time to save the American Government's finances.
I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance
( Read more... )
3) Cool. Except I am not sure about the last sentence. If you are disabled from serving as a soldier in the US military I think you deserve considerable consideration, perhaps even the lifetime pass. The VA is bloated, but I think there does need to be a VA.
5) I think this way of thinking is totally wrong. National Service isn't slavery at all, it is more akin to indentured service. It isn't servitude, because the entrants won't be treated like servants, they are our children, after all. As to the burden, we have ALREADY put a big chunk of it on our youth, we aren't ADDING to that burden with National service, we are giving them an easier way of paying off our stupid mistakes. They are going to pay one way or another, it is too late to save them that. I agree generally, the Boomers etal. should pay as much as feasible. But they can't pay enough. Later generations are already going to have to pay some.
I am going to explain national service better in its own entry, coming up. It isn't slavery. It IS taking some less efficient years of youth and increasing that efficiency to LESSEN their burden. It is apprenticeship, by the choice of the apprentice, which skills they wish to acquire. It is residency for Doctors they are going to do it anyway, long hours, low pay, etc. National Service can be a GOOD thing, looked at differently.
But I'll write more later.
7) I generally agree (see A. Prock's response above) but I do think anonymity can be maintained, cause it is already happening. I can buy an anonymous debit card easily, use it easily. The makers of that card will work hard to protect that anonymity because it will make them wealthy to do so. But yes, if they can't do it right, then I agree, lets find the way to transact without Big Brother.
8)The old idealistic me agrees with you. The pragmatic me now says they are going to get dragged down with US anyway. But okay, if that is what the people say....it is too bad, cause that aspect of the solution is the long run best for all, imo. Maybe not Mexico, but they'd like it in the short run, so might go for it anyway. But in the long run, Canada is going down with our ship, even if they aren't ON the ship, the wake of the backwash going to sink them too, imo.
Thanks greatly for your thoughts, I appreciate it.
Reply
Why not? It's a "safety net" to provide a minimal income for those who have become completely unable to work.
I think for #3, corwyn_ap is saying there will be fewer injured to support, not that we shouldn't support the injured. For myself, I'm not convinced we should support injured soldiers any differently than injured workers of any other profession.
For National Service, I look forward to your separate post. I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing most of us - calling it "indenture" doesn't help much. Note that at least some of the anti-slavery argument is about efficiency, not just human rights. Having the government decree who can join what profession, and how much they'll be paid during their first few years just plain can't work well.
For cash - if anonymity is still maintained, what's the advantage of getting rid of paper?
Reply
SS should be for those too old or unable to work at any career. It is the safety net for those incapable or almost.
Welfare is the safety net between (and after) Unemployment and SS. It (and food stamps and the like) are for those capable of work, but chronically unable to find it skill-wise, or environmentally and specifically in need.
I would say there should be no Welfare at all, any welfare should be Workfare. Unless you are too old to work, or too disabled to work, but you choose to receive welfare, you should be willing to do some kind of work for the government in untrained positions. Those receiving Workfare would get to choose between the local jobs available that aid the government. If there aren't enough jobs, they can alternate with those working to lessen their load. Perhaps it isn't dramatically efficient, but any work increase is better than 0.
On National Service, I explicitly didn't call it indenture, I called it service, because our children will be able to choose from a lengthy list of different occupations in which to spend a few years. Indentured servants who came from Britain had nothing like those choices. They were almost slaves. Our kids who do US this service aren't slaves. They have many more choices. For quite a few of them this will be opportunities, not oppression. It would be such a bad thing for our kids to spend two years between HS and College doing something completely different? They are going to have great health demographics and this may be just 2% of their life as it is, in a spot where it might benefit them to boot. Remember, the burden on them already exists, I have interest in trying to find a way to lessen that, actually.
But I understand the concerns against this idea and will try to elucidate more fully later. There will be ways to opt out, as needed.
Thanks for your thoughts. Information and thought is the new gold, and I appreciate yours.
Reply
4) Slavery: involuntary servitude. Indentured Servitude: Work to pay off a debt (voluntarily incurred). Huge difference. If people can't easily opt out of your scheme it is slavery. All the rest is just whether you are a field worker or a house nigger (sorry for any offense, but emotional words are needed here). Put another way, unless you are willing to submit to twice what you are asking others to submit to, you are not helping.
Plus, you would need to show that all this slavery national service, actually saves money. Many of those people would under other circumstances be working at very low wages (grad student or min wage). Scrapping by through taking advantage of others generosity (living with parents, etc.) Most would be better off in the military (absent the risk of dying). But in your scheme the taxpayers need to house, feed, (possibly guard), and stipend, those people. I personally don't think the government is capable of doing it for less.
All this ignores, the evil that a government with an involuntary work force does.
As soon as the savings, investment accounts, pensions, etc. of all people over thirty are empty. I will reconsider the need to enslave the young innocents.
7) Can be, but won't be. Money is moving universally toward less anonymity due to the desire to tax. Any change made SPECIFICALLY to make it easier to tax will lose anonymity immediately.
8) If it is actually beneficial (or less detrimental), invitation should be all that's necessary. The need for coercion is prima facie evidence that it is not.
Reply
Leave a comment