The Socialistic Shit-Case

[his_girl_l]

i agree with you. Ensuring young mothers and their children have access to support isn't socialism - it's compassion.

i guess what i was trying to say is that it isn't always helpful to label policies with often outdated concepts of political theory. It tends to inflame people rather than helping debate.

[lucy]

I cannot help but get the impression that this was exactly one of the purposes of the thread title. I could be wrong, tho.

Something else: i have no idea how this is in other countries, but where i live nobody "enjoys" having to go to get welfare. You're kinda stigmatised if you have to, even if it's not your fault (for example when your shithead of a husband has left you and doesn't pay his alimony)

[MMI]

Trying to get benefits when your ex should be paying alimony? Disgraceful! Make him pay instead of leeching off me. I work for my own good, not yours, or society's.

Sue him!

What? You can't afford to pay for a solicitor? Then get a job!



PS - I agree about the title. Inflammatory is right.

[Logic1]

i agree with you. Ensuring young mothers and their children have access to support isn't socialism - it's compassion.

or just plain ole humanism perhaps

I dont get the whole US scare with socialism actually. It is like they draw a = between that and communism which isnt at all the same. Stuck in the 50s and 60s maybe?
What is wrong with helping eachother out? People to me, isnt as good as the money they make and they shouldnt be either.

(and just some info. I dont consider myself a socialist either)

[Thorne]

I dont get the whole US scare with socialism actually.

I don't know about scared, but I'll tell you my problem with socialism, at least socialism as I understand it.

Socialism demands that those who work hard to earn a living and make something of themselves must donate money (through taxes) to those who aren't interested in working hard, but are more interested in getting a free ride. The hard workers have no say in who gets their tax money, whether it goes to the sick, or injured, or those who are just plain unlucky. Everyone gets a piece, deserving or not.

There are organizations which are designed to help those who cannot help themselves (that's CANnot, not WILL not.) Those who wish to help these downtrodden and deserving people can do so, voluntarily, by donating to these organizations. This makes it more likely that those who are truly deserving receive the help they need, while those who are just lazy do not.

This is probably a simplistic view of things, but it's basically the way I see things. As it stands, far too much of my tax money goes to support people and institutions which I don't believe are deserving of help, so I refuse to donate to charity, either financially or with my time. If the government is so concerned for these people, let them help. They certainly get enough of my money!

[MMI]

Then you are totally mistaken about it, Thorne, and yes, it's a simplisitic view. I'm not necessarily surprised that you oppose socialism, but I expected you to have a better reason for doing so.

Anyone interested in gettting a free ride will get one, whatever economic or political system he's living in. Usually, he will do it by breaking the law. Here, in UK, he will claim benefits he's not entitled to. That's an illegal act: it's fraud, and there are penalties for those who commit it. I expect that it's illegal in the USA to make use of the government sponsored aid programmes if you don't qualify for them, too.

But, in reality, the number of people getting free rides is very low, despite what agitators with vested interests say.

I believe you know enough about socialism to realise that your brief synopsis is overstated. Socialism isn't about giving anyone free rides. It expects everyone to work hard to earn their living and pay taxes. Then it expects the government to provide the necessary support and services to keep the workers happy and helthy. That includes, for example, schools, health care services, pensions, family benefits and so on, including specific help for special needs (such as preteen mothers).

I'm sure you are aware that there are more people in USA who cannot afford medical insurance, for example, than there are who do not deserve to be given medical treatment. I hope you realise that, if it were left to voluntary donations and charitable organisations, that there would be even less provision for the needy in your country than there is already.

What I really think you and your compatriots object to (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth - especially if I am wrong) is being made to contribute to a government aid programme that you are not able to participate in or benefit from. I would object to paying my taxes to support the NHS if I wasn't going to benefit from it. But I have.

I do not consider myself to be one of the freeloaders you describe, but I was brought into the world under the NHS. I've been treated for various minor ailments under it, and have had life-long treatment for poor vision. More recently I have received life-saving treatment under it, and am being treated for another life-long condition. My wife has benefitted similarly, and as a child, she received cutting-edge eye surgery, and, again more recently she received surgery and treatment for a life-threatening disease. We did not have to concern ourselves how we would pay for this treatment. It was already paid for out of taxes. We had no fear of bankruptcy, nor did we have to worry about being refused insurance cover in future, or our premiums being loaded so much as to make them unaffordable.

