CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Money....
Should houses and basic house and life necessicties such as houses and food and healthcare and insureance be free, and all others like video games and stuff like that stay the way they are? why should people have to pay 5 to 6 bills a month just to keep the house up and to not be homeless. why should you have to struggle to keep something that u need to survive. if things were like this all homeless people would hace houses and many people would not have died.
Well in countries where people give a shit about eachother, food, housing and healthcare can already be had for free. However in America they have that whole fucked up 19th century attitude where they think people can just decide not to be poor.
Well in countries where people give a shit about eachother
This isn't likely to happen in a country as huge and diverse as America. I've noticed countries that have a less diverse racial demographic and more common, centralized culture are more likely to embrace things like socialized healthcare because the citizen knows their money is going to someone just like them. Even back when the majority of the settlers of the New World came from one place, the states could never get along. There was no sense of unity; a settler would call himself "Virginian" not "American." This divide between states and between regions is still alive an well today, except the problem has only gotten worse with immigration. Now, not only are the states extraordinarily different from one another, the people in those states are extraordinarily different from one another. We often don't share culture, religion, language, origin, and the like with those around us to a far greater extent than any other country. I understand people not wanting to throw money at people they don't feel they can relate to.
Also I think government provided food, health care, housing, etc. are not very in keeping with the idea of America. America, theoretically, is the land of opportunity, but where they is great potential to succeed, there is also great potential to fail. If the government steps in an levels the playing field then we have equal opportunity for everyone, but no real potential to really succeed or fail. It's a lot harder to get obscenely rich when the government hijacks over half your pay to redistribute among the poor, and it's really hard to be broke, homeless, and uninsured when the government will make other people work for your room and board. Perhaps this is why such a young country like America has a disproportionate number people on "Top 100 Richest People in the World" lists; our system of government allows for it.
America has been and in my opinion should remain a country for people ready to play hard-ball, to be cutthroat, survival of the fittest, to realize that it's a god-eat-dog world and that in order to do well you have to be better, always. America should not be a place where people come to leech off of the hard workers we have, and it should not be a place that rewards idleness and laziness.
that whole fucked up 19th century attitude where they think people can just decide not to be poor.
Can't we? Moving here from Europe was not good for my family (financially speaking), but my family worked hard and raised their status. I'm poor as fuck right now, but because I don't expect all of my needs and wants to be handed to me on a silver platter I go out every day and bust my ass and give it my all and things are getting better for me every single day. Obviously one cannot decide they don't want to be poor and spontaneously become rich, but one can go from broke to wealthy through hard work. I emphasize the "hard" because I've noticed time and time again that it is the difficult aspect of work that usually deters poor people from trying to elevate themselves. For some people being lazy is quite apparently worth being poor, and If I get rich from busting my ass I think I'd resent having such a large portion of my hard-earned pay siphoned off to support perfectly capable people who prefer to act like they need welfare.
To bring this back around to your initial bit, I don't give a shit about most of the people in my country and, indeed, most of the people on this planet, nor do I think I should be required to; particularly not when "giving a shit" actually means "giving them my money."
I've basically written a whole essay throughout this debate on how poverty is not due to "idleness and laziness" or "poor lifestyle choices" but "inequality of opportunity" and "institutional discrimination" - perhaps you should take a look?
I did. I disagree with a lot of it, agree with some of it, and think most of it was largely irrelevant to what I posted, so I'm not entirely sure why you redirected me there instead of just writing a new post. I never said that poverty is due to idleness and laziness, and "poor lifestyle choices" (or an apt synonym) never appeared in my post; that's your term, not mine.
What I did say is that I don't think we (the government) should reward idleness or laziness, something that I know exists in all tiers of wealth because I've seen it.
As for a few of your points:
Everyone wants a higher salary, but that doesn't mean that a low minimum wage is "institutional discrimination." People who have jobs that don't pay as high as they'd like presumably have that job because a) they couldn't find another one or b) that is the highest paying joy they could get. It seems rational and understandable for a company to maximize it's profits by paying as little as possible to its workers; that's just a given aspect of a capitalist cooperation. When the workers themselves are unskilled laborers, it is generally extremely easy to replace them if they are not content with working for the proposed wage - but again I don't see how this is institutionalized discrimination so much as sound business practice. By all means when you open up your own business pay your workers more than their work is worth - but don't expect any capitalist worth the name to do that, as well.
