Since I enjoy debating with you I will jump in here.

There are two main counterarguments:

1) Sometimes people do not have the non-governmental safety nets you speak of. Not to get too personal, but my own liberal identity emerged when I discovered something about myself that led me to sympathize with people on the street and realize without a family support system I would be one of them. Some people need more than family and church can give, and some charity programs are stretched beyond their limits. In a rich society like ours, why not make sure no one can slip through the cracks?

2) Do you think perhaps this opinion is a product of your own socialization? We live in a very individual-focused country where success is emphasized and failure condemned. In other societies the group might be more important than the individual and you would think of income redistribution as better for everyone, rather than bad for you.

Not saying the opposition is better, just different, but how can we be sure of our convictions when they are so socially ingrained?

I think most people have issues with both the fraud and the people who can work who don't who are on social security.

People say things like "Oh, we need those programs," but the fiscal conservatives are waving our arms and screaming "We can't have ANY of the programs in 10-20 years if we keep spending."

Foolish people who complain about the half tax on investments act like a few billion will actually change something. The problem is spending. And the problematic spending has everything to do with debt and benefits.

If we weren't carrying around our debt, we could keep all of these programs. Sadly, we did things like Star Wars (the satellite, not the movie), too many wars, and over-insuring and over-providing benefits for people.

Whenever making a cut, it hurts. People have to learn to feel the pain and move through it. But you and almost everyone else can still make it on less. We just have to help each other out more.

Places we can cut [EDIT: I removed the complaints b/c it was too cumbersome] (followed by the complaints you'll surely hear):

Social Security:
- Social Security age should be raised
- Certain disabilities should get reduced SSI payment, but payments shouldn't change when the person gets a job until they hit a high dollar mark (say, $12 an hour -- at which point they reduce to make the person say $15 an hour). That way, severely depressed people or those with some other disabilities that still allow a person to work, but not always or perhaps with difficulty can still find work without getting a massive cut in their SSI.
- Non-disabled children of a divorced couple with one parent on SSI should not get SSI as well (or reduce to make the parent get a maximum amount annually). Make the working parent pay child support.

Medicaid/Medicare:
- Increase requirements
- Provide partial payment of an insurance policy that is also partially paid for by the subscriber
- Increase copays from 0 to something higher

Foreign Aid:
- Decrease foreign aid universally
- Drop all foreign aid to enemies

Currency:
- Stop manufacturing pennies
- Possibly stop nickels

Sciences:
- Reduce grant availability

Energy:
- Use more home-made energy
- Drop subsidies


Those are a lot of ideas that have been put forth. And no, I don't hate granny. I know medical care is expensive. I know that science is important to keep up. I know that green energy is great and I don't want to pollute the world.

But on our current track. we will be fiscally destroyed soon. And then unemployment will be 25%, we'll have next to no GDP, and all of our benefits will be gone. Granny will get not a reduced amount. She'll get nothing.

Is that so bad? It can be worse. But we are a resilient people. Granny can sleep in my bed and I'll sleep on the couch. I'll work by growing strawberries in my back yard. We'll get a wood burning stove and chop wood to stay warm. We'll barter for food.

People can live through hardship. But I'd rather reduce now, get more people working to increase revenue and get the programs fixed now so that we don't have to grow strawberries and chop wood. I'd like to see our government fix the problem, not hand it off as a bigger problem to the next round of officials.

Either way, I don't think the problem will be resolved. Democrats and Repulicans are dead-set on protecting their employers' interests. And that's us. And none of us are willing to get even the smallest amount less than someone else or what we had last year. We are entitled. After all, we're Americans.

In ten to fifteen years (if that), I'd recommend that everyone get ready for granny to move in. But don't worry. It'll be fun as she regales tales of yesteryear around the wood stove and a steamy cup of hot chocolate.

I'm not saying this is my complete point of view, but I would like to ask you something: Have you ever considered that maybe that's just nature doing it's job? Not every animal in the wild gets help when it needs it. Sometimes that's just nature's way of keeping the balance. Maybe we aren't supposed to take care of every single person in need. When people in poverty (especially those of a particular race) keep pumping out kids left and right, is it really necessary that we keep supporting them? Maybe it's better for everyone if those types of people don't survive. The earth is a finite resource, and there simply isn't going to room for all of us if the population keeps growing as fast as it is.

