Sunday, December 09, 2007

Wise Thoughts on Faith, Politics and Party

This is just a small section of a long post, but it gives a flavor of the whole:
We've reached the point where Republican voters can claim the philosophy of absolute greed.
"I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."
Get that? She makes not just enough money, but a "great deal of money." How dare anyone take it away for something so frivolous as feeding a poor child? And yet Republicans, through their actions in blurring the lines between church and state, have become the "party of faith." Because they say so. Because they are bold in their actions and snarling in their defense.

We need to be just as adamant. We need to not hide behind any abstraction or evasion. We need to be unafraid to address this voter and say "I am going to take some of your money, and give it to that poor kid, because it's more important -- both to the child and to society -- that he eat, rather than that you have an extra week in Cabo."

Note that we should not pretend that "a program will take your money." Or "the government will take your money." This is a democracy, and we are the government. I will take your money. I will. Some of that money you worked hard for and want to keep. I will give it to a kid who is hungry. If your concern is that poverty should be addressed by individuals, then there's a simple solution: feed him. If there are no poor children needing food, I won't have to take anything for them. If your position is that people would be more generous if only the government would stay out of it, then sorry. I'm not willing to put this child at risk to as part of your experiment. Besides, if that were true, then why were their more hungry kids before we started these programs to give them a little breakfast? If your position is that your being able to keep all your money is more important than a child being fed, then I simply think you're wrong. And sick. You want to keep that money? You better beat me at the polls.
There's much, much more there to read and think about.

Labels: , ,

39 Comments:

Anonymous Brent said...

I think this is an interesting discussion. I did a little research on this awhile back. Generally speaking, more Republicans claim to give substantial amounts of money to charities vs Democrats. Part of this is because, by and large, Republicans tend to make significantly more money and are more likely to consider themselves religious and thus give money to Churches (which by and large contribute a lot to Charities). To their credit, people who are democrats are more likely to work in service type jobs (which is their charitiable giving and is probably partly responsible for the descrepency in income between the two parties).

Generally speaking, Republicans tend to think they are more in control of their success (or problems) where Democrats tend to consider themselves victims of their circumstances. This is where a lot of Republicans it seems don't want to help those who are not trying to help themselves.

Now nothing is as cut and dried as that. Certainly most Republicans are not greedy, selfish, unfeeling bastards (current Vice President non included). But that certainly is the image that the Democrats want to point out (which is pretty easy given who the face of the Republican party is now).

By and large I feel like neither party really speaks for the majority of this country's citizens...in fact, I'm not sure the two combined account for the the philosophies of the majority of Americans.

12/09/2007 5:36 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

I like the fact that you are concentrating on hungry children,but I am sure they are a small percentage of the welfare system. An average welfare recipient receives more money (not cash but subsidized housing,food stamps,SSI, free lunches,etc) than can be made working full-time for minimum wage. Also free or cheap medicine, college grants (not loans), earned income credit,energy assistance, and retirement savings help. All of this is financed by the money you want to take from me. Why exactly should I finance your desire to distribute other people's money? While I don't make a "great deal of money" I would like to get there some day and your hand in my pocket is not making it any easier.
P.S. I am not a republican or a democrat.

12/09/2007 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI - Richer Americans are Democrats

12/09/2007 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

If anything Republicans should be supporting free breakfast for kids. There are many, many studies that show breakfast (and good nutrition in general) helps improve learning. From a cost benefit analysis, free breakfast is a pretty good deal for our education dollar.

Children actually make up a large portion of the welfare system.

An average welfare recipient receives more money

Care to back that up with some stats? Most services such as housing and health, have waiting lists miles long.

I think it is fair to question whether the government should tax people to pay for these services, but it is flat out wrong to describe welfare patients as getting rich off the system.

You will occasionally find someone scamming the system for money, but you also find doctors scamming medicare, contractors scamming homeland security, construction firms scamming the city, etc... No one says we should stop repairing roads because someone scammed us on the price of asphalt.

Personally I think of welfare as insurance. I pay into the system and hope I never need to use it. And I naively hope that people don't abuse the system and spoil it for everyone else.

12/09/2007 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that part of my tax dollar was used to fix a pothole in front of Funkhouser's house. I don't want to pay for someone else's car to have a smooth ride any more!

