Is the government obligated to take care of its citizens?

**FKD19124** · 09-17-2012, 11:46 AM

What is your notion of "taking care"?
answer yes or no and please explain.

**enyo** · 09-17-2012, 08:48 PM

Is this in response to the video footage of Mitt Romney that was leaked?

I view the government as providing a framework. They take our money and are obligated to fulfill certain responsibilities.
Telling me I can't have relations w/ the same sex, drink beer, eat pot brownies or shoot bb guns is overreaching. Providing and enforcing
standards for safety, fairness etc is okay provided it's reasoned objectively.

I do think that the government is obligated to take care of it's horses though and I think everyone that owns a horse
should get decent tax reductions.

**Colin P. Varga** · 09-18-2012, 07:48 AM

"it's horses"? The government's horses... (using incredulous italics)

Hello Mitt Romney,

Apparently the government should provide for the general welfare of horse owners. And your dressage horse should receive a bigger tax break.

I applaud your effort to make horses more dependent on the Federal government. I'm sure if you are president more people will be employed shoveling horse manure.

(I'm Colin Varga and I support this message.)

Originally Posted by enyo

Is this in response to the video footage of Mitt Romney that was leaked?

I view the government as providing a framework. They take our money and are obligated to fulfill certain responsibilities.
Telling me I can't have relations w/ the same sex, drink beer, eat pot brownies or shoot bb guns is overreaching. Providing and enforcing
standards for safety, fairness etc is okay provided it's reasoned objectively.

I do think that the government is obligated to take care of it's horses though and I think everyone that owns a horse
should get decent tax reductions.

**Colin P. Varga** · 09-19-2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

"it's horses"? The government's horses... (using incredulous italics)

Hello Mitt Romney,

Apparently the government should provide for the general welfare of horse owners. And your dressage horse should receive a bigger tax break.

I applaud your effort to make horses more dependent on the Federal government. I'm sure if you are president more people will be employed shoveling horse manure.

(I'm Colin Varga and I support this message.)

Sept. 19, 2012 Toles cartoon:
Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon on GoComics.com

**raider.adam** · 09-19-2012, 10:12 AM

The problem is many people keep phrasing this issue like it is binary. Either government does everything or does nothing. The real discussion needs to be what the appropriate level is.

**sharkey** · 09-19-2012, 12:27 PM

Please remember that "the government" is your fellow citizens. Should those citizens who made economic success a priority in their lives have to subsidize those who had other priorities?

**seand** · 09-19-2012, 12:49 PM

We should strive to make a society where everybody who works hard and applies themselves at least has an equal chance to succeed, whether they choose to take advantage of it or not. Not one where who your parents are, what zip code you were born in, how much you inherited from your parents is the sole determining factor of how well you do in life.

Beyond that for the elderly, disabled, we have a duty to try and sustain a life with a modicum of human dignity.

**2happy4u** · 09-19-2012, 07:09 PM

you still live in the 30's you are way out of touch. anybody who tries, makes it in America. nobody is holding anybody back. It's the mind set of the parents who hold their own down. The opportunity is endless in USA. The things you mention are old ideas.

**OffenseTaken** · 09-19-2012, 09:23 PM

An argument for social programs doesn't have to be predicated on moral obligation, or **** like that. It can be just a good idea. Personally, I can't stand appeals to altruism, but I do think that the benefits of enhanced productivity (whether of one gallon of gas, one worker, one hour of thought, anything that could be termed a "resource") eventually reach everyone. That's not left-wing claptrap, it's really a cornerstone of classical economics. It's therefore in the state's best interest to give everyone opportunity to be his or her most productive, and I don't just mean with well-paved roads.

Obviously, that doesn't mean just handing wads of cash to people for making poor decisions, Great Society–style. There must be some kind of leverage, and there has to be a cultural stigma against squandering the help you're given.

But it's just crazy to think that if people are going to accomplish all they can, what you need to do is rub their noses in failure. Conservatives usually are keen observers of human behavior, but this has become their big blind spot lately.

**ILoveBeer** · 09-19-2012, 10:00 PM

Is he one of the 47%

Quadruple Amputee Navy Vet Dances with his Girlfriend - This is Beautiful

**sharkey** · 09-20-2012, 12:27 AM

What OffenseTaken says has truth to it, as far as classical economics. If someone who could potentially be a great doctor works his whole life, or a great part of it, as a bartender then the population in general has lost the services of a great doctor. (not to put down bartenders, as they are also important in alleviating suffering.)

**raider.adam** · 09-20-2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

An argument for social programs doesn't have to be predicated on moral obligation, or **** like that. It can be just a good idea. Personally, I can't stand appeals to altruism, but I do think that the benefits of enhanced productivity (whether of one gallon of gas, one worker, one hour of thought, anything that could be termed a "resource") eventually reach everyone. That's not left-wing claptrap, it's really a cornerstone of classical economics. It's therefore in the state's best interest to give everyone opportunity to be his or her most productive, and I don't just mean with well-paved roads.

Altruism is a significant factor in all of this. Altruism is why we try to supply a certain quality of life to the disabled and mentally ill. It isn't because of economic reasons. It is because we believe it is the humane and civilized thing to do. If it was solely based on economics, we wouldn't do any of it.

**annie** · 09-20-2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by 2happy4u

you still live in the 30's you are way out of touch. anybody who tries, makes it in America. nobody is holding anybody back. It's the mind set of the parents who hold their own down. The opportunity is endless in USA. The things you mention are old ideas.

What a ridiculous thing to say given the job market and economy of the last four years.

**OffenseTaken** · 09-20-2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Altruism is a significant factor in all of this. Altruism is why we try to supply a certain quality of life to the disabled and mentally ill. It isn't because of economic reasons. It is because we believe it is the humane and civilized thing to do. If it was solely based on economics, we wouldn't do any of it.

Sure; I didn't say social programs should never be predicated on appeals to compassion. There is an economic benefit to taking care of the disabled (which still seems to be lost on Corbett), but I imagine it would open the way to all kinds of ugliness if we made that the sole basis of how we deal with the unfortunate.

There's a huge difference between caring for the helpless, and expanding opportunities for those who can help themselves.

**raider.adam** · 09-20-2012, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

Sure; I didn't say social programs should never be predicated on appeals to compassion. There is an economic benefit to taking care of the disabled (which still seems to be lost on Corbett), but I imagine it would open the way to all kinds of ugliness if we made that the sole basis of how we deal with the unfortunate.

There's a huge difference between caring for the helpless, and expanding opportunities for those who can help themselves.

What is the economic benefit?

**OffenseTaken** · 09-20-2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

What is the economic benefit?

Not having millions of mentally ill people ****ting in the street, spreading infections, terrorizing other citizens, and sooner or later getting hauled off to jail where they cost much more than $700/mo in SSI payments (plus the cost of a caseworker and the bare-bones health care they get) would.

**seand** · 09-20-2012, 02:12 PM

I remember reading about recent state cuts to in-home assistance to the the physically disabled where at least anecdotally people who actually could work and earn a living, pay their own rent, with some weekly in-home visits were looking at being forced to move into full-time care residencies (where they won't be paying their own rent) as a result of cuts, net loss to state government.

I know the plural of anedote is not data.