@radiojammor

> Giving people money to make their OWN choices is not nanny stuff

Disagree, giving people money absolutely is nanny stuff. Nanny state stuff is, as the name would imply, any time the state is trying to take care of a person (with someone elses money) rather than assuming people can take care of themselves.

> forcing YOUR POV on them is.

Right, like taking their money at gun point (under threat of arrest) in order to redistribute it to everyone else... like that?

> Ineffective? Go read. There are NUMEROUS studies showing the effectiveness of a UBI. This claim is fatuous and without foundation.

Go read? You mean like the examples I've already cited in this thread. Yes they are ineffective at solving the root problem 100% of the time, as I've pointed out they only act as an infinite fire hose that alleviates symptoms while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that cause it to arrise.

> Poor skills? BS. SNOB! THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE & JOBS ARE DIMINISHING.

Already addressed this in the thread as well. Your lacking understanding of the system. By educating people you dont just increase their skill set, and pay, but you create more jobs as well. More educated and well earning populace means more innovative people starting new businesses as well.

> PEOPLE IN WORK ARE IN POVERTY BECAUSE OF LOW PAY!

Duh. And that low pay is often due to lack of marketable skills which, if they had that they wouldnt have low pay.

> YOU BLAME PEOPLE FOR THAT?

I do not, I blame a system that doesnt have conditional welfare like I described, and provided a solution to that. No it isnt the peoples fault, but it is yours for trying to promote a system that perpetuates these problems.

> Get in the sea.

QED on the fact that you are, in fact, not a mature adult.

@scottsantens