<p>
The uncle’s fault, actually, he didn’t lock his gun up. They had to move in with him because the mother was taken off welfare and couldn’t pay rent. Even with her minimum wage job, she hadn’t been able to save up enough yet. Much more sad when you see a picture of the little girl.</p>
<p>
And when the parent cannot provide, it is the duty of government to step in. Better that than lose the child.</p>
<p>
Clearly.</p>
<p>I live right by Norwalk, I can tell you that this is not a rare occurrence. I’ve known several people who have done the same thing (most try to get out of the Bridgeport, CT school system).</p>
<p>BillyMc,</p>
<p>Do you work? Do you have a job?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally no, because stepping in when the parent says they can’t provide creates moral hazard. It encourages parents to not provide knowing the government will take over.</p>
<p>Few parents - extremely few - will actually not provide for their kids. Parents will do almost anything to make sure their kids are well taken care of. But, sadly, many will claim they can’t take care of them because they want the government to take care of them. And it’s sad.</p>
<p>It’s very apparant when it comes to school supplies. Many kids will show up to school without supplies. Now, school supplies cost $5 (essential ones, not all the unnecessary fluff), less than a case of beer or pack of cigarettes. And the same kids without school supplies will have clothes on their back - and perhaps designer brands - and be taken care of by the family, but the family chooses not to buy supplies because they know others will do that for them. </p>
<p>If the parents truely can’t provide for the kids, yes, society needs to take care of them, but it needs to be in a fashion that doesn’t create moral hazardl.</p>
<p>BillyMC, your philosophies in life are immature. They’re statements that you’ve read from books but not experienced in real life. They’ll develop over time, but right now they are a bit immature.</p>
<p>And what does that have to do with the price of milk? Many of the criminal elements of Stamford, Greenwich, Danbury, etc., all (or most) have jobs - very well-paying ones at that (stockbrokers, analysts, bankers, mortgage loan officers, lawyers) - as well as wives, husbands, high-achieving children, churches, and extra sex partners - it doesn’t stop them (and may even encourage them) to do their nefarious deeds.</p>
<p>Stockbrockers, analysts, banker, mortgage loan officers, lawyers aren’t criminals.</p>
<p>
If you said you had lived in real poverty, I would call you a liar. I may be younger than you, but that doesn’t mean I’m not right, nor does it mean that I haven’t experienced what poverty can do to people. All over the country, all over the world, things work for the rich and they don’t for the poor. The “haves” may think everything works fine and the poor are just lazy, they can afford to be self-righteous; the “have-nots” see the world at its worst, see the failures of society. So I hope you never experience poverty, but I do hope that you realize that it’s not the picture you have in your head.</p>
<p>Being affluent isn’t a crime. Nor is being poor a crime. Why has this discussion become a debate that demonizes one economic demographic over another? It is really much simpler than that (the query in the original post, not the societal problem at the root of it). A crime was committed. Should the person accused be punished if found guilty? Does the punishment fit the crime?</p>
<p>All poor people are not lazy.
All poor people are not deserving of government intervention.
All affluent people did not make their money on the backs of the poor.
All affluent people are not above the law.</p>
<p>The generalizations that are being expressed on either side of this issue are simply muddying the waters around the debate.</p>
<p>I agree that the woman in this incident is probably part of a very bad pattern that is very difficult to raise oneself out of. I cannot imagine what that is like nor can I pretend that I have ever walked in her shoes. But, in my opinion, when someone lies to exploit the system, it is a crime and there should be consequences for that. Her specific circumstances should come into play if and when she is found guilty and the judge is determining her punishment.</p>
<p>And am I the only one here that find the thing that is most disturbing is the idea that the parent has forced her child to live a life of deception in order to support her fraud?</p>
<p>botw, BillyMc is someone’s child (someone’s child who is passionate about injustice and knows how to make his case, I might add). Would you want someone treating your child the way you are treating him?</p>
<p>
There are people so rich that they hold so much of the Earth’s resources, it becomes impossible for all human beings to have the resources they need to survive, no matter how hard they work. So extreme affluence can be a crime against humanity.</p>
<p>
I appreciate the good will, but I’d prefer to be treated as a participant in intelligent discussion. Past a certain point of development and experience, people reach this point. After all, we’re all someone’s child. And, I might add, we’re all at least 50th cousins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the point being made by some on this thread, granted in the enigmatic and round about way of some posters on this thread, is that it is the “system” itself which has failed this woman and this child, and that the system itself is in place in order to protect those who have “exploited” the system to much gain, power, and advantage.</p>
<p>If the woman is a “product” of a corrupt system, then the system is, by its very nature, invalid. In other words, the ‘system’ which has worked so well to protect those of us in the “haves” column has done nothing at all for this woman, or for many like her.</p>
<p>The single largest cause of poverty in this country is single-motherhood. The single largest cause of lack of education is poverty. Yet, we proclaim endlessly the importance of educating our children. When we say, “We need to educate our children,” do we really just mean we need to educate our own children? </p>
<p>I’m genuinely asking this question.</p>
<p>
