○ a time for choosing (aka the speech) ○
a young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his social security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. the government promises 127. he could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than social security. now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
barry goldwater thinks we can.
at the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? shouldn't you and i be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? i think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. but i think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when france admitted that their medicare program is now bankrupt. they've come to the end of the road.
in addition, was barry goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your social security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
i think we're for an international organization, where the n
- 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
