Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
*huggles*
I did for a year at 17 years old as an intern programmer at a local ISP. I started at minimum wage and after "proving myself" got a 200% raise, which was still a crap salary according to you. I had no college degree and no solid programming experience so I had to make sacrifices in order to get said experience. No car, no fancy new clothes, no dinner at restaurants every night, but I got a foot in the door and my next job was the most pleasurable work experience yet.
Now, if you want to discuss college expenses / scholarships on another thread, I'd be glad to, but it is a separate issue. Locally, at least, there is a community college that has night classes and classes on Saturday for those who work full-time during the week. It would take longer than going to school full-time of course, but it would be possible to get an education on Saturday while working two jobs.
As for public assistance, I am not against it to some degree, on a locally (state)-sponsored level. The problem that I have is with welfare-families who have lived for generations off of the system, and have more and more children in order to increase their benefits. Abuse of the system needs to be dealt with, and it currently isn't (in Minnesota at least).
It is an important distinction. Claiming that someone is "forced" into one thing because the other will be challenging, is flawed yet seems to be the Democratic stance on many things. Pointing out the difference between force and conscious wrong-doing is important, imo.
|
The idea that the drain on resources stems from poor abusers of the system is a myth. True, abuse does occur, however, it only account for
maybe millions of dollars (and I gave you a huge cushion--how many people do you know personally who have "lived off the system for generations" and had "more kids to increase benefits"?).
The actual abuse comes from a concept we social scientists call "wealthfare"--which accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of abuse. For example, one type of "welfare" is subsidized housing insurance--insurance that would normally cost a few hundred thousand a year (and sometimes a few mil). This partcular insurance is so high because the residence is in a "risky" area--e.g., a cliff overlooking the ocean (presumably because it can fall in the ocean). Now, obviously poor people will never be able to abuse that condition, they likely won't ever possess a home, much less a second one.
If you examine the pool of "welfare" money you will find that billions of dollars are paid out to wealthy individuals every year. I ran a google on the term just to see what popped up and various entities also define the concept as military, argibusiness, and other various subsidies (including tax evasion practices).
I'm not claiming that in this argument--those are debatable concepts. I'm talking about the instances of blatant abuse that actually fall right under the welfare code still being the bulk of the fraud.
Your other point regarding going to college, and etc. is valid--for your life experiences.
Keep in mind, however, that inner-city schools do not have current textbooks (in fact, some don't even have textbooks) and the poverty stricken individuals me and Kadath are referring to likely haven't even ever seen a computer (very foreign idea in our culture, isn't that?), even if they did, don't know how to read, and there isn't a community college anywhere near them.
Of course, you would never have even considered college had your parents, teachers, counselors, others you saw (maybe even on television) hadn't explained to you that college was an investment in your future. Even understanding that wouldn't have gotten you very far because you wouldn't have been prepared for college had you not received special training throughout your school career--training that related to your class level and the color of your skin. (We refer to these concepts as "gatekeeping" and "tracking").
That's great you were able to pull yourselve up by your bootstraps. Anecdotal stories like these perpetuate the illusion that everyone in the US can succeed if they just try hard enough. This view fails to address the structural issues that prevent someone from even knowing the options that are available to them, much less addressing whether those options actually are available.