I was educated under the state system. My wife received a private education: her parents chose to pay for it in addition to paying taxes. We have that freedom.

We can choose to pay for private medical treatment too, if we wish.

I have been unemployed. With a wife and two children to support and a hefty mortgage to serivce, unemployment is a major worry. (In case you don't know it, the cost of a small house in the UK would buy a luxury home with a swimming pool in USA: mortgages are very heavy burdens here). Unemployment benefits do not go anywhere near meeting the cost of living, let alone cover a mortgage - which is excluded from the calculation of entitlements anyway -but at least it helps.

If I had a 12 year-old daughter, and she got herself pregnant, she probably would not be able to get any benefits from the state, because she would be able to rely on me. But if (say) she had run away from home and had no-one to support her, then it is right that the state should give her everything she needs. How would you feel if it was beyond your reach to help your daughter, and no-one else bothered to help her either, even though they could?

Socialism, as it is practiced in Europe at least, is a very humane system of government, and one I would recommend as significantly (I nearly said infinitely) superior to the American system any time.

Of course, we don't have as much disposable income, because of the taxes we pay, and what we pay for is heavily taxed too, but we do have greater peace of mind and a less "beggar-my-neighbour" attitude.

[lucy]

But, in reality, the number of people getting free rides is very low, despite what agitators with vested interests say.

This was extensively investigated here in the last couple of months, because their had been some spectacular cases of fraud: 3% of all the people getting welfare did receive too much money or shouldn't have gotten any money at all.

[his_girl_l]

The government here is incredibly tough on welfare fraud and overpayments.

As well as criminally prosecuting people who make false claims, it aggressively pursues people who are accidentally overpaid by administrative error.

But as welfare agencies have access to tax office records i would think it would be almost impossible to cheat and get away with it for more than one financial year.

There was an interesting case a few years ago that i followed pretty closely as i was working as a legal secretary at the time and had access to law journals. The Australian Taxation Office was claiming that a drug dealers profits were legally income, no matter how they were derived. They ended up getting a judgement that he had to pay tax on it and also charged him with welfare fraud and he also had to repay the benefits he had received during the period he was dealing.

i don't think anyone, no matter what their political leanings, would argue that welfare
payments should go to anyone who wasn't in genuine need.

And to return to the point of this post, teen mothers without a supportive partner or the education required to get a job that would cover child care and also support them and their child are about as needy as people can get.

i have qualifications, a good work history and child support payments from my ex husband, a well off professional. And i still find it hard to find work that will make ends meet after child care payments for my three pre school age children.

The only way for teen mothers to get independent and educated is to have assistance in the early years, be it from state, charity or family.

But prevention is better than cure, and while i would never advocate forcing any drug on anyone, programmes to encourage teenagers to use contraception can only be a good thing in my opinion.

True, an implant won't prevent STDs. But a lot of teens are obviously not using condoms anyway. In fact the statistics here show that teenage use of condoms is down to pre 80s levels as the threat of aids isn't viewed as as serious as it was a generation ago.

If it's a choice between teens contracting sexually transmitted diseases AND getting pregnant AND potentially passing the diseases on to their babies, or just getting STDs, i know which i would choose.

[MMI]

This was extensively investigated here in the last couple of months, because their had been some spectacular cases of fraud: 3% of all the people getting welfare did receive too much money or shouldn't have gotten any money at all.

Thanks for this information. However, something's missing.

3% of how many? And what proportion is that of the working population?

Furthermore, how much too much did they receive? A dollar or two, or hundreds? And how much of the overpayments was due to fraud as opposed to clerical error (working out benefits can be incredibly - and unnecessarily - complicated, even for the people who work in the welfare departments).

In Britain we have a population of 60 million (per National Statistics Office). Of those, we have a workforce of 30 million, of which 1.7 million are unemployed. 3% of that would mean 51,000 people were being paid too much unemployment benefit, for one reason or another - not all of it due to fraudulent claims.

11% of the UK population regard their health as "not good". Assuming that indicates that they make significant use of the NHS, then 6,600,000 are doing so. If 3% of these people were making fraudulent use of the NHS, we would be talking about 198,000 people.

