Misdirection of funds? By misdirection of funds, do you mean that President Bush is giving taxpayers more of their own money to spend on their own families instead of giving it to subsidize other people and their families.

I'd prefer him keep misdirecting these funds, then.

As far as these families with no health insurance having a hard time making ends meet without medicaid. Sorry, but I'm having a hard time making ends meet because I'm PAYING $600 a month for my family's medical insurance. And part of the cost is covered by my work.

I hate to say this, but the problem my family is having financially is caused more by people like you (who work for the government in social welfare programs helping people who won't help themselves) than it is by President Bush.

Susan,

I hate to see children suffering because of bad circumstances, such as divorce or bad parenting. But the government is not to blame here. It is the people who have these children and refuse to do what is necessary to support them that is to blame. My wife and I have worked 2 jobs each to provide for our family. We could have asked for help from the government, but our pride demanded that we work as many hours as necessary to support ourselves. In my opinion, if one job doesn't pay enough "to make it worthwhile to work", then work 2 jobs. I am sick of sending my money to the government, just to see it given to others who find it too inconvenient or time-consuming to work.

"who work for the government in social welfare programs helping people who won't help themselves"

A misleading, incorrect stereotype, ab. A relatively small percentage of individuals fall into the "won't help themselves" category. It's this tendency to rely on stereotypes that gets in the way of better policy decisions.

It would be nice if we were all immune from economic and political forces that exceed individuals' abilities to be completely self-reliant (Of course, the more money you have the more immunity you have). But we're not. There's no direct relationship between hard work, smart choices, and financial security. Sure, the former two things contribute to the latter, but they're no guarantee.

Instead of looking down on those who use social safety nets, you might say "there but for the grace of God go I." Because there are way more people in difficult financial straits caused by, for example, health problems than because they want to leach off society.

No name, you say I used a misleading, incorrect stereotype. What is that relatively small percentage of folks that fall in that category? Oh, yeah. It's probably close to the same percentage that leaches off government programs that were meant to be a safety net, not a way of life for generation after generation of losers. One of the reasons there is sometimes no direct relationship between hard work, smart choices and financial security is because the government keeps sucking money away from us who DO work to subsidize the lifestyles of those who DON'T.

I don't have a problem with giving people a hand, but I do have a problem with giving people a hand-out.

When I grew up, we hunted for our food, we ate a lot of beans and rice. What I see of welfare recipients is not the same kind of sacrifice my family made. I see a lot of people who want the same lifestyle as middle-class but don't want to pay for it.

I feel sorry for a child who has lost a parent and has to suffer.
As for the parents who have children out of wedlock it is against the law and should be dealt with accordingly.

ab, you're missing my point. Go ahead and resent people who game the system or don't work as hard as you want them too, or the government for taxing you. But your blame for the problem is still misplaced because you prefer to point at the relatively low number of "losers," who are easy for anyone to resent, than to look at more complicated and widespread issues that contribute to poverty.

No Name,

I do get your point. My point is that I will resent those who unfairly take resources from me. And I resent the lawmakers and government policies that allow them to keep doing it. I'm all for examining causes of poverty and ways to combat it. I think that is part of the problem. We create problems through our inability to do that. We have created generations of people who don't know what it means to hold down a real job. These folks don't know the value of money because they've never had to actually sweat for any of it.

There are many cases where poverty is inevitable. Your example of health problems is right on the money. In those situations, I'm all for helping people make it through. I guess it might depend also on one's definition of poverty. Most people who are considered 'in poverty' in this country don't even know what REAL poverty is all about.

Not being able to: have the latest CD's, wear trendy clothes, have a nice home, own a car, eat out. That isn't poverty.

Poverty is going hungry for long periods of time, not having the money for medicines you need, having no shelter.

For people in real poverty, I think we must do our part to help. I'm not sure government-ran programs are always the answer, but I agree that these people need help.