12/09/2007 9:49 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

First of all I didn't say anyone was getting rich of the welfare system. Especially in Midwestern states. In places like NYC welfare payments are higher and with lot more opportunities for cash jobs it's easier to scam the system.. I know about the waiting lists for section 8 and subsidized housing especially in nicer areas like OP, Lenexa, etc. People still get in. I know about one particular welfare recipient,no kids in his 60's.Total payments about $640, $80 rent for a 600 dollar apartment (that's about $520/month of non-cash assistance),energy assistance about $200/year, he didn't apply for food stamps but they are available,phone company subsidy about $20/month. Free medical,$3 copay for drugs. So not even counting medical that's about $1200 month which is about $7.50/hr. Because he doesn't work he doesn't get earned income credit but even tiny income will bring in over a $1000 on your tax return. If you have kids,benefits may be higher.I don't claim this to be an average recipient just someone I know. What I was pointing out is that you can get close to minimum pay without working,by no means great life but for some people sufficient enough not to chose to go to work. Which is fine as long as they are not getting any of my money.
As far as welfare being insurance you are sadly mistaken. When you apply you submit your previous year's tax return and if you made enough money that year you may get small pittance. It takes a year of low income to get into the system. That's why people who try but have trouble keeping up are being rejected by welfare system and call Johnny Dare with sad stories for his Hope for the Holidays.

12/09/2007 10:14 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Dan, to paint all Republicans with the same broad brush is inflammatory at best and then to throw in the "party of faith" just takes it over the edge. Since I am a conservative and a Christian, I guess I am supposed to feel like some greedy scumbag who stuffs my mouth in front of a starving child.

But...I'm going to let you take a pass on this one because I think I know you really don't believe I (or people like me) am such a lecher despite my "failings" by being a conservative and a Christian. Had I not known you, however, I would be sitting in front of my keyboard with both barrels loaded.

Instead, I'm feeling charitable this Christmas season and will toss in some extra money for a good cause before this year ends in remembrance of this post.

Happy holidays :-)

12/10/2007 7:55 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

And sincere happy holidays to you, Travelingal. You are correct, of course, that the piece does paint with a broad brush, but it's kind of necessary to do so when discussing party politics.

But I thought this piece was valuable because it stated things so clearly. Yes, it chose a stridently greedy questioner to represent the republicans, but then it took a stridently confiscatory position on behalf of the democrats. Most of us fall between the two, but it's interesting (to me at least) to see people take some of the logic to the logical extremes.

Did you happen to read the rest of the post? I thought it raised a whole lot of thought-provoking issues.

12/10/2007 8:01 AM  
Blogger les said...

Dear Meesha: the plural of anecdote is not data.

12/10/2007 10:04 AM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

Anecdote is something I would hear from my cousin's wife's brother. The numbers I quoted I know first-hand and I checked some bank statements before i posted. I also frequently take this person to pharmacy and doctors,so I know the amount of copay. You can point out that this is not typical and I can't generalize from one person's information and I am somehow dealing with the highest paid welfare recipient in KS, you are entitled. I am not about to go digging for data just to prove a point,you can discredit any data. I was careful to refer to something I know,I don't really care if anyone believes me.

12/10/2007 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Brooksider said...

Taxes could also be interpreted as how much we are willing to contribute. For me it is also a matter of everyone, individuals and businesses, contributing a fair and reasonable portion in relation to how much they earn.

I am always mildly amused by business people who think their work effort is completely separate from government influence or support and so the business person should not have to in turn support the government. But I think the government disconnect is also evident in many other areas, people want safe water, bridges, police departments, roads, neighborhoods, stable economies and business environments, beneficial international trade agreements, healthy military personnel, etc, but who should pay for it all?

