Poll of the Day > San Fran to offer Guarunteed Income to Transgendered People

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-launches-guaranteed-income-program-transgender-people

up to $1200 a month for 18 months

Think it's a good SJW policy?

everyone knows where this is going

San Fran

Who are you? Jack Kerouac?

I remember a time when Democrats were the progressive party, trying to pass policies that were fair to everyone and helped based on need, and Republicans were the regressive party, trying to pass policies that only helped a tiny % of their chosen few favorites (the rich) and fuck everyone else.

Somewhere along the way, Democrats morphed into a variation of the Republican party. First it was punishing the "essential workers" during COVID by giving the "non-essential" ones more money than them to sit at home. Now this...
I hope every single person in San Fran identifies as trans to claim their check, and dares the government to try and doubt them. What a farce.

streamofthesky posted...

I hope every single person in San Fran identifies as trans to claim their check, and dares the government to try and doubt them. What a farce.

The program, one of several city programs intended to help support San Francisco residents, will support 55 people

chelsea___wtf posted...

The program, one of several city programs intended to help support San Francisco residents, will support 55 people

Why can't it just be based on income/need?

streamofthesky posted...

First it was punishing the "essential workers" during COVID by giving the "non-essential" ones more money than them to sit at home. Now this...

Ill never not be salty about this tbh.

Absolute joke.

streamofthesky posted...

Why can't it just be based on income/need?

There are already programs in place for that. This is a targeted relief program.

chelsea___wtf posted...

The program, one of several city programs intended to help support San Francisco residents, will support 55 people

Which makes the whole thing pretty pointless. I mean, good for those 55 people, but that's such a paltry drop in the bucket compared to even just the number of trans people on the streets, let alone the total homeless population or the housed population (of any demographic) that has virtually no financial security. This is too small-scale to be useful as a UBI experiment, too small-scale to make a serious impact on the poverty problem, and the fact that it's restricted to a specific demographic (even a demographic that's among the highest risk of becoming homeless and that tends to experience the worst conditions once homeless) is inevitably going to breed too much political ill will for the program to have any real future.

1200 a month is really not much for the Bay Area, even the cheaper areas. Also, I'm not sure if I trust a link from Fox about news in San Fran.

adjl posted...

Which makes the whole thing pretty pointless. I mean, good for those 55 people, but that's such a paltry drop in the bucket compared to even just the number of trans people on the streets, let alone the total homeless population or the housed population (of any demographic) that has virtually no financial security. This is too small-scale to be useful as a UBI experiment, too small-scale to make a serious impact on the poverty problem,

yes its too small to be meaningful. agree to all of the above

and the fact that it's restricted to a specific demographic (even a demographic that's among the highest risk of becoming homeless and that tends to experience the worst conditions once homeless) is inevitably going to breed too much political ill will for the program to have any real future.

this is not an issue for local SF politics in my experience. like ofc this is not going to go anywhere at the state/federal level tho

streamofthesky posted...

Somewhere along the way, Democrats morphed into a variation of the Republican party. First it was punishing the "essential workers" during COVID by giving the "non-essential" ones more money than them to sit at home.

it's not democrats that did that

it's whoever you worked for that did that. it's not democrats fault that mega ceo sunk billions into gaslighting people that minimum wage needs to stay at $7.

meanwhile people literally shit in streets/sidewalks/near businesses... guess that's not a higher priority.

chelsea___wtf posted...

this is not an issue for local SF politics in my experience. like ofc this is not going to go anywhere at the state/federal level tho

This is true, but I'm still concerned that it will build resentment to the idea (which many people already resent because they're brainwashed into believing that it's better to punish the homeless than to give them homes they "don't deserve" even though that would be cheaper and more effective) by establishing it as fringe "wokeness" for "virtue-signalling lefties." SF's municipal politics aren't likely to change much because the city already leans pretty far left, but I could see it hurting things on a broader scale.

There's also a very real chance that this is just a matter of being able to claim that they tried to experiment with UBI and found that it made little difference, citing that as a reason to not try it on any larger scale when proponents bring it up. It's obviously doomed to failure (or at least to be a very minor success at best), but for people that are already against the idea (including most politicians, even in left-leaning areas, because the fantasy of punishing the homeless is apparently pretty addictive), that failure is just more ammunition.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

meanwhile people literally shit in streets/sidewalks/near businesses... guess that's not a higher priority.

Putting aside the fact that that problem isn't nearly as prevalent as far-right pundits would have you believe, do you think guaranteed income wouldn't help with that problem? That people who can afford to not live on the street wouldn't find somewhere more comfortable to poop?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

meanwhile people literally shit in streets/sidewalks/near businesses... guess that's not a higher priority.

