It is a truism that Liberals like social programs and conservatives don't like social programs, but I would like to see specifically what people would approve (in terms of governmental spending) and what people would oppose.

Case Study #1: Debbie is a nine year old who was abandoned by an unknown parent a few years ago. Debbie now lives in a state licensed foster home and her foster parents are paid $500.00 per month caring for her. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #2: Gavin is a retarded 40 year old male who lives in a foster home (not the same one as Debbie) and his care-givers are paid $500.00 per month for caring for him. Should tax payer have to pay for this?

Case Study #3: Marie is a 33 year old who dropped out of high school after her Junior year because she got pregnant and decided to have the child. She has been able to support her child and herself until recently by working for a local manufacturing company. She lost her job at the manufacturing company over 40 weeks ago and she has not been able to find another comparable position. As soon as she was laid off, she search for and found a new job. The old job paid $9 an hour, the new job pays $5.15. She can no longer support herself of her child. She works 40 hours with a little overtime (which now pays regular time pay because of the new overtime rules) and in her non-work time, she actively searches for a higher paying job. She was just approved for welfare (which includes food stamps). Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #4: Bob had to drop out of high school after his sophomore year because his father died and he needed to work full time to help support his family. He later went back and got his GED but he never went to college. Bob worked at a textiles factory, but after a devestating terrorist attack in which two planes were flown into the US Capitol Building, the economy flooped and he was laid off. We spent the 26 weeks of his unemployment desperately searching for a new job, but was unsuccessful. Because the unemployment has not rebounded yet from the attacks, the government is proposing extending unemployment benefits for a second 26 week period. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #5: Monica is a drug addict. She has worked on and off since she graduated from high school but because of her problem, she has not been able to keep a job. She has no interest in treatment and desires to sit on her couch and watch TV. Monica collects welfare. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #6: Doloris can't work anymore. She had a job stocking shelves at Walmart, but one of the shelves collapsed and the shelf and its contents fell right on top of her. She received worker's comp and now she wants to apply for disability from the state. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #7: John used to be a drug user. While suffering from drug abuse, he had a child with another drug user, Jill. Jill had the baby and then died of an overdose. John works hard to try to support his child. John now lives in an apartment and only pays a tiny rent under the Section 8 program. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

Case Study #8: Alan got his first "real" job when he graduated from college. From his first paycheck until now, he has paid social security taxes with the knowledge that he would be entitled to a check when he reached the appropriate age. Alan is going to be 67 next week and he has decided to retire (finally, adds his wife). Because the SS taxes paid by the workers in the country cannot pay the full benefit promised to people like Alan, teh government uses some of the general tax revenues to offset the difference. Should the tax payers have to pay for this?

So, whose benefits should the tax payers have to pay for? Are they all worthy of our tax dollars? Are none of them? Would slightly different facts change your opinion? Is it true that Conservatives would support none of these programs and Liberals would support all of them?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

This post is a case study in showing there can't be hard and fast rules!
SOme of these i would say yes, some i would say no, some my opinion might change if i knew of other factors. (I guess i'm a liberal with a few drops of conservative blood, i cant help it, my dad was a republican!)

Social workers are over worked. Although there are probably some who think its all a waste of time and money.

FOr the most part, spending tax money on most of these people is an investment that does make the country a better place. Helping people when they're down is usually very good karma

I don't know anyone who thinks helping someone who is down and out would be a bad thing. What makes it bad is using taxes forced at gun point to pay for programs where we have no control over where the money goes.

Privately run charities allow people to target their money where it will do the most good. Govt programs tend to enrich bureaucrats at the expense of the people ostensibly being helped.

__________________
Never moon a werewolf.

Then we should be fixing the programs, not destroying them. Why don't people get that?

Many people consider themselves the only "worthy" charity and as a result charity (rehabilitive and otherwise) MUST be "forced at gunpoint."

We live in a society where poverty will always exist and I am trying to see people distinguish between programs tax payers should fund and programs tax payers should not fund. Private charities are good at feeding people and getting people coats for the winter, but none of the people, above, would be able to find the help they are currently receiving from a private charity.

So, lyghtningrod, if you are saying that the government should not take money from you at gunpoint, are you saying that the tax payers should NOT have to pay for any of the programs I described? If you are not saying that, which do you believe we should fund and which do you believe we shouldn't?

To all: get specific with the case studies.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Well, tell us what additional facts you would need to know and how the facts would affect your opinion.

You believe that helping Monica is an investment? I added Monica's case study because she is the poster child for conservatives who believe that social programs should not exist. Monica's problems are Monica's. Although I believe that we should help those who have fallen through society's cracks, I do not believe that we should have to support those who's problems are their own making.

