WVXJ said:
Government social programs shouldn't scare people because the government is Supposed to take care of the people. Social programs are where the tax dollars should be spent. What scares me is the uncontrolled growth of corporate rights over the past 100 years..........
Not entirely so. The purpose of our government, as originally conceived, is to protect the health and safety of the body politic at large (and
not, contrary to current opinions, any particular member(s) of it, singly or
en masse.) That was the original intent, and how it was originally set up.
The government was not meant to have rights, it was meant to have responsibilities - and those responsibilities were originally to protect the rights of the individuals. Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and most other writings around that timeframe if you don't believe me, it's all there.
The beginnings of runaway government came about with the Great Socialist, FDR. Granted, the depression was a key factor in allowing things to change, but the pervasiveness of government involvement came about because most of the "temporary" programmes then became permanent.
Why is Social Security broken? Simple - it was only supposed to last five years, and then terminate itself. It wasn't designed to operate in perpetuity - just long enough for the nation to get back on its feet, economically speaking. Again, this is only a symptom of a greater illness, y'ask me.
Runaway inflation started with the Bank Holiday in 1933 (?), and came to a head sometime in the 1970's when we were finally taken off the Gold Standard - in direct violation of the Constitution, without ratification by the body politic, and probably without any though of the eventual consequences. Since the dollar no longer has an anchor to which it is tied, is it any wonder it's wildly adrift? Another symptom of a greater illness.
Welfare is both a symptom and an illness - it's public subsity of individual existence. As has been said, there are family units coming out ahead by NOT working - am I missing something? Welfare needs to be scrapped and/or drastically reformed (I can see keeping it around in a more limited form, but we should also get something out of them - kinda like the old Works Progress Administration. Go out and plant trees and clean up parks - do
something! If nothing else, it will put something on your resume, and maybe give you an impetus to get a real job, because you're tired of working hard all damn day...)
Politicians get paid entirely too much for doing nothing - or (effectively) less than nothing. Vermont has the right idea. As I recall, they pay their elected officials a stipend of $100
per annum regardless of the office they hold. I don't recall as they get a pension as well, but I'm inclined to think not. Anyone in VT care to verify this? Politicians tend to be people who are independently wealthy somehow, but lack the wit or the skill to make it in a real job - so they get themselves elected. Their only commodity is jawbone, which they use all too well.
Government social programmes should not exist here. I'm willing to compromise and keep them about in a more limited form - but we should get something back for the money that we put into them. Works Progress, sending people to school, something - just so we actually get something
back! "Social Programmes" are little more than a drain on society and amount to an effective devaluation of the dollar, in their current incarnation.
5-90
