To what extent should the government assure meeting the creature comforts of the citizens?

I don’t think government has any role in any of those things, except education. Creature comforts are our own responsibility. I do, however, think government can play a big role in assuring that our needs get met. If I had it my way, everyone would have shelter, food and water, education, and healthcare. Beyond that, it’s up to us.

I agree with @augustlan. If a person works 40 hours a week their wage should be enough to pay for housing, food, utilities, education and health care. Anything else is a creature comfort at the expense of the citizen, not the government.

It’s sad that many people work 40+ hours and can’t afford to care for their family.

Government has an essential role to play in regulating the society it represents. This is mainly done through taxation, setting a minimum wage and the social security system. Does anyone want to see people dying of hunger and disease on the streets of our cities? That could happen if government ever abandoned its responsibilities.

Everyone should be assured a home, food, health care and education for their children. There is a tendency in society for the few to become increasingly wealthy and for the many to become extremely poor. Government’s role is to help ensure this doesn’t happen and we have history to show us why this is important.

As Herbert L Samuel put it “The premises of politics lie in the conclusions of ethics’.

I don’t see almost anyone saying that the government should make it possible for everyone to have an iPhone. I do see people saying that the government should make it possible for everyone to have clean air and water, healthy food at reasonable prices, shelter for the entire family, healthcare, access to a certain level of education, childcare, protection from corporations offering dangerous products and services, and weather-appropriate clothing so long as they work 40 hours a week. People aren’t pissed that they can’t afford to shop at Bloomingdales or Apple, they’re pissed that they can’t afford to shop at Target and Walmart.

Did you see what John Stewart had to say about the subject?
I“m sure he uses a lot of Fox quotes that have you riled up @Hypocrisy_Central.

More welfare queen lies from the right. Cues H_C claiming to be a Independent.

I believe the government should play a bigger role in the education of our children so these kids get it that they don’t have to follow in the footsteps of their parents and with a little resolve, hard work ethic they too can support themselves and a family without a penny of assistance from the government.

There is nothing comfortable about being poor and you don’t need a government to get a job and earn these creature comforts one may seek.

I wondered when someone would get around to asking this most fundamental question. It’s a good one.

The US Constitution begins with a premise about the purpose of the government that it describes:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As one reads the document, and the Amendments, there is little or no mention of “providing” anything for citizens. It’s up to citizens to provide for their own and their families’ wherewithal. We’ve made some laws and institutions – mostly misguided, I think – to attempt to “provide for” large classes of people who have at various times been thought to be incapable of providing for themselves, such as “the elderly”, for one example. We pass laws that mandate “minimum wage” for workers, without regard to the fact that some workers – or some occupations – aren’t worth even that wage.

We sometimes have this conception that someone who works for minimum wage will be stuck there forever. Yet the USA is one of the most socially mobile countries in the world; almost no one has to be stuck at a low-wage, low-status, low-value occupation if he or she wants to improve. (Yes, there are always exceptions. Some people have diminished mental and physical capacity to perform at more productive occupations, and no rational person wants to see those people starve or live in foul conditions. But that doesn’t mean that we need to treat whole swaths of our population as if “they’re all the same”.)

I’m not opposed to providing “basic standards of living” (depending on how we define that) for those who are simply unable to provide for themselves. But I don’t like the lowering of the bar or the removal of judgment that occurs when we fail to distinguish between “unable” and “unwilling” to provide. Because even many of those whom objective observers would determine to be “unable” to provide for themselves are entirely willing and attempt like hell to do that.

No one owes his life – or the products of his life – to any other person. It’s erroneous to think that government should be “compassionate”. Government “compassion” is a forceful taking from one group in order to give an appearance of compassion to some other group.

Cruiser, are you saying the only reason people don’t have a job is because they aren’t looking or unwilling to? Taco Bell isn’t even hiring right now.

@johnpowell Damn straight! If my 15 yr old can make over a $1,000 a month working 3 jobs part time any body can. Plus he is a double honors student on top of it all!!! HS just get off your ass and work!

None
@CWOTUS—YES!! :))).

The government should make sure that all citizens have anough food to eat and medical insurance, a basic education.

That does not include giving every child a laptop (until that becomes a school standard). There is public access to computers through libraries.

That certainly does not include giving every citizen a car, which is still a privilege. There are other means of transportation.

These basics should be distributed through the government.

I don’t think it is a right, but I do think the government should invest in job training programs too.

I think most of us would agree with @augustlan that government should provide a basic safety net for all citizens, i.e. ”...shelter, food and water, education, and healthcare…”

Where the contention arises is what is actually meant by these things…

By “shelter” do you mean a barn? Or a McMansion with a separate bedroom for each kid, central air, a dishwasher, and a pool? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, most people would say somewhere in between. It’s exactly where in that “somewhere in between” that’s the big argument.

Same questions over food, water, education, and health care…

@HungryGuy ; I know plenty of people who would argue health care to the end. Many have a “Let ‘em die” mentality when it comes to shelter and food as well. OR they say, “They can stay at the Mission,” which will require them to sit through religious services.

It’s never clear that government is the solution to these problems. The law of unintended consequences all ways gets you. They have rules, which seem to say, the most expensive way is the best way.

