Replace all welfare and benefits programs with single stipend?

[glenn1]

The numerous Obamacare debates have me realizing more and more that the current framing of the liberal/conservative debate is wrong. Too many arguments about whether "greedy Republicans" oppose some of aid to the poor and likewise too many arguments about "bleeding heart liberals" giving benefits to the undeserving.

I daresay the problem is neither of the above, but rather we're discussing these single issues in a comprehensive way. The argument shouldn't be about whether Medicare should be extended to X million more people, but the manner how we distribute benefits. We have hundreds of single theme programs targeting certain niche benefits (home heating assistance, food stamps, Medicare, etc.) when we should be taking a holistic approach to helping people. And the best way to do this is scrap all the programs and just give recipients a single cash benefit and let them determine how to spend it within certain limits.

Think about how empowering getting a straight cash benefit would be for the recipients. Instead of getting piecemeal assistance from a bureaucrat who doesn't and cant' understand your needs, you can spend the money however you want. Don't need pricey Obamacare insurance but need to get a reliable car to get back and forth to work? Done. Church has you covered for food this month so you want to put some extra money away for heating oil later this year? Done.

This presents some advantages and disadvantages for both sides of course. The Democrats give up some degree of control over benefits, but should see better end results since the beneficiaries can better determine how the money will provide maximum benefits. For Republicans, the price tag of the cash benefits will likely be higher than what they're comfortable with, but it also empowers the recipients and allows a rational discussion on what the benefit amount should be.

 

[Anarchist420]

the federal bureaucracy is welfare for those who couldnt otherwise get a job. but i think that all welfare is a bad idea.

however, what are you are saying makes some sense

 

[SpatiallyAware]

"Couldn't get a job"... Rofl

More like, will make as much money riding the handout train as working two part time jobs for 5 years and working their way up the ladder. You know, similar to what most of the rest of us had to do.


The US welfare system is primarily for the lazy. I suppose it is better to give them dollas than deal with crime and that sort of thing.


I say ship them to California, they'll fit in just fine.

 

[Greenman]

The numerous Obamacare debates have me realizing more and more that the current framing of the liberal/conservative debate is wrong. Too many arguments about whether "greedy Republicans" oppose some of aid to the poor and likewise too many arguments about "bleeding heart liberals" giving benefits to the undeserving.

I daresay the problem is neither of the above, but rather we're discussing these single issues in a comprehensive way. The argument shouldn't be about whether Medicare should be extended to X million more people, but the manner how we distribute benefits. We have hundreds of single theme programs targeting certain niche benefits (home heating assistance, food stamps, Medicare, etc.) when we should be taking a holistic approach to helping people. And the best way to do this is scrap all the programs and just give recipients a single cash benefit and let them determine how to spend it within certain limits.

Think about how empowering getting a straight cash benefit would be for the recipients. Instead of getting piecemeal assistance from a bureaucrat who doesn't and cant' understand your needs, you can spend the money however you want. Don't need pricey Obamacare insurance but need to get a reliable car to get back and forth to work? Done. Church has you covered for food this month so you want to put some extra money away for heating oil later this year? Done.

This presents some advantages and disadvantages for both sides of course. The Democrats give up some degree of control over benefits, but should see better end results since the beneficiaries can better determine how the money will provide maximum benefits. For Republicans, the price tag of the cash benefits will likely be higher than what they're comfortable with, but it also empowers the recipients and allows a rational discussion on what the benefit amount should be.

This is all based on the assumption that most people are rational and have self control. If all benefits were paid out as lump sum cash most of the money would be spent on drugs, cars, and cloths.

 

[glenn1]

This is all based on the assumption that most people are rational and have self control. If all benefits were paid out as lump sum cash most of the money would be spent on drugs, cars, and cloths.

So what? Money is fungible, so if you give the recipients benefits in kind they'll simply use what money they would have paid for heating bills, etc. and apply it to your "drugs, cars, and clothes." Besides, is that really the root problem, or the expectation that they could spend the stipend unwisely and that government programs would bail them out anyway? If taxpayers aren't willing to make an object lesson out of people and let them starve then we might as well just put all welfare recipients in assisted living and remove all economic choice from them.

 

[fskimospy]

This sounds like a sort of guaranteed national income the likes of which Switzerland recently put forth. I'm for it.

 

[etrin]

I like the way we pay $330+ a month to the mother for food for each child.
Then we have to supply breakfast and lunch at schools. WTF I am 6 ft 200 lbs and don't eat $330 a month.

I won't go into the other benefits we supply to illegal aliens so they will work for $3 an hour at tyson in my state.
so we subsidize them so tyson can pay nothing and no taxes.

ps I work for a living so that gives me 2 rights in this country
I have the right to pay taxes and I have the right to keep my Fing mouth shut.
Weeeee

 

[fskimospy]

I like the way we pay $330+ a month to the mother for food for each child.
Then we have to supply breakfast and lunch at schools. WTF I am 6 ft 200 lbs and don't eat $330 a month.
ps I have work for a living so that gives me 2 rights in this country
I have the right to pay taxes and I have the right to keep my Fing mouth shut.
Weeeee

You also have the right to actually know what you're talking about, lol.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm

$330 for each child not found. Not even remotely close to found.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I like the way we pay $330+ a month to the mother for food for each child.
Then we have to supply breakfast and lunch at schools. WTF I am 6 ft 200 lbs and don't eat $330 a month.
ps I have work for a living so that gives me 2 rights in this country
I have the right to pay taxes and I have the right to keep my Fing mouth shut.
Weeeee

Our state is $450 / month for a mother with kids. $100 per kid, no limit. Many grandparents and uncles will fill out forms all claiming the same 4-5 children under the guise that "they at my house all the time".

