Why Does the Federal Government Need to "Help"?

One thing my experience (both direct and indirect) has shown me is, once a person is on government programs, the private organizations stop helping. Also, since the person is on aid, even friends and neighbors figure they don't need help anymore. It's my experience that, for the most part, federal government involvement hurts more than helps in the long run.

I am 30 years old and I am where I am today because of some really poor choices I have done thru out the years as an adult. I can not blame my parents for not providing me with a college education cause if they could not afford it, I could have done it myself. My choice to make excuses not to finish college 5 months after I started or a technical school 6 months after I started were my mistakes and today I am paying for those mistakes.

Even without a college degree I have managed to reach distances most people would probably never dream they could reach. I was once supervisor of a fast food restaurant at the age of 20 and while not a great wage, it was pretty good for a guy with no college degree and no kids. I worked my way up from a warehouse position to the main office making $15 in another company. Not the lap of luxury but not bad for a guy with no college education. I how ever was very irresponsible with these and all other jobs in between that I had and failed to maintain; and I had a family at this point in time.

Today, with a family of 4, I have gone from a temp job, to a permanent job in the mailroom of Rinker Materials, the largest construction materials company in the US. Within a year of working in the mailroom I found my way to the Accounting Dept., a great position with the ability to grow and move up in the company. Not bad for a guy with no college education and very few job skills.

At one point during my recent 2 years in Puerto Rico, I found myself applying for food stamps. My mom thought it was good idea since I wasn’t working at the time and was only receiving my unemployment check that would soon run out. I was doing menial jobs at my uncle’s cafeteria making $80 a week. I felt that was a really big mistake and boy was I right. I soon got a job but failed to let the dept know about it. I waited till my review which I thought I was supposed to and ended up own the Gov’t a little over $1000 for the food stamps. We started paying it back little by little but eventually my mom took it over since we left and she went back to getting food stamps since she was on it with us. I lost the food stamps because the Puerto Rican Gov’t felt that $780 a month was enough to sustain a family of 5. God, I know this in Puerto Rico are not at par with the US, but it was not Cuba or Dominican Republic, $780 a month barely paid just to keep the utilities, rent and food I the house. I swore never to rely on the Gov’t again unless my children’s health or lives were at risk.

To this date I have only enjoyed some of the benefits the Gov’t provides to people in my wage range. I pay a little less for my son’s daycare and get more money back from my taxes. But I’m not complaining, I would rather work hard, earn raises and move to higher, better paying positions than live off the Gov’t. To bad most people in my position or worse don’t see it that way. I don’t believe the US owes me anything, I believe simply being an American in a land where I am as free as one can be without disrupting other people’s lives is more than I deserve without working my butt off for it. I was blessed with the chance to be born in this country; I was blessed with fellow countrymen who were willing to die to give an unborn stranger a chance to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice, I was blessed with the opportunity that so many around the world are risking life and limb to acquire, to reach, the chance to live the American Dream.

I work hard to give my family the necessities and more and I’ll be dammed if some fool is gonna tell me I don’t deserve to make as much money as I wanna make. I’ll be dammed if I’m gonna allow the Gov’t to tell me what to eat, where to work, what to wear, how much I should make or that it’s my job to pay for the lazy, selfish, irresponsible, ignorant jerks that suck the blood out of this country and have taken years of greatness of this country and turned it into a joke.

Sorry for the long reply ID, It’s just how I feel.

maybe because they need to feel needed. i would say something negative but i feel positive today don't know why.

Well...the government was created by the people for the people.  However, in such cases as these people will often take advantage of the system.  It is most likely better for aid programs to be locally run by community organizations-charities as you've stated.  Some people just get entirely too lazy and rake in money.  American mentality is that of rights, and that's not always a good thing.  (i.e. I have a right to collect government money and lay on my ass doing nothing)

~Zoo

seems every time I go to my local Wal-Mart I see a family who is obviously poor, but has several small children and the mother is pregnant again. I have seen this countless times and it infuriates me. If you are supposedly "poor", there is absolutely no reason to keep having children.

