1037
Words matter.
You aren't writing an academic paper. Always use simple direct language.
- Help the poor
- Healthcare for everyone
- Good treatment at work.
Don't use complex words.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
1037 points (99.6% liked)
Progressive Politics
2926 readers
254 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Assistance implies that it is temporary, that it is help to help themselves.
Welfare implies that it is continuous.
If you have to continually support a part of the population then you have a systemic problem. The correct solution would be to change the system. People who support the continuation of the current system either profit from it or don't see an advantage in a change.
Not it does not. Ever heard of "aim assist"? "Assisted living"? "assistive touch" (the iOS feature)? I don't see how any of these are temporary.
But yeah the correct solution is indeed to change the system. There will always be naysayers who argue that "no one system can suit everybody" so I guess we'll need a system of systems.
But it doesn't have to be the same group in the population. Probably a portion is the same but the larger picture is all those you help up again so they can help support the community/country/state, and the price is helping the group that otherwise make the community unsafe so they in large can ... act decently to others and live a life without violence
Why does such a group have to exist?
Why the downvotes. I cannot think of a group that is inherently unsafe. Who do you have in mind that you consider it an insult?
In a perfect world they wouldn't. But its hard to ensure that everyone gets a traumatic free childhood, or that any natural insedent traumatise some people to the point where they cant/won't be helped. I guess the downvotes is because your comment feels too unrealistic idealistic (otherwise I can't see why)
non offending pedophiles are a classic example of a group that makes others unsafe. and removing them would be mass murder of innocent people.
If they can settle in their own town, there is no threat and they don't need welfare. An example where initial assistance is needed but no continuous welfare.
Also, "assistance" is something that is given out of the kindness of your (or the government's) heart and that the recipient should feel gratitude (and/or have to grovel) for. "Welfare" is seen as something the recipient is entitled to as a right. FWIW I support a UBI that is adequate for food and shelter and the necessities of life - as an entitlement for everybody.
Hey, a UBI supporter! Just curious, how can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn't result in hyperinflation? If a society was to ration out food/shelter/necessities directly, I understand how that would work. But if it's done through the intermediary of money, what would prevent the economy from entering an arms race where the producers raise prices to adapt to the new purchasing power of the population, and the government raises the UBI to keep up with the rising prices?
Existing studies show little or no affect on inflation.
https://ubiadvocates.org/universal-basic-income-faq-all-about-ubi/ (#11)
So, "just handing out money" is a way to implement UBI without hyperinflation.
hmm interesting. Will take a look.
I don't know - and we're never going to find out, in the United States at least. I may support UBI but that doesn't mean it's not the biggest pipe dream in the history of pipe dreams.
if the government treats the UBI as a seperate "currency" that guarantees a certain amount of food water and shelter and in major cities the government is the primary provider of qualifying products it would only affect the non major cities, which would be small enough to not effect the greater market
A buyers market. Let competition drive down prices, or cooperation from people with UBI who don't need the profits.
That's for basic goods. It's good that other prices rise so that people are motivated to work.
41% of the population would object, together with 29% who don't support assistance at all. If you want UBI in a democratic society you have to sell it differently.
To a point, maybe, but populations are always going to have disabled persons or people with chronic illnesses that require continual assistance to live a dignified life. Be careful not to write those people off with sweeping generalizations like this.
You are right.
Do parapelegics require "temporary support"? There are some people who need continual support and they're always going to exist in any society. Disabled people. And they aren't a "systemic problem".
there are governmental systems that would disagree on that last point.
And they would be immoral and evil if they suggest letting disabled people die off. Yes, I know about Libertarians and their selfish, egotistical, unempathetic views towards people less well off than they are. Anyone who believes "every man, woman, and child for themselves" is how a society should function is a piece of shit, sorry. And obviously you can lump Conservatives in with them on this issue too.
I could see a religions having a belief that being burdensome is a fate worse than death and a government then mandating that religion. Which admittedly goes against human rights, but is done in a few countries.