Government should not play a role here, or a minimal role if anything at all. Yes actually, poor people ARE THEIR OWN PROBLEM.

I grew up poor, my family was poor - and what I saw around me was a pile of lazy shits who didn't do anything to fix their situation - and they were satisfied with depending on the government.

Do you understand that? Satisfied - Meaning the level of care the government currently supplies was good enough for most people to just sit there and live their live that way forever. Most people on food stamps, yes MOST would rather not be on food stamps, but the fact is - they'd too lazy to get off government help because it's too EASY

My family struggled for years, my mom being a single parent with 2 kids - and we broke into middle class on our own. This is how it needs to happen. Government IS the problem - I know this from first hand experience and if you've never been on food stamps or government housing (sec8), and grown up around those people - then I don't think you will understand.

I concur that motivating people is a primary problem, and don't necessarily advocate simply giving money away, exactly. It sounds like your family did manage to turn hard work and perseverence into a great deal more.

It begs the question though... you say you benefitted from food stamps and government subsidized housing, and they allowed your family to get past that stage. What would you have done without those things? Does the societal benefit from your family's uplift serve to offset the cost of one person who didn't use what they were given? 3? 10? One could view your success as proof that that the system is functional, at least sometimes.

Fundamentally there is a minimum level a person needs to survive. Of course, in this country we theoretically believe in more than mere subsistence, but that people should be free to pursue happiness in addition to simply Living. Social programs *should* ensure that they recieve that. I'm strongly in favor of accountability in the system to ensure funds aren't being wasted. If the point is to give people a hand up, but only 5% of people are using it effectively, then that's an argument for changing approaches, not necessarily (though possibly) removing the benefits.

It may be that the government is not the most efficient or effective means for providing this minimum level of support. I think there are lots of ways a society *can* work, but I'm much less sure about wether a lot of them *would* work. I still submit that it's society's responsibility to support everyone in it, because we don't live in a zero-sum universe. The money spent to raise the level of education and skill of the population more than pays for itself *eventually*. The primary problem I see is a lack of vision on the part of Americans to see that spending money on people is an investment in future viability. Like all investments, you need to carefully monitor it's performance, and make sure that the country is going to reap the eventual benefits. An "every man for himself" philosophy leads to a mediocre society unless everyone realizes that self interest and societal interests often coincide.

The argument that it isn't the job of government, specifically, to support an underclass is distinct from saying that society should not support them in any way. It's a matter of mechanism. I'm amenable to the former, but strongly reject the latter.

RE: FOXNews.com - Politics - Roberts Confirmed to be Supreme Court Justice