Okay, this attitude infuriates me.  I agree that if you are on government aid, you probably should not be having more children but who are you to say who is too poor to have more children.  You go in this same statement from saving obviously poor to supposedly poor.  If they are working and supporting their family, they can have as many children as they want and that's the way it should be.  Children are a benefit to a country.  Just look at the European countries who are having major problems with dwindling populations to illustrate this point.  Those children will be working someday and paying into the system that you will be drawing a social security check from. 

I also think that it is better to help someone who is working and struggling to support a family on $22,000 a year than supporting someone who is doing nothing.  That was the whole concept behind the earned income credit. 

As for the premise of the whole article, why does the federal government need to help because that's what decent people and societies do. 

"why does the federal government need to help because that's what decent people and societies do."

Yes. Sure. And if we had enough decent people, a decent society, the government wouldn't HAVE to help. So why is the government helping?

Yes. Sure. And if we had enough decent people, a decent society, the government wouldn't HAVE to help. So why is the government helping?

I think the statistics on giving indicate a good idea of why.  First, most people are no longer allowed to help.  The government is there first.  In areas where people always helped.

Second, In areas where people did not choose to help, they got together and made sure their politicians took the option out of their hands (they bought indulgences), and passed laws to do the helping for them. A sad testament on why Kitty Genovese is not an exception, but a symptom.

I am just a taxpayer who believes someone who can't support themselves to the point where they are relying on government services, should not have more children.  Simple as that.




Right.  If they are working and not leeching off the government, you are right, they should have as many children as THEY can support.




Not necessarily. 




That's not an answer.  Decent people all across the United States help people everyday, and these people should be commended.  However, the federal government has no responsibility to give handout to people who are able to support themselves.

maybe because they need to feel needed. i would say something negative but i feel positive today don't know why.

If the government feels needed, it can do something against crime. We need the government, all right. Cannot see how the government could ever feel unneeded.

this has been asked but i am going to ask again. who are you to tell anyone that the can or cannot have kids. even the people who are "leeching off of the government" are tax payers.

I agree that if you are on government aid, you probably should not be having more children but who are you to say who is too poor to have more children. You go in this same statement from saving obviously poor to supposedly poor. If they are working and supporting their family, they can have as many children as they want and that's the way it should be.

The market would say that. I believe that was his point. "They way it should be" is difficult. We don't know how it "should be". In nature, children of parents not productive enough to keep them tend to die. Human society acts against that mechanism. But that is how "it should be" in one sense. "Should be" is a dangerous concept. It can mean anything. Perhaps what "should be" is that everyone gets as many children as they have enough money to raise with a good education and lots of toys. Poor people "should" have one child, middle class two, and upper class three.

Children are a benefit to a country. Just look at the European countries who are having major problems with dwindling populations to illustrate this point. Those children will be working someday and paying into the system that you will be drawing a social security check from.

Children are a cost and a benefit. You can replace the benefit with immigration. European countries are having major problems because European governments believe in multiculturalism and immigration control. The result is that Europe does not have enough immigrant and those that do come are not integrated enough to keep European society going. The governments noticed that and now believe that the only way to save European society is to breed white children. But that is a nationalist and stupid idea. Children of poor white people are not better for society and the economy than talented non-white assimilated immigrants.

The answer is not government aid for breeding but controlled immigration of foreigners willing and able to assimilate totally.

I would come.

As for the premise of the whole article, why does the federal government need to help because that's what decent people and societies do.

Or apparently don't do; because if people did, why would governments have to force everyone to spend money on the welfare of the poor?

I'm not telling anyone they cannot have kids, I'm just saying people who cannot support themselves should not have kids.  If they continue to do so then they should not receive any government support.  Have all the kids you want, just don't look for taxpayers to take care of them.

Some people here love to claim that "society" has a responsibility to help people, but why should "society" continue to help people that contribute to the problem by having children when they cannot support them?

i do not think society should support people. even tho i am one of those leeches. no i don't have any kids.

Or apparently they are not allowed to if the government confiscates their means to do so.

it is more along the lines of if the government is going to why should i.

True, but you shouldn't have children beyond your means. If your kids are starving because you have too many, then that is a problem.

In Europe they used to downsize the family in cases like that. Many fairy tales feature child abandonment.

~Zoo

The fact is that the FEDERAL government has become too distant from the people and have forgottent that it's not theirs to give [http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp].

