Zippy @ Zippy @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

771

Joined

2 yr. ago

So Hamas is killing Israelis who live there right now and trying to steal their houses. They should be mad as fuck and retaliate. No?

Or are you suggesting they have not lived there long enough?

There has been conflict there for centuries. It was predominantly Jewish people 1500 years earlier when they were forced out. One of the main reasons it was selected was because it was not heavily populated and that at one time it was a Jewish region before they were invaded. The history goes back millenniums.

Jewish history in Palestine stretches back some 2000 years with a major purge about 1500 years earlier. What do you think about that claim on their land or does time negate that? Serious question that could argue rather the opposite in that they are fighting for land was taken from them.

Except they have a very high approval rating and was one of the reasons they decided to attack again. Often their approval goes up after an operation as such.

https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87

You can always find a way for things. Lol. Ya if there is a god or there materializing it for you.

None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program. They ran it for 4 years and the budget yes ran out of money. Could have ran forever because the rest of the country was paying for it but once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.

How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don't cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?

Sorry was not you. Point being stands though. Your source does not help his post but negates it.

It was 2500 families and encompassed about 10000 pretty much the whole town in some way and was over 4 years. The place was picked because at that time it was bit remote and somewhat isolated on that external forces would have minimal effect. It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns. Productivity did fall which was huge in that if this was instituted over a whole country and the result is less productivity, there is absolutely zero way to pay for it. The main take from the initial 4 year study was productively fell less than predicted but it certainly made live easier for the people getting it.

This was likely the biggest study ever done and the most controlled IMO. It did improve people's health who recieved this money but that was at the expense of the rest of the country paying for it basically all thing being equal, they would get less health care.

Ubi also is payment to everyone. In these examples it is just payment to low or no income people. That is not ubi but simply welfare. Something that is not a bad thing to provide if there is excessive resources to do so.

So you were totally lying when you said 99.999 percent were homeless for reasons other than money.

They gave the money to people living on friends couches. That is not exactly homeless but was considered a roommate at one time. Ubi is universal. It is in the name. Give it to every person regardless of status and see how effective it is compared to the money spent. I bet it is a poor return.

That is pretty much bullshit. From a brother in law that died of substance abuse and another I house for same reason, nearly every homeless person I have met has had some type of substance abuse. Being you are making that claim, do you have a source to back it up?

You read the first study? The money was not given to those that has substance abuse, mental health symptoms or alcohol abuse because they felt they represented a small portion of the homeless. Was given to people that were sleeping in friends house and some in cars and didn't abuse alcohol or drugs. That is a joke of an experiment and in no ready ubi. Not does it indicate on any meaningful way how it is paid for as it doesn't include everyone.

The second study found only 3/4 of the people continued to work and ultimately the 150 million dollar program was cancelled because it did not appear to increase contribution to society in any economic way.

They tried it on Manitoba Canada. Not just a study. It rather fell flat with the most positive statement being, productivity fell less than expected.

I love this sub for all the conversational subjects when you are stoned.

This is all she is after. It is a certain way and legal way to fame and money. She is trolling every one of you but unfortunately she is in a position where it can and does hurt every American.

Would say immunizing the majority of your population reduce a spread vector as well? Or is the virus present in mosquitoes regardless if people are carriers or not?

I really don't care about boring as long as it is obvious. Agree on your second point.

It can be so hard to identify where you need to click or what is viewable only. You have to study the whole page of which may, God help me, I have to scroll down.

Disappearing anything. I suppose it is more of an app thing but greying out at least indicated there is an option available under some condition.

Just to clarify, that makes it sound like it is political. It is not although I don't think you meant to imply it was.

Running for president just put him under the microscope like it should. Lots of illegal stuff came out.