That is the second time today you went after a group--first the working class and their spendthrift ways and now we need to humiliate the poor??
Today I also "went after" CEOs, politicians, stars, etc. Perhaps you missed that one. <g>
Let's see. I've also talked recently about immigrants, Republicans, Democrats, scientists, lawyers, journalists, a whole host of groups. How can we talk about issues without groups. Grouping is one of the primary techniques of analysis. You can't conduct any thoughtful process without grouping. There are whole classes on how to group and perform other analytical functions. And writing classes that work off that.
Now, when we characterize groups, sometimes those characterizations are unflattering or perceived as unflattering. Are we so PC that we can't discuss things? Look how long it took before Moynihan's conclusions about inner city poverty could be uttered and how much damage was done during those decades rather than risk insulting a group. We can't solve problems without grouping and characterizing.
first the working class and their spendthrift ways and now we need to humiliate the poor??
I didn't say anything about the working class being spendthrifts. That was your inference. I said they think and react like pawns instead of like owners.
I specifically said "a modicum of shame" and "not oppressive shame" but "not entitlement." I don't see how you get humiliation out of that. I certainly didn't intend humiliation and thought I was quite careful about my phrasing.
You may not mean this but that is the way it reads.
I will take your feedback under advisement. <g>
Now, back to the substance.
You need to give folks an incentive to work, but dont have to humiliate them in the process when they earn less than you do.
I am not a socialist. I don't apologize for that. Just like I think that free trade is a good thing for the country even though individuals may be harmed by it, I think that our emphasis should be on productivity and that slackers should not be encouraged to feel entitled to the fruits of the efforts of others. As I said earlier about free trade, we can help out those who are damaged by these processes. We can help those who have not accumulated enough in their lifetimes to survive in retirement. IMO it would be uncivilized to let them starve. But if we enable the notion of entitlement, we detract from the work ethic that propels us and that's not a good thing any more than protectionism is a good thing.
Some of the people who reach 65 without sufficent means to care for themselves were unlucky. Maybe they suffered an illness and couldn't work. Some of them contributed mightily but in an area where compensation was poor, like nuns. Some of them failed to plan ahead. And some of them were slackers. The latter of them should feel shame. The former shouldn't. But all of them should feel gratitude towards those who contribute toward their support, not entitlement.
I'll step off the soapbox now... |
