Soldiers deserve reparations, too
The political class in Washington, D.C., is trying to pass a law for reparations. I feel this law should be extended to include another significant portion of our population: those individuals who gave up their means of living and joined the service of their country in order to keep the union together.
I speak of Union Army members and their descendants, who bore the brunt of the fighting from 1861 to 1865.
Three of my ancestors fought for the Union Army, with two of them, Joel and Soloman, each serving three years. Their brother, George, fought for the 2nd Regiment, Kansas Volunteer Infantry, from May until October 1861. While with the 2nd, he fought at Wilson’s Creek near Springfield, and later in the war, he joined the 7th Kansas Cavalry, serving a total of one year.
Joel, my great-grandfather, joined in May 1861 and served until June 1864. He went from St. Joseph, Missouri, all the way to Rome, Georgia, where he was mustered out. He was in battles in Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia. The conditions were horrible, and the food was worse — and most of what they ate had to be foraged off the land. He served with the 16th Illinois Infantry Regiment and the 60th Illinois Infantry Regiment.
Soloman, the youngest of the three, was only 18 when he joined in September 1861, with the 51st Illinois Infantry Regiment. His first posting was at St. Joseph, and his older brother, Joel, was also there. Soloman’s unit fought at Shiloh, Tennessee, and at the siege of Corinth, Mississippi.
He also saw action in Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia, where his unit participated in the March to the Sea.
Joel and George both died in 1901, with Joel being 61 and George 68. Soloman died young, at age 45, and I think this was caused by his time in service as he contracted several illnesses that sapped his health.
For their combined seven years service in the Civil War, dedicated to preserving the United States of America, I am for the payment of reparations to their descendants. They came back from the war and tried to reestablish their lives, but they all had a hard time. They should be remembered for their sacrifice and their descendants reimbursed.
Nancy Pelosi talks out both sides of her mouth
Nancy Pelosi and friends say President Donald Trump is not above the law.
This same congresswoman and friends say those illegally entering our southern border are above the law.
No equity found in Social Security
The Joplin Globe (June 25) featured an article concerning retirement numbers from the 1970s and retirement numbers now, plus the author’s opinion to increase the Social Security benefits to allow low-income workers to receive a larger Social Security check at some distant time.
Those who have read my comments on Social Security know how opposed I am to the plan despite the fact that I get a check each month.
I have never understood how one can support a plan that takes money from grandchildren’s wages and gives it to old men and old women. It boggles this mind that anyone could find equity in such a plan.
But Social Security is the sacred cow of the socialists, hiding as Democrats, and a pox upon you if you mention changing the Social Security system other than raising the payment percentage and the cap. That is how the socialists have kept this Ponzi scheme in operation since the 1930s.
I wonder how the author of this article would view the idea that Social Security be changed to a plan that eliminates government from collecting the payments and providing the checks? I wonder how he would view the Social Security plan’s payments from worker and employer to an investment broker or bank and placed in an account for the worker with the payments from this privatized account to be only available to the person or heir who deposited the money and never be allowed to be given to another person?
The employee and employer would still be required to save by placing a portion of the earnings of the worker in the worker’s account. The change would be:
• The worker decides where the money is to be invested.
• Government has no part of it except to oversee the management of the accounts, much like they oversee the banks today.
Socialists would hate the idea because it takes them out of the picture and says the worker is not dependent on government each month for a retirement check.
That takes power away from government, and socialists don’t like that. That puts individualism back in the lives of individuals, and the socialists don’t like that. Socialists want the citizen to be dependent on government for everything.
And I don’t like that.