How Much Welfare Should the Federal Govt Provide?

[jonny5]

Lets assume someone is homeless and jobless. No income whatsoever, no family. Adult, no dependents. Should the federal govt (not state but fully federal income tax funded) provide:

-food?
-housing?
-clothing?
-healthcare?
-transportation?
-communications?
-employment?
-cash?

what else?

 

[Lutherf]

If it were up to me I would expect people to be treated humanely.

They should have comfortable shelter that is reasonably close to basic conveniences and doesn't cast them as indigent. Perhaps a modest 1800-2500sqft home in whatever the common style of that area is on, say, half an acre.

They should have enough walking around money so that they don't need to feel like they're second class. I figure a minimum of $36k/yr adjusted for number of adults and children n the household tax free. We don't want people to take advantage so we really should cap it at, say $125k but index it to inflation.

It's rather impractical to try to employ the unemployable but we also don't want them to feel that they don't contribute to society. I would recommend that we provide them with "employment" at such places as Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. In these "jobs" they really don't have any responsibility but they can be given checklists to check off and stamps to stamp stuff with.

We are not heartless ingrates and the health of our population is important to our humanity so these poor souls should be provided with respectable health care at no charge. I figure if we allocate $10-15k/yr, indexed for inflation, for their health care that will be sufficient.

 

[Henrin]

none

:devil:

 

[GottaGo]

If it were up to me I would expect people to be treated humanely.

They should have comfortable shelter that is reasonably close to basic conveniences and doesn't cast them as indigent. Perhaps a modest 1800-2500sqft home in whatever the common style of that area is on, say, half an acre.

They should have enough walking around money so that they don't need to feel like they're second class. I figure a minimum of $36k/yr adjusted for number of adults and children n the household tax free. We don't want people to take advantage so we really should cap it at, say $125k but index it to inflation.

It's rather impractical to try to employ the unemployable but we also don't want them to feel that they don't contribute to society. I would recommend that we provide them with "employment" at such places as Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. In these "jobs" they really don't have any responsibility but they can be given checklists to check off and stamps to stamp stuff with.

We are not heartless ingrates and the health of our population is important to our humanity so these poor souls should be provided with respectable health care at no charge. I figure if we allocate $10-15k/yr, indexed for inflation, for their health care that will be sufficient.

I don't even have a home of that size. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay via taxes for someone else to have it.

Modest? You are waaaaay of the mark here.

 

[mike2810]

If it were up to me I would expect people to be treated humanely.

They should have comfortable shelter that is reasonably close to basic conveniences and doesn't cast them as indigent. Perhaps a modest 1800-2500sqft home in whatever the common style of that area is on, say, half an acre.

They should have enough walking around money so that they don't need to feel like they're second class. I figure a minimum of $36k/yr adjusted for number of adults and children n the household tax free. We don't want people to take advantage so we really should cap it at, say $125k but index it to inflation.

It's rather impractical to try to employ the unemployable but we also don't want them to feel that they don't contribute to society. I would recommend that we provide them with "employment" at such places as Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. In these "jobs" they really don't have any responsibility but they can be given checklists to check off and stamps to stamp stuff with.

We are not heartless ingrates and the health of our population is important to our humanity so these poor souls should be provided with respectable health care at no charge. I figure if we allocate $10-15k/yr, indexed for inflation, for their health care that will be sufficient.

sure hope this was a sarcastic response. Correct me if I am wrong in thinking that.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I don't even have a home of that size. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay via taxes for someone else to have it.

Modest? You are waaaaay of the mark here.

I think it is more of a "modest proposal" ala Swift.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

If it were up to me I would expect people to be treated humanely.

They should have comfortable shelter that is reasonably close to basic conveniences and doesn't cast them as indigent. Perhaps a modest 1800-2500sqft home in whatever the common style of that area is on, say, half an acre.

