Posted on 12/15/2014 12:08:35 PM PST by PROCON
In the United States—as in all of the world’s wealthier nations—ending poverty is not a matter of resources. Many economists, including Timothy Smeeding of the University of Wisconsin (and former director of the Institute for Research on Poverty) have argued that every developed nation has the financial wherewithal to eradicate poverty. In large part this is because post-industrial productivity has reached the point where to suggest a deficit in resources is laughably disingenuous. And despite the occasional political grandstanding against welfare, there is no policy, ideology or political party that is on the books as pro-starvation, pro-homelessness, pro-death or anti-dignity.
Yet, poverty continues to exist. In the U.S., for example, almost 15 percent of citizens (and almost 20 percent of children) live in poverty. Of those, slightly under 2 percent live on less than $2 per person per day.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Might work if executed as described, but it won’t be will it?
I can see politicians using “basic income” to bribe voters.
“The Republicans want to cut your Basic Income!” (i.e. they want to reduce the rate of increase.)
Won’t work. Especially when it becomes a “right.”
No. EVERYBODY gets it. That was the whole point.
Face it, how many people can suddenly afford to lose $10K per year (or whatever it is) from their yearly income?
I always thought the first step in health care insurance would be to tax the value of the health care you get as a benefit.
The amount of tax the average joe would have had to pay would be significantly less than what Obamacare would force them to pay.
AND, it would force the average joe to LOOK at his coverage and demand that their employer negotiate better, more efficient coverage.
That in itself would have caused the model to change due to the market—not at the demand of the government.
Yes. As soon as you start with the "well no you don't qualify for the 10K because, fill in the blank. You then need hoards of bureaucrats to determine eligibility and all the other bull crap.
The only requirements should be that you are a citizen of the United States and that you are of age (18) to receive the payment. If you make it so each child gets a check, the explosion of "check babies" by the gibsmedats would crush the system immediately.
The problem with the welfare system is that it is designed to protect single women with children from suffering.
So single women with no job prospects have lots of kids, and lots of immigrants come over with their kids, until the system can't cope with the load, and it collapses.
“I would be in favor of this approach if it meant replacing all the current gov’t programs and firing all the case workers and bureaucrats.”
The unionized gov’t employees would never go for that. I told a union I worked for in CA that it would just be cheaper to give food stamps to anyone that asked for them instead of paying high wages, insurance and pensions to workers to ascertain eligibility, and I thought he was going to fire me. He told me to be quiet.
The whole concept disappears up its own butt when viewed on those terms.
To phase it out would, as Mad Dawgg sayes, require hoards of bureaucrats.
And probably cost more to operate than the system is was replacing... *Place idea in round filing cabinet in corner of room*
I also think this would also result in massive levels of identity theft and fraud. And it would be “racist” or something similar to investigate or punish it.
And, yes, be sure to confiscate the money from those who work.
Sorry, Betsy, it’s already been tried by Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, among others.
It didn’t quite work out.
If third world economic expansion (globalization) and automation replaces middle class and working class jobs in the West, something has to give. They will never get rid of the socialist middle men who will skim off the majority of any money for themselves and their pals - corruption. The population will have overseers to order them around and fight about the money.
Education money should be included if such a system existed so everyone could do as they please with schooling. EPA’s money would have to go because everyone would have the time to take care of nature (haha). Who needs homeland insecurity - they don’t do anything to protect us anyway with leaving the borders wide open. Congress would not have to meet too much to pass off money to their corporate and multinational pals. And why allow the state department to dish out money to foreigners that could go right into Americans’ pockets. No IRS - no income to take. Hey, wait a minute...
Like the way she lumps libertarians with liberals on this economic policy. I would not doubt that it is true.
Milton also gave us withholding. He’s got some good ones, but his bad ones are Duesies.
Where in America are welfare recipients required to pass a drug test?
As far as I know, Tennessee is the only state that requires testing.
Looks like they do. It has been struck down in Florida and Missouri. Probably will in Tennessee as well. FWIW, less that 1% of welfare applicants in Tennessee have tested positive for drugs (of course, they're only tested for drugs if they admit to using drugs during their interview).
That's the stickler. I'm sure the State lawyers advised them of this clause.
IMHO, if they tested them all, a much higher percentage would test positive.
In the first month of Tennessee's law, 812 people applied for benefits. 802 of them passed the written drug screening. Four people refused to take part in drug screening and were denied benefits. Of the six remaining who were tested, only one tested positive for drugs and was referred to a drug-treatment center (paid for by you know who).
So, yes, it is a joke of a program and a complete waste of money. Political posturing by congress critters who want to look tough on welfare while enacting a feel-good, do-nothing law with loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.
IMHO, if they tested them all, a much higher percentage would test positive.
Sure, but I don't think that much higher. I've never believed that the concept of drug testing welfare recipients would have the payoff that proponents hoped for. Most people collecting welfare are poor single mothers and I don't think drug use is terribly high among this demographic. Young mothers who are drug addicts have already seen their children taken away by the state and, as such, don't qualify for welfare.
“written drug screening”.... they simply asked them if they used drugs... lol
Yep. Pretty much.
Perhaps the testing in inner-city ghettos would produce higher numbers of drug use.
The bottom line though: welfare and the War on Poverty was brought to us by well-meaning, but naive democrats, 40 years and $10+ trillion dollars later, the War is still a failure.
I feel sorry for these 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients; what a miserable life, living day to day on what Uncle Sam hands you.
And they, unfortunately, keep voting 'Rat...
Well, here’s my little story. My first books dealt with the “free banking “ era in the early 1800s in which there was no national bank (for some of the time) and banks competed openly by printing their own money. It worked very well-—certainly no weaker or panic-prone than any era with a “gubment” bank. So I was on a barge going down the Danube with a bunch of Nobel Prize winners (I wasn’t one) and found myself debating Milton about competitive money with me taking the free market position and Friedman defending the Fed!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.