To the original writer: I see your point, but if you work with the child support enforcement in High Point, shouldnt you maybe do something that resembles work and get off the computer? Maybe THAT might go a little ways in helping the "system" find those dead beat parents and getting the money by law they are supposed to have? (Maybe I am jumping to conclusions and you posted from home, I dunno). I just love to pick on government employees since I'm not one anymore.. haha. Kids of low income families have a children's health program already in place. Call your local DSS or state DHHS and find out how to qualify. I personally know a girl who works for the State of NC who is a single parent, supposed to get child support and got healthcare for her child through that program.

"Most people who are considered 'in poverty' in this country don't even know what REAL poverty is all about....[snip]"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a subjective standard for poverty that's based on suffering (I'll skip your comment about CDs and clothes because no one here, least of all me, is advocating consumerism as an economic right). In effect, you know poverty when you see it. And the way you know it is by assessing how much someone suffers.

We can't send social services staff into the field to measure the misery in households, and help those who are hurting just enough to suit us. We have to go by an objective standard, and right now household income seems to be the best standard we have.

Finally, I'm glad you see the need to do your part. Really. But unless all of us see poverty as a problem that affects "us" (instead of it being a matter of self interest), I don't think there's much hope of finding a solution.

Thanks for your thoughts.

People are poor, Bush's fault. Not the right job, Bush's fault. Gas prices, Bush's fault. Kid has no dad, Bush's fault. Can't get free daycare, Bush's fault. Cat got pregnant, Bush's fault. Every problem in the world is Bush's fault.

Poverty, as we see it in the U.S., has always existed and always will. I think I saw a figure where 90% of all "poor" homes have a color TV. Most have cars, cable, cell phones, etc. You want to see poverty, go to a 3rd world country. I went to Brazil and saw 12+ people living in huts without a floor. I saw 6 year old kids washing windsheilds at intersections to scrape some loose change. Of course not everyone there lives like that, but I've never seen poverty like that in the U.S.

I agree with giving a hand, but limitless hand outs are wrong. I too prefer to keep more of my hard earned money for my family. Like bigmouth, I shell out $525/month for health insurance. Just learned from my accountant (I'm self employed) that, thanks to Bush, my health insurance premiums are now 100% deductible instead of 40% previously.

Hard work is not a guarantee, but it sure is more effective than doing nothing and expecting society to pay the tab.

I don't have the figures directly in front of me (I need to move my shelves, or my computer), but I can tell you that the U.S. government subsidizes businesses and corporations at a higher per capita rate than they do our lower income and/or handicaped citizens. It's been this way for years, so can't hang it on Bush.

Entitlement programs have always been unpopular, but I would much rather see my taxes help out a fellow citizen than a huge for-profit corporation.

If our systems could be administered without corruption (and they could, somehow!?) I think most people would tolerate programs that help the needy, for social programs that help these fellow citizens just don't represent a significant portion of our tax burdens. Besides, it is the right thing to do.

another bigmouth,
you sir, are an idiot.
good day.

Dan & another bigmouth, While I understand your frustration with the welfare system that gives your tax monies to some deadbeats, I see that as unavoidable if you really want to help the people who have a true need. The true need people are in the same system. How would each one of you suggest the government differentiate? To totally eliminate the medicaid system would be like throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water.

To use third world countries to establish a proverty standard in the United States is like comparing apples and oranges (me thinks). Since we are talking about American people, shouldn't we use American people to establish a standard?

In an effort to help a friend I let her son, his wife and baby stay in a small cottage on my property. They lived there rent free, utility free and water free for nine months. Both were lazy, ungrateful and destructive. Both accepted money from my friend to buy groceries and baby milk. The son held a full time job but they spent their money on what they wanted. They got medicaid and food stamps for the children. (She had another within the nine months they were here.)

My point is I was burned by some low-life, lazy individuals but I still think we need the system. We just need to figure out how to administer to the needs of the people who are not abusing the system but still require assistence.

I've always heard "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem". What do you suggest we do to be a part of the solution?