We have, perhaps, 16 million people aged over 65, most of whom will be receiving benefits of some sort. Is pension fraud included in the 3% figure?

Britain's population is about 1/20th of that of USA, but however you look at it, 3% of a nation's economy produces numbers that can be scarily large. It is not proof that the nation is being dragged into financial ruin by people who refuse to contribute their fair share of work. The country can and should afford that in order to make sure the other 97% of benefits are paid out to people who do deserve it. Maybe it should work harder to eliminate the fraudsters.

[Logic1]

The governments SHOULD be tough on welfare fraud but for me personally I rather pay a bit more tax and then if I happen to get sick or out of a job or something along those lines I would like for the society as a whole to help me through the tough times than if I go and get sick or whatever have to solely rely on myself and the money I have saved up for myself.
I think of it as humane and considerate and not bad at all.

[Thorne]

I've read much of what has been said here and I agree with some of the things you are saying, to some degree. But I still tend to balk at the idea that the government should be responsible for taking care of people. People should first take care of themselves, second their families and friends, and third, other people if they wish to do so.

Regardless of what religion might tell you, I am not responsible for every other person in this world, or in this country, or even in my neighborhood. Your 12 year old daughter is pregnant? Unless it's my son who got her there, it's not my problem. Your baby was born with aids? Not my problem. You have asthma, bronchitis, a broken leg and heart disease? Not my problem!!

I see images on the TV of people starving in Africa, and people in Asia homeless, and people in Texas ravaged by storms, and I say: NOT MY PROBLEM!

I read an article recently about two slackers in Britain who were both out of work, or unable to work, who spent a vast amount of time, and money, on the "Second Life" computer world, so much so that their real lives were adversely affected by it. These people, who were obviously not starving to death, couldn't get out and get work, but they could afford internet access and whatever the fees for that silly program? All on YOUR tax dollars? Is that what socialism is all about?

I've worked hard all my life. Sure, I've been out of work. Sure, I've had spells when I didn't have any health care benefits. And maybe I've just been lucky that I haven't had any serious illnesses. But I've always, always tried to pay my own way.

When I was out of work, we cut back on the luxuries. We didn't pay for every movie network on the cable, and sometimes we couldn't even pay for the cable. We didn't buy high end electronics or expensive clothes. We made do with what we had and only bought what we needed. And even while working, and bringing in enough money, we still didn't buy anything that wasn't absolutely necessary unless we had the cash to pay for it!

Now, my home is paid for, my kids are grown (though apparently not totally independent), I am not smothered under credit card debt, and my wife and I are seeing retirement just around the corner. I'm not interested in a system that is going to tax me to death to pay for your kid's problems, or for that starving family in the Philippines or any of the thousands, millions of hard-luck people around the world. I'll take care of myself and my family. Let others do the same.

And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.

This is not a racial or cultural idea, either. I don't care which part of the world you come from, what color your skin is, or what religion, if any, you choose to associate with. I'm talking strictly about the genetic makeup of humanity. Keeping kids with congenital defects alive just because they might grow up to be the next Beethoven or Einstein or Mandela isn't doing humanity any good. The next Dr. King or Ghandi, or perhaps even the next Hitler or Stalin, will eventually come along anyway, and he or she will be healthy enough to survive into adulthood without extraordinary means. Spending hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to keep a kid alive just because he's a kid is stupid and arrogant. Odds are his value to society will always be a negative. The Hawkings of the world are few and far between.

[lucy]

You are lying on the street, robbed, beaten, hurting, aching, bleeding, about to kick the bucket?
Fuck it! It's not my problem! I just walk by.

No, wrong. F*** YOU! Your stupidity of being in the wrong place at the wrong time probably will cost me (as a taxpayer!!!) some of my hard earned Swiss Francs.

(Just to make sure everyone gets it: It's called sarcasm. And not personal. Just an example, although a graphical one.)

As for your questions, MMI: Right, my post wasn't all that helpful. I'll try to fill in the blanks if i get around to do some research.

[MMI]

No problem, lucy.

[his_girl_l]

[QUOTE=Thorne;767924]
And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.


As far as i know the concept of every life being sacred isn't unique to any political creed.

Before there were organised welfare states church run charities took care of people in extreme need. True, you might have been able to opt out, but until the 19th century there was enormous social pressure to be active in your local church and also to tithe - and those tithes helped look after people who had fallen on hard times.

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another? What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

I am not a socialist, but i really really don't think this argument is about politics anymore, if it ever was.

It is a huge leap to go from arguing that adults who can earn their own living shouldn't receive tax payer subsidy to arguing that some babies and children who are incapable of looking after themselves should be condemned because of the circumstances of their birth.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?

[MMI]

Double posting

[MMI]

I composed a long reply to Thorne, but it took too long and I was timed out before I could post it. Just as well, my thoughts have changed.

I now think that many Americans do believe they are worth more than anyone else, just because they have more money and power than the rest. Including other Americans who have the misfortune to be poorer. That being so, there's no arguing with them, because we have no common values, principles or morality. They do not value compassion or comprehend social conscience, just like we cannot understand their cold, dispassionate, animal-like isolationism.

Britain is not a socialist country, but we Britons choose to support our needy, and in particular, to help our young single mothers (for the sake of the children more than anything else). For the most part, we are happy to do so. As America values freedom of choice, they should allow us to do so without comment. Let their own unfortunates die in their own filth if that's what they want, but don't tell us that the American way is better than ours. It stinks!

I have nothing else to say.

[Torq]

Thread moved to Politics Area.

Note: In this area there is a LITTLE more allowances for OPINIONS ON THE TOPIC!!!!!!

NOTE Key word LITTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STAY on TOPIC

TY


T

[Thorne]

You are lying on the street, robbed, beaten, hurting, aching, bleeding, about to kick the bucket?
Fuck it! It's not my problem! I just walk by.

You think this is unusual? I would bet that this happens far too often in almost any major city in the world.

A young woman is gang-raped in a bar. Not a single patron comes to her aid and, in fact, many of them cheer on the rapists.

A man is badly injured by a hit and run driver. No one passing by bothers to even notify emergency services, and at least one "Good Samaritan" actually tries to rob the man.

A woman screams in pain and terror as her husband/boy friend beats her mercilessly, night after night. Not one neighbor interferes or notifies police. When the woman is found dead, several weeks later, all the neighbors are "shocked! He seemed like such a nice man!"

These are horrid examples of man's inhumanity, and I don't for one instant claim that they are good or right. But they are a far cry from telling someone who is healthy and fit that they are no longer getting a free ride, but will have to work to support themselves.

Sure, help those who cannot help themselves. I have no problem with that. And those who have already done their bit for society, the elderly who are finally able to set aside their burdens, they deserve the support of that society. They've earned it.

But don't expect me to feel sorry for some schmuck who has spent his whole life chasing from one drug-fueled high to another. Or some foolish woman who has come to realize that the government will give her more money if she has more kids, and she won't have to work for it.

I've worked my whole life only to see the fruits of my labors wasted on people like this. I say, let them fend for themselves, and if they can't hack it, then too bad. We must all pay the price for our own stupidity.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=lgirl;768338]

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another?

Absolutely! If one of those children is healthy and fit, with little or no physical defects; and the other child has severe physical problems, the kinds of problems which would result in multiple surgeries and years of intensive care to allow that child to live a life of pain and anguish, a life which is almost certainly going to be short and unproductive; then yes, one child has more value.

I have seen these kinds of defects, seen the amount of resources devoted to keeping children alive for just one more day, one more week. Children who should have died immediately after birth, who would never even leave the hospital. Some who had even been, finally, abandoned by their families because they were not going to survive, yet kept alive simply because medicine can keep them alive.

What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

In this kind of case, I would expect that my family, or hers, or both, would step in and take over the raising of my children. And if there is no family, then yes, the state would take over.

I'm not talking about genetic problems which may or may not appear later in someone's life, but genetic problems which appear at birth, physical and/or mental deformities which preclude a child from living any kind of meaningful life. Admittedly, there is a fine line there. Who decides. I don't claim to know the answers. I just know that there are serious problems with the system as it stands.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?

Absolutely! They deserve just as much chance as I was given by my parents, and as much chance as I was able to provide my children. Just don't expect me to subsidize their chances.

[Skyybird]

OK...so...we are here to debate why the teenage pregnancy rate in the UK is so high? Thats how I read the first post anyway.