I think that’s a big part of it, yes. Affluent people generally have great public schools, but still send kids to private schools. Poor people have bad public schools and very few can go to private schools. Everyone is going to be concerned for their family, that’s natural. Where someone is in the world affects how they see it and what they think is wrong with it. For some, it is poverty, homelessness, lack of health care, and failing schools; for others, it is falling home prices and job insecurity; for others still it is capital gains and estate taxes.</p>
<p>BillyMc, I defend people against body slams, young and old alike. More often than not it means I end up slammed at some point instead, but for some reason I feel compelled to say something when I see it happen.</p>
<p>botw, you’re trying to make a decision where to live so your child can attend good schools on down the line. Well, imagine life goes very askew and you find yourself living somewhere very undesirable where there are gangs in the schools and it’s downright dangerous for your child to be there. This kind of thing happens. You might not feel all is right and good with the world if you were to see the folks a mile away with the fancier houses and the nicer cars, who are able to take nice vacations and dress pretty spiffy sending their kids off to a way better school than the one yours is going to be able to attend. Who knows what exactly would have led to this circumstance for either you or the people in the houses a mile away, but this kind of scenario happens an awful lot in the world, whether you want to see it or not. As I recall you were thinking of finding a place to rent in an area that has better schools. What if the nicer schools only have expensive, completely unaffordable homes which aren’t rentals that feed in? How would you feel about that?</p>
<p>I’m not saying people should break the law, but I think it’s sad how little compassion some have for others who are struggling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s assume that is the case, although we really don’t know for sure. I mean for all we know this woman has had opportunities, options, aid. But let’s assume that she is truly a victim of the system in every possible way. That means that she can break the law to gain something that she feels she has been denied? How does that work on a bigger scale? Who decides what each of us deserve? </p>
<p>I used an example in an earlier post of a woman being paid less than her male counterpart. She is being denied something that she is, in all fairness, entitled to. So it would be okay if she steals money from her male counterparts wallet to even out the difference? Then to make the comparison even more apt, the woman gives some of the money to her child and tells him not to tell anyone that it is stolen. If anyone asks, tell them you earned it. </p>
<p>I’m seriously interested in a response to this comparison.</p>
<p>
I gave one in this post: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12530165-post43110.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12530165-post43110.html</a></p>
<p>To further develop on it, I would say that it is conditional. If the male counterpart is rich and the female is impoverished, then yes. If, however, she had enough money to support herself and her family, taking any more would be unnecessary and she should pursue her case in a court of law to cause the most damage possible to the discriminatory employer.</p>
<p>
Well, thank you for your concern. Hopefully to close the subject of my age, I would point out that many older men and women holding the same views as me have fought and died for the poor and oppressed.</p>
<p>EPTR-- that is a really interesting comparison, and one more example of how the “systems” are set up to benefit those who have set up the “systems.”</p>
<p>That we all go along with it is what it is, but it doesn’t mean it is a system in place for the benefit of “all.” So, if you are a part of the culture who the system has been set up to exploit, and not a part of the group it was set up to benefit, why would you necessarily respect its legitimacy?</p>
<p>this is purely philosophical for me, but just because that “is the system” doesn’t mean it is working for everyone. And, if it isn’t working for you, how far do you go to change it? This is the root of most revolution. I wonder what the “tipping point” is?</p>
<p>Deborah, with all due respect, you cannot assume that there is no compassion for people in bad circumstances simply because some of us don’t agree that it okay for someone to lie in order to work the system. That is the same kind of generalization that is making this discussion so hard to navigate. I can only speak for myself but I have tremendous compassion for people with few resources. None of us know each other in real life but I hope you can trust me on that one. Again, the woman who is accused deserves to be heard and her unique circumstances need to be known and considered when she is being tried or sentenced if found guilty.</p>
<p>EPTR–</p>
<p>Just so you know, I think your position is a legitimate position. I’m just talking, but not criticizing. I think this is an interesting question we face, as a culture. I really believe we all want to educate all of the children. I do.</p>
<p>
Sometimes poor people do talk about revolution. Rarely completely seriously, but I hear it (and take part). Sometimes things just seem too broken, too deadly. Reform is hard to believe in when every politician promises it and one in a hundred years follows through.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we can hold that one coworker responsible for this corrupt system? I can take his money to begin to even the score? That is revolutionary problem solving? Of course this system is not set up for the benefit of all. That’s why I made this particular comparison. Does it come down to the choice of “going along with it” or committing a crime to mediate the effect of the system?</p>
<p>If your child came home from school and told you that another child got a bigger piece of cake during snack because the teacher likes that other child better or because the other child is prettier or the other child is white and your child is black, how do you tell your child to handle that? Should she just march over to the other child and grab some of that cake? I mean she’s as entitled to it as the other child, right?</p>
<p>Poetgrl,
Thank you. I feel the same about your position. I really, really would like to see things change. I’m a teacher and I see so much that goes on in the lives of some children and I want all of them to have everything they need to succeed.</p>