Who do we want to take care of?
Who ought to take care of issues?
Well, we generally point the finger at the government officials. After all, we (the ones actually eligible to vote) are the ones who appointed them, and they should take care of our troubles that surround our everyday lives and communities, right? I mean, we are getting taxed so far up the ass, and they get paid with that money, they might as well resolve our problems, yes?
No.
Absolutely not.
Do you understand how selfish that sounds? Incredibly! The government is made, it's purpose is a skeletal structure to help maintain order in a society. But, as the years of America (actually, the worlds) development, this above mentality has set in. The government is responsible to help our troubles with dying industries, failing banks, warfare... and the responsibilities go on and on. But, at what level has the government recently taken steps to help the poor? The government has taken very generous steps towards helping prevent even more people to reach into the poverty level, but they weren't there giving a helping hand during even our strongest hour. Is the government the most effective source of dealing with poverty? It makes sense on the surface- they control the cash-flow, they make the rules. But they lack one thing- a primary connection with these people. Most government officials don't make the time to meet with these people in need. They simply chose to have the power to pass or decline propositions or laws that benefit or weaken those in poverty. And we, those not wedged into this class, simply chose to leave this responsibility to the government only because it allows us to sit back and not have to deal with the reality the existence of impoverished people.
Come on, America. I really feel that this whole economic slump just may reset all of our lifestyles... for the better.
Hej hej,
Any
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thought provoking post. But don't feel that all is doom and gloom. After moving the US, Barack Obama was a community organiser in these incredibly poor neighbourhoods of Chicago. Even after getting his law degree, he went back to work there. If there's anyone who can tackle poverty, it's this man.
And as a side note, tackling poverty should start with stopping the cause, then helping those affected. In my opinion.
Ah, you do have some good points. It's just something that came to mind when I was looking back at my notes in a class.
There will be a way to get over this. I was looking through a TIME article that said this economic downturn may actually be a good thing, it might help the US reset... lower the greed, increase the awareness of become a more communal society. But, this idea is just like Communism- looks great and flashy in print. It just is very difficult to make it work entirely when coming to reality.
Thank you for the reply- I appreciate it!
Without wanting to get deep into a debate about communism, socialism, liberialism, cauliflowerism, lightbulbism and the like, elements of socialism are definitely worthwhile. For example - and tying this into your post about poverty - healthcare. Here in Ireland, healthcare is free. If I'm ill, I go to the hospital and leave when I'm well. The idea of paying for regular healthcare seems an exceptionally odd one to me. Sure, I can go private if I want to pay, but the free healthcare works for me. When Hillary tried to bring in a government-funded healthcare plan in '92/'93, it was attacked as being a communist healthcare plan, when in fact it was designed to help out everyone and cut out the health insurers making money out of illness.
Like you said, it's all great on paper. But there's no reason why elements of a communal society can't be incorporated into everyday American lifestyles, to the benefit of everyone.
Whilst the global recession may not be welcomed, I imagine it was a necessary one to get everyone to wake up.
-S
Post a Comment