I will give you the benefit of my experience, I work in this exact field and can tell you that it is rarely solely due to the financial remuneration offered by the government to support young girls in this situation.

I can tell you, it is about nothing more than sex.

Sex education in this country sucks big time. I have posted in a thread elsewhere about this and I said then, as I say now, sex is everywhere.

TV, Music, Newspapers, Clubs, you name it....everything is sold on it's intrinsic sexy value added appeal.

Teenage girls are no longer innocent. The generation their parents belong to have sealed their fate in opening the world up to being liberal and removing taboo's. We have all switched on our computers, tv's radios, opened our newspapers etc and invited sex into our lives. Our children no longer see sex as something adult.

Education in schools has pretty much irradicated the inclusion of anything other than basic sex education. Not enough time is given to focus on self repsect and relationships. We fill them full of the mechanics but fail to provide the complexities of life into it.

I joke you not...when my daughter became a woman, I told her in no uncertain terms she was now physically capable of bearing a child, she is 11. I also lightened the moment by telling her there should be no more sex!! It was a joke, She laughed rightly so, she is a mature young lady in the making and we speak freely about this subject because I truly believe to grow up understanding relationships is the key to making it past your teens without getting pregnant.

So...do we just let these girls get pregnant and not look after them? Do we let these innocent babies come into the world to be negelected, malnourished and to grow into carbon copies of their parents? I dont think so. I think we have the responsibility as a society to provide for them, both the mother and the child, who lets face it have no idea what they are getting into.

Do we not give them contraception and let them get pregnant repeatedly over time to repeat their own niaive mistakes? I agree that the injection may not be ideal, but it is the least forgettable type of contraception second to an IUD (coil) which is not recommended until a woman has had her first child. Until another form of contraception can be made available which is safe for young girls and which doesnt rely on the girl remebering everyday to take a pill, which itself isn't suitable to all women either, we have to concentrate on education.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/...egnancy/about/

You may find this document helpful.

Just to clarify, the current benefit paid to young girls who have babies is the same as that which is paid to anyone who has a child at any age. The extra benefits are in order to make sure she has a place to live that is safe and clean for her and her childs health. Such places in my experience are rarely up to the task. Social services will not separate a mother and child until there is significant concern for the childs wellbeing. But that is a whole other story.

[Skyybird]

I've read much of what has been said here and I agree with some of the things you are saying, to some degree. But I still tend to balk at the idea that the government should be responsible for taking care of people. People should first take care of themselves, second their families and friends, and third, other people if they wish to do so.

Regardless of what religion might tell you, I am not responsible for every other person in this world, or in this country, or even in my neighborhood. Your 12 year old daughter is pregnant? Unless it's my son who got her there, it's not my problem. Your baby was born with aids? Not my problem. You have asthma, bronchitis, a broken leg and heart disease? Not my problem!!

I see images on the TV of people starving in Africa, and people in Asia homeless, and people in Texas ravaged by storms, and I say: NOT MY PROBLEM!

I read an article recently about two slackers in Britain who were both out of work, or unable to work, who spent a vast amount of time, and money, on the "Second Life" computer world, so much so that their real lives were adversely affected by it. These people, who were obviously not starving to death, couldn't get out and get work, but they could afford internet access and whatever the fees for that silly program? All on YOUR tax dollars? Is that what socialism is all about?

I've worked hard all my life. Sure, I've been out of work. Sure, I've had spells when I didn't have any health care benefits. And maybe I've just been lucky that I haven't had any serious illnesses. But I've always, always tried to pay my own way.

When I was out of work, we cut back on the luxuries. We didn't pay for every movie network on the cable, and sometimes we couldn't even pay for the cable. We didn't buy high end electronics or expensive clothes. We made do with what we had and only bought what we needed. And even while working, and bringing in enough money, we still didn't buy anything that wasn't absolutely necessary unless we had the cash to pay for it!

Now, my home is paid for, my kids are grown (though apparently not totally independent), I am not smothered under credit card debt, and my wife and I are seeing retirement just around the corner. I'm not interested in a system that is going to tax me to death to pay for your kid's problems, or for that starving family in the Philippines or any of the thousands, millions of hard-luck people around the world. I'll take care of myself and my family. Let others do the same.

