does the government have the right to redistribute your money? (wage, drug)

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

To begin, I respect the fact that you disagree; I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me. We may be dealing with substantive issues, but the ideological arguments we are making are necessarily subjective. I may not be able to persuade you to my own philosophical view of things, but it's important that we clarify some of the substantive arguments being made...

I want to commend tinman, it's great that he got out of poverty. I, too, come from modest means. I was born to a working class family and my parents divorced when I was young. My mother is a high school dropout, my father, a blue collar civil servant. I, fortunately, have made progress and now hold an MA and am working on a PhD. I'm proud of this and the fact that I've achieved it despite my background. I also recognize that I've had to work harder than people born into wealthier families, than people born into better school districts. Statistically, you'll find that people born into the middle class are more likely to go to college, grad school, etc. than people born into the lower and working class. You'll find that people born into the upper class are statistically more likely to achieve these things than people born into the middle class. Now, this leads to one of two conclusions: either (1) people born into higher classes are inherently smarter and more ambitious than those born into lower classes and thats why they are more likely to make it into and through college or (2) the circumstances that members of higher economic brackets are born into are more conducive to academic and economic success later in life. I know the conclusion I believe is more correct; which do you prefer?

Additionally, I take issue with your contention that all Americans have equal access to high quality education and high quality healthcare. You yourself pointed out the problems inherent to the inner cities. Do you honestly believe that a public high school in inner city Chicago offers the same quality education as a public high school in an upper class suburb of Chicago? Do you honestly believe that all public schools are funded equally in this country? How do you explain the fact that some public schools are so underfunded as to not have up-to-date textbooks, enough teachers, etc while other schools are well funded enough to offer many AP courses, have the most up-to-date textbooks, have enough teachers to have small classes etc. and still say that everyone has equal opportunity in education. Students who live in school districts with underfunded schools are necessarily disadvantaged compared to students living in districts with well-funded schools. This doesn't mean they can't make it, but they are going to have to work a lot harder and fewer of them are going to make it. If you don't go to a good high school you're going to have a hell of a time making it into a good college.

The cost of higher education itself is also prohibitive for many students. Unless you're intelligent enough to receive a full, or close to full, ride on scholarships, and few of us are, you aren't going to be able to afford going to a top college even if you get accepted. I believe that, at the very least, if you can maintain a certain predetermined GPA while in college you should be guaranteed a chance to attend state universities.

The idea that we all have equal access to high quality healthcare is even more absurd than the notion that all students receive equally good educations. If you are poor or even middle class chances are you don't have adequate health insurance to ensure yourself quality healthcare if you get a serious illness, such as cancer. You'll either be denied the best treatments because you can't afford them and therefore will die earlier or you'll go into such deep debt that you and your family lose their current standard of living.

Solutions? In terms of education, I believe we should federalize funding (though not necessarily the actual administration) of public schools. All public schools should be funded equally according to the number of students they have, though certain exceptions could be made for special circumstances. Thus, an inner city school wouldn't be underfunded but would rather be funded as well as any other public school. What's disagreeable about this approach? As for healthcare, I'll save that for another time...

And you?

Public schools in my area are not underfunded - whether they are surburban or inner city. They are funded based on number of children. Look, I grew up in upper middle class in the burbs. I went to public school & got into college & attained my BA. I paid my way through college by waitressing. Worked 2 jobs as a matter of fact. My parents had the money, but I didn't expect it and they didn't give it to me. A vaulable lesson. I am more successful than many who went to a better college that was paid in full for. By the same token, some who grew up in poor conditions, like you describe, have done even better than I have. take for example my cousin, who is far smarter than I am, who grew up poor, went to public schools, had hippies for a parents & a Dad who worked so little, that there were times that they didn't eat a meal. However, my cousin set his goals high - went to Cornell on a full ride, graduated & worked for the labor unions who put him through MIT - where he got his PhD. He is now a Professor & travels giving lectures. Now, his brother (my cousin) on the other hand, is currently in jail for selling cocaine. Night and day difference - the reality is one wanted to succeed & got serious, the other didn't. They don't change cirriculum & underfund because kids are poor. The expectations are the same.

I also need to make the point that school choice is available. If parents are dissatisfied, they can enroll elsewhere. So there are choices. In my area they also have many charter schools, immersion schools and even a tech school, which teaches kids skills that they can acutally take into the workforce should they decide not to pursue advanced education.

