Re: Question on Safety Net

[Paul Buerckholtz <lifeaz@ix.netcom.com>]

This is the same old problem of the Federal Government taking over
people's lives.  The fundamental unit of human society is the FAMILY,
not the government.  The "Safety Net" is provided by the FAMILY, not by
the government.  If anything, government leaders should be leading the
way by showing citizens how they revere and incorporate their family
elders into their own families, being an example for how things should
be done.

It does no one any good (actually, it does harm) for government workers
off in some office, without personal knowledge of a benefit recipient,
to make decisions about peoples livelihoods base on arbitrary rules.
And remember, the money given out has simply been taken away from those
who possessed it, again with no personal knowledge (or caring about) the
individual.

Human society will NEVER work correctly when societal structures are
deformed by brainless, behemoth bureaucracies.

Throw away Social Security, promote the concept of children caring for
their elders (as they have for generations), and bring some REASON and
COMPASSION back into their lives.  (We might start by asking for
suggestions from Asians and Native Americans.)

And if, after all that, our esteemed lawmakers still want a vast program
that gives money to their declared "needy", why, then, let them fund the
program with THEIR OWN MONEY.






Bob Carlitz wrote:

> To wrap up our discussion on values, I would like to revisit
> a few of the more issues that have come up in the discussion.
> Unlike our first time around, where a minority of the
> registrants posted their views at some length, I would like
> in closing to solicit the broadest possible participation
> from our audience.  Today, and for the rest of the week, I'll
> ask one question a day.  Please take a few minutes to express
> your views on these topics.
>
> Today's question deals with the "Safety Net."  Many people in
> our discussion have stated their desire to provide a safety net
> for the low-income elderly.  How important do you think this
> is, and how should such provisions be implemented?
>
> If you would like to read further on this topic before
> responding, we can provide a few points of departure:
>
> 1- Bob Myers, in an April 30 posting, pointed out that the present
> Social Security system provides low income workers with "floor of
> economic protection." This is accomplished through a redistributive
> benefit formula that results in lower income workers receiving
> relatively larger benefits than higher income workers have:  "With
> Social Security, only about 10 percent of persons have incomes
> below the poverty level, and about half of them receive safety-net
> payments through public assistance.  Without Social Security, about
> 50 percent of persons would have incomes below the poverty level,
> and most of them would need safety-net payments through public
> assistance."
>
> 2- Despite the positive economic growth over the last several
> years, significant economic disparities persist.  Raw data on income
> distribution may be found at the Census Bureau's site
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/mednhhldincome.html.
>
> 3- One analysis of this type of data is provided by The Heritage
> Foundation in "Feeling the Pinch: Why Income Gains Remain Elusive
> for Many American Families,"
> http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/regulation/fyi121.html.
>
> 4- An analysis from a different political perspective is offered
> by The Economic Policy Institute in its recent book, "The State Of
> Working America." An Executive Summary of this report can be found
> at the web site http://www.epinet.org/.
>
> If you accept these economic trends, what impact do they have on
> your views for reform and the type of income security that should
> be provided for workers in their retirement years? If you do not
> accept the figures or interpretations offered above, please feel
> free to challenge them as well.
>
> Bob Carlitz, moderator
> Information Renaissanc