Oklahoma County poverty rate highest of Oklahoma's metropolitan counties

[mecarr]

This country was founded on the principles of freedom and rugged individualism. Our society was built so that the cream could rise to the top and the government would stay out of the way. I consider myself blessed that I live in such a place. No, I don't want to have to pay for the mistakes of others. Yes, I want my ability to produce the means to meet MY needs, not society's.

I understand that there are certain minimum things we should expect a government to provide, e.g., a common defense, but seriously, I can't believe anyone would be singing the praises of programs such as social security (at least, not in its present form). Social Security is one of those pristine examples of a clearly defunct (and in complete denial about it) liberal social program. It only got to this point because paternalistic manipulative libs such as yourself decided they could save better for the peoples' retirement than the people could... so they embarked on this utterly ridiculous experiment which within the next couple of decades, without the infusion of TRILLIONS of dollars is going to utterly collapse.

Medicare, medicaid.. I see both as social necessities considering the ridiculous cost of health care. What is not a necessity, however, is something we have survived without since the inception of this country. Fix the existing social programs before adding new and massive ones.

This rugged individualism, lazafare type of government with government staying out of the way had a great following in the 1920s, prior to the stock market crash that put millions of people on the streets and led to FDR installing New Deal legislation that helped make sure that the those less fortunate wouldn't be left to die in the streets. Your solution would be: Well, they're fault, let the morons starve, ain't my problem. What you fail to understand is that this is a united country, and this country's success depends not on whether your selfish needs are met at every stop, but whether we will spare some of our great fortune to help those in need get their lives back in order.

Your conservative view of needing a common defense is one I believe in when its used not to play war in Arabia, but used to protect our own country. The only conservative I know that still stands by this is Ron Paul.

[Midtowner]

This rugged individualism, lazafare type of government with government staying out of the way had a great following in the 1920s, prior to the stock market crash that put millions of people on the streets and led to FDR installing New Deal legislation that helped make sure that the those less fortunate wouldn't be left to die in the streets.

I'm not normally a spelling-Nazi, but 3 years of HS French and 8 hours of college French compel me to tell you that it's "laissez-faire."

I think you get me all wrong. I don't take my views to any sort of extreme. Nor do I *completely* support a laissez-faire sort of approach to business. For example, I'm a huge proponent of increasing regulation as to make institutional investors civilly liable to their investors when they vote to retain board members of organizations who allow CEOs and other executive officers to loot the company's profits. I'm certainly not laissez-faire when it comes to safety regulations in the workplace. OSHA is a great thing. I'm far from laissez-faire when it comes to the FDA doing what very little they do to at least make a show of guaranteeing the safety of the food supply. None of those concepts, however, involve a transfer of wealth from the producers in the economy to the leaches.

I also disagree strongly that my view of things is anywhere near dead, dieing or defunct.

I think capitalism, properly regulated is a good and pure thing. By properly regulated, I mean to avoid future "robber-baron" situations (which is why I view SEC reform as crucial).

I also agree with you (to a point) that there ought to be certain minimum governmental assistance for the poor -- especially in the case of children.

Currently, the government provides Medicaid for families who are poor. Not so to families who by governmental standards can afford insurance. BCBS is around $150 or so per month -- not a huge deal. If the parent who had a child they could not afford needs to buy insurance, they can get a second job, work some overtime, etc. It's their responsibility. Not mine.

Your solution would be: Well, they're fault, let the morons starve, ain't my problem. What you fail to understand is that this is a united country, and this country's success depends not on whether your selfish needs are met at every stop, but whether we will spare some of our great fortune to help those in need get their lives back in order.

And to an extent, you're right. You say "to get their lives back in order."

So long as getting their lives back in order isn't their lifestyle, I'm happy. If it is? Enjoy the streets. Enjoy Jesus house. Starve if you must. It's a free country.

Your conservative view of needing a common defense is one I believe in when its used not to play war in Arabia, but used to protect our own country. The only conservative I know that still stands by this is Ron Paul.

I plan on voting for Ron Paul.

[bretthexum]

No, we want completely different things. I want parents to be responsible for paying for their own kids. You, on the other hand, want to take my money and give it to anyone who has kids to cover their medical costs.

Yeah Midtowner, I am sure you'll go broke because the kids take all of your money. I dont make much money at all, but I'll give up a few bucks each paycheck to help. Whatever... as long as your kids are OK who cares about the rest of them right?

[bretthexum]

I get a kick out of the conservatives here. Can't meet in the middle, it's gotta be our way period.

So it's the childs fault that they came into this world raised by idiots who didn't care about them? It's no wonder there are so many screwed up people in this world. I'm not saying we should give handouts to everyone, but we obviously aren't doing enough. I don't know how you can call yourself a christian when you refuse to help someone in need. And don't start with the bible verses defending this. I don't think Jesus will fault you for helping someone.

[Midtowner]

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right?

A need on your part does not create a necessity on my part.

So no, I really don't care about other peoples' kids -- at least other people I don't know and probably wouldn't like very much. But my own? They'll be well provided for.

How aren't we doing enough? The fact that kids have no medical insurance is far from proof positive that they are not getting medical care. It's not even slightly good proof. It just means that the parents are having to pay for it themselves.

Also, there IS a middle ground. I fully support the current incarnations of Medicaid, Soonercare, etc. I think the status quo is just fine. We are liberal enough.