○ a time for choosing (aka the speech) ○
but seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? not too long ago, a judge called me here in los angeles. he told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. she had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. she wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. she's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the aid to dependent children program. she got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
yet anytime you and i question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. they say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.
but we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. they've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. but then they appeared before the supreme court and they testified it was a welfare program. they only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. and they said social security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. there is no fund, because robert byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that social security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the
- 上一个工作学习演讲稿： truth and tolerance in america
- 下一个工作学习演讲稿： the perils of indifference
