|
[Previous entry: "LESSONS TO ADULT CHILDREN: VOICE FROM THE CROSS"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Quote of the Day: C. S. Lewis"]
03/10/2005: "Mainline Churches Have It Wrong Again"
Replies: 9 Comments
Lets take a look at one of these programs from "Big Brohter". It is called Social Security, and it has been very effective.
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html?tools=printit
And in regards to "polictically motivated results"...you are one to talk.
You have it wrong again said @ 03/10/2005 12:30 PM CST
You are correct, social security has been very successful. Very successful in making people completely dependent on the government and moving the government closer to backrupcy.
As Sir Alex Fraser Tytler once said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
I don't want this to happen. I will fight this "loose fiscal policy" in the church, and I will fight it in government.
This is not politically motivated, this is idea motivated. A dependent people is a bad idea. A bankrupt government is a bad idea.
qandablogger said @ 03/10/2005 02:33 PM CST
It has not been successful in the way that you want it to be. So what? Tell that to my Grandmother whose husband died when she was 50, and she lived on Social Security for 40 years. I would rather have her live on a trust fund (i.e., social security) than live in poverty to accomadate your ideological precepts. You right-wingers are cold and heartless.
Dependent on government said @ 03/10/2005 03:24 PM CST
The question is why did your grandfather not prepare for his family?
Why do you grandmother's children and grandchildren not care for her?
Why does your grandmother's church not care for her?
I am full of heart. I am appalled by those that want to steal from others.
Why is calling stealing by it's real name, heartless?
qandablogger said @ 03/10/2005 03:55 PM CST
Because they were poor. Because we were poor. The area was poor.
To you, were they all stealers?
To me, they were all devout church-going families, and that is in fact what they were.
They were exactly what you are, only poor.
Reply to your questions said @ 03/10/2005 04:27 PM CST
It is the government that is doing the stealing.
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/10/2005 08:42 PM CST
My good friend,
If you are so convinced that I am cold and heartless, may I ask you a question? How much money, (meaning percentage of your income) did you spend on caring for the poor last year? How much time did you spend caring for the poor? Not that comparing is useful, but I assure you, as I look into the depths of my soul, I have a clean conscious when it comes to both time and money of caring for the poor and the sick.
See, we see the world very differently. I think, you see all of that work as the government’s responsibility. I see it as mine and ours as a community. We can do it better and cheaper and with real compassion. I am doing work to put it back into the proper hands, both private work and public political work. Can't you admit that government is very inefficient?
BTW you did not answer any of my questions. Why did your family and community not care for your grandma? Poor is not an answer. Even poor people can care for their community. I come from a very poor family also. I know how poverty works.
Wayne
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/11/2005 07:01 AM CST
If government is inefficient, and the private sector is so much more efficient and compassionate, etc, then why was social security needed in the first place (and it was -- the private sector was doing nothing), and why has it been so successful in raising so many of the elderly out of poverty?
The private sector does not secure liberty for people, nor does it derive its power a representtive section of those it serves. It's goal is to subsume peoples' liberty as much as possible, and it derives its power only from those who profit from it(or those who like to think it derives its power from God, which it does not, and can not, and should not). It cannot fulfill the role that government does. A government of, by, and for the people. A representitive government. Of all the people, not just the well do to, or the faithful, or the white, or whatever.
You assume we did not care for grandma. We did, but that does not mean social security was not her major source of income, and the benefits of that helped us all.
Government said @ 03/11/2005 11:00 AM CST
You are right on at least one count. Social security was needed. There are many reasons for that. 1. The church and its people were not doing it's job. (and still are not) I readily admit that, and I am fighting against it, trying to wake the church up. At the same time, some in government wanted to grow their sphere of influence and grow the reach of government what a great way to do it.....
If by "the private sector" you mean corporate america, it is not the private sector's responsiblity to take care of people. Companies are in business to make a profit. You make a profit by making a good product or service and keeping people happy. That's it, very simple.
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/12/2005 07:23 PM CST
|