Ah, Brian has resorted to ad hominem name calling.
Well you sir , and Yvonne are marxist/socialist leeches who can eat you know what and assume room temp.
Yvonne, do have a real job.? If so it must be at some government funded non-profit or the public sector where you can spend your day, without oversight, pushing your hate Bush BS on the internet . You are a real predator type at least to people who play by the rules and pay taxes. There is a special place for you. And it ain't no stinking workers paradise.

I must say, Marmalard, your assumptions come in second only to your disrespect for anyone who offers an opinion different than yours. I can't imagine what my feelings about Bush has to do with this discussion since I have not mentioned him in this thread.

Does my asking "What do you suggest we can do to be part of the solution?" qualify me as a marxist or a socialist leech? Or does my position on the current administration (which I might remind you has nothing to do with this topic) make me a predator, a marxist or a socialist leech?

Yes, I do have two full time jobs which means I pay lots of taxes. And, unlike you, I do play by the rules. I don't call you names and I don't make assumptions about your contributions to the work force.

No, my jobs are not with any government agencies, unless you consider private hospitals as government agencies. I spend my time trying to help people not destroy them. Try it. You might feel better about yourself.

As much as I tend to disagree with Yvonne, gotta agree with her on this one. Name calling and baseless assumptions about one's occupation, etc. add nothing to the conversation.

I can tell by her writings that Yvonne is a very intelligent person even though I don't agree with much of what she says.

Yvonne, I do think poverty worldwide is relevant. My reasoning is a lot of people who complain about the U.S. have never stepped foot outside this country and don't understand how fortunate they are to live here. Why do you think immigrants flock here in droves?

I also find it hard to believe that you let yourself get taken by some freeloaders. A month maybe, but nine?? That experience should have enlightened you about the many, not all, who intentionally survive on handouts and take advantage of the system. I just feel sorry for the helpless children that these losers create.

Again, I'm all for helping people make their economic situations better and providing a safety net for someone with devastating medical bills, etc. I just get sick and tired of people like the original writer blaming the goverment and particularly the president for all their woes.

Let's see now , this thread seems to have jumped the track. The complaint I beleive was that President Bush's budget was hurting " the poor " . Yeah a 2.6 TRILLION budget with a few miniscule cuts ( not really cuts but only 1/2 0f 1 % a decrease in the exploding rate of growth ).
This is the same old tired demagogery of the " progressives " which has worn thin with the voters.
Just yesterday 7 Republical Senators jumped ship and help restore these so called cuts. Not a dimes worth of difference

Commonsense, I have not said or implied Bush is the cause of poverty in this nation. It has been around since before he was born. What the letter writer said was his budget cuts were causing an even greater hardship on poor Americans.

Ms. Charboneau has shared her observations as one who may see something (in her position) we are not privy to. At any rate she has a right to her opinion and observations.

The fact that Bush has contributed to the situation (of bankrupting America) by the decisions he has made is one of the reasons he must now make budget cuts.

Almost all our current systems need to be changed in some way. I'm all for a government that takes responsibility for making these changes to benefit ALL Americans, not just the rich. That, unfortunately, will never happen no matter who is in power, be it democrat or republican. All are elected by special interest groups and therefore must repay the favor. Sad as it is, the love of money (and power) is truly the root of all evil.

Thanks for everyone who wrote their opinion instead of their insults. If I wanted to be insulted, I would get back together with my ex-wife. I'm actually into discussing ideas. I've learned things from a lot of people I disagree with.

Brian Harper's post above does not even merit a response. How about a Forrest Gump take-off. "Idiot is what idiot does".

Thanks and have a great weekend.

Brian Harper

You, sir, are an idiot

For your sake, I hope Brian Harper isn't your real name. Making mean statements about the pope and calling people idiots will get your ass kicked real fast.

Yvonne

Voyage upon life's sea,
To yourself be true,
and whatever your lot may be,
Paddle your own canoe.

Sarah Bolton