*looks shamefaced*
Besides the fact that any presidential candidate who speaks in front of his contributors and expects complete privacy could be labeled a fool - and yes, that goes for Obama too, should the same thing happen - and I'm sure that's in the works as I type, *g* I'm glad it was released because this may be the first time Mr. Romney was RIGHT (well, at least partially) about anything.
At a fundraiser of very wealthy folks, he stated the following:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Oh, and one of my favorite parts:
"My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yep, he's right. Partially. Now, I can't speak for the other 46%, but I'm definitely one of the free-loaders since I'm the recipient of two "Entitlement Programs":
1) Medicare and,
2) Federal Social Security Disability
And yep, I'm going to vote for Obama. So that's me - one of the 47% of freeloaders that Romney can NEVER convince that I should "...take personal responsibility and care for [my life]."
(btw: Romney is sticking to his guns regarding the above remarks, stating that the only difference he'd have made had the appearance been 'public', is that he'd have stated it all more...I forget what word he used...maybe it was 'elegantly'? Or how about "intelligently"? *G* Oh, and at the bottom of this post is the video from YouTube, in case you've been vacationing in a cave and missed it.)
So I'm a freeloader, taking advantage of MY government entitlements. Yep, that's me. Is it you too? Are you 'taking advantage' of American Entitlement Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Food stamps? How 'bout Unemployment?
If the answer is yes, shame on you, but welcome to the 'freeloader' club! *G*
Of course, if I turned down the SSD, well, I do have a 2001 Explorer and could live in it *nods* because working is simply not possible - not to mention we have a little 'job' problem, you know? So a fat, 61 year-old disabled female with PTSS and Chronic Anxiety/Panic Disorder, well, employers aren't exactly jumping at the chance to hire me, you know? Even if there were jobs out there. And if I turned down Medicare, well, who the hell needs blood pressure medicine, Thyroid medicine, anxiety medication and about five others anyway, other than to live. *shrugs*
But hey, I guess one could say that Obama's 47% are useless people anyway (damn freeloaders!) so if they die, where's the loss?
Sound a bit dramatic? Sure. But you know what? It's also true because about half this country believe (even as they withdraw their SS money from the bank; money put there by the government) "Entitlement" programs are bad and any one on them are, as Romney stated so eloquently, "Freeloaders" - thus, obviously, lazy.
Okay, Mitt, you got me there.
I'm definitely lazy. Always have been, even when working 14 hours a day in order to manage a multi-million dollar segment of the company I worked for where I had five (5) school bus yards employing over 400 employees; all in order to provide school bus transportation for - and to - eleven (11) school districts/private schools/educational programs, etc.
Lazy while every minute of every day, I had a pager, a cell, and sometimes even a two-way radio by my bed at night and weekends, and when I took a vacation/sick day. Lazy when I drove all over Orange County to visit our customers and schools; inspecting and talking to my drivers, principals, teachers and parents. Lazy while doing all that and caring for a mother who, at the time, was, yep, taking advantage of her Entitlement Programs (SSD and Medicare) which, being so grand, permitted one (1) caregiver three x a week for four (4) hours each day (but for which I paid a 75% of the caregiver's wage while the insurance picked up the other 25%).
Yep, freeloaders.
Bet you have a similar story - you freeloader, you!
But here's the real problem I see with even calling these 'programs' - entitlements: Not only does America not understand them - but neither does the media (Conservative OR Liberal). You see, these programs are not entitlement programs for the simple reason that we didn't ask for them. WE didn't campaign for them, write our congressmen/women to get them nor did we even think of them. If we had, maybe the word 'entitlement' could be ... somewhat ... appropriate. But we didn't.
The word 'entitlement' itself conjures up terrible things in most people's minds, with so many Americans viewing entitlements as 'bad' things; programs for the lazy. We think only lazy people are on 'welfare' and even lazier people collecting food stamps. But in reality? *shakes head*
YES, all programs are open to fraud and misuse - all programs. But that doesn't make the programs themselves bad, it just means we need to improve how we manage them.