Inequality of opportunity is another given, only this time not just in the capitalist system but in the world in general. There are children in third world countries doing manual labor for 20 hours a day for no pay whatsoever - try to explain to these people how impoverished Americans or Britons have no opportunity. Opportunity always has been and always will be unequal. Your mission to make opportunity equal is futile and naive, and handing a government of all things the reigns to this operation is just plain stupid. What you'd get if you tried this in America is what they got when they tried this in the UK: a national welfare bill that seems to imply that over half of the country is populated by invalids. Because despite your absolutist assertions, some people in poverty remain in poverty essentially because they choose to, because scrounging benefits from the state is easier than working for a living. I know these people exist because I have seen, met, interacted, and befriended many of them. Hell, half the people in my complex fit that description.
Fair comment - I ought not to have been so lazy and posted something new.
However, you frequently mentioned in your post that the poor are put off by hard work, that there's no reason to care for others if it involves spending money, that idleness and laziness (both of which I consider "poor life style choices") are rewarded by the state - or words to that effect. If I misunderstood you, I apologies.
Idleness and laziness, as you pointed out, exists in all tiers of wealth. It is therefore not an issue about poverty, but arguably human nature. "People are poor because they are idle and lazy" therefore is false, as plenty of wealthy people are idle and lazy (and I'd argue more are).
I don't see the difference between what you describe as "sound business practice" and institutional discrimination. Exploiting somebody's poverty to minimize your wage costs is overtly discriminatory toward the poor, who are often poor due to factors outside of their control. I suppose I am calling for a communist model, which doesn't allow for such exploitation or whimsical replacement of workers. (I don't deny being an idealist).
Third world poverty is awful, of course. However, in the developed world how is it possible that we have a system in place where 1% of the population own over 60% of the wealth? We must address inequality of opportunity in the US and UK before we wish to dictate to other countries how to improve their own equality.
The government, seeing how it "governs" the country, seems like as good a place as any to begin to address national inequality. Somehow I don't trust individuals as many don't seem to care about their neighbours.
I've no doubt that there are plenty of people who exploit the benefits system, and I'm obviously no advocative of this. However, the abuse of a few should not mean the withdrawal of a system which sustains many genuinely needy people. And in a world where bankers pay themselves ridiculous bonuses after a financial melt down, where MPs fiddle their expenses and the Oil companies meet with Presidents and Prime Ministers more than any other party - claiming some extra benefits is not a great evil.
you frequently mentioned in your post that the poor are put off by hard work,
Some poor. Not the poor.
It is therefore not an issue about poverty, but arguably human nature.
Fair enough. However if a rich person is idle and lazy they will probably loose some of their wealth - cause and effect. If poor people are idle and lazy, they will never get richer, and poor people not having money seems to be the complaint here.
Exploiting somebody's poverty to minimize your wage costs is overtly discriminatory toward the poor
As a hypothetical business owner, you think it would be smart (and, for that matter, fair) to pay unskilled laborers more than their work is worth? Wages are determined by supply and demand, skill level, education, and the like. If your job is something an intelligent monkey could be trained to do, you are probably expendable and your work isn't worth that much. That's just the way business works - I know it sucks sometimes.
I suppose I am calling for a communist model, which doesn't allow for such exploitation or whimsical replacement of workers. (I don't deny being an idealist).
You want to answer a system that doesn't work well with a system that has never worked at all? You are proposing a fantasy land utopia. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about income because rainbows shit gold, but that situation is about as likely to work out as a communist model.
However, in the developed world how is it possible that we have a system in place where 1% of the population own over 60% of the wealth?
Because some people (particularly in the states) are obscenely wealthy. Why should we take their money away? I don't have money, and I'd love to get some for free without working for it, but that doesn't strike me as practical or fair.
We must address inequality of opportunity in the US and UK before we wish to dictate to other countries how to improve their own equality.