I guess that will give enuff to pay to **** in a nice Bathroom in a Restaurant or something

why did you censor the word shit

I feel like a woman.

adjl posted...

Putting aside the fact that that problem isn't nearly as prevalent as far-right pundits would have you believe, do you think guaranteed income wouldn't help with that problem? That people who can afford to not live on the street wouldn't find somewhere more comfortable to poop?

I lived in the bay area for over 20 years, and went to San Fransisco countless times.... it's not overblown.

and this income isn't for every homeless, just a select group

I lived in the Bay Area for a cumulative 25+ years and also went to SF countless times. Yes, youre definitely overblowing it. As you tend to do.

Anyone that takes Fox News articles and promotes as real news is a joke, especially when it's about making the Democrats look bad they will twist news in any fashion to make Democrats look out of touch with reality or stupid.

It's basically like using Donald Trump as a credible source for anything. Fox News is the most biased news source in America and it's not even close.

^ Yeah I am not getting information on this from Fox, that's beyond stupid. Let's see:

Applicants must meet the following qualifications:
Be at least 18 years old
Identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex
Not be receiving more than $600/monthly in income
Reside in the City and County of San Francisco
Be willing and able to complete a survey every 3 months, and submit a complete application.

In a statement, the City of San Francisco said: "GIFT is one of several programs the City is developing, implementing, and evaluating to identify how to best support San Francisco residents and promote economic stability and recovery."

So this sounds like something experimental that they're looking at to see how best to implement programs to help impoverished people (who disproportionately are members of minority groups), which is why the surveys are part of the program.

"The US Transgender Survey, which is the only largescale study of trans people in the United States, in 2015 found that 33% of trans people in California were living in poverty," said Pau Crego with the San Francisco Office of Transgender Initiatives.
That percentage is compared to 12% of people in the general population that were living in poverty.

It's also worth pointing out that trans people (and people with disabilities but that's another matter) tend to also have more expenses than the average person.

The GIFT program is San Francisco's third guaranteed income program. It follows the Abundant Birth Project, launched in 2020, and the Guaranteed Income Pilot for Artists, launched in 2021.
In 2023, the city said it will launch two additional guaranteed income programs geared towards youth.

So this is just one part in a series of experimental programs likely designed to gather data on the efficacy of combating poverty via direct cash distribution.

Stop freaking out about this. It's embarrassing.

Edit: I feel like I should clarify that I would prefer a program that isn't so narrow in scope. I am, after all, a Bernie Sanders supporter. I prefer more universal programs.
However, it's worth pointing out that something of that nature might be difficult to implement on that level of government.

JigsawTDCII posted...

I lived in the Bay Area for a cumulative 25+ years and also went to SF countless times. Yes, youre definitely overblowing it. As you tend to do.

if you didn't see over a dozen homeless people in just a few hours, you are blind

Krazy_Kirby posted...

and this income isn't for every homeless, just a select group

Which is why I said "help with that problem," not "single-handedly solve that problem and rain unicorn fairy dust across all the land while happy flowers dance on meadows if brilliant green." I would prefer a more comprehensive program that actually made a significant dent in the homeless population instead of something so narrow, but any improvement is still an improvement.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Edit: I feel like I should clarify that I would prefer a program that isn't so narrow in scope. I am, after all, a Bernie Sanders supporter. I prefer more universal programs.
However, it's worth pointing out that something of that nature might be difficult to implement on that level of government.

Not necessarily. While it's not strictly UBI, Medicine Hat in Alberta saw tremendous success with their housing-first program, which was handled at a municipal level. They were able to completely eradicate chronic homelessness while saving money in the process because policing and providing emergency medical care to the homeless is actually more expensive than just giving them homes. Now, Medicine Hat is much smaller than San Francisco and suffers considerably fewer space challenges, so obviously copy+pasting their solutions isn't necessarily going to work, but that's still an example of things being done at the municipal level to ameliorate homelessness on a universal scale (at least, universal within the municipality).

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if you didn't see over a dozen homeless people in just a few hours, you are blind

And now we've moved the goalposts from "people pooping in the street" to "homeless people exist."

adjl posted...

And now we've moved the goalposts from "people pooping in the street" to "homeless people exist."

you think they magically never poop?
there aren't enough public restrooms for them

Hard_Light posted...

why did you censor the word shit

because I'm still living in GFaqs 1995-2010

Only tangentially related... I just thought this was funny. I love indie devs

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2192840/Terfenstein_3D/