Hacker News Reader

Comment by xienze | Hacker News Reader

In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.

View on HN

One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.

If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI.

"Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"

This is circular logic. In order for BI to become a reality, it first must be embraced. In order for BI to be embraced, it must first be a world where BI is a reality.

You keep referencing ACA, but there is currently a new bill to repeal it: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-...

The argument from the parent posts rely on ACA being repealed already. If the ACA does get repealed then the above arguments hold but this hasn't happened yet.

My point is that bringing up the ACA repeal is moot, either way, because it's repeal is still active and not finished.

No, in order for BI to become a reality you just need a Democrat majority to pass the legislation.

The irony of course being that all the existing social programs which are "nearly impossible to remove" will have to be removed to fund the BI.

BI is the opposite of socialism when it's coupled with dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net. We don't need WIC or CHIP if we have universal BI, for example.

That depends on a great deal of factors, I think.

Even if we guarantee some sort of income floor, there will still be those who, despite that guarantee, need additional assistance. Whether it's because they have more children than the average, are irresponsible with spending, are victim to a drug habit, unexpectedly lose their jobs, or succumb to medical debt, we have to come to grips with the idea that UBI won't be a cure-all.

Even if we acknowledge (and not all will) that most people who are dependent on safety-net assistance are perfectly good and responsible, depending on what the amount is, what their life circumstances are, and a myriad other factors, I don't think we can take it for granted that UBI obviates those specific-purpose programs for the remainder of those who need assistance and for whom UBI is not ideal.

Put bluntly, there are people who will take the entirety of their UBI check and spend it on stupid things, and end up without money for food, or for their childrens' health. What are we to do about them?

Yes, BI involves dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net to replace it with a social safety net. The party that opposes wealth redistribution will oppose BI.

I think you're confusing the GOP's motivations and their rhetoric. See also: their failure to repeal the ACA despite having the presidency and a majority in both houses.

That's because the GOP isn't a party, it's a coalition of bickering factions that has chosen to prioritize winning over purity. (As opposed to Democrats, who prioritize purity over winning.)

Odd, I would have flipped that statement.

Tbe republican party like UBI if it comes with a reduction in welfare programs. Its the democrats that have to be convinced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com