As paft shows elsewhere, her real answer is actually 100%. I don't know why she wanted to hide this.
The issue isn't what the actual answer is, just that paft should have one, regardless what it actually is. It could be 100%, it could be 50%, it could be 100% up to 1/2 of the poverty line, then 75% up to the poverty line, then 50% up to double the poverty line, then 0%. It could be 100% for those in New York and 0% for those in Texas and 50% for everyone else. It doesn't really matter. The point is that she refused to answer with anything at all.
Personally, I don't believe it's a proper function of government, so the best compromise I can offer is to let people mark their tax forms with the categories of extra things they want paid for and that determines the budget available. Then we can figure out what the spending can be.
no subject
The issue isn't what the actual answer is, just that paft should have one, regardless what it actually is. It could be 100%, it could be 50%, it could be 100% up to 1/2 of the poverty line, then 75% up to the poverty line, then 50% up to double the poverty line, then 0%. It could be 100% for those in New York and 0% for those in Texas and 50% for everyone else. It doesn't really matter. The point is that she refused to answer with anything at all.
Personally, I don't believe it's a proper function of government, so the best compromise I can offer is to let people mark their tax forms with the categories of extra things they want paid for and that determines the budget available. Then we can figure out what the spending can be.