I respect your opinion, but I can't help but notice perhaps your own anger coming through. I think your comments are very personal and I thank you for sharing them. But to say that all kids in poverty are essentially underfunded and under-taught is being far too critical. We need personal accountability here. We need kids to know that they have choices. We may even need a mentoring system, where kids can be mentored by successful people in & out of their immediate community, who can help shape and mold the child so that they crave more. But more government is not the answer.

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by moionfire

Yet, the majority of americans- including "hardworking" americans(i.e. non welfare recipents) graduate from the education system...

Maybe we should just kick out children who do poorly academically(or in behavior) in high school in order to keep cost down.

Are you against investments such as roads, bridges, libraries, ect???

Whoa..calm down. Take a few deep breaths.
What I am trying to say is that many childrens grow up in homes that do not value education. They do not push their children and as a result, their children cannot compete. Where this becomes a grave concern is when we have high unemployment, and an increasing amount of kids who can't make the grade. Realistically, how can they compete? Take this scenario: I currently have a guy working for me who is 24, has 4 daughters and 1 son, has a felony & did 5 years in jail for seriously wounding a guy in a street fight and he said that he had to learn a trade or he would be right back in jail. He didn't care about school as a kid - he was too cool for that. Well, he learned his lesson & he is doing well today because he had to change & adapt or else the consequence would be jail or worse.
As to if I am against bridges, roads, or libraries. I donate to my public library. I donate books to Goodwill, my tenant's children and to my children's school. I care about reading & I have also helped illerate tenants read. As for roads and bridges, I am not sure why this is even a question. Of course I support them.

[tinman01]

First. More money does not ensure higher quality. quality control ensures higher quality. Take this up with the teachers Unions who oppose standardized testing.
Has anyone ever considered the idea that kids from wealthy families do better because they learned from experienced successful parents how to succeed?
My son learned to work early. He had chores when he was 5 years old. That kid is not afraid of work today... His friends used to tease him because he had chores he had to do his homework before he could play outside after school. Most those friends are Burger king hero's today.
Kids from poor familys struggle more with success because they have very little reference as to how its achieved. Worse still not by coincidence many poor familiy's are broken family's with abuse of some kind in the household.
The inner city. Why don't we all make more excuses for them.
It starts with the parents. Are they involved? More money won't change a thing if parents are not in the game. Worse still too many inner city schools resemble prisons rather than schools. Whose fault is that? They accept this as a norm. Its wrong to punish the kids for bad behaviors. No its not it should be a norm. If more parents had to answer up for little Johnny's antics maybe they would crack on him a little more.
More money only ensures more money wasted. Unless you incorporate quality control that is a wasted investment.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by independent thinker

Whoa..calm down. Take a few deep breaths.
What I am trying to say is that many childrens grow up in homes that do not value education. They do not push their children and as a result, their children cannot compete. Where this becomes a grave concern is when we have high unemployment, and an increasing amount of kids who can't make the grade. Realistically, how can they compete? Take this scenario: I currently have a guy working for me who is 24, has 4 daughters and 1 son, has a felony & did 5 years in jail for seriously wounding a guy in a street fight and he said that he had to learn a trade or he would be right back in jail. He didn't care about school as a kid - he was too cool for that. Well, he learned his lesson & he is doing well today because he had to change & adapt or else the consequence would be jail or worse.
As to if I am against bridges, roads, or libraries. I donate to my public library. I donate books to Goodwill, my tenant's children and to my children's school. I care about reading & I have also helped illerate tenants read. As for roads and bridges, I am not sure why this is even a question. Of course I support them.

Good post. Life is what we all make of it. Garbage in garbage out.

[Ever Adrift]

Originally Posted by independent thinker

Public schools in my area are not underfunded - whether they are surburban or inner city. They are funded based on number of children. Look, I grew up in upper middle class in the burbs. I went to public school & got into college & attained my BA. I paid my way through college by waitressing. Worked 2 jobs as a matter of fact. My parents had the money, but I didn't expect it and they didn't give it to me. A vaulable lesson. I am more successful than many who went to a better college that was paid in full for. By the same token, some who grew up in poor conditions, like you describe, have done even better than I have. take for example my cousin, who is far smarter than I am, who grew up poor, went to public schools, had hippies for a parents & a Dad who worked so little, that there were times that they didn't eat a meal. However, my cousin set his goals high - went to Cornell on a full ride, graduated & worked for the labor unions who put him through MIT - where he got his PhD. He is now a Professor & travels giving lectures. Now, his brother (my cousin) on the other hand, is currently in jail for selling cocaine. Night and day difference - the reality is one wanted to succeed & got serious, the other didn't. They don't change cirriculum & underfund because kids are poor. The expectations are the same.