So, practically and realistically speaking (i.e. no communism) how do you think we should go about making sure everyone is born with equal opportunity? You mentioned education - should we make it so all schools give exactly the same education? How? Wages? Should everyone be paid the exact same, regardless of what they do?
The government, seeing how it "governs" the country, seems like as good a place as any to begin to address national inequality.
Because it's done such a great job so far, or what? The government instituted and ran the system you are currently bitching about, why trust them to set it right?
And I still don't see why I should be legally required to give a shit about other people - yes, particularly when money is involved.
Again, I ought to be more careful with my wording - however I don't dispute that some people are put off by hard work, but that the vast majority are simply poor due to factors outside of their control and therefore should receive help.
However if a rich person is idle and lazy they will probably loose some of their wealth - cause and effect.
This simply isn't the case. A rich person can afford to pay for someone else to run their affairs - they need not lift a finger. The tax avoidance schemes used by high profile figures such as the comedian Jimmy Carr is an example of the rich being able to stay rich through no effort whatsoever. The punishment for laziness should be the same for everyone, not harsher for those on low incomes.
If your job is something an intelligent monkey could be trained to do, you are probably expendable and your work isn't worth that much
Until we actually have intelligent monkeys (or more likely robots) carrying out these unskilled tasks, then the work is extremely valuable. Society could not function without unskilled and semi-skilled labour - everyone in work contributes. Lorry drivers, cleaners, ticket collectors, machinists are all essential to the running of a country. No point having nuclear scientists or politicians without them. I'm not saying we need a nation of cleaners, but that we cannot have a nation without cleaners.
You are proposing a fantasy land utopia
I'm not sure we should be aiming for anything less. I'm not suggesting an overnight transformation, but an ultimate goal - a distant aim - an ideal.
Why should we take their money away?
Because obscene wealth is earned off the back of others. If you own a chain of Clothes stores, sure you've worked hard sorting through the logistics of business management and should enjoy a share of the profits, however the products themselves are produced from the sweat off someone else's brow. You should contribute to your employees education and health. At a wider level, you should contribute to the society in which you live - nobody lives in a bubble, we live in a community - it shouldn't be too much to ask in order to improve the services that your community provides.
how do you think we should go about making sure everyone is born with equal opportunity?
So glad you asked. For starters, scrap the private health and education system. Those who run the country, or have the most influence over those who do (i.e. those who donate to political parties, who promise trade etc...) are incredibly wealthy and therefore have no vested interest in the state health or education system. Consequently, they are happy to leave it to rot - nearly all PMs and Presidents came from the private education system. If the private education and health system was disbanded, these people would be forced to invest in the state system (as this is the only system which they can now use). A possible reform of the education system could include selecting the most academic pupil from each school to go to the best college or university. This would encourage wealthy parents to spread their children out to as many schools as possible where they will meet less competition - this forces them to invest in many schools rather than dominate one or two schools.
Should everyone be paid the exact same, regardless of what they do?
Seeing as they are all vital to the running of the country, I'd say yes. I reckon you will still have people competing for the best jobs (not everyone wants to be a machinist), so you will still have your doctors and nurses - the appalling pay of nurses and yet their abundance demonstrates it is not always a salary which drives people into jobs.
The government instituted and ran the system you are currently bitching about, why trust them to set it right?
I certainly don't trust either the US or UK government in power at the moment to make any kind of progressive change. However, I have faith (perhaps naively) that the institution of government is an instrument for change.
but that the vast majority are simply poor due to factors outside of their control and therefore should receive help.
Good for you. That's a very noble position to hold. Go volunteer at your local charity and donate money to the poor if you personally believe that the poor should receive help, but don't support a system that would uniformly punish personal success by making the wealthy aid the poor for you. When I pull myself out of poverty, I should hope I would be able to keep all the money I made, wouldn't you?
This simply isn't the case. A rich person can afford to pay for someone else to run their affairs
Perhaps you're right, in regards to some of the more obscenely rich members of society, but there are a number of people in the "upper class" who would quickly loose their status and their fortunes if they sat around playing with their dicks all day instead of working.
The punishment for laziness should be the same for everyone, not harsher for those on low incomes.
