Reportate
Reportate

Reportate

Interrupted
Interrupted

Interrupted

Report
Report

Report

Cant Tell
Cant Tell

Cant Tell

We Know
We Know

We Know

We Know Memes
We Know Memes

We Know Memes

We Know Meme
We Know Meme

We Know Meme

Memeing
Memeing

Memeing

Memed
Memed

Memed

allen
allen

allen

🔥 | Latest

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Comfortable, Definitely, and Family: khadij-al-kubra: simplelittlepaperyanon: shitposting-hobbits-to-gallifrey: transrants: a-little-bi-furious: transrants: idopaint-themgreen: the-fury-of-a-time-lord: lgbtqblogs: Two brides have become two of the most kickass women in the world by marrying to protest against homophobia in Russia. Alina Davis, a 23-year-old trans woman, and Allison Brooks, her 19-year-old partner, donned matching white floor-length bridal gowns and married at a civil registry office earlier this month. As Davis is still legally regarded as male, the office had no choice but to hand them a marriage certificate. The couple said officials chided them, and appeared to be violent. ‘She called us the shame of the family and said we need medical treatment … I was afraid my pussycat [an affectionate pet name in Russian] would beat the fuck out of her,’ Davis said on her VK page. But the couple were allowed to sign the papers, meaning a gay couple in Russia are legally recognized as married – even if it’s through a loophole. ‘This is an important precedent for Russia,’ Davis said. Russia banned same-sex marriage and outlawed ‘gay propaganda’ in 2013. holy jesus look at these two warrior princesses they are my heroes YOU GO GIRLS “Oh, you don’t wanna recognize my gender? Okay then lol guess you have to recognize my marriage” that is amazing TRANS EXCELLENCE Okay but other reports state that Alina identifies as androgyne but feels more comfortable as a woman, it definitely is trans excellence but the label she uses is not reported correctly here. Thanks for the info! (This means it’s not only trans excellence but also NONBINARY EXCELLENCE YEAH!) Fucking amazing “Can I be woman?”  “No.”  “I am still man?”  “Yes.”  “I can has wife, then?” [Russian government sweats nervously] Ya gotta love loopholes!
Comfortable, Definitely, and Family: khadij-al-kubra:

simplelittlepaperyanon:


shitposting-hobbits-to-gallifrey:

transrants:

a-little-bi-furious:

transrants:

idopaint-themgreen:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

lgbtqblogs:


Two brides have become two of the most kickass women in the world by marrying to protest against homophobia in Russia.
Alina Davis, a 23-year-old trans woman, and Allison Brooks, her 19-year-old partner, donned matching white floor-length bridal gowns and married at a civil registry office earlier this month.
As Davis is still legally regarded as male, the office had no choice but to hand them a marriage certificate.
The couple said officials chided them, and appeared to be violent.
‘She called us the shame of the family and said we need medical treatment … I was afraid my pussycat [an affectionate pet name in Russian] would beat the fuck out of her,’ Davis said on her VK page.
But the couple were allowed to sign the papers, meaning a gay couple in Russia are legally recognized as married – even if it’s through a loophole. ‘This is an important precedent for Russia,’ Davis said.
Russia banned same-sex marriage and outlawed ‘gay propaganda’ in 2013.


holy jesus look at these two warrior princesses
they are my heroes
YOU GO GIRLS

“Oh, you don’t wanna recognize my gender? Okay then lol guess you have to recognize my marriage”
that is amazing

TRANS EXCELLENCE

Okay but other reports state that Alina identifies as androgyne but feels more comfortable as a woman, it definitely is trans excellence but the label she uses is not reported correctly here.

Thanks for the info! (This means it’s not only trans excellence but also NONBINARY EXCELLENCE YEAH!)


Fucking amazing

“Can I be woman?” 
“No.” 
“I am still man?” 
“Yes.” 
“I can has wife, then?”
[Russian government sweats nervously]


Ya gotta love loopholes!

khadij-al-kubra: simplelittlepaperyanon: shitposting-hobbits-to-gallifrey: transrants: a-little-bi-furious: transrants: idopaint-them...

Abc, Children, and Doctor: WEAR ABC 3 News, Pensacola shared a V link. 1hr. CVS puts out generic competitor to EpiPen at a 6th the price weartv.com 263 26 Comments 99 Shares Like Comment Share lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life.
Abc, Children, and Doctor: WEAR ABC 3 News, Pensacola shared a V
 link.
 1hr.
 CVS puts out generic competitor to EpiPen at a
 6th the price
 weartv.com
 263
 26 Comments 99 Shares
 Like
 Comment
 Share
lethargicactionhero:
erykahisnotokay:

runawayhurricane:

totalharmonycycle:


southernrepublicangirl:

Ah the free market at work.
(Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99).

This is important! Tell your Friends.


I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐

From Slate:
The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections.
That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription.
You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription! 
I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors).
Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements.

Pass this information on, potentially save a life.

lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar...

Bad, Books, and Clothes: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
Bad, Books, and Clothes: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever.
 Step one: give every adult $33,600
 a year, no strings attached.
 There is no step two.
 Photo: Flickr/twicepix
tank-grrl:
hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed bas...

America, Bad, and Books: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great
America, Bad, and Books: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever.
 Step one: give every adult $33,600
 a year, no strings attached.
 There is no step two.
 Photo: Flickr/twicepix
lazorsandparadox:
tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.


With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great

lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcan...

