[quote=flu]My kid got two buckets of candy last night after walking around for 1 1/2 hrs.
I took one of the buckets and gave it to one of my neighbor’s kid who was too lazy to go out and trick o treat himself.
When my kid cried, pouted that wasn’t fair, and asked why, I explained to her that she’s too rich and we needed to redistribute half of her candy to people who didn’t have any candy last night because they didn’t want to walk up and down the hill for 1 1/2 hr….
I’m kidding….I’m kidding…..
I didn’t actually give one of the buckets away….
I just pretended like I was going to so she would know what it feels like so she would get use to it later….
I’m kidding… I’m kidding… Sort of….[/quote]
Your half kidding. I get it. Nonetheless, this is a typical conservative’s view of the intentions of liberals. Tax the hard-working well-off and give to the lazy poor.
Following is how I see it. (Not that this is a typical liberal view. Or, necessarily a liberal view at all).
Picture two kids. One is born in Carmel Valley. The other in Watts. They’re both near the middle of the lazy to hard-working spectrum. Both of average to a bit above average intelligence. The kid from CV gets Bs and some As, goes to SDSU, gets a job as an accountant. His sister does something similar. The kid from Watts ends up in a gang, gets shot in the leg, the taxpayers pay for his surgery, and eventually he winds up with a minimum wage job that is supplemented by food stamps. His sister has a kid, there’s no father around, and she’s on welfare.
The kids from CV are paying taxes to support the kids from Watts. But are those kids really that different from each other? Let’s say, hypothetically, that we could have identical twins raised separately in these situations (except the ones in Watts would appear black/hispanic and the ones in CV would appear white/asian). In fact, let’s just switch gene pools entirely between CV and Watts. Does anybody think the outcome would be different from how it is now? Would the kid with the white/asian genes turn out any different from the kids with the black/hispanic genes?
Now, I know that no one is suggesting that racial differences have anything to do with it. And neither am I. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s the environment that you grow up in that has everything to do with it. Why do the kids from Watts generally end up taking government support while the kids from Carmel Valley pay for it? If it’s not their genes, it has to be their environment. Right? It’s not because they’re lazy. And if it is, it’s because their environment encouraged that attitude.
Sure, a kid from Watts has the opportunity to make it out of the ghetto. He can get good grades. He can go to UC. He can be an accountant. But for him to do that from Watts would take a great deal more… I don’t know… rebelliousness, focus, fortitude. Self motivation. The kid from CV has his parents hounding him to do his homework and practice his violin. The kid from Watts… generally not as much. He’s much more likely to have to do it by himself. His parents aren’t really placing an emphasis on education. So your occasional special kid will make it out. But the general population is going to turn out people who are expensive to the taxpayers.
Yes, these are generalizations. Not every family in Watts doesn’t emphasize education. Not every family in CV does (At least I don’t think they do. Every family I know does). But these are probably pretty accurate generalizations. In Watts, you can avoid the gangs if you try. I’d imagine, though, for a 15-year-old boy who’s father isn’t around, it’s pretty hard. In Carmel Valley, you’d really have to go out of your way to join a gang. And if you did and your dad or, god forbid, your tiger mom found out…
So right now, I imagine the conservatives are focusing on the “And if it is (because they’re lazy), it’s because their environment encouraged that attitude” comment. And let’s go ahead and add uneducated and unskilled to lazy, because their environment produced that, as well. (Actually, lazy isn’t the exact word I’m looking for. More like “disinclined to work at a job and to take the steps necessary to contribute to society.” Which is different. But lazy is close enough, so I’ll use that.) So, at this point, you could say, “I don’t care why they’re lazy. They’re lazy. I don’t want to pay for their food stamps.” Ok, but then what happens? They’re hungry and they don’t have jobs. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to see what happens after that.
So, assuming that the same population raised in Carmel Valley will turn out differently from if it was raised in Watts, what’s the solution?
Well, it’s not to keep doing what we’re doing or to give them more free assistance. Because that’s not going to change anything and it’s going to cost a lot of money. Nonetheless, this is a view that some liberals hold. And it’s not to just say “fuck them” and hope for the best. Because, while that might save some money in the short run, it is not a viable long-term strategy. To hope that the underclass will say, “well, the jig is up. Gotta get a job now and start contributing to society” is a pipe dream. Nonetheless, this is a view that some conservatives hold.
I think the solution is (and I’ve said this before in this forum) to change their environment and their culture and their access to education. This would obviously be a difficult, expensive, and, in the case of their culture, very politically incorrect thing to attempt. But what choice do we have?
