Medicaid
Medicare
Unemployment insurance
SNAP
SSI
SSDI
Housing
College Assistance
Cell Phone
Auto loans
Headstart schools

I can name many more... (this was just off the top of my head)

My question is, since the idea of personal responsibility came up in another forum, is there any area of life that people should be personally responsible for?

At the time of birth:
Parents can have assistance on the medical for the birth
Parents can have assistance for the child's food (WIC Program)
Parents can have assistance for the child's schooling
Parents can have assistance for the child's food, medical, housing
Parents can help get assistance for College education

What is it that a person has the responsibility for when it comes to their kids, let alone the rest of their life?

Paying their taxes?

danivon wrote:Paying their taxes?

True dat (sic)

bbauska

What is it that a person has the responsibility for when it comes to their kids, let alone the rest of their life?

Instilling in your children a set of values and behaviours to guide them in their life. Protecting them from harm, supporting their emotional well being, inspiring their intellectual curiosity and opening their hearts to their community and the world.
Its a pretty tall order.

Everything you've listed, in the US, is aid in case a family or person is financially strapped and can't provide to themselves. A social safety net.
In many countries some of these things are considered basic rights of citizenship that every citizen can access as required or deserved.(advanced schooling for instance)
And yet can be provided less expensively despite the universality.... (medical care for instance)

So there is NO financial responsibility then? Is that what you are saying RickyP?

bbauska

So there is NO financial responsibility then? Is that what you are saying RickyP?

My question is, since the idea of personal responsibility came up in another forum, is there any area of life that people should be personally responsible for?

You didn't say personal financial responsibility...

But since you have.
Pay your taxes.
Feed yourself, clothe yourself, house yourself and your family if you are able.

So you have no financial responsibility if you are too poor? Is that your point?

bbauska wrote:So you have no financial responsibility if you are too poor? Is that your point?

If you have no money, how can you be responsible for it? I have no dogs, so I have no canine responsibility.

Actually I do not understand what you're getting at Brad.

JimHackerMP wrote:Actually I do not understand what you're getting at Brad.

I am wondering why there is money for people who choose to not work, when they can. It is not the government's responsibility to provide these services. If I am wrong, I would love to see where in the Constitution that everyone must be provided with cell phones.

I am fine with helping people with the BASICS, if and only if, they cannot work because of physical malady. I do not think a cell phone is basic. I don't think college education is BASIC.

If you are poor, you can have financial responsibilities, but are unable to meet them.

BTW, I am fairly sure that Danivon does not have a canine responsibility, so his comment does not apply.

bbauska wrote:I am fine with helping people with the BASICS, if and only if, they cannot work because of physical malady. I do not think a cell phone is basic. I don't think college education is BASIC.

First off, the jobs also have to be there. And there are reasons other than "physical malady" for not having work.

On the last part, I think it is a failure for our society if people who are able to get further education are denied the opportunity because they (or rather for the young, their parents) cannot afford it. How many doctors and scientists or other great contributors could we be missing out on if we apply your narrow policy?

BTW, I am fairly sure that Danivon does not have a canine responsibility, so his comment does not apply.

So you didn't get my point then.

I love conservatives. The very wealthy can siphon enormous amounts wealth to themselves with little contribution (at least relative to what they're taking) to society, but heaven forbid that the poor have cell phones or cable tv. Only porridge for them!

As Owen noted there must be jobs available. That's an external factor over which the poor have no control. Globalization has vastly increased the labor pool available to multi-national companies and US corporations have taken full advantage of it. They (and Wall Street) benefit while jobs are lost due to a 500 billion dollar annual trade deficit.http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins ... 2fd8e558f9

And not all poor are the same. My parents grew up in the Depression and their families were poor. But when the economy rebounded they had the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities to become part of the middle-class. At that particular time it should be noted the impediments to getting ahead through education were modest in California. There's s a reason why Dad (who grew up in the Boston area) met my Mom (who grew up near Shreveport) in California at a community college.

Some poor are disabled. Some come from dysfunctional backgrounds. Some come from essentially segregated communities dealing with a legacy of discrimination. And some have minimal education, skills and IQ. These are the intractable poor. Then there are some people who are poor for a while because of temporary set-backs (job loss, divorce, health problems) and can bounce back. It's therefore essential to not lump all of the poor together. That makes it easy to point fingers. The reality is that there are factors (both internal and external) that make it difficult for many poor to break the cycle of poverty. Globalization is not making it easier.

Having a minimum wage of $15 an hour to incentivize work is part of the solution. If someone works a full-time job they should be able to support themselves (I would be open to adjusting $15 a hour based on cost of living differences). I see education and even cell phones as part of society's infrastructure (infrastructure being the building blocks of society like roads, bridges that people can access without too much cost so that they are able to create wealth).

Trump and Sanders are having success for a reason. Our country's economic policies are helping an economic elite while essentially mortgaging our economic future. I guess most people still have enough food to eat and other stuff...but the lack of good, satisfying jobs creates insecurity. And at least Sanders and Trump are acknowledging that economic insecurity.

Why it's a good thing to totally disconnect work from wealth is a mystery to me. I can't imagine anyone doing any work worth more than a $1,000 dollars an hour. So 2,000 hours at that rate is about 2 million dollars. Earnings above that involve taking wealth from society that is clearly not earned and that should go to someone else (probably someone at the lower-end of the economic spectrum). Essentially, that's what the US did with regard to tax policy and unions from the 1930s through the 1960s. Now we've gone backwards and you see what happens--a proto-socialist and a proto-fascist gain traction.

You see what is happening here? Jealousy to the people who earned and denigration of position. There has not been an answer about what any responsibility people have. Let me ask this question which will probably be ignored as well.

What is the minimum that the people who cannot afford should be provided with?

Why don't you put forth your position is on this instead of asking a question? Put your position and the reasons for it. That will probably get a better response then just throwing out a question that you want answered.

And I don't agree with your contention regarding jealously and I'm not sure what denigration of position means in this context. I am not advocating my position based on envy but on what I think is fair. I could be wrong of course, but I think have reasonable grounds to support my argument.

freeman3 wrote:Why don't you put forth your position is on this instead of asking a question? Put your position and the reasons for it. That will probably get a better response then just throwing out a question that you want answered.

And I don't agree with your contention regarding jealously and I'm not sure what denigration of position means in this context. I am not advocating my position based on envy but on what I think is fair. I could be wrong of course, but I think have reasonable grounds to support my argument.

Because then my position becomes the discussion, and I don't learn from others.

You made out the wealthy as Scrooges with the "Only porridge for them!" and the "heaven forbid that the poor have cell phones or cable tv" comments.

But you asked for it, so I will try to meet that.

I want there to be means testing for benefits.
I want recipients to be US citizens or legal, documented immigrants.
I want benefits to be a minimum only. What does that mean? Food Stamps and Housing voucher. Bus pass if needed.

So your parents, moved to where opportunities were better. I applaud them for that. My mom did the same.

Now, what is the minimum that all US legal, documented immigrants and citizens to receive?