On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote > At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social > >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. > > > >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? > > So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone > on Social Security, ever?
I can't imagine ever making such a broad statement. Reducing benefits when the poverty rate is rising as the nation's economy grows for an unprecedent series of decades seems immoral. Reducing benefits to the neediest while cutting taxes to the wealthy seems immoral. What do you see as our responsibilities in this area? > I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit > is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social > Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though.... > > JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? Whose problem does privatization solve, John? To whom are we being responsible by considering it? The neediest, whom Social Security is intended to benefit? Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? Can I assume that in principle you and I would join in efforts to ensure that the neediest people in this country have a secure financial safety net? Not that I see such a proposal on the table from anyone... but perhaps if you and I can agree, any two people in this country could! I'm not trying to be funny. It seems to me that we are two people of faith, so I'm assuming that we differ in matters of implementation and policy, not our core values. Can we find enough agreement that the matters on which we disagree pale by comparison? I think the answer is yes, though I can't see how we might get there. However, I suspect it starts with sharing our honest beliefs and feelings about stewardship of the poor and needy, as a foundation on which to talk later about how to do it. Perhaps I'm suggesting that we have been talking about works without first talking about faith? By way of disclosure... I want to get myself out of the "kill the other guy's argument" mode of discourse. It is not serving me well, even though it gets my endorphins going. But I don't want to do it by simply walking away. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
