This is true, yet people who fit that description are a small percentage of pay out.
It is, and always has been, difficult to find a diligent man in need.
If a rational electorate were to decide to allow for every legitimate case, the number of dollars would not rise to the level of a serious burden on society.
They have.

So the rational argument really only goes to how much insurance should you force a man to buy so that you won't have to personally offer him charity or watch him suffer, because governments, by their nature, and by definition, can never be capable of charity.

Government can and should, however, govern in such a way as to offer the greatest opportunity for individual liberty and prosperity.
What the left offers, certainly isn't what the "governmeant".

Personal responsibility and living within your means

These are fine things to do. But you can do all of them, yet fall victim to a catastrophic illness or accident. And that is something that can turn a frugal, hard- working member of the middle class into a pauper in a hurry.

What happens to that unlucky guy and his family... you give them a nice cardboard box under the freeway because you don't want to pay for it?

I started my career in the cold, hard steel mills of northwest Indiana. In 1981 of all times. I know trouble.

The Republican party has disappointed me for years. How has that happened? In my judgement. Because Republicans have fallen into the same trap of believing that they need to provide goodies to voters, rather than lead. If they are correct, I blame the voters. If they are wrong, I blame the Republicans.

But Barack Obama? Dissatisfaction with Republicans as a predicate for voting for every problem you are frustrated with - embodied by Barack Obama - is simply irrational.

I watched Obama's infomercial and shook my head. As a country we have become soft. Every problem faced by 200 hundred years of Americans is all the sudden now insurmountable, and requires a government that has proved incompetant at solving just about anything. Wow.

We are now wimps, more interested in watching sitcoms than getting at it and solving problems. What a shame.

It's not that hard...get an education...then get a job...then get married...then calculate how many and when you can have children. Personal responsibility and living within your means beats the hell out of rolling the dice on an election.

Eneils: and then who cleans the toilets? You want to pay $30/hr for that?

Truth is, to a degree, I agree with you, but SOMEBODY HAS TO SCRUB THE S**T OFF THE TOILETS! Now, I have heard all about the dignity of work, but how much dignity do you give the people who scrub your crusty feces off the rim? Judging from your comment above, my bet is not much.

As far as you are concerned, the individual who has an IQ of 75 because he grew up in a tenement laced with lead paint, deserves it... because he is just too stupid.

Meanwhile, you (or at the very least, too many who hold the same attitude) sit behind your mahogony desk, with your Columbia education, paid for with mommy and daddies money, and think, "This Janitor is not even a human being... "

And yet, somebody still has to scrub your crusty feces off the rim, and you still won't pay for it. Who is the leach?

I guess this indicates that Obama is getting all the "Mickey Mouse" and "Denver Bronco's" votes in every swing state.

Once again, show me a case of documented voter fraud (as opposed to voter registration fraud)

A prediction: Mickey Mouse will not be allowed to cast a vote in NM, and the "Denver Bronco's" will not cast a single vote in Ohio.

Who has money?

We have to pay for it.

And just how long do you want to pay for people who think they have unlimited rights and absolutely no responsibilities.

It's not that hard...get an education...then get a job...then get married...then calculate how many and when you can have children. Personal responsibility and living within your means beats the hell out of rolling the dice on an election.

More taxes are the answer, right?

And with a $10 trillion deficit (and growing), less taxes are?

Look Drew, for 30 yrs we have heard Republican after Republican promise lower taxes and lower spending. Time and again, they have delivered on the first (who can vote against lower taxes?), and utterly failed on the 2nd. (One can not blame 6 out of the past 8 yrs on the Dems)

Why? It is not because of "tax and spend Dems", it is because people want something for nothing, and politicians keep trying to give it to them. Remember, it is real easy to cut somebodies taxes... Real hard to cut a program (or a subsidy).

This is not a Dem problem or a GOP problem, but given a choice between a "tax and spend" Democrat, and a "spend and tax Republican", I have to ask...

Which is more up front? The Dems want to tax me, the Republicans want to tax my Grand-children...

American's have said, time and again, Social Security, Medicare, and Defense are off the table... What is left? Earmarks? Let's get serious.

You and I can argue about what should and should not get cut (Personally, I do not think a $23 million dollar fighter plane is going to help stop a terrorist from bringing in a dirty bomb) but I think we can both agree that some things are necessry to cut (right now) and that what ever we decide...(again, personally, I think the richest country in the world can take care of it's aged, it's disabled and it's children... my opinion anyway), but...

We have to pay for it.

Early Voting Breakdowns Good For Obama

I guess this indicates that Obama is getting all the "Mickey Mouse" and "Denver Bronco's" votes in every swing state.
This is all Acorn's "get out the vote" campaign. And get the same ones out to vote in every swing state.

Is this a great country or What?
When all you have to do is vote to make a living.

What's that? Nevermind.

Given the choices, I will take whats behind door #1.

We declared a government lead "War on Poverty" 43 years ago, and yet Obama can still run on the same platform today. I guess we are not ready to declare this "costly, unwinable war" over yet.

Government is in the pensions business - and the left declares Social Security as their golden example of government success - but of course every few years it is in need of triage....that is, another round of tax increases.

Government entered into the health care arena in the 60's with Medicare and Medicaid. How's that working out? Current CBO projections show that Medicare could take the country to insolvency.

Infrastructure? Neglected and crumbling. (And now slowly being privatized by private equity interests.)

A mostly publicly administered school system? Don't ask.

And so it goes.

And Obama's "change?????" More taxes and more government programs of course.

Inflation adjusted Federal (just Federal!) revenue has tripled since 1965. We certainly aren't starving government. (And this spending record in a period when military spending is today taking a third of the resources available as it did in 1965.) On a per household basis inflation adjusted federal spending has been increased by 60%. (All figures CBO or Historical Tables - Federal Budget of the United States)

More taxes are the answer, right? Inflation adjusted per household taxes have increased by 60%. And the tax incidence has become dramatically more progressive, meaning the top 20% are basically footing the bill. What about the dirty corporations? Corporate taxes are holding steady as a percent of GDP - and the whole corporate tax issue is a canard anyway.

So what have we gotten for all this taxing and spending over the last 45 years? I - and Mr. Obama - just told you: squat.

But now Obama wants more. This time it will be "different" you see. Sure it will. I have no idea why the American electorate keeps pulling the lever election after election - like zombies - in light of this miserable government track record.

But I do know one thing. If they continue, 8, 18 and 28 years from now some fresh faced pol will come along promising "change" telling us how if we would just vote for them, "I'll fix the same old problems that haven't gotten fixed in the last 50 - 80 years.............

[Obana's] the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Suck it up.

but it was still a lie.

You mean like the lie McCain told about running an honorable campaign?

Oh and there is no way in the world to defend Obama's lie on campaign financing. It was a lie, but I think opting out was the best thing he could have done for his campaign, but it was still a lie.