(03-09-2016 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As some have said, it's not meaningfully different from a stimulus check...

I disagree. A stimulus check was not an assistance check.

I strongly believe that government has no incentive to get things right, and that government makes far more mistakes than ordinary consumers. Thus, government social welfare bureaucracies have no incentive to work themselves out of a job by eliminating poverty.

Additionally, almost all current social welfare programs encourage people to earn less to get more benefits. The more you make, the less you get, encouraging people to work less to get more. That's perverse.

So if the goal is a better designed social welfare system (not a more compassionate system, and not a system that ensure that the benefit being paid for is the benefit used) a cash-based social services program would almost certainly more efficiently deliver assistance than government bureaucracies, and would eliminate government bureaucracies

(03-09-2016 09:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 02:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'd vote against this...but if it did pass....thank you all.

I'm seriously interested in what the trade of would be..

The administrative costs of welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and other government programs plus the benefits themselves have to add up.

If it's remotely close then you have to ask yourself which would make a better, more efficient, and sustainable safety net.

Restrict the full benefit to citizens or people legally on the process to citizenship and you might have a deal.

which lends to owl's (and others point).....a system of support has been developed....

and it's a big head count chop.....

then what?

gonna say it again....."INCENTIVE"

I'm going to sum it up in really simple words.....

pay attention to houses that are getting ready to come up for sale....

pay attention to the worker bees that do it in arrears.....

it's that simple....

nobody fixes shite until forced.....credit and what it means was lost long ago....