They have to be, otherwise someone might have to admit that sometimes things aren't equal in life. You're poor because you're lazy. Wealthy people are wealthy because they worked hard. Duh.
You addressed every other opposing post in this thread. Why'd you completely avoid commenting on my example? It's not like it isn't happening all across the country. It's a relevant counterexample. But that would involve admitting that not all of the less fortunate deserve their situation. That there is such a thing as entrenched systematic inequality. That some people aren't even given the chance to fail. That your opposition to some form of redistribution isn't completely morally reconcilable and does involve some selfishness.
There are certainly people who work very hard; don't make very much money; and aren't provided health care. There isn't a perfect correlation between working hard and being well-paid. The best examples are probably musicians, artists, and artisans. The sculptor who works 14 hours a day trying to make a living; the independent photojournalist who sells his photos to the news organizations; the woodworker who crafts furniture. Then there's the independent contractor who works through temp agencies, because companies don't want to hire him outright because he'll cost more. And yes, the struggling actor who waits on tables during the day, and performs at the local theater at night, hoping to get noticed. No one gives a shit about the guy who is happily unemployed.
Uh, actually, she qualifies for a heckuva lot of scholarships. You know, "taking care of those less fortunate". Because no one's ever made it through school while working a job to feed a family, whether parents or children. </s>
I beg to differ...lots of people do, and a lot of government money goes to them. I would think that "taking care of the poor and needy" would include "all" the poor and needy. Why differentiate based on criminal record, employment history, substance abuse, mental illness, etc?
In what world is there all this money available for college students? In Wisconsin, the top 5 people in each class at each school got a full ride scholarship, and that's it. Then here in Missouri, they give out about $6,000 tops per a year to a person, and that is only to the top 5% I believe. If someone could tell me where this magical money sprout for college money is? It'd be greatly appreciated. You don't get a full ride for being poor, you get $2,000 for being poor.
Working off of what Dumpy said, I'd say that the list of those who work hard and aren't paid well include a LOT more than what you listed. Going on one of the examples that was in the commercial, teachers. it's not uncommon for them to have to do stuff at home (or at work) after hours, and don't get paid extra. There is no such thing as OT pay for them, no matter what. They might work from 7:30 in the morning till 7 and night, and they're paid the same as they do in a "regular" day. And then if they have to grade papers, create assignments, etc, that's on their own time on the weekend. And all that time? Unpaid. You're telling me that they're lazy because they make less than others? You're telling me that a Teacher is lazier than a Senator? Or a Representative? Those positions get paid significantly more, and I wouldn't say a Senator or a Rep is even remotely more important than a teacher.
That government money is exactly what that first post is trying to justify eliminating, and what we're arguing for.
What does taking points away from grade point averages, to give someone a higher GPA, something they don't have a right to have to do with everyone pitching in their fair share to give people things that are rights, or should be rights in the spirit of America, such as health care. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Health care seems pretty fundamental in living and pursuing happiness...
If you go through the "Big Book of College Scholarships", there's a bunch. If you go to your military recruiter, they've got a bunch. Most public universities have a requirement for "lower-income" assistance. It's out there. But not if you're white, male, and middle-class.
You are aware that his point was incredibly ignorant, inaccurate, and actually didn't say what he intended it to say, right? Or are you that dense?
How do you explain how my nephew, who is white, male, and of middle class upbringing, had access to a lot of student loans? The total amount that he was allotted could've been in excess of 40K.
Did I say "loans"? No And I'm not bringing up nephews. I'm bringing up me. I went through all f'ing 3000 of those scholarships. Since my grandmother had died that year and left my parents some money (taxed pretty heavily, btw), it upped our tax bracket into "middle-class". As a white, Middle-class male with less than a 3.5 GPA (my fault for not "working hard"), I qualified for THREE. Loans are a different story. There's tons of loan money...when I put my wife through school after we married, she got about 1/4 of it in loans. But scholarships and grants are available.
Now you get it. Enabling is enabling. Help the truly needy who have no other alternative, but giving people things they haven't earned only serves to enslave them. Even Bill Clinton understood this lesson when he overhauled Welfare.
