Re: Question on Safety Net

[Northwest Artist Wannabees <judgedred@uswest.net>]

If we really cared about our elderly then we should care for them, give
them the respect (lacking in this society), cherish them,
love them and relate to them with dignity.  It would be nice to see a
family home that lasted for generations, a home where mother and father,
grand father and grand mother could have family and maybe contribute to
that essence now only found on the few remaining family farms in
America.

We all, (humanity), need to feel loved, needed and wanted.

Many elderly today have out lived their family and live alone.  Many
actually desire keeping to themselves and not wanting to give up
personal freedoms they fear loosing in an institutional facility, (where
they are often discarded by their families and forgotten.).

Dignity and respect, (particularly self-respect) are two important
elements of Social Security need by both the family elders and those
that choose to live alone.

Gary Wilson, Druid



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 Renaissance