For example, if someone has a five thousand dollar a month house payment, it would be humane to pay it for him if he can’t pay it himself. On the other hand, taking the money from poorer people who didn’t buy mansions and don’t have money to throw around would be inhumane.

It’s the same way with all the other ways of helping. There comes a point at which you are hurting too many people to cover the unwise choices of the one you are trying to help. Further, there’s a good chance the one needing help will factor in the fact that he can demand help from society and never limit his expenses to those he can pay on his own.

Thus, it is possible to make someone a permanent dependent of the state if you aren’t careful. (I’m talking theoretically, but I’ve seen MANY examples.)

To me, the best balance would be to provide food, clothing and shelter of the most minimal type to any who wanted it and let all earn for themselves any above that bare minimum. That way you wouldn’t have unemployed people saying, “I’d like to take that job but the benefits I’d lose are worth way more than it pays.”

And you wouldn’t have poor people saying:
“Why are my taxes going to buy him steak?”
“Why are my taxes going to pay for his air conditioning when I don’t have it myself?”
“Why can he fool around all night while I have to work for a living?”

David for a humanity
humane and fair to all

We’re forcing people to lose their houses?
We’re taking away their children’s food?
We’re running up their electric bills above what they can pay?

That’s inhuman of us — if we’re doing it.

If, on the other hand, we decide to pay all their bills for them by taxing other people who have homes to maintain, children to feed and bills to pay, are we really being better to them?

Wouldn’t that be inhuman too?

David for humanity