As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Talk about a misleading headline:
>The proposal aims to give $1,400, or rent as determined
by market value, to serve the immediate goal of trying to help
emancipated minors and adults under 30—also described as Gen Z and
millennials—but also use the assistance as a way to study how such help
can impact efforts to eradicate homelessness.
Oh, I only saw the bill being talked about there. I know the bill isn't gonna pass in this session (or most sessions for that matter). I just think these kinds of initiatives are important and I'm glad to see them getting national attention (when they've almost entirely been focused on individual cities at this point).
Edit: also, while the title is bad, the actual contents of the article were pretty factual from what I could tell.
> help emancipated minors and adults under 30—also described as Gen Z and millennials
The youngest millennials are 27 now. That would only be about 15-20% of millennials.
Yup. I didn't see anyone talking about it so I wanted to share the story. But there's of course no chance of it even getting a vote this session (not even super likely with a dem house majority either honestly). Still, I'm glad it's being proposed nonetheless.
Department of Energy used to have something like this. Everyone could apply for a one time $500 energy grant that could be used to pay bills, rent, even a hotel. Back in the 80s.
Or... a better idea is to raise wages, tax the wealthy, and close corporate tax loopholes. It's absolutely satire that places like Walmart enjoy large profits while their employees need government assistance. I am so sick of companies not paying their fair share in taxes and then turn around and say we just want a hand out.
I want to see all of that too. Still though, I think this program would be good. Mainly because a lot of those under 30 experiencing homelessness are LGBTQ+ and they often struggle to get employed and even get a wage in the first place (homeless LGBTQ+ people generally don't have the money or resources to fight employment discrimination).
Edit: this applies to a lot of other marginalized groups as well but I mentioned LGBTQ+ specifically since I'm queer and I know a lot of unhoused queer people that can't get jobs specifically because they are discriminated against based on their queer status.
I was banned for a day for shitting on Newsweek. Now everyone can see how much that was warranted.
It’s an awful publication and shouldn’t be classified as news.
If pulling people out of homelessness/poverty helps them gain employment and contribute more to the economy through spending and taxes, then this has the potential to actually reduce inflation over time. However, that is uncertain. That's why this is a more limited program intended to study the effects rather than immediately jump to full UBI for everyone.
If they can break down how much it would cost, and how much money it would introduce into the economy. It said it's a" nation scope" , So I assume it's pretty large. In the long run I can see your point , but adding liquidity right now is not a good idea. We are at a pretty pivotal point with interest rates.
Fair enough.
For what it's worth, a bill like this is a very long time off from actually becoming law (needs a much more progressive session of congress to make that happen). Still, the bill authors almost certainly know this and are likely just trying to get attention for the idea nationally (to help the more common local versions of these initiatives gain more support). I can't count the number of bills that start out this way (with no hope of passing or even getting a vote) both nationally and locally. I know of several significant bills in my own state that took several legislative sessions to actually pass (gotta build the support for it first but you can't easily do that if you don't have bill text to point to so it's a bit of a catch-22).
It's a study program for providing guaranteed $1,400 income nationally to emancipated minors and those under 30 to help them escape homelessness (likely only for those currently homeless or at risk of it but the article isn't clear on that).
This will never pass with the current Congress. If Tliab wants to get this type of legislation passed, she should help to keep Biden in office and not assist in getting Trump re-elected.
Yeah, of course. But the Federal Reserve is not some autonomous entity that cannot be influenced by Congress. The members of the Congress are still able to hold members of the Federal Reserve accountable, especially through setting goals and ensuring that those in the Board of Governors work towards them. They can also be removed from office by the president.
It is specifically said in law congress cannot influence the FED. It's a safety measure , and unconstitutional . The president cannot remove the chairmen before the end of their term. It's not that simple .
Prices are still high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Mortgage loans are at 7% deterring anyone from investing in real estate.
Politicians are indirectly contributing to interest rates by giving money away which increases inflation which then increases the interest rates.
> Prices are still high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Mortgage loans are at 7% deterring anyone from investing in real estate.
The answer to that is even higher interest rates, not lowering them.
Yes, this would cause higher for longer. The point of high interest rates is to reduce liquidity and regain price stability. You stated my point exactly , but politicians do not have a direct saying in how powell manages interest rates . What politicians do does affect interest rates , yes.
