++EDIT++
DAMN NINJAS! This thread went from about half a page to two whilst typing this. It's too long to carefully re-edit (though I may try when I've caught up on my reading) so I apologise if my points have been covered already.
++END++
What about the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Why should I have to pay their mortgages with my taxes. Before the government pays for the fiscally irresponsible (I include the corrupt banks that gave the lone as well as the people that took them) they should pay the rest of my parent's mortgage. They have made every payment for the last 20 years, and are 5 years out. Now they have to pay, through taxes, for everyone else mortgages.
Because if everyone just became homeless there would be widespread poverty, crime and most likely disease, adversley affecting you too (and naturally, you wouldn't want the government stepping in, as it's your own fault you wouldn't be able to defend your home, or that your immune system can't hold off cholera).
The idea behind taxation and welfare (being in mind I'm from the UK, as the OP mentioned has a very different view to these issue than many in the States) is that everyone is supported equally (or rather, fairly). You are paying for someone else's morgage and healthcare so that, should something unfortunate happen to you and you find yourself unable to pay your own morgage, there will be someone else shouldering the burden and you won't be left homeless.
Sure, for now you may be pretty steamed that "someone else is taking the money you worked for" but if, as is so common in the recession, you loose your job (say the company goes bankrupt) and no other firm in the area is hiring staff (in order to minimalise costs it is keeping current staffers, or maybe laying them off too). This means you would no longer have a job and likely wouldn't be able to keep up with your morgage. I bet you'd be quite happy for the government (and through taxation everyone else in the country) to keep you in your (I'm assuming, since these comments tend to come from the middle/higher class social bases) fairly nice home.
The extra added onto the taxes is only a small amount per-person (I've seen the numbers before but don't have a source to hand right now) but look at it not as a means of "keeping lazy people happy" but rather as an extended branch of "home insurance" should the unfortunate (and unpredictable) happen.
A state-healthcare system and improved education would likewise have small increases to taxation, and yet better everyone overall increasing the potential of the GDP and financial strength (thus quality of living) of a country as a whole, incouraging foreign investment and the improvement of your countries' status as a superpower, or at least a nation of influence (something which is arguably lagging in the current crisis). But that's for another thread.
The reason someone is pore with three jobs is probably because of lack of education
I'd like to say I've never read anything so ignorant, but I read the "reasons I'm a Republican" thread first so you're off the hook...for now. Perhaps the woman has a child with severe physical disabilities and needs the money to pay for healthcare. This isn't because of lack of education on her part. Perhaps she is determined to make her own way and not (to keep people like you happy) burden the government with having to pay for her welfare, and as such is struggling to make ends meet. Perhaps her employers are a little unscrupulous (say, through deregulation or are acting illegally and not paying minimal wage) so she isn't as well off as she could be in a better job, and cannot get a better job either through the inability to buy a house in a better area with more employment prospects (thanks to not wanting to over-extend her means with a loan she can't afford) or none of the higher-calibre companies locally are hiring due to the recession.
Just because someone is poor running 3 jobs doesn't mean they are uneducated. I'd hope you'd realise that, but from your blanket statement and the tone of your posts, I get the feeling you think anyone who needs handouts from the government for any reason at all is scum and below your social position. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's the tone apparent in your posts.
I include the corrupt banks that gave the lone
Here's one thing I do strongly agree with, is that the Goverments are handling the banks the wrong way. The banks were irresponsible with the taxpayers' money, so the goverment is giving them billions of the taxpayers' money which will be spent on dodgy deals and bonuses, expecially with the insurances of "toxic debt" (with taxpayers' money), which means that the taxpayer ends up making up the defecit to both bank and government - ie, the taxpayer is paying 5 times over or thereabouts. However, the government couldn't let the banks go
bankrupt because that would tear the bottom out of the whole economy and practically create a new dark ages (at least in reference to economic development, or even stopping of the freefall) and truly usher in a recession (think about the pictures of pre-WW2 Germany where people were wheeling money round in wheelbarrows just to buy a loaf of bread; look at Zimbabwe these days) - which is very, very bad, both for people and for the country. So the governments, realistically, have to bail the banks out and are (forgive the upcoming language), at least until some politicians grow some balls and create some sort of effective legislation curbing huge bonuses and malpractice, the banks' ***** due to this problem.
More on-topic, I believe that a more socialist-oriented government combined with a regulated but none-the-less capitalist market is the way forwards. Having no reguluation means the markets may be prosperous, but they are weak (look at the problem with the UK economy caused by the deregulation of UK banks), and some sort of regulation has to be in order to prevent a financial crisis such as the one currently developing from happening again. A degree of socialism is useful, I'm talking high-quality state education and healthcare, not communal farms and no money. I don't understand the US' phobia with anything non-capitalit. I've even heard (several times, maybe even in this thread) Obama's bailouts and economic ideas refered to as "communist". In fact, if you look globally (and this goes for your "liberal" parties as well) these policies are still very capitalistic in nature (and the politics very conservative). Sure, by
your (meaning the US) standards they are socialist - but they are no where near communism, or even as socialist as many of the other countries in the world (you know, those things that share your borders and are across that wet stuff called the Atlantic/Pacific oceans?); and by proclaiming that taking a (slightly) more socialist stance would doom the country to a fall into communism and financial stagnation? Get real - this hasn't happened to any country in Europe, and places like Australia, Japan, India and other fairly strong, slightly westernised economies aren't plunging headfirst into anarchy either. Again, this might be due to the difference in views between Europe and America, but I feel that in the current economic crisis adopting a more realistic, non-isolationist and more socialist (by your standards) policy is probably a good idea just to get the country back on it's feet without alienating the middle-classes or potentially causing a crisis (be it health, economic or any other sort) of the poorest classes.
