I’m probably ok with that, and you apparently are too, but I suspect most of our fellow citizens aren’t going to be so hardline when the morgues start filling up with overdoses and frozen, malnourished corpses.
How do you feel about the government giving everyone X amount of money? Wouldn’t that also be an unearned intergenerational transfer of wealth?
And your proposal would take away that Medicare under the misunderstanding that it is welfare.
Some people think “Welfare” is any benefit (read: $$$) received from the government. Usually with the added “that they don’t deserve”.
Which all too often translates to “Any money other people get from the government is welfare, but money I get from the government is a benefit that I TOTALLY EARNED.”
And Medicare is totally a government run socialist program. But tell that to some Americans and they’ll turn all sorts of interesting colors before screaming about it isn’t any of those things.
Have we already reached that point in the conversation where those with opposing viewpoints are described as “screaming”?
I’d call means-tested programs “welfare”, but do you think that definition is incorrect? Overly broad? Inaccurate?
No no, not at all. I wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone here, just noting that in a larger conversation (say, with the American people), there is a lot of baggage, preconceived notions and, shall we say, “error”, when the subject is broached. What is simple fact on one side is horrific propaganda on the other.
I probably could have spelled that out a little better.
I actually don’t have any issue with the term Welfare, nor do I think it needs to be embarrassing or looked down upon. The whole ‘what you do to the least of these’ thing comes to mind. Some people can’t take care of themselves, some people need help. We can’t be such cold hearted bastards that we think these people deserve their fate and should be left to it, even if they decide to spend their days in a drugged out haze.
Proverbs 31:6: “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress”
Does anyone care to actually give some kind of number they would like this program to provide? Because every iteration of this idea I’ve seen falls apart because the people advancing it don’t want to do the necessary math. The political calculus is tougher, of course.
I’m fine with helping the poor and needy, I’d just like that help to be given by family / friends, neighbors, charitable organizations, or local / state governments rather than the feds.
At least you admit that is a personal preference.
Family, friends, neighbors and charitable organizations, including churches, were never able to solve this equation in the past. I don’t see that changing. There’s a certain Economy of Scale to be found in Government, which as I said above, is a tool we have for managing our society. Local governments can swiftly be overwhelmed, especially in times of disaster. So can states.
In my belief, only the Federal Government has the size, scale, resources and protection from regional disasters to amply provide for this need.
Are you under the impression that the federal government has ‘solved this equation’ now? Did we win the war on poverty while I wasn’t paying attention this weekend or something?
Here in Belgium, if you are on welfare but can’t manage your money, you can get put on budget control. Then your money gets deposited on a bank account controlled by a social worker who pays all the regular bills like rent/electricity, and you get a small weekly allowance for food etc. Seems like a good enough solution.
We’ve done a lot better than this nation would be doing if we weren’t doing it.
Does that mean that small, wealthy countries like Sweden are very vulnerable? I get your argument, but it seems that in practice there’s always a prejudice towards giving the most economic power to a federal government, whether a country has 1 million people or 1 billion people. Yet I’ve never heard of a rich country being “overwhelmed” by a problem that they couldn’t solve themselves financially, no matter how small they were. It’ll be an interesting test case should it ever happen.
I’d say that’s true post-welfare reform. Pre-welfare reform I’d say that’s a questionable assertion. We did reduce poverty, but we also created a cycle of dependence that was in danger of becoming generational.
Why is it that every scheme to end welfare, there’s never a mention of the highly profitable companies that receive welfare from the government?
Seems there’s a cycle of dependence developing. How many years has that been going on?
A cycle of dependence can certainly develop in the corporate world. See: Big 3 auto companies. They’ll demand a bailout next recession too, like clockwork.
Forbes used to be a legitimate magazine but the minute they embraced ‘contributors’ the lost this reader.
It’s not a very well-thought-out idea. Where do you think the money comes from in the first place? If you share it out equally to everyone, you’re just giving people a portion of their taxes back; meaninglessly small for people who are employed and financially solvent, and too small to be useful for anyone who is not.
Try applying the same logic to any other real-world function of government - e.g:
Instead of spending taxes on making significant improvements to just a selection of roads, why don’t we spread out the funding equally and make a small improvement to every road?
Purposely spreading funding unnecessarily, injudiciously thinly would be a feature of a government that does not deserve to be in power.