PDA

View Full Version : Personal Responsibility



ARay11
04-12-2012, 09:55 PM
What's it mean? Where does it start? What's not covered?

troy schwab
04-13-2012, 09:29 AM
What's it mean? Where does it start? What's not covered?

Pretty much the entire problem with our society, IMO...... entitlement has ruined this country. I wake up every day knowing I need to work to provide for my family, and my hobbies..... thats how I was raised...... Seems to me that kids and many families nowadays would rather be spoon fed and throw themselves lengthy pity parties...... poor me, cant get a break, my life sucks......BLAH BLAH BLAH...... All while suckling the government teet.......I have no pity for laziness, or bad breaks. Life sucks sometimes, but you cowboy up and get on with it......Get off ur ass and do something about it.

Novemberwitch
04-13-2012, 10:38 AM
Agreed! +!

Matt McKenzie
04-13-2012, 11:04 AM
Personal Responsibility is the answer to 87.3% of our country's problems. The problem is that we are all victims or beneficiaries of our choices. If we make bad choices and get the inevitable bad results, we by nature don't want to assume the responsibility. If we make good choices and reap the rewards, we very much want to claim responsibility. So you end up with four groups of people:
1. Those who made more good choices than bad and enjoy the benefits of those choices by being "successful" by whatever measure they chose to use. These people tend to believe in personal responsibility and the idea that the U.S. is a land of opportunity.
2. Those who made more poor choices than good but believe that they are victims of some external force that caused them to be "unsuccessful" by whatever measure they use. These people tend to believe that the playing field is unfairly tilted in favor of others and that they should not be held accountable for their actions.
3. Those who became successful largely through chance (trust fund babies, actors, musicians, etc.) and assume that success is the result of luck. While most successful entertainers are good at what they do, most beat out a multitude of equally qualified competitors through chance, i.e. "the big break". Partially because of this, they believe that "the less fortunate" are truly less fortunate and not a product of their choices.
4. Those who observe these realities and use them to manipulate people in order to advance their own personal agendas (most politicians and activists).

Jim Danis
04-13-2012, 11:19 AM
What's it mean? Where does it start? What's not covered?

Personal responsibility means that you accept the consequences, whether negative or positive, for all of your actions and decisions. It starts from the moment you are aware of right and wrong. I can't really say what is not covered. As far as I'm concerned everything is covered.

troy schwab
04-13-2012, 11:23 AM
Personal responsibility means that you accept the consequences, whether negative or positive, for all of your actions and decisions. It starts from the moment you are aware of right and wrong. I can't really say what is not covered. As far as I'm concerned everything is covered.

GREAT answer!

east tx hoghunt
04-13-2012, 11:29 AM
Personal responsibility means that you accept the consequences, whether negative or positive, for all of your actions and decisions. It starts from the moment you are aware of right and wrong. I can't really say what is not covered. As far as I'm concerned everything is covered.

Could not agree more!

Uncle Bill
04-13-2012, 12:44 PM
Personal responsibility means that you accept the consequences, whether negative or positive, for all of your actions and decisions. It starts from the moment you are aware of right and wrong. I can't really say what is not covered. As far as I'm concerned everything is covered.

That moment begins in the crib, if you have good parents...even made more aware by the time that child has had potty training.

Then the teachers get involved as well as friends and relatives. Once the basics are impressed on the individual, the knowledge to choose the right path becomes part of their psyche and their reasoning directs them to select the responsible position. This then becomes part of their principles for living. Unfortunately, this nation seems to be falling away from these principles, as illustrated by the SFN crowd. The question then becomes, can we that consider ourselves as being 'personally responsible' overcome that crowd and gain control of our country again.

UB

Gerry Clinchy
04-13-2012, 12:59 PM
Personal responsibility means that you accept the consequences, whether negative or positive, for all of your actions and decisions. It starts from the moment you are aware of right and wrong. I can't really say what is not covered. As far as I'm concerned everything is covered.
We still have to provide for those who may be physically or mentally disabled. Their station in life is random chance, not usually a matter of choice (even of their parents; bad things CAN happen to good people).