Just something to consider. People (I'm not saying you) often forget that we're still animals and as such we're still under mother nature's umbrella (regardless of what your church may have tried to brainwash you into believing). Everything in the universe is in a state of either (temporary) static equilibrium or dynamic equilibrium. Why would the population of a species be any different?

Edit: Just something I'd like to add: I know you said you've had a personal experience that gave you more compassion for those less fortunate. I would like to say however, that growing up on the outskirts of East St. Louis (one of the most dangerous, poverty stricken, all black cities in America), has given me the experience that most of those people are already getting more help than they deserve. They're terrible, terrible people. It's so bad there right now that people are getting hit by stray bullets fairly often, as if it's some kind of war zone.

Yes, some people could use a little boost in order to become productive members of society. But most of those people aren't looking to better themselves, but instead are just interested in a handout and looking for new ways to game the system.

Well, you asked what redistributionary programs looked like, so I gave you a list of what is defined as such. Social Security is an interesting beast, so I will describe my objections to it.

Fist of all, it is needs based. Wealthy people can expect less of a return from their SS payments than can people who earned less over their lifetime. In this way it is redistributing wealth from one group of people to another. If the payments from the system correlated more closely to the payments into the system I would have far less, if any, objection on redistributionary grounds.

However, my objections don't end there. I also think, and it has been shown to be the case, that a private retirement account not managed by government bureaucrats (such as an IRA or 401k) will consistently outperform the returns of Social Security over the long term (10 years or more). Even if the private account is just invested in Treasury Bills (which is technically what Social Security should be doing with the money anyway, but are not), this would be the case.

As much as some would like to think it, I am not heartless. I am not for starving people or rubbing their faces in the dirt. I would much rather that everyone have a job, that everyone be successful, and that everyone has a comfortable retirement. However, I think the better path through this is through the private sector, not the inefficient, bloated, and potentially corrupt influence of government.

I think that these wealth redistributionary programs destroy capital and the will to succeed. I think that continued dependance on government programs that systematically take from the wealthy and/or successful to give to the poor/unsuccessful only reduces the size of the pie to divvy up as time goes on. I think the only thing these programs do successfully over the long term is create a society dependent on the largesse of big government.

For the record, although I am against these programs on general principle, I would never advocate defunding them immediately or totally. I would gradually want to lessen the government's control over them, and move as many to the private sector as is possible. My objective, as always, is to wean the populace off their growing dependance of a big, and centralized, government.

*Sighs* I think this topic has run it's course. I agree that some social programs need to have things altered, that we need to change our views on how we spend our money (Aka, 1 Trillion dollars for 'Defense'. What are we scared of that we need such an army? Canadian Moose invasion? Mexico breeding Chupacabra for the purpose of wiping out the border patrol?) But the raw fact is that the US is too big to have multiple states do this in multiple ways. But they're allowed to fund and control the army, the largest and most untouched part of our federal government.

When Sandy hit, and I was looking at news sites afterwards, do you want to hear the biggest thing I saw? People from Florida, California, and other places openly mocking NJ/NYC for 'not being prepared'. When we so very rarely get something of that magnitude. They were willing to find any shred of information that 'supported' their stance, even if it was rumor and trout it out like it was the truth.

We keep throwing out this stuff for so long that so few people are WILLING to even be sympathetic to others. We see our point of view and go 'I'm right, that's it.' I came into this willing to be wrong, willing to admit to being wrong. But instead I'm seeing discussions that look horrid. I keep getting scared because we're just fighting amongst each other.

Wealth Redistribution is a scare phrase, Death Panels are a scare phrase, and you know what, however you might feel, the idea that our government is bought and sold is a scare phrase too. We live on scare tactics and we let ourselves be culled.

The idea that we can work together for the benefit of all does not mean we have to give everything to the government, it doesn't mean we have to stop rewarding success. It means that we need to stop always thinking about ourselves and what benefits us and be willing to try and support (And make the sacrifices required) to try to make things work. We've stopped doing that. What we're looking at is probably the ultimate show of 'The Individual', to the degree that we don't care about our neighbor.

