More trouble for our friend Tom DeLay!
In case you've missed it, previous trouble for our friend Tom DeLay!
Social Security privitization compared to Thatcher's failed plan!
And nobody much cares about the Homeland Security privacy officer...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It would be much easier to believe you weren't an idiot if you could get a grasp on some basic principles of the English language.
You say, “The truth is that the state, garners it's funds from private individuals. . .” I think it's pretty clear that in that particular sentence, "it’s" should be "its" and there should be no comma between “state” and “garners.”
Right. Privatization. From now on, I swear to run my posts through a spel cheker. And I won't add to A.Lo's analysis of your grammar, except to note that "handout" is a noun, and "hand out" is not.
But on to the more substantial argument: You suggest that the Social Security system is, and was intended to be, simply a highly legislated system of handouts for stupid or careless people.
1) Most Social Security beneficiaries also paid into the system. So rather than a system of handouts, it's more like "IRAs for dummies".
2) Many of us think that a safety net for stupid and careless people is OK, particularly if it is also a safety net for unlucky people. (Those who are injured on the job, or have to spend all their retirement savings on medical bills because they get cancer, or whatever.) And I'm sure you've seen a SS check. It's not like these people are living the high life.
3) Many of us also think that we are morally obligated to provide such a safety net. And please don't suggest that we scrap SS and the church start taking care of society's elderly. If the church had been doing this adequately, we wouldn't have needed SS.
On the other hand, if today's gated-community-living church members are actually inclined to let go of a few bills and take care of business, let them start doing it! Then we'll drop SS.
I think what ‘random’ missed is the state garners its funds from the people for the benefit of the people, for things (like roads, police, defense) and taking care of those who aren’t able to take care of themselves (like the blind, the orphaned and others whom society has determined necessary.) Would ‘random’ also cull the retarded and the infirm, or just let them wander the streets and starve? Certainly we let thousands starve every day, but they aren't called 'Americans' so it doesn't bother us as much.
Even using the worst possible perspective on state managed redistribution of wealth, (as I think ‘random’ does) a Nietzsche-like (Nietzschian?) perspective points to the fact that offering a bare amount of resources to the poor keeps them (or their militant children) pacified and as result those in power will tend to stay that way. After all, what do the poor and imprisoned need but 3 meals a day and cable tv?
Post a Comment