And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.

This is not a racial or cultural idea, either. I don't care which part of the world you come from, what color your skin is, or what religion, if any, you choose to associate with. I'm talking strictly about the genetic makeup of humanity. Keeping kids with congenital defects alive just because they might grow up to be the next Beethoven or Einstein or Mandela isn't doing humanity any good. The next Dr. King or Ghandi, or perhaps even the next Hitler or Stalin, will eventually come along anyway, and he or she will be healthy enough to survive into adulthood without extraordinary means. Spending hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to keep a kid alive just because he's a kid is stupid and arrogant. Odds are his value to society will always be a negative. The Hawkings of the world are few and far between.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I think you are lacking compassion. You have been very lucky in your life and you have obviously been raised with a good sense of responsibility for yourself and your family. Sadly, through no fault of their own, many other people in this world have not.

I hope to god you never loose your home and your income.

Life is just not that black and white.

[Skyybird]

Trying to get benefits when your ex should be paying alimony? Disgraceful! Make him pay instead of leeching off me. I work for my own good, not yours, or society's.

Sue him!

What? You can't afford to pay for a solicitor? Then get a job!



PS - I agree about the title. Inflammatory is right.

And a free nanny for the kids and some free petrol for the car to get to work?

Put yourself in those shoes for one minute. It just isnt that easy. A solicitor and a court order is not the guarrantee of payment if there is no money to be given.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I think you are lacking compassion. You have been very lucky in your life and you have obviously been raised with a good sense of responsibility for yourself and your family. Sadly, through no fault of their own, many other people in this world have not.

I hope to god you never loose your home and your income.

Life is just not that black and white.

I think I do have compassion, just not for every sick little puppy that crosses my path. If a young mother gets injured or killed by a drunk driver, certainly her kids will need to be helped. Preferably by the drunk who's responsible. He has his own family? Fine! Let half his income go to helping the family he deprived of a mother. Sure, that deprives his family, but he should have thought about that before getting behind the wheel drunk.

I feel sorry for a lot of people in this world, and I know things are not always black and white. Hardly ever, in fact. But there are still certain standards which we have developed in this country, and perhaps others, which deflect responsibility from those who should be held responsible and onto those who haven't done anything wrong but must pay for someone else's mistakes.

So, you have a young mother who can't afford to raise her own child? What should she do? Go out and have more children? That doesn't help anything. I know! Let's give her money and tell her that she'll be supported by society because she's just a poor unfortunate girl. Then she can learn that having kids will keep her from having to get a job. Isn't that brilliant?

I don't claim to know all the answers, either. I do know that education and a sense of personal responsibility will do more for people's lives than all the welfare in the world. Let's spend our money on those things, instead.

[Skyybird]

I don't claim to know all the answers, either. I do know that education and a sense of personal responsibility will do more for people's lives than all the welfare in the world. Let's spend our money on those things, instead.

I agree there are always going to be people who play the system, I'm not innocent enough to think everyone is honest and hard working. But working in the middle of these young people really does change one's beliefs. They dress and act so mature but yet inside they are still children and have no idea what they are getting into.

You are so right. We need to invest in our future generations with not just finances but with our skills and experience to give them the best life chances.

If a man under the influence of alcohol drives his car and kills a mother, his family should not have to suffer either....he will pay his debt as is prescribed by law. His children should not have to pay his debt for him.

It's easy to believe our own principles are correct, and virtuous, until it is us who stands in the shoes of those we judge.

[Thorne]

If a man under the influence of alcohol drives his car and kills a mother, his family should not have to suffer either....he will pay his debt as is prescribed by law. His children should not have to pay his debt for him.

I agree, they should not. Neither should the children of the woman he's killed, but they do. And neither should I have to pay his debt, yet I must help to pay for his incarceration as well as for those children, and probably for his children. Yet I don't know any of them and had nothing to do with the circumstances which caused the whole mess. Where's the justice in that?

There are charitable organizations and religious organizations which claim to help those in need, and those who feel the need can donate to those organizations. Let these groups handle the needs of those children.

[MonsterMaster{vg}]

Thorne's opinions are one of the problems I have with the country I love. Within the last 8 years we have turned into a selfish, mean country in our views.

