Candidate John Edwards is focusing his campaign on the "two Americas"

I am creating this thread to discuss the US government-provided social welfare system.

As a physical scientist and amateur financial/economic historian with familiarity with a variety of online databases, I can, as does Ms. Genser, access and analyze statistical data concerning this subject. More important, in my view, is the experience my wife and I have had as foster parents, as adoptive parents of a special needs child and as grandparents of the offspring of our foster and adoptive children. In addition, we have a "control" in my wife's biological child (my stepdaughter). To give an idea of the complexity of my family like there are currently eight children, none of whom are actually related to me, who call me (or will call me, one is a baby) grandpa.

Two of these are legally my grandchildren, in that their biological mother is my adopted daughter. The other children are either biological children of former foster children of ours or their step children.

Since grandparent (unlike parent) is not an exclusive relationship, all these children (who are old enough to speak) call me grandpa. My wife an I are invited to family get-together involving my grandchildren as if we were part of the family (so I would say we have been "adopted" by them). And I have extended tangible help to the parents of my grandchildren (e.g. a $15K loan to buy a truck so the husband of a former foster child could become an independent trucker) just as would a well-heeled patriarch of a biological clan.

As one fond of subsidiarity and a witness to the result (and not the intention) of U.S. government-provided (taxpayer financed and Celestially loaned) social welfare system, I find it wanting in the main.

It has largely injured the rural populations as it intended to succor them since the ending of the last Unravelling. It is too distant and to uninterested (witness the continued approval of payments for my late father's pregnancy tests while in his eighties despite his family's objection) in anything much at all.

As one who has taken care of the aged for decades and only been asked to further the appetites of my fellow Crowns of Creation as they ignore(d) their own obligations, I say faugh to Mr. Edwards of the massive mansion and his escape from subsidiarity. Attend to the lower portion of my signature below. HTH

I fully approve of the principle of subsidiarity, as it is in line with Catholic social teaching.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

As one fond of subsidiarity and a witness to the result (and not the intention) of U.S. government-provided (taxpayer financed and Celestially loaned) social welfare system, I find it wanting in the main.

It has largely injured the rural populations as it intended to succor them since the ending of the last Unraveling.

I wasn't thinking of agricultural price supports, which I would do away with. I was thinking policy concerning indigent, incompetent or at-risk citizens, particularly young children, who though incompetent, have the potential for competence at some future date.

I see no particular benefit for subsidiary as far as these citizens are concerned. I can see how subsidiarity might have an effect on those who are competent.

It is too distant and to uninterested (witness the continued approval of payments for my late father's pregnancy tests while in his eighties despite his family's objection) in anything much at all.

It seems to me that physical distance implied by say county versus state versus federal policy would have little impact on interest.