They should have enough walking around money so that they don't need to feel like they're second class. I figure a minimum of $36k/yr adjusted for number of adults and children n the household tax free. We don't want people to take advantage so we really should cap it at, say $125k but index it to inflation.

It's rather impractical to try to employ the unemployable but we also don't want them to feel that they don't contribute to society. I would recommend that we provide them with "employment" at such places as Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. In these "jobs" they really don't have any responsibility but they can be given checklists to check off and stamps to stamp stuff with.

We are not heartless ingrates and the health of our population is important to our humanity so these poor souls should be provided with respectable health care at no charge. I figure if we allocate $10-15k/yr, indexed for inflation, for their health care that will be sufficient.

Lmao. Well played good sir.

 

[blaxshep]

If it were up to me I would expect people to be treated humanely.

They should have comfortable shelter that is reasonably close to basic conveniences and doesn't cast them as indigent. Perhaps a modest 1800-2500sqft home in whatever the common style of that area is on, say, half an acre.

They should have enough walking around money so that they don't need to feel like they're second class. I figure a minimum of $36k/yr adjusted for number of adults and children n the household tax free. We don't want people to take advantage so we really should cap it at, say $125k but index it to inflation.

It's rather impractical to try to employ the unemployable but we also don't want them to feel that they don't contribute to society. I would recommend that we provide them with "employment" at such places as Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. In these "jobs" they really don't have any responsibility but they can be given checklists to check off and stamps to stamp stuff with.

We are not heartless ingrates and the health of our population is important to our humanity so these poor souls should be provided with respectable health care at no charge. I figure if we allocate $10-15k/yr, indexed for inflation, for their health care that will be sufficient.

That would be cheaper and more efficient than Obama stimulus which cost us about $450,000 per job created.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Lets assume someone is homeless and jobless. No income whatsoever, no family. Adult, no dependents. Should the federal govt (not state but fully federal income tax funded) provide:

-food?
-housing?
-clothing?
-healthcare?
-transportation?
-communications?
-employment?
-cash?

what else?

I believe the government should provide some of these things, to a point.

Every welfare program should have an ROI and other than a few programs that deal with permanent disabilities or veterans, they should all be temporary with a goal of transforming the unproductive in the productive and we should look at the effectiveness of delivering an ROI rather than the actual cost. For example, back in the 80's there was a big hullaballo over "midnight basketball" programs. A racial stigma was attached, the costs were derided as money wasted so black kids could play basketball. But the programs effectively got kids off the street and increased the number of people who became productive tax paying members of society rather than be lifelong burdens on society. Think about the ROI of keeping one person out of jail and making them a productive tax paying citizen. That's $35,000 a year we don't spend, and if assume they achieve the middle fifth income quintile, that is an average of $7000 in total federal taxes. How much is worth to spend on someone to make that $42000 annual swing?

Whether we the tax payers hand out a dime directly to the poor, there is still a cost.

We can spend more money prisons, orphanages, gated communities, and police, or we can spend it on getting people out of bad situations.

TANF for example (TEMPORARY Aid for Needy Families) provides assistance that cannot be received for more than 2 years at a time or more than 5 years in a lifetime.

I think it is better to spend more in the short term than a lot over the long term. i would rather pay to send a person to a vocational school and give them resources to survive while they go to school than to just provide some temporary cash and then leave them in the same position they were before. There is an ROI in helping people get training for a productive job, there is no ROI in just handing out cash.

 

[blaxshep]

there is no ROI in just handing out cash.

Sure there is, when your party is elected by the people that you have made dependent on government you can legislate profits for your cronies. You think Obamacare is about helping people or legislating profits?

Hint: Its ALWAYS about the money.

 

[jonny5]

I believe the government should provide some of these things, to a point.