Why should their be a punishment for laziness at all? You're proposing a system that would punish success and wealth and reward idleness. I understand that some poor may not be poor as a result of their idleness, but you are still suggesting that we should throw other peoples money at them for no other reason than their poverty. They do nothing other that be who they are, and they are rewarded for that. That sounds to me like rewarding idleness.
Until we actually have intelligent monkeys (or more likely robots) carrying out these unskilled tasks, then the work is extremely valuable. Society could not function without unskilled and semi-skilled labour - everyone in work contributes.
True, society could not function, but some jobs are significantly more difficult than others, and some require a much greater degree of skill (skill being something that takes time, effort, and capital to acquire, and is therefore valuable). Society might not be able to function without cleaners or doctors, but any dunce off the street can be taught to be a cleaner in five minutes, whereas being a doctor requires years of extensive training and is a much more demanding profession. So because a cleaner is expendable, unskilled, and easily replaced, the labor of the cleaner is worth less than the labor of the doctor. Both jobs are essential to society running, yes, but that doesn't make them equal in any other regard.
I'm not sure we should be aiming for anything less.
I find setting my sights on something realistic is a good way not to waste time and effort on something that will ultimately disappoint me.
If you own a chain of Clothes stores, sure you've worked hard sorting through the logistics of business management and should enjoy a share of the profits, however the products themselves are produced from the sweat off someone else's brow.
But owning, running and managing a chain of clothes stores is more demanding and difficult than sewing a button in a factory somewhere, or working a cash register in a store. It was also presumably a costly endeavor to begin, and required a great deal of capital to start up the stores. The owner risked more, worked harder, and had the leadership and dedication to start up his own business and make it do well; this requires a greater set of skills and resources, presumably, than any button-sewing or register-working employee of that business has.
Furthermore it should be noted that not every wealthy or successful person has legions of labors working under them to support their wealth; some are some degree of self-made millionaires, people who owe their success not to sweat shop products or minimum wage labor but to things like their imagination and ingenuity, or to things like the internet.
For starters, scrap the private health and education system
Forcing wealthy people to fund public health care and education while using private health care and education isn't enough for you, you want to eliminate the option of being able to receive health care and education the way they want it? Why not eliminate private business altogether, and force everyone to go their the government to get all their wants and needs, not just the essentials?
Seeing as they are all vital to the running of the country, I'd say yes.
Then what is the motivation to take on difficult work? Generally the jobs that are more challenging or require a greater skill set pay more, and the easy or easy to learn jobs pay less. What's to stop everyone from picking all the fun and easy careers instead of the difficult ones if all the jobs pay the same? Our current system handles this problem quite nicely; if there is a shortage of one kind of profession, the cost (and consequent pay) of that labor goes up, and the motivation to fill that job increases.
I certainly don't trust either the US or UK government in power at the moment to make any kind of progressive change. However, I have faith (perhaps naively) that the institution of government is an instrument for change.
So basically you don't trust them to get it right unless they stop being who and what they are.
As nice as it sounds, making the essentials free so everyone can get them, all you're doing is subsidizing bad life choices. As cruel as this sounds, people need to be able to die. The easier it is to survive, the less pressure there is on the human genome to make us survivable, meaning the quality of human genetics degrades.
Besides, what you're proposing isn't feasible. It's been tried and it just doesn't work out well. You complain about "5 to 6 bills a month", but the alternative is heavy taxation, which will be more expensive than those bills due to all the 'middle men' this money has to go through. You can also expect shoddy quality as the government will have a coercive monopoly on these services, removing incentive to have a decent product.
Those living in poverty i.e. without housing, clothing, food and water, are not in poverty due to any kind of genetic defect, and almost never out of "bad lifestyle choices". Homelessness and unemployment are more often than not the result of a corporate culture of keeping wage costs down and maximizing profits. A poor education, neglect, the misfortune to be born into poverty are all factors; your genetic make up is, absolutely, not. Providing basic necessities such as shelter is therefore not going to degrade the quality of the human genome - and in as polite a way as possible - I have never heard anything quite so ridiculous.
As for the problem with taxation - I suggest taxing those multi-millionaires who make their profits exploiting the absence of social security in developing countries, gambling at the international markets and rewarding themselves huge bonuses....
