<p>Excuse me, but I am willing to bet that a very, very large portion of that affluence is based on crime. Not because most of the people committed criminal acts (though many, many did), but because the funds gained from the criminal enterprises funded the real estate, automobile, insurance, and retail industries, funded the private schools (and the public schools) and the prestige-college educations. (This puts aside the question of funding for both the drug and prostitution industries.)</p>
<p>Should we redistribute the wealth from the Kennedys? It is quite famous how they got their big bucks. Once they got theirs, then their political policies helped others that were less fortunate perhaps- but they didn’t give away theirs.
Just like filmmaker Michael Moore, who talks a great game. He’ll say that those who are rich are a natural resource and their money must be taken away to give to the poor; yet I don’t think he lives in a $50000 house and keeps only $400. a week to live on, giving up all his other money to “the poor”.
Being practical, or a capitalist, or successful, or lucky isn’t a crime. Lying to get money or benefits or services one isn’t entitled to can be.</p>
<p>Using the- “Well Johnny did it too!” to excuse someone’s behavior just doesn’t get it. It might work up to about 4th grade, but beyond that it just doesn’t fly.</p>
<p>BOTW is right in that the supplies in public schools are pooled. We had a list of things to send in like reams of printer paper, paper towels, wipes, tissues, Purel, pencils, etc. Came out at over $40, but what are you going to do? They need it.</p>
<p>My D is a teaching fellow in one of the worse public schools in our area. It is the norm that kids come in without paper or writing instruments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that all of the “wealth” in the town where this woman allegedly committed fraud was gained through criminal acts. How would that justify the woman’s crime (if she did commit one). I guess the children of the wealthy don’t deserve protection from exploitation and theft the way the children of the poor do. If their schools resources are compromised because of an act of fraud, well…that’s just too bad. I mean their parents are criminals! And Rich criminals, no less! Those kids deserve to be victimized?</p>
<p>Yeah, they shouldn’t be forced to interact with a poor child. Oh, the exploitation! Oh, the great misuse of their top facilities, new textbooks, and better-paid teachers! Oh, the humanity!</p>
<p>
In this instance, that’s not the case, though. In theory, the discrepancy is important, but in this specific instance, there really isn’t one. I’d love to know what the real story is.</p>
<p>I’m not justifying the woman’s “crime”, because her “crime” was that she failed to register herself at the homeless shelter. The law is very clear: the kid was entitled to be enrolled in the school.</p>
<p>“I guess the children of the wealthy don’t deserve protection from exploitation and theft the way the children of the poor do. If their schools resources are compromised because of an act of fraud, well…that’s just too bad.”</p>
<p>As for the schools of the rich themselves, the schools became rich as a result of thousands of acts of fraud. So you got that right: the children of the rich DON’T deserve any special protection from exploitation because they didn’t come by what they have justly to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The children don’t deserve protection because they are Rich!!! How is that different than violating the human rights of the poor children? You are blaming the children for the supposed crimes of their parents. And where do we draw the line on that protection? Who decides how much money your parents need to have before your needs will get ignored.
I work in a school in a wealthy community. The majority of my students come from families that are financially comfortable. My school is the “poorest” in the town with the highest rate of free and reduced lunch within the community. We also house many students who are bussed from the inner city. We also house the visually impaired and hearing impaired students that reside in the town. If a family were to commit fraud and pretend to live in our district, their child would come to our school and use a portion of the resources intended for the students that live in the school district or come there through legal channels. Now, remember, among our population are some rich, some poor, some disabled and some very poor minority students that come from nearby cities. I guess we should prosecute the fraudulent parents based only on the damage they do to the poor students in the school. The other 5-11 year olds are on their own just because their parents have money. </p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>
Yes, Zoosermom you are right. The post above is one that is deliberately pretending to misunderstand the meaning of my post. It is purposely inflammatory.</p>
<p>I said they don’t deserve any “special” protection because they are rich. It isn’t the kids’ fault that much of their town, and their school district, is rich because of massive criminal fraud. And that they get to live where they do because of this criminal fraud. Or that their families are “financially comfortable” because they live in the aura of massive criminal conspiracies. </p>
<p>But protection from the poor? No way. They don’t “deserve” it in the least.</p>
<p>When and where did I suggest that children from wealthy families deserve "special’ treatment?</p>
<p>And where, oh where, did I ever suggest the notion that wealthy children should be “protected” from poor children? Please find my post that says either of those things. And when you can’t, if you would like to continue discussing this issue in a thoughtful and informed way, I’ll be right here.</p>
<p>
Suggesting that it’s the same is offensive and ridiculous.</p>
