http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html
Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty.
Naturally, what I saw in Bordonal was just one small section. Sure, we traveled a bit...Lazaro Cardenas was the largest town we got to, but it was an important town. And Bordonal is certainly an area to be considered poverty stricken. Many of the people have no full time employment. Cars are only for those with family "over there" (in the U.S.). Indoor plumbing is not even a dream...you have to know something exists before it can be a dream. And one village or area...because La Mira, Bordonal and Lazaro are an area in my mind....does not a National Picture make.
But this I can say...poverty varies according to who defines it. Monetarily they are hurting but as people and in happiness, there is no problem too big to be solved. There was an atmosphere of caring about each other, of watching out for one another...nobody there was going hungry.
This is not to make light of their needs or insinuate they don't want more money...but the people, at least that I was blessed to meet, were doing all right.
However, the U.S. thinks certain things are needs, not luxuries...things like cars and cable television. Our welfare recipients consider it a hardship if they can only afford basic cable. That is not need...that is not poverty. That is living pretty well, peeps.
When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes...
First off, by setting the ground rules and manipulating figures, you can make them say whatever you want. Exclude my rent and I have a tax free income in a very high percentile of this state...
Beyond that, the insinuation is that more taxes is better. Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on governmental philosophy. Is it the responsibility of individuals or governments to...for example,...manage sanitation, public safety, maintain roads, make sure there are medical and educational facilities in every municipality, fire protection, bingo hall, etc....
And here we come to a basic disagreement. For some people, taking care of the elderly is a family responsibility. For them, fewer taxes is a good thing because they have more money to spend on that. For others it is a governement responsibility and as a result, the lack of taxation is very negative.
I am just trying to point out the slant in this particular argment without taking a side. The situation in Mexico is far to complex for an article or two to really allow you to get to the bottom of it.
Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations -
Yet he defends a governmental system that monopolizes care of retirees. Hypocrite.
4 years ago
2 comments:
I have seen a warmth and caring for "your fellow man", as it were, in Mexico like I've never seen anywhere else. I think the problem with the U.S. societally is that we don't care about either our children or our old people. We're just too selfish.
In response to jrwoodchuckette's comment: That is because our society as it is now teaches that you aren't supposed to do anything for the elderly. You are supposed to give someone your money and let them handle it. As much as I believe that the "Islamic" (in quotes because I now know what the word means) religion is evil, they have one very important thing right. A family is a family. Not a grouping of people who have no interest in each other's lives. While they are crazy to do it, many of the suicide bombers do it because they know that it means their family will be taken care of. An abominable act, but at least they have a good reason for it. That's more than can be said for many people who do worse things.
Post a Comment