Who’s afraid of universal welfare?

Who’s Afraid of a Universal Basic Income

The people who work to pay into the system so others don’t have to?
Everyone eligible = greater demand. Same supply.
A cheap answer but the most blunt.

Human labour is not interchangeable. I don’t want a plumber removing my kidney.

I surmise this would make the welfare cliff worse.
It would become all or nothing, for eligibility of other benefits. Sort that first.

Sweeping solutions fail.

For example, this is an ageless roll-out of the pension. That system is going so well.

Why do Marxists love welfare?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

“In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

Financial crisis? What’s that?

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.”

There’s no socialism, there’s semi-Communism.
Cthulhu swims Left, look it up.

Go on their forums sometimes.

You don’t even need communist or Marxist in the title.
Look up five brands of socialism that aren’t a demographic and go on their websites. Read the forum posts about bringing down the system. Search Cloward-Piven.
Useful idiots. Leeches killing the host.

Their worst nightmare is empowerment. They are natural slaves. But they need that deadweight of the masses to continue to justify their position socially.
They created the welfare/benefits cliff.
If there were a path out of poverty, they’d hate it.

Fix the cliff, kill the socialist.

And why should someone else pay for your stupid decisions?
Welfare started out as war pensions and war widows. It took over from the Church. There’s no cause for it.
Even NatSocs, if you can’t afford to marry/breed, why should the smart guy down the street foot the bill?
Isn’t the perk of doing things as an adult that you enjoy all the reward, as you take on the risk? Well, if he is paying for your wife’s groceries, he has more of a right to fuck your wife than you do!

No bailouts for adults. No.

You’re already in debt per person for the national debt. Nobody can afford it. Oh, like you’re so special your genes deserve to survive and the people working 100 hour weeks don’t? Who gives a fuck what your IQ apparently is (online doesn’t count) if you can’t do a paper round?

Weak men wanting to give up their provider role are still children, they deserve no respect, let alone heading a house. That is a job. Men get the big respect because they do the big share of the labour. Don’t expect a 50s housewife if you wanna sit around playing Overwatch like a loser (the game is shit, it has good PR) because fulfilling a gender role is a two-way street!

How can you say foreign aid is bullshit but sucking the teat of your countrymen is so moral? Did they choose to be born around idiots?

And whatever happened to sending young disgraced unmarried parents away to the middle of nowhere? Where’s the human right to live in a major city, where the fun stuff is?

Now they live the life of Riley and have the privilege of passing on their DNA. Those trying to save to do the same cannot, because they’re paying for 14yos Ruby and Randy to do something a little more ego-soothing than masturbation.

The myth of austerity (UK)

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_spending_analysis

The raw, REAL* amount of what we literally spend in GBP (£).

You see that red bar? That means it’s going UP.

Real is the technical term for that chart.

As a % of GDP, we’re spending as much as the last Labour government.

2010 is when the Tories got in. Note that spending went up.

If you want to know why it’s been forced to stabilize, the notion of slagflation might come in handy.
GDP has sucked.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pgdp

This is why the Tories got in. This is not temporary.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

I think this chart’s my favourite. Longitudinal data of economic parasitism.

Guardian readers citing stats out of historical context to make history-based arguments are hilarious.
Austerity spending is a contradiction in terms. Balanced budgeting is no more a bad thing than an addict complaining you’ve stopped enabling him. The inflation is caused by extant liabilities we must continue to pay out for; we can scarcely afford current welfare etc. (not including pensions, which we can never afford as unfunded). Let alone to add new ones in like a student with Daddy’s credit card during Fresher’s Week. The money simply isn’t there and it never will be. Pensions must be funded first. The economy is stagnant as you saw by GDP, we’re barely breaking even and this was a long-term plateau long before Brexit. Compared to other countries, like the US I was duffing up yesterday, we’re actually doing okay.

Public spending for “Social Protection” started at 0.7 percent of GDP in 1900 and has now reached over 15 percent of GDP.

But it’s the military dragging us down, right?
We must stop funding attack helicopters, shouldn’t we, Sue, 57, from Brighton?

