Poverty is due to moral lacking

[Thorne]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.

As for divorce, just look at all those rich people with their second or third or more spouses. Or with children via several partners (illegitimacy). And how many of the wealthy in the US, at least, wind up in clinics and/or therapy to battle their addictions (or stay out of prison.) As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

[thir]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.

Not surprising.

As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

To get away with it, anyway :-))

Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

That would be based on the old idea that if you really want a job, it will be there. Which is a myth.
we are as dependant on economical ups and downs as farmers are on the weather.

And as for those, people far out of our reach are free to make a mess of everybody's lives, as we have seen with the banks. But it is also a matter of the government policies. A right-wing government wants unemployment, because it gives them control of the employees. (At least in DK they accidently said so to an open microphone - ha!)

But I agree that education is a huge factor in all this, and with the other statement about health care.

In DK we complain about not having enough access to loans for living while you study or whatever, but education itself is free. In UK they have just made university education an impossibility for any but the rich, at least, you get saddled with a dept that will cripple you for life.

Serious illness can knock you out completely. In UK our government (right-wing) is trying to dismantle the public health care system and throw it to the commercial wolves. In Denmark a less ambitious attempt was done with private hospitals. When it wasn't so popular to go more to the US system, they contended themselves with having a sucking straw down in the puclic treasury, by way of charging 25% higher prices than they were allowed. It was a scandal involving the prime minister.

In later years I increasingly get the impression that some parties see their country as consisting of only their own 'class' of peple, and no one else matters. About 90% of all 'help' to unemployed - insane 'courses' consiting of building house of pasta and the like - was and is nothing but a milking cow into the public coffers. I am also thinking of Bush and his wars and personal interest in the oil industry.

Have I stopped being naive, or started to become paranoid? ;-))

[DuncanONeil]

"But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of. "

The current educational system gets more money than it needs. Cost of education has increased by a factor of 14 since 1970 and yet the outcome has remained flat in that time. Meaning no improvement.

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?

[Thorne]

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?

That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?

[DuncanONeil]

But these are the arguments always presented for an increase in allocations to schools! It has been a few years since I looked specifically at my local schools, but the statement is still true. We have 16 high schools in the district. Each of these schools has FOUR assistant principals. As is usual their responsibility is the disruptive. One per grade! The total cost of these is $9,056,512. Plus benefits which average about $50,250 or $3,216,000
Total cost of these 64 positions $9,272,512. I think this is overboard! The district has a budget of about $1 billion.

That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?