George W. Bush: The Good Things (Page 5)

Let's hope the tables are never turned then.

-Chris 

No.

Yes we do...we owe them the opportunity to WORK to get themselves to a better position in life.  We do NOT owe them handouts or cradle to grave income simply because they exist. 

If you can't contribute to society, what then should you be entitled to from society? Saying that there has to be a bottom becuase there is a top is simple and short sighted: yes, there has to be a bottom and a top, but to use that as justification for an arguement stating that it is then the top's responsibility to care for the bottom is bogus and flawed. The top is at the top not becuase of the effort of the bottom, but by it's own effort, chance and educational class (meaning that educated people tend to educate their offspring).  It is the valuse of what the top offers society in general that holds that place at the top and it is lack of value at the bottom that holds that position as well. Either can lose or gain value by it's own merits and motivation.

if x gets an education and gets a job and works hard, x will be provided for.

If x doesn't seek an education or a job or work hard, x will not/should not be provided for, though most often in this case x is provided for, and fairly well in terms of human history.

society, like a job or relationship or a birthday party is pretty simple: you get out what you put in. If you create value for yourself, through education, personality, deeds and actions or some other way, you will become valueable. If you don't, you will not be valued. It's harsh and can be sad, but it's true.

I never said that we should hand out money.  In fact, I believe that's a horrible idea because it teaches dependence on others.  However, we do owe something.  Maybe tuition maybe, maybe better shcools, maybe social programs that might not be necessary in affluent areas, Their are plenty of options, but all of them should be paid for by a  tax system based on income.

"We" don't owe anyone anything. Like I said in my previous post, the "level playing field" is a bunch of crap. If you have the drive and perserverance to succeed then you are going to succeed regardless of your suroundings. As far as giving "them" tuition, I was one of "them" and no one gave me anything, unless you count Pell Grants as a "gift". Its all a matter of what you want to do with your life. By giving handouts and "assitance" (Drew this is not directed at you, you have made your point) you are being an enabler to these people and training them to expect "help" and "handouts". You are teaching them that mediocrity is OK and that if you don't succeed "the government" or "society" will take care of you. This is just plain wrong and IMO what is wrong with our country today. We don't encourage excellence we accept mediocrity.

<QUOTE>I never said that we should hand out money. In fact, I believe that's a horrible idea because it teaches dependence on others. However, we do owe something. Maybe tuition maybe, maybe better shcools, maybe social programs that might not be necessary in affluent areas, Their are plenty of options, but all of them should be paid for by a tax system based on income.

First of all, I am not talking about people who do not conribute to society at all.  In fact, very few of these people exist.  Rather, I think that they are propaganda spread by the extreme right to try and convince everyone that all welfare recipeants spend there money on cell phones and spinnas'--crap.  Most, not all, but most people who receive welfare spend the money on what they are suposed to--necessaties. 

 Second, the top may be where they are because of  hard work and education, but the bus doesn't stop there.  Like you said the wealthy tend to educate their offspring, well you're right, and it goes back a long way.  Wealth in this country has historical roots just as poverty does.  I'm not talking about individual cases where your father lived in a house with dirt floors, but in general American society in the begining had a very different work ethic--stemmed from religious beliefs--than anywhere lese in the world.  Even GW has admitted this.  If you honestly believe that a kid in poor areas has the the same opertunity to go to school and work hard and become a sucess an affluent kid, well, good for you.  It does happen with extrodinary kids, but it is much easier for a mediocre rich kids than poor ones.

tuition
better schools
social programs

Don't we already do all this?

"If you honestly believe that a kid in poor areas has the the same opertunity to go to school and work hard and become a sucess an affluent kid, well, good for you.  It does happen with extrodinary kids, but it is much easier for a mediocre rich kids than poor" ones.

tuition
better schools
social programs

Don't we already do all this?

Drew,

You are correct in the sense of the Pell Grant helping out and not being viewed as a handout. Pell was a great way to finance my education and I would encourage students to take advantage of it. That being said we have a program here in GA called the Hope Scholarship funded by our state lottery (which is what I call the "voluntary tax" but that is another story). The good thing with this program is that any student that graduates from a GA High School with a B average can go to college at a State University and have their tuition and part of books paid by the lottery funded scholarship. This is all well and good on paper, the bad part of it is that it has become an enormous waste of money in some instances. The current deal is that you can keep the scholarship as long as you maintain a B average in college, this is reevaluated on a yearly basis. Unfortunately what is happening is kids that shouldn't go to college are going to State universities and taking up space, failing out of school, and wasting money. Now the program is in crisis because they don't have enough money coming in to fund all the scholarships. My solution (and I sent this to my state rep) was to reimburse the students after their first year if they met the criteria to continue the scholarship. This motivates the student to spend less time in the bar and more time in the books.

Sorry that was a bit off topic, but I thought of it as an example of how a good idea to help people ended up being taken advantage of and as a result ended up not working as intended.

At what rate are we spending money on education vs. other programs?  I haven't seen these figures.

I don't know, you tell me.  

I never said that the opportunities are the same. Don't put words in my mouth to facilitate your arguement. If you can't stand on your own merits, so be it, but altering my stance to suit your position is a transparent debating trick.

 I must have read you wrong.  Going back to my original post, our system, which is the best to date, is not perfect.  There will always be people at the top and at the bottom.  Our system is really a heirarchy.  Each sucessive level is dependent on the one below it to provide various types of labour, either intelectual or physical.  This heirarchy rests on the the very bottom which are the guys who usualy do day labour maybe painters--my experiance, I work in construction, either way the idea is aplicable across the board.  Without the people that work for us, most of us would not have what we do.  Because of this I believe that we have a responsibility to these people.  What we should work towrds is equality of opertunity where everyone has an equal chance (barring physical or mental handicap) of being at the top or bottom of this heirarchy.

Ok.

You view it as a heirachy, I view it as a rewards system based on what you contribute - maybe the difference in our view is a capatalist v. socialist instead of conservative v. liberal?

What does Paris Hilton contribute?    ( besides the obvious entertainment value... ) 

They do have a chance at equality its called HARDWORK, being in construction I am sure you know what I mean.

Coredump-I agree with you on this one, unfortunately its the middle class kids whose parents make just enough so they don't qualify for Finacial Aid or Loans, and who don't make enough to pay out of pocket that are getting hosed right now.

I think we do.

I think we ought to love one another.  How that plays out in terms of social policy, tax structure, and the like, I'm not sure.

In most cases, I'd say, to love somone means to teach them to fish.  In other cases, it means giving them a fish to eat so that they can then learn to fish without being hungry.

I find reasonable policy ideas on both the right and the left. 

IF they are ever turned, I GUARANTEE you I will not come begging the government for help.  I will work my way out of it - doing WHATEVER IT TAKES! 

AND if you'd READ the post, I didn't say I won't/ don't do anything.  I said I'm unwilling to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to help them out of their situation.  If YOU believe that, you shouldn't be buying tri-toys, etc and give ALL that money to the "needy".  Thats MY definition of WHATEVER IT TAKES.

And you also missed my POINT (or ignored it) regarding property taxes - you voted for a BENEFIT for yourself.