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_defence_spending_30.html

In terms of Gross Domestic Product UK defence spending was 2.85 percent of GDP in 2000. But from 2002 to 2009 defence spending was constant at about 2.65-2.70 percent GDP. Since the Great Recession, defence spending been in steady decline, breaking below 2.4 percent GDP in 2016.

Read it and weep you intellectually dishonest douches.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_total_spending_pie_chart

Welfare (NOT including pensions) is more than DOUBLE military expenses.

General 2%
Transport 4%
Protection 4%
Welfare 14%
Defence 6%
Education 11%
Health Care 18%
Pensions 20%
Interest 7%
Other 15%.

I know you’re allergic to maths but bar charts and pie charts are kiddie tier.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/06/english-schools-core-subject-test-results-international-oecd-pisa

Education, for example, we suck at harder than ever.
The schools that still teach (by rote) are killing us.

Here to agree with me is famed conservative Paul Krugman.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

He supposedly thinks austerity is BS and it shouldn’t even be tried because it won’t work. He thinks it’s a myth too.

“But won’t this lead to budget deficits? Yes, and that’s actually a good thing.”

This is how you can tell Krugman isn’t actually an economist or economist isn’t actually a job. Numerical psychic is not a job.

” in effect, an economy in which the public is trying to save more than businesses are willing to invest. In such an economy the government does everyone a service by running deficits and giving frustrated savers a chance to put their money to work. “

You can’t put money to work when nobody wants to work with it.
That is what investment literally is. Random spending isn’t investment.
I don’t invest in half a dozen shots, I blow it. Investments are carefully calculated for perceptible gains. Not moral gains, actual fiscal cash in the bank gains.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4634536/PETER-OBORNE-myth-austerity.html

“However, I accept that this week’s Queen’s Speech does contain one very serious flaw: it marks the moment when the British Government abandoned any serious attempt to control spending.”

“There is, in fact, no limit to the proposals for public spending put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and his front bench, who are clearly basing their economics on the existence of ‘magic money trees’.

Suddenly, the dominating narrative in public life is that, instead of trying to live within our means as a nation, we should cast off ‘austerity’.”

The Guardian’s battle screech.

That aside, now that Britain’s so-called austerity has become the focus of intense debate, it is important to expose the myth that the nation’s finances have been cut to the bone under the Tories. That suggestion is nonsense — for the simple reason that there has been very little austerity at all.

Last week, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 2005-2016, wrote an exceptionally important article for the Financial Times. He noted that gross public debt actually rose as a proportion of national income between 2010 and 2016, from 76 per cent to 89 per cent.

As Sir Nicholas wrote: ‘Britain never experienced austerity.’ As someone who ran Britain’s most important financial institution for 11 years, he is in a position to know.

It’s fake news.

between 2010 and 2016, from 76 per cent to 89 per cent.”

Again, 2010 – the year the Tories got in. Since the Tory Party got in, +13% has already been spent. That is a 100% true statement.

I love it when new guys assume I can’t math.

Why do you think my predictions work out? They’re not opinions.

You know what has been good for the economy?

Brexit!

https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9

It is still too early to to say that Brexit has damaged the performance of the economy because the slowdown might reverse once the squeeze on incomes passes.

What would the FT know?
We haven’t actually left yet. The Left predicted we’d all be eating our pets like Venezuela by now. Marginal growth is still going up!

The EU waits to see our terms of disengagement. Then the investments will flow.

Savings?

The decline also reflects an error that the Office for National Statistics has identified that understated incomes in its data, which is due to be rectified soon.

Since when did Communists care about savings they can’t steal?

The cause of the decline in living standards is more closely linked to a rise in inflation rather than a fall in average wage growth, but both have played a part. And with social security benefits for non-pensioners frozen, real income growth is also likely to have fallen.

Labour market is still saturated with EU workers’ competition. Cannot be called yet.

Every indicator of the number of people in the labour market has been positive since the EU referendum. The unemployment and underemployment rates are down, while participation in the labour market, the employment rate and vacancies are all up.

See?

With such a clear and positive picture, the best data are simply the headline unemployment rate, which has fallen from 4.9 per cent to 4.5 per cent in the past year, to reach its lowest level since 1975.

Maths is hard for Commies, especially when it doesn’t go the way they hoped (which it always does).

