I think that the idea of having people who have less and people who have more will definitely always be among us. I think that this is appropriate -- or maybe just how the world works. It's largely a state of mind anyway, imo (hard to explain, but . . .).
But, I think when we are talking about these various social services (both government and charitable), we are looking for a method to keep our population as a whole -- our fellow citizenry, our "tribe" so to speak -- from experiencing the problems that abject poverty creates. The issues of excessive pollution, disease, disability, and how that aspect of poverty can get so severe that it inhibits the society's growth and development (overall health) as a whole.
So, when we look at situations such as the real poverty in, say, a refugee camp in darfur. . . we are looking at a place where humans are strugglign to live day to day and their real, vibrant human potential cannot be tapped for the betterment of society. If we can, therefore, provide for them the basics -- basic safety, basic medical care, basic clean water, basic food, basic shelter, and even basic education -- then we -- as a society -- can tap into the amazing "resource" of those human beings. . . their potential to really bring value to our society as a whole.
In the US, as here, most of the population has this situation due to a combination of both government and charitable opportunities. These systems are designed to provide the basics in order to allow the society to "tap into" the potentials of these individuals.
The reality is, though, that not all individuals are good social resources in some way. Some of them are simply lazy. It's just a bare fact of the human condition. Some of them are actively "scamming" the system because they feel "owed" somehow. It's just another bare fact of the human condition.
But most of the people on this system, or receiving these benefits, are just decent people. Honestly. And more importantly -- to me at least -- is that their *children* get a hand-up. A lot of impoverished children grow up to be great assets to the society as a whole and their communities.
A good friend of mine is a self-made (no college) IT professional. His mother was on welfare most of his life. His brother is a cocaine addict currently in jail. his mother was also an alcoholic (she recently passed). her entire estate was liquidated to pay debts. But my friend is a high-level clearance IT professional who commands a good income. He owns his own home outright. He volunteers with a dog rescue organization and rescues the "hardest cases" and prepares them for adoption (usually to adult males without families). He's involved in teaching yoga and marital arts in impoverished neighborhoods to give kids a chance to step out of the "mentality of poverty" as he calls it. He talks to them about how he grew up on welfare, but now he's working as a top-level professional. He never went to college, so even that isn't a barrier, he tells them.
So, those services provided to his mother -- who may have just been a lazy user of the system herself -- actually provided him with the basics in life that he could get himself OUT of poverty and be an asset to the community. And *THAT* is the real investment of these social programs. That is the ROI.
The real issues under question for me is what is that lowest bar? I would say that in Denmark, that lowest bar of those who have less is higher than in the US. In my opinion, the same is true here in NZ. There are rich, there are poor -- there are some abject poor -- but for the most part, the majority of the poor on services can lead basically middle-class styled lives and their *children* have the opportunity to be a real asset tot he community, even if they -- themselves -- are not, or are only marginally so (working only part time, not volunteering, etc).
In the US, the bar is set pretty low. But, aspects of it -- like the phones -- are set really high. There are aspects where not everyone is covered, and that lack of coverage can create great risk for people (particularly the middle class -- and I'm speaking of health care). So, it might just be looking at the whole process and asking ourselves -- is this the right level? Is that?
I would like to see schools funded equally. It's still going to mean that some are going to be 'better' than others (it's true here, even though all schools are funded equally). But, it at least means that the *basic* education and facilities are roughly the same and meet the same standard of adequacy.
I would like to see a better medical care system. I like the ACC system a lot. Everyone puts in; everyone benefits. You can carry your own health insurance if you want (which lets you jump the line, not worry about paying for dental for example. . . though you are really paying one way or another, right?). I would like to see all american's have basic coverage like medicaid/care/CHIP (or, like the senate?). And then from there, the person can choose to utilize it or not. I don't think that this is a "big government!" or "socialist!" thing.
Overall, I'd rather our tax dollars be spent less on war machines and more on our citizenry and making sure that our military is adequate (for defense rather than offensive positions) and well taken care of (i believe our military -- active and vets -- just keep getting the shaft and it's seriously uncool), but otherwise, we can decrease the war-machine spending and spend more on our infrastructure, development of business, arts and other cultural sectors, and of course, making sure that our citizenry has the basics.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Zoebird
