By the way, I did indeed take my own advice and use that "google thingy."

 

It will be interesting to see if Dodd survives this firestorm.

Can you imagine the Speaker of the House of this country saying its "un-American" to have the country enforce its immigration laws?

Utopia isnt' coming anytime soon.

 

Do you just let the people who don't meet your criteria of "needy" just go without? What about their kids? Let them suffer, too?

 

Its easy to talk about all of the problems. Coming up with real solutions is the challenge.

 

Clyde, you know I love you man, but........

 

That's what family, your community and your church are for; not the govt in my opinion. That's what our grandfathers did when life threw them a curve. Not having the govt serve as the ever present safety net not only discourages slackers, it promotes the growth of the family, involvement in the community and participation in church, which I think are all great things for society. During the Great Depression, unemployed parents often sent their children to live with relatives until the parents found work. If I had to take in my brother and his children to support them because my brother lost his job, and he didn't get off the couch to find a new job, I tell him I'd continue to take care of his children but I'd throw his butt on the curb. If he loved his children, he'd find a job to be reunited with his children. If he loved his children he'd let me continue to take care of them until he could any job out there to be reunited with his children. If he didn't love his children enough to look hard to find a job, then I'd be glad that he didn't have custody of his children. Family members, community members and church members are in a much better position to know exactly who is truly needy and who is trying to abuse the generosity of others.

 

 

No doubt that some people would still suffer if LN ran the country; but building a system that will make sure no person ever suffers will cave in from the weight of its own structure and many more will then suffer. We could probably design cars so that no driver would ever die in an accident Clyde, but those vehicles would be so expensive and so fuel inefficient that they would not be practical. No driver would ever die, but very few people would be able to afford to drive and many people would suffer. So while the intent to make every driver safe would be noble, it would be counter productive to what is best for society and for most people. We want every drug to be totally safe for everyone, yet we want drugs to be affordable and quickly come to market to help those that might benefit from the drug. Unfortunately, those interests are often conflicting.

 

There are way too many people out there that are willing to live off of the govt that wouldn't consider doing that to their family, their friends in the community and their church. And an unfortunate consequence of the govt taking more and more from you is the growing belief that you are entitled to receive more and more back from the govt (which of course causes the govt to take more and more from others, thus creating a downward spiral that gets worse and worse). I had a wealthy aunt, now deceased, that after she retired got cheese from the govt's free cheese program of old. I was in college at the time. I confronted her why she was taking the free cheese when she was wealthy and the program was designed to help the poor. Her response (which infuriated me at the time) was she had paid so much into the "system" over the years, that she was going to get everything back out of the system that she could. I know executives that have lost their jobs that have told me recently that they are going to milk their unemployment benefits before they look for a new job in earnest in order to get back some of the money they paid into the unemployment system. While I still feel that's wrong, as someone who has paid a lot into the system over the years, I am more understanding of their rationale.

 

I hate to see anyone suffer, particularly people that are doing everything that they can to get by. Unfortunately, in my opinion any system designed to make sure that no one suffers will collapse from its own weight.

 

Life can be unfair and can be hard. Designing a sytem that ensure fairness and be easy for all is not sustainable in my opinion.

 

I love your compassion and the compassion of others that don't want to see anyone ever suffer. I just don't think building such a system in practical and can be sustained in the long haul. I'm sure you disagree, and that's okay. We just look at life differently I guess. I may be wrong and you may be right, but it's nonetheless the way I feel.

LN, I'll save space on the server by not copying your post.

 

My point is this. Its too easy for those of us who "have" to say to those who "do not" that they should "figure it out" or "suck it up" etc. We're too rich of a country to not have safety nets in place for those that are unable to do what you suggest.

 

What do you do with the children of drug addicts who are incapable or unwilling to make the right decisions? Say "too bad?"

 

Even letting people struggle without direct aid has costs to us taxpayers.

 

So, again, I'm not looking to have "no one" suffer. I AM looking for us to do the right thing and take care of those that are incapable of doing it for themselves due to they people whose care they are under.

What about those that WON'T take care of themselves.

 

Children of drug addicts should be removed their care and then let the addict choose between eating and drugs.

 

There are way to many people that are relying on the "safety nets".

What about those that WON'T take care of themselves.

 

Children of drug addicts should be removed their care and then let the addict choose between eating and drugs.

 

There are way to many people that are relying on the "safety nets".

 

Again, one more time, I'm not talking about a safety net for everyone. However, there are some in our society that we are obligated to protect.

LN, I'll save space on the server by not copying your post.

 

My point is this. Its too easy for those of us who "have" to say to those who "do not" that they should "figure it out" or "suck it up" etc. We're too rich of a country to not have safety nets in place for those that are unable to do what you suggest.

 

What do you do with the children of drug addicts who are incapable or unwilling to make the right decisions? Say "too bad?"

 

Even letting people struggle without direct aid has costs to us taxpayers.

 

So, again, I'm not looking to have "no one" suffer. I AM looking for us to do the right thing and take care of those that are incapable of doing it for themselves due to they people whose care they are under.

 

Call on family members, church members and people in the community to raise and take care of those children; not the govt. I too agree that we have a responsibility to do the right thing; I just don't think it requires govt involvement, which is where you and I disagree.

Again, one more time, I'm not talking about a safety net for everyone. However, there are some in our society that we are obligated to protect.

 

How do you determine who we are "obligated" to help?

 

How do you prevent misuse of the system?

Call on family members, church members and people in the community to raise and take care of those children; not the govt. I too agree that we have a responsibility to do the right thing; I just don't think it requires govt involvement, which is where you and I disagree.

 

Who says all of these kids have other family to go to? Church members may already be stretched thin financially. Didn't Hillary get bashed for her "it takes a village" thinking?

 

There has to be a safety net.

How do you determine who we are "obligated" to help?

 

How do you prevent misuse of the system?

 

Common sense should prevail but the person's safety and welfare should be the #1 priority.

 

Are there any programs ,even those that work well, that are without abuse at some level? Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I too agree that we have a responsibility to do the right thing; I just don't think it requires govt involvement,

 

Ever?

Common sense should prevail but the person's safety and welfare should be the #1 priority.

 

Are there any programs ,even those that work well, that are without abuse at some level? Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

I'm not buying that argument. Make the process to prove that you NEED rather the WANT assistance very stringent and attach strings to it (you know like no bonuses, no wait they forgot to do that) up to and including having children. Make it a burden to peove that you NEED assistance. If you abuse the system even once you are NEVER eligible for assistance again, ever.

Ever?

 

Only in very, very rare situations where there is absolutely no other alternative. Government assistance should be an absolute last resort rather the the first resort (and lifestyle) that it has become.

 

I'm 48 years old. If, God forbid, I lose my job tomorrow the first people I call are my parents not the government.

I'm not buying that argument. Make the process to prove that you NEED rather the WANT assistance very stringent and attach strings to it (you know like no bonuses, no wait they forgot to do that) up to and including having children. Make it a burden to peove that you NEED assistance. If you abuse the system even once you are NEVER eligible for assistance again, ever.

 

How does a 7 year old PROVE it?

Why should the parent of a 7 year old not prove it?

 

If that parent won't properly support a child why should they be allowed to keep it?