It has always been hard. It always will be and there are lots of reasons why some people make it and some don't, but a major component is believing in yourself and doing whatever it takes to get where you want to be. Opportunity is what you make of it. There are thousands of kids in affluent families with plenty of opportunity who don't "make it". And there are just as many in the poorest areas who rebel against the challenges and find those opportunities.
If what you say is true, then this should be a non-issue, because the poorest among us get free health care, food, shelter, early education, etc. What puts kids at a disadvantage is their home life and whether they are raised to believe in themselves.
Living off EBT, NFTA and HUD is not a glamorous life. Even if it is "free", it's usually in a crime ridden area with poor schools. EBT (food stamps) can barely cover basic groceries in many areas and are so political that you can buy chips and Coke but not fresh vegetables (thanks food industry lobbyists! Once again another issue for another debate
) Even with CHIP (the low income health care coverage for children in our state) only basics are covered. When my son was 6 he shattered his arm climbing a tree. We went without a phone that month so I could pay the extra for his surgery. I'm sure there's a small portion of people who are okay with living like this, but the attitude that everyone is getting a free ride that's so comfy they have no desire to change isn't entire true.
This is only true if you accept it to be true. Do you really think there were no people who believed this in the 18th-20th century? Of course there were. What was the difference? There was very little in the way of "safety net" from the government. Any aid came from the community (churches, usually). If a person was going to survive, he had change his lot. There are not different policies, laws, tax codes, jobs for the rich. they are there for everyone. How do you think the rich got to be where they are? Were they always rich? of course not - the vast majority of millionaires today were self-made, not generations of family money. Many of these people came from very humble beginnings.
Is it harder from children from disadvantaged homes to climb up? You bet - They have to have a family that stands behind them, pushing them to do well in school while their friends are hanging out, skipping class, doing drugs, joining gangs, having babies, etc. The family has to instill a belief that it can and will get better for the next generation. The children have to want it for themselves. Stay in school and do well, prepare yourself for college or a trade school. Gain independence from the government and then go back to school to improve your situation even more - that's how it works.
I completely agree family involvement can make or break it. But where do we stop the cycle? How do we do it? By cutting education budgets, programs for teen parents to go to school, contraceptives and health care? Won't that just perpetuate the cycle of people being dependent on the government?
There were never good paying jobs without an education. That's a falsity. In general, you have always needed an education, or start your own business to make good money. Corporations still are not considered people under the Constitution - not sure what that even means...
I don't know what your background is (your parents, and theirs, as far as employment) but I know in the 50s and 60s it was possible to work a decent job at a factory or some other form of manual labor (construction) and support a family. You could have a house, both parents weren't working, etc. My own father did that, until layoffs started in the early 70s. We tried moving to where there were more jobs in an emerging oil and gas industry in the US, but they fizzled up too. Many of those jobs have been outsourced to places like Mexico to save corporations money (the rich getting richer) leaving Americans without a formal post-secondary school education very little options, mostly minimum wage service industry (retail, food industry, etc.). It's impossible to support a family off a minimum wage job in this country and those are becoming the only options for many. (the poor getting poorer).
That might not be making a decent living in your standards, but I suppose it's relative. Opening a successful business is a way to generally have a higher standard of living than former decent paying manual labor jobs (as I mentioned my husband started a small business that we still are part of, so I understand where you're coming from there).
And I was referring to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that says Corporations are protected under the First Amendment, which in essence recognizes them as citizens under the Constitution, which prior to that had only been given to people. Sorry for not clarifying.
totally agree with this - these programs should not be eliminated. And the Republicans do not believe this either. Anyone who believes this about the Republicans are just listening to the left and not listening to what the right is saying/doing.
Hogwash - study after study shows that children who go to Head Start have no better outcomes than children who didn't go. Look, I happen to like HeadStart and I think it's an important program because it gives these children some stability and caring people in their lives, which unfortunately far too many lack. But in terms of future life success, it is a waste of millions of tax payers dollars because it does not change the children's outcomes educationally - which is what it was designed to do.
You can find information from HSA in support, things from the Heritage association saying it's failing. I don't like to use either. But here's a non partisan, extensive, academic source says otherwise:
Link Removed
This one is government, but has very extensive research and statistics:
Link Removed
There is nothing wrong with the quality of education in impoverished areas. These areas routinely get way more money per student than other districts. So it's not the money either. It's the home life. And until that changes, these schools will never succeed. Do I hear Charter schools again? Ah yes, in the areas that have set up charters for very low income families, where parent involvement is requires, these kids do significantly better across the board than their traditionally schooled peers.
Where do you send your children to school? What impoverished schools have you worked in? Would you send your child to a public school in SE Washington DC? Inner city Detroit? The Bronx? Denver even? (The high school my son went to had stabbings in the cafeteria, the middle school near by where I worked had gang violence). If there's nothing wrong with the quality of education in these places... Denver Public Schools has some schools that use biology books from the 80s. One high school charged kids to make copies of worksheets or they had to hand write them. My son also went to public school in DC and had to share desks. It was the mid 90s and there was one computer in the school. There was no funding for electives, so there was no art or music.
In some respects I'm okay with charter schools as long as they aren't used as a way to funnel public money and taxes into religious schools. But our education system is broken. I agree, throwing money at it won't fix it. But taking money away and pretending there's no problems won't. And making teachers accountable based on standardized testing as an answer is absurd. I knew a woman who taught ELA, had her masters and was working in an inner city Denver school where 95% of the children came from Spanish speaking homes and 100% were on free/reduced lunch. She raised their English reading and writing levels two grade levels (from K to 2nd). But they were 5th graders and because they didn't do well enough on the CSAP (our state standardized tests) she was fired. Yes there are some ineffective tenured teachers, but NCLB and the subsequent ways to test and eliminate teachers are not answers. [/QUOTE]
Republicans have never said they were against welfare. they only are against what it has become with all its abuse - which sounds very similar to what you have written as your views as well. It was designed as a safety net and yet, it is being used as a way of life for millions of families. And the Republicans also believe their are better ways to improve the outcomes that don't include government involvement. Republicans are not heartless folk who want to keep all their money for themselves. they are smart folks who want to know that their money is being used to better our society and frankly, right now, the way the assistance programs are set up, it is not....
I shouldn't say all Republicans, that's a gross generalization. I know many very moderate Republicans who don't want to eliminate all programs, who don't vote based on gay marriage and abortion. There's nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative. I'm mostly referring to the current candidates and other policies being brought up at the national level by certain politicians. That's what I cannot agree with.
