The idea has often been thrown around, but does the research suggest it is worthwhile? Although largely anecdotal, my research suggests that what some consider to be drug use could be actually a case of breaking equal opportunity employment. In other words, to deny food stamps or supplemental income because of suspected drug use is really more a form of racism against poor people than a responsible thing to do. Natural plants that are considered drugs have proven to be medicinal in battling infections. They have origins in indigenous cultures. Unless the job is incredibly dangerous in some way, it is reasonable to assume they would perform the job duties. There is evidence that dangerous tasks could be done as well, but just to be on the safe side it can’t hurt to ask they not do it during the dangerous job. It varies depending on the length of time they have been using the plants for medication, just like other medications. People don’t always know how they will react to medications at first. It all should come down to how responsible the individual is, not how responsible they are stereotyped to be because of the medicinal pathways they choose to take.
As far as supporting the economy, supplemental income could support it in a way. Ideally, it would not require tax increases or spending cuts in other areas to “pay for it.” I still have found no evidence that the government needs to make a profit and run like a business. It is based on some kind of delusional belief that people have to be manipulated into working, possibly, or trying to make it appear more legitimate? It definitely isn’t necessary. Therefore, the “debt” isn’t really a thing. They aren’t obligated to pay the Federal Reserve, which is part of the government, back for money they lent them. They are literally lending money to themselves and then owing it to themselves? It’s unecessary it seems.
Without having to “pay for it,” this would be exactly like my idea to give money to everyone as a stimulus.
Even if it did have to be paid for, would it support the economy as a whole? The answer is no. Quality of life would improve for some, and it would be for people in extreme need. It could decrease it for others, though. It could even cause more homeless people in the worst case scenario. Depending on the amount that was given, it might still not be enough for many homeless to have a home. At the same time, the amount that was taken from others would put more strain on them decreasing employment and their spending which supports the incomes and livelihoods of other people. If this caused the incomes to be too low to afford housing, then the supplemental income might still not allow them to afford housing because it could be over the maximum amount you can earn, so many wouldn’t even get the supplement.. Also, it could be too little to make the difference otherwise.
It seems pretty worthwhile, to help the poor, obviously. It is always worthwhile. The fact remains, though, that until the money in circulation increases enough, it will have to be spread thinly. This means lower quality of life, more stress, and more struggle for many.
Research also suggests it is worthwhile to be optimistic and to believe that everything is going perfectly and any problems are resolving themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment