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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5854)	7/31/2011 10:14:50 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

Can you expand on what you mean by " to the extent that you use the money to provide opportunity"? Sure. What I had in mind was along the lines of education and decent housing and a healthy community for kids. Kids growing up poor in the worst neighborhoods mostly end up a burden on society. If you can get the kid out of there, he can grow up to be a net contributor. Likely burden vs. likely contributor. That's a no brainer. When I think of opportunity enhancements I think mostly of kids. It's harder to provide opportunity for adults because their paths are usually set. Now, if you take a mom and her kids out of a bad situation and put them in a good situation, you are not only providing opportunity to the kids, you are rewarding the mom. I understand the aversion to that but if you reward her only as long as she supports the program, then I think incidentally rewarding her is justifiable. I think that fresh starts can work with carefully selected adults, too, say junkies or others who have made a few mistakes but would be willing to work at a fresh start. You send them to rehab or some classes and then move them away from their old routine and bad influences like a watered down version of the Witness Protection Program and that could produce excellent results. I think you have to do something dramatic to make a difference. Half-hearted programs throwing money at lousy communities or people in suffocating circumstances is mostly a waste, doesn't improve opportunity, and is non-constructive in the rewards department. If you're going to do it, you have to be selecting and thorough. Improving food in schools, for example, is not likely to be on the positive side of cost/benefit.