In recent months the gap between the world’s two most important currencies diverged as the euro gained against a weakening dollar. Sterling has also gained, but not as much. 

Which economy isn’t totally fucking itself over with immigrated dead weight?
It’s a long game, padre.

Recently

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/08/chinese-exports-trade-trump-us-banks-brexit-uk-economy-business-live

UK firms expect higher pay rises, as Brexit hits investment plans – as it happened

Exactly as I predicted. More workers making money, oh no!

Why? Stable currency. Exactly as I predicted. The EU is doomed largely from the Eurozone.

Don’t believe me? Despite ever-expanding debt, they’re predicting growth.
Magical pixie growth.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/09/german-trade-surplus-uk-housing-market-cools-vauxhall-jobs-business-live

EC slashes UK growth forecasts but sees best eurozone growth in a decade – business live

European Commission says Brexit uncertainty will hurt UK investment, but the rest of Europe is doing ‘significantly better than expected’”

Well I see no reason for bias in that sentence!
Meanwhile, someone a little more objective.

https://www.ft.com/content/cb8bc258-4510-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

IMF downgrades eurozone growth post-Brexit

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=GBP&view=10Y

This is what you’re celebrating?eurgdp10y.png

Let’s compare to the reserve currency so you can really see what I mean.

eurusd10y

Yes, so strong… such growth, much potential…

giggle-lol-haha

While America is screwed, nobody is as screwed as the EU/Eurozone.

titanic EU lightsout#2big2fail

A little known and very recent piece of news, which should be making headlines but isn’t, while negotiations are ongoing.

https://fp.brecorder.com/2017/11/20171109233563/

The eurozone’s top bank supervisor, Daniele Nouy, on Tuesday urged the sector to press ahead with cross-border mergers, arguing tie-ups would help forge a stronger European finance industry.

If it’s already strong….
Don’t bother with logic.

Have you ever run in a three-legged race? They’re essentially arguing that if you yoke a lame man to a fit one, the lame one will be fit. This is formally known as magical thinking and colloquially known as “batshit insane”.

The theoretical term is Communism.
No, really. This principle is international collectivism. Marx never said that was possible but whatever, why let that stop them, surely they know Marxism better than Marx.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collectivism
It is.
The cognitive dissonance of objecting to national state power because it’s too big and corrupt while advocating for supranational state infrastructure.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
“This society would be based on the common ownership”
This requires dissolving national borders and class boundaries. The former is easier than the latter, because, as we know from HBD, class is largely genetic (see intergenerational studies). Maybe that’s why they always shoot people, because the productive won’t just get down and act quietly parasitic like their fellow countrymen. What treason. It isn’t as if humans evolve and continue to mutate and diversify at different rates in myriad ways, is it? Don’t be absurd, we’re interchangeable cogs, that is totally respectful of our human rights and special snowflakeness (the sudden explosion of the latter in the young is culturally related to the popularity of the former position) i.e. no cogs are allowed to be sparkly.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-eu-communist-a6901211.html

“The EU was set up by the founding fathers, an important man called [Altiero] Spinelli, an Italian, who was an ex-communist, he designed the Maastricht Treaty and the Single European Act, why?

Is there any such thing as an ex-Communist?
[No.]

“He said because this is a political project, bringing the nations of Europe closer and closer together to create a place called Europe and the design of this was such that politicians who come and go could not actually override this decisions of the bureaucracy because otherwise we would never get there.”

Opposing democracy? Lovely.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dictatorship
Dictatorship implies absolute power — one person who takes control — of a political situation”

Despots order things. The EU has done this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3707704/Undemocratic-EU-bullies-Ireland-into-another-vote.html

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Caesarism
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/totalitarianism
“If the government has complete and absolute power over the people, that’s totalitarianism. This is a repressive, unfree type of society.”

That can’t be legal? Already is, babycakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty

Over democracy, what does the EU have?

The doctrine of supremacy. It isn’t even hiding the Orwell there.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/doctrine-of-supremacy-of-european-union-administrative-law-essay.php

In a series of important rulings the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has developed the doctrine of supremacy of European Union (EU) over national law.

trans. Over national populations.

EU law is absolutely supreme even over provisions of national constitutions.

