I think it's the easiest, most efficient and most cost-effective way to end poverty once and for all. The government sets a poverty threshold of X$ : Anyone earning below X$ will be paid the difference by the government, in order to have a decent standard of living.
It's seems completely fair to me. We produce far more food than we could ever consume, build plenty of homes, make huge progress in medicine and yet some people are hungry, others are homeless and others die because they didn't have health insurance and Obamacare didn't cover them.
You do not end poverty with money. Giving all the people 1m dollars will only ensure you empower a lot of people to waste 1m dollars entering into agreements they cannot afford, gambling it away, or otherwise squandering it. Financial culpability is a matter of knowledge and process not a function of capital.
So many people already procrastinate on finding a job, because they have unemployment and welfare checks flowing in. If I get paid the same amount as someone working a minimum wage job, without doing the work, why would anyone decide to work these jobs? Unemployment would skyrocket, companies would lose employees, etc.
We already have a system like this, it is called "welfare". I know the two are different, but it's at least a simmilar concept. What you're assuming is that the people who don't work, or who have bad jobs, are in that position becuase of inalbility rather than laziness. And I know some people on welfare who cannot work and who would binnefit greatly from this program. But honestly, you're asking the government to pay people basically not to work, or try to get a job. Also, to return to the founding fathers, origionally, the states were more a federation, with the central government like a "united-nations-esque" foundation. There was more freedom of the States. There was some power of the government, such as defense from someone declaring war on another state, so that things didn't get too out of hand. Origionally there was no income or property taxes, only tarrifs. The big argument then was whether the government was too big, with that little power. And you're arguing to make it bigger? I beeseech you to reconsider W1ll1ph0n3. Thank you for the topic, and in an ideal world, that would work perfectly. It's not a bad idea, but rather a bad circumstance for the idea to be put in place. I am sorry for the rant there
The only way to end poverty are through education and employment opportunities paying a living wage. The Federal Government needs to step aside and make it easier for entrepreneurs and innovators to create new opportunities in this country, Manufacturing is NOT coming back. We need to diversify.
That said, having multiple children for whom you cannot provide with multiple men that refuse to help provide for them has a lot to do with it, too... It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The Democratic Party keeps losing because of nonsense like this. Instead we ought to propose to have public works for anyone who needs a public works job and that once we have public works welfare for anyone who isn't disabled will be obsolete.
If we reframed it as simply "we don't want people to have to die and we want people to have opportunities to climb the economic and educational ladders" it would be difficult for Republicans to oppose it.
Obamacare is good. In fact it didn't go far enough. Healthcare expenses isn't something people can help. It is a shame there is an entire industry based on exploiting people's healthcare fears. That can't help but inflate the costs of the medical service itself. We should have a single payer system or at the very least pay for the most expensive things while prohibiting the use of insurance to pay for the less expensive things (i.E. If its inexpensive you don't need insurance for it) unless you are poor.
Programs that help people stay alive-Good. Programs that help enable people to climb the educational and economic ladders-Good. Programs that just give work-capable people free money to spend as they please.-Bad.