What fundamentals should our government provide and when is it something for nothing? I think the divisiveness of our consumer driven society, our politics and our organized religions have helped us reap the benefits and the unintended consequences and mindsets that we currently experience. The best thing we could do is get back to exploring what brings us together at local, regional and national levels. It doesn’t have to be in response to apocalyptic tragedy, but the more we treat people as individuals, stop dehumanizing each other, and interact one-on-one, the more we are likely to be realistic and compassionate with each other. Likewise I think we should begin to expect more from our citizens beyond just paying taxes. I think we should find ways to get people involved in local governance and not just politics. Make people more aware of what they truly get from government and not just the welfare recipients, but the shareholders, business executives and business owners as well. And finally we need to expect a lot more from our politicians. Enough trickle down stuff. Pass laws that directly make our citizens healthier, better educated, safer and more enabled to share that fundamental prosperity with the rest of the world.

Democracy and freedom don’t mean it is open season to get all you can and screw everyone else. I am currently reading Joseph Ellis’s wonderful new book “American Creation” which talks about some seminal situations at the beginnings of our amazing nation. It also illustrates some of the tragic consequences if inequality and human suffering are left unattended.

12/10/2007 12:39 PM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

Meesha - as an adult over 55 with no children, this man is not eligible for the earned income credit - whether he has earned income or not. Also, without children, the maximum credit does not exceed a few hundred dollars - and maxes out for someone making minimum wage at a full time job.
The earned income credit is there to supplement the income of hard working (mostly single parent) families with children who can't seem to make enough to make it on their income alone. Along with the child tax credit, it can make for some hefty checks come tax return time - but advised well and given the tools to save, a lot of people stretch it out over the year, or create emergency funds when they would otherwise not be able to. IT is nowhere near a handout - creative accounting and 'charitable contributions' cost our treasury a lot more every year than this beneficial credit to the neediest of our families - the ones with growing children who will one day decide how to take care of us.
Good post, Dan.

12/10/2007 12:40 PM  
Blogger Faith said...

I'm glad Brent was the first one to post a comment on this. It was exactly what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure how to put it into words!

I come from a family that is religious, wealthy, and by and large we vote Republican. I try to find the best ways possible to give back to those in need within society, and feel my parents have always done a good job of doing that as well. We can't, of course, speak for ALL Republicans, but when Brent said, "Generally speaking, Republicans tend to think they are more in control of their success (or problems) where Democrats tend to consider themselves victims of their circumstances. This is where a lot of Republicans it seems don't want to help those who are not trying to help themselves..." I couldn't have said it better myself. (Especially with the way I ramble, and all!)

I would never, EVER want a child to go hungry. NEVER. But the way the Democrats want us to distribute our wealth just doesn't make any sense in a lot of ways. And I personally don't believe a lot of them have the starving children on their minds when they're working through tax bills and that sort of thing with regards to rich vs. poor and how to gather the money in order to spread it accordingly. I just don't...

12/10/2007 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Independent said...

The only thing that sucks more than a greedy and heartless Republican is a Democrat using children as an excuse to conclude he is a wise moral superior.

12/10/2007 2:12 PM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Okay, I just (tried to) read the entire (long) post and what struck me (aside from what has already been mentioned about the absolute hypocrisy of liberals pretending that Republicans are the ones who act morally superior), is the absolute hypocrisy of the author in defending and trumpeting the constitution on one hand and then turning around to promote the end of personal liberties and property rights a few paragraphs later.

Makes me laugh.

12/10/2007 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it your understanding that taxes are unconstitutional?

12/10/2007 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Christensen said...

By far the largest part of our budget involves the military/industrial complex.

I, for one, am tired of being taxed to oblivion to support military enforcement of the interests of multinational corporations.

And abortions.

And judges who take bribes.

And the research of drug companies who then turn around and screw my parents.

Kiss my ass.

12/10/2007 5:37 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

You don't want to fund abortions.. and you certainly don't want your "wealth" to help raise them much less feed them. Poor whiney little rich people, one of which brags was handed, HANDED wealth, hah must be nice. It really must suck to have so much money that you don't know how to distribute it. Ugh, people make me nauseous.

I can't wait to get on top and have these issues but slap me if I ever get that stupid.

btw Clap, Clap KC Sponge

12/10/2007 10:14 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

KC Sponge:I wasn't going to post anymore but I have to call BS: from IRS website Low-income workers without qualifying children are estimated to comprise the largest segment of eligible taxpayers who fail to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

If you are at least age 25 but under age 65 at the end of 2006 and had earned income of less than $12,120 (or $14,120 if married filing jointly), you may qualify for up to $412 in EITC. If you are married and file a joint income tax return, either you or your spouse must meet the age test requirement.
Read all about it.