Now, if I added a new case study and detailed how Monica was in a program (funded by tax payers) for drug treatment, then I would support that because such a program would be an investment, but paying money to someone who only wants to sit on a couch and collect welfare checks is not something I support.

What do you think?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I understand your point, I just disagree with it. My point is that the programs themselves are faulty, and cannot be fixed. That's why privately run charities would do a better job of addressing the problem.

Which, as I've said before, is their prerogative. Forcing them at the point of a gun is called theft. Why do you want to steal my money and give it to someone else? What could possibly give you the right to use your "compassion" as a weapon against me?

Why do you say that private charities can do one but not the other?

I believe I answered your question in this post. But to be explicit, I am not in favor of govt assistance for any of the examples you listed. My basic reason is that it is my decision to help with my money, time and effort. Not yours. I can appreciate the desire to help others, but I am dead set against your compassion being paid for by my effort.

__________________
Never moon a werewolf.

Great job, Lyghtningrod.
Anything else I say here would be redundant.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

12thMan.

__________________
Never moon a werewolf.

Perhaps you would rather your money be spent funding policies such as the one below?

Another example of what can go wrong (for We the People) when big corporations control the government policy. We have to remember that the Bush's, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others have had close strategic business and government ties for 30 + years. There has been a lot of time and effort put into the scheme we see playing out today.

Its a crafty art of war really.

And here is the process.

1. Identify the money opportunity that exist around the world. Much of this money will come from Oil, Diamonds, Gold and Arms sales.

2. Once the nation of interest is identified, cause social rebellion within the nation's people with the goal for rebels to overthrough the government, or cause so much civil unrest that outside nations are needed for intervention. Supply the rebel forces with weapons and possibly training. The result here will distract the nation's people.

3. Accuss the nation of interest as being uncivilized, inhuman and evil with the hopes of mounting support for US intervention if needed.

4. Appoach the government of the nation of interest after the coup or at the point of critical crisis to offer a compact which the US will assist the nation with money, weapons, infrastruction development and humanitarian aide. The "US to the rescue" sell. This is sales 101, create the environment of need to establish the value in the sale.

5. US then will outline the guidelines of the "Compact" with the new found friend and partner. This outlines the trade and payback plan while ensuring there is virtually no oversight on the part of the US Senate and Congress. Afterall, global trade should be a Big Business endeavor.

Who are the winners in this strategy and who are the losers?
This is a case of where the end does not justify the means. I am all for global trade simply because that is the world that we live in today. However, global trade must be open and fair. A reformation of our foreign trade and economic policy is needed. The damage these policies have caused our nation and others around the world must be addressed and dealt with as aggressively as the passion that goes into fighting the war on terror.

I believe we are seeing a counter attack to the strategies I have laid out above, with the strategy of terrorism we are seeing by our enemies.

I realize the real world, a world where personal gain is the driving motivation of actions from governments down to the individual, yet this world is filled with the vast majority of people who really do care about fellow citizens and the preservation of life and freedom. There is room for both desires for personal gain an care for others with little comprimise.

I am optimistic in the pursuit of greatness sought by humankind. And I believe the people of America will recognize our responsibility to re-gain control of our government and re-define the true meaning of democracy to the world.

Ok, but to my knowledge, there is no private charity that would provide the help currently given to any of the people in the case studies presented above. This point is the great myth presented by conservatives (that if the government stops social programs, private charities will pick up the slack). It won't happen. And, lots of people will be lost to society because when they need the help, no help was available.

Are there any programs in the case studies that you do think is important enough for taxpayers to pay for?

You have used the word "theft" before and it isn't legitimate. To be theft, the taking must be contrary to law. And, whether you like social programs or not, they ARE legal.

If it were true that the government was "stealing" you money for social programs, then it would be equally true that the government is "stealing" my money to pay for bombs (which I normally don't support). Of course, neither situation amounts to theft.

Because funding will never be great enough to provide the help that the government does. Charities deal with emergencies: keep people from starving and keep people from freezing. Sometimes, they also keep people from sleeping on the streets (but there are never enough beds).

Governmental programs are neither efficient nor wirthout corruption, but I don't know what you mean by "enrich[ing] bureaucrats." Are you under the impression that people in the government are benefitting from social programs? How?

Ok, I don't agree with you, but at least you answered the question. I would not want to live in a society where these programs didn't exist. Unfortunately, people like George Bush do want to live in such a society and that is probably because they have never been in danger of being like one of the people in the case studies.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller