Forum Post: Government should provide the BASIC needs for all poor families.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 8:22 p.m. EST by BasicNeeds
(18)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The government should provide all the basic needs for the poor families:
A small but safe house
Food
Water, electricity and heating
Basic clothes
Free healthcare
The government should not give any money to those families, just those basic needs.
The family must repay the government in the form of at least seven hours of work per week by one of its members. The work should depend on the person's skills, it could be cleaning streets, painting walls, gardening, or other tasks.
People would have its basic needs met. But if people wanted more, they would have to look for a job.
If they wanted a larger house, if they wanted a car, if they wanted a flat screen TV, if they wanted an iPhone, if they wanted cool clothes from famous brands, if they wanted holiday travel, they would need to get a job.
Can't agree that this is the right idea or plan. All these things added up would cost a great deal and it is not something the population of our nation could sustain in tax dollars. I don't think we should look to any government to do these things. Government should be a governing body not a provider.
When we consider those less fortunate or poor families we get into a whole discussion of what exactly is less fortune, what s poverty, what are peoples needs and then it all has to be thoroughly defined. It is not something that can be generalized or applied in a broad stroke.
I believe we need less reliance on government to provide answers & solutions & rules & regulations and instead more people action.
Would not cost a great deal.
Would cost WAY less than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the bank bailouts.
We could if people would stop buying new iphones, cars, and houses on credit and causing inflation to go up.
And you think they get a job and STILL get those basic needs. You are living in la-la-land. Get a clue on human nature. I would love to have all my basics taken care of. That is excellent. That way, I can use as much electricity, heat, and water without a single care. Heck, I might as well just keep it going 24/7. The government is paying for it!
What about all the current people that already work under the table? They are eligible for all the freebie programs right now: food stamps, school meals, welfare, and other programs geared toward low-income families. I have an issue when I see someone load up on groceries, break out food stamps, and take off in a new SUV.
The idea is nice, but it would be abused way beyond its original intent. Some of our current programs are abused, as in my example.
Would you like to live in a small house forever?
I would keep the house even if I get another house out of the area. That way, it could always be my "vacation" getaway. It would be better than most motels and it is personal. Too many ways to abuse this idea.
better yet, I would turn my place into an entrepreneurial endeavor. I can use it for drug or human trafficking(sex workers). That way, I make money and provide a service to the community. All tax free and under the table profits!!
welfare has become generational. There is no incentive to get off the government hand outs
I disagree.
Government should protect the opportunity for poor families to get basic needs on their own.
I gotta get married and have a baby
he problem with the current welfare system is that it breeds generational repetative recipients. People get stuck in the system. Once a family qualifies for welfare assistance, they become dependent upon it. If welfare recipients attempt to raise their income levels many times the only types of jobs available to them are minimum wage or low income jobs. Since they are dependent upon welfare payments to meet their basic needs, this is quite undesirable because once they earn any type of income the assistance is immediately withdrawn. This creates problems such as people who repetitively return to the welfare system since you cannot support your family on a minimum wage while if you do not work your basic needs are met. There are very few programs which allow for gradual reduction of benefits so that families that are moving from being dependent on welfare programs to becoming financially independent can do so in such a way that they do not suffer tremendously from lack of basic needs once they enter the work force long enough for them to become established in the workforce and build up financial independence. many people that are not familiar with welfare programs mistakenly believe that these programs are just handouts for lazy people. Most people on welfare do not want to be on it, they simply lack either the education, resources or the life skills that it takes to become independent financially stable members of society. This is what needs to change before we decide to simply start trashing welfare recipients or just start handing out assistance indiscriminately on tax payer dollars. complete welfare reform would include a plan to help recipients of these programs become financially stable by providing financial education, assistance with job placement that includes more than a cashiers job at the local mcdonalds, help with establishing things like bank accounts and training including household budgeting and gradually establishing financial repayments for use of welfare programs such as a graduating housing payment and repayment of cash assistance programs on a sliding scale basis. i would also like to add that many private charitable organizations would imlement programs that do exactly this except for the fact that like everything else in this country, many of these charities receive government subsidies which come at the price of adhering to government mandates that often times prohibit the use of their funds in assisting the most needy of persons applying for these programs by establishing rules that tell them who they can help, how often they can help them and how much they can help them. maybe private charities ought to be just that, private.
That's very much what The Second Bill of Rights was through FDR. Though your suggestions would spark from protestors that, "This is Socialism!"...but honestly, it just a fair, moral obligation from what we call a free country.
Maybe in the near future we will stem off into two societies...one with the wealth and technology in the big cities and others who live off thier land's resources.
As of 2010
Estimated Wealth of U.S.A. is 56.8 trillion Estimated population of U.S.A is 280,218,971 people for 2011
If wealth where evenly split, everyone would have an estimated $2,026,986.24
Grow up. The government is not your mother and you are not a child. Just how is the 'government' supposed to acquire all these goods and services to give away anyway?
Oh and if my girlfriend and our adult son quit their jobs too we can have 3 houses! Then I can live in one, rent out the other two and buy an iPhone and never have to work again! Wooo hooo
Why not 40 hours a week? 7 hours for all that seems like a terribe trade.
Well shoot. If that happens I am quitting my job. I don't need any other junk.
I don't really agree that anyone has a right to be provided things at the expense of others, but the idea of working for welfare has merit. Both for the giver of welfare and the receiver. Welfare cripples people so to give them a chance to earn it would be favourable.
