When it was mandated that employers provide medical coverage there was a huge uproar. As I said, I am trying to listen to people who felt there was enough of a need for change that a candidate like trump is our president. What is the role of the federal government in mandating things like minimum wage, providing healthcare, and schools for example. I doubt many can argue the value of education but the question remains what is necessary for the government to mandate and/ or provide and how is it all paid for. Also, I cannot envision how universal basic income will be established and how it will solve the problems we have now. If people use their limited income now to buy cigarettes and soda now ( both have no positive value to meeting basic needs) how will that change? Will more people be able to buy houses? Is that even a right? Or is a two room apartment basic shelter for a family. Should free school lunch be eliminated with basic income?
With the current crew in office I hold little hope for any welfare type benefits to survive as they exist now.
Here's one reform: In polygamist towns like Colorado City it is common for the "wives" (wives in name only, not legally married) to claim they are single parents and in need of SNAP and other benefits. They are awarded these benefits which then allows the patriarchs to continue these fake marriages and continue reproduction of 10, 20 or 30 children per adult male. You the taxpayer are generously supporting all of this. Yet any crackdown is seen as being anti-religious. That's a reform I see that needs to happen.
Richard Nixon attempted a universal income bill back in the seventies. It was defeated mainly by Democrats who considered the amount insufficient and who were uncomfortable with the no-strings-attached aspect.
If you see making people eat their vegetables as the proper role of government, then a universal basic income approach probably won't work for you.
it's not going to help anyone not on welfare benefits either truly, so at that point it is probably more consistent to argue for a sugar tax or something (remember the soda tax), to get a much larger part of the population with disincentives to consuming those things.Drinking soda, candy and cookies is not going to help anyone on welfare benefits.
Trees don't grow on money
Anyone read Hand to Mouth by Linda Terindo? Good first person read on being poor in the USA. I think a living wage woul d go along way to improving life for low income people.
I think if a bunch of rich, old white men smoking cigars behind closed doors in Washington D.C. had dreamed up a plan to make a huge class of people dependent on them, with such a victim mentality that they would never pose a threat to the status quo, they couldn't come up with a better plan that the welfare state. After a generation or two of believing that the responsibility for housing, food, health care, and other basic human necessities can be provided only by the government, there is no incentive to rise above this basic level. The children of the welfare state have an extremely difficult time breaking out of the cycle...they see no incentive. That's why I'd like to see the system re-worked in such a way that recipients are rewarded for working, with affordable day care, without getting food stamps or Medicaid cut if they work extra hours and make more money. And, re: restricting certain foods you can buy on food stamps: if WIC can restrict certain foods, why is that any different?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)