I understand -- and I've had my own serious bouts of fatigue. But of course, if "we" don't act, "they" win by default. And, sucks but it's so-- there ain't nobody out there to be "we" except "us." ;> I figure, though, that there are at least enough of "us" out there that we can spell one another for a bit when each of us needs a rest, to recharge and not get trapped into becoming dour and grim about it all. That's one of the things I found refreshing about the Social Security spot above -- it's got a sense of humor. That's one of the most effective weapons against the Neocon Grey Brigade. Laughter is indeed a Very Good Thing, something we could all probably use more of.
That Flash animation was so well done that I would really like to see what the people who disagree with it have to say.
I think the weak point as far as I can see is the "fair share" bit. I know my father-in-law, for instance, feels that you should only get out as much as you put it. He's also against having his taxes pay for computers in schools that his children aren't attending, too.
But your father-in-law's perspective ignores two serious issues -- first, the way he describes it isn't how Social Security works, it's not how it was designed to work, and it never has worked that way. It's not designed to be a retirement plan or a bank account, which is what he's describing. If you want a retirement plan, invest in one. It was designed to be a bare-minimum social safety net, where at any particular point in time, the active wage-earners are in a small way supporting those who are retired. That's the source of the current "crisis," too, because with improvements in health care, a greater proportion of people are living to retirement age, so relatively fewer and fewer working people are supporting more and more retired people -- it's the basic math of it.
If your dad-in-law is a true laissez-faire capitalist who believes that as human beings we have absolutely no obligation to assist the poor, starving, etc, I'd seriously disagree from a moral perspective, and also point out that from a starkly practical social perspective, it is clearly in society's best interest to limit the number of starving, homeless, desperate people. Such folk are more inclined (and can be shown statistically) to do desperate things, from theft and murder to getting involved in terrorist groups, because they have nothing whatsoever to lose, and any route to change can seem like a good one when what you've got is nothing. So Social Security as it currently is set up is both the moral and logical thing to do ;>
The other thing you mentioned, about computers, is the age-old argument retired and childless people use for not wanting to pay taxes to pay for schools for other people's kids. The argument there is twofold -- first, for many folks, they and their kids already did or at some point will be getting the benefit of those educational services. Everyone paid for them to go to school, so why should the rules change just because they're now done with school? That goes beyond painfuly selfish. Add to that the fact that many school systems offer low-cost continuing education services for the general population, whether or not they have kids, and it's clear that your father-in-law might well get direct personal benefit from those computers if he chose to do so.
The second part is the same societal argument that applies to the Social Security issue -- it i clearly in society's best interest to have a well-educated, employable populace, as opposed to an ignorant, unemployable one. Employable people are more likely to become productive members of society, paying taxes and adding to the national product and wealth of their local area and the United States as a country. Unemployable people become desperate, hungry people, and people in that situation are more likely to steal from, assault or murder other people, like your father-in-law. Q.E.D. it is in his selfish best interest, as well as morally correct, to pay for other people's kids to get a decent education.
The advantage to an ignorant society is that it will blindly follow its "leaders" and believe whatever they are told is good for them. It worked in the Middle Ages, it's working now. Witness the fact that they are recruiting soldiers with a ninth grade education...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-05-09 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 12:57 pm (UTC)I think the weak point as far as I can see is the "fair share" bit. I know my father-in-law, for instance, feels that you should only get out as much as you put it. He's also against having his taxes pay for computers in schools that his children aren't attending, too.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 08:07 pm (UTC)If your dad-in-law is a true laissez-faire capitalist who believes that as human beings we have absolutely no obligation to assist the poor, starving, etc, I'd seriously disagree from a moral perspective, and also point out that from a starkly practical social perspective, it is clearly in society's best interest to limit the number of starving, homeless, desperate people. Such folk are more inclined (and can be shown statistically) to do desperate things, from theft and murder to getting involved in terrorist groups, because they have nothing whatsoever to lose, and any route to change can seem like a good one when what you've got is nothing. So Social Security as it currently is set up is both the moral and logical thing to do ;>
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 08:15 pm (UTC)The second part is the same societal argument that applies to the Social Security issue -- it i clearly in society's best interest to have a well-educated, employable populace, as opposed to an ignorant, unemployable one. Employable people are more likely to become productive members of society, paying taxes and adding to the national product and wealth of their local area and the United States as a country. Unemployable people become desperate, hungry people, and people in that situation are more likely to steal from, assault or murder other people, like your father-in-law. Q.E.D. it is in his selfish best interest, as well as morally correct, to pay for other people's kids to get a decent education.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 08:48 pm (UTC)