No voting out of this one.

They changed the wikipedia page when the Brexit referendum was announced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

It used to be Supremacy. You can still find it via search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy

Click through to see…

But I’m totally imagining things, right?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/841539/EU-news-European-Union-fourth-reich-Germany-communism-Poland

Krzysztof Karoń, Polish publicist, spoke on Telewizja Republika where he accused the European Union of writing its “communist agenda” into its own laws.

He said: “In March this year the European Commission signed its white paper, which was dubbed the Rome Declaration.

“The only binding manifesto of the EU became the communist manifesto from 1941.”

“It is written in the programme that ‘the first goal is to erase borders dividing Europe into sovereign states’ and that ‘every single undertaking must be verified under this first point’.”

He underlined that in his view this is the root of all political problems sweeping through the continent.

Ridiculous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocommunism

I wrote this today because a lot of this is new today.

GUARDIANISTA, GREAT NEWS!

Don’t worry about austerity, we never had it.

You can’t talk about welfare unless

you talk about the welfare or benefits ‘cliff’. It’s also known as the ‘trap’.

https://fee.org/articles/if-you-accept-this-raise-you-fall-off-the-welfare-cliff/

There are plenty of dry economic agreements (how rare!) that this oppresses the poor.
Nobody mentions it. The right want cheap maids they call nannies to feel morally superior and the left, same, but keeping reliable voters on tap and away from economic freedom.

http://aauw-pa.aauw.net/files/2014/09/Poverty-Minimum-Wage-and-the-Cliff-Effect-Op-Ed.doc

It also affects women more, but feminists don’t discuss it because they’re middle-class bitches. They’ll happily hire the foreign nanny than support the one who needs the job and can’t afford to go anywhere else. Immigrants are by default, privileged, because they can be global and professionally mobile. It’s like when working class people see a middle-class woman say how she chose to work after giving birth, expecting a pat on the back. Oh, a choice? Freedom? Must be nice.

That’s why women refuse raises, not Imposter Syndrome!
https://www.wfco.org/pages/content/the-cliff-effect

It’s nothing to do with Britain, it happens in any welfare system not structured to allow the transition back out again.

It operates like a Venus flytrap or Chinese fingertrap.

This has nothing to do with flogging the corpse of Maggy Thatcher (sick and sexist) but nothing to do with the 80s either, it’s a new structural issue.

Nobody wants to address it.

Greens and Lib Dems will talk about the rights of terrorists and bondage classes for kids, but not this.

The eternal r-type

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/unbelievable-mother-of-15-kids-somebody-needs-to-pay-somebody-needs-to-be-held-accountable_12012011

for the Title alone

“Somebody needs to pay! Somebody needs to be held accountable!”

comment

“At what number of children does a woman loose her ‘reproductive rights’ to bring even more children into this world that she is unable to care for? Why are you and I ‘forced’ to support children that we had no part in creating? I had no part in the pleasure of any of the orgasms required to create these children …… so why am I required to support them and their mother?
I am informed that here in Florida, the grandmother of the children will go to DCF and allege that her daughter is unfit to care for and raise her grandchildren. Once the mother is declared “unfit”, then the grandmother will gain legal custody of the children and then become their “foster parent”. This changes the whole nature of the situation from a welfare issue to a foster care issue. Grandma can then collect approximately 2.5X more as a foster care provider than her daughter can receive as a welfare recipient.
At this point, the daughter moves back in with her mother and her children and they all live happily after ….. at our expense. How about after the delivery of two welfare babies we also provide the mother with a tubal ligation; at our expense of course. To be completely fare about the whole thing, we also give the father a free vasectomy.
Food for thought homies. Too cold on my part?”

This sex-positive Sexual Revolution propaganda is all about dem dollars.

It’s a wealth transfer to the immature dependents (high time pref) from the actual adults (low time pref). The productive are being vampirised for the leeches, that’s why they can’t afford to breed themselves!

You have a ‘right’ to breed as many children as you like, under our construct of consensual=moral, but you do not have a right to force others to pay for it. At most, your own relations ought to pay for them, not strangers. I find it funny the men complaining about free birth control are the ones (sluts) who benefit from it, they never want to shut down free STD clinics or the abortion clinics, do they?

