Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:12:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.MISSOURIsaynotospam.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
919 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> It has also been quoted on this forum that people move about
> in order to get the jobs that provide the health care. Here
I think that was me.
> exists a vicious circle, catch-22. To move takes money. If
I'll be paying almost $2000 to move in August because I have lots and
lots of large things. When I was 19 I moved away from my parents' house
- 300 miles for about $20 in gas. Everything I owned fit in my car
after the big garage sale.
> you are poor, you won't necessarily be able to afford to move.
You will if it's a priority. People moved from Europe to New York and
then from there to The great plains of North America in rickity wheeled
carts made of wood. They were able to work for a while, buy passage for
their family, cash in for some supplies, and a horse and wagon, and just
did it. People can move great distances with very little resources if
it's important.
> And if you live in an area where there is a higher proportion
> of relative poverty, the quality of the state-provided and
> -funded education will be somewhat less, resulting in less
> marketable skills, with which to find work in a better area.
There is an abundance of financial aide to go for higher education.
And, when I hire a new tech-support person, or even a programmer, I hire
based on what I beleive they can do, not what papers they carry. Learn
to program at community college, get a book on perl from the library,
make yourself educated...it's not anyone else's fault if you don't have
skills. At least in the US.
> This also reduces the likelihood of any firms that might
> provide a health plan from moving into such an area.
See Clinton's New Market's initiative. (I'm still not sure how I feel
about approving of something that he's championing...it hasn't happened
since NAFTA.)
> And now the point for anyone who has stuck with me, and hasn't
> "bozo-binned" me long ago....
> No one would seem willing to spend even a dollar more in tax
> to assist those who don't have decent health care (1), but would
> anyone be willing to spend more to ensure a better education
> (2) for those less fortunate, that they may better market
> themselves? Or would everyone continue to exhibit what
> appears to be just a little bit of selfishness?
Both. If I had all my taxes dropped right now, I would not
substantially increase my philanthropy until my student debt was paid
off. I do improve the education of the disadvantaged. My neighbors are
disadvantaged and I spend time with those kids helping them not to hate
school. Instead, I get to hate school, based on their stories.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