Compassion has been lost. I love how, THorne, you say that you are compassionate when your views express just the opposite. Saying it does not make it so.

Fear of socialism is just a bugaboo with the criminals that have run the country the last eight years. The criminals that care for one thing and one thing alone, lining the pockets of themselves and their rich friends.

THorne's opinions are the reason we are hated throughout the world. And the administration that is luckily on its way out DID express MMI's views that AMericans believe they are better than anyone else. With NO basis for that view.

I love my country and hope we can get back to being a country worthy of that love. A country that takes care of its own and deals with ALL the criminals, including the ones that have run this country into the ground.

As an American that loves his country and thinks that maybe we are getting back on the right track I apologize for people like Thorne and the arrogant folks that have run this country in the last 8 years.

There are still good people in this country, but their voices have been silenced for a long time.

[Thorne]

Compassion has been lost. I love how, THorne, you say that you are compassionate when your views express just the opposite. Saying it does not make it so.

Showing "compassion" for every person, deserving or not, does not make one compassionate, either. Gullible comes to mind. I can feel sympathy for someone who loses his home due to unseen calamities. But a rich man who builds his home on the beach has to expect a hurricane to take it sooner or later. No compassion for him!

THorne's opinions are the reason we are hated throughout the world. And the administration that is luckily on its way out DID express MMI's views that AMericans believe they are better than anyone else. With NO basis for that view.

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. True, far too many Americans think they are better than anyone else. So, too, do people of other countries. Most people believe their country is the best. It's taught to us from birth. But don't include me in them. I've seen the limitations of my country. Don't blame the people or the country, blame the politicians. They are why people hate us!

I love my country and hope we can get back to being a country worthy of that love. A country that takes care of its own and deals with ALL the criminals, including the ones that have run this country into the ground.

There are still good people in this country, but their voices have been silenced for a long time.

Here, at least, we are in agreement.

As an American that loves his country and thinks that maybe we are getting back on the right track I apologize for people like Thorne and the arrogant folks that have run this country in the last 8 years.

This saddens me. I love my country just as much as anyone. I don't love what it's become. I am a fairly solitary person who believes in personal responsibility and hard work. I believe that this country, this world, would be better if more people felt the same way. If that is "arrogant", then excuse me for breathing.

[Skyybird]

I agree, they should not. Neither should the children of the woman he's killed, but they do. And neither should I have to pay his debt, yet I must help to pay for his incarceration as well as for those children, and probably for his children. Yet I don't know any of them and had nothing to do with the circumstances which caused the whole mess. Where's the justice in that?

So if your taxes do not contribute to the incarceration of criminals...exactly where are we to find the funding to hold these criminals if not in state run, tax payer funded, organised, consistent and humane circumstances?

There are charitable organizations and religious organizations which claim to help those in need, and those who feel the need can donate to those organizations. Let these groups handle the needs of those children.

Of course there are organisations of this calibre and I'm sure the family would be more than worthy of such assistance, but charities rely on the kindness of others and their pot of money is never big enough to help everyone. So how do we go about drawing the line? Where do we say yes to one family or victim and no to another?

I really do understand your reluctance to fund the consequences of another man's crime but can we really abandon one life in favour of another? How is that even humane?

[Skyybird]

This saddens me. I love my country just as much as anyone. I don't love what it's become. I am a fairly solitary person who believes in personal responsibility and hard work. I believe that this country, this world, would be better if more people felt the same way. If that is "arrogant", then excuse me for breathing.

I dont think your philosophy is at all arrogant. I work hard, pay my bills, support my family and take responsibility for my actions. The major differrence is that I think everyone deserves a break because but for the grace of "god" (which is a whole other thread!) go all of us.

[Thorne]

I think everyone deserves a break because but for the grace of "god" (which is a whole other thread!) go all of us.

I don't think everyone desrves a break, and that's the real problem some people have with my attitude. I feel that there are some people (and no, I don't claim to know which ones all the time) who don't deserve any sort of break: those who commit pre-meditated murder; child molestors (true molestors, not some 16 year old kid dating a 15 year old and having sex); and others of this kind.

Yes, everyone deserves his day in court, and I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. But once proven guilty, especially of some heinous crime, you forfeit any chance you ever had of getting a "break."