If people need assistance, let me give it at a local level where I have more control.

Again I point out how Col dislikes people who work hard and make a decent or better life for themselves and their families yet he does not point a single finger at those who bring children to this world while not being responsible enough to care for them. And Col claims to care for children when he screamed about the SCHIP program yet he won't fault the parents who put them in these situations.

I got my wife pregnant when she was 20 and I was 21. She was going to school and I was working a $10 an hour job. Shame on me for bringing a child to this world without being prepared or ready to take care of the child. I was even more reckless when I brought a second child to this world while struggling to maintain a family of 3. I do not regret any of my children, but I wish I would have prepared myself better before I had them. Today I work my butt off and am currently seeking a part-time job and my wife is also working to make sure our children have the necessities in life and maybe a little more. After all they are children and they don't understand the struggle, but I will make sure they do as they grow up.

I will never understand why Col chooses to look at statistics and ignore the people who live the reality of this country. He claims to fight for my rights (I am one of those low income people you speak of) but ignores everything I say. Come to think of it Col is a great politician, has the role down packed.

gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007Yes. Sure. And if we had enough decent people, a decent society, the government wouldn't HAVE to help. So why is the government helping?I think the statistics on giving indicate a good idea of why. First, most people are no longer allowed to help. The government is there first. In areas where people always helped.Second, In areas where people did not choose to help, they got together and made sure their politicians took the option out of their hands (they bought indulgences), and passed laws to do the helping for them. A sad testament on why Kitty Genovese is not an exception, but a symptom.

This is pure BS.

NOTHING our government is doing prevents people to help others. In fact we encourage such help by allowing contributions to be deducted from our income tax. We also have all the hype by Bush and the GOP supporting faith biased help. It is also not because of anything the government is doing. The simple fact is that what people choose to give to help others is not enough to meet the needs and that is why we collectively as a society need to help when the gifts from the many fine charities fall short!

Reply | Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.

Another statement that proves you are a FOOL and an IDIOT that does not what you are talking about!

Here's what I don't like about this, ID. In this paragraph, you could well be describing my family at various junctures. Because the family is "obviously poor", you assume they are receiving government aid. That doesn't necessarily follow (although it does, more often than not).

I'll tell you something, though. If you want a remedy to the problem, start with the government itself. I know MANY low income families FORCED onto government assistance with the threat of losing their children if they don't take them. These families tried to make it on their own, the government TOLD them it wasn't allowing that as an option.

Sometimes, things aren't as they appear to be.

fine then how come has a col you don't know the first thing in how to fight a war.

This is pure BS. NOTHING our government is doing prevents people to help others. In fact we encourage such help by allowing contributions to be deducted from our income tax. We also have all the hype by Bush and the GOP supporting faith biased help. It is also not because of anything the government is doing. The simple fact is that what people choose to give to help others is not enough to meet the needs and that is why we collectively as a society need to help when the gifts from the many fine charities fall short!

No, the above is pure BS.  You deny what happened to Kitty?  Just to prove your point?  You are not worthy of scorn as that is a waste of energy to a caricture that only exists in demented minds.

Now, once you get off that stuff you are sniffing, reread my response.  Note I am not talking about Bush.  Note also that I said "allowed".  When you confiscate the means to help in the name of some greater good (for whatever reason), you are removing the ability to help.

Now calmly back away from that bong, and quit trying to play with the big dogs while you are high on your opiate of choice.

I do know how to fight a war just like most of our generals who did not agree with the way Bush fought the Iraq War. I knew and said from day one that to try and fight the Iraq War without the resources needed was a mistake. It is Bush that does not know how to fight a war and did not listen to those with that knowledge.

I have maintained from day one that to attack Iraq was a strategic mistake. The advice Bush received BEFORE he invaded Iraq from the foreign policy experts proved that. I also said his tactical choices to not send the troops needed and disbanding the Iraqi military, police and civilian government were mistakes that compounded the error of invading Iraq have resulted in MOST of the dead and injured American Troops! If Bush had sent the 500,000 troops and simply changed the leadership of the Iraqi Army, Police and Civilian government, we would not have lost over 3,800 troops, sustained over 28,000 injured and most likely be out of Iraq Today!