The governement, at least ours, is merely supposed to guarantee that you are not forcibly restrained from developing your own creature comforts.

I don’t think government should be responisble for ensuring all have an iPad, and Iphone or a nice car. I do believe that society has a vested interest in ensuring that wealth disparity does not become extreme, as that leads to a banana republic style nation where there is a massive class of working poor with n hope of ever rising about poverty, or ogf their children and grandchildren doing so. This is a huge demotivateor to creating a vibrant society. I think it is in our collective best interest to ensure that all children have access to a top-quality education. We are able to do these things if we so choose. We cannot do them and continue to spend more than most of the rest of the world on defense,; and give millionaires and large corporations tax breaks and loopholes that leave us starved for revenue to remain competitive in the 21st century. We need to get our tax code drastically simplified and progressive s it was in the post-war boom. In the last 3 years, the tax code has become increasiongly regressive, and we are seeing the results of that now in the lingering unemployment. Our once vibrant middle class is no longer able to spend, and thereby drive the economy.

Before someone erects the straw man of hating the rich, and class warfare, let me dispel that claim. I’m greatly in favor of the possibility for a person of poor means to apply themselves, become and entrepreneur, and grow wealthy. This that do contribute greatly to society. What I am against is welfare for the very rich and huge corporations.

@Judi *_ Did you see what John Stewart had to say about the subject?
I“m sure he uses a lot of Fox quotes that have you riled up @Hypocrisy_Central._* Yes, I watched that. Quite humorous. I think much of what those talking head said was ludicrous. I am a big fan of NPR. I don’t think all the poor are lazy. I do think the system is broken because if you are poor and trying to help yourself you get penalized for it in many ways. However I do believe the US poor still has much to be thankful for. As the clip pointed out:

• 99.6% of the declared poor has a refrigerator.
• 81.4% has a microwave.
• 78.3% has A/C in their home.
• 63.7% have cable or satellite.
• 54% have a cell phone.

So, even while being declared poor by government most still have all the creature comforts of the middle-class and wealthy. Their TV maybe smaller and cheaper, their fridge don’t have 5 types of ice and water you can get from the door, and the cable might not be digital with 300 channels, but they have them.

@johnpowell Cues H_C claiming to be a Independent. I never claim to be an Independent. I just said I am not a member of the parties of Twiddle Dee, and Twiddle Dumb, you can place whomever in the “dumb” moniker as you like.

@marinelife The government should make sure that all citizens have anough food to eat and medical insurance, a basic education. What is that basic education? Do we lower all students to the lowest bar, or raise them all to the highest?

That does not include giving every child a laptop (until that becomes a school standard). There is public access to computers through libraries. Sure, but there are those who still say that is not good enough to be able to go to the public library. Those kids who have access to personal laptops or those in the family can work on their stuff later in the evening. They do not have to wait. They do not have to worry about how to get to the library and back. They do not have to worry about what hours the library is open, or the hours being cut due to city budget woes. They do not have to venture into dangerous neighborhoods where they can become a victim. Using the computer at the public library is harder to do, thus those students are de facto disadvantaged because they will not be able to use a computer as much or with ease as those who have them. Do we take them from all students because all don’t have them, or do we make sure all students have one to level the playing field?

That certainly does not include giving every citizen a car, which is still a privilege. There are other means of transportation. No car, certain jobs or areas you can’t work. Forget about delivering pizza if you don’t have your own wheels. Likewise, any job that you can’t walk to or take mass transit to. Driving maybe a privilege but in the US it is seen as a de facto right.

Living in a free world where people are motivated to pursue happiness through work, devotion and creativity, has proven to be a very successful formula. In that sense a planned economy that makes sure all are rewarded equal, regardless of their efforts, talents and contributions has proven to fail again and again. A government should therefore stay far away from that. (I think most, if not all, people in the world agree to that.)

However… if free markets result in a situation of “haves” and “have-nots” where the “have-nots” are so far off from the “haves”, that they don’t even have a chance to make a decent living, the whole system will come to a screeching halt.

Government therefore does not have a place in making sure everyone has the same, it should however make sure that chances for people to acquire “a better life” through work and contribution actually exist.

_In my mind, we should also take care of those that will never be able to make it either. For instance those that are lacking the basic talents or abilities to compete. The sick and the elderly.__

@whitenoise That’s a false dichotomy. We don;t have to ensure that everyone gets an equal reward regardless of their effort in order to take care of those in need. From the midst of the Great Depression till this day, we have had programs in place to help thos in need. In that time, we have made more billionaires than any other country on Earth. That’s hardly share and share alike.

@ETpro I didn’t put forward a false dichotomy… not even a dichotomy.

Why do you feel I implied that we ”have to ensure that everyone gets an equal reward regardless of their effort in order to take care of those in need” ?

I was saying that that extreme doesn’t work and I just advocated to stay away from the extremes.

It was a response to the opening question:
Should government take it upon itself to assure every kids had a comparable laptop.

@whitenoise I apologize. Indeed you did not. The hour was late last night, and I didn’t read your full response. I cut off on “In that sense a planned economy that makes sure all are rewarded equal, regardless of their efforts, talents and contributions has proven to fail again and again. A government should therefore stay far away from that.” Please accept my apology for misinterpreting your intent.