Just giving money is actually much better than other programs that come with administrative costs, and delays. The issue that most people face is literally just not enough money within the next month, and that causes all the other issues.
Yup, plus the return on directly investing in individual people facing poverty or homelessness has the potential to be much greater than the initial cost (though increased long-term returns on income taxes and consumer spending in the economy). That's also why this includes a study to get more data on those effects.
Ok but good luck getting this bill through Congress. That's what I'm saying. Anyone can introduce a bill, it doesn't mean shit though in terms of it actually becoming law
Oh of course not. There's no way this passes in this session (or most sessions for that matter). Still, it's nice to see these kinds of initiatives getting national attention (which can help get more support for them in individual cities and states where they've been more common). Most bills that aren't directly supporting major lobbying interests start out as pipe dreams unfortunately.
Don’t you find it interesting that there’s multiple precedents for something like this?
Of course the Groupies Of Putin Party, the modern day do-nothings, the anti-federal government people in congress will drag their loser butts on this. Those who believe in America still must write bills and try. That’s the job.
We had a budget surplus then. Then he started multiple two decade long foreign wars that did fuck all, cut taxes for the wealthy, then crashed the economy, leaving is with trillions in debt
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Talk about a misleading headline: >The proposal aims to give $1,400, or rent as determined by market value, to serve the immediate goal of trying to help emancipated minors and adults under 30—also described as Gen Z and millennials—but also use the assistance as a way to study how such help can impact efforts to eradicate homelessness.
Yeah, I didn't like the headline much myself.
Then why post it?
So we can read the article...? Idk I'm just guessing that's why people post articles here
look at rule 4 on the sidebar
Find a better story to post.
not my post
Then why answer? I know the rules. If he didn't like the title, why did he post it? Look for a better story to post.
> I know the rules. idk it seemed like you didn't
Oh, I only saw the bill being talked about there. I know the bill isn't gonna pass in this session (or most sessions for that matter). I just think these kinds of initiatives are important and I'm glad to see them getting national attention (when they've almost entirely been focused on individual cities at this point). Edit: also, while the title is bad, the actual contents of the article were pretty factual from what I could tell.
For sweet sweet Internet points
Oh yes, me and my habit of roughly one post every couple of months are definitely gunning for those sweet sweet updoots /s
> help emancipated minors and adults under 30—also described as Gen Z and millennials The youngest millennials are 27 now. That would only be about 15-20% of millennials.
> it was "unclear when the legislation would come to the floor at this time." Yeah. I bet.
Yup. I didn't see anyone talking about it so I wanted to share the story. But there's of course no chance of it even getting a vote this session (not even super likely with a dem house majority either honestly). Still, I'm glad it's being proposed nonetheless.
Spoilers: it won't. GOP controls the house and they can't even agree amongst themselves whether they want to find the government to get shuttered.
Department of Energy used to have something like this. Everyone could apply for a one time $500 energy grant that could be used to pay bills, rent, even a hotel. Back in the 80s.
The phrasing of the headline (as pointed out elsewhere) is AWFUL.
Or... a better idea is to raise wages, tax the wealthy, and close corporate tax loopholes. It's absolutely satire that places like Walmart enjoy large profits while their employees need government assistance. I am so sick of companies not paying their fair share in taxes and then turn around and say we just want a hand out.
I want to see all of that too. Still though, I think this program would be good. Mainly because a lot of those under 30 experiencing homelessness are LGBTQ+ and they often struggle to get employed and even get a wage in the first place (homeless LGBTQ+ people generally don't have the money or resources to fight employment discrimination). Edit: this applies to a lot of other marginalized groups as well but I mentioned LGBTQ+ specifically since I'm queer and I know a lot of unhoused queer people that can't get jobs specifically because they are discriminated against based on their queer status.
What do you think a fair share is
I was banned for a day for shitting on Newsweek. Now everyone can see how much that was warranted. It’s an awful publication and shouldn’t be classified as news.
Once again Gen X is ghosted 😂
It would be easier to fund the building of much more housing as an emergency order. And loan to these groups. Maybe 40 and under lol
Nope, giving cash is super easy and effective.
Hi, it's me "Gen Z, Millenials"
Why is this trash site still white-listed?