Every welfare program should have an ROI and other than a few programs that deal with permanent disabilities or veterans, they should all be temporary with a goal of transforming the unproductive in the productive and we should look at the effectiveness of delivering an ROI rather than the actual cost. For example, back in the 80's there was a big hullaballo over "midnight basketball" programs. A racial stigma was attached, the costs were derided as money wasted so black kids could play basketball. But the programs effectively got kids off the street and increased the number of people who became productive tax paying members of society rather than be lifelong burdens on society. Think about the ROI of keeping one person out of jail and making them a productive tax paying citizen. That's $35,000 a year we don't spend, and if assume they achieve the middle fifth income quintile, that is an average of $7000 in total federal taxes. How much is worth to spend on someone to make that $42000 annual swing?

Whether we the tax payers hand out a dime directly to the poor, there is still a cost.

We can spend more money prisons, orphanages, gated communities, and police, or we can spend it on getting people out of bad situations.

TANF for example (TEMPORARY Aid for Needy Families) provides assistance that cannot be received for more than 2 years at a time or more than 5 years in a lifetime.

I think it is better to spend more in the short term than a lot over the long term. i would rather pay to send a person to a vocational school and give them resources to survive while they go to school than to just provide some temporary cash and then leave them in the same position they were before. There is an ROI in helping people get training for a productive job, there is no ROI in just handing out cash.

What do you do after 2-5 years when they still don't have jobs/income, or any of those things above?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Sure there is, when your party is elected by the people that you have made dependent on government you can legislate profits for your cronies. You think Obamacare is about helping people or legislating profits?

Hint: Its ALWAYS about the money.

Good and valid point, I should clarify that there is no ROI to the nation as a whole.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

What do you do after 2-5 years when they still don't have jobs/income, or any of those things above?

Some folks that are capable and cannot or choose not to benefit will have to figure out a way to get by.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

What do you do after 2-5 years when they still don't have jobs/income, or any of those things above?

Just keep paying, maybe increase all of those entitlements for more 'incentive.'

 

[kamikaze483]

...But the programs effectively got kids off the street and increased the number of people who became productive tax paying members of society rather than be lifelong burdens on society. Think about the ROI of keeping one person out of jail and making them a productive tax paying citizen...

I don't disagree with you in totality. However, ROI is a measurement of success. Just funding programs like these does not mean that an eventual ROI existed. There would have to be overall gain in excess of the cost (financially) for ROI to exist. How much did these programs cost? How much was the gain? It is mathematically impossible for a true ROI to exist for programs like these as the return would be based on what happened with a certain teenager vs. what "MIGHT" have happened with that teenager (jail, homeless, etc.) if the program did not exist.

If, however, such a program is funded it should be funded by the individual states who have a more intimate knowledge of what the problems are that need to be solved. I know of a few pretty popular federally funded programs that are geared to resolve problems that don't exist. If the state funds these programs and notices , over time, that there is a positive impact on indicators like incarceration rates, unemployment rates, etc.... then it is reasonable to consider that it might be wise to continue the program, but this is not ROI. This is what I call "a wet finger in the air."

 

[Thrilla]

the federal government should provide exactly zero welfare ....

state governments are an entirely differently animal, though...

 

[head of joaquin]

The premise of the OP is off. Virtually all "welfare" in this country goes to poor kids, average age 8 (about 4.5 million of them).

The answer to the question is we need to provide poor kids any assistance necessary to give them a decent standard of living.

As to adults, unless you're a paraplegic, it's almost impossible for an adult male to get "welfare". There are only about 150,000 adult males on TANF. Only about 250K (as I recall) adult females on TANF.

Out of a country of 300M, this is of course infinitesimal.

So the whole rightwing meme is nonsense. If you want to start talking about "welfare" in broader terms, then you have to start adding ag subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and your whole silly talking points fall apart.

 

[head of joaquin]

the federal government should provide exactly zero welfare ....

state governments are an entirely differently animal, though...

God help poor kids in Alabama under this scenario.

 

[Thrilla]

God help poor kids in Alabama under this scenario.

I have no doubt those children would be provided for.

 

[head of joaquin]

I have no doubt those children would be provided for.

