Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to Personal Retirement Accounts and Social Security, an Eye Opener.
Hey Homeo-nut,
thanks for visiting! I told my mom about the homeopath blogger -- a fellow homeopath -- and she was quite impressed! Anyway, yes, I did not live through the Great Depression and ensuing difficult years and do appreciate your perspective. Both sides have spent far too many dollars to the detriment of society, and although I am a republican, I admit to some angst about Bush's easy spending ways. Again, thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on February 20, 2005 at 11:29 AM
| link to this | reply
There are a lot of intensely written comments here, but none seem to have been written by a person who was alive at the time of Roosevelt's actions taken to reverse the terrifying economic conditions that prevailed. Do you think it was a game? Do you think he was rubbing his hands together over the great opportunity handed him to make changes in the way our government worked? It appeared at the time that he had one goal in mind, and that had to do with the best interests of his poverty-stricken citizens.
Was your family among the haves, or have-nots, during that pereiod. I am 86 yrs of age and was among the have-nots. It is impossible for those of you who are riding high-on-the-hog-today to have even the slightest idea of what we went through. Roosevelt was responsible for the WPA (Works Projects Admin)., CCC,s (Civilian Conservation Corp.) to name two. They put starving architects, engineers, bridge builders, and millions of we ordinary individuals, to work doing meaningful things, giving us back a little of the pride and character that had been lost. He was a hero to millions, not because he gave hand-outs (!), but because he created work and a feeling of pride in oneself. What were the alternatives? I was too young to really know, but obviously they weren't strong enough to change the politics.
Has the government gone too far with these and other programs. Yes! But you who think only one way seem to overlook the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS republicans have been responsible for in adding to this pile. Look at Bush, for gawd's sake; our children and grandchildren will be paying for our stupid economic moves for the rest of their lives! That is good government?. (Just so you don't think I am a wild-eyed democat, I was a republican for years...I first voted for Wendell Wilkie, and now consider myself an independant.)
I will make a suggestion Rent the movie, SEABISCUIT. It is an outstanding story about a horse that grabbed the attention of the nation during the thirties. It is interesting because all four of the principals: the horse, jockey, the owner and trainer, all were products of the period. The story, wth actual news-shots, will give you a feel for the time. I agree, we have too many governmental hand-outs: income tax loop-holes, crop subsidies, air-line & train subsidies, tax breaks for industry, eyes closed to graft and general chicanery in government--.you name it. All this adds up to billions, so where do we start? With those of our citizens who are having a tough time to pay the rent and feed their children?
posted by
Homeo-nut.com
on February 19, 2005 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
yeah, true, mystic
however, it seems to me that so many have become dependent on SS and other entitlement programs, that they would need to be phased out gradually otherwise it would devastate millions of people who are completely dependent. Thanks for stopping by.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on February 16, 2005 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I think a true conservative would despise SS as a needless social program .
a true Republican would try to eliminate it rather than reform it or keep it from going "bankrupt."
posted by
fwmystic
on February 15, 2005 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Ahh, Damon, you and your cynicism.
You never cease to amuse me! I will say, though, that as a cynic you will never be caught with your pants down, eh? You will always expect the worst, and if it comes, you'll be ready. (That was in reference to your comments on privatization.)
You are quite right about the potential for collapse of social security amongst all or most of Europe what with the aging of society and the significant decrease in birth rates. I have followed this conundrum with interest and will continue to do so.
If I was given the opportunity to save more vs pay more into governemt, as a conservative, I would certainly do everything possible to save more. Because of my part time work status last year and full time grad student status, my gross earnings were just under $30,000. I don't consider myself to be rich, and as of last year was certainly lower middle class. And yet my heart is set on saving more vs spending all of what I earn and relying almost solely on govt handouts when I retire. So with that in mind, given the opportunity for privatization, I'm all for it! I do wonder what it will take to get more Americans back into a savings mode. I am of the opinion that all the govt handouts have ultimately been more harmful than helpful. We have created a society of folk who expect someone else to meet their needs rather than take responsibility for their own well being.
