Chemical Dependency

I was a longtime Republican, up until these wars for oil freedom we've voluntarily engaged in. I've also never understood how fiscal conservatism has been inexorably tied to the church and a whole host of other social pathologies that I don't agree with.

That said, I've found solace in breaking from the supposed party of fiscal conservatism (by the way, they ain't) and felt much better about identifying alongside more social liberals. I wish these two went hand in hand, but they never do.

I can personally shield myself from the inane, ridiculous monetary policies of both parties...I am a personal fiscal conservative regardless of what goes on around me. I don't really give a shit if my taxes go up another 10-15-20 percent. I've lived my life, always, under the belief that if I made X dollars, I would live with X-y. I've always lived within my means. Always. If I get taxed more, well, I'll just learn to live with X-y-z.

Nonetheless, I feel much better about voting people in who are social liberals because in the end, this has a much more meaningful impact to me. If I had continued to vote in Republicans and if everyone else had done the same, I'd have no bus to ride to work, my bicycle rides would be much more hostile, the environment would turn to liquid shit, diesel trucks would be polluting more alongside me, I'd be biking in brown air, we'd be engaged in five foreign wars for energy instead of just two, and the church would be dictating social policy.

Let me tell you, though. As I bike to my cousin's duplex after work in South Sacramento where a solid 65% of everyone is unemployed, his entire neighborhood is comprised of chronic chemical dependents. Alcohol, prescription pain meds, weed, meth, and crack. None of them work regularly. Every one of them, every one, has applied for social security disability, whether they are disabled or not. All of them, all of them, have EBT cards. They all sleep 'till 11, are drunk by 5, and most importantly, all of them are capable of working. All of them. Yet they don't. They only reason they are up before 11 is to spend time at the department of human assistance, requesting assistance.

This is a lifestyle choice. Period.

I have always been willing to help the impoverished, yes. Yet all these people, an entire community, are decidedly not impoverished. Rocky recently spent 5 days in intensive care to treat symptoms from a massive Tamiroff vodka and Vicodin binge. My cousin was sent to the emergency room to treat a staph infection on his leg...along with five other neighbors because of the filth they live in. Four in the same duplex developed ear infections...two needed medical treatment. In every case, in every instance, not a one of them paid so much as a co-pay to get treated. They were all covered, somehow, under state sponsored programs, and didn't have to pay a single dime. Repeat this across 3,200 communities across America to see the true impact of what social liberalism has brought.

We just passed a health care bill. We continue to allow these people to manage on a combination of food stamps, SS disability, and general assistance in perpetuity. In my mind, in my personal opinion, we are subsidizing the lifestyles of the underclass to live without contributing a thing back to society at large.

To help the impoverished, yes, is a noble effort, because in my opinion a worthy society is defined by how we treat those who cannot help themselves. But these people, as described above, while they might be friends, neighbors, and relatives, are leeches on a social system that I take no pleasure in supporting...yet I am forced to.

How do we distinguish between those in real need, and those who are just needy?