To what extant should the government involve itself the everyday lives of American citizens?

Question

Do you think that the government should use your tax dollars to fund Medicare, Healthcare, Social Security, and Public Education? If so, why? Please justify your claims on some sound basis, not just a moral one like, "It would be nice," or any other appeal to emotion.

Answer 1

I want to respond to Steve C. I also work with people who have disabilities (Autism), and many of my co-workers lump all government programs together as beneficial. What they don't realize is that there may be merritt for government funding to those who simply CAN'T, it does not justify funding for those who WON'T. In fact, many times, funding is cut or frozen for our type of services to cover other entitlement programs. All such programs, including our field, creates an unhealthy dependency. It's just in our case, the cost of not providing services is less expensive than institutionalization (do we support them in their natural environment or put them in a big red brick building where men in their pretty white suits take care of them night and day?) So when my liberal friends from my field start getting socialist in their desire to help others, they actually hurt thier more specific causes. Limited funds can only stretch so far. I won't even get into how much more effiecient charitable programs are at solving social issues.

One of the few insightful quotes Bush has made is his reference to "the bigotry of low expectations". Communism is alive and well in our government, even when we have seen the experiment fail time and time again. At the very least, capitalism has shown itself to produce a better economy and better at motivating success and ingenuity in the individual.

In fact, 50 years ago defense spending was 60% of the budget and payments for social programs (welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid) was 22% of the budget. In 2006 defense spending dropped to 20% and social programs increased to 60%. What do we have to show for it? It's like a drug - using it creates a growing need for it.

Answer 2

No, the government should entirely stay out of such matters. When it all boils down to it, those and all the other programs the government has put into action are all about money; the relation to the people is that they won't get the services if they do not support the politicians funding them. For example, Social Security and Medicare: I haven't heard of any overt cases of this, but it'll reach a point someday where politicians are only going to give out the money if their constituents show them enough political support. Without that money, what are people who currently depend upon it going to do?

Then, assuming that politician gets power and suddenly makes several very bad decisions, he can still threaten to revoke his support of the welfare programs if those who originally supported him stop doing so. He probably won't, because as long as people are getting that money they will support him (you get several nice fat checks in the mail every month just for saying you like a certain person? Wow!).

Just as an afterthought (and I know you said no moral things, but this is an important one), why can't people plan ahead and take care of themselves? Why must there be this big safety net there to catch them when they screw up their lives? You're supposed to learn from the negative consequences of bad actions and adjust your actions accordingly, not sit on your butt and cry because you messed up.

Answer 3

The federal government has no basis in education, nor in healthcare, other than to regulate the industry.

I think any healthcare plan needs to be a temporary safety net at best, save for people who are disabled for life.

Social Security will not be around by the time I retire, probably.

Answer 4

Yes they should. i work with developmentally disabled adults who require Medicaid to pay medical bills and SSI to survive. There was a time when people would have been put in nursing homes or group homes, but now are able to live in the community, like you and I. The system is highly monitored and abuse has been significantly reduced. There will always be some abuse of the system, but the idea of not having it in place is much worse. I would rather our money was spent on Americans than on people in other countries. Just because someone was born with a disability, got in a car accident, or was injured in Iraq, does not mean they should be forgotten.

Answer 5

of course the respond is the federal government should not be in touch. in actuality it is going to stay out of State matters all jointly. yet and it somewhat is a extensive yet...there are huge numbers of human beings that have been taught and have self assurance that the government owes them everytinhg they prefer to have. The socialist society has created a set of human beings that have self assurance that purely simply by fact they stay in this u . s . they are entitled to and could settle for all of stuff you indexed and greater. procuring votes by using growing to be an entitlement slavery is the way the Democrats, Socialists, Progressives in this u . s . have come to potential. it somewhat is the hot slave classification...the unfavorable that have not something being manipulated by using those politicians to go their agendas forward! those that have created the wealth of this u . s . are having it stolen from by using this neo-socialist social gathering. Their not undemanding earned wealth is being stolen from them interior the call of the persons. seem back into background and you will discover others that have used this technique to place despots into potential and to take the liberty and freedom from the persons they stole the countries from ...Germany's 0.33 Reich, The Soviet Union, North Korea... unfavorable, desparate human beings grow to be grasping, somewhat whilst the government run by using cheating human beings financially enslave them and promise them large riches to be taken from the wealthy simply by fact they don't should have what they have earned. This creates a set of persons unwilling and unable to artwork for his or her living house, their on a regular basis bread, their very existence...they anticipate it to settle for to them and guarded by using a benefactor that has offered their votes. so they vote to have the federal government coddle them and be their mommy.

Answer 6

Federal government....not one bit. Constitution says so. That's between the people, the local governments and State governments to decide.

Answer 7

NO.

It is not a function of government to force some people to pay other people's bills!