We have taken the last couple of weeks off from our regularly scheduled curriculum to debate and discuss politics, the electoral process, function and purpose of our government, etc.
Today we were talking about redistribution of wealth and I said, "let's say I asked all of you to do some jobs around the house, and at the end of the day I paid you according to the work you did. Eliana, you made $10 because you worked very hard. Madeline, you started strong but decided by the afternoon you wanted to go play, so you only got $6. Meghan, you did about as much work as you usually do, so you only got $1. Then let's say that Dad and I decided it wasn't really fair that Eliana and Madeline had so much more money than Meghan, so we took $1 from Madeline, and $3 from Eliana and gave them to Meghan. Now, Meghan has $5, Madeline has $5 and Eliana has $7. How would you feel?
Meghan thought it was awesome that she could get so much money for doing very little. Madeline and especially Eliana were really angry. I asked them why. They said "it's not fair". I said, "but Dad and I decided it wasn't fair you two had so much more money than Meghan".
They said "but she didn't work as hard as we did!"
Then I said, "what if Meghan had a broken leg? would it be fair then?" They still all said "no". Eliana said, "it would be ok if I decided I wanted to GIVE her some of my money, but I shouldn't HAVE to give her any." Madeline said "that's why we put money in the offering at church, or help people who are having hard times....because we want to...not because we have to."
9 comments:
Now if you could just teach that lesson to people who want to give our money to people who aren't even working.
On tv today, I saw a segment on the owner of the Miami Dolphins who said if Obama is elected, he will sell his team before the inaguration in order to avoid paying some of the taxes he believes Obama will set up on the rich. Interestingly, the point was then made that this man while rich is also very generous and has given over 100 million dollars to local charities. However, he believes that giving to others is his reponsibilities not the governments. I appreciated his viewpoint as well as the perspective that not all wealthy people are selfish and close fisted.
Great idea! You always do such a good job of explaining things to the kids.
So I'm still wondering why so many people are for Obama?!
Mike is out of the hospital..he got out today! :)
Children understand this, so why...
~Luke
Hello, and thank you for your mention of our Alpha Omega Curriculum on your blog.
We would appreciate it very much if you would please post a link from your blog to our website. http://www.aop.com
Thanks and have a fantastic day!
AOP
Yes he is doing much better. Thanks for asking!
I am going to try to update tomorrow.
p.s.
He is still interested in doing those things if you guys still are?!
I honestly feel this type of explanation is overly simplistic and kind of naive. Do you really believe it's as simple as who works harder than some one else? I doubt Paris Hilton has worked hard a day in her life, and some of the hardest jobs in this country are paid the least.
People need help. People who are born into situations out of their control, situations that are amost impossible to get out of. Born into poverty just like Paris Hilton was born into ritches.
"People who aren't even working." Maybe they would work if there were a job for them. What a thing to say "people who aren't even working" my goodness. My family is very fortunate that my husband has a job when so, so many don't. Yes there are people in this country who are lazy, who might take advantage etc, but there are many, many, many more people, families that have found themselves in situations they never would have chosen. Things have happened to them that could happen to anyone.
I personaly have no problem with a government that intends to help the least of these. It's amazing a government can bail out bankers with the money of hard working people, but programs to bail out humans, families, PEOPLE living a hard life in this country bothers you all. I don't get it.
Here's what I wrote in defense of this position to a friend who had similar issue with it. In fact, I'll just post my whole reply to her query about my position in general.
Some of it won't make sense because it was written in response to other issues, but it does explain my position. It's long...
It is difficult for me to read your post as anything other than a personal attack on me. Because I have known you so long and love you so dearly, I will assume that you did not mean it that way, and that it only appeared as such because of your passion for the issues at hand. I hope you will read this response in the same way.
I would first like to say that I think it was totally inappropriate for you to bring up the issue of Eliana’s response to your Obama t-shirt at the park. If you were offended by the conversation, it would have been much more appropriate for you to have come directly to me, rather than bringing it up in a public forum. Since you did not do this, and instead posted it here, I would like to clarify that after Eliana asked you disdainfully if you were voting for Obama I immediately responded with something to the effect that “Eliana, it’s ok to like people who have different opinions than we do.” Furthermore, on the ride home I discussed with all of the kids that we need to be respectful and kind to all people, regardless of their beliefs- political, religious or otherwise, and I told Eliana that the way she responded to your shirt was totally inappropriate and probably upset you.
