Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,723 posts, read 2,224,958 times
Reputation: 1145

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
That means octomom would get $180,000 per year.
Not if the checks were given to adults only. People would probably be less likely to have kids if they knew they'd have to make do with what they had rather than figure their benefits would be increased. Maybe those who continued to have kids they couldn't support could turn to their church or friends or family instead, because they'd get no more from the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:26 PM
 
3,617 posts, read 3,881,652 times
Reputation: 2295
$12,000 per capita is more money than current means-tested welfare costs, so conservatives would never support the massive tax raise to fund it.

Further, when pedal hit the medal many of the liberals trying to push it wouldn't when they realize that the current welfare class would take a huge hit if you dismantled all current means-tested welfare programs to go towards funding it, since those programs move more resources per person to the chronically poor than this would replace by far.

Can't design it in a way that gets buy in from both sides given the price-tag and potential funding sources.

Of course all of this has been discussed the last time this topic came up.......and the time before that....etc. I think this topic only comes up so often just to be batted down as mathematically and politically unfeasible time and time again because there's a subreddit actively pushing it and circlejerking so people don't lose attention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:29 PM
 
Location: west central Georgia
2,240 posts, read 1,385,562 times
Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I would support it. It's a rehash of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

Unfortunately, it will never fly with libs, because it would replace a bunch of 6-figure bureaucrats in DC with a simple computer program. Can't have that.
Ahh, remember there is no simple computer program when you're speaking of the federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:38 PM
 
Location: west central Georgia
2,240 posts, read 1,385,562 times
Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
You insinuated it. You said if you don't work, you shouldn't get any money. In other words, people who aren't physically able to perform any demanded work don't deserve money.
Seriously, aren't the disabled.........disabled? And on some form of government programs like social security or Medicaid/medicare? I don't know if they would be included in this system, but that's for the bureaucrats to determine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,409,587 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
There have been multiple threads on this recently.

Yes, I know you want to make it crystal clear that you want your handout, but can't you just bump one of the threads from the last few weeks?
LOL I don't know why he's on this kick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,442,711 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint. View Post
Not if the checks were given to adults only. People would probably be less likely to have kids if they knew they'd have to make do with what they had rather than figure their benefits would be increased. Maybe those who continued to have kids they couldn't support could turn to their church or friends or family instead, because they'd get no more from the government.
Go read up on the basic income movement.
Money goes to every man, woman and child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:11 PM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,674,903 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Go read up on the basic income movement.
Money goes to every man, woman and child.
I disagree with this. I say it should only be given to adults.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:45 PM
 
Location: USA
6,230 posts, read 6,920,039 times
Reputation: 10784
It's inevitable anyway. 30 years from now all but the most high end elite jobs will be automated or eliminated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:46 PM
 
3,617 posts, read 3,881,652 times
Reputation: 2295
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
I disagree with this. I say it should only be given to adults.
So to get conservative/libertarian/republican buy-in you get rid of food stamps, public housing, medicaid, liheap, etc. programs that are massively tilted to benefitting poor parents, and poor single mothers in particular, and give a flat per-capita entitlement to everyone, but only to adults so the same low-or-no income single mothers who get the most from the current system will get the least from the new one?

Congrats you've declared war on the most democratic constituency in the country. Good luck getting the Democrats on board with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:54 PM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,674,903 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
So to get conservative/libertarian/republican buy-in you get rid of food stamps, public housing, medicaid, liheap, etc. programs that are massively tilted to benefitting poor parents, and poor single mothers in particular, and give a flat per-capita entitlement to everyone, but only to adults so the same low-or-no income single mothers who get the most from the current system will get the least from the new one?

Congrats you've declared war on the most democratic constituency in the country. Good luck getting the Democrats on board with that.
Yes


Would you be in support if we gut all welfare programs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top