Personal responsibility is mostly, I believe, a learned behavior. Although it seems that some individuals learn it on their own, even without role models. And there are others who, even with the best role models, never learn it. So, it is possible that it is a "hard-wired" trait, that can be enhanced by learning in most cases. Sort of like our dogs' abilities: some can become exceptional with the right training; others can improve, but never reach the same levels of performance as some others. Some are "naturals"; and some not.

troy schwab
04-13-2012, 01:06 PM
That moment begins in the crib, if you have good parents...even made more aware by the time that child has had potty training.

Then the teachers get involved as well as friends and relatives. Once the basics are impressed on the individual, the knowledge to choose the right path becomes part of their psyche and their reasoning directs them to select the responsible position. This then becomes part of their principles for living. Unfortunately, this nation seems to be falling away from these principles, as illustrated by the SFN crowd. The question then becomes, can we that consider ourselves as being 'personally responsible' overcome that crowd and gain control of our country again.

UB

With the amount of government handouts increasing daily....... Unfortunately, I believe we are now outnumbered at the polls...... Interestingly, Clinchy mentioned something that struck a chord with me...... That maybe we ARE hardwired to succeed, you know, survival of the fittest....... Darwinism at its finest. Unfortunately, the government has not allowed this chunk of evolution to take place. Instead, they rape and pillage the successful, and give to the weak. Pathetic!


DISCLAIMER: The true tiny percentage of disabled Americans were not harmed in the creation of this post.

Jim Danis
04-13-2012, 02:11 PM
We still have to provide for those who may be physically or mentally disabled. Their station in life is random chance, not usually a matter of choice (even of their parents; bad things CAN happen to good people).

Personal responsibility is mostly, I believe, a learned behavior. Although it seems that some individuals learn it on their own, even without role models. And there are others who, even with the best role models, never learn it. So, it is possible that it is a "hard-wired" trait, that can be enhanced by learning in most cases. Sort of like our dogs' abilities: some can become exceptional with the right training; others can improve, but never reach the same levels of performance as some others. Some are "naturals"; and some not.

I agree with what you are saying especially for those that I have emboldened. We have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot do for themselves for those reasons you listed above. However, we have no responsibility to take care of those who WILL NOT do for themselves.

I also believe that a sense of personal responsibility should be fostered and encouraged by our parents and role models. Unfortunately it is rare that this takes place now a days. The Fed. Govt. even fosters a sense of entitlement which is contrary to being personally responsible. As you state even with the best role models some never learn to be responsible for themselves. Unfortunately I see that everyday with one of my brothers. Others are just more independent from the beginning and wouldn't rely on anyone no matter what. When you have a society and a Fed. govt. pounding into you every day all day that those who are independently wealthy are stealing your money and that they owe you something, it becomes very difficult if you are not independent minded to be responsible for yourself. You take the mind set of "where is mine, I am entitled to this and that even though I didn't earn it!"

coachmo
04-13-2012, 02:25 PM
I agree with all of the above posts; however, if 50% of the country lives by the adage of personal responsibility while the other half continues to prescribe to living off entitlements we're in a mell of a hess!! Where are all of the left thinkers on this. Kinda quiet, no?

Daniel J Simoens
04-13-2012, 03:44 PM
I just wanted to mention that 68.88% of all statistics are made up.

I'm waiting for the day I win the powerball so I can buy my own island and live in peace!

ARay11
04-14-2012, 10:56 AM
Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. You see, I am stuck in a twist here.