If you are looking for work you get approx $1800 in welfare checks. You must apply to 4 jobs per month. Common for every interview to get bombed.

The state will also help you with a vehicle. Commonly a late model chrysler product.

Then, at the end of the year, these people are getting $5000++++ refund checks with no income.


It's a fantastic system we have here.

 

[brandonb]

Welfare needs to be given to those in need. Not those who are lazy.

Not the same thing.

I believe welfare should be a benefit to those who have worked during their life. Not the 3 months once when I was 18 years old. Now I qualify for life to sit on it forever.

Benefits should be awarded to those who contribute to society. Not be given to those who have given nothing to society.

I believe benefits should be granted when you accomplish an achievement, such as working for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, and so on. Want Social Security? Need to work 10 years to get it. Want Welfare? Need to work 5 years. Want Unemployment? Need to work 1 year at your current job.

It's sorta like leveling up in a game! Give to those who have leveled up. Those who don't wish to play don't get any rewards.

 

[fskimospy]

Welfare needs to be given to those in need. Not those who are lazy.

Not the same thing.

I believe welfare should be a benefit to those who have worked during their life. Not the 3 months once when I was 18 years old. Now I qualify for life to sit on it forever.

Benefits should be awarded to those who contribute to society. Not be given to those who have given nothing to society.

I believe benefits should be granted when you accomplish an achievement, such as working for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, and so on. Want Social Security? Need to work 10 years to get it. Want Welfare? Need to work 5 years. Want Unemployment? Need to work 1 year at your current job.

It's sorta like leveling up in a game! Give to those who have leveled up. Those who don't wish to play don't get any rewards.

The vast majority of recipients of welfare are children. How long should they have worked for before getting welfare?

 

[brycejones]

The vast majority of recipients of welfare are children. How long should they have worked for before getting welfare?

If we put them to work we could bring back all sorts of jobs to the US if we exempted child labor from the minimum wage. Mills in the South could rise again.

 

[PokerGuy]

The reason many are in a position where they are seeking assistance is because they make poor choices. Kids of course are not included in that group, they are the victims of the poor choices of their parents.

By giving them specific assistance towards specific things, you can at least ensure they have access to those things. If you just give them a sum, most will waste it on dumb things. Even worse, after they waste it on dumb things, the kids will still be shafted and then that will become reason for even more assistance.

For example, you give someone $100 in heating bill assistance, you at least know the kids have a reasonably warm home. You give them $100, they blow it on something stupid, and next thing you know the kids are freezing and someone will decide that it's inhumane and thus they need to get heating assistance.

Fast forward a few years and you'll end up both giving them one sum AND giving them specific assistance for things like heating/meals etc.

I'm sure those who support having more people be dependent on democrat handouts would be thrilled to go this route though, it's a guaranteed expansion of their base.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm all in favor of assisting people, but instead of just handing out money and hoping they do the right thing with it (with mountains of evidence to believe the opposite would happen), I support more assistance for people who need it but with much stronger controls in place to prevent abuse and prevent it from going to those who don't.

For those who are capable, assistance should be earned, it shouldn't be some sort of birthright.

 

[brandonb]

The vast majority of recipients of welfare are children. How long should they have worked for before getting welfare?

Not they are not. I don't know of anybody under the age of 18 who has signed up and received welfare. It's usually their parents.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not they are not. I don't know of anybody under the age of 18 who has signed up and received welfare. It's usually their parents.

Yes, technically, it's their parents, but the benefits are provided them to provide for their children. Handing someone who likely makes poor choices a check for some amount and assuming they'll make prudent use of it to help the kids seems rather naive.

 

[etrigan420]

Not they are not. I don't know of anybody under the age of 18 who has signed up and received welfare. It's usually their parents.

:fucking facepalm:

 

[fskimospy]

Not they are not. I don't know of anybody under the age of 18 who has signed up and received welfare. It's usually their parents.

/facepalm

 

[BUnit1701]

The vast majority of recipients of welfare are children. How long should they have worked for before getting welfare?

O bullshit, its their parent/guardian who receives the welfare. It may be on the child's behalf, but its not like we are sending checks to kids.

 

[brandonb]

/facepalm

Maybe people should worry about getting a job first before popping out kids. Wouldn't that be wise? Like the rest of us? Their stupidity should not come out of my pocketbook.

/facepalm indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

O bullshit, its their parent/guardian who receives the welfare. It may be on the child's behalf, but its not like we are sending checks to kids.

So if the kid goes away or becomes the dependent of another person does the welfare stay with the parent or go with the kid?

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe people should worry about getting a job first before popping out kids. Wouldn't that be wise? Like the rest of us? Their stupidity should not come out of my pocketbook.

/facepalm indeed.

Maybe they should. That's a pretty irrelevant statement though. The kids are here, so now what?

 

[brandonb]

Maybe they should. That's a pretty irrelevant statement though. The kids are here, so now what?

Don't care. It's not my problem. It's the parents problem. See how that works?

Maybe they could get a job? I hear N.Dakota is hiring.

SHOCKER!

 

[BoberFett]

This sounds like a sort of guaranteed national income the likes of which Switzerland recently put forth. I'm for it.

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure the US is ready for it. Compared to Europeans, Americans are spoiled children who put wants before needs. People will still claim that they can't afford basic necessities as they spend everything on luxuries, and we'll end up having a basic income, along with still providing section 8 housing and food stamps.

If you want to be a ward of the state, you can have what the government will provide. Basic government housing, think military barracks. Staple food, think military chow line. If you aren't a productive member of society, why should you expect to take part in the luxuries that society provides?

Edit: I see Pokerguy has covered this.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't care. It's not my problem. It's the parents problem. See how that works?

Maybe they could get a job? I hear N.Dakota is hiring.

SHOCKER!

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.