Do you believe that it is the role of the federal government to "take care" of people?

Question

I say this in a broad sense in order to leave room for what, if any, type of care falls within the role of the federal government.

Answer 1

In certain circumstances only. The mentally and physically disabled, and the elderly as well as very disadvantaged children should have monetary assistance. Others should know their own personal responsibility. If you have a good mind and body you have a choice as to what you want in life.
I mean health insurance is more important than a big expensive car. Live within your means. Be responsible bringing children into the world. Take responsibility for yourself.
Ther should be reforms in social security and medicare. I believe partial privitization for a start, and getting rid of wasteful programs.........

Answer 2

Being British, and having lived in Denmark I have experienced two forms of "welfare state" so this is an interesting question for me.

The good:
* Everybody has a safety net. Nobody goes untreated for serious health conditions because of lack of insurance or cash to pay. Nobody has insufficient money to exist.

The bad:
* Especially true of Denmark: Nobody is poor but nobody is rich either. Taxes are so high it is a disincentive to entrepreneurship.

I do think it is the role of federal government in the USA to provide a minimal safety net - which means increased taxes - more than it is doing now. In particular I would like to see a state run health insurance scheme so that everyone has access to essential health care regardless of their means. Germany is a good role model for this. Everybody has to belong to state sponsored health insurance - premiums are averaged out so a young fit person pays over the odds whereas older people pay less than they would in a free market. If earning high enough (and the threshold is really high) people can "opt out" of the state scheme and insure privately - or not at all. There is a certain amount of subsidizing a common good in this scheme but the quality of life makes it worth it.

What should never happen is that federal government - as I experienced in Denmark - "takes care" to such an extent that free enterprise becomes ineffective. Nobody should be able to live so comfortably from welfare that they have no reason to attempt to get a job - as happens in England far too often.

Answer 3

I don't think that the Federal government has any role other than to provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce. These two things have broader meanings now than when they were written into our Constitution, but they do not include any sort of welfare or education or health care. The only exception could be the benefits that have and should be given to our soldiers, because taking care of those who defend us is part of providing for our nations defense.

Answer 4

The answer is NO. No "what if", no "extreme cases", no "exceptions".
The answer is NO.
People take care of people. Each take care of himself, his family, his friends, his neighbors, other members of his community. In that order and as far as each wants to go.
The federal government can't do that and shouldn't.
There's more than plenty evidence that the federal government is incompetent, corrupt and dangerous when involved in "taking care" of people.
The only reason why it does that is because its members can have nice paychecks for providing nothing with no management control. Plus, those who are taken care of will always support the system. Their lives may seem pathetic to you (assuming that you have a real productive job) but it's life for free after all. No responsibility, no hard work, no risks.
The government doesn't have a reason to evaluate the needs of each one of them. In fact, it has plenty of incentives to put more and more into the system. Each one of them is going to keep the system in place by voting while the real workers keep working hard and creating wealth to support them.
This is democratic socialism, the system that's ruling your life today.

Answer 5

If we would get rid of the majority of the odd federal jobs then we would save so much money.

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,715,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or stop working for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.

http://www.lycos.com/info/government--federal-government.html

2,715,000 Federal Employees
X 67,000.00 Avg. Salary Exceeds
$181,905,000,000.00 Total Payroll plus

Do we really need Federal Employees that spend their days tasting tea of all things? Looks like way too much welfare going on in the federal government. I thought Republicans were for smaller government.

Answer 6

I would suppose there would be no need for it if IMMIGRATION would have been contained and controlled, for example. Because while there has been MEDICAID and MEDICARE for such a long time, it is now out of control as to whom really an truly need it or deserve it.

Also if there was some type of control regarding excessive high prices of medicines, people might not need to overcrowd so-called community hospitals. Also by "inspiring" young woman to give birth_mostly out of wedlock_and giving them WIC CHECKS, AND THEN FOOD STAMPS, etc., well government is indeed creating a dependence. And so after giving birth, it is only logical they will go on to get more food stamps and more free medical care, up until child is 21 years old!!!

Answer 7

Yes, otherwise that government wouldn't exist. People wouldn't consider a government that did nothing for them a government, they'd consider them a ruling bunch of criminals. Thanks for leaving this in a broad sense, because this doesn't necessarily entail handouts. Tax breaks could be considered taking care of the people by easing their financial burden. Decisions a government makes might make it more or less capable for a country to generate jobs. Natural disasters, foreign relations; these are all things that are (hopefully) done so that a government can assist in taking care of its people.

Answer 8

Nope. This is what our forefathers wrote that the government's job was:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Answer 9

To promote the common welfare...You left out that part. Tell me why we are the UNITED states of America and not just the States of America? Any state that does not want federal aid (funding) should just refuse it. lmoa like any would. No State is finacially able to stand alone and no State wants their money going to another State with out input on how it is spent.

Answer 10

The federal government has an obligation to care for federal prisoners;that's it.
ALL other 'entitlement"programs have been passed through legislation and can be recinded or expanded through legislation based on the "will" of the people.