Life behind the smoke and mirrors.
As a person who has subsisted on Social Security Disability for the last seven years, I have some comments on Walter Williams' latest column.
Tragically, he is absolutely right. Whereas I have a Bachelor's Degree, two Associates Degrees, and six years of good work in my history, I can easily feel like a failure because no one currently pays me to use my skills to benefit their company. I would rather not be a taker; I would rather be a producer.
As we approach the Christmas season, I'm ever more mindful of the Scrooge mentality that pervades our culture. When someone like me doesn't fit any of the preferred methods of getting ahead in this world -- well, it's hard to get ahead. You can almost hear people saying, "My taxes go to support the Social Security System and everything else; those who are badly off must go there."
It's an illusion for liberals like President-elect Obama to believe that they can grow the economy from the bottom up. I can't give anyone a job with the pittance of money I'll ever get from the government, and I have to take someone else's hard-earned money even to get that. I earned more money when I was working, but the incentive now is for me not to work.
I'd better quit writing before this becomes a sob story.
Tragically, he is absolutely right. Whereas I have a Bachelor's Degree, two Associates Degrees, and six years of good work in my history, I can easily feel like a failure because no one currently pays me to use my skills to benefit their company. I would rather not be a taker; I would rather be a producer.
As we approach the Christmas season, I'm ever more mindful of the Scrooge mentality that pervades our culture. When someone like me doesn't fit any of the preferred methods of getting ahead in this world -- well, it's hard to get ahead. You can almost hear people saying, "My taxes go to support the Social Security System and everything else; those who are badly off must go there."
It's an illusion for liberals like President-elect Obama to believe that they can grow the economy from the bottom up. I can't give anyone a job with the pittance of money I'll ever get from the government, and I have to take someone else's hard-earned money even to get that. I earned more money when I was working, but the incentive now is for me not to work.
I'd better quit writing before this becomes a sob story.
You once told me in an exchange that you didn't attack liberals per se. I didn't believe it then, and you provide yet more proof.
Just one of the things I hate about partisan politics (and many other "discussions"): "My side is always right, your side is always wrong."
Before you try to say you don't do that, check your own writings to see how many times you use "liberal" as a pejorative.
Hope you have a nice holiday.
Reply to this
Hello, and thank you for reading me and for writing in.
It would help my analysis of your comments if I could know precisely what you are reacting to in my writings. I call things as I see them; what's wrong with that? There are liberals out there in the world as much as I am a traditionalist or conservative. When I think they're wrong, I'll call them on it. But I've never said, "Their side is always wrong and my side is always right."
Substitute the word "usually," and you may be closer to the truth.
That was a bit of a joke.
Carrie
Reply to this
Interesting argument. Provide one counter-example and say, "therefore, it never works."
I guess, then, no solution should be proposed, because I guarantee there is ALWAYS a counter-example. Therefore, per your reasoning, no solution ever works.
I guess we should all give up.
Reply to this
It's tough to have a substantive conversation with someone who doesn't even have the guts to sign his name to his writings.
Care to elaborate on precisely what you're trying to say?
Carrie
Reply to this
Why is it tough to have a conversation? You write, I write, voila! There's a conversation! And trying to insult me (I say trying, because it's only an insult if I accept it as such) does more to hinder the conversation than the presence or absence of a name that may or may not be real, eh?
And I thought my comment was pretty straightforward. You said Obama's policy must be wrong because you are a counterexample. I can follow by saying that Reagan's policies must have been wrong because I lost net income during his administration. Ditto during W.'s. However, I understand the fallacy of providing a micro (in this case ultra-micro, as in singular) example for a macro issue. In fact, your comment box only allows me 3000 characters, and I daresay that no one could lay out the complexities of the issue and who stands to gain vs. who stands to lose in that number of characters. Nor should they be expected to. I'm not a fan of bumper sticker politics. But hey, I give you credit for trying.
Reply to this
I just like to know who I'm talking to.
What's wrong with that?
Carrie
Reply to this
Not a thing wrong with that. However, that's not what you said. You said two things:
1. I didn't have guts (not true)
2. It's difficult to have a conversation with an anonymous person (as we can now tell, also not true.)
It appears your comment does serve to derail our conversation more than my lack of a name. Look how long we've discussed it.
Something else occurred to me. Forgive me for using you as an example, but since you opened that door I'm thinking it's fair game: you say that Obama's policies won't help you become gainfully employed, yet at the top of this very post you state that you've been on SSD for seven years. That's been for most of our compassionate conservative president's entire tenure in office. Do you think you'll become *more* unemployed under Obama than you were under Bush?
I often see cases of ideological idealism, and I can sort of sympathize with it, but I can't understand it. There comes a time, I think (at least there did for me) when one has to give up idealism for pragmatism. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, nor am I middle of the road. I look at issues, and people, and I try to see what works. If it looks like it works more than not, I think it's a good thing. If I think it harms more than it helps, I think it's less of a good thing. Very few solutions in life work for everyone, in every circumstance. While ideological purity sounds good in theory, it tends to run across reality in practice.
regards,
whatever my new name may be
Reply to this
Reply to this