I have two good friends who, for a time, both lived off of these "entitlements" that I personally detest. They are the only two people in my personal life that have actually made good on them. One, used medicaid and food stamps to provide for small children while they worked their way through job training programs (also fully paid for by tax dollars) and finally made it into the workplace. They have had zero assistance for almost 5 years now, and have no plans to return to it.
The other, a single mom, used child care assistance to keep her little one in daycare while she worked. Without it, working would not have been possible and she would have been 100% trapped in the "system". Her precious baby girl is now in school and she is off the program.

Now, admittedly, they all could have chosen different paths in life which would have negated their need for assistance in the first place...But both will tell me really quickly....
It's easy to say no assistance is necessary if you've never needed help.
Find a way to eliminate the need for help, then you can eliminate the help.

I, personally, would like to see a ZERO entitlement society. One where if someone needs some help, there's a hand up, not a hand out, and it's from a friend not the government. My level of personal responsibility extends beyond just me, it includes my community too. I just think if we had the money we paid in to taxes this year, back in our pocket, I could really make a difference in my community and I would feel the pressure to do that if half of them werent already living off my tax dollars!!!!!!

WHEW!! ok, that's enough for now. thoughts?

caryalsobrook
04-14-2012, 12:00 PM
Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. You see, I am stuck in a twist here.

I have two good friends who, for a time, both lived off of these "entitlements" that I personally detest. They are the only two people in my personal life that have actually made good on them. One, used medicaid and food stamps to provide for small children while they worked their way through job training programs (also fully paid for by tax dollars) and finally made it into the workplace. They have had zero assistance for almost 5 years now, and have no plans to return to it.
The other, a single mom, used child care assistance to keep her little one in daycare while she worked. Without it, working would not have been possible and she would have been 100% trapped in the "system". Her precious baby girl is now in school and she is off the program.

Now, admittedly, they all could have chosen different paths in life which would have negated their need for assistance in the first place...But both will tell me really quickly....
It's easy to say no assistance is necessary if you've never needed help.
Find a way to eliminate the need for help, then you can eliminate the help.

I, personally, would like to see a ZERO entitlement society. One where if someone needs some help, there's a hand up, not a hand out, and it's from a friend not the government. My level of personal responsibility extends beyond just me, it includes my community too. I just think if we had the money we paid in to taxes this year, back in our pocket, I could really make a difference in my community and I would feel the pressure to do that if half of them werent already living off my tax dollars!!!!!!

WHEW!! ok, that's enough for now. thoughts?

What people should understand is that the government IS NOT in the charity business, nor is it in the assistance business. It is in the RULES, REGULATION, TAX, DEPENDENCE and CONTROL business. Through entitlements, it creates dependency and control, nothing more and nothing less. That is the reason very few excape from it. the two examples you state are in the very small minority.

ARay11
04-14-2012, 12:14 PM
What people should understand is that the government IS NOT in the charity business, nor is it in the assistance business. It is in the RULES, REGULATION, TAX, DEPENDENCE and CONTROL business. Through entitlements, it creates dependency and control, nothing more and nothing less. That is the reason very few excape from it. the two examples you state are in the very small minority.

Yes, absolutely, they truly are the extremely small minority ....
just not sure how to help those few who can do well with it, and not be abused my the millions who will not.

zeus3925
04-14-2012, 03:15 PM
I worked in the social service field 31 years. There is a misconception out there that the vast majority of recipients are gaming the system. While there is some of that, most (90%+) of the recipients are not. The vast majority ( 80%) are on relief less than two years. They tend to be single or divorced heads of households with an average of less than 2 children. The absent parents are often not paying child support. Often the parents are high school drop outs.

I don't know about your state, but recipients here have to enroll in a employment project with the jobs service before making application for assistance. Recipients have to report a minimum of 20 hours seeking work and attending employment classes at the Job Service per week. There are lifetime limits to eligibilty for assistance --2-5 years depending on the state.

Best way to end poverty is to keep your kids in school and expect that they perform to the best of their capabilities. Most of all, get some kind of vocational training.

Another way is carefully pick your spouse and stay married at least long enough to raise your children.

Avoid addictions.

