Provide them with enough resources to not force them into a life of crime, and opportunities for those who are able to become productive members of society to do so.

This has nothing to do with being altruistic or charitable, but acknowledging the fact that there are people who just has nothing to offer to society. Whether they are born incapable, rendered incapable, lazy or otherwise unmotivated, or have skills that are simply obsolete.

We've always had a society where there are individuals who do not contribute. We're always going to have that. We can chose to deal with them as criminals if we want, and confine them to prison or forced labor... but that costs the same as just supplying basic resources outright in the first place. If that even worked I would be all for it. But it doesn't.

In the end I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace. I don't want to be surrounded by people who have basic needs but not means - because that impacts my safety, and frankly my lifestyle. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them. But either way, they're not going to go away.

This is the biggest canard of all time. There are places around this country with more severe poverty than you will ever see in some inner cities.  Yet they aren't riddled with people committed to a life of crime. Look at rural Appalachia, Mississippi, and elsewhere.

So what "resources" do the poor need that they don't have today so as to prevent them from becoming habitual criminals?  More Obama phones?  More TVs?  More air conditioning?  Relax the food stamp rules so they can buy booze? 

Your line of thinking is precisely why we are $20 trillion in debt, with no end in site to deficit spending so that politicians can say "Look, we did something. Now give me your vote."

I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.

I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.

Pardon my skepticism, but . . .
 

I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.

I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.

Why do I have to pay for your agenda, when you don't have to pay for mine? Here's a thought - give me my war money back and I'll donate 50% of that to the charity of your choice.

Our Constitution calls for national defense, not a lot for "your agenda".  You can make an argument that the wars Obama continued, or started are not necessary for defense.  I will agree that a lot of the war on drugs, and war on terror is an excuse to grow government, and raise taxes on working people.  Try to roll back the Bush, and Democrats' Dept of Homeland Security, and other unnecessary crap, and see how both parties howl that we are making the country unsafe.   

. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them.

Spoken like someone who pays very little in taxes.  Here's an idea, the treasury accepts donations beyond what you owe in taxes. Put action to your idealism and pay more voluntarily, and why stop at 5%, try an additional 40% of your gross income.   Urge the rest of your progressive buddies to do the same.  If you all put your money where your mouth is there would be no need for the rest of us to be forced to pay for your misplaced ideals.

Obama's strategy was surrender.

Why do you have to pay?  Because we don't like throwing kids out on the street to starve.  Makes us feel bad about ourselves.

Classic liberal logic. "YOU have to pay to make US feel better about ourselves."

Here is you defining what is bad (throwing kids out on the street to starve), declaring it makes you feel bad, and then telling me I have to fork over the money.  Or are you making the assumption that I too feel bad about throwing kids on the street to starve?  And even if I did that I would think your solution is the best one? Maybe I don't. Maybe I don't care.  Or MAYBE I care but I give my money to private charities, or even walk around the downtown streets handing out cash to homeless teens.  It's really none of your business what my moral compass is; the reality here is you are justifying forcibly taking my money from me - the hours of my labor to earn it - and spending it as YOU see fit. 

You'll pay either way.  It just that the contraceptive costs you way less than the kid.

As I stated in this thread already. I'd be forced to agree with the program if it did prove effective, in lieu of supporting the welfare generations downstream.  That doesn't make it right.

I counted at least two messages from Trump:

(1) "If you must kill civilians, do it by blasting their bodies to bits the way civilized people do, not by using chemical neurotoxins."
(2) "Policy? Policy!? I don't need no stinking consistent policy!"

You're right. The better course of action would have been the status quo:

1.  Issue strongly worded condemnation.
2. Take hashtag selfie #bring back our Syrians; post on internet.
3. Join UN in anti-Israel resolution.