Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (15747)	9/5/2001 12:58:48 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 59480

We have to accept the reality that the social contract is null and void for those on the lower end of economic ladder. I do not accept that. It is not reality. You ignore the web of government benefits available to low wage earners. You ignore the earned income tax credit. The fact is no one exists on this theoretical low rung unless they actively evade these benefits. Plus, low income is almost NEVER a static condition. People move up the ladder, people move down the ladder. The population of low-income folks is constantly changing. Plus you ignore the cases where a low-income job is a life style CHOICE. Some people choose a simple minded low pay job to earn a stipend to keep body and soul together so they can devote their energies to art, or studying the Bible or Koran, or charity work, or watching Oprah. And who's to say this makes them any less worthwhile citizens than an executive making $500,000 per year?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (15747)	9/5/2001 1:08:52 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 59480

. We have to accept the reality that the social contract is null and void for those on the lower end of economic ladder. In theory, we can accept that because we believe everyone, or at least everyone's next generation, has the opportunity to move up the ladder making their situation just temporary. We have traditionally had programs for the down and out, like unemployment insurance, that assumed the condition was temporary. As long as there's upward mobility we can comfortably let the poor suffer content that the experience will be temporary and character building. The situation changes when we have protracted poverty. It changes even more when those in protracted poverty insist on producing children who haven't got a chance. We worsen things when we take away the character building opportunity with handouts framed as entitlements. Seems to me that the key is the children. We need to both discourage parenting by those who can't even care for themselves and assure opportunity in the form of a good education for the kids that find themselves born into that situation. Karen