statistics and federal aid
"Robert McFadden, a pharmaceutical company executive from New Jersey, described watching his father, a school principal, suddenly die at 57 of a heart attack. After his father spent more than 30 years paying into the Social Security system, McFadden said, his family had nothing to show for it because the family did not qualify for survivor benefits. "When he passed, his Social Security passed with him," said McFadden, who is African American.
Picking up on McFadden's point, Bush argued that his Social Security plan would be a boon to black men, whose life expectancy is about six years shorter than that of white men. Under his plan, people could pass the private accounts from one generation to the next. "African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said. "And that needs to be fixed." "Bush Promotes Plan For Social Security By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A04
This is where I have to disagree with Bush to a certain degreee (more or less don't like his choice of words or subject matter to gain support for his plan). Nothing new but, I don't believe statistics should play a role in this type of policy decision (or any for that matter). Sure it'd be great to pass on accounts from one generation to the next but, that should be left to the individual to start a private account to do so...not the gov. SS. Social Security should not be allowed to be collected sooner for particular ethinic groups than others--especially when the rationale is based on statistical results.
Then also you have to think on the limitations, the requirements that state if one person is of a particular race. America is a boiling pot of many ethnic groups and very many people now, and more to come, have a rich and expansive heritage. Besides, the length of time that you live is primarily due to how well you live, by this I mean health, not social status. Secondly, we have insurance companies for a reason--let them figure out who's at high risk or not (because, for insurance companies I do agree on their use of statistics).
Honestly I believe the people should be weened of government support to a certain degree so that only those that truely need aid will recieve it. You know, the ideal way the welfare system was suppose to work out. Shit. The government needs to start investing in more efficent ways of investigating a person's status appling for welfare, ect. and then keeping tabs to make sure that they truely need aid--in a nutshell not taking advantage of the taxpayers money.
Something I noticed in Richmond was on Belvidere by VCU they are doing construction work to make--oh my fucking god--a brick walkway for pedestrians to cross the street. And I'm thinking to myself sure thats great, it gives contract workers some money in their pockets during the winter, its doing them a service, but I'm also thinking how much money their spending on vaniety (the white lines where just as good) when they could have put that money into a better social service to the public. I could be wrong...they could have been doing that bullshit because some private donator wanted to do it plus a few other people..so private donations with maybe some government money.
oh and another little add-on..
There needs to be an organization that will lobby for better investigation and protection of those that get charged unfairly in child support. Because common now...some women (or men) would recieve child support don't use it for their kids, they use it for themselves. Really any federally sponsered aid money should be heavly supervized in its uses by the reciever.
Picking up on McFadden's point, Bush argued that his Social Security plan would be a boon to black men, whose life expectancy is about six years shorter than that of white men. Under his plan, people could pass the private accounts from one generation to the next. "African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said. "And that needs to be fixed." "Bush Promotes Plan For Social Security By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A04
This is where I have to disagree with Bush to a certain degreee (more or less don't like his choice of words or subject matter to gain support for his plan). Nothing new but, I don't believe statistics should play a role in this type of policy decision (or any for that matter). Sure it'd be great to pass on accounts from one generation to the next but, that should be left to the individual to start a private account to do so...not the gov. SS. Social Security should not be allowed to be collected sooner for particular ethinic groups than others--especially when the rationale is based on statistical results.
Then also you have to think on the limitations, the requirements that state if one person is of a particular race. America is a boiling pot of many ethnic groups and very many people now, and more to come, have a rich and expansive heritage. Besides, the length of time that you live is primarily due to how well you live, by this I mean health, not social status. Secondly, we have insurance companies for a reason--let them figure out who's at high risk or not (because, for insurance companies I do agree on their use of statistics).
Honestly I believe the people should be weened of government support to a certain degree so that only those that truely need aid will recieve it. You know, the ideal way the welfare system was suppose to work out. Shit. The government needs to start investing in more efficent ways of investigating a person's status appling for welfare, ect. and then keeping tabs to make sure that they truely need aid--in a nutshell not taking advantage of the taxpayers money.
Something I noticed in Richmond was on Belvidere by VCU they are doing construction work to make--oh my fucking god--a brick walkway for pedestrians to cross the street. And I'm thinking to myself sure thats great, it gives contract workers some money in their pockets during the winter, its doing them a service, but I'm also thinking how much money their spending on vaniety (the white lines where just as good) when they could have put that money into a better social service to the public. I could be wrong...they could have been doing that bullshit because some private donator wanted to do it plus a few other people..so private donations with maybe some government money.
oh and another little add-on..
There needs to be an organization that will lobby for better investigation and protection of those that get charged unfairly in child support. Because common now...some women (or men) would recieve child support don't use it for their kids, they use it for themselves. Really any federally sponsered aid money should be heavly supervized in its uses by the reciever.