And I ramble. Anyway, thanks for your comments!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on February 15, 2005 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
YC4H -- thanks for your comments.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into writing such detailed comments, and agree with Damon that you should put this into a post of your own. Perhaps you have? You bring up some interesting points; however, I would have to say that you and I take divergent positions early on in your commentary, beginning with your long discourse on the evolutionary process.
You yourself make note of all the pork barrelling that has gone on since FDR. The problem with the system in its current state is that, in order to win friends and supposedly maintain the happiness of constituents, our leaders in govt will continue to fill barrells with pork and rob Peter to pay Paul. When will the madness end? In part, that is why I appreciate the attempts Pres Bush is making to try and get a handle on this out of control social security network.
You and I dramatically part ways when it comes to your comments on the evolutionary process -- and competition vs cooperation. Look at Bush's faith based initiatives program he's tried to use. He recognizes the fact that faith based organizations utilize funding much more efficiently than government handouts. So why not work with these organizations, give them grants and such so they can more effectively and efficiently reach out to people in need? Sure there's an element of competition here, but in the end, there's far more cooperation between governement and the private sector, not to mention the potential for decentralization of power.
Regarding the "fascist autocracy" of conservatism -- I don't know where to begin, it all seems so ludicrous to me. As a conservative, the last thing I would call myself is fascist or autocratic. To compare Bush with some of the other world autocrats is extreme, although I realize that many do. I suppose that's because of the whole Iraq war and his handling of it. But to compare his govt (by calling him a fascist autocrat) with that of other fascists such as Hitler, Mussolini, Khomeini or Bin Laden is quite extreme and in my view inappropriate.
I may comment further on the rest of your post, but need to get ready for work, so shall come back to this at a later time. Again, thanks for visiting and commenting.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on February 15, 2005 at 9:55 AM
| link to this | reply
WoW! That...
...looks like a post to me, Carpenter!!
All I was going to say is that the imminent collapse of the Social security system is not something that is limited to the US. most of Europe - UK included - is facing the same thing, due to a combination of mis-management, democratic changes, and improved healthcare.
I think we need to maintain a healthy suspicion, though, when the P-word is mentioned. Privatisation ALWAYS results in a worse service, for more cost, because much of the wealth is appropriated by those in the top 1%.
Bush and his puppet-masters are looking to take as large a chunk as they can out of the public coffers before the next US election. This is just another ruse to do exactly that.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on February 14, 2005 at 8:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Terrific Writer!
Well reasoned and supported opinions.
The facts, however, do not conform to your theory. You know as well as I do that Bush simply wants to eviscerate FDR's Social Security plan for the good of no one -- ultimately. What the so-called conservatives will receive is the comfort of a testing of their ideology. William Graham Sumner could not have planned it any better.
The problem with social Darwinism as a methodology is that it is as wasteful of time as the process of biological evolution. The dinosaurs were given an overly generous period in excess of 100 million years before their inability to forge partnerships and cooperation across their many subspecies resulted in their stagnation, and, ultimately, their extinction.
With the rise of mammals came the evolutionary answer that had been missing from the dinosaur's neurology: a forebrain whereby partnerships and cooperation could be forged and species survival could, once again, be tested. Competition builds abundant life, but it can not sustain it. Anyone who has ever worked for a company that can not get past their, "start up," phase knows this conundrum well, indeed. People will rip and tear at one another to stay in control of what they can manage completely oblivious to the possibility that, with appropriate cooperation, the organization as a whole can accomplish more than the sum of its component feudal sub-organizations.
The whole value of the rise of conservatism has been this and nothing more: what is an appropriate level of cooperation among citizens, and when is it best to make that judgment? Beyond this very important, noble and valuable contribution, the so-called, "conservative," movement is little more than a front for the rise of another attempt at fascist autocracy -- a very efficient system of governance if centralized decisionmaking could ever be shown to benefit the survival of the species. It has never done so and, if the abundant lessons of nature are as big a clue as I believe they are, it never will never be able to do so.
