Why is it the responsibility of government to protect you from crime?

Why is it the responsibility of government to rescue you from your burning house and but the fire out?

Why is it the responsibility of government to make sure someone doesn't build a toxic waste dump in your backyard?

Why is it the responsibility of government to dig you out of the rubble of your home after an earthquake or rescue from your roof in a flood?

Why should the government ever protect the lives and health of its citizens? Who cares if people die; we don't know them, right?

We have made these things the responsibility of the government because the majority of Americans realize that these things are necessary in a civilized society; and that government is in the best position to provide these services equitably.

In regards to HIV/AIDS services, many of the programs being cut can not be found in the public sector. The AIDS Assistance Drug Program is one of the ones being cut. This program pays for the AIDS drugs that are the only things keeping many healthy and live. These drugs can cost thousands of dollars a month (thanks to the greedy drug companies); far out of the reach of most people. Without ADAP, many with AIDS will be forced to stop taking these life saving medications. And without medications to keep the virus at bay, they will die.

But that's not your problem, is it? Why should you care? Let them fend for themselves. And if they don't survive? Oh well. At least your taxes didn't go up! That would have been a tragedy!

Somehow I don't think that cutting AIDS services is going to spark a revolt that leads to the repeal of Proposition 13.

Thanks a bunch, JW Bear. Now Scaeagles gets to go around saying he's clairvoyant.

Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved?

Like it or not, any assault on a country's populace, whether that be in the form of war, epidemic, famine, etc- anything that can harm the society as a whole- is the government's business. That's why we have a government, if you follow the Social Contract model, anyway. You choose to live within a society for the benefits it affords you, and there is, was and always has been a cost to the individual. I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

Ahh... But WB, the military is just about the only thing conservatives think the government should be involved in. In other words the government should only be in the business of killing people, not saving lives.

Well, I did indeed get slammed.

I don't think feeding the poor is the responsibility of government, but think it's a great alternative to starvation.

I don't think funding this program is the responsibility of government, but think it's a great alternative to death from AIDS.

There are many, many things - as you pointed out - that the government does that we as a society have deemed are good things. At the state level I think that's great.

I honestly don't know....but are similar programs in CA offered for diabetics and cancer patients and other life threatening diseases?

Yes.

Well, simplistically, the Constitution does call for the federal government to provide for the common defense.

Is there a government at any time in history that YOU (WB) would approve of wholeheartedly? As Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others. Don't get all high and mighty and suggest you don't disagree with things the government has done and will do. I didn't even say I disagreed with what the program does, though will admit my post asking why it was the responsibility of government was provocative, and intentionally so. As CP posted, EVERY program that will get cut will have champions and those who believe it is vital and stupid to cut it. So where do cuts come from?

In that case, don't discriminate. Cut them all across the board. It would be better to have cuts in each program and keep them each there, I suppose, than to eliminate one all together.

If not the government, then who? Especially in this economy.

Private food banks have seen a huge increase in applicants, while donations have shrunk. As a consequence, they are turning people away in droves. And even if those in need can find a food bank that can help, it often comes with restrictions. Many religious bases organizations will turn you away if you are of a different faith or if they disapprove of your life circumstances (try getting services from a baptist church if you are a single mother, or gay, or a Muslim).

The government can not discriminate against you for these things.

So Leo, if you suddenly find yourself without money to feed your children, and all the private food banks in your area are unable or unwilling to help you, you would allow your children to die of starvation because it's not the government's place to feed them, right?