People need to take responsibility for themselves. I find it particularly disgusting that our nation's supposedly most mature citizens are doffing the responsibility for their lives by lobbying and cheering for ludicrously expensive government entitlements, the burden of which must be borne by their children and grandchildren. You may be "the greatest generation" to some, but this selfish foolishness highlights a widespread moral and economic failure on your part. You're supposed to be wise, you're supposed to be an example to we who are following after, but instead you wield your political power not to help or guide us, but for your own comfort and enrichment. Shame on you all. Imagine how great a boon you could have been to your families and your country; instead you're becoming a resented burden.
In 1 Corinthians 12:14 Paul writes: "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." In some circumstances the situation will be reversed, and I realize that it's not always due to failure on the part of the parents. Nevertheless, the general principle stands. The new $400 billion health care entitlement that Congress just passed moves me to pity -- it is a stark example of how the greatest among us have fallen short of the prize they should have obtained.
Given that we are where we are, what is the proper solution? In 1 Timothy 5:4 Paul writes further: "But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God." First note that this verse is speaking specifically about women who have lost their husbands; it was expected that older men would be able to care for themselves. We are instructed to care for our family, particularly our parents and grandparents, and the primary responsibility for that care falls on the children and grandchildren.
A few verses later, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul continues: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Once the parents themselves have failed, the responsibility does fall onto their immediate family. Only when the immediate family will not or cannot carry the load does the responsibility transfer to the community as a whole.
How does this translate into public policy? It's not a simple issue. Would it be proper (or constitutional) to force families to bear the financial burden for their older members? Probably not. But the current situation is economically and morally unsustainable. Perhaps this lack of clarity should serve as a general indication that the government should not be involved in the area at all.
This is a point I've often brought up myself. Why is it exactly, that I am paying taxes, including Social Security, and some of my grandparents, who are collecting that check and the benefits that go with that age, can and do easily support themselves in a manner that I will probably NEVER become accustomed? (Do not get me started about the "Social Security Trust Fund". We all know it doesn't exist)
It all seems so "nice" in the vague terms we use, but if you break it down to it's real world applications, I'm paying to send my husband's grandparents and parents a check which they do not need every month, I'm subsidizing their medical care which they could easily pay for themselves, and trying to raise a family at the same time. I'm their "fun" money.
While a security net for those who need one is not something I have a problem with, I have a huge problem with this travesty. Why can't the programs be means-tested immediately? I wasn't allowed to vote on whether I was willing to subsidize them, along with my entire family.
Exactly my point. The vote to give themselves our money. As the boomers age, expect it to get worse; they're a numerically large generation, and they'll try to soak us for all we're worth.
The government has too much power, it shouldn't be possible for the majority to tyrannize the minority like this. Hey, I made up a new word.
Rather than dwelling on what members of your parents' generation are
"supposed to be," you might want to think about what they
are.
They are people who fled from the concept of moral and ethical
absolutes, abandoned religion in droves, and pursued whatever "felt"
right at the time.
They are people who, as epitomized by the character Gordon Gecko in the
1987 movie Wall Street, believed that "Greed is good." Collectively,
they strip mined corporations, costing many people their jobs, their
savings, and their hopes of a nice retirement. They didn't do that
single-handedly, but the "Me Generation" led the way and helped
everyone else keep their consciences from getting in the way of
monetary gain. (Side note - Michael Douglas' portrayal of Gordon Gecko
earned him an Oscar. Although he's a hair too young to be a Boomer
himself, his performance clearly resonated with a large percentage of
the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.)
During the 80's and 90's, Congress had multiple opportunities to head
off the looming Social Security crisis. "Enlightened self-interest"
won out over any desire to "do the right thing." That's fairly
predictable in a culture without moral absolutes.
They are, beyond a doubt, sinners.
Then again, we all are.
Regarding the question of whether or not Congress can force successive
generations to pick up the tab left behind - it's called a legacy.
Debts can be inherited just as easily as assets. Hoping for a boon
without being willing to accept a burden is hypocritical.
In order for Congress to make supporting the nation's elderly their
problem rather than ours, they would have to levy an additional tax.
Perhaps making the estate tax 100% would suffice, and then we would all
inherit neither debts nor assets.
The Bible can provide some timely insight.
For instance, Exodus 20:5 says, in part, "I, the Lord your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the
third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
We can expect it to take generations to repay the debts and repair the
damage to society of a generation that turned away from God. Perhaps
that isn't fair, but it is just.
Proverbs 13:22 reads, "A good man leaves an inheritance for his
children’s children, but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the
righteous."
If your outrage over this issue is mostly focused on the impact to you
and your finances, and how unfair it all is for you, then you probably
aren't any more righteous than your forebearers, In that case, you
shouldn't expect much good to come of the situation.
If, on the other hand, moral outrage prompts you to commit your life to
providing for your children and grandchildren, and to teaching future
generations to do the same, then you just might be on the right
track.
God allowed the Babylonians destroy His temple in Jerusalem and carry
His people off into slavery in 586 BC. That doesn't mean that He was
powerless to protect His people, or that he didn't love them enough to
protect them. Quite the contrary. He was loving enough to let them
face the consequences of their actions and strong enough to restore all
that they had lost. He was waiting for Ezra and Nehemiah to lead the
people to worship Him again.
Be faithful to the Lord's calling for you, and He will reward you as He
sees fit.
"I will pay you back for those years of trouble.
Then you will have plenty to eat and be full.
You will praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has done miracles for you."
Joel 2:25b-26 (New Century Version)