I want my children to be educated in all areas- including politics. I try my very hardest to allow them to make their own decisions, without my interference. I never gave the example above as a means of brainwashing my children. You feel that my explanation of wealth redistribution was “grossly oversimplified”. Of course it was Amy. I was giving the example to a 6 yr. old, 7 yr. old and a 13 yr. old ELL. I wasn’t teaching a university level course. I was responding to a question they had regarding something they had seen on TV. I chose the example I did because it was something they could understand. Meghan never does as much work as the other two girls, so she never gets as much money. It IS because she is lazy or otherwise engaged. She just chooses to do other things instead of those things which would earn her money. There are people in our society who choose to do other things rather than working two jobs to make ends meet, rather than working overtime, rather than working and going back to school. I don’t think that’s a fallacy Amy. I think it’s a general statement about the choices many individual Americans make to better, or not better, their situations. Obviously I know this does not hold true in all situations which is why I then asked if it would be different if Meghan had a broken leg. If you read Madeline’s response you will see that we are already teaching our children by example that it is their duty to help those less fortunate than themselves. We just believe it should be given from a generous heart, not because the government obligates us to do so.
This is why I am not a democrat: I don’t think it is the government’s responsibility to level the playing field for me or for anyone else. I don’t want to benefit at someone else’s expense. Does that mean things will be harder for us sometimes? Sure. It also means that maybe next year, things will be better for us. My hope isn’t in government handouts. It’s in the spirit of America…that we have an opportunity to build wealth to leave to our children and that we can charitably give to help others who are unable to help themselves. That’s truly patriotic.
Right now Michael works 10-12 hour days 6-7 days a week. He does this to provide for our family. There is a trade-off. He misses time with me and time with the kids. He doesn't work all of these hours hoping he can give more to the federal government to mismanage and spend wastefully. He doesn't do it so the government can take it and give it to someone else to level the playing field. He does it so he can make a better life for his OWN family. Since we believe it is right to give a particular portion of our income away, as well as giving above and beyond that to those we know in need, those who are trying to pay for adoptions, etc., the more he makes, the more we give away. Since we know where our money is given and those agencies are accountable for how they spend the money, we know it is being used for the cause we intended. In contrast, the federal government is corrupt, spends our tax dollars with no accountability, and coerces us to buck up and pay more. How in the world are higher taxes a good thing?! We need smaller government, not larger.
I vote pro-life, which is generally, but not always, Republican for the very simple reason that I believe life begins at conception. Does “life” begin at a certain gestational age? Do we say, “Oh, this baby is 15 weeks old…now it is alive”? The pro-choice assumption is that the baby isn’t alive until it is actually born. What then is it doing up until that point? Is it not living, developing and growing? Certainly God (or evolution, if that is what you believe) designed human life in such a way that a baby cannot live independently of its mother until it reaches a certain point of development, but does that mean it isn’t actually alive? Are we only alive if we can live independently? Can a newborn baby live independently? How about a toddler? What about my 6 year old? Can an Alzheimer’s patient live independently? Does this mean that none of them are truly alive and are therefore expendable? These are honest questions for anyone who is pro-choice.
When does life begin? I would challenge anyone who is pro-choice to research the scientific answer to when life in general begins. If science says life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion ending a life? For years this has been argued as a religious issue, but it doesn’t need to be. Someone left a comment on Chrissy’s earlier blog post about abortion that said something to the effect that if people can’t reproduce maybe that’s natural selection. Let’s look at the flip side of that.
If the baby isn’t miscarried and the woman is able to reproduce, shouldn’t we assume that child SHOULD live? After all, if it was weaker or inferior or needed to be weeded out, wouldn’t nature have done that?
I consistently vote pro-life because life begins at conception. It may be a small, still developing, totally dependent life, but it is still life. I would never vote for someone who supported murdering Jews, Arabs, Buddhists or Communists and I will never vote for someone who supports destroying the lives of babies. It’s not because I am a right-wing nut, or live in a cave or am against women’s rights or want to condemn anyone. It’s just that I believe that abortion ends a life and that as a society we should not condone ending life. Furthermore, you should be more frightened by anyone who says that they believe the baby is a life, but that it is still a woman’s right to choose. That person supports murder as a right.
(For anyone still reading this, Amy mentioned I explained to her why for some pro-life people abortion is the most important issue when voting. Let’s change the issue. Consider slavery. If you fundamentally believe that it is wrong for one human being to own another, that slavery is a blight on our nation and that it is your responsibility to speak out on behalf of the slaves who have no voice, how could you support a candidate who supported slavery? What if you believed ethnic cleansing was murder? Would you support Adolf Hitler because you liked his economic policy? No, you would choose life.
)
Any parent who votes for Obama should understand that he stated to Planned Parenthood that one of his first acts as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which among other things, makes it federal law for a minor to be transported across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion without parental notification. Parental rights being usurped by the federal government should be a serious concern.
Amy, I think all white people who don’t support Obama are afraid of being considered racist. To be sure, if McCain wins tomorrow the leftist media will undoubtedly attribute it to the racism still existing in “certain parts of the country”. I don’t think a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush either, but rather the desire to keep our nation from swaying too far to the left. Racial issues work both ways in this election. Consider that African Americans are expected to vote in record numbers tomorrow. Why? Because they want to vote for a candidate of color and have equal representation in the White House. I’m sorry, but that is a position based solely on race. It’s like you saying you want Sarah Palin in the White House because she is a woman.
Frankly, I don’t have much nice to say about public schools so I won’t say anything at all. However, I do want to say that I believe we received adequate sex education our freshman year. Mr. Smith describing an episiotomy in graphic detail had me frightened all the way to the delivery room. Also, I believe that being informed about HIV/AIDS began in about 3rd grade for us when an HIV positive student entered the district. I never felt we lacked any education about what sex was, how pregnancy happened, or the consequences of STI’s. We just chose to ignore it.
In Chrissy’s comparing keeping God out of schools to a health teacher putting a condom on a banana, she is only trying to point out that there are things that offend everyone. Some people are offended by others praying in school, or by having to say “one nation under God” while saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and some even by having to pledge their allegiance to a flag at all. Similarly, some people are offended by having the government teach their children things about sex that they feel should be taught by the parent or that they would prefer their child not know about until a certain age. While we all have similar bodies, we all have different views as to the sacredness of those bodies and as to how those bodies should be used.
I don’t think Chrissy was endorsing that public schools teach the Christian religion to students. She wasn’t being “Christian-centric” or “snobbish” either. It’s unfortunate that a nation as tolerant as ours is so intolerant of Christians. You almost always attribute my opinion, Chrissy’s opinion, or the “conservative” opinion to Christian views or philosophy which you then use to discredit what we say or feel. That’s not really fair and not at all tolerant.
I guess I just don't feel that having some one that makes say $500,000 a year pay more taxes so that someone who makes $30,000 a year can have health insurance is leveling the playing field, and that is why I felt the simplistic explanation was just that, overly simplistic. No one is asking the $500,000 a year CEO to give $250,000 a year to his cleaning lady. I believe and am content with the fact that there will never be a level playing field, but when it comes to things like health care and education I think there is a lot of room for improvement. We don't make even over $100,000 a year, let alone more than Obama's cut off for paying more taxes, but if we did I would feel very fortunate and if we paid more taxes to help people who had less than us, who were in positions I have been in the past or positions I have friends and family in currently, then I would be thankful the programs existed for them and I would want them to exist for me.
What if your husband worked those long days, several days a week, and still didn't have health insurance? It's admirable that you are okay with your husband working all that time and being away from your family all that time to provide for you all, but what if all the effort still didn't provide all that you needed? That is the case for many people.
I appreciate your reponse and I'm going to continue my thoughts on my blog isntead of highjacking your comments further! ;)
Post a Comment