12/11/2007 7:09 AM  
Blogger les said...

Meesha says, "Anecdote is something I would hear from my cousin's wife's brother." In the (no doubt fruitless) effort to preserve a once elegant and precise language, I say: Ah, no, that would be "rumor." Form dictionary.com, anecdote: a short account of a particular incident or event.

Your heart wrenching tale of over-taxation and abuse of the welfare system is an anecdote. Absent actual data (a body of facts; information), which you feel no obligation to provide, your generalization from anecdote to an indictment of the system represents mere rationalization to support your preconceived position. Which, shockingly, leads to good results to you. Thanks for playing.

12/11/2007 9:30 AM  
Blogger Faith said...

Ambitious fledgeling: "You don't want to fund abortions.. and you certainly don't want your "wealth" to help raise them much less feed them. Poor whiney little rich people, one of which brags was handed, HANDED wealth, hah must be nice. It really must suck to have so much money that you don't know how to distribute it. Ugh, people make me nauseous.

I can't wait to get on top and have these issues but slap me if I ever get that stupid."

If people make you nauseous, perhaps you should try to interact with them as little as possible. Or maybe that's why you have issues with communicating effectively? "...and have these issues..." Huh? What does that mean?

I'm not sure if you were referring to my comment when you were spewing your written nausea, but I don't remember mentioning anything about my beliefs on abortion. And I think I specifically said that creating hungry kids is not my M.O. as a Republican. We have no choice in a lot of ways when it comes to the lines that are drawn between parties, and my reasons for voting the way I do are strictly tax based for the most part. Say nasty things if you will about being born into a certain amount of wealth, but if you had the opportunity, I'm sure you wouldn't exactly shy away from it. It's a matter of being lucky. I was...so why take nasty slams about me and my politics? Jealousy perhaps? You don't know me, but I even mentioned that I find ways to give back to the community, as do my parents. What do YOU do to give back? I contibute my time and money to organizations like March of Dimes, Harvesters, and my alumni association at my college I graduated from to name a few. I look forward to doing even more as my time frees up over the next 5 years or so.

But I'm a bad person because I have money. Oh, ok.

12/11/2007 10:28 AM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Faith, you're not a bad person because you have money.

You're a bad person because you don't agree with ambitious fledgling (and because you're a KU fan).

12/11/2007 12:11 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

"Say nasty things if you will about being born into a certain amount of wealth, but if you had the opportunity, I'm sure you wouldn't exactly shy away from it. It's a matter of being lucky. I was...so why take nasty slams about me and my politics? Jealousy perhaps? You don't know me, but I even mentioned that I find ways to give back to the community, as do my parents. What do YOU do to give back?"

I give A LOT back to my community. I help real people. Where are you at Christmas? Your fancy dinner party maybe? I'm usually at a homeless shelter, thanks though. I do my share.

As for my being jealous of your handed down wealth, of course I'm jealous! Jealous you were handed money and I wasn't. lol Why wouldn't I be? When you have to work as hard as I do to appreciate a dollar and EARN what you have, you would LOVE someone to just GIVE money to you. Of COURSE I'm jealous! I have to work hard, just like my mother did, and her mother did. I work full time, go to school full time, and raise a child full time on my own. I am not a victim however, I do just fine due to MY hard work.

As for this statement you made:

"I would never, EVER want a child to go hungry. NEVER. But the way the Democrats want us to distribute our wealth just doesn't make any sense in a lot of ways."

Have you ever heard the saying that when you say "but" it completely wipes out everything you said prior to that?

12/11/2007 1:00 PM  
Blogger Faith said...

ambitious fledge: "Have you ever heard the saying that when you say "but" it completely wipes out everything you said prior to that?"

You're right. I DO, in fact, wish every poor child, and even some rich ones, would go hungry. Got me there! I really, really hate children.

Nauseaus yet?

Being defensive is tiresome and useless, dontcha think? Because no matter what I say to you, you'll *try* find a way to twist it or make it into something it so clearly is NOT in an attempt to make people think that you're right and I'm evil and then you'll try to one-up me on everything I say. That doesn't make this a fun discussion or debate...but maybe that's what you're still in school learning to do. I dunno...