Hmm I don't think you've understood my point. There are people who make poor life choices such as having a bunch of kids without saving any money. Normally, these people would die as a result of their inability to think ahead, but if all the necessities of life are free, we subsidize poor life choices. I'll explain; these poor people won't be paying taxes, to the contrary, they will be receiving funding from the government, funding that was extracted from people who did make good choices in life and have disposable income.
Sure, everybody benefits from the system, but the ones who benefit the most are the mooches and the ones who benefit the least would benefit more from not having such a system in place at all. the ones who planed ahead lose out and the ones who didn't profit from their poor choices, thereby ensuring the survival of their children who will most likely also carry this tendency both for genetic reasons and for logical reasons.
The human genome has been in decline for a long time. People are much less fit physically than they were because we've invented tools that make strong bodies unnecessary. If we also make long-term planning and rationality unnecessary for survival, what do you think will happen?
One more thing, wages lower than the market rate are due to special favours lobbied by said corporations. Without government intervention, such barriers to entry cannot exist, meaning wages will be subject to market forces and reach their natural equilibrium.
Your argument is based on a false premise; that poverty is due to "poor lifestyle choices". It's hardly a shock that people don't choose to live in poverty. Redundancy, unemployment or a low income and therefore reliance on the state is almost never out of laziness or "having a bunch of kids", but due to the demand of capital. If you cannot make money for a business, you're out of that business. Inequality of opportunity is also a major factor - a lack of education massively damages future prospects. It is seldom due to an inability to plan and think rationally that you descend into poverty.
Our perceptions of a "poor lifestyle choice" are apparently very different. I would argue that the choice to become a cleaner or social worker or another low income occupation, an invaluable asset to society (we would be in a mess without cleaners) though restricted in your ability to save, is hardly a poor lifestyle choice.
While it's true that those who benefit the most immediately from the welfare state are those in need of welfare, those who fund the state with their taxes benefit from a generally more healthy, safer society. Poverty fosters disease, crime and other social problems - measures to alleviate poverty subsequently reduce the amount of crime etc...
A small thing - the families with the most children are found in countries suffering from abject poverty because the parents believe only a few of these children will survive. The largest families in the UK are tiny compared with those in Niger or Ghana.
Wages lower than the market rate are as a result of exploiting people's poverty. To a person who has nothing, the small something given as payment is worth the work - only the most ardent capitalist could argue this is not deeply immoral.
So to summarise - making necessities for life free such as health care and housing will NOT degrade the human genome because the vast majority of people living in poverty are not there out of poor lifestyle choices encouraged by their genetic make-up, but rather a lack of education or unemployment. Those whose lives are destroyed by the whim of capital and inequality of opportunity ought to be saved.
I agree with you to an extent. Government intervention into the market does throttle competition, making starting and sustaining a business difficult, however this debate assumes a complete free-market outside of the industries listed above, meaning the sustainability of your business is 100% your responsibility. Also keep in mind that even in today's market those with mere B.A.s in anything other than liberal arts make over 10k more annually than those with only highschool level education -- which means that even in a market as controlled as ours, your choices are the ultimate factor in how well you do in life.
About Africa -- Africa was doing pretty well in the 50's. Since then the population has risen 5 fold and poverty has ensued. This means that poverty FOLLOWS bad life choices, not the other way around.
Government intervention often promotes competition. Take the example of Lloyds TSB - they have been forced to sell off branches to the Cooperative because they have become too large.
More often than not individuals are restricted to a high school education (from low attainment) and therefore lower annual pay because of factors outside of their control - the quality of teaching, learning resources available, the need to care for a sick relative at home etc... Unfortunately, the highest quality of teaching, the greatest resources and opportunities are found in private schools simply because they can be afforded - as a result, those from low income backgrounds are at an educational disadvantage. The distribution of the quality of housing means, even in the state education system, that children from a low income background are taught together and those from a middle income background are taught together at local schools - a two tier education system based on income. This inequality of opportunity suggests that actually your circumstances at birth are major factors in your quality of life, and not the choices you make. (As these choices follow from circumstances outside of your control).
