AtomicActuator said:
You might be surprised that I fully agree it should be state-run, not federalized.
But I think that some basic safety nets are a contributor to the dramatic drop in crime, including property crime, we have seen since the 70s:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/property-crime-rate-us
Desperate people are really bad for society and investing in stability pays dividends for us all, even if it's not fair.
I'm just a realist and see that cutting off assistance en masse would be extremely destabilizing, which is very bad for business.
I disagree. These "safety nets" have become permanent hammocks for far too many. Government is the worst possible entity to assign this task. And to no surprise, it has utterly failed to achieve even one of the desired outcomes. It's no longer a temporary helping hand for those in need to get back on their feet. It has created millions of fully capable people who live off of the labor of others…in perpetuity. I would consider these results a very bad investment indeed.
The ultimate goal is to help people right? This is not helping anyone. On the contrary, I believe it is harming FAR more than it's helping. Perhaps even more so to the people who receive it rather than those who have to pay for it. What this amounts to is forced charity. And charity is only noble when done with your own money, resources, labor, effort, etc. On top of all that, the gross incompetence, inefficiencies, and moral hazard of government makes the cost FAR higher than it needs to be.