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 05:58 PM
Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. You see, I am stuck in a twist here.

I have two good friends who, for a time, both lived off of these "entitlements" that I personally detest. They are the only two people in my personal life that have actually made good on them. One, used medicaid and food stamps to provide for small children while they worked their way through job training programs (also fully paid for by tax dollars) and finally made it into the workplace. They have had zero assistance for almost 5 years now, and have no plans to return to it.
The other, a single mom, used child care assistance to keep her little one in daycare while she worked. Without it, working would not have been possible and she would have been 100% trapped in the "system". Her precious baby girl is now in school and she is off the program.

Now, admittedly, they all could have chosen different paths in life which would have negated their need for assistance in the first place...But both will tell me really quickly....
It's easy to say no assistance is necessary if you've never needed help.
Find a way to eliminate the need for help, then you can eliminate the help.

I, personally, would like to see a ZERO entitlement society. One where if someone needs some help, there's a hand up, not a hand out, and it's from a friend not the government. My level of personal responsibility extends beyond just me, it includes my community too. I just think if we had the money we paid in to taxes this year, back in our pocket, I could really make a difference in my community and I would feel the pressure to do that if half of them werent already living off my tax dollars!!!!!!

WHEW!! ok, that's enough for now. thoughts?



Both had the option to keep their legs crossed and not breed!!!

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 06:00 PM
Yes, absolutely, they truly are the extremely small minority ....
just not sure how to help those few who can do well with it, and not be abused my the millions who will not.


They chose to reproduce!!!! That is their issue not me the taxpayer!
You bred it you pay for it end of story.

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 06:04 PM
I worked in the social service field 31 years. There is a misconception out there that the vast majority of recipients are gaming the system. While there is some of that, most (90%+) of the recipients are not. The vast majority ( 80%) are on relief less than two years. They tend to be single or divorced heads of households with an average of less than 2 children. The absent parents are often not paying child support. Often the parents are high school drop outs.

I don't know about your state, but recipients here have to enroll in a employment project with the jobs service before making application for assistance. Recipients have to report a minimum of 20 hours seeking work and attending employment classes at the Job Service per week. There are lifetime limits to eligibilty for assistance --2-5 years depending on the state.

Best way to end poverty is to keep your kids in school and expect that they perform to the best of their capabilities. Most of all, get some kind of vocational training.

Another way is carefully pick your spouse and stay married at least long enough to raise your children.

Avoid addictions.

If a person can't afford a kid they can keep their legs crossed and the pants zipped end of story!!! THEY BRED IT THEY FEED IT THEIR PROBLEM!!!
They created it by their actions end of story!

Gerry Clinchy
04-14-2012, 06:16 PM
If a person can't afford a kid they can keep their legs crossed and the pants zipped end of story!!! THEY BRED IT THEY FEED IT THEIR PROBLEM!!!
They created it by their actions end of story!
Without knowing the circumstances, I don't think we can say that.

Divorce could have caused a single mom. Not so unusual for many to make a poor choice of spouse. The other family could have suffered a job loss ... or maybe someone who actually "aspired" to something better. These two situations really were giving a hand-up for people who wanted to work.

Actually, those two cases where public assistance achieved the intended goal of creating two new taxpayers.

Down East Labs 217
04-14-2012, 06:48 PM
If a person can't afford a kid they can keep their legs crossed and the pants zipped end of story!!! THEY BRED IT THEY FEED IT THEIR PROBLEM!!!
They created it by their actions end of story!

Did you not take into consideration the WIDOW who lost her bread winner. She is a stay at home Mom with no employable trade. She needs assistance for her kids, needs a education, and will do what is needed to care for her kids. If accepting welfare for a short period does the trick and helps her become productive than good for her. Hard cut rules are good sometimes but not always. Don't forget the exception

Richard

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 06:50 PM
Divorce is not the taxpayers problem. It is the problem of the two people involved not ME THE TAXPAYER!

