We've been getting commercials lately for Dividedwefail.org, a product, apparently, of the AARP. The commercials are all the same. There are children who tell us that if they could vote they'd vote in someone who would give them what they want -- health care and financial security. On the cover of the web page it says, "Divided We Fail was launched to raise the voices of millions of Americans who believe that health care and lifetime financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation."
I don't know about you, but I'm tired. I'm tired of being told that children are wise while adults are foolish. Pick a movie or TV show where children play a substantive role and you'll see that they are always the ones that teach the adults what they apparently missed. Now the AARP of all things has decided that the best way to get their message out is to call on the vast wisdom of children, people who aren't old enough to vote because they lack the experience, education, and life-wisdom to vote. We can learn a thing or two from them I suppose.
I'm tired of being told that it's the government's job to provide health care and financial security. Now, to be fair, obviously the AARP's primary concern for "financial security" is for when people retire. And, to be honest, I, too, am concerned about Social Security and Medicare and all that. But that's not what is stated overtly. The concern, the call of so many (including the likes of Hillary, Edwards, and a whole host of others) is financial security for all.
How would the government go about accomplishing this task? Well, ostensibly, they would "tax the rich". It's a popular concept older than the legend of Robin Hood. Steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. And we all ("we all" being "those of us who are not the rich") feel that from time to time (or more). I mean, how is it fair that such a small group of people make so much more money than all of the rest of us combined? And you know they're just wasting it on stuff that we can't even dream about, let alone actually ever afford.
Something about all this has always bugged me, nagging at the back of my mind. The guys that are making the most money, it seems, are the ones that make the big companies work the best. What is a "big company"? Well, it's a company that employs a lot of people. So these big money makers are the guys that keep the big employers employing people. And why do the guys that make these big employers big money get paid the big money? It's called "incentive". The big companies want to make big money, so they pay the guys who can do that for them big money. Now, step in with the government and yank that incentive. Take away the big bucks and give it to the poor because it's so much more ... just. What do you suppose the guy who was making big money for the company would do? I'm thinking that he'd stop. He likely has enough millions now to simply quit working. And no one else is going to be able to take the spot because they'll all face the same lack of incentive. So no one will drive the big company to make big money. Without the big money, the company cannot be the big employer that it was. And the lists of "the poor" would increase.
I don't really understand, I suppose. Socialism or communism sound really nice. They seem very compassionate. They've been tried, however, and have failed miserably time after time. There has never been a socialist nation that advanced. More importantly, every socialist nation has ended up hurting its people rather than helping them. Now, I'm guessing that those kids in the AARP commercial aren't likely aware of that. Apparently the rest of those calling for socialism in various forms don't seem to know that. So why would I listen to kids on this ... or Hillary or Edwards or ...?
3 comments:
I'm tired of being told that it's the government's job to provide health care and financial security.
I'm tired of hearing that it's not the government's job to provide while Christians who have been preposterously blessed spend their money on spoiling themselves.
Government welfare is proof that Christians consistently do NOT answer the call of their Lord. My proposal to the rich is this, give it up to the government or give it up to the poor, or stop calling yourself a Christian.
Voluntarily giving up what I have for the benefit of others isn't socialism; it's charity. You're absolutely right that Christians ought to be marked by charity. And I agree 100% that Christians aren't doing what they ought in this arena. Before the Welfare State it was the Church that took care of the needy ... as it should be.
One question, though. In your proposal, how would you define "the rich"? There are so many definitions out there and I'm not sure I'm willing to make that delineation myself.
I was cranky last night. You handled my comments well, though. Here is my proposal.
--a percentage of a person's tax burden should be available for donating for a dollar for dollar tax deduction; say, up to $2,000 per person could be donated to a charity of your choice [that meets the criteria of providing services to the needy and consumes 20% or less in administrative costs].
--the rich are those who are..well, wealthy, not just those with big paychecks. The "death tax" is a good way to motivate people to give to charity, again, a dollar for dollar deduction up to the total of the taxable part of the estate.
--it would be a good move to force people to choose between helping the needy or letting the government have it.
We definitely need the government out of welfare. The daughter of an employee of mine is pregnant with twins. The social worker told her not to get married with the boyfriend [they want to marry] because if they do they can kiss their government assistance good-bye. Nice. How Orwellian.
Take care.
Post a Comment