If this is what the “left,” sounds like, then I guess I’m left. If this is “socialism,” then call me a socialist.
When and where did it ever become a bad thing to care about the welfare of others generally?
Does it help society in any way to have poor children, poorly-educated children, and hungry children? Would it make us better if we had less government-funded / government-subsidized health insurance? Dignity in retirement hurts us how? How does providing dental care to certain individuals knock us back as a nation?
There’s a type of people out there, God bless them, who may not understand the trouble they cause with their attitudes around left vs right and the impact that has on us economically.
These folks might have struggled financially their entire lives, growing up that way as children and continuing as they navigated marriage and child rearing. They worked hard, they worked often, and they had to give up a lot to get to where they are right now. They own their home, the kids have moved along to their own jobs and adult lives, and they carry no debt. And they’re proud as hell of all that, as they should be. In fact, I believe I came from such a family.
But a lot of them, like my dad in his time, are often dead-set against a lot of that “lefty” stuff.
Why should others get a “free ride” when they had to work like hell their entire lives for what they’ve got. No way, they say, before adding that these types of programs for the disadvantaged cost a lot of money that the country can’t afford. Nobody gave them a helping hand throughout the years and, by God, nobody should get what they couldn’t get themselves.
Um, about that.
Yes, social welfare programs cost money. A lot of it.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say all the lefties get chased out of town along with their commie ideas. The elements of society who were the beneficiaries of social programs no longer have them. Not a cent is spent to lift them out of their situations. It’s not society’s problem, and it’s their fault their lives are the way they are. If they worked hard like the rest of us did, things would be just fine. They’re just lazy end entitled. Look the other way. Move to the suburbs if you feel you must.
To think that these people, the disadvantaged, are just going to go away and not become an expense to society in some way is, in my view, short-sighted and simplistic. These people will still exist, and it can be argued that without governmental supports, there will be more of them, possibly even a lot more.
Where will we “put” them? Will they commit no crime? Will police budgets increase dramatically to cope if they do? Or is a more robust prison system the answer, like our friends to the south? Plus a private prison system can make select individuals a lot of money. Like in the south.
Will they not get sick? Perhaps more so than they do now, and more of them. Will health care costs explode as society attempts to grapple with this? Or is this where a multi-tiered health care system can jump in? You know, really good hospitals for those who can afford them and really pathetic ones for, well, you know. Also, a privately-run multi-tiered health care system can make some people a lot of money, which they can then shelter off-shore so as not to pay any tax.
Apply everything I just said in the previous paragraph to education. Word for word.
Like to the south.
There are other areas where society will have to “deal” with the disadvantaged and vulnerable, areas that will also cost money. My point is that, no matter what, this strata of society will have government money directed at it one way or another, no matter what we do or how we may feel. Social welfare, while imperfect, is a positive response to the issue. Everything I mentioned in the previous couple of paragraphs is negative, and perhaps even more expensive in the long run.
Social welfare is an investment in people. It’s the hope that we can raise people out of their negative situations. To assist people who are also working hard, and like hell, both for themselves and their kids, but struggle mightily against the odds stacked against them. The hope that, in so doing, we raise them to the place where they can become fully and positively-active in society. And even better, contributing tax-payers, unlike many of the wealthy who complain the loudest about the so-called socialist hordes.
Yes, there are the lazy and entitled among us. Absolutely there are those who milk the social welfare system for all its worth. There will be those who lie, cheat, and steal and make a mockery of the rest of us. But to my mind, that’s on them, not on me or the rest of us. I feel I still need to be supportive of the effort to help, rather than point to a bunch ne’er-do-wells as the excuse we need to stop helping everyone altogether. Find a way to make it better, not an excuse to tear it down.
There are also those who milk the corporate welfare system for all its worth. There will be those who lie, cheat, and steal and make a mockery of the rest of us. They also don’t pay their taxes, and what they do pay is far proportionately less than what you pay. And they have a ton of influence. They’re called the rich and they have a lot of influence. Certainly not all of them are like this, but I would imagine the percentage would be roughly the same as that of the poorer liars and cheats in the previous paragraph.
I’d rather be proactive than reactive, but people can, if necessary, make decisions based on dollars and cents if the morality of it eludes them. We invest in society at large when we invest in its people.
It’s what governments are supposed to do. Support their citizens, all of them.
In my mind, sometimes the so-called “left” is the right way to go.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 