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 06:57 PM
Did you not take into consideration the WIDOW who lost her bread winner. She is a stay at home Mom with no employable trade. She needs assistance for her kids, needs a education, and will do what is needed to care for her kids. If accepting welfare for a short period does the trick and helps her become productive than good for her. Hard cut rules are good sometimes but not always. Don't forget the exception

Richard


Again this goes back to parents being responsible. NO education then why multiply? Also again if you have a kid the parents are responsible. They should have had life insurance on the breadwinner prior to breeding! Again NOT THE TAXPAYERS ISSUE!

Sick of paying for other people's kids!!!!

Matt McKenzie
04-14-2012, 08:32 PM
I worked in the social service field 31 years. There is a misconception out there that the vast majority of recipients are gaming the system. While there is some of that, most (90%+) of the recipients are not. The vast majority ( 80%) are on relief less than two years. They tend to be single or divorced heads of households with an average of less than 2 children. The absent parents are often not paying child support. Often the parents are high school drop outs.

I don't know about your state, but recipients here have to enroll in a employment project with the jobs service before making application for assistance. Recipients have to report a minimum of 20 hours seeking work and attending employment classes at the Job Service per week. There are lifetime limits to eligibilty for assistance --2-5 years depending on the state.

Best way to end poverty is to keep your kids in school and expect that they perform to the best of their capabilities. Most of all, get some kind of vocational training.

Another way is carefully pick your spouse and stay married at least long enough to raise your children.

Avoid addictions.

Zeus,
Again we find an area of agreement. Things that prevent poverty: no children out of wedlock, don't have children you can't afford, stay married until your children are adults, make education a priority and don't expect the government to educate your children, don't get addicted to drugs or alcohol and don't live beyond your means.
Things that create poverty: single parent homes, addiction, dependency on government support, failure to value education, lack of personal responsibility, teenage parents.
So how do we encourage the former behaviors and discourage the latter? Is it even the responsibility of the Federal government to do so? Can we provide safety nets without enabling irresponsible behavior? By establishing programs to help people, have we made the problems worse? How can we determine who truly needs assistance and who is gaming the system? To do so, how much would it cost and how much would it save? I don't have the answers to these questions and I'm not sure that anyone really does. But as usual, the problems require serious thought and discussion, and politicians on both the right and the left are not interested in solving the problems. They are interested in winning elections.

zeus3925
04-14-2012, 10:31 PM
If a person can't afford a kid they can keep their legs crossed and the pants zipped end of story!!! THEY BRED IT THEY FEED IT THEIR PROBLEM!!!
They created it by their actions end of story!

I could say something here, but, I won't!

Down East Labs 217
04-15-2012, 10:17 AM
Again this goes back to parents being responsible. NO education then why multiply? Also again if you have a kid the parents are responsible. They should have had life insurance on the breadwinner prior to breeding! Again NOT THE TAXPAYERS ISSUE!

Sick of paying for other people's kids!!!!

You are berating stay at home Moms? Calling them uneducated. A high school diploma and no job experience because they choose to raise there kids.

I truly see a problem with someone this far to the right. This is just as bad as being to far to the left. That is the problem with our Government system. No middle of the road. Everyone is far left or far right.

Richard

2tall
04-15-2012, 10:41 AM
I could say something here, but, I won't!


;-)Can only imagine what that might be!;-)

luvmylabs23139
04-15-2012, 12:42 PM
You are berating stay at home Moms? Calling them uneducated. A high school diploma and no job experience because they choose to raise there kids.

I truly see a problem with someone this far to the right. This is just as bad as being to far to the left. That is the problem with our Government system. No middle of the road. Everyone is far left or far right.

