<story><title>The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets of the poor</title><url>http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/evidence-behind-putting-money-directly-pockets-poor</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ponker</author><text>I think you also have to take into account the political sustainability of a policy though. It might be better for a poor person to get $2 cash than $2 of bread. But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>andrewfong</author><text>The political argument in favor of universal basic income stresses the importance of the universal.&lt;p&gt;That is, when the argument is &amp;quot;the others are getting cash&amp;quot;, some will oppose it. But if it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;we all get cash&amp;quot;, the opposition is less.&lt;p&gt;In America, Social Security straight up gives up cash to ALL older Americans. Assuming you live long enough, you&amp;#x27;ll get Social Security. It&amp;#x27;s not immune but it remains popular. Indeed, efforts to cut back on Social Security are framed as attempts to &amp;quot;save&amp;quot; it and keep the program solvent.&lt;p&gt;In contrast, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits are very much on the chopping block year after year,  their recipients stereotyped as &amp;quot;welfare queens&amp;quot; trying to cheat the system.</text></comment>
<story><title>The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets of the poor</title><url>http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/evidence-behind-putting-money-directly-pockets-poor</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ponker</author><text>I think you also have to take into account the political sustainability of a policy though. It might be better for a poor person to get $2 cash than $2 of bread. But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>marricks</author><text>There’s so many head games that goes into US politics that seems pointless. Democrats in particular compromise with themselves so much before even offering something to republicans before compromising even more.&lt;p&gt;Republicans pretty much never do that, it’s just boom, let’s give big tax cuts to the rich or stop all immigration.&lt;p&gt;Left side of the US needs to boldly actually fight for things rather than step my step planning out what “seems reasonable to republicans”, it’s just a bad losing idea, go boldly with what’s the moral and reasonable thing.</text></comment>