What Kind Of Country Do We Want? (Part One)
Whether you consider yourself to be conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, our basic beliefs about how the country should be governed are based upon ideals. These ideals give us a starting point for our thoughts on the role of government at various levels of our society. As I think regular readers already know, I don’t always adhere to a fixed philosophy, so I have problems with both hardcore liberals and hardcore conservatives. I don’t feel that government should totally run everything in our lives, nor do I believe that our lives should be left to some “sink or swim” philosophy regarding whatever fate happens to be visited upon us at any given point in time. Overall, I believe most Americans are somewhere in the middle on many issues too, depending upon circumstances. What do I mean?
Well, we “tend” to think of many of the upper class and business people as being more conservative, some even VERY conservative. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but I will anyhow, as these are certainly generalizations, and they should be taken by readers as such. Since these folks have either grown up with financial privilege, coming from wealthy families, or have made it big through some action of their own, either through honest hard work or through some kind of treachery, they tend to see things like, “Look, we have a great system. I made it. I’m well off, and you can be well off too, if you make good decisions and do the right things in your life.” All of that sounds good until of course, their company runs into trouble, like the airlines did a few years ago. Then they turn to the government to give them a helping hand, which is what happened in the aftermath of 9/11 with the airlines. Then the “sink or swim” philosophy did NOT apply. Uncle Sam gave several billion dollars (that’s billion, not million!) to the airlines to try to tide them over during a difficult time. I want you to know, I agreed with that decision by Congress and the President. Many well known liberals and conservatives were faced with a choice that conflicted with their basic beliefs, but most made the right choice, and supported the measure to help the airlines. To conservatives, the idea of giving money to business went against their “succeed or fail” ideas, and to liberals, the idea of giving money to big business was just totally repugnant. In the end, no matter how distasteful, the country saw a problem and acted.
Folks, the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps isn’t really bad, but it isn’t always a viable alternative. Trying to help ourselves as much as possible should definitely be encouraged and should usually be a first course of action, but at times, it just isn’t as easy as all of that. Further, society has tried to make life better for all through certain government programs, often, if not always, opposed by the very conservative of the nation. If mankind didn’t try to make life better in some ways, we’d all still live in caves, probably next door to Osama bin Laden (There goes the neighborhood!). Even with programs sponsored by some level of government, the rich are still the rich, and the top twenty percent of the population still controls nearly 85% of ALL American wealth. (That doesn't leave much for the remaining 80% of the population.) So don’t let their arguments and whining convince you of the terrible hardship they have been enduring; the rest of us should have to go through such "awful" suffering.
Now, on the other hand, some government programs outlive their usefulness and need to be changed or eliminated. Further, do we want government to tell us how to live many aspects of our daily lives? I don’t think so, but I have some disagreements with libertarians who always seem to feel that the Republic is in imminent danger of becoming a police state. (We do need these folks to make us think about potential consequences though, so they do add a balance to some things.) I don’t “always” buy their arguments, especially in the cases of folks with more than just a little quirkiness or eccentricity, who have certain forms of out and out mental illness. The idea that many of these folks can always make rational decisions about taking medication or going for regular treatment at their local mental health center is nonsense!
See:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/severely-mental-ill-and-asylums.html
Let’s just look at some things that have become part and parcel of American life within the past century. To this day we have problems within our food supply, but it was President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, who pushed for food safety laws way back in the early 1900s. The food industry at various levels opposed such laws, but just think where we’d be without these laws, even while admitting that we still have problems. (If I’m not mistaken, the current Bush Administration cut funding for food inspections, but even if I’m right, whether that has anything to do with the recalls and illnesses in recent years, I don’t know.) So, should we disband this element of government and totally take our chances? Just think what many in the food industry might do to save money if we DIDN’T have food safety laws and inspections. That would make you feel comfortable about your next meal, right?
Then there’s one of the big bugaboos of the anti-government element of America, Social Security. If you’re well off, and not in need of putting money away for retirement, I guess I can understand your opposition, but you’re being selfish in doing so. Yes, it is a coercive government program, in that we are required to pay into the SS system (there are some exceptions), and again, it sure isn’t perfect, and never has been, but it is also a very popular program, flaws and all. Again too, since the inception of Social Security, we haven’t seen red flags planted all around the country. It has helped millions of Americans retire with some income floor beneath them. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, only a small percentage of Americans had any kind of private pension program. In many cases, it was “work till you drop,” or other family members had to take responsibility for older folks before they dropped, at times causing serious financial problems. Yes, families were undoubtedly closer back then, but do we want to go back to pre-Social Security times, just because we might derive the benefit of families being closer, regardless of any of the stresses on family members, financial or physical/mental? Life expectancy was far less than in today’s world, although I’m not arguing that Social Security is necessarily the cause of people living longer, but it sure doesn’t hurt to have a guaranteed retirement income floor.
Then we have disability payments. This is similar to Social Security, in that prior to disability laws, if a person was unable to work due to some injury or illness, other family members had to take care of them. Bear in mind, for the rich, this kind of thing is not a problem, as they can put a relative into some care facility, or hire someone to care for the person at home. For most people, though, this could prove to be a problem. If Uncle Henry developed arthritis to point that he could no longer work, who took care of him? Well many years ago, women were not quite as common in the workplace, so maybe Henry’s wife was home and able to care for him, but what about money? If Aunt Helen went to work, now who cares for Uncle Henry? Now I’m not trying to suggest that people didn’t always survive under such circumstances, but you see the dilemma that many folks could face. Again, the wealthy can’t relate to such things, as they had the means to solve the problem without Aunt Helen having to necessarily care for Uncle Henry or to have to work to earn money so that the two could survive. There’s a VERY big difference here. Anyway, disability payments helped to provide an income floor for people who no longer were able to work. Should we do away with such programs and go back to the way things used to be? Uncle Henry is calling!