I also need to make the point that school choice is available. If parents are dissatisfied, they can enroll elsewhere. So there are choices. In my area they also have many charter schools, immersion schools and even a tech school, which teaches kids skills that they can acutally take into the workforce should they decide not to pursue advanced education.

I respect your opinion, but I can't help but notice perhaps your own anger coming through. I think your comments are very personal and I thank you for sharing them. But to say that all kids in poverty are essentially underfunded and under-taught is being far too critical. We need personal accountability here. We need kids to know that they have choices. We may even need a mentoring system, where kids can be mentored by successful people in & out of their immediate community, who can help shape and mold the child so that they crave more. But more government is not the answer.

A little bit of anger towards the status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing; it can provide the passion to bring about improvement. I agree that we need more personal accountability, but I disagree as to how that can best be achieved. National problems require national solutions and national solutions, almost out of necessity, require at least some government involvement. Government's elsewhere in the developed world have dealt with inequality in education and healthcare with greater success than we have here. This doesn't mean we should adopt their approaches in their entirety; our situation is different. But we can learn from them and recognize that government isn't some necessary evil that we should seek to minimize at any cost. I do appreciate your personal story and it does illustrate importance of personal accountability. Yet, I don't think it fully appreciates the difference that circumstances can have on a person's personal accountability. Children born into poverty are less likely to have the necessary role models to provide them with such principles. In the end, while personal accountability must be emphasized, it also has to be recognized that those born into more modest environments are going to have to work harder and have a greater sense of personal accountability than those born into wealthier families. Thus, poorer people are going to have to work harder meaning that fewer of them are going to make it.

While schools may not be underfunded in your area, the key is that this is simply in your area which is a very, very small part of the USA. It would be fallacious to deduce from this that schools everywhere in the US are funded equally and provided equally good education. If this were the case, we wouldn't see the absolutely incredible disparities between education and performance among states and between urban, suburban and rural areas. As long as schools remain funded primarily at the local and state level, disparities in funding (and, therefore, disparities in quality) will continue. Some states and municipalities are poorer than others in terms of the resources available to them. Some states and municipalities also prioritize education more than others. All this adds up to some schools being well funded, like those in your area, while others are woefully underfunded. An example may be illustrative; some schools are funded primarily by local property tax, meaning that wealthy areas with high property taxes will have better funded schools than poorer areas where property taxes are low. It doesn't matter if both areas fund local schools according to the number of students they have because such finding isn't comparable across areas. On principle, I believe that students should have access to public schools of the same quality regardless of where they live which would require national funding. We can keep control of schools at the local level, national funding would merely ensure that all schools are funded the same, rather than being funded at different levels depending on location.

You also make the argument about school choice, pointing out that in your area there are private schools and such. Unfortunately, this isn't the case everywhere. Rural areas, for example, often won't have such options, nor will smaller urban communities. Even where such schools exist, demand often exceeds supply; if public schools are failing everyone is going to want to get into private schools, but the private schools aren't going to have the capacity to take everyone. They'll take some, usually those who can pay, and the rest will be left behind. Thus, school choice is a bit misleading because not everyone has equal choice. Students in big urban areas may have several options, students in rural Nebraska may have none. Parents can't always send their children off, often times because of financial obstacles. Finally, many private schools are religious in nature, meaning that students who are not of that religious orientation have fewer choices. Thus, public schools are often the only choice. It seems to me that if a public school is failing, the answer is not to send students to private schools but, rather, to fix the failing public school.

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

A little bit of anger towards the status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing; it can provide the passion to bring about improvement. I agree that we need more personal accountability, but I disagree as to how that can best be achieved. National problems require national solutions and national solutions, almost out of necessity, require at least some government involvement. Government's elsewhere in the developed world have dealt with inequality in education and healthcare with greater success than we have here. This doesn't mean we should adopt their approaches in their entirety; our situation is different. But we can learn from them and recognize that government isn't some necessary evil that we should seek to minimize at any cost. I do appreciate your personal story and it does illustrate importance of personal accountability. Yet, I don't think it fully appreciates the difference that circumstances can have on a person's personal accountability. Children born into poverty are less likely to have the necessary role models to provide them with such principles. In the end, while personal accountability must be emphasized, it also has to be recognized that those born into more modest environments are going to have to work harder and have a greater sense of personal accountability than those born into wealthier families. Thus, poorer people are going to have to work harder meaning that fewer of them are going to make it.

