A return to responsibility

Posted by

in Opinions

Tuesday, March 2. 2010

Comments (42)

The Augusta Chronicle

You can see it on the roads and highways, where drivers either don't know or don't respect the rules -- and courtesy is certainly the last thing on their minds.

You can see it in the schools, where the government feels it necessary to feed the children not just lunch but breakfast, and where teachers and administrators are counselors, cops and more -- all the responsibilities of parenthood and none of the rights.

Please login or register to read the rest of this story.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 10:51 AM

There are so many things wrong with this article, I dont know where to begin. This article and the "intelligence" that wrote it is what is wrong with America.

#1.1 David Rawlins on 03/02/10 at 11:57 AM

Do you mean factually wrong or do you disagree with the conclusion that the breakdown of the family structure is the reason for the continued breakdown of moral, ethical and judicial values in this country?

#2 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 12:07 PM

Care to elaborate on what is wrong with this article??

#3 Sheila Tolley on 03/02/10 at 12:18 PM

You must be one of those parents, or child of one, who thinks "irresponsibility rules." The article tells exactly what is wrong. Parents blame teachers endlessly for the poor behavior of their children. In this new day and age, school is a wrestling match, teachers are referees but they have no whistle and cannot enforce the rules. Why in the world do schools serve breakfasts? Why not just leave them over for supper and the night time snacks? What is a parents responsibility in the world today? Breed. That is all I see effectively completed by the MAJORITY of parents. We got nursery school, we got pre-k, we got kindergarten before a child even officially starts school. You can like it or not but I am going to say it just the same. The family as a unit has been long gone. It will not come back in our lifetime. Not without a major depression. A time when children must contribute in the family. We must get it back so that children scramble to get their homework finished in Study Hall because they have many chores to do when they get home. BESIDES looking for the remote. Bring it on all you "Gimme Group" and all of you, "But my husband and I must both work to make ends meet." BRING IT ON.... AND to you teachers that really do abuse children like the one who pinched a special needs child...Lucifer is leaving his lights on for you at Motel Hell. BUT, I am satisfied that irresponsible parents are the norm and evil teachers are the exception.

Very good article, Walter.

#3.1 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 01:31 PM

I agree with this. My mother had to start working when she was 16. Her and my father have been married for 45 years and BOTH of them have ALWAYS worked. THis was not a problem for them in raising me and my brother the way we were suppose to be raised. and YES, we DID get whipped with a belt when we needed it.
And MY kids do, too!
I was a single parent for 8 yrs with 2 children and I did the best I could. I did not let them run wild or be disrespectful.

As for teachers abusing kids, yes it happens. The most famous case I know of is a special ed teacher in Texas who killed a student in class in front of the other kids. She called the parents and told them she was only doing her job. She could not be arrested or anything else because the childs parent was a FOSTER parent, and did not have the right to press charges. Now, this teacher is off scot free and teaching in Virginia -

http://www.examiner.com/x-/x-4959-Special-Education-Examiner~y2009m5d23-Is-a-license-to-teach-also-a-license-to-kill

#3.2 T on 03/03/10 at 11:55 AM

Excuse me. I have medical bills and expenses related to my child that result in both parents having to work. I feed my children breakfast, pay for their school lunch, feed them supper and make sure they have snacks. I try to supervise homework and I spend time with my children. If you are priveledged to be able to stay home with your children as I once was - please refrain from setting yourself up as high and mighty judge of those who are not able to do likewise.

#3.2.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/04/10 at 12:55 PM

My comment obviously does not apply to you. You are the exception, not the rule. We need more like you. I have worked since I was 14 on a workers permit. But like you, I handled work and home. I never got handouts and never expected any. Chill out and thanks for being a good parent.

#3.2.1.1 Brad on 03/04/10 at 03:36 PM

I think if you check into it, the amount of irresponsible parents is minute compared to the responsible ones. The problem is the irresponsible ones get the attention due to the trouble they get in.

#3.2.1.1.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/05/10 at 08:53 AM

Perhaps you are right, Brad. I hope you are. Maybe the poor ones just suck all the positivity from the world. I know there are some good ones out there. But I do wish the others would use one of the millions of birth control devices that I am sick of being advertised every 15 minutes.

#3.2.1.2 Anonymous on 03/12/10 at 02:15 PM

I tend to live by the mantra "If it applies to me - it applies to someone else." I'm not the only one who HAS to work. Again - if you are blessed to be able to stay home, whether because you work from home or because it is not necessary to have that additional income, be thankful and try not to judge others by your own situation.