Richard


You said uneducated. To me that says high school drop out or someone that did the minimum in high school to meet graduation requirements. I know many people that gained employable skills in high school that has nothing to do with a college degree.
I have zero issues with stay at home moms, that is a lefty thing. More Moms should opt to stay home. Currently we the actual federal taxpayer subsides the working mother with child care credits etc.
Many people could do it if they wanted to. There are needs and then there are wants. You don't need $100 sneakers. You don't need 2 $30K cars. You don't need to eat out several times a week.

luvmylabs23139
04-15-2012, 12:44 PM
I could say something here, but, I won't!


YOu were going to defend the multiplying rabbits that leach off of the taxpayers????:confused::confused::confused::confus ed:

Matt McKenzie
04-15-2012, 03:07 PM
You are berating stay at home Moms? Calling them uneducated. A high school diploma and no job experience because they choose to raise there kids.

I truly see a problem with someone this far to the right. This is just as bad as being to far to the left. That is the problem with our Government system. No middle of the road. Everyone is far left or far right.

Richard

That's not "to the right". Sorry.

Down East Labs 217
04-15-2012, 04:59 PM
That's not "to the right". Sorry.

You are right. I was typing way to fast and forgot to prof before posting.

Richard

zeus3925
04-16-2012, 07:50 AM
YOu were going to defend the multiplying rabbits that leach off of the taxpayers????:confused::confused::confused::confus ed:

Nope! But, it would not have been anything Christian.

Jim Danis
04-16-2012, 09:37 AM
Multiplying Rabbits leaching off of the taxpayers are completely different that the single mother example the OP gave. They both used resources to help them become independent, resourceful. productive citizens able to take care of their families on their own so that they did not leach off of society. I do not have a problem with a situation such as this. The person or persons who sit on their rear ends taking 99 weeks of unemployment and selling food stamps on the black market or buying alcohol and cigs with them is the person I have a major problem with.

As far as the divorced mother is concerned I've seen both sides. Many times it is more advantageous for the family for the mother to stay at home and not work. Whether she is educated or not. The male of the household up and leaves without any notice and she is stuck with 3 kids and no income at all. Doesn't have a thing to do with breeding like rabbits and taking responsibility. Then there is the mother with 3 kids below the ages of 11, a 10th grade education, no child support and self employed trying to make ends meet. Often there was not enough money for heating oil and she heated the house in the mornings by turning on the oven and opening up the door. She also made sure the kids had food and clothes when she may not have. She ate PB&J's quite often so there would be enough food for the kids. Not once did she take any kind of assistance from the State or Fed. Govt. She was always home when the kids got off the bus from school and made sure that they had as stable a household as possible. Now she has built multiple businesses to become more than profitable and employs close to 100 people. I know this woman very very well!

She's my Mother.

I adding to this after my first post. I do my best everyday to live up to the example she gave us. She exemplifies the saying "Where there is the will there is a way" She personifies the meaning of Personal Responsibility!!

troy schwab
04-16-2012, 10:00 AM
Multiplying Rabbits leaching off of the taxpayers are completely different that the single mother example the OP gave. They both used resources to help them become independent, resourceful. productive citizens able to take care of their families on their own so that they did not leach off of society. I do not have a problem with a situation such as this. The person or persons who sit on their rear ends taking 99 weeks of unemployment and selling food stamps on the black market or buying alcohol and cigs with them is the person I have a major problem with.

As far as the divorced mother is concerned I've seen both sides. Many times it is more advantageous for the family for the mother to stay at home and not work. Whether she is educated or not. The male of the household up and leaves without any notice and she is stuck with 3 kids and no income at all. Doesn't have a thing to do with breeding like rabbits and taking responsibility. Then there is the mother with 3 kids below the ages of 11, a 10th grade education, no child support and self employed trying to make ends meet. Often there was not enough money for heating oil and she heated the house in the mornings by turning on the oven and opening up the door. She also made sure the kids had food and clothes when she may not have. She ate PB&J's quite often so there would be enough food for the kids. Not once did she take any kind of assistance from the State or Fed. Govt. She was always home when the kids got off the bus from school and made sure that they had as stable a household as possible. Now she has built multiple businesses to become more than profitable and employs close to 100 people. I know this woman very very well!

