It describes the intended purpose

We still need some basic safety nets

it's acting like you can provide a consistent minimum

no you dont

historically that has not been the case

If it works or not is beyond the point

@ManAnimal What are you then?

as i described eariler, it makes sense people be forced to have part of their income set aside for emergency usage

as long as that money can ONLY be used by them

and upon retirement they get it back

there is no issue

@Coolitic historically we discarded the disabled as refuse unless they had some sort of worth or history

untrue

it provides a buffer

they were well taken care of

Historically we had nuclear families

until a single act was released

which kicked em all out

that had nothing to do with "safety nets"

but you left when i made the associated argument regarding your inexperience with capitalism coolitc

we used to have this thing called 'savings'

I know

that maintained both liquidity and earned interest

this was our 'saftey net' too

now, you've gotten rid of that

so inevitably, where does that weight go?

welfare

the remainder of that net

and the left didn't cause the 2008 debacle

the right did

the "left" barely existed in 2008, congressionally-speaking

This is true you wouldn't need a safety net if you actually had savings, part of that is because some of the money I might save is being taxed into a black hole

it was only right afterwards that the Dems started veering off hard left

in your eyes maybe

because in my world, you are a bit liberal

😉

...because I want to ban taxation?

no, that's not liberal

because I support traditional nuclear families?

nope

ok, but that kind of liberal isn't left-wing