[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course you can. You can come to the conclusion that one size doesn't fit all -- that one answer doesn't cover all situations, that every case is different. I know you learned how to do that in law school.

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

The simplistic thinking comes in by assuming that what applies to some people applies to all people.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Well, I could go all philosophical on you and say because no man is an island entire of himself and because we are a society, not a mere collection of individuals, but I really don't think that advances dialogue.

These questions are a somewhat different discussion. I'll readily grant there can be a wide variety of political solutions to the problems of how to deal with the unemployed from total socialism to total reliance on personal and private charity and everything in between. These are hard questions and there are no easy answers. It's easy enough to say "they should find work," but what about children? It's easy enough to say "why should I pay their bills" but what about my (and your) health insurance premiums and other bills that are higher to recoup what others can't pay?

With my health insurance, I get to choose my risk pool and pay for the coverage voluntarily. If I don't pay my taxes because I don't want to be a part of that particular risk pool, I go to jail. I see that you're trying to correlate those two things, but private insurance and public entitlements aren't as comparable as you suggest.

The blithe "well, they just don't really want to work so why should we help them" is a cop-out, a rationalization. It avoids asking the hard political questions about what society's role is or should be and what the implications to society as a whole of doing this, doing that or doing nothing at all actually are.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.