Mutually Exclusive Concepts (Ranty Questions)

[me&thegals]

Just another observation (no fights, please!)--My geographical area has been thought by some to be backwards, but I notice it is also an area where kids are still expected to work hard, do well in school, be respectful and be allowed to fail.

Other areas have been described as less noticeably racist but also producing children who are not allowed to fail.

It seems like you maybe don't get it all. The very liberalism of some areas that creates tolerance also appears to get into feel-good self-esteem for all While the more rural areas appear to have some common-sense parenting remaining but also more undesirable "old-time" traits remaining.

Yes, this is HUGELY generalizing. Just something I noticed and am thinking out loud about.

 

[reinbeau]

Give me the rural, backwoods common sense over the 'liberalism' feel good mentality anytime.

 

[me&thegals]

So here's my plan: Teach my kids to work hard, revere nature and Mother earth, do their best in school, be disciplined for bad choices, respect their fellow humans

.......and........

all the best that liberalism has to offer (see all my posts for details)

 

[farmerlor]

So here's my plan: Teach my kids to work hard, revere nature and Mother earth, do their best in school, be disciplined for bad choices, respect their fellow humans

.......and........

all the best that liberalism has to offer (see all my posts for details)

Exactly my plan and so far it's working out very well. I have a 33 year old daughter who is married, working, never been in jail and helps the less fortunate in every way she can.
My 21 year and 18 year old are both in college, again never been in any trouble whatsoever and both have plans to be respectable members of society while helping those who are not so respected.
The younger ones all have special needs so it's still up in the air as to whether they will contribute a whole to society but they are always allowed to make mistakes and learn from them and take responsibility for them.

 

[me&thegals]

Hey--good for you! It sounds like you're doing a great job!

No matter the disagreements on this site regarding politics, I bet we all have it in us to raise great kids. I admire the parenting of my liberal friends and family and admire the parenting of my conservative friends and family. Each has good values, just a different focus on some of the values versus others.

In my own little family, our kids have a very conservative father and a pretty liberal mother, so I truly think they have the best of both worlds! Plus, they get to see people disagree respectfully (usually, the Bush years were hard) about issues all the time

 

[Wifezilla]

I taught mine to pursue their own happiness......just don't expect anyone else to pay for it

 

[me&thegals]

That's what I mean--we all want the same things. Mine will be expected to be fully functioning, responsible citizens by the time they leave home. I also will hope they will have learned how to help their fellow humans out in any way they can.

 

[Big Daddy]

I don't believe Welfare should be abolished altogether, but I do believe it needs a huge reform to ensure that the right people are getting the help. From what I see, that is not what is happening at all. Paying more taxes is NOT going to solve anything. I am all for helping those that really need it, but I am not impressed with the whole culture that has been created since welfare came into being
As for kids, all you have to do is sit in on a kindergarten class for a few weeks to see that our kids are being taught "all success, no failure" It is sad. Yes as parents we can teach them many things in the little time we have them, but the schools have them for many more hours a week than we do.

They should have Obama teach the classes then. Failure should not be taught. What should be taught is the old saying about falling off the horse. Obama specifically mentioned if you fail you try again and keep at it till you don't fail.

 

[Big Daddy]

I apologize for the digression, but:

for anyone who may have been as spooked as I was by the reference to the Quantcast.com demographic data concerning this site (including yearly income numbers)...

I did some digging on their site, which was quite the challenge for someone on dialup lemme tell ya , and it would appear that the numbers they give are largely pulled out of their butt. If I am understanding correctly, they use algorithms that involve quite a bit of imagination and wild guessing and far-reaching extrapolation to come up with "an estimate" -- not, it would seem, one likely to be particularly accurate -- of a site's user demographics based on what other sites the users are also visiting. They have developed correlations (who knows how good the correlations are, I would personally bet on only modest reliability at best) between what sites a person visits and what their race/gender/income/etc/etc are likely to be.

Actually a coupla things about their percentage numbers make me suspect that they may be basing things on *#visits* or *logged in time* rather than on #unique users, causing the data (if it can be called data, with so vast an amount of guesswork involved) to be distinctly skewed by a few people who spend a substantial amount of time here.

So I believe they are doing sort of a sophisticated version of "gee, that person was just shopping on Rodeo Drive, they must make a lot of money! Whereas that was was lookin' up articles on the Dollar Stretcher site, bet they're not so well off!" Given the vast amount of extrapolation going on there, over logical distances of interstellar proportion, I would not take any of their estimates very seriously at ALL. And it does not appear that we have to worry that there is publicly available information as to SufficientSelf.com members' actual real incomes or anything else like that.

Sorry for the interruption, I just was really freaked out by reading that and would suspect I'm not the only one. We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranty questions (which is a great phrase btw Wifezilla )

Pat

Thank goodness. I was afraid I might be a woman.

 

[VT-Chicklit]

Me & thegals said I am not trying to say people on welfare don't vote. VT-chicklit was saying that welfare remains because politicians don't want to lose the votes of people on it.

,


As I pointed out in my post #50, I am not specifically speaking about people receiving welfare. I was speaking about the poor, most of whom are not on welfare. I also pointed out that I could also have used the rich and the Bush tax cuts as an example. Either way, many promises made by candidates/politicians are done to get votes and campaign contributions. The poor will probably not contribute, but their votes do count. If you dont have much, promising government largess may sway your vote. Subsidized heat, Food Stamps, Welfare, phone subsidy, and so on are paid for by our taxes. No where in these programs is there any thing that will aid those who get this help to be able to eventually help themselves. There are only road blocks set up to make it more difficult for them to have a better life that is not dependent on the government. I have no problem with helping those who need help, but you also need to provide a way for those being helped to help themselves. It is sad that these programs trap people into a form of slavery. Many people get stuck in this cycle and cant get off their subsidies. When thay start to do for themselves, they loose all the help they were getting and they are not ready to be able to go it alone with out help. It, in many cases becomes a way of life, from generation to generation. That is not fair. They are unable to share the American Dream.

If the government really had the best interests of these people at heart, they would give them a Hand Up instead of a Hand Out.

Vote buying is attempted by most if not all the people in Congress. As I said earlier it is not just the poor that have their vote bought. Why do you think the same Congressmen and Senators keep getting re-elected, even if they do not do a stellar job? They bring home the baccon to their state or enough of a constituancy in their state. My Congress people are no exception. They pander to the various groups and promise things. Monies for bike paths (when the roads are what is deteriorating), monies for museums (when education is underfunded), subsidies for the small farmer (when Cap & Trade will cost them more than the subsidy). These are just vote buying ploys. They spend the money on things that get them votes. Instead of spending our money wisely on things that are needed and creating ways for each of us to help ourselves and each other. It is in their best interest if we are dependent on them. Why do you think there are so many unfunded mandates. It enslaves the states. They dont get burned because your state taxes go up and you cant see their finger prints on the increase.