Lots of Opinions!

In all of this talking it over with various dissenting opinions, just so no one thinks we want to eliminate entitlements or help – it is only the name and associated attitude that goes with the word “entitlements” and all of the problems that it creates.  We want to help people get back on their feet, but there comes a time when they have to start doing it for themselves, whatever the situation might be.

I hate to bring up the subject of entitlement again, but it’s important in not only our lives, but our country’s future.  It all has to do with helping other people.  The big  question is not only how long and how much to help, but who to help?  You could compare to someone who has fallen down on the sidewalk.  Some will get up, dust themselves off and be on their way. Some who can’t get up, will whip out their cell phone and call an ambulance all by themselves.  Others may need help.  Help them get up or possibly if they’re hurt, help them get medical care.  They might have to go to the hospital and when they get home they might need help in paying their bill, getting around the house, going shopping, fixing meals or going to the doctor.

We should all be willing to help do that either as an individual, an organization or as the government. In trying to decide which should be responsible or willing, I think everyone would agree that this list should follow the priority of who should we be able to count on when we need help of any kind.

  • Family
  • Friends
  • Acquaintances
  • Organizations
    • First, theirs
    • Church
    • Clubs
    • Humanitarian

If none of those work, we have to go to public organizations.  Last, but certainly not least would be government responsibility.  That listing would start with:

  • Local
  • State
  • Federal

I think that listing would apply to just about any situation and subject like money, time, transportation, supplies.

Here is a quote sent to me by a person in the welfare/humanitarian business

“We believe deeply that those who experience a problem have the perspective necessary to solve it.”

Now you can’t solve a problem if you are told you are entitled to be taken care of by the Govt, the Church or your family.  That, in a nutshell, is what seems to be in dispute between the right and the left and usually from an extreme from one of those directions.  Some help or programs can be very easily made temporary.  Others need a long term solution or aid.  Some programs cannot be eliminated because, like Social Security and unemployment, you as an individual paid for that type of insurance and you deserve what was promised when the right time comes.  In all of the bickering and name calling in the political arena, no one to my knowledge has ever said, “We’re going to change the program like Social Security for those that are already in it and benefiting from it.”  They have merely said, “It can’t be sustained and therefore we must change something, up or down, for future entries and operation.”

The other side says or just implies that the other side is going to pull the rug out from under you, and that gets everyone excited.  One of the good analogies I’ve heard about government programs is to compare them to your individual family situation.  If you’re living way beyond your means, as many people are, and you’re continually borrowing money for different types of subsistence with your credit cards maxed out and an empty bank account, what normal person would say, “Let’s go ahead and buy some more.  We’ll worry about paying for it later and maybe we’ll just let the kids pay for it when they grow up and take over.”  Another solution might be to get some new credit cards and worry about how we’re going to pay for them later.

I think everyone on both sides agrees that we have to change one way or another.  We have to earn more money or cut our spending down.  It’s as simple as that.  Which direction and how to do it is the big controversy between the thinking of the right and the left.   They both have good points but don’t seem to be able to meet in the middle and therefore it goes on and on and on.  I think they call it “kicking the can down the road.”  A temporary solution.  Actually, more like temporarily postponing the inevitable.

I don’t mean this to be a political debate.  I think everyone would like our politicians to get together and compromise in both directions and solve the long term problem.  Not easily done, so the beat goes on.