Well, we “tend” to think of many of the upper class and business people as being more conservative, some even VERY conservative. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but I will anyhow, as these are certainly generalizations, and they should be taken by readers as such. Since these folks have either grown up with financial privilege, coming from wealthy families, or have made it big through some action of their own, either through honest hard work or through some kind of treachery, they tend to see things like, “Look, we have a great system. I made it. I’m well off, and you can be well off too, if you make good decisions and do the right things in your life.” All of that sounds good until of course, their company runs into trouble, like the airlines did a few years ago. Then they turn to the government to give them a helping hand, which is what happened in the aftermath of 9/11 with the airlines. Then the “sink or swim” philosophy did NOT apply. Uncle Sam gave several billion dollars (that’s billion, not million!) to the airlines to try to tide them over during a difficult time. I want you to know, I agreed with that decision by Congress and the President. Many well known liberals and conservatives were faced with a choice that conflicted with their basic beliefs, but most made the right choice, and supported the measure to help the airlines. To conservatives, the idea of giving money to business went against their “succeed or fail” ideas, and to liberals, the idea of giving money to big business was just totally repugnant. In the end, no matter how distasteful, the country saw a problem and acted.
Folks, the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps isn’t really bad, but it isn’t always a viable alternative. Trying to help ourselves as much as possible should definitely be encouraged and should usually be a first course of action, but at times, it just isn’t as easy as all of that. Further, society has tried to make life better for all through certain government programs, often, if not always, opposed by the very conservative of the nation. If mankind didn’t try to make life better in some ways, we’d all still live in caves, probably next door to Osama bin Laden (There goes the neighborhood!). Even with programs sponsored by some level of government, the rich are still the rich, and the top twenty percent of the population still controls nearly 85% of ALL American wealth. (That doesn't leave much for the remaining 80% of the population.) So don’t let their arguments and whining convince you of the terrible hardship they have been enduring; the rest of us should have to go through such "awful" suffering.
Now, on the other hand, some government programs outlive their usefulness and need to be changed or eliminated. Further, do we want government to tell us how to live many aspects of our daily lives? I don’t think so, but I have some disagreements with libertarians who always seem to feel that the Republic is in imminent danger of becoming a police state. (We do need these folks to make us think about potential consequences though, so they do add a balance to some things.) I don’t “always” buy their arguments, especially in the cases of folks with more than just a little quirkiness or eccentricity, who have certain forms of out and out mental illness. The idea that many of these folks can always make rational decisions about taking medication or going for regular treatment at their local mental health center is nonsense!
See:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/severely-mental-ill-and-asylums.html
Let’s just look at some things that have become part and parcel of American life within the past century. To this day we have problems within our food supply, but it was President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, who pushed for food safety laws way back in the early 1900s. The food industry at various levels opposed such laws, but just think where we’d be without these laws, even while admitting that we still have problems. (If I’m not mistaken, the current Bush Administration cut funding for food inspections, but even if I’m right, whether that has anything to do with the recalls and illnesses in recent years, I don’t know.) So, should we disband this element of government and totally take our chances? Just think what many in the food industry might do to save money if we DIDN’T have food safety laws and inspections. That would make you feel comfortable about your next meal, right?
Then there’s one of the big bugaboos of the anti-government element of America, Social Security. If you’re well off, and not in need of putting money away for retirement, I guess I can understand your opposition, but you’re being selfish in doing so. Yes, it is a coercive government program, in that we are required to pay into the SS system (there are some exceptions), and again, it sure isn’t perfect, and never has been, but it is also a very popular program, flaws and all. Again too, since the inception of Social Security, we haven’t seen red flags planted all around the country. It has helped millions of Americans retire with some income floor beneath them. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, only a small percentage of Americans had any kind of private pension program. In many cases, it was “work till you drop,” or other family members had to take responsibility for older folks before they dropped, at times causing serious financial problems. Yes, families were undoubtedly closer back then, but do we want to go back to pre-Social Security times, just because we might derive the benefit of families being closer, regardless of any of the stresses on family members, financial or physical/mental? Life expectancy was far less than in today’s world, although I’m not arguing that Social Security is necessarily the cause of people living longer, but it sure doesn’t hurt to have a guaranteed retirement income floor.
Then we have disability payments. This is similar to Social Security, in that prior to disability laws, if a person was unable to work due to some injury or illness, other family members had to take care of them. Bear in mind, for the rich, this kind of thing is not a problem, as they can put a relative into some care facility, or hire someone to care for the person at home. For most people, though, this could prove to be a problem. If Uncle Henry developed arthritis to point that he could no longer work, who took care of him? Well many years ago, women were not quite as common in the workplace, so maybe Henry’s wife was home and able to care for him, but what about money? If Aunt Helen went to work, now who cares for Uncle Henry? Now I’m not trying to suggest that people didn’t always survive under such circumstances, but you see the dilemma that many folks could face. Again, the wealthy can’t relate to such things, as they had the means to solve the problem without Aunt Helen having to necessarily care for Uncle Henry or to have to work to earn money so that the two could survive. There’s a VERY big difference here. Anyway, disability payments helped to provide an income floor for people who no longer were able to work. Should we do away with such programs and go back to the way things used to be? Uncle Henry is calling!
posted by Randy at 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home