While schools may not be underfunded in your area, the key is that this is simply in your area which is a very, very small part of the USA. It would be fallacious to deduce from this that schools everywhere in the US are funded equally and provided equally good education. If this were the case, we wouldn't see the absolutely incredible disparities between education and performance among states and between urban, suburban and rural areas. As long as schools remain funded primarily at the local and state level, disparities in funding (and, therefore, disparities in quality) will continue. Some states and municipalities are poorer than others in terms of the resources available to them. Some states and municipalities also prioritize education more than others. All this adds up to some schools being well funded, like those in your area, while others are woefully underfunded. An example may be illustrative; some schools are funded primarily by local property tax, meaning that wealthy areas with high property taxes will have better funded schools than poorer areas where property taxes are low. It doesn't matter if both areas fund local schools according to the number of students they have because such finding isn't comparable across areas. On principle, I believe that students should have access to public schools of the same quality regardless of where they live which would require national funding. We can keep control of schools at the local level, national funding would merely ensure that all schools are funded the same, rather than being funded at different levels depending on location.

You also make the argument about school choice, pointing out that in your area there are private schools and such. Unfortunately, this isn't the case everywhere. Rural areas, for example, often won't have such options, nor will smaller urban communities. Even where such schools exist, demand often exceeds supply; if public schools are failing everyone is going to want to get into private schools, but the private schools aren't going to have the capacity to take everyone. They'll take some, usually those who can pay, and the rest will be left behind. Thus, school choice is a bit misleading because not everyone has equal choice. Students in big urban areas may have several options, students in rural Nebraska may have none. Parents can't always send their children off, often times because of financial obstacles. Finally, many private schools are religious in nature, meaning that students who are not of that religious orientation have fewer choices. Thus, public schools are often the only choice. It seems to me that if a public school is failing, the answer is not to send students to private schools but, rather, to fix the failing public school.

I like what you said about not everyone having an option via school choice. My area does have a lot of options, but others perhaps, not so much. Good discussion point - school choice can be a little misleading in certain areas. You are correct that some of the private options are also religious in nature. I think that an any option, religious or not, is a better option if a child is truly falling behind and school administrators are doing nothing to resolve the issue. I understand that financial obsticles are everywhere, especially in our current economy. Times are tough, which means that having focus on education is important to give kids the edge they need to compete. It starts at home, which realistically, is in many cases, a problem that only the family can solve. Kids are truly a product of their environment. If money is an issue and the school is underperforming, I would hope that the family would make a plan to seek different accomodations. In essense, if the family rents, move to an area that offers more options but is still close for work. If the family owns, this is harder to accomplish. Can the child be mentored at his/her existing school so that he/she can make the most of it? Can the child join a group that takes him/her out of the area & exposes the child to new possibilities?

Also, to discuss that kids born into wealthy families have more natural success or are exposed to better schools, has it's own complication. Yes, for families with money, schools usually have good stats. Why? Well, because most of the student body has parents with higher expectations, who themselves have at minimum a high school diploma but more likely a college education. They expect more of their kids & truancy is not an issue as it is in poorer neighborhoods. Kids who are truant typically do poorer on tests, ect. So, in nicer neighborhoods, the expectation is that kids will go to college & school is a priority. These parents typically have better paying jobs and the kids grow up with that expectation. Also, the parents are modeling for the kids - they don't come home from work at night, like some wacky weed, pop a king can and party. (I feel so bad for kids who have to witness this & I am so blessed that I never had to) They act responsibly. So, I truly think that is what contributes to the stats in a burbs school vs inner city school.

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by moionfire

Just because someone makes little money, doesn't mean they are "non-performers."

Anyways, most americans(yes- even households) make less than $80,000. The taxes Obama proposed would only affect those who make $200,000 !!!! Are the majority of americans ( over 40% ) chronic non-performers??


Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry for using a wiki source. However, the numbers can be found on the census...

First, I don't agree with being politically correct. That being said, I don't need to know what the average American makes. That isn't the real issue. Your insecurity is the real issue my friend.

Second, Obama's running mate, Joe, just said that number is actually 150K. In addition, we are not getting a tax cut. It is a rebate and if you are making 80k, like the average American, you will get a tax increase of @ 5%. Why you ask? Because those who don't pay ANY taxes (not you my friend), they will get a nice, fat check in the mail. It is a "rebate". It is social welfare. Redistribution of wealth. It has a lot of names for me and you, it means money outta my pocket and in the pocket of someone who hasn't worked for sh$%.

