<p>Bullet, I agree with the bottom half of what you said in post #61.
However you also assume many of the indigent population do good and don’t feed on the system and when the spigot runs dry they don’t cry white oppression. As for whites enjoying better schools and health care…etc. You are not talking about “white guilt” aren’t you ? Are you saying the majority of this country must apologize for the fruit of their labor ? Incidently success comes only through hard work for most people, and not on the backs of slaves, haven’t been for the last 200 years.</p>
<p>Breathe. Feel better? Now that you’ve got that out, please feel free at any time to debate the point I made in post 74. If you wish, of course. :)</p>
<p>A classic, weak debate tool is to criticize the poster, or the tone, or the delivery, or whatever- anything than to face the message or the ideas. It is never effective, and it only ends up frustrating those who employ it.</p>
<p>LOL spidey, I’m not trying to debate you. And I’m not frustrated in the least. I simply pointed out your uncivil discourse and am trying to help you improve your online communication skills to avoid future misunderstandings. You’re the one who keeps trying to turn my observation into a debate. I’m not even sure I remember the content of your post 74. I’ll go back and take a look though.</p>
<p>We all should fund these programs because they benefit society as a whole. If the public school system is broken (which I believe it is in many places, particularly cities) and these public-private partnerships can do better, then we should invest in them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know where you got the idea of rich people being evil, um, not sure how to respond to this. Most liberals that I know, including the ones who post frequently on this board, don’t view people in the good-evil binary, though I’ve noticed that many conservatives do (there’s something about black/white thinking that is very attractive to conservatives… no pun intended). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it makes you feel good to boil down complex issues into (emphatic) sound-bites, that’s your right. It doesn’t really further the discussion though.</p>
<p>don’t dismiss or shroud something by saying itsa sound-byte. After you distilled all the facts, the truth comes out: Liberal thinking is spending other people’s money and feel good (substitue: rightous/compassion/whatever) about it. It’s a mantra of liberalism. It’s great as long as all of us get to pay for it.</p>
<p>Hindoo, it must feel great to think you are on of the *pure-at-hearts *with someone else’s earned money. BTW: thanks for the instructions - it works for me. Liberals are much too busy fighting other people’s causes and other important things.</p>
<p>edvest1, trust me on this, for liberals it’s not really about the money and who pays for what. Conservatives have a hard time accepting this as true, I think, because for many of them, it actually is about the money. So they see through that lens and that lens only. (That’s a generalization, of course, but that’s what happens when you “distill all the facts”).</p>
<p>Apologize because they worked hard and made better lives for themselves? No.
Apologize because as a country we made it impossible for the AA community to improve themselves, even through hard work and sacrifice like the rest of the population? Well, do you really think it would be fair if we gave every NFL four downs to get a first down, but only gave the New England Patriots three downs (to use a football analogy)? No, we say we’re sorry because we didn’t give them the same opportunity as everyone else. HOW we say “sorry” should be the point of the debate.</p>
<p>As to “white guilt”, again no, but common sense. You complain that you’re tired of spending tax dollars on a dependency state. Feel like doing this for a few generations more? No? Well how about a solution that allows the AA community to pull themselves up and out of dependency? Say better education and more education opportunities, which WILL improve their situation. They will now become productive members of society (rather than the drain you see them as), pay equally in taxes, improve our society through their increased contributions, plus so much more. Are you willing to spend some up front now that will give a return on the investment, or would you rather just keep paying off “the indigent population who feeds on the system and cries white oppression when the spigot runs dry” (to paraphrase your words).</p>
<p>White guilt? No. It’s just good fiscal sense, with the side benefit that it makes up somewhat for a low point in American History.</p>
<p>Better yet PH, Ctrl-B works just as well. Hit Ctrl-B then type away. The bracketed b’s come up and the cursor is between them. When you’re done with the words you want in bold, use the arrow keys to move to the next space outside of the last bracketed B.</p>
<p>For liberals who really believe in a cause, it should require absolutely no second guessing whatsoever to wipe out one’s savings and go forth to do good in the world. Walk the walk. Sacrifice for others. Pay for programs you believe in. Write out that personal check. Sell the house, sell the car. Live in a small apartment. Take public transportation. Send the kids to public schools and colleges. Give up vacations, and that flat screen television as well. </p>
<p>After all this has been done, and there is nothing left to give of oneself, that’s when I could possibly tolerate forcing other people to spend for causes you wish to fund. Then the request would be legitimate, worthy, and even admirable.</p>
<p>This is the “lens” of reality. Real giving comes from oneself, not by taking from others.</p>
<p>It’s actually a rather simple equation when you look at the costs of funding prisons, which obviously do need to be paid for from government funds. You can pay from tax dollars to to intervene early, or you can pay higher costs from tax dollars over a longer term to incarcerate later on.</p>
<p>Before liberals seek that feel-good buzz through disproportionately increasing someone else’s contribution, they should make sure they’ve depleted their own resources first.</p>
<p>The equation is far from simple. We can agree that lowering the number of people who end up in prison is a worthy goal. Expecting the federal government to manage programs effectively so that this goal is realized is where we disagree. </p>
<p>Hasn’t history proven that we cannot trust the federal government to accomplish such a thing?</p>
<p>Aw, then there is no answer, is there? Except the status quo. If the government is indeed a failure at reducing future prison incarceration, then what? Just stop trying? Private industry won’t step up to touch this problem. Charity and faith-based initiatives can’t afford to. So, just watch the crime rate go up, deplore the state of the family, the lack of church attendance and make sure you remember the password of your gated community when it locks up at night? As long as you and yours are protected and your bank account isn’t touched, all is well? </p>