Federal government has no mandate per the Constitution to fund state level agencies.

Now... think about about how the "we" in your statement doesn't make sense: If I don't agree with your definition of "moral obligation", are you prepared to force me to do something? Well of course not, even though that's implied... so how about you do what you want to do, persuade others if you wish, but leave force out of the picture? If you truly also believed that you could justly force me to comply with what you believe, what does that make you?

Oh, how does that obligate me to provide food or clothing to another human being? You're telling me that some random person can choose not to provide for themselves, and come traipsing up to my door to force me to provide for them? Seriously?

I hate to break it to you and make you mind blown but some federal agencies operate under state level agencies known as umbrella agencies, thats all I will say on that but my question still stands. If we pay lifetime benefits for soldiers hurt on the job should we also pay lifetime benefits for other government employees that hurt on the job?

Still making it interesting

There is a difference between what military personnel sign up for and for what most other federal government employees sign up for.

I would have no problem with moving towards a long term disability insurance plan, like what I am currently paying into, for those other employees.

Every society has weak members...the old with no one to care for them, the disabled who are unable to make a decent living to even get the bare necessities, the young...etc..

At this point in our development we are past the point where we can leave these people for the wolves and I think we need a safety net for them....

With lower taxes, people would be far more inclined to donate to private charity.

In the case of government law enforcement and military personnel both chose known hazardous careers and both are paid by the government, whats fair for one is fair for the other IMO.

If we want it level across the board then it should be with bias.

Military is different.  You can't just wake up one morning and decide to quit.  You have made a much larger commitment than other other federal job.

Both are chosen careers and if we want fairness on benefits and safety nets then it should in fact be fair across the board, when we start picking one entity to get this but not another then it is no longer fair.

OK, so when is the USPS going to deploy to AFG?

Back in the 70's it used to be that way. If somebody got food stamps they couldn't even buy bananas because they weren't made in America. There was a very restricted list of things one could buy. If one was on welfare, they basically had to have nothing before they could get it.

lol...

There is a very distinct difference between policing one's own and defending one's country. I'd say it's a shame you can't see that, but do keep digging. Please.

Actually, I do.

I know this isn't popular with ARFcom groupthink, but I do.  I've known people who've needed it, have used it myself.

I wish there was a way to pay back funds that were used...I feel like I "owe"...We had food stamps for around 10 months, $168/month...and it helped us through a bad time.



Having said all that, I believe in moving the poor into ghettos.  

If you're going to live off of the government dime, then I demand the government be fiscally responsible.  Construct group housing and provide group feeding for those that can't provide for themselves.  Barracks style living.  Navy barracks, not that apartment-esque Air Force barracks.  Able bodied workers to muster in the mornings for whatever needs to be done...no work, no lodging.  I'm not talking "chain gangs"...but I don't see why people who aren't doing anything can't be put to work for their lodging.  And there's no reason why the work they do can't be training of some sort.

I'm sorry for the loss of "dignity"...but not that sorry.  To be honest, I don't care that much.