The basic problem is that it will not be enough (completely apart from the concept that printing money and giving it to people doesn’t create wealth).
Liberals look at income distribution and think it is unfair and should be controlled by the government so it is equitable. So the foundation of their policies is envy.
The problem with using envy as a foundation is that it cannot be controlled. If person A makes $10/Hr and person B makes $20/hr, it is a given that in LiberalLand, the person who makes $10 will feel resentment against person B who makes $20. And person C who makes $5/hr will resent everyone above them, and so on.
And the person who makes $30/hr resents the person who makes $40, etc., etc., etc.
This will not work, because the people who make the minimum $5/hr won’t be able to buy the same things as the person who makes $10/hr. In that environment, when the $5/hr person sees the lifestyle being lived by the $10 person, they will want that too.
And they will vote for politicians who will promise to raise the minimum, or fund entitlements, or give tax credits, or whatever.
And people will still resort to crime to get the money to live the lifestyle of someone above them (without having to work for it) just as they do now, it will not decrease crime by a single iota.
Like every single liberal concept (and yes, I know there have been conservatives,even someone like Hayek, who advocated this) it is a perpetual motion machine.
Correct. I think we SHOULD have this debate as Obama says — and we should then bring out these points that there is no bottomless well...