607: Independence and Subsidies

 

AntGrasshopper

It used to be that Americans were independent and took care of their own.

Why is it now the responsibility of other citizens/taxpayers if I fail to adequately plan, provide for, and save for my own retirement (what used to be called my ‘declining years’)? When did that personal failure become a subsidized ‘right’?

Was it when the US government established the Social Security program in an effort to ameliorate the fallout from those grasshoppers who foolishly played and spent their lives away, while the ants prudently saved and stockpiled against an uncertain future?

Now that social security is firmly entrenched (even if the last generations of lawmakers have plundered the fund to help offset their own grasshopper profligate spending) Americans save even less than they ever did – and our performance as a nation never was too good on that score in the first place.

19511432_867294666766189_6909764223775554486_n

Yeah, I’d LOVE to have spent my productive years engaged in pursuing my own interests (financially supporting or not) instead of reporting to work – but having proved myself stupid enough to be willing to work, I don’t qualify for any benefits for sitting on my fat behind.

The idea is that people work to support themselves. Each one responsible for him/herself – unless you have turned over your financial future to someone else who agrees to be responsible for both themselves AND you (this is what many women believe marriage is for – absolving them from all responsibility). If you put your care into the hands of another person and they fail to make adequate provisions for themselves and for you in the event something happens to them, well, they failed you.

My first husband did that – he let more than a half million life insurance policy lapse a few months before he unexpectedly died. Thank God I was already a working wife, and didn’t have all my eggs in his little basket, so I had something else to fall back on besides Uncle Sam. Plus, in the past, families cared for each other. When a family member became disabled or elderly and needed care, they were cared for within the family unit – not handed off for the government (really, other citizens/taxpayers) to care for.

It isn’t the fault of the citizens that you failed to provide for yourself – it isn’t even the fault of the citizens that you are disabled, and need assistance. Neither is it their fault if accident or illness befalls you that you didn’t plan for. Yup – it’s a tough break when that happens. Thankfully, assistance is available for those who are unable (legitimately unable, not having simply purchased their disability from an unethical physician) to provide for themselves, but it still isn’t the fault of others that they are disabled, such that others are then required to pay their way.

THAT is what used to be called charity, before charity became a dirty word, and it used to be the province of faith-based people who took up the slack and provided that assistance locally. They knew their neighbors, and they knew who really needed the help, and who needed the harsh life lessons earned by making very poor decisions.

You know, like the grasshopper.

Advertisements

42: Husbands and Wives

There are several cultures on the face of this here old Earth that follow the practice of multiple wives. Now, that is another entire post all on its own right there. But, the subject of this one is WHY are there NO cultures (that I know of) that allow multiple HUSBANDS?? Being female, this situation interests me far more than the multiple wives thing. Besides, any man in his right mind knows perfectly well that he cannot satisfy even ONE woman, so why they try that crap with more than one just proves they are mentally retarded. Which all of us females already knew. So there.

Why not multiple husbands? With more than one man working to support the family, the financial burden most families labor under would be really reduced, or even eliminated. Besides, who cares who fathered the children? Really? The popular saying is that it takes a whole village to raise a child – why not more than one dad?┬áDiscipline and monitoring of children would certainly be easier with more adults around, and men make good teachers, too.

Besides, when it comes to cooking, who are the famous professionals at it? Not women. The famous chefs are men, so let a man do the cooking for the family. The same holds true for everything else, too – who are the famous experts on educating and raising children? Not women. Those names are male – let them raise and educate the children. Does not all of this make good sense?

I think the reason why it does not work out in real life is that men cannot share, like little children, and that is why multiple women in a home can get along, but not multiple men. So there. Times two.