I would also love to just buy my way out of those problems. But unfortunately only ideas, hard work and resources solve problems. Money is nothing more than a ruler to measure things and it won't solve anything. If you give everyone money, you just inflate the price of stuff. At some level, money in the hands of the poor who will spend it incentives productive people to produce what the poor want (note that's "want", not "need") in order to capture that cash. But the "make more stuff" (production) incentive competes with the "get 'em to pay more for the same stuff" (inflation) incentive. In my experience, the later usually wins because it's simply easier to do.
Think about the mortgage interest tax deduction. Is it a tax break for the middle class? Nope. It simply drives interest rates up because we're willing to pay more knowing all that interest is tax deductible. It's therefore a government handout to mortgage bond holders, which mainly include the already rich, but also include older people who's asset allocation includes more bonds as they approach retirement. And since the price someone is willing to pay is generally a function of the payment they can afford and Payment = Principal + Interest, higher interest rates actually suppresses house prices. This takes money away from the middle class buyer who ends up owning the house.
If we instead had a tax deduction for principal payments, THAT would be a tax break for the middle class. It would drive up prices in the same way, but the additional money paid would end up in the hands of the home owner, not the lender.
Whenever you think about these things, keep in mind who's balance sheet is ultimately padded. In the case of giving everyone a guaranteed income, the poor will have to spend it all, so it won't pad their balance sheets. It will help whichever companies are best at convincing the masses their products are the most necessary. Maybe with better products, but probably with better advertising.
So now we're into the debate about who's better at choosing the most efficient allocation of resources: the poor or the government. Those are some pretty stark choices. The poor will waste much of it on things like drugs, cable TV, junk food, unnecessary bank/telco fees, high interest rates, "education" at worthless colleges, etc. The government will waste it on overpriced government contracts to companies who pad the campaign funds of politicians (make no mistake, those are bribes even if the courts haven't bothered to call them such yet).
And now we're back to how to solve the problem real problem of providing food, clothing, shelter, medical care and quality education for the masses. That's a tough one. It will involve both educating the masses (why aren't home ec, personal finance, law for non-lawyers, etc not required classes in high school). It will also involve effective government that spends money wisely. Campaign finance is probably part of the solution for that, but other than the very abstract "elect good people", I'm at a loss on that one.