The Dutch “basic income” experiment is expanding across multiple cities

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,792
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
The Dutch “basic income” experiment is expanding across multiple cities

August 13, 2015
Free cash is in the works for a growing number of Dutch urbanites. After the city of Utrecht announced that it would give no-strings-attached money to some of its residents, other Dutch cities are getting on board for social experiments with “basic income,” a regular and unconditional stipend to cover living costs.
Read more: http://qz.com/473779...d-basic-income/

What do you think of doing this in America? Or how about just food stamps for all? Would it work?
 
Totally on board. The more wealth we kick back to the poorest, the more they'll have left over after paying their basic living costs. That means they can afford better food. They can begin saving a little money. They can afford to take off work and continue their education, potentially opening the greater work opportunities that could get them out of HUD. It's an investment for the community. Pay a little more now and we can save much more in the end.
 
Totally on board. The more wealth we kick back to the poorest, the more they'll have left over after paying their basic living costs. That means they can afford better food. They can begin saving a little money. They can afford to take off work and continue their education, potentially opening the greater work opportunities that could get them out of HUD. It's an investment for the community. Pay a little more now and we can save much more in the end.

100% stupid and liberal of course. crippling welfare begets the need for more and more crippling welfare. Social Darwinism requires survival of the fittest, not survival of the fit and those who receive crippling welfare and thus never become fit. LIberals are too stupid to know science, sadly.

Do you have the IQ to understand?
 
100% stupid and liberal of course. crippling welfare begets the need for more and more crippling welfare. Social Darwinism requires survival of the fittest, not survival of the fit and those who receive crippling welfare and thus never become fit. LIberals are too stupid to know science, sadly.

Do you have the IQ to understand?
Social Darwinism is selfish inhumanity turned into a political religion. If you only allow those you judge the "most fit" to survive, then you're condemning everyone who falls outside of your definition to die. I have four questions for you:
Do you prefer to spend a little extra on prevention now, or spend much more on repairs later?
Do you call yourself pro-life?
What exactly gives you the right to decide that my aunt or cousin should die, especially when our society of plenty can spare much more than their basic needs?
If you ever become less fit than another, then will you value their life above your own?
 
Where would that money be coming from? Is the Government going to print more money or will an increase in taxes be required? Would those of us who work be eligible for this stipend?

Not enough specifics but not really something I'd be in favor of.
 
Discussions of having some sort of basic income in the U.S. have been talked about by some for decades, including noted economist Milton Friedman, but no serious movement has ever been made towards it.
 
Darwin was a scientist. There is nothing selfish about science.
We're not talking about Darwin's contributions to biology. We're talking about Social Darwinism, which is the application of ideas based upon his ideas to economics. One revolutionized science. The other caused the Holocaust. They aren't the same subject.

What is selfish, stupid deadly and liberal is creating an ever growing crippled welfare class that cant support itself.
That "welfare class" wasn't created by welfare. It was created by poverty, which is caused by wealth inequality. Welfare is more or less a band aid to keep the problem from getting worse. To fix it requires the surgery of deep economic reforms.

100% stupid I'm not the judge. IF someone can pay his bills he can survive if not then he should not be made whole in order to reproduce others who cant pay their bills.
So... are you the judge, or are you not? Will you answer my questions?
 
. Welfare is more or less a band aid to keep the problem from getting worse.

of course you are 100% stupid liberal and not fit to be here. When Clinton ended welfare as we know by making it workfare fully half decided that they no longer needed welfare.

What does that teach the liberal.
 
Last edited:
. One revolutionized science. The other caused the Holocaust. They aren't the same subject.

of course you're very stupid and liberal. Here's what Darwin said:

In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[19]
 
dear, they call it social Darwinism. Do you understand??
I do understand that. That's what people named it, because they based it on Darwin's scientific theories. That does not make Social Darwinism itself science. It's a philosophy meant to justify killing the weak to feed the greedy.

do you want a social/economic system wherein the least fit reproduce the most??
What I actually want is a guild based economic system. That doesn't matter though. What we have now is a capitalist system with a few socialist elements, such as welfare and labor unions, put in place to fix and prevent various human rights abuses. That's what we have to work with. The least we can do is make it as humane and efficient as possible. The OP's proposal is one step to accomplish this. Yes, it comes with a price tag attached. We'll be responsible for footing the bill. Personally I think it's a worthwhile investment.

of course you are 100% stupid liberal and not fit to be here.
Luckily for me, you don't have the right to determine whether I'm fit to be here or not. You still haven't answered those four questions from the first page. They were pretty simple, or at least seemed simple enough to me.

When Clinton ended welfare as we know by making it workfare fully half decided that they no longer needed welfare.
I don't have a problem with the government employing people as a form of welfare. It worked great with TVA. What I have a problem with is requiring someone to work to receive any welfare at all. It sounds fair on paper, but then you look up at the people you're talking about and see how many are elderly, disabled, or otherwise incapable of meeting your arbitrary requirements. There's also the problem of your idea essentially transforming the poor into a slave class.

100% stupid of course. The free market is the judge!!
The question wasn't about the "free market". It was about you. Are you the judge of whether a single mother should watch her child starve to death because she fucked up her back and can't work anymore?

of course you're very stupid and liberal. Here's what Darwin said:

In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[19]
So... his feelings about preventing the poor from marrying relates to our social obligation to pay their basic costs of living how?
 
The least we can do is make it as humane and efficient as possible.

100% stupid of course since we spend 3 trillion a year helping the least fit and the number is going up all the time making things worse not better which is why the libcommies like Obama /Sanders always need to spend more and more, being too stupid for science.

Why not read "Never Enough" to help you understand your lib soviet ideology??
 
. It worked great with TVA.

of course you're 100% stupid and liberal. THe Depression lasted for 16 years thanks to TVA make work welfare jobs!!


****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal job creation: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top