#4 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 01:26 PM

Ok then...lack of family values is to blame for the moral decline in America? I do not agree. I think it is a symptom..NOT a cause.

I believe greed is the cause..the almighty dollar. God is even printed on it. Money has become the god of our country. It is now necessary for a family to work two jobs to support a decent lifestyle. 50 years ago, that was not the case. Daddy was the bread winner and momma was at home with the children.
This country can invade Iraq and throw millions of their citizens into a whole other level of poverty but when there is the slightest false rumor of taxing anything in America, the almighty Tea Party movement was formed. "Dont DARE touch MY money. I dont care if people in America are starving..Say no to tax dollars for entitlement or stimulus programs." Even thought this is the highest unemployment rate in years. A situation such as this calls for more drastic measures. What a joke.
There is your moral decline in society.... Looking out for ourselves and to heck with our brothers. He may be the “least of these” and he is going to stay that way.

And Sheila, the world’s worst at making ASSumptions, shove a sock in it. I agree with freedom of speech, but for you I make an exception.

#4.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/02/10 at 05:45 PM

That is why I do not have to ask people like you if I can speak. That is no assumption, Doc, that is a fact. What is it that you disagree with in my comment? Are you one who uses school as a free baby sitting service? Something got you a little 'urinated off', didn't it?

#4.1.1 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 09:47 PM

The assumption can be found in the first sentence of your last bowl movement..

#4.1.1.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/03/10 at 08:28 AM

You will have to explain that one to me. I have tried and tried to decipher it. Even backwards in a mirror.

#4.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 03/03/10 at 12:37 PM

was there a reflection in that mirror?

#4.1.1.1.1.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/04/10 at 09:30 AM

Yeah, but it was anonymous so it served no useful purpose.

#4.1.1.2 rhoda dunn on 03/03/10 at 10:14 AM

you are not the only one that needs a explanation of that one.sounds like some crap from a real crapper.some folks cannot see the trees for the forest, much less comprehend any intelligent conversation. sheila, maybe if you write one line at a time, this person may get it. if not you can try sending them the ABC's to learn or a translater to help them with plain english. your comments were right on the money.

#4.1.1.3 ~ Pearl Necklace ~ on 03/08/10 at 09:08 AM

I found a P-NUT........LOL!!!

#4.1.1.3.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/11/10 at 01:56 PM

Look who is back? Have you been out oyster gathering?

#4.1.2 Anon on 03/03/10 at 02:38 PM

Haven't you been married three time? Great family values.

#4.1.2.1 Sheila Tolley on 03/04/10 at 09:39 AM

Wrong again. I have been married four times. I would still marry them all in the same sequence, at that particular time in my life, for the same reasons. I have respect for my ex's and vise versa. That does not diminish my family values. With age comes wisdom. All my ex's and their ex's could fill Texas. But we would all show up for the party with no hard feelings. We would pay our own way and invite the kids....and they would pay their own way. It is called responsibility. Look it up.

#4.2 Sheila Tolley on 03/03/10 at 04:08 PM

The world is based on assumptions.

#4.2.1 Anon on 03/03/10 at 06:41 PM

I think you have posted it in the past. Maybe you have only been married twice. Either way you have been divorced. Sticks and stones and all that other stuff. Clean up your ownself before you make comments.

#4.2.1.1 rhoda dunn on 03/04/10 at 09:42 AM

talking about knawing a bone to death! most couples do devorce. it is better to admit mistake and go on than live a lie as some do and make the world around them miserable. if this is all the dirt you have, you can throw your broom away or ride off on it.

#4.2.1.2 Sheila Tolley on 03/04/10 at 09:42 AM

Divorces are legal, often the best option for all and I might add....quite expensive. But if at first one doesn't succeed...try, try, try again.

#4.2.1.3 Sheila Tolley on 03/04/10 at 09:45 AM

You THINK I have posted in the past.....yeah, right. I THINK Rose Kennedy owned a black dress.

#4.3 Danny Blount on 03/04/10 at 08:50 PM

That's just a stupid comment. America was built and funded/grounded on capitalism. Our entire business structure is intended to capitalize; that means make money. Ask any person with for-profit business savvy or skill "what is the goal of the firm"; if they say anything other than increase shareholder wealth, they're not credible. Competition and a competitive environment is the key. The more government control, the less competition, the less our system works as it was designed. Money isn't the problem; government is the problem. As far as taking care of our brothers, just let me keep my money and me and my brother, sister and parents will be just fine. If you want socialism/communism, you'll have to move to North Korea or Cuba, those are about the only two places left in the world with your type of structure. Go now, I'm sure the North Koreans would love to have you.

I love the Tea Party, not because of money, but because of my personal liberty. I still vote libertarian, though, when given the option.

During all my years in school and business, I have never said to myself (or even heard a donkey democrat say): WOW, I wish the government would control that, it would be so much better. Government makes things expensive and awkward; never more efficient and easier. The only exception is national defense; I am very thankful for Uncle Sam (which is the only reason I can still wake up smiling on April 15, knowing at least some of mine went to a good cause).

#4.3.1 Anonymous on 03/05/10 at 11:04 AM

and your comments are stupid and inconsiderate

#5 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 02:51 PM

''Say no to tax dollars for entitlement or stimulus programs''

So you agree to work and earn your hard earned money to give to sorry people who will not work??
You agree that it's ok for people to think they are *entitled* to the citizens tax dollars to pay for their living?

#5.1 Anonymous on 03/02/10 at 06:32 PM

I dont actually refer to them as entitlement programs, I was using language so others could understand. Unemployment, Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Tanf, etc. are worthy attempts at assisting people in need. However, they are not properly implemented. The laws need to be changed so people are encouraged to work and not rely on handouts. In the mean time, I think we need them because "the poor you will always have with you" and we are called to care for the "least of these".

I do not expect anyone in Thomaston to fund these "entitlement" programs. Most of you barely make it from day to day yourselves. But there are others in society, specifically the 2% who received an unfunded tax cut under our wonderful president Bush who should foot that bill. Understand?

#6 Brad on 03/03/10 at 05:39 AM

Anon, most of us do feel called to care for the least of us. But let me tell you what you are saying.

You and I are walking down a road. We run across someone standing there holding a sign that says "will work for food". I feel bad for the guy so i pull out some money and give it to him. You think to yourself, "well that was nice of him". Then I turn to you and say "ok, give him some money". You reply, "well, I dont really have the money right now, you know my kids have been sick, the therapy for my special needs child cost an arm and a leg, besided the guy smell likes liquor." I then proceed to pull a gun and take what money you have to give to the guy.

That is what happens with our government, except when it takes 20, it only gives 5 to the man and the rest disappears into cost. It is not the governments job to use police power to take wealth from one individual and give to another.

#6.1 Anonymous on 03/03/10 at 07:14 AM

Brad,

Please read #5.1.

#6.1.1 dannyb on 03/07/10 at 08:21 PM

Man, you got this all wrong. Brad can read 5.1 all he wants, it won't change the fact that the government will take your money, and skim it for administration, then give a little to the poor (not based on whether they deserve it or not, just as a legal matter of qualification).

The rule regarding 'the least of these' can be met so much better and more efficient if our tax burden was not so great. I pay taxes AND give away more than my tax burden through a benevolence fund. Just think how much more I could help people that I know are trying, but just can't make it if the government would let me keep control of my benevolence.

Do you think the biblical reference is talking about the redistribution of wealth through the government? We need to have a theological conversation about that (if that is your honest opinion). There is another reference stating that if you give it for the wrong reason, you've already got your earthly reward and that's all you'll be getting from the 'donation'. You can't confuse the government requirement with the 'loving giver'; that's just wrong. It is my interpretation that you must give with a cheerful heart and not be forced by others to get a heavenly reward.

And, it's not always about money. Sometimes, we are called to give time and other things, like introductions to hiring sources; of which I freely give with a happy heart.

I suspect you are one of the government employees who helps redistribute the wealth, which would explain the anonymity. It would be very helpful to those of us who like the name our fathers gave us enough to post it if you all would come up with some 'anon' uniqueness so we can keep up with who we're talking to (or about).

#6.1.1.1 Brad on 03/08/10 at 07:43 AM

Danny, reasoning with people with this mentality is a lost cause. They some how feel that "less fortunate" people are entitled to take property from "more fortunate" people.

It makes me feel good to be able to donate money. You can also look at it this way. If you go to a resteraunt and they include a 15 percent gratuity to the bill, that is all the server will get. If they leave it up to the individual, they would probably get 20 percent.

#6.2 David Rawlins on 03/03/10 at 07:41 AM

Best explanation I've ever heard. Those programs are "entitlement" programs. They may have been designed to provide a leg-up; but, they've become just a hand-out.

It's time to end them all and go back to being responsible for yourself.

#7 brad on 03/03/10 at 08:39 AM

I object to the use of unfunded tax cut. That is an inherent problem with your line of thinking. The money belongs to that 2%, it does not belong to the government. Unfunded would mean that the government was giving them money that they did not have. The government simply let them keep more of their money. Programs are put out their unfunded... .Taxes are a way to fund not something the government funds.

The best way to stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep their money. Not take it from them and redistribute it.

I beleive you used the term greed also. I would love to hear your definition of greedy.

#7.1 Anonymous on 03/03/10 at 12:19 PM

I do not agree that the money belongs to that 2 percent. The elite you are referring to have been making billions of dollars off of the backs of the working poor (like me) for decades. They are the ruling class that make the rules and exploit them. How successful would Sam Walton be without his employees or customers? How many mom and pop operations has Walmart put out of business? In order to become successful, you CANNOT do it alone. Either you have educated yourself on the knowledge obtained by people before you or you have developed a product in which you will need customers and employees to help manufacture, distribute and purchase. You CANNOT live in a cave and become a millionaire on your own. People need each other.

Lets say you lived in a third world country and worked 60 hours a week? How successful would you be in that system? Probably just enough to feed your family and pay for the straw house in which you live. We are fortunate enough to live in a system that allows success but it will not continue to be a productive system if the people who have managed to exploit it do not give back to the system (people) who have made that success possible. The income gap is growing my friend. I try to look at everyone as my brother, sometimes it is very hard. I will try to leave philosophy and religion out of it and just appeal to common sense.

And greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. People worship money. They have a tendency to put their money above any moral obligation and frequently justify it by judging the other person unworthy of help. Unfortunately, I am working on this myself. No one is perfect.

When I say unfunded, I mean that the tax cut was given to people who do not need it without a plan to balance that cut in the budget. Giving the rich that tax cut did not stimulate our economy.

#8 Brad on 03/03/10 at 07:41 PM

I am sorry, but I know alot of people in the top 2 percent. These people are small business owners who are partners in an S-corporation. The for every 10 people in the top 2 who are ultra rich, there are 90 who are just filing the corporate earnings as personal income. They pax income taxes on the money that the company makes. This is how it works. I know several people who have to pay taxes on 1,000,000.00 dollars profit their company made. So they pay 450,000.00 in income taxes. You let them keep 100,000 of that it allows them to grow their business and hire more employees.

that person is in the top 2 percent, he probably gets about 150,000.00 a year to live and risk everything he worked for to start a business. the employee who gets up and just puts in 8 has not earned to make the same as him.

I just hear you spewing the classic line of wealth envy who have not studied real world economics long enough to learn these facts.

#9 Brad on 03/03/10 at 07:49 PM

Oh, in your definition of greed. Who is this all knowing individual who determines what I need or deserve.

Tax cuts in general cause growth in revenue to the federal government. The tax cuts intent was to stimulate small businesses and was working until the housing bubble burst.

I would like to talk about fair. How is a sliding percentage of taxes fair?

ok sir, you would like to buy a hotdog? It will be 1.00.

Ok maam, you would like to buy hotdog? I am sorry, you make more money so it will be 1.40.

That looks fair

#9.1 David Rawlins on 03/04/10 at 08:46 AM

Webster:

: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Some clown on Wikipedia added the "or deserved". Please don't use wikipedia as a source for information. Unless of course you like quoting incorrect information.

Are CEO's overpaid? In large companies? Yes. In small companies? Sometimes. In my company? Never. It's my company.

If you want to be one of those overpaid CEO's start your own company. You get to be an overpaid CEO, VP, Manger, Worker, Maintenance and Janitor.

CEO's should make whatever they can negotiate. If the companies don't think they are worth it then they shouldn't hire them. The only exception to this are the banks that have received bailout money. If you needed to be bailed out then you don't deserve a bonus.

#10 Sheila Tolley on 03/05/10 at 08:50 AM

My friend Danny Blount needs to run for office in Pike County. Just pick one...you got my vote and support.

#10.1 rhoda dunn on 03/07/10 at 05:50 PM

dannys got my vote too

Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.

The author does not allow comments to this entry