We've forgotten our responsibility to each other, and we've forgotten how to tighten our belts and sacrifice. I'm saying this in both monetary and personal responsibility. For some things, the government is equipped to handle certain things, in other ways, the very local is (Hell, towns get run roughshod over by the state government in ways that would have led to rioting if the federal did it, but we don't even bat an eye, we let them do it!). But we ignore that.

I'm going to be honest, I'm done. I'm willing to shed my last vestige of hope for this country, because I don't see us lasting the next 4 years. Not from economic issues, just from us tearing ourselves apart because no one's willing to listen or try to see from other views.

Someone always slips through the cracks. I don't really see a way to avoid it, whether through government programs or the private sector. I just have to go with what I believe is best for the country over the long term.

Since that is pretty much dodging your question, I will admit the possibility that government invention might be required in certain cases. I don't think there would be many, if any, of these circumstances, but I won't discount the possibility entirely. I would still rather these programs be funded and run at the local or regional level, since that would hopefully cut down on corruption (at all levels) and allow for more personalized solutions.

Do I have biases that have been formed by my upbringing? Undoubtedly. Everyone comes to the table with their own life-lessons and biases. However, I don't think these biases discredit these arguments at all. I believe that attacking a problem from multiple sides and viewpoints is the only way to come to a workable compromise.

As for being sure of our position; we can only argue what we each feel is best. But, we must not forget that we could be wrong.

If there's anything that I don't think needs a reduced budget, it's defense. 'What are we so scared of'? I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the defense budget just because there isn't an immediate threat at this very moment. That's how you get caught off guard. We should always spend on defense to have top notch military capabilities. The world isn't ready for peace, and it isn't going to be anytime soon, if ever. As a military vet, I want defense to be a top priority in any free country I live in. Freedom has many enemies.

I saw it too, and as a person that grew up in Florida it made me sick. The way those people seemed to revel in the misfortune of New Englanders made me quite angry. The same was done by folks when Katrina hit New Orleans. I think it is a sad state when such public displays of schadenfreude are acceptable.

I agree totally with helping and sacrificing in theory, just, possibly, not in execution. I do, however, think there is room for compromise.

As for neighbors, maybe it is worse where you live, but the community where I live looks out for each other. I was out of town a month or so ago, and there was a prowler on my property. My neighbor noticed and chased the person off at gunpoint. I did the same for a young woman across the street that had a drunken ex (or something, never got the full story) show up at her front door and get violent.

I am sorry if I have given that impression. I do try to listen to other opinions, and I try not to demagogue my personal believes too hard. However, if you are speaking generally, I honestly think you might be right. We, as a country, have drawn the battle lines such that little compromise can be accomplished. For this to change, I feel things will need to get a lot worse. Then people might take notice and actually be willing to talk to each other.

There is enough collective wealth in the US to make sure everyone is fed and has access to medical care. It's not really that there's no way to do it, it's simply that there is no will to do it and when enclosure happens to our vast material resources, people think that's reasonable, rather than a theft from the collective citizenry. Even hard core (R)s in Alaska support the Alaska Permanent Fund, such BIGs are likely possible even today with all the wealth we've already squandered. If the natural wealth of the US doesn't belong to the citizens I'm not sure who else has a better claim on it...

It's not any one person though. I can look at any article, and it's wave after wave of negativity. I mean, hell, I went to one article and I saw 18 comments of impeach Obama (I can't say I'm a fan of the guy, but what did he do that's worth that?), I see people calling members of the other political party idiots and fools for not agreeing with them. I think we do need an event, but I honestly think it needs to be a natural disaster. We need something outside human control, that can't be tied to a political stance.

Compromise is what we need (Although I admit, it's so ingrained for me that I try to seek a middle ground from the start, not always a good place to negotiate and compromise.). Take, health care, which is pretty big. Use the Federal to fund it (I'm not going to play with numbers here, I'm not a business owner or a banker for a reason), and have the state and more local governments handle how to budget and spread it around as needed. It keeps a balance so that the core burden isn't too much for anyone. And another benefit is that if we remove the burden of health insurance from the people, I think we'd actually see a boon of small businesses because people don't have to be terrified of even the common cold (One Doctor's office near me was charging $250 for a basic checkup, no insurance <.<).

Same with Education, Federal can give out a minimum standard, and states can alter things as needed. You have a state with a lot of agriculture? You can add that to the required curriculum, or a state can choose to have higher standards for their graduates (Honestly, I'd like to see our minimum education to be enough to get into most entry level jobs, not just McDonalds or really low skill positions).