1. Poverty may initially be as a result of bad lifestyle choices, but those born into poverty who have not made these choices find it incredibly difficult to ascend the social ladder (hence the term - "poverty trap").
2. Poverty is often as a result of alienation of a particular group, either institutionally (through employment quotas) or socially (racial prejudice, sexism). It's no coincidence that ethnic minorities disproportionately live in poverty.
The inability to afford private school is a failure of state education, not a failure of the market as private schools are actually less expensive than their private counter-parts -- and this happens even with the government influence over the private education system. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread641350/pg1
You bring up that ethnic minorities (especially blacks) live in poverty. What I'm assuming you don't know is that blacks, on the aggregate, score 15 IQ points lower than their white counter-parts and when you control for IQ, the income gap disappears. This means that the idea of a "poverty trap" is largely bunk as it only seems to apply to the extent that people end up earning about what their IQ's predict anyway. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31972661/Race-Racism-and-Income-Inequality
Private schools are less expensive than their state counterparts overall, sure. But the taxes an individual pays toward the state education system is less than the fee they would pay for a place at a private school. Therefore, state schools are cheaper for the individual. An individual on a low income background can therefore afford to pay for a state school rather than a private school - that much should be obvious.
Ethnic minorities have lower IQs on average - if you say so. Even if this is the case, that's as a result of a poorer education due to institutional and social prejudice; not because of their genetic make-up. People in poverty have lower IQs (not that a low IQ should be punished by poverty) because of failure in the education system often due to factors outside of their control (as mentioned in my previous argument). In our society, success in the education system is a stepping stone to a comfortable life, so it's not surprising that there is a correlation between income and IQ.
Your first paragraph is just mater of factly wrong. The taxes you pay for education are greater than the fee for private school. I'm not sure how you can think they're more expensive for the individual, but somehow less expensive when all the individuals are added together.
No, poor IQ is not environmental. Modern day IQ scores control almost perfectly for 'G' (therefore reveal one's genetic capacity for 'intelligence'). You don't even have to be literate to take modern IQ tests. No education is required.
IQ develops if the individual has the opportunity to think critically, to spot patterns and to understand basic instructions - all of which are improved through an education. IQ is absolutely by no means fixed. 'G' is not a gene but a base code which is present in all human DNA - unless I am mistaken (which is certainly possible, in which case can you send me a link to a site?).
Perhaps I wasn't clear with regards to taxes. If a person earns £20,000 a year (just below the UK average) £502 of their tax will go to the state to spend on education (in the UK). The average (not even the highest) fee for a private education (again in the UK) is £1400. Therefore, it is cheaper for the individual to attend a state school.
The thing about IQ is, studies have been done on this such as the abecedarian project which was an early interventionist endeavour to see if state-of-the art education starting asap would have a dramatic effect of the intelligence of the subjects and they were of the opinion that this was that case. The initial results where great, but as time went on the gap between the subjects and the average student shrank until it was virtually non-existent. One of the researchers even noted that the single best indicator for the final IQ score of the students was the parent's IQ.
I will give you that one, taxation makes things cheaper for the poor by allowing them to piggy-back on the rich, but that's pretty much our entire dispute. I contend that giving people this option will make people more likely to take advantage of it, that is, you've subsidized poor life choices, thus burdening the country.
I'm not heartless, I know some people really can't help their situation, but the coercive extraction and redistribution of wealth is not the answer. A better alternative is charity. I know that in America, over 300 million dollars is given away in the form of charity annually. This is more than enough to cover those with legitimate issues, and without the burden of taxation I contend that more will be given as a result of the increased surplus of disposable income. This way, the truly poor are covered and the lazy simply have to bite the bullet and carry their own weight.
In true debating fashion we shall have to agree to disagree. It appears we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a poor lifestyle choice, and therefore disagree on whether or not the welfare system subsidizes poor lifestyles. I'm not against charity by any means, but if it is the only safety net I fear that many people will fall through.
We can agree to disagree, or you can adhere to logic and agree with me. ^-^
But in all seriousness, $300,000,000+ is a huge safety net. If that is not enough to cover the people who legitimately need such charity, then we have a much bigger problem than education funding.
