It can be called whatever someone wants and it can be delivered various ways, but its still functionally the same thing.
Headlines latch on to the term UBI, and people largely are parrots so they argue about UBI specifically as well, but at the end of the day the question is whether its a good and sustainable idea for the government to decide what our basic necessities are then pay us so we can buy them.
You just mean food stamps, right? We already have that in the US.
I often see people in my area chest that program. I know when food stamps were sent out or refilled because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
> because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
Some do that, yes - not everybody can (eg: small communities, limited travel, few people with cash that want to buy basics)
Are they doing that with federal subsidies? I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, and NY point wasn't even that we shouldn't have food stamps but that as the program already stands it can be abused.
I didn't say I was angry at anyone. A business can decide what to offer for sale and customers can decide what to buy. That's different from whether tax dollars funding it is the best solution.
If my tax dollars have to pay for war crimes and the Epstein memorial ballroom then I'd happily pay for people to be able to eat, drink and live. I sure as hell don't trust corporations and the "free market" to ensure the common welfare.
I believe that governments have an obligation to their citizens beyond simply taxation and violence, and that the social contract goes both ways. I understand that I'm in the minority of Americans in this belief.
The government should have an obligation to not waste our money. Let's start with balancing the budget, letting elected Congress again hold the purse stings and war responsibilities, then we can talk about more spending.
I can't justify more debt spending because we already waste money on stuff I disagree with.
The US has by far the lowest spending (fed + state + local) among the major advanced economies in the world. [1]
The US also has by far the lowest taxes (fed + state + local) among them too; in fact, the US could have raised taxes by more than 15% and still been lowest. [2]
Regardless, if someone does believe spending should be cut:
A) What specifically should be cut, and
B) What % of the 11.5T/y [3] gov spending does it add up to?
The US was literally founded over concerns related to large governments and governments gaining too much power. The idea we have some of the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP shouldn't be surprising, its originally by design.
I also don't really care how much other countries choose to spend, that's their choice and I shouldn't have a say in that.
I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut, there's plenty of data I don't even have access to. From my experience with both local and federal governments, though, there is plenty of waste in the US that could be handled without even impacting the end result our programs are intended to deliver.
1. You make strong definitive statements like "there is plenty of waste" that could be cut "without even impacting" programs' results, but then can't actually quantify it? How can you make strong definitive statements if you simultaneously say "I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut"?
2. Regardless, is there any national politician who has named and quantified the items that they would cut that you support? As this seems to be a large, long-running problem within the right ('news', politicians, etc.) where they will make significant claims about wanting to cut gov spending without ever actually naming the programs they want to end and what % of the ~11T/y spending it adds up to.
3. You pointed to how when the US was set up in the 1700s that the government had different goals, and that there were wildly different expectations of what government provided for its citizens. Do you think the expectations of what the government provided in the 1700s are still relevant for what US citizens expect (or demand) of government services in the 21st century?
4. Every program will have some waste and abuse, and organizations typically then spend money to combat the waste and abuse. Sometimes the cost of fighting the waste and abuse, and/or the increased bureaucracy and overhead to prevent the issues in the first place, even exceed the costs of the waste and abuse that is being combatted. But my point is that even if waste exists, the 'cure' might be worse than the 'disease' in terms of increased costs, increased bureaucracy/oversight, etc. I'm not even necessarily opposed to those increased costs, bureaucracy, etc. in order to combat the possibly-smaller-costing waste and abuse, but it's certainly not as simple as "___ exists, so we can spend less by just not doing that."
I known I don't have nearly enough information to know if that's feasible or advisable, I assume you don't either. Though yes, I would like it if we didn't need such a large military and I take issue with the concept of a standing military during peace time in general.
In practice every time someone goes to Washington to "clean house" the first things to get gutted are welfare and funding for science and research, because unfortunately a lot of Americans consider all of that to be waste. Never the military, never the police, never the pork.
All of those programs have to be on the table. We can only afford what we can afford, that means a combination of increasing revenues, clearing out wasted spending, and reducing expenses by cutting programs.
Somehow we can always afford a military several orders of magnitude beyond what's necessary for self defense, we can always afford a global surveillance infrastructure, we can always afford the infinite pit of black budget programs.
But for everything else - anything with the stink of "empathy" on it - every penny has to be justified. We cut USAID and destroyed a useful source of soft power and intelligence and killed hundreds of thousands of people because the program helped gay and transgender people in some way. We cut funding to HHS, welfare, science, education, infrastructure and the environment. And then we approved the biggest military budget in history. Netanyahu makes a phone call and we burn $3 billion dollars a month on a war with Iran without a second thought or an end in sight.
So I respectfully disagree. Under a fair and impartial system you would be correct, but American politics is neither. Every program isn't on the table. Every attempt to balance the books is nakedly partisan and punitive.
I'm not arguing that the federal government can't be required to balance the budget. I'm arguing that cutting social spending and science and research in order to balance the budget should not be allowed, and that social spending shouldn't be contingent on a balanced budget.
Hah, oh the way Trump manages to drive businesses into bankruptcy I'm not so sure. It might be cheaper to feed everyone forever than let him run the corporation.
Headlines latch on to the term UBI, and people largely are parrots so they argue about UBI specifically as well, but at the end of the day the question is whether its a good and sustainable idea for the government to decide what our basic necessities are then pay us so we can buy them.