She's my Mother.


Excellent Post....... Jim, your welcome in my duckblind anytime!!!

ARay11
04-16-2012, 10:21 AM
You said uneducated. To me that says high school drop out or someone that did the minimum in high school to meet graduation requirements. I know many people that gained employable skills in high school that has nothing to do with a college degree.
I have zero issues with stay at home moms, that is a lefty thing. More Moms should opt to stay home. Currently we the actual federal taxpayer subsides the working mother with child care credits etc.
Many people could do it if they wanted to. There are needs and then there are wants. You don't need $100 sneakers. You don't need 2 $30K cars. You don't need to eat out several times a week.

But you have issues helping them out when a jerk leaves, refuses to pay child support, and now she needs assistance?

zeus3925
04-16-2012, 11:00 AM
You can get poor in this country awfully quick. My father died of cancer at age 42, when I was 13. The one thing we had going for us is he was scrupulous about avoiding debt and the house and car was paid off. My mother had not worked for 20 years and she went to night school to get the skills needed to get employment. In the 50's there were few fields available to women, but she found work as a school secretary and back then it paid very little.

We suddenly were darn poor and when we our pantry was down to nothing, the union rep from my dads factory showed up with a very welcome check. (That is the reason you will never hear me bash unions.) My mom was to proud to draw welfare but my dad's Social Security benefits and her meager wages got me and my two brothers through. Two of us made it through college. The other was a skilled trades worker in an auto plant.

The poor are not rabbits that multiply just to get their hands in your pockets. They are seldom there by choice or a flaw in character. You can yell "Get a job" all you want. When the denizens of Wall Street send your job to China, you have to compete for employment with everyone else whose job went to China, Singapore or Timbuktu. If you haven't noticed, the is a recession out there and that means there aren't enough jobs to go around.

Next time you wish to lambast the poor among us consider this first: There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Buzz
04-16-2012, 12:06 PM
But you have issues helping them out when a jerk leaves, refuses to pay child support, and now she needs assistance?

One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

duckheads
04-16-2012, 12:37 PM
One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

Seems very bitter and angry in most of her posts. Hopefully she does not live her life that way as life is to short!

Marvin S
04-16-2012, 12:39 PM
One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

Luvy is really a liberal :) :-P ;) :) !!!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle Bill
04-16-2012, 12:39 PM
One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

Surprising she's not aligned with the Libertarians in the audience.:rolleyes:

UB

ARay11
04-16-2012, 01:18 PM
One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

I do understand the crux of her position. I have often wondered why all property owners pay school taxes... often thought it would be a burden on older folks living on a fixed income.

However, I believe it takes the whole village to raise a child. If every citizen within a community worked to ensure the livelihood of their neighbors, government assistance would never be a necessity.

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 04:20 PM
One thing you have to understand about Luvvy. She is totally bitter that she has to pay taxes that support her local school systems. She does not have kids, never plans to have kids, and does not believe she should have to educate other people's kids with her money. She prefers a world where it is everyone for themselves, she sees no advantage to society as a whole to try and make sure that education in the USA isn't "completely dependent" on your parents ability to pay for it.

I'd like taxes to be per head!!! Sounds fair to me.
My property taxes are almost double the house down the street that has 5 kids!:rolleyes::rolleyes::confused::confused:

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 04:26 PM
Seems very bitter and angry in most of her posts. Hopefully she does not live her life that way as life is to short!


How could anyone live their life that way when they share it with 4 comical labradors?:p!

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 04:28 PM
Surprising she's not aligned with the Libertarians in the audience.:rolleyes:

UB


Nope, can't agree with legalizing drugs.:rolleyes:

Jim Danis
04-16-2012, 08:25 PM
Excellent Post....... Jim, your welcome in my duckblind anytime!!!

Thanks Troy. I really appreciate that. Same to you