made.