History suggests otherwise.

Conservatives seem to forget there is a reason that the federal government stepped in to help poor kids. They think in a timeless vacuum. Millions were in poverty and neglected in this country before SS and Medicare. Millions more would be now were it not for Welfare.

The impact of that on our economy over decades would have been devastating.

 

[Thrilla]

History suggests otherwise.

Conservatives seem to forget there is a reason that the federal government stepped in to help poor kids. They think in a timeless vacuum. Millions were in poverty and neglected in this country before SS and Medicare. Millions more would be now were it not for Welfare.

The impact of that on our economy over decades would have been devastating.

I'm a libertarian, not a Conservative..... but nevermind.. i'm not interested in having a partisan discussion.... go find one of your fringe counterparts to tangles asses with.

 

[Arbo]

Lets assume someone is homeless and jobless. No income whatsoever, no family. Adult, no dependents. Should the federal govt (not state but fully federal income tax funded) provide:

-food?
-housing?
-clothing?
-healthcare?
-transportation?
-communications?
-employment?
-cash?

what else?

None of it. It's not the FEDERAL governments job to do any of that. States however can do such things, and if we were to get the federal government out of all those things, and let states keep tax money that the federal government shouldn't be taking for those things, states could do a better job...

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

the federal government should provide exactly zero welfare ....

state governments are an entirely differently animal, though...

I don't necessarily disagree that states should lead in precisely what programs they would have and how programs are administered, but I think federal funding is not only appropriate, but necessary. The poorer a state is, the more they need these kind of programs and the less able they are to afford them. One irony of the ideological divide is the fact the most of the ten most conservative states are also among the poorest states who have the largest positive flow of federal revenues, while the most politically liberal states are among the wealthiest states that send far more revenue to the fed than is returned. To add insult to irony, conservatives in a state like Mississippi that is the beneficiary of massive positive federal spending use California as an example of bad liberal policy, but the fact is that if all revenues Cali sent to the fed were returned to Cali, they would have a balanced budget and if the fed returned no more to Mississippi than they send to the fed, they would be drastically in the red.

But hey, if red states want to give up those federal dollars, who am I to disagree.

Get off the teat red states and show some individual responsibility!

 

[jonny5]

I don't necessarily disagree that states should lead in precisely what programs they would have and how programs are administered, but I think federal funding is not only appropriate, but necessary. The poorer a state is, the more they need these kind of programs and the less able they are to afford them. One irony of the ideological divide is the fact the most of the ten most conservative states are also among the poorest states who have the largest positive flow of federal revenues, while the most politically liberal states are among the wealthiest states that send far more revenue to the fed than is returned. To add insult to irony, conservatives in a state like Mississippi that is the beneficiary of massive positive federal spending use California as an example of bad liberal policy, but the fact is that if all revenues Cali sent to the fed were returned to Cali, they would have a balanced budget and if the fed returned no more to Mississippi than they send to the fed, they would be drastically in the red.

But hey, if red states want to give up those federal dollars, who am I to disagree.

Get off the teat red states and show some individual responsibility!

I don't think youll find anyone who would disagree. Red states don't exactly have a choice in how the fed sends their people welfare dollars, though. My state turned down high speed rail funding and Medicaid funding (before our gov wanted to get relected)

 

[DVSentinel]

Lets assume someone is homeless and jobless. No income whatsoever, no family. Adult, no dependents. Should the federal govt (not state but fully federal income tax funded) provide:

-food?
-housing?
-clothing?
-healthcare?
-transportation?
-communications?
-employment?
-cash?

what else?

none of the above.

The government should set aside federal lands that can be farmed or used to provide necessary resources. Welfarist should be transported to such land, given mules, plows, axes, saws, etc. They should then build their own shelter, grow their own food, spin and weave their own clothing, etc. Every person in America is a in their current state because of choices they have made. Welfare should not be a handout, but exist as nothing but an opportunity for one to earn ones existence for themselves.