<p>Poor children lack protection from: hunger, homelessness, disease, educational failure, crime, low paying jobs.</p>
<p>Rich children lack protection from: exposure to a poor child?</p>
<p>To quote you, “Wow.”</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12550960-post104.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12550960-post104.html</a></p>
<p>You say that this woman’s action led to the “exploitation” of the rich children. My response that this “exploitation” merely entailed exposure to a poor child and having to share their better facilities, textbooks, and teachers a little bit was correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they’ve been convicted of a criminal fraud wouldn’t the logical step be to relieve them of their ill-gotten gains?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Billymc,
I haven’t been responding to you directly because of this kind of post. You seem like a very bright person and are obviously passionate about society’s problems and the injustices that exist. I admire that a lot (no, I am not being sarcastic). It is a shame, though, that you argue your points by deliberately twisting the meaning of the opposing statements. Because your “response” was that the wealthy children were only exploited by being exposed to the poor children doesn’t change the inherent meaning of what I said, and I seriously doubt that you didn’t get my true meaning. The intelligence that your posts illustrate would suggest otherwise. If you want to be taken seriously by everyone you come into contact with, you should consider working on your “intake valve”. </p>
<p>It’s okay if you don’t agree with me but it’s not okay to characterize my statements as snobbish elitism when, in fact they are supporting the legal human rights of every child regardless of their socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>If you haven’t already, you should consider being a lawyer. Seriously.</p>
<p>I need to break away from this thread as it seems futile to argue when I’m not really being heard but I’ll check in to see how the rest of you are doing.</p>
<p>You repeatedly say that what I said is not what you meant. If that is the case, what is it that you meant? Sorry, but it is not nearly as clear to me as you seem to think.</p>
<p>
No thank you.</p>
<p>
Okay, here is the post that you interpreted as meaning that I object to wealthy children being exposed to poorer children. By exploitation (Dictionary definition: 1. use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields. 2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.) I meant that the children in the school were being taken advantage of and used for profit (alleged fraud). How would being exposed to poor children be exploitation? The meaning of theft is pretty clear, I think. My point was that ALL children deserve protection from the things that might harm, deprive or exploit them, rich, poor, black, white, able-bodied and disabled, alike. I was also reacting to my interpretation of some posts that seemed to suggest that because some children are born into wealthy families they are fair game for exploitation because society has been unfair to the poor children. I was responding to the premise that, if it results in positive societal change, it is okay to take from wealthy children because one can assume that their parents came by their wealth through unlawful means. The last sentence is a question.</p>
<p>Ya know. There are lawyers who work for poor and marginalized populations. I know a couple of them. We even like each other:)</p>
<p>“If they’ve been convicted of a criminal fraud wouldn’t the logical step be to relieve them of their ill-gotten gains?”</p>
<p>It would, but would it require literally thousands and thousands of prosecutions (that it was fraud has already been admitted before Congress). Prosecutions for the criminal conspiracy to have false foreclosure documents signed by people not authorized to do so to defraud the courts. Fraud for conspiring to fail to disclose the risks of CDOs in violation of SEC rules. There are so MANY conspiracies involving so many people that no one (except Eliot Spitzer) was even willing to open the hornets’ nest.</p>
<p>But the the fact that there aren’t convictions (in many cases, RICO conspiracies) by thousands of Danbury, Stamford, and Greenwich residents doesn’t make it any less criminal. </p>
<p>And yes, the next logical step would be to remove their ill-gotten gains. Logic doesn’t apply to the criminal conspiracies of the rich. </p>
<p>And let’s remember what the woman’s “crime” was: she didn’t sign the register at the homeless shelter.</p>
<p>EPTR–</p>
<p>I know you are taking a position. I know you don’t fully believe in the postion you are stuck with.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know you don’t actually believe the children of the poor have EVER had protection from exploitation and theft in this country, ever. Nobody believes that. The children of the poor have been systematically exploited in this country since its inception.</p>
<p>Even in the case of this woman, her son is being exploited “to make a point.”</p>
<p>I mean, 20 years and a 15,000 fine? I bet you’d get supervision and some parenting classes if you beat the kid. </p>
<p>I know you know this.</p>
<p>
But what are you saying was exploiting them? I don’t think what this woman did would result in the exploitation of the children.</p>
<p>
I agree. However, lawyers, working within the system, can only do so much to change it. I would prefer to tear the system down and build it anew. No moderate changes or half-measures; rather, a complete rewriting of social structure to make all equal in rights and have the needs of every human being provided for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seriously underestimate trial lawyers. If indeed there’s so much money that is demonstrably taken by fraud, the place will be crawling with lawyers working on contingency.</p>