As far as what you said with need, I think that comes out to a lot of it. Our needs should be first and foremost, with money going where it's needed instead of just wanted. I do think we should take care of those who have worked and lived their whole lives instead of just passing the burden onto their families. They have a lot to pass on and we have a lot to learn (Some things don't change, even as our technology gets better).

Nothing will ever really change until currency stops being the main driving force of society. Couldn't tell you what a better solution would be, but I know that things won't change until money goes away.

We're better than animals. We're better than survival of the fittest. If you don't believe that then you and I have no common ground. And, more to the point, as someone who would be considered "weak" by that philosophy, I take it as a personal insult.

As Orcish said this country has the power, wealth and technology to make sure no one slips through. We just don't devote the time and resources to doing that. I'm not just talking money, the public school system proves you can't just throw money at problems. I am also talking dedication and resolve, smart people doing good work in areas that are mostly ignored right now.

I like the idea of local government, you don't have to sell me on local government. I'm just not sure it works anymore in 2012, but that's likely a different debate.

In any event, I believe strongly that what happens to one affects everyone in a society, in a world even at this point. Even if you remove the compassion angle it's in our best interests, in my opinion, to keep the starving and addicted off our streets and the disenfranchised, depressed and unemployed fed and housed.

Indeed, and this is why I respect you quite a bit in this thread. My somewhat recent experience has had a profound effect on me and changed my viewpoints. The fact it was so late in life (relatively) also gives me the perspective of my beliefs from before that, so I can easily see both sides and understand it's all about bubbles and experience.

I don't have all the answers, but this seems pretty cold to me.

If someone who is not entitled to welfare refuse to take steps to support themselves despite being able to do so, I don't know what happens (depending on which country in question and so on).
A welfare system must have user requirements and mechanisms to counter abuse and provide incentives for people who are able to work, not to mention a society which broadly accepts and supports the existence of such a system.

I agree that it's important to maintain a strong military capability. I'm actually one of those who look positively on a working welfare state AND a good deal of defence spending focusing on reasonable bang for the bucks. :)

Relatively high tax requirements? You bet. I'm not a big fan of high taxes per se, but I think it might be necessary. I won't claim that this is the best solution for the U.S. or other countries, objectively speaking, but I think it might work given this and that.

Key points. I really wish more people could see it the way you guys do.

Just because we're better than animals (Are we really, though? How about the MIddle East? How about Somolia?) in the intellectual sense, doesn't mean that we exist outside of the laws that govern the rest of nature. And, why you would take that as an insult is beyond me. I wasn't trying to insult you, by the way. In my opinion, a big part of the problem with society these days is that everyone is far too politically correct and far too sensitive. Man up and do something about it if you don't like what someone else has to say. I blame the excess estrogen that's getting into our food and water supplies. Mens' levels of testosterone are being watered down, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Try living in an area with heavy welfare use, and then tell me what you think. Kids murdered by stray bullets on a nightly basis. Good charities delivering food baskets to the needy and seeing big plasma TV's and fancy cars in the driveways of these people on welfare. These people need no help from us.

You know what I did when I couldn't afford to go to college? I joined the military. There are almost always ways for people to work themselves out of a bad situation. It's not always going to be easy, but unfortunately life just isn't a fair system. I wish we could all get along and nobody needed guns or had to go to work and we could sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya but that just isn't the reality. Instead, I live in a place where pizza delivery drivers are being shot and killed over less than a hundred bucks in tip money.

Sometimes, good people find themselves in bad situations, and you do what you can to help them out. But that doesn't equate to meaning we need to have a giant welfare system in place where our tax dollars are going to be used so that people can stay just comfortable enough to keep living in poverty on the dime of hard working Americans.

I'm all for defense, and being prepared if someone is going to try to attack us. But I'm against the size of our military. Numbers doesn't mean a damn thing, and it definitely doesn't guarantee superiority. I'd rather keep the best of the best in terms of our troops, keep them well armed and trained, and the money we suddenly don't have to spend to support such a large army can be used for other things, like paying off our national debt.

We don't need all of the bases we have all over the world either. You might not be transferring all of that defense budget elsewhere, but there's plenty of fat that needs trimming there.