You claim that you are not 'concerned' about McMansions. If that's really the case then please go back and explain why you mentioned in it that specific point in this discussion. Your comment that you think people should spend how they see fit is the exact opposite of what you said earlier.
No one suggested using government to "'discourage' spending". What I said was that if you feel that certain types of spending are damaging to society, so much so that you criticize people who make such purchases and you seemingly seek to characterize them as bad people, then you should be working to have government discourage that spending you consider so damaging.
Who, specifically, isn't "trying personal responsibility"? If you're going to hinge your comments on a throw-away reckless aspersion, i.e., that people in need are categorically irresponsible, as you're implying here, then you better have some hardcore evidence that that is actually the case for the vast majority of them, rather than other explanations, such as those I alluded to. The reality is that there is hard data showing that as productivity and therefore profitability have skyrocketed over the last thirty years, wages have fallen far short, and have been for all intents and purposes flat for the last decade. You could be the most responsible person in the world, but if you're paid for the work you do less money than it takes to live then it is irrational for someone to expect you to save 10%, 20%, 30% of that money for retirement. There is a real problem, that you're trying very hard to sweep under the rug: Our society has developed into one where the prospects are no longer positive for hard working people. Ignoring that fact doesn't help you get to a worthy solution - ignoring such realities makes it impossible for you to get to a worthy solution.
You talk about people not needing to pay for the bad decisions of others, so presumably you agree that those who aren't as lucky as you to have the opportunities you have shouldn't need to pay for the bad decisions that led to today's unjust economy, where there are too few jobs that pay a living wage. Or do you feel that these maxims of advantage you're putting forward apply only to yourself?
You said that we all agree with 'decency'. That's good to see. Is it true, though? How does decency work its way into claims that society shouldn't apply decency to the construction of its social safety net? "It's right that those people should 'die in the streets'." "It's right that those people's children should be locked into poverty." Is that decency?
So it comes down to this:
Who isn't
"willing" to plan and prepare? You're again projecting negative characterizations by assuming, without evidence, that people who didn't succeed didn't succeed solely because of negative aspersions you
want to cast on their character, negative aspersions that you need to support your suggestions, but that have no basis in fact. Are there lazy people? Yes. Are most struggling people lazy? No.
And you made it clear above ("I think people should spend how they see fit") that
you're the one "unwilling" - "unwilling" to take the time and effort to pick out which ones are "unwilling" and take action with regard
to them. Instead, you seem to be implying that society should abandon decency toward
all because
some are "unwilling". Some children are bullies so all children should be given detention? That makes no sense.
The reality is that our system of economic opportunity is unjust. That shouldn't be so difficult for you to agree with. Economic opportunity has been unjust since time immemorial. Your claim that you cannot agree with that shows you have a good heart, that you realize that there should be justice in this regard. And the level of economic justice has been increasing, century by century, for at least the last four hundred years. However, there has been a recent, hopefully short-term backfall. For the last generation the remediation of economic injustice has slowed, and stopped, and over the last decade or so there has been substantial regression.
We have allowed the system to become more corrupt instead of allowing progress to make it less corrupt, and we have the data to show for it, the aforementioned comparison of productivity to wages being just one of them. We could fill pages and pages with supporting data. We already have here on this forum, such as here:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/labors-falling-share-everywhere-67015.html
So yes, as you suggested, there are excuses being made for lack of effort, but the system is the blameworthy target. The excuses are being made by those who benefit from the backfalling, who benefit from the injustice, or those who have heard those who benefit describe the situation in a deceptive manner and were convinced by the deception.
No one is looking for equality of outcome. Economic equality is seeking equality of opportunity, opportunity to live, opportunity to live healthfully to enjoy life, opportunity to advanced out of poverty. Those who are benefit from the backfalling, who benefit from injustice, they often make the point when they're attacked that the economy is not a zero-sum game, that the economy grows. However, they seem to bristle when that it turned back on their arguments, when the point is made that everyone is better off when everyone can afford to live, to live healthfully, to contribute to society and to their families. They reject the notion that human decency should be applied to codify minimum expectations placed on them for their participation in society's economy to their own benefit; that society should determine a fair rent to charge for what is their conceptual storefront in the commercial marketplace that society furnishes, maintained and protects for their benefit. They rail against fairness and compassion when it makes it harder for them to exploit what society offers for the personal enrichment. It's truly nonsense, projected to defend fostering their own comfort and luxury at the expense of justice for all.