In response to:

An Honest Liberal Confronts the Problem of Government Dependency

Claire24 Wrote: Dec 11, 2012 1:25 PM
For every kid "saved" by these programs, about 9 are destroyed by it. They may all have food, clothes, medical care, etc., but the are morally and intellectually starved, naked, and sick. I have watched my own family members destroyed by dependency. I am raising two of the many children of a niece whose only concern in having her children taken was the reduction in her "income." Her kids are all in poor shape, despite "free" medical care, because she can't be bothered to take them to a doc or dentist. She can't be bothered feeding them properly. But that check each month sure has ensured she is dressed "properly" for her "home business," which is prostitution and dope selling.
lshort Wrote: Dec 11, 2012 5:40 PM
Trust me, they will be morally and intellectually starved whether you feed them or not. The food, clothes and medical care don't make that any worse. And as you point out, often our drunken, drug-addicted mothers couldn't be bothered to take advantage of them for us anyway. It's the morally right thing to do to at least offer food, clothes and medical care to kids, though.

I’ve written and pontificated about the problem of government-created dependency and how the welfare state traps people in poverty.

I also shared this dramatic chart showing how redistribution programs create shockingly high implicit marginal tax rates for those with modest incomes.

But when a liberal writer for the New York Times basically comes to the same conclusion, that’s a sign that there may finally be some consensus about the...