[Superman]

No, I don't think I missed Legion's point. I was expecting that some folks here would flatly deny any responsibility toward these people. Legion has done that, predicatably. It's an ethical question, and while most folks know the right answer, some do not.

And aside from the pure ethical question, there is a separate practical question. You see, even if it were morally acceptable which it is not, turning our backs on the "have nots" would not work. In a very simplistic analysis it works, but in reality, it will not. I believe that a big part of why we have these social programs is because we cannot afford NOT to. I'll save you the explanation of why. It's more complex than you're comfortable with. And again, I'm saying that abruptly, but not in a mean spirit. To you, if we remove the safety net, then folks will become productive because they have to in order to survive. I think that's very elegant and simple......and wishful......and not accurate. I think those people will avoid starving, but not in the way you assume.

And yes, I really honestly believe that fixing the problem, or at least getting at the root causes, would be cheaper in the long run. But I also believe that our beloved "system" really doesn't want to solve this problem. Overspending on programs that don't work is ideal. It accomplishes just exactly, strategically, what some folks want to accomplish. One of them is to not solve the problems.

And just as an example, I don't think our economic system works as well if a citizen's worst case scenario does not include homelessness. I think our system requires that folks in new Mercedes drive by folks sleeping in boxes, and I think it requires that they both be aware of each other's situation.