A reader just forwarded me a chain letter. Of course I don't forward them, however I do sometimes post them. Here is another blog that posted the text. Patrick: Put me in Charge. The comments are almost as interesting as the letter... Thoughts?
Would this provide adequate motivation to help people work real hard to get out of poverty. (G2A Why are Poor People Poor?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think there are enough comments on the link to justify one's opinion of BOTH sides of the debate. I would summarize the story in a more simple fashion. There is nothing "compassionate" about stealing from one person and giving it to another. If you want to do compassion for somebody who is homeless, foodless, jobless, or 22-inch-rim-less, feel free. If you are one of those X-less folks and don't get it from one of my more compassionate brethren, then come to me and I'll help you find a job.
J. Ewing
Robinhood always sounds so noble though. Of course, the nobles in those stories are always evil people that steal from the poor.
Ironically that is how many Liberals seem to view the successful people. Though the wealthy don't have tax collectors or evil sheriffs out breaking heads. Very confusing.
I would be interested in seeing how the military barracks and rations would do at changing these people's belief systems. Would they choose to beg, would they get jobs, or would they enter this very controlled and spartan world.
Remember the number of folks who seem to be happy in prison. (ie repeat offenders)
Robin Hood knew that you steal from the rich because the poor don't have anything worth stealing. So how did the rich get rich stealing from the poor? Sure, it was possible in the old monarchies and fiefdoms, but we got rid o' them blighters long ago, right, guvnor?
J. Ewing
Put me in charge, I would address, health care, retirement and military issues. Things that actually make a difference.
--Hiram
What would you do?
Write us a letter. I am curious.
I agree with Hiram's priorities, to which I would add investments in infrastructure and clean energy. I'd also raise the minimum wage to about $10 /hr.
Laurie
Since we are deep in debt... Where would you get the money from for these "investments"?
Also, are you willing to see significant increases in your household bills to support the new minimum wage and these clean energies. They will hit almost all of your bills as employers pass the increased cost along to you.
Likely it would entice employers to move more bottom end mfg jobs overseas. Or would you somehow limit that?
I don't understand why we don't just raise the minimum wage to $1 million/day. Heck-- work three days and you're a multimillionaire! What could possibly go wrong?
Next question: What the heck is an "infrastructure" and do we agree exactly on what, in general and specific it is sufficiently that both I and you are willing to pay for it, out of our own pockets? These dollars don't grow on cornstalks, you know.
J. Ewing
John.
Here is some money for clean energy and other "investments"
End polluter welfare act
As for raising the income of minimum wage earners, maybe expanding the earned income tax credit is a better way to do this than raising the min. wage. The top 20% can afford to pay higher taxes so it doesn't add to the deficit.
It seems CNN disagrees with your link. (Energy Subsidies Total $24 Billion, Most to Renewables)
Remember that writing off valid business expenses is not a subsidy. (ie R&D, Claims settlements, etc)
I am not against green subsidies, one just has to be careful or the wealth goes down the drain. ABC Solydra
I think getting rid of all the Bush tax cuts sounds like a better idea. Everyone has to pay something or they will not have a sense of ownership in the country.
I think any proposal to raise taxes just encourages profligate spending, which is the problem, here. The federal government needs, above all else, to STOP spending more than they take in without trying to take in more. NOW. The writer of this letter (quite old, by Internet standards, BTW) is simply suggesting the kind of radical yet sensible budgeting that will be required. The federal government now overspends by almost 90%! When the 55% of the spending actually supported by revenues is bloated beyond all reason, a "meat axe" approach is the only sensible course. The shock will come, bigger and worse, if we delay further.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment