It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Entreri06
Full-time moms have been dealing with this attitude for years and years. The general consensus seemed to be full-time moms were too lazy or too stupid to work.... and that we spent our days baking cookies, having teas, and laying on the couch watching soaps while eating bonbons.
Hillary Clinton:
I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.
Not to say that I didn't bake a lot of cookies! And cupcakes and brownies and anything else that could be sold at school/church bake sales. I also did a lot of volunteer work in the community. While other moms were working, I was volunteering at school teaching their kids to read and write. And the few other full-time moms I knew were doing the same.
In hindsight, better understanding how our debtor nation works, I now realize I was the bad guy because no one was making any money off of me. No taxes, no interest, no nothing. I think it really is that simple. If I had gone to work, then we could have gotten a bigger mortgage... fancier cars... and lots of other goodies bought on credit. And today our adult kids would also be credit-card consumers instead of responsible adults who live within their means.
originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Entreri06
In my opinion if someone chooses to compromise wealth or (perceived) societal success to spend time with their family that is a good moral choice. As long as they can provide appropriate nutrition and shelter then there is no societal drain and the choice that they are making will pay dividends for their children and society at large. Kids can be happy and well adjusted even if they are poor. It can be more difficult, poverty is associated with depression, drug use, crime and even divorce; so it is naïve to completely discount the stress and pressures that can be associated with that. With a slight variation on the scenario, if they are choosing not to work and support their family with welfare programs, than that is a societal drain in an economic sense but it may still pay off in the moral sense for society as a whole with their children.
You are of course comparing these poor-folks-by-choice to a construct that is clearly a poisonous influence on society (wealthy taker, cheater, liar). The deck is stacked more than a little in your scenario. I don't think it's as simple as Rich People are Bad and Poor People are Good. I will admit that our current social and economic culture tends to reward some narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, so there are plenty of successful people that aren't very nice or moral. I have met plenty that are as well.
There are too many conflicting and contradictory pressures and motivators, both external and internal, to make your cut and dried circumstance all that plausible.
originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Entreri06
In my opinion if someone chooses to compromise wealth or (perceived) societal success to spend time with their family that is a good moral choice. As long as they can provide appropriate nutrition and shelter then there is no societal drain and the choice that they are making will pay dividends for their children and society at large. Kids can be happy and well adjusted even if they are poor. It can be more difficult, poverty is associated with depression, drug use, crime and even divorce; so it is naïve to completely discount the stress and pressures that can be associated with that. With a slight variation on the scenario, if they are choosing not to work and support their family with welfare programs, than that is a societal drain in an economic sense but it may still pay off in the moral sense for society as a whole with their children.
You are of course comparing these poor-folks-by-choice to a construct that is clearly a poisonous influence on society (wealthy taker, cheater, liar). The deck is stacked more than a little in your scenario. I don't think it's as simple as Rich People are Bad and Poor People are Good. I will admit that our current social and economic culture tends to reward some narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, so there are plenty of successful people that aren't very nice or moral. I have met plenty that are as well.
There are too many conflicting and contradictory pressures and motivators, both external and internal, to make your cut and dried circumstance all that plausible.