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by davidt1

It's a very bias and misleading thread.

Not if you know the facts

[Ever Adrift]

Originally Posted by independent thinker

I like what you said about not everyone having an option via school choice. My area does have a lot of options, but others perhaps, not so much. Good discussion point - school choice can be a little misleading in certain areas. You are correct that some of the private options are also religious in nature. I think that an any option, religious or not, is a better option if a child is truly falling behind and school administrators are doing nothing to resolve the issue. I understand that financial obsticles are everywhere, especially in our current economy. Times are tough, which means that having focus on education is important to give kids the edge they need to compete. It starts at home, which realistically, is in many cases, a problem that only the family can solve. Kids are truly a product of their environment. If money is an issue and the school is underperforming, I would hope that the family would make a plan to seek different accomodations. In essense, if the family rents, move to an area that offers more options but is still close for work. If the family owns, this is harder to accomplish. Can the child be mentored at his/her existing school so that he/she can make the most of it? Can the child join a group that takes him/her out of the area & exposes the child to new possibilities?

Also, to discuss that kids born into wealthy families have more natural success or are exposed to better schools, has it's own complication. Yes, for families with money, schools usually have good stats. Why? Well, because most of the student body has parents with higher expectations, who themselves have at minimum a high school diploma but more likely a college education. They expect more of their kids & truancy is not an issue as it is in poorer neighborhoods. Kids who are truant typically do poorer on tests, ect. So, in nicer neighborhoods, the expectation is that kids will go to college & school is a priority. These parents typically have better paying jobs and the kids grow up with that expectation. Also, the parents are modeling for the kids - they don't come home from work at night, like some wacky weed, pop a king can and party. (I feel so bad for kids who have to witness this & I am so blessed that I never had to) They act responsibly. So, I truly think that is what contributes to the stats in a burbs school vs inner city school.

I'm glad that we can find some points of mutual agreeance, even if we have different philosophical views of the proper role of government; I can find little to disagree with in regards to what you've said here. You've identified some possible solutions for assisting disadvantaged children, but I believe that such approaches are merely a start. Mentoring programs are great for individual children who need help, but if an entire school is failing for whatever reason, mentoring isn't going to be an option, nor is sending children off. Part of the problem stems from the fact that underfunded schools are statistically more likely to exist in impovershed areas. Thus, the parents of children who attend underfunded schools are exactly the same individuals who are least likely to have the financial capability to send their children off elsewhere or to move to a better school district. I still believe that the better approach is to simply fund all schools, regardless of their location within the country, equally; a school in rural Alabama should not be receiving $50 less per student than a school in suburban Denver. Actual disparities in funding per student between school districts are often even greater than in this example, too. And funding schools nationally isn't a huge shift, it's no more 'socialist' or 'redistributive' than the current methods of funding schools; rather, it merely changes the level of government that funds the schools to ensure systematic regularity in funding across the country. This is no less and no more government involvement than currently exists, but I think the results of such an approach would be better than what currently exists.

You identify many, though of course not all, valid reasons as to why children born to wealthy families are more likely to succeed than those born to poor families. This suggests to me, though you may disagree, that we should find ways to mitigate these problems in order to improve the opportunities available to poorer children. This would involve coordinated policies that attack both the causes of the problem (meaning policies aimed at poverty reduction) and the effects of the problem (lower test scores, higher drop out rates, etc). I'm still of the opinion that this is best done, at least in part, at the national level since it's a national problem. However, states and local governments also have a role to play as do impovershed communities themselves. The more angles we attack the problem from, the more success we are likely to have. Unfortunately, the fact is that poverty has become such a pervasive problem that it is going to require some government involvement to eliminate it; individuals and communities are going to have to carry some of the weight, but it can't be done alone.

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by tinman01

LOL I am old school republican leaning towards libertarian these days.
I have a garden to die for. A plot 45'x 45'. Its bounty lasts well into the next spring. I use very little fertilizers. I instead rely upon the neighbors manure from their horses. I use grass clippings for mulch which prevents weeds. Over all I try to be as independent as possible. Most real republicans are like that. Ever wonder why the majority of farmers big and small are conservative? Big gov only fails the people. The bigger it gets the less in touch it becomes.

I feel inferior! WOW! I am completely impressed! I can't wait to see all the folks too who see that nasty word Republican associated with environmental responsibility!

But one question - mulch will prevent weeds? Has it been very effective? I always thought that too much mulch from clippings can harm the grass. If I spray any weed killer, it is always organic. But I would prefer to use as natural a remedy as possible.