reply to post by sc2099
I think we are in fundamental agreement, and I like your slide gadget!
Where I think things get confused is where it's not a binary either/or situation... I know I
have trouble with those...
I'll use one of your examples if I may: that the gov't is not responsible for putting food in your belly.
Clearly, you don't need this, and I sure don't, but I have personally known people who really honestly could not fend for themselves (brain damage -
Do you believe the government should take the position of ensuring such people do not starve, and for that matter have a roof over their heads?
The initial answer might be No, the person's family should help, or voluntary charity, not gov't, i.e. taxes.
And I agree.
But I also believe a government should guarantee it, on the off chance that family/voluntary charity is not adequate.
And here lies what I believe is a fundamental contributor to the problem:
Corruption, not to put too fine a point on it, although probably not always in the legal sense.
When these programs exist, some people tend to gravitate to them when they don't really need to, for instance the family of our example above says
"Well, we'll pretend we are poor so the gov't will do it for us."
And on the other side, institutions such as hospitals sometimes tend to encourage people to use these government programs so they (the hospital) get
their money sooner. I have seen this personally.
Then you add in the government bureaucracy that grows up around it all, and whose purpose quickly seems to become that of maintaning itself, and
you've got the mess we have today.
And that tendancy of people to take the easy way out is, I believe, the real problem... the problem is not that the government wants to make sure some
poor schmuck won't starve, but the result of repeated greed on the part of both sides of such programs...
Didn't mean to babble on quite so long... sorry...