I pose this question: You are poor, as generations of your family have been before you, with no cultural memory of a life outside of poverty. You have just $14 in cash, and that $14 will let you take your child out for a special treat. Even if it’s to a place with poor nutritional content that will let them eat in an air conditioned space with a toy with their meal in the bargain and a playground in the building, would you do it? If you’re a single mom, with nothing in the world, and you have a chance to have your nails done, to feel special for a moment, would you do it? If you have next to nothing, but you can dress yourself and your children in clean clothes, well pressed, will you all have a better chance of pulling yourself out of poverty, based solely on the way the world will treat you and your children, and how you that treatment will make them feel?

If it will cost your family less to have a cell phone than a land line, pay as you go instead of a monthly plan that can be turned on and off, would you do it?

Kevin, well done.

Kevin, this is what I was responding to…

But my conclusion, when taxes are rough, is not to strip out the social safety net. Why aren’t you on here complaining just as hard that the endless wars this country wages, and decadent “defense” depending is bankrupting you and your family? Is that because you lurve the American flag but can’t stand the poor and uneducated?

But it’s good to see that this is a chip on your block, and you’re arguing with only yourself as an important player in the scenarios you run through your head. I’m not particularly looking forward to being what I would consider overtaxed, and as unfortunate as that is, I’m still not ever going to advocate stripping out the social safety net. A common adage is that the US has first world tax rates, but near third world services. Few if any places have the kind of tax rates we have here, and lack things like universal healthcare or other social goods. Your problems Jakester, are not caused by poor people with fridges and xboxes, you’d do well to understand that. But at this point you’re just repeating yourself

Note that you keep harping on the middle class, when I advocated for raising taxes on the wealthy (as in, removing current tax cuts that are in place at least). Your position is more compelling when you focus on the middle class, but I haven’t seen a single person advocate taxing the middle class any more.

A disgusting amount of the current American debt comes from the Bush era tax cuts, and then the continuation of them pushed by Boehner and company. Those tax cuts by far favor the wealthy. Is your memory so short jakester, aren’t you a grown man with children and perhaps grandchildren? The USA didn’t have this debt or this level of taxation in the 90s, but war and tax cuts in the 00s shot it through the roof. But guess what, there was still Welfare and just about all the same benefits in existence in the 90s as well, although more people are on them now because of economic hardship. If anything will bankrupt us, it’s endless war and tax cuts for the wealthy, followed by unreasonably growing medical costs for the elderly as the baby boomers age and the USA government does nothing to control the absurd costs associated with medical treatment.

I think if you’re so hurt about taxes, you should take a look at the real culprits, and stop scapegoating the poor. But that’s the real conservative conundrum in this country, isn’t it? In general, I see conservatives and conservative commentators whining about this or that, and then at the same time defend the corporations and monied interests that sent this nation rolling down a hill. They have the audacity to blame Obama, when anyone with any sense of anything would understand that even if Obama was the WORST PRESIDENT EVAR (or whatever the claim), there’s no way he could have caused the vast bulk of the current problems facing the country in a mere two or so years. But somehow, commentators were blaming everything on Obama starting around 6 months after his term. I’d also call it a farce to claim that it’s liberal politicians in particular that sent us rolling either. I’m not big fan of politicians of either party, the Republicans are off the deep end, and most Democrats are quite moderate. For someone that is truly liberal, there are few choices in terms of representation.

Or perhaps you’re objectivist, and you’d oppose letting the poor live even the semblance of a 1st world life even if you were getting taxed less. Who knows?

Sure wefare reform is tough and weeding out fraud is tough but it’s better in my opinion to try than let it all slide to the tune of billions. The well is going to run dry, so they can just print up some worthless money. We need imigration reform too, it’s got to start somewhere.

I was just trying to take things to the accusatory extremes that you were (“You act like there’s no welfare fraud…”). Your whole bit so far has struck me as, “Get a job, you lazy bums, we’re not giving you welfare.” What do you see as between reform welfare and starve kids? You either keep the system as is, try to fix or modify it (and if that’s the case, we have to get past just saying the words “Welfare reform,” and get down the near-impossible brass tacks of actually doing it), or get rid of it. “Welfare reform,” is an easy thing to say on campaign trails, but it’s a different matter to sit down with different agencies and say, “What’s feasible?” How do YOU distinguish from the poor you feel are deserving, and the poor from which you’d withdraw assistance? So far, what we’ve heard is that if someone has a computer or a phone, or if their parents were on welfare, or they can’t pass a drug test, you’re taking their support programs away.

“If you’re so deeply concerned about the kids, why aren’t you donating you earnings and dedicating your life to improve their live.”

Don’t forget that I’m a mostly-anonymous person in a comments section of a blog. I’ve donated a substantial part of my earnings and time over the years to underprivileged kids, and so has my wife. I’ve also supported and will continue to support through time and money programs that educate those below the poverty line on financial planning, computer skills, tradecraft, and yes, family planning.

In the part of the country where I grew up, a place where poverty is rampant, family planning is difficult to teach in schools because people of a certain ideology…let’s call them conservatives with a little C…push an abstinence-only policy when it comes to sex-ed in public education and limit access to birth control. And work programs are great if there are jobs available.

Of course there should be a wefare system as a helping hand, not a perpetual, generational handout.
It should be tightly regulated and include drug testing, work programs and family planning classes that begin in high school.
Why is it that MOST people know enough not to have kids/numerous with no means of support while generalational welfare is rampant?

So there’s notign in between it’s either reform welfare or stave kids?
Really? If you’re so deeply concerned about the kids, why aren’t you donating you earnings and dedicating your life to improve their live.
Much the same question and thoughts I have about rich liberals who don’t pay their taxes and find/use every loophole to evade taxes, but keep digging deeper and deeper into middle class pockets.

Bye Cihan, I can say much the same about you… we disagree so you must be correct…

parting comment: The USA can not afford to continue to support everyone in the world and country that believes they should be supported from cradle to grave. Especially, when both major parties are run and lobbied by the rich, Soros etc, wealthy corporations, wealthy politicians and are lobbyists working for THRIT best interests. The middle class can not carry the brunt of the expense for subsidizing the world. I am and will always be, totally opposed to redistribution of middle class wealth.