Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

When we were first married, Geoff had this job. It was a pretty good job, but google shut them down which took away about 90% of their business, which caused a massive downsize, wherein Geoff was laid off. The good thing about it was that they were given about six weeks notice and a decent severage. Geoff had a new job lined up before his old one even ended.

Geoff had a coworker, however, who decided to take it easy and claim unemployment. Unemployment is a great program, but this person decided to take advantage of it by skirting by on minimum requirements and purposely staying unemployed. This went on for months until someone turned him in. I share this story as a lead-in for a discussion that I had with my friend on the way home from California. I hope I can put it into words well and that it makes sense and isn't just a buch of jumble.

Now, I believe strongly in the idea of striving for self-suffiency. Geoff and I were pretty lucky with him having a good-paying job in the first couple years of our marriage; it got us off to a great start. We've been very extremely blessed, but we've also worked hard for what we have. We seriously pinched and saved for a long time to be able to put a decent down-payment on our condo. (I will give this credit to Geoff - he was the tough saver, gosh-love-him. I probably would've spent more of it.) We could've taken out a much bigger loan than we did, but we were set on staying within our means. (And it turned out to be a good thing too when he lost that job and I eventually became the one with the full-time job). We've done what we can to get out of debt, such as paying off the cars - and we plan to drive them until they're dead - and avoiding credit card problems. We've sacrificed a lot of time and energy in getting through school, because we know, or at least hope, that it will better enable to us to support ourselves and have the quality of life we want.

Does that mean we don't take advantage of available resources? Heck no. We've used employer tuition-reimbursement, taken out student loans as we needed them, and applied for tribal grants. So although I think self-sufficiency is a goal that everyone who can do, should do, I also think that anyone who truly needs help, be it unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, disability, anything, should definitely be able to recieve it. That's why those things are there, so that people don't have to go without. I certainly hope that when we need help, help will be there. I know that not all people come from the same walk of life, and circumstances vary, and there is a real need for help for many.

Sadly, I think there will always be people who take advantage of government programs - like Geoff's old coworker - but does that mean we shouldn't provide them? Absolutely not. I think so-called "socialist" programs do have their place, and in some situations, there is a need for them. In the case of the health-care reform, it could be a very good thing, it's just necessary that a change as big as that be done right. It needs to be argued over and molded and remolded after taking into consideration all points of view. It's not something that should be done quickly or hastily.

About socialism. People often use socialism and communism in the same sentence, but are they really the same thing? Is it possible to have a capitalistic society with socialist ideals? A capitalist society that still provides for the poor? Because I believe very strongly that capitalism is the best vehicle for growth. My friend cited China, saying that if it's the next world power, then communism can't be bad. I think China's rising power relates to the fact that they've been slowly integrating capitalism into their society. Communism in it's purest intention should be a utopia right? Everyone is equal, no one goes without. But there are several reason why communism fails. (If you want you can google it, I won't go into it here.) Capitalism - competition and the opportunity for gain - are the driving forces behind economic growth, and it serves as a check-and-balance to itself. Laws and regulations imposed by the government are still absolutely necessary, but they should not intend to dictate or control the direction of business.

I've been thinking this over with a real-life situation, and have some questions. Take the mortgage-lenders. There probably should've been a line drawn in the mortgage lending standards - such as don't lend to people who can't repay their loan. But some wanted the poor to be able to afford housing, resulting in the large number of sub-prime mortgages, which as we know, contributed to the meltdown. Now the large companies (even including some that are seperate from the mortgage lenders) are controlled by the government. We are weighing capitalism with socialist ideals, where is the balance? Should we have let our mistake of not regulating the industry correct itself by failing, instead of bailing it out? (Probably not because it would've had huge consequences, and therein lies a conundrum.)

Anyway, all in all, I believe that self-sufficiency, independence, and the prospect of a free market, or the opportunity and the ability to be a self-made man (in my opinion, this is what "the pursuit of happiness" means) were a part of what drove America to be what it is. America was founded on those principles, among others. And those principles were set in place with the idea that we could be free, have the opportunity to prosper, and that our people would not want. I think we do have a responsibility to see to it that our citizens are not for want.

What does that make me. Republican or Democrat? A little of both?

Anyway. Politics and ideals. I'm not an expert in this stuff, which is why I never put it out there, and I may come under fire, but I welcome comments. My conversation with my friend was an eye-opener for me and helped me realize some of my own beliefs, so I'd be happy to read others' comments too.