Apparently, Chilis, and Girls: a cat? @lilpochaco FollowV apparently a young woman reported her abuser to her supervisor. the supervisor took that information, spread it, & threw a party to mock her Emily Houser added 2 new photos. 19 hrs This is what you get when you report a grown man for forcing relations on you and and manipulating you as a minor, for over a year, and you report it, I guess. My now former manager told my former coworkers about these allegations that were meant to stay private and they threw a "Fuck Emily Houser" party. The world is a heinous, ugly place. Virgin LTE 3:04 PMM oi 86%-. Virgin LTE 3:04 PML 8 shanano banano Comments shanano banano shanano banano Have your cake and eat hoe #petty danijaay #teamjosh 6h Reply jon-kushhh #teamiosh 15h Reply gummapumma #teamjosh Gh Reply mommykline This is hilarious h Reply kmarie xox Please tell me she can at least see this? Lol 4h Reply d by gummapumma, houserjacob and 20 rs ano b anano Have your cake and eat it too hoe David Hauser Did they have this cake at the restaurant? Like 38 Reply More Yesterday at 18:49 Emily Houser Yes all of this took place in the restaurant. Like 3 Reply More Yesterday at 18:50 a cat? @lilpochaco Follow the restaurant is chili's in whitehall, pa emails can be sent to CHQuestions@qdi.com number to safety & security management is 574-243-6606 RETWEETS LIKES 992 1,033 whatbigotspost: cartnsncreal: Society should protect women And really not even “women” in this case…girls: she was a minor. What the ever loving fuck is wrong with people?
Apparently, Chilis, and Girls: a cat?
 @lilpochaco
 FollowV
 apparently a young woman reported her
 abuser to her supervisor. the supervisor took
 that information, spread it, & threw a party to
 mock her

 Emily Houser added 2 new
 photos.
 19 hrs
 This is what you get when you report a grown
 man for forcing relations on you and and
 manipulating you as a minor, for over a year,
 and you report it, I guess.
 My now former manager told my former
 coworkers about these allegations that were
 meant to stay private and they threw a "Fuck
 Emily Houser" party. The world is a heinous,
 ugly place.
 Virgin LTE
 3:04 PMM
 oi
 86%-.
 Virgin LTE
 3:04 PML 8
 shanano banano
 Comments
 shanano banano
 shanano banano Have your cake and eat
 hoe #petty
 danijaay #teamjosh
 6h Reply
 jon-kushhh #teamiosh
 15h Reply
 gummapumma #teamjosh
 Gh Reply
 mommykline This is hilarious
 h Reply
 kmarie xox Please tell me she can at
 least see this? Lol
 4h Reply
 d by gummapumma, houserjacob and 20
 rs
 ano b
 anano Have your cake and eat it too hoe

 David Hauser
 Did they have this cake at the restaurant?
 Like 38 Reply More Yesterday at 18:49
 Emily Houser
 Yes all of this took place in the restaurant.
 Like 3 Reply More Yesterday at 18:50

 a cat?
 @lilpochaco
 Follow
 the restaurant is chili's in whitehall, pa
 emails can be sent to CHQuestions@qdi.com
 number to safety & security management is
 574-243-6606
 RETWEETS
 LIKES
 992
 1,033
whatbigotspost:

cartnsncreal:
Society should protect women

And really not even “women” in this case…girls: she was a minor. What the ever loving fuck is wrong with people?

whatbigotspost: cartnsncreal: Society should protect women And really not even “women” in this case…girls: she was a minor. What the ever ...

Arguing, News, and Tumblr: 1082 10 vaccines given to US. babies autism rate 1 in 10,000 36 vaccines given to U.S. babies 400 autism rate 1 in 150 2 46 vaccines given to U.S. babies autism rate 1in 88 Natural News.com America's truth news bureau, read by 7 million and growing anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers: realnaturalnews: Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing… No correlation!  Autism “rates” are not what’s rising; Autism diagnosis rates are, and the reason for that is because we have gotten better at diagnosing it. That’s also on top of the fact that autism is more widely reported in the modern day because, unlike back in the old days, we don’t lock autistic people up in institutions or try to hide their existence. And as you’ve probably heard a million times but continue to plug your ears when told — the one “scientific” paper written that argued that vaccines cause autism was proven to be bunk, several other scientists involved in the “research” asked to have their names removed from the paper and admitted that it was bunk, and the main researcher involved (Andrew Wakefield), had his medical license revoked. TL;DR there is no science supporting “vaccines cause autism”, and the “data” anti-vaxxers try to use to argue in favor of it are false correlations of things that have nothing to do with each other.
Arguing, News, and Tumblr: 1082 10 vaccines given to US. babies
 autism rate 1 in 10,000
 36 vaccines given to U.S. babies
 400 autism rate 1 in 150
 2
 46 vaccines given to U.S. babies
 autism rate 1in 88
 Natural News.com
 America's truth news bureau, read by 7 million and growing
anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers:
realnaturalnews:
Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing…
No correlation! 
Autism “rates” are not what’s rising; Autism diagnosis rates are, and the reason for that is because we have gotten better at diagnosing it. That’s also on top of the fact that autism is more widely reported in the modern day because, unlike back in the old days, we don’t lock autistic people up in institutions or try to hide their existence.
And as you’ve probably heard a million times but continue to plug your ears when told — the one “scientific” paper written that argued that vaccines cause autism was proven to be bunk, several other scientists involved in the “research” asked to have their names removed from the paper and admitted that it was bunk, and the main researcher involved (Andrew Wakefield), had his medical license revoked.
TL;DR there is no science supporting “vaccines cause autism”, and the “data” anti-vaxxers try to use to argue in favor of it are false correlations of things that have nothing to do with each other.

anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers: realnaturalnews: Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing… No correlation! ...