Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Letter from a friend

A democratic friend sent me an email the other day, and I replied to her as best I could.

Dear Al,
In a book I'm reading by Brian D. McLaren called Everything Must Change. Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, he asks some good questions like, "What kind of world will we who are comparatively rich and powerful bequeath to our children and grandchildren if we do not redirect our energies from accumulation, and self-protection toward compassion, service, and equity? And what kind of world will we bequeath to future generations if equity becomes our sacred passion and personal ambition?...But the struggle for a healthy equity system, like the struggle for a wise prosperity system and a sane security system, is perpetual; it is as much a part of the ongoing social task of being human as eating, drinking, and sleeping are part of the physical task. As long as you're alive, you're not finished.... Perhaps, in the interests of sustainability, we should speak less of an environmental crisis and more of an over-consumption crisis. That way, we'd focus our attention on the source of the problem, not its victim--the source being human beings, particularly in the global North, who are living an unsustainable life, oblivious to limits, destroying their natural wealth in pursuit of financial wealth.

"Peace and Love,.

You raise a few points that have merit in today’s society, and political climate.

We live in a Democratic state, defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as;

: government by the people: rule of the majority: a government in which the supreme power is held by the people: a political unit that has a democratic government: the common people especially constituting the source of political authority: the absence of heredity or arbitrary class distinctions or principles

We are commonly referred to as a Capitalistic Society defined as:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, and by prices, production, and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I’m not sure if you support the principles of the author of the book you are reading or not, but from what you have told me about what you are reading, his principles sounds a lot like the socialist manifesto defined as such:

A theory or system of social reform, which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

I’m also not sure if the author is speaking of “income redistribution” on a world basis or as an internal US basis, but the US gave 21 Billion last year in foreign aid. The US spends 56% of it’s national budget of 2.7 trillion will be spent on social security, income security (welfare programs), Medicare, and health programs.

Social conscience is a big controversy in our country right now. Philanthropy in this country in the year 2006 amounted to $295 billion.

When philanthropy becomes mandatory through taxes and fees, it no longer exists as giving voluntarily but it then becomes socialism, as the government will oversee its collection and distribution.

The Democratic Party sees this type of distribution as necessary and plays it off as “social conscience,” and will call it anything but what it really is, because under the term of socialism, nothing will pass in this country, but under any other name it has a chance.

Nothing in our Constitution was designed or specifically addresses “social programs,”
or the appropriations for such spending. President Franklin Roosevelt started the large scale social programs in the Great Depression, as a way to pull our country from the economic devastation. The programs that have evolved from his intentions are not only deplorable, but burden our very existence. Our foreign aid spending has hampered our economic expansion and threatens our very existence.

This unchecked “throwing away of tax payer’s dollars” needs to cease. The idea of taking the money a successful businessman makes, and giving it to third world nations run by thugs and dictators, and taking that same money and given to people who haven’t made any investment into their personal education, defeats the very basic principles of the capitalistic society. What incentive is there to do better when the wealthy population is taxed at a higher percentage then any other group?

Obviously this basic ideology difference between the parties will be voted on in November.

Social programs

Philanthropy in the US


Anonymous said...

Always, very informative reading, very thought provoking. Thanks..

Anonymous said...

Good response but I would have thrown in a more philosophical response in addition to the factual part that you did.

You wanting to their children to have better lives and wanting to leave them something when they depart and that type of "stuff".

Overall though, I give your response a 9 out of 10 because you would have creamed me on the factual aspect.