English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

OR are these things a citizen's personal responsibility to acquire for himself?

2007-09-17 14:56:04 · 32 answers · asked by American Sunshine 3 in Politics & Government Politics

32 answers

NO, the Government is suppose to provide for the common welfare, not cradle to grave. It is suppose to defend us. The things you menction are the strict responsiblity of the citizen and that the way it should be.

2007-09-17 15:04:42 · answer #1 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 6 1

To a degree perhaps, but there certainly needs to be some accountability for the poor decisions a lot of people make.

Millions of people want to come to this country. Why? Because we are the land of opportunity. People can still start with nothing and make a very comfortable living for themselves. Why is that? Because they are willing to work their asses off for it. They aren't as spoiled as we are.

Americans have a very frightful sense of entitlement and lack of responsibility. Why take precautions if you're impoverished and sexually active? Just let the taxpayers take care of you. Not that I'm saying poor people don't have the right to have kids, but if you're dirt poor, you don't have any business with a large family. If you can't feed yourself, why on earth bring a child into that situation?

I think we need to do a hell of a lot more for our working poor. It's absolute BS that neither side of the political spectrum has any interest in sincerely relieving the burden that our working poor face. If someone is making a sincere effort but can't make ends meet, they definitely deserve our full support. But to pay some idiot to sit home and pop out children like puppies? I don't think so.

There are plenty of community-based programs to feed the poor. If there's a shortage in your area, please go help out. I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm completely serious. If everyone who feels passionately about a social problem would volunteer even a few hours a month, think about what a difference it would make. Besides, local groups are in a far better position to address the needs of their community. Add in the fact that we already *know* the federal government is too large of a bureaucracy to react quickly to *anything*, and local groups make even more sense.

Transportation? I'll help 'em get a bike. We have locals who ride their bikes *everywhere* - some more than 20 miles a day - even in the dead of winter. Here in the interior of Alaska, that's f*ing COLD. If they can do it, so can anyone else.

Shelter? Depends. Some homeless really *do* choose to be homeless. I've met some. But those who are homeless due to losing their jobs certainly deserve some help. They should have to pass an initial drug test, and random ones after that. If it's good enough for working Americans.....

Health care? The first thing we should do to help solve our health care crisis it to make the losers pay *all* legal costs in a law suit. That would put a stop to the asinine, BS ones, yet still allow valid cases to be tried. Law suits have certainly helped to drive the cost of medical malpractice insurance through the roof - which gets passed along to the patients.

But no hospital can turn you out just because you don't have insurance. And if it *really* means that much to you, demand that our politicians start clamping down on illegal immigration. Every dollar spent on someone who isn't here legally is a dollar not spent on a needy American.

Sorry to be so verbose, but these aren't easy issues.

2007-09-17 15:16:43 · answer #2 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2 0

the governments job is to make sure that the states are bound by laws that do not contradict each other from state to state. its the states responsibility to provide a military for their own defense and to collect taxes to do so. the states are to also provide for public education and public infrastructure. The federal government, originally, had little power over the states. you can thank Lincoln for the change to a big federal government and weak state governments. If citizens, or otherwise, are not required to ensure their own food, healthcare, shelter, or otherwise, then what is the motivation to work hard and prosper? This big welfare government of ours is creating a bunch of titty babies that cant fend for themselves. Throughout history, if you couldnt afford healthcare, then you got sick and died. Thats the way it is and always has been. thats why you get your butt out of bed and go to school and get an education, or go to work. by the way, I dont have health insurance, so I can say the things i've said. take that you liberals!!

2007-09-17 16:11:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

government could be there to serve the interest of that is human beings and the country of an finished. Letting everyone have a honest hazard at existence could be a concern additionally. Why could somebody born in a destructive family individuals have not got any hazard as a results of wellbeing themes/college costs etc etc whilst they're completely in a position and have a stable paintings ethic. a central authority could help relieve the barriers that preclude peeveryoneshing their means which might impremployeesty as an entire. you ought to undergo in strategies that the country has served the prosperous by giving them the prospect and placing our surroundings for them to make money too. that includes stimulus, whilst needed, to maintain a super tax paying middle type. that is in everyones income - companies, debt holders, employess, government etc etc, that there is a functioning middle type.

2016-10-18 22:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by riva 4 · 0 0

in the usa their job is to uphold the constitution, which limits it to foreign policies, protection fo the country and seeing to it that the constitition is upheld, everything else is on the state or local level.

so if health care or food or jobs or whatever that should be on a state level, and people shouldn't expect handouts but that is for the state to decide, there may be limited benefits for people who are fallen on hard times, but that should be just enough until they can get on their feet.

if people could keep more of their money,and they had stuck with gold and silver as money then prosperity would reign and those with it could help out those who couldn't help themselves. this was the way it was before 1913. the country was building wealth at an alarming rate. since 1913 it has been declining which is funny since we have been told that taxation is supposed to help make a country stronger. lies all lies.

RRRRR

2007-09-17 15:07:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

No what amendment does it say the government has to provide you with healthcare, or a car. Give you a hint, it is not in there. The governments role is to make sure you are safe, you have legal redress if you are wronged, maintaining our roads, etc.

2007-09-17 15:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 2 0

It is not the government responsibility to make sure its citizens have those things! Its the governments responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and maintain liberty and freedom.
Welfare is a good example of how our government takes care of our people. I think it is OK to use this if you are UNABLE to work, but there are so many people who manipulate the system and waste tax payer dollars. Its unfair to all the rest of us who worked hard, and got good paying jobs! Its like, because we spent the money to go to college and went the extra mile, we have to pay money to the ones that did not work hard, sat on their butts, and did nothing! Not fair!

2007-09-17 15:05:16 · answer #7 · answered by Dawn 2 · 7 1

I believe the reason the government tries to provide for those less fortunate - (food stamps, medicare) is so that people can get back on their feet. I agree that there are too many people that abuse it.

The reason they need to care is because crime will become out of hand if people are starving. There would be a large revolt.

Americans are very giving, (if they can) and do help those in need (usually).

Is it their "duty". Not really. But as a modern civilized nation, we can't let people go without the basic necessities. America does have heart.

2007-09-17 15:12:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Those are all personal responsibilities of the citizen involved, for themselves and their children that haven't yet reached a sufficient age to move out of the house - If any.

2007-09-17 15:06:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

No. It is the function of our government to promote freedom and protect us from our enemies; that is it. It is the responsibility of citizens to follow legislated laws and to be responsible for his or her own well being.

2007-09-17 15:10:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers