The last post was too long but I have another thought. What if we wanted to reform the system rather than get rid of it? I am in favor of making all socialism illegal. No public money can be given in charity. Not for any reason. That must be clear
But if you want to save the system I would suggest 2 things.
1) You must immediately raise the retirement age to about 77 years old.
2) And you must require recipients to prove a need for assisstance. Only poverty level folks get money and make sure everyone knows there is no guarantee of benefits.
If you run out of money then you raise the retirement age or reduce benefits or reduce the number of people who are allowed to collect benefits.
no debt for charity
2 years ago
Well, I think it's about choice. I would be interested to see how many people would opt out of the program all together if granted the opportunity. Those who opt out can not receive benefits,-ever. Those who beleive in the program and would like to chance the programs survival until they become of benefit age can. Again, no guarantee. I realize this would most likely decrease the amount available to current folks relying on the system now and in the near future- but I also believe the program would "rise to the occasion". You read all the time about families with a very modest income retiring as millionaires because they wisely
ReplyDeleteallocated the funds they had to work with- while many families with six figure incomes remain debt ridden.
As budgets decrease "creativity" increases. We have some of the brightest people in the world right here in our country- I am confident
that properly invested funds would generate enough money to provide for those elderly who were in real
need. You don't belive in socialism- Most people don't- No one likes to be forced to do anything. Many people in this country including you believe in helping those who are less fortunate. For many, taxes that are allocated to welfare programs or our educational system is a simplified opportunity to give and support the well being of all in this country. Through laws
and legislation the public servants whom we elect help form what this country as a whole is and wants to become. We want our citizens to be educated, we want our citizens to be healthy, in a country of such wealth we want our citizens to be able to maintain a certain standard of living. How as a country, as a people can we accomplish this without a large body of organization? Would these goals inherently be accomplished community by community? If so- HOW. I believe it's possible. Before I'm willing to break down our system of public education, social security, medicaid, welfare, I would like to see a plan of action in place. So often the arguments of all or nothing are placed before us. Why not different plans that keep our same national values whole. Ironically we are a country of both optimism and fear. We are optimistic that every citizen of this country has the opportunity to succeed. We are fearfull that without a large central government micro managing our institutions we will be lost to the shortcomings of the darker side of humanity. A while back I read an article in the NY times about the Palistinians fear of democracy. They truly were terrified of what they would do given the opportunity to choose.
How much do we believe in our country, in ourselves, in one another. Can we rise to the occasion without forcing each citizen to give up a piece of thier own successes? Will we find that the generosity that is chosen to be offered is far greater than that that is taken or begrudgingly given?
-Mel
Do you really think that no public money should ever be given to charity?
ReplyDeleteDoes that extend to things like disaster relief? Isn't is wise for a state or nation to collect money from the citizens in order to help out in some sort of disaster? Isn't money given to flood/earthquake/hurricane stricken parts of the country "charity"? I suppose the counter argument is that if there were no government relief, citizens would just donate when they saw need. If they knew the government wasn't going to help, maybe people would be more willing to help by opening up their own wallets instead of thinking "the government will take care of it." But it doesn't seem terrible for a government to collect money for that sort of circumstance.
Morris
I answered Morris on March 28 with It is not yours to give. But I never answered Mel. I wasn't sure how but I saved the email to think about it. The question is: shouldn't I propose an alternate system before destroying what we have currently? I don't think so. The alternative plan is freedom. I don't want government schools, socialism security, slavery through welfare or anything like it. I don't want any government plan to replace them. People will be free to take of these things themselves.
ReplyDelete