The appropriateness and the timing of various levels of social cooperation are, indeed, critical points of argument. Very useful. I do not believe that humanity would be capable of exciting itself to this level of fruition without the crisis created by the imposition of a failed system of governance, however cloaked that imposition has turned out to be.
FDR did what he felt was best at the time. The exaggeration of his contributions into the areas of welfare and social safety nets may have crossed some boundaries of credulity, granted, but what so-called, "conservatives," have apparently refused to accept was the absolute necessity of the programs FDR put forward at the time he managed to do so. I believe that it is inappropriate to judge FDR's programs and actions based solely on the shortcomings of the pork-barrellers who followed after him in time and space. I do not believe you would hear much cogent argument from anyone regarding the inappropriateness of fueling a false crisis in order to purchase blocks of votes from the criminally indigent, but I also do not believe it is appropriate to judge Social Security as a program doomed to fail from its inception.
Cooperation, not competition, is what will sustain the species. Competition, not cooperation, is what builds diversity within the species. Diversity for its own sake may not be desirable, but a diversity of thought, opinion and experience is absolutely critical to the determination of the appropriateness of certain thoughts and actions, for individual people as well as whole societies.
What I have seen take place in the US since the hegemony of the so-called, "conservative," movement was put into place has been a disturbing trend towards conformity, lack of appropriate levels of thought and consideration and, not surprisingly, actions which could never be justified on moral, ethical or on the grounds of species survival. Yes, actions have been taken by those who were arguably aligned with conservative thought that have limited future population growth in some regions of the globe. However, China continues to support and maintain the largest standing army of any military force in the world. If the purpose, or point, of conservative thought has been to project Anglo-Saxony well into the future, we have extinguished that hope by wasting our efforts dealing with minor players in the race to hegemony. What we are left with is the illusion of global rule, a house of cards that China can easily and readily blow over using any number of the pieces it has kept safely out contention until now.
The so-called, "conservatives," have, clearly, missed the lessons of history and created what they have been defending against for far too long.
What has been missing from their rationalizations, justifications and strategies has been a principle of such simplicity it pains me to present it to another thinking organism. The principle is this: causes are known by their effects just as effects are known by their prior causes. Another way of putting it: things must always end in precisely the same manner as they began. Those who live by the sword, must die by it. These were not the simple words designed to keep the great unwashed masses in alignment -- these were the statement of time-tested principles that only those grinding out their defects on the millwheel of human existence could come to appreciate. Those whose job it has been to leverage the work effort of these people have been spoiled by the willingness of the working classes to cooperate with the ruling class to perpetuate social order. Consequences to actions taken at the level of rulers can only be felt by those who have empathy for the working class. But even this perception of these consequences is minor compared to the effort required to sustain a straight course in a transitional period of mixed messages and bold contradictions.
Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.
Either the ruling class will dummy-up and learn to appreciate the existing social order as FDR did,. or that social order will collapse in defiance of every seeming rule to which the ruling class has become accustomed. Societies can, and have, collapsed in an ascending fashion, as the French Revolution demonstrated. Perhaps this was, and is, because the royal highness of the ruling class has been mistaken for the slow dig towards the gates of hell that history has always shown it to be.
When a person, or a people, embark on a course of action without an honest vetting of their own motives and goals, what we are left with as an outcome is confusion, at the very least. What is always apparent, however, is that undesirable motives lead to undesirable outcomes. When the goals are toxic at the outset, the entire process of achieving those goals becomes poisoned.
Leave Social Security, both as a program and a concept, alone. No one species', or people's, power is absolute. The best outcome that so-called conservatives will be able to achieve is the complete annihilation of the human species viz. the tragedy of the commons.
posted by
Volaar
on February 13, 2005 at 1:21 PM
| link to this | reply