Replacement-level only is too generous, one child only. You need to breed those genes OUT.
The old rule was all those claiming any welfare go on birth control OR forsake all right to support for any child they produce while claiming.

“This angers me because I remember trying not to cry when I went in for my tubal ligation. We wanted more kids but knew in our hearts we couldn’t afford more. We stopped at three, wanted five originally. It was hard but I figured if I was ever in a position to truly support another lil guy then I could afford a reversal or in vitro. Made sense to me then, makes sense to me now. I don’t regret it because I know my kids would have less if I had been emotional and selfish.

And then to think of the poor couples who can’t have any at all! Really makes me sick. And more and more people have no responsibility for thier actions in any way anymore. I have to wonder, if there were no such thing as welfare, would she have had all those kids?”

It hurts other, better women most of all, the ones who keep their legs shut.

In a way, it’s deeply sexist against K-women. We have a shorter breeding period where we’re forced to pay for welfare trash babies instead of saving for our own.

“Let’s be fair…
Norplant as long as you are on welfare.
Once you start on welfare no more children are added to the payouts.
You lose the right to vote as long as you are on welfare.
to collect welfare you need to turn in the father with a DNA test to prove it.
So if you are down on your luck you get help, and if you turn your life around you get to have as many children as you want, vote, and collect child support from dad(s)”

Why should anyone’s sex life (lifestyle choice) be subsidized by the taxpayer?

The assumption nobody ever attacks.

There is no such thing as a human right to orgasms.

You have no right to a sex life, especially at the expense of others. This goes from free contraception to rape. Within marriage, you have a right to sex. That is literally the ‘conjugal right‘. You don’t have conjugal rights over anyone you’re not married to. That’s the real issue, they refuse to marry.

They want all the perks of marriage: sex, children, financial providence but no obligations or responsibilities.

In a patriarchy, it’s always the father’s responsibility as the provider, this is more a paternal failure but the women are almost as bad. Simply extract all the mother’s costs from the father, or he can work it off in prison. That’s the only way to do this, the traditional way.

Without promiscuity culture, this would never have happened.

Social shame would have prevented it but who wants to name the Beast of lust? All both parents want is ‘fun’.

They had sex knowing the biological consequence. You are taught this before puberty. You can have ‘fun’ in a thousand other ways or take up a masturbation habit if orgasms are so core to your self-esteem. Too much sex and the wrong sex (out of marriage, with strangers) is bad for your body and mind. It’s also common sense. There is NO such thing as ‘casual sex’. It has one, clear outcome.

comment
“If you can’t feed em, don’t breed em.”
“The bitch and her bastards belong in the gas chamber.”
“How’s about the Dads pay and you keep your legs together. I don’t owe you anything.”

If anything, they owe society.

In these cases, it’s always unfair to blame only the mother when it takes two to horizontal tango.
Always ask: where’s the father?

comment on a previously linked article, relevant
Long before you start saving money for your own kids, you pay for someone else’s. Get some single mother’s kid set up with toys, clothes and food and THEN you can start putting aside some money for your OWN kid, but not before. First some brown kid somewhere gets a Tonka truck, new jeans, KFC, ice cream sandwiches with your money. See what’s left, stick it in the piggy bank for your kid. Fuck it.”

The welfare system is unjust.

Our future is stolen.

Comic: Illegal immigration is theft

Theft of a future, too.

Not to mention the genocide angles of depriving natives. Tragedy of the commons, outgroup favoritism has a time limit.

I’d love to see an EU/Euro and a GB/£ version of this.

It’s r-selection in practice.

Trump and welfare reform

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1159371/pg1

“I think Trump’s gonna have to take a healthy chop at the American Welfare System if he wants to appease the people who voted for him. He knows he has to retain the favor of ‘his mob’. The hard part about that is understanding that we are ‘truly’ The Silent Majority. We don’t talk about stuff unless we’re seated in the barber’s chair. But, we vote the line when the time comes. And we’re the guys who will speak out when he needs support … when he needs support.”

K…… O

Those people were never going to vote for him anyway – unless they needed a job.

He only pretends to be loud and crass, he’s a Boris Johnson. Same hair.