12/12/2007 1:27 PM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Faith,

If we don't feed kids, they're no good when you butcher them. There's nothing better than a nice, fat, corn-fed kid roasted over an open spit served with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Mmmmmm.

12/12/2007 3:31 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

"but maybe that's what you're still in school learning to do. I dunno..."

...and you're not being a condescending bitch at all are you?

You're so nice, pure, and wholesome.

12/12/2007 3:35 PM  
Blogger Faith said...

What does being a condescending bitch have to do with it? (Clearly this chick doesn't read my blog...that might help her some. And it certainly might help you to understand that I would never claim to be nice, pure, and wholesome. But I guess that was just your way of trying to put words in my mouth again.) I'm pointing out the fact that you're getting defensive and trying to one-up me instead of discussing the point I made which is that Democrats aren't all that pure with their intentions when it comes to gathering money from the general public at large.

Read brent's comment again, or something. That was what I was agreeing with in the first place, along with giving my perspective coming from a family that's wealthy and (usually) Republican.

Ooooooh! Is THAT where the whole pure and wholesome bullshit came from? Because I come from a wealthy family? Yeah, that makes sense.

For the record, YOU weren't being bitchy or condescending at all when you made comments about me having wealth "HANDED" to me, right? Because you know what I do in my day to day life? Oh, ok then.

Seriously, am I making you throw up yet? I wonder what it takes. Perhaps visiting my blog helped?

12/12/2007 4:51 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/12/2007 9:49 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/12/2007 9:51 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

I was getting ready to post a horrible, nasty, lengthy comment. But that, since you have obviously not read my blog, is not the way I roll.

My time would be better spent futhering my education/career. Hope you get over that built up aggression thing you have going for you. Try sex or alcohol that's what us poor people do. ;)

12/12/2007 9:52 PM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

Okay, Meesha, but you just proved bs on your own comment as well:
"Because he doesn't work he doesn't get eic but even a tiny income will bring in over a $1,000 on your tax return."
Earning $50 a week would bring him about $201 on his return.
Make that $100 a week and he maxes out at the $412.
Minimum wage full time workers will be rewarded $107.
Get a raise to $5.75 and you end up with $3.

Doesn't look like a handout to me.

12/13/2007 1:03 PM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

And you even quoted in your comment that they are the ones who don't even claim the little that they are given, Meesha.

People at all levels are going to take advantage of cost-saving tools. We can't just blame the poor and disadvantaged because others have so much money that we don't question where they get it. You don't pay taxes to subsidize these people's living expenses - you pay taxes to live in this country and be part of a system that, while full of flaws, provides you with protection, highways, clean air, freedom of thought . .religion . .speech, and that recognizes in the capitalistic framework we're in - in order for some people to win - others struggle - and to help them out a little each year maintains the system that allows you to complain about paying taxes while others steal from your pockets because they're too poor to buy their own food, or pay for a market rate apartment.
If everyone went out and 'got a job' - as if that's so easy - there would be far more competition in the marketplace and smaller shares for the people who are there today.
It's easy to look at welfare checks, or tax returns, or the unemployment lines and cringe when you pay your tax bill every year. But I don't see how you can see helping people more disturbing than our military spending or all the federal highway money that is spent to further our dependence on oil or writing paychecks to our lawmakers and senators - who by far take the biggest advantage of government social programs - I mean expense accounts.
Reform is definitely needed - but not to lessen our burden of taking care of each other - but reconsidering how we are doing it to maximize results and minimize abuse.
But nothing can get done with conversation like this . . . everyone blaming each other and bringing vicious attacks against someone because of a party they align themselves with, or how much money is in their bank accounts.

It's not about parties - its about people - people.

Debate is great - calling names is lame. =)

12/13/2007 1:27 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

I never said I support all the other spending, corporate handouts etc. We were discussing a part of taxation system that takes money from me and my kid and gives it to someone else's family (also paying who knows how many bureaucrats on the way). I make exceptions for people with special circumstances i.e. medical problems, natural disaster victims, etc. I am willing to support these people, things like that could happen to anyone. However, I am not willing to pay for someone's poor life decisions. Anyone can go to college, anyone can use birth control, and anyone can do better than a minimum wage. I know countless examples, including myself. I know people who came to this country with nothing and now own million-dollar business, I know people who were born here and succeeded without anyone’s help. I understand that not everyone is entrepreneur (I am not) but no one has to work for min. wages either.
This discussion is useless anyway since government handouts will only increase no matter what people like me have to say about it.