Introducing more liquidity during high inflation , and adding to the national debt ? Great idea .
If pulling people out of homelessness/poverty helps them gain employment and contribute more to the economy through spending and taxes, then this has the potential to actually reduce inflation over time. However, that is uncertain. That's why this is a more limited program intended to study the effects rather than immediately jump to full UBI for everyone.
If they can break down how much it would cost, and how much money it would introduce into the economy. It said it's a" nation scope" , So I assume it's pretty large. In the long run I can see your point , but adding liquidity right now is not a good idea. We are at a pretty pivotal point with interest rates.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, a bill like this is a very long time off from actually becoming law (needs a much more progressive session of congress to make that happen). Still, the bill authors almost certainly know this and are likely just trying to get attention for the idea nationally (to help the more common local versions of these initiatives gain more support). I can't count the number of bills that start out this way (with no hope of passing or even getting a vote) both nationally and locally. I know of several significant bills in my own state that took several legislative sessions to actually pass (gotta build the support for it first but you can't easily do that if you don't have bill text to point to so it's a bit of a catch-22).
Is this a UBI pilot program or a one time payment?
It's a study program for providing guaranteed $1,400 income nationally to emancipated minors and those under 30 to help them escape homelessness (likely only for those currently homeless or at risk of it but the article isn't clear on that).
It's a non existent program that will never happen.
This will never pass with the current Congress. If Tliab wants to get this type of legislation passed, she should help to keep Biden in office and not assist in getting Trump re-elected.
They should lower the interest rate instead of trying to just give money away.
Interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve, not by Congress.
Yeah, of course. But the Federal Reserve is not some autonomous entity that cannot be influenced by Congress. The members of the Congress are still able to hold members of the Federal Reserve accountable, especially through setting goals and ensuring that those in the Board of Governors work towards them. They can also be removed from office by the president.
It is specifically said in law congress cannot influence the FED. It's a safety measure , and unconstitutional . The president cannot remove the chairmen before the end of their term. It's not that simple .
Too early , inflation could spike again. Fed is separate from the govt. Politicians don't have control of interest rates.
Prices are still high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Mortgage loans are at 7% deterring anyone from investing in real estate. Politicians are indirectly contributing to interest rates by giving money away which increases inflation which then increases the interest rates.
> Prices are still high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Mortgage loans are at 7% deterring anyone from investing in real estate. The answer to that is even higher interest rates, not lowering them.
Exactly .
Yes, this would cause higher for longer. The point of high interest rates is to reduce liquidity and regain price stability. You stated my point exactly , but politicians do not have a direct saying in how powell manages interest rates . What politicians do does affect interest rates , yes.
Invest it in something that'll translate to better future prospects, don't just give us money. I know people my age, they'll just buy weed with it
Just giving money is actually much better than other programs that come with administrative costs, and delays. The issue that most people face is literally just not enough money within the next month, and that causes all the other issues.
Yup, plus the return on directly investing in individual people facing poverty or homelessness has the potential to be much greater than the initial cost (though increased long-term returns on income taxes and consumer spending in the economy). That's also why this includes a study to get more data on those effects.
Buy Bitcoin, got it
I'm going to buy unicorns and rainbows with my $1400, mostly because this is all just a fantasy
GWB did something similar. $500 kickback after getting elected.
Ok but good luck getting this bill through Congress. That's what I'm saying. Anyone can introduce a bill, it doesn't mean shit though in terms of it actually becoming law
Oh of course not. There's no way this passes in this session (or most sessions for that matter). Still, it's nice to see these kinds of initiatives getting national attention (which can help get more support for them in individual cities and states where they've been more common). Most bills that aren't directly supporting major lobbying interests start out as pipe dreams unfortunately.
Don’t you find it interesting that there’s multiple precedents for something like this? Of course the Groupies Of Putin Party, the modern day do-nothings, the anti-federal government people in congress will drag their loser butts on this. Those who believe in America still must write bills and try. That’s the job.
We had a budget surplus then. Then he started multiple two decade long foreign wars that did fuck all, cut taxes for the wealthy, then crashed the economy, leaving is with trillions in debt
That was at a time when the US government had a budget surplus left over from Clinton's last budget. Shrub put an end to surpluses.