|
unhinged
|
sometimes i forget just how horribly punitive some states are when it comes to government assistance (states rights is really just an excuse to perpetuate the priviledged minority). this might be the second best argument for UBI:
'in many states, able-bodied adults without dependent children are ineligible for any kind of benefit. if trapped in extreme poverty due to homelessness, theft, addiction, a local economic calamity, an abusive partner, or simple bad luck, there is often scant or no support to aid them. in kenya and india, such poverty seems a regrettable, but perhaps unavoidable, function of a lack of development. but in the united states, it is not. it is a policy choice, given the capacity of the government, the wealth of the citizenry, and the example of other high-income countries that have ended deprivation within their borders. the issue is not that the united states cannot pull its people above the poverty line, but that it does not *want* to. a UBI puts this choice in stark relief, does it not? it also casts the old argument about whether universal or means-tested beneits are better. means-testing allows the government to better target the poor. but means-testing also allows the government to exclude many of the poor. ' - annie lowery
|
180930
|