12/13/2007 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Bite Me, John Galt said...

No, Meesha, that is a lie. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has "succeeded without anyone’s help". No.

That is the central lie of libertarianism, and nobody should be allowed to utter it without being challenged.

12/13/2007 2:02 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

I apologize for lying; how about I rephrase it to “succeeded without help from the Government beyond using the infrastructure that everyone has equal access to”

12/13/2007 3:44 PM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

No one has to work for minimum wage?
Anyone can go to college?

Spoken from a perspective of true priveledge.

12/13/2007 5:24 PM  
Blogger meesha.v said...

Just a privilege to be here.My family (not my great whatever-my Mom,my sister and I) came here with $200 for 3 people and 6 bags of possessions 15 years ago. One of my first jobs was delivering pizza - it pays more than minimum wage,so I repeat-nobody HAS to work for minimum wage. I never did and I could hardly speak English at first.I went to JCCC and then UMKC for 10 years, my employers had tuition reimbursement. I worked nights, days,weekends, overtime but I graduated with honors in 2003. So yes,ANYONE can go to college. I make normal living, own a town home, I get to go on vacations, I can't complain. Did I get help along the way? (as someone pointed out above) Sure! I've met some great people. I didn't rely on IRS agents to get help though.
To me if you are born in America you don't have an excuse unless you are mentally retarded or physically handicapped.
In conclusion, you can take your sarcasm and shove it. You can come and look at my "privileged" life but I doubt you are interested because I don't fit into your world view.I know many people like myself,so my story is not unique. Is it an anecdote? There was an expert on that too.

12/13/2007 5:49 PM  
Blogger les said...

"Anyone can go to college, anyone can use birth control, and anyone can do better than a minimum wage."

Ah, the blissful ignorance of those a few generations removed. Ignorant of how prior generations succeeded, willfully ignorant of how our economy and education system work today, ignorantly preaching from a position of privilege. Success and wealth are the result of Meesha's personal effort and good choices (and a sign of god's favor, if s/he buys that peculiar American protestant ethic), and those who don't succeed deserve what they (don't) get--purely their own bad/sinful choices. Oh, she'll give to charity and support the unfortunate--as long as she gets to choose the unfortunate, and avoid rewarding all those bad choosers. After all, it's not a society (with all its warts) that creates wealth,it's the effort and personal worth of the successful, all on their own.

Bite me.

12/14/2007 8:55 AM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

Meesha - I hear stories like yours and am so proud to live in the country that I do. The United States provides much opportunity and opens doors for those that would otherwise not have a chance to be successful in life. I'm glad the company that you work for provided you with tuition reimbursement - they got a tax break for the money they paid. I'm glad you could get a job as a pizza delivery guy and make more than minimum wage - you have to have a car (which is very much a priveledge in the US), a driver's license, and insurance to be able to do that. I'm glad that as an immigrant to our country you didn't have to face the same discriminatory hiring practices that prevent a lot of people from getting jobs that they would love to take besides the ones that pay $5.15 an hour. I'm glad that you could succeed in our higher education system - one that not everyone is welcome in - you have to graduate from high school, you have to pass at some level standardized tests to be accepted even to a community college, you have to have the desire to learn what is being taught. I don't know where exactly you moved here from, or how old you were when you came here, but it is not something that is achievable by everyone. I do not disagree with your concerns, but I would hope you could expand your tolerance a little and step outside of YOUR world view to contemplate the struggles of other people - not just the mentally retarded or physically handicapped, because I have many stories of success where people of both dispositions have defeated the odds as you and your family have - and just because something is in your reach, not to assume that everyone is just as close. And I do not mean to sound sarcastic, I really don't, I think this is good conversation and would love to continue it - outside of poor Dan's comments . . .
you can email me at kcsponge@gmail.com if you would like to further discuss.

12/14/2007 2:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home