I totally agree.Food stamps made merchants rich. They give stale and inedible food to stamps holders.
Someone must have written this to damage your movements reputation.
What an absurd idea. If this were done there would not be enough money for bombs, our space program, trips for government people, and all the other stuff we need to survive as a nation such as those listed in the following:
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5626/government-wastes/
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/08/16/15-government-programs-we-dont-need/
I can't imagine anyone wanting to feed the poor when the money could be better spent on Fiddlin' Foresters.
I have an idea. How about if we end the wars, eliminate wasteful government spending, and use those savings to pay down the enormous freaking debt that will keep us and our great-grandchildren enslaved?
Cutting government spending in one area and diverting the money elsewhere ignores the very real and very threatening problem of our nation being insolvent. I know the Fed keeps printing money out of thin air, but the money isn't really free. Lots and lots of very strong nations have collapsed due to precisely the kind of debt we are in now. If the dollar were not the world's reserve currently, we would already be a banana republic.
BTW, I am also for a "workfare" program in lieu of food stamps where people preform public works for a paycheck that actually covers a good portion of their living expenses.
Let me say that I am in favor of single payer healthcare but lets dispense with calling it "free". Nevertheless, I am for it because it not only allieviates the worry from individuals but also because it removes the burden from business. It really helps everyone except the big pharma lobby. And I think in our country no one should be going hungry, despite all the reasons people throw out there for failing to feed the poor. Other than that, I dont think a monolithic program would be a good idea. I think unemployment should be improved but it would be a great deal improved with single payer health care anyway.....along with additional anti hunger programs, allowing the unemployed to look for work from a more secure place.
I do not disagree with helping the poor. Hell I've needed a hand up in my life too. But....
House(Sect 8), Food(food stamps), utilities(leap), clothing(there are govt programs for this, and goodwill), healthcare(medicaid). Our Govt does already do these things, but the programs are broken and full of waste. Problem is, they are run by mandates, rules, and regulations set by the Federal Government. If it were up to the States, I think they would function better.
Can't agree that this is the right idea or plan. All these things added up would cost a great deal and it is not something the population of our nation could sustain in tax dollars. I don't think we should look to any government to do these things. Government should be a governing body not a provider.
When we consider those less fortunate or poor families we get into a whole discussion of what exactly is less fortune, what s poverty, what are peoples needs and then it all has to be thoroughly defined. It is not something that can be generalized or applied in a broad stroke.
I believe we need less reliance on government to provide answers & solutions & rules & regulations and instead more people action.
Government would probably save us money doing this. However, I would add that it is the CONCENTRATION of poverty that makes the current situation so intractable and horrifying.
It would save government's money in two ways:
Some public services would be done by those people in the housing program (the 7 hours of work per week)
Many of those people could become desperate because of unemployment and could become robbers or drug dealers. So, they would be arrested, and put in prisons, where they would cost MUCH MORE for the government, because of the high surveillance costs (guards, equipments...)
Transportation and phone service are also essential if anyone in the family is to find a job.
Hmmm... Maybe...
You can give a card with credits for use in the public transportation system. But the card should be programmed to only be valid during the working hours, from Monday to Friday. No free bus rides at night or at the weekends
Same thing with phone: it only works during the working hours, from Monday to Friday. At night and at weekends, it doesn't work.
So they should only seek out jobs in businesses that operate during normal working hours? No night shifts? No restaurant work? No weekends? I think those are exactly the kinds of jobs most likely to be open!
What about high speed internet and a computer so they can browse monster.com and such.
Just curious, where have you been living? Because here in NY they already get all of these things and more... to include a free college education, and, should they happen to get pregnant, $1400 a month for each and every child. For many, including illegals, child rearing has become a very profitable endeavor.
And, incidentally, we have never asked for repayment in an form.
OK. I'm 'poor' Can I have my food, utilities, a house, clothing and medical taken care of. I can then use my income for fun sh*t instead of being responsible and budgeting. Great plan man!
What do I, as a taxpayer, get for free?
Not low income housing, but decent housing. There should be mixed communities. Rich people shouldn't be able to buy their away away from other people. Poor people learn values from middle class society.
Only the ground floor, no second floor. A living room, a kitchen and two bedrooms.
No bugs.
What about a large family. How can a family of 6-8 be comfortable there.
That would be a fair and human system.
I agree. I think our main problem is we give all these handouts and expect absolutely nothing in return. People appreciate things a lot more when they have to work for it.
What is the penalty if they do not work for it? Can they default and decide to just sit around and get high all the time? They still get the house, no matter what happens if it is really fair. The next step would be the lobby to get a better house because the basic is too bland or not enough. The conundrum would erupt beyond what was originally envisioned.
It would be fair and human if all humans have a similar sense as you mention. Human nature can make us appreciate it and disappoint us our entire life. Free basics is an idea, but you are opening it to every single person, regardless of income, history, or status.
I'm ok with all that, except those seven hours a week would probably be taken away from a Union worker somewhere who depends on those hours. It would probably be better just to give those things out for free and not ask anything in return. Its what Jesus would do.
Working 7 hours a week, it would take at least 5 people to replace one "regular" worker. Not a great impact on other people's jobs.
Yah but when you consider how many people could use these houses, and in comparison to the total count of Union workers, the effect would be catastrophic.