But back to the facts of why Social Security, etc. aren't entitlements *G*.
Okay, so, Crash of '29. Mr. & Mrs. John Doe, innocent of any wrong doing, watched their future and retirement crash with the stock market - leaving them with zip. They had nothing left, yet had done nothing wrong (btw: sound familiar?). The 'nothing' wasn't due to poor habits, lack of saving or planning, or lack of taking, as Romney evidently believes: "...personal responsibility and care for their lives."
No, Mr. & Mrs. John Doe had done everything right - and yet, had nothing left because of bankers, stock manipulators, gamblers and the lack of any kind of meaningful regulations set up to govern the stock market, let alone the bankers (hello? Again, anything sound familiar yet? Like...for instance...2008???). Then, along comes Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, in the middle of the Great Depression, brought to life a simple idea based on the premise that Government is supposed to help its citizens, not just govern them.
BTW: Yes, I'm simplifying now, okay? Just go with it.
He, with others, believed it was the job of the government to help provide a 'safety net' for just such an occurence as the crash of '29. Thousands and thousands of good, hardworking Americans lost their jobs, savings, homes; everything that was dear to them because the market crashed. They suffered horribly, with many dying (no, everything wasn't The Waltons, folks!). Soup kitchens were often the only food available - and when they ran out of food, the doors were closed until the next day - so if you were in line, you and yours went hungry - again.
This was the reality of the Great Depression and why - in the simplest of terms - the entire Social Security package came to be. Originally, it was called the "Economic Security Act" (link is to our government page on the history of SS, as in the actual facts versus what you may find at many websites purporting to be 'factual'). I think that was a much better title, by the way, because 'Economic Security Act' actually has its meaning in the name; namely offering economic security when American citizens lose it. It was not and never will be, an entitlement program, but again, a safety net.
I wish to the heavens the media would start using that term and not 'entitlement' - thus educating people instead of misleading them.
Yes, we pay into it, but what everyone forgets is that the government takes up most of the slack. What we pay is nothing compared to what the government adds to the pot and the interest that pot gathers. Some economic experts have stated that if, when you turned 65, retired, and began to collect your Social Security, you'd run out of the money you put in before you turned 68! And yes, such a program must be mandated or it can't work. It's like mandated car insurance (or hello? HEALTH insurance mandates?), something Americans seem incapable of wrapping their heads around; a concept that only if we ALL participate in such things can they actually work.
At the transportation company I worked for, they never got it either when it came to, for instance, medical insurance. And when I say 'they', I mean the owner (it was privately held for most of the years I worked for them). My boss, one of the regional VP's, understood, but could never get it into the owner's head that if all employees don't have the medical insurance, the rates would continue to go up because the only emloyees who took it were those who NEEDED it and thus USED it - and that brought our rating down (or do they consider a bad rating as one that goes up? Oh, well, you get what I mean). And of course, when only sick people use it, the insurance does goes up - and every year, which meant we were constantly changing insurance companies. Sound familiar?
BUT, you see, if every employee could take the insurance (meaning if it was cheaper and easier to afford), our company's rating would have gone up and thus, the costs of the insurance would be lower - because the majority of users wouldn't actually, you know, use it (but it would be there if they needed it). When it was decided that automobile insurance would be mandatory - it wasn't greed (exactly *G*) - it was common sense and explains why I can actually afford it now. When you have a program that protects - it can't work unless everyone belongs, hence Social Security was mandated (and btw: that's why Obama put the health mandate into his Health Reform Act). If everyone doesn't get the insurance, the rates can't be kept down AND the idea of 'competitive' rates go right out the window.
Yes, I realize I've greatly oversimplified this whole discussion, but for my feeble brain, simpler is better. Hello? Old person here.
But to sum it up - we don't have 'entitlement' programs - we have the gift of safety nets - something most of us should be very grateful for, especially today. And they're something we should fight to protect because these safety nets are in danger. Grave danger (channeling Kaffee from A Few Good Men). *G* And that's why I'm glad the tape was released. And the above is how you make a long story...longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment