Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

See, that is why I truly respect your opinion, because of your level-headedness and even temper.

Likewise.

To much is given, much is expected.. And greater the responsibility... It is our duty and obligation to serve those who others may deem less deserving.

Again, I think it's important that we make the distinction between what a man or woman must do to lead a moral life and what a government must do in order to maintain a society.

In no way would I ever suggest that as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., all religions which value charity ever stop expecting a great deal from each other as individuals. From the government though? Do we really want to impose our principles on our fellow man and force him to pay into a bureaucracy which will in turn dole out his money to the lazy, the uneducated, the dirt-stupid, the criminal, etc.?

I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to this aspect of government. The government's job is to protect my life and my liberty and my stuff from my fellow citizens as well as from the government itself (to a point). Beyond that, I believe our government tries to do more than it really ought to.

I anticipate that you're going to raise the issue that by paying in and supporting these people, I'm essentially protecting my life, liberty, etc., by keeping them fed, thus not sparking some sort of insurrection, crime, etc. My response would be that our current system, one might say, is at least partially responsible for the United States having the prestigious distinction of having the highest imprisoned population per capita of any country in the world.

I would also anticipate that you might say that I don't have a cogent argument because poverty is a universal problem -- it affects the rich and the poor and the middle class in some way -- that eliminating it helps us all and keeping it hurts us.

My response to that hypothetical line of thought is that a society such as ours, based on capitalism, is going to generate rich people, middle class people and poor people. If we provide a more comfortable existence to the poor folks, it would seem to me that we would eliminate the incentive to climb the social ladder.

I think poor folks should have it hard. The harder they have it, the greater the incentive is to take charge of their own lives. Able bodied folks should be forced to work at some point. It's as simple as that.

When someone learns that they can get by essentially for an unlimited period of time by doing nothing, they'll do nothing. If they have to work to eat, I assume most will take charge of themselves. That's survival.

I recognize it's not so black and white, but I think I see things in at least fewer shades of grey than you might

So a crackhead mother robbing people at gun point and chooses to smoke crack rather than rehab and get a job and an education, folks would find it easy to cast her aside... But the minute she changes, the very second she says no more, even if it is 70 X 70, even as a civilized society, we cannot refuse her. And believe me there are 1000s like her in every city.

Well, said crackhead mother should have had her children placed in foster care long ago. I would hope permenantly. Also, this woman deserves to be in prison. Society owes her justice and imprisonment.

Also, I'm not sure I'd risk society's love on a person who is such a risk. Were I the one doling out the public money, she'd have to get in line behind the people who are victims of people besides themselves.

Anyhow, I get that you're offering an extreme example.. and I agree that if this woman really wanted help, I think I personally (if it were within my means) would do so. The government though? How do we know that her pleas for help are not merely a ruse to get back onto the Health and Human Services' teet?

Yes, you are right to wean folks off the welfare rolls. But, I don't think we can begin to fathom the public health costs it takes when we do that. We already have a crazy Health disparity in several states and it all aligns with poverty moreso than ethnicity.

Health care is a different issue... but just to give you the very short answer, I do not think that health care is or should be a right in this country. Emergency room visits for things like broken legs? Sure. But the latest and greatest in cancer treatments for the homeless? Unless they're part of an experiment, I don't think so.

And we are not talking about people with all their marbles in place. Many of them are have clinically psychological problems beyond depression or bipolar. A lot of young men have schizophrenia. And a lot of young women are suffering from psychosis. Psychotropic drugs cost money, then you cannot treat with a drug without lifestyle modification and how do you make someone like that make better choices with financial decisions?

There are actually quite a few ways of attacking this. First of all, my "let 'em starve" comment was not directed at the mentally or physically infirm.

Past that, to take your meds or not take your meds is a personal decision. In the case of schizophrenia, I believe you'd be able to get treatment for that via Medicaid since you'd essentially be 100% disabled. Further, if that person is unable to care for themselves and/or are a danger to others, they will be institutionalized.

For less serious conditions like depression or bipolar disorder... there are many, many folks leading highly successful lives who have contended with these sorts of demons. Nothing is impossible unless the patient is bound and determined to be the victim, they can overcome.

And now we have turned this debate is a suitable discussion without all that personal emotions.

I do appreciate that.