We rarely argue, JK and I. We try to have fun with the kids. But I have been agitated by his high and mighty analytical discussion about cutting entitlement spendings, arguing that it is just so critical for the economy that Obama agrees. Are we reading a different newspaper or watching different TV outlets for news? But hey, he reads my NYTimes! Yeah, I agree to entitlement cuts too, but sensibly and fairly. After all, people receiving these "entitlements" like Medicaid and Medicare really need the help. Did he forget that you would have to have no money in the bank and so sick you would die if you don't get medical help? The working poor gets so little by way of social security income that what they get they have to spend. So how is cutting that going to spur the economy? Still, I agree we need to cut some in order to balance the budget. I don't think the Democrats or Obama disagrees.
Today, in the car, I loudly told JK to stop talking to me about this topic because we fundamentally disagree about the role of government and the source of today's economic ill. He said I should show the kids how we can debate this. What? Debate this? I asked him to tell his mother, father and two brothers who all receive some form of social security income and medical assistance from our government that they understand these entitlements would be cut big and they should totally understand why - it should not matter that they use every dime they get and still live very poorly and they have to live together in a very tight space. Then JK got really mad at me. The kids were very quiet in the back of the car, listening.
Hypocrisy is hard to tolerate. Those who are superrich lost touch with being human and being humane. I could see how it happened - the superrich live in a world completely apart from those receiving government assistance. But for a middle class person who could be at the brink of needing government assistance should an illness befalls, to side with the interest of the rich is just not smart. Is this simply stupidity like not knowing his self-interest in this whole debate? Or is his self-interest so distorted that he doesn't see where he lies in this debate?
Yes, entitlement programs need to be improved so there would be less abuse. But this very concern should apply more so to those entitlement programs the government gives to corporations to "build" the economy. While all working people contribute to social security and medicare during our working life, corporations do not do the same. We earned this "entitlement" of social security income and medicare when we retire. Entitlements received by corporations are gifts that the government hopes would generate economic growth.
In my view, arguments are fine. Kids need to see that their parents could argue but could still interact as reasonable people who care about each other. I can only hope that they would grow up thinking critically about their lives and what is going on in the world. I hope they become good responsible citizens who would give back rather than become people who care less about the sufferings of others.
JW
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Amen, Joane. I'm surprised that JK espouses the conventional wisdom peddled by the courtier press. Krugman in your NYT exposes the the fallacies of their financial policies at least twice a week. (And the people pushing cuts in Social Security and Medicare are the same sort who were wrong on Iraq. They don't have to be right, merely to enforce the ideology of the Very Serious People who are wrong for the right reasons, and who sneer at the dopes who were right for the wrong reasons).
Glad to hear that you and the kids are thriving. Read Digby's Hullabaloo blogspot for your sanity, if you don't already.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment