Published: Sunday, Jan. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Okay . . . what exactly are you proposing?
Good. Sounds like we're proposing higher taxes on corporations that
outsource and significant slashes to foreign aid, the defense department, and
the end to all wars. Great! I can support this! We need to keep the spending of
money home!!! Not in the Middle-East or Africa!
If it is truly about families, than shouldn't we be supporting ALL
The writer is correct. Schools are the perfect example. We pour our resources in
trying to equalize the outcome. We not only focus on those at the bottom at the
expense of those at the top, but we slow the ones at the top so they won't
make those who struggle feel inferior. We should have policies that
promote 2 parent families. Perhaps two parent families get bigger tax credits
per child. Statistically they will be more likely to grow to be tax contributors
later rather than tax needers, so it comes out in the end, and society is
bettered because we raise better and more productive citizens.But
instead we try to normalize disastrous choices and circumstances, and spend all
our resources mopping up.We are fast running out of resources.
Don't you think it is time to try something different. Or do you prefer the
insanity of doing the same thing expecting a different result?
Let's help people, for people are what make up not only families as you
define them but society as a whole.
Government does not exist to make life easy. Government is here to protect us
from enemies, both foreign and domestic that would harm us unless we
collectively work together. Government is here to keep large states from
enslaving small states. Government is here to build roads and other
infrastructure so that commerce can take place.Government is not
here to feed us, to clothe us, to house us or even to educate us. We are
responsible to God to handle those duties ourselves. Far too many
"parents" let the school "tend" their children and even feed
their children. No nation can survive when its people shift the
burden of family onto others. The family is the fundamental unit of society.
Its care and keeping cannot be transferred to others.
I'm okay with the definition of "family" that has been in place for
thousands of years. I'm not really interested in trying bold new
experiments that could harm children and civilization - the potential downside
is too great.
Christian 24-7 said:"Schools are the perfect example. We pour our
resources in trying to equalize the outcome. We not only focus on those at the
bottom at the expense of those at the top, but we slow the ones at the top so
they won't make those who struggle feel inferior." So the
Christian thing to do is give them slow learners a broom and the other a book
and get it over with.Sounds so "Brave New World""Perhaps two parent families get bigger tax credits per child.
Statistically they will be more likely to grow to be tax contributors later
rather than tax needers, so it comes out in the end, and society is bettered
because we raise better and more productive citizens."Another
Christian thing to do... Take more money from the single parent who doesn't
have that 2nd income, (yeah, yeah mom's can afford to stay at home and
tv's are still black and white) so that they stay poor and possible
dependent. You believe society should shun them because they won't stay in
an abusive relationship, loveless marriage etc. a new and sick twist on the sin
Ah HVHGlad to know I riled someone to the cause, with my tongue in
cheek post.No we don't give second graders who can't read
yet a broom, and I was totally kidding about the tax break.But
consider this:Whatever we tax, we diminish. What we subsidize, we
grow.It would be harsh to tax non-two parent families. And we
don't need to subsidize two parent families. Their efforts in creating a
cohesive family are naturally rewarded. The change we need to make is to quit
subsidizing bad choices. Let natural consequences shape behavior. Yes there
needs to be charity, for victims of others. That includes abuse victims, and a
whole lot of children who are born in tough circumstances. But we need to
mindful that we don't reward adults for making bad choices. We can't
afford to tend to the victims they leave behind now, and we certainly don't
want government subsidies to be incentives to create more victims. Under our current system, we cross that line and we reward poor choices. We
normalize dysfunctional families. We should be making families functional and
normal, instead of making dysfunction normal.
I am also serious about the way we allocate funds in the schools. Obviously
those with learning disabilities will probably require a larger percent of the
resources, but we are way overboard on that one. If we worked half as hard to
help the gifted achieve their full potential, we would not be falling behind the
rest of the world in math and science. This notion that we can again get to the
top by pushing up from the bottom is a losing proposition. We disrespect all our
students when we do that. I believe that some people are more talented with
their hands and others are more talented in intellect, and we should honor and
revere those differences instead of trying to make everyone the same. We
don't stop teaching any group. We do help all develop the talents they
have, along with basic universal skills they need, and we do it in as fair and
as equal way as possible.This again bears little resemblance to the
current system. Some big changes are needed, because so far the direction we are
going in education is reaping worse outcomes.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments