hi im new to this and not sure how it works but im hoping you can help or at least give me some infoi have a sister who is 19 and had 3 kids for the last year she has had social services on her back at irst they were living with her patners dad with 2 kids and with his sister her b/f and son and his dad 4 dogs puppys and to be honest it wasnt very sutiable so social sevices told them when they move they will be ok but till then they want to keep an eye on hygine (fair enough)well they moved but social services still were not happy or no apparent reason i could seeshe had a certain social worker at first who is the head o social services bobby thompson and she seemed really weird she even tryed accusing my sister of malesting her eldest so my sister took her staight to doctors and it was fine just thrush they made her do parenting classes which she did they were saying her problem was hygine example she let used baby bopttles on the loor or she wouldnt wash up or a day or leave a bin in hallway of flat although social services had told her to do it we went to family conference meetings where they were sayinggood stuff but not doing there job then her social worker changed as we made a complaint about hers and this new one was worse my sisters eldest is not her partners and when my sister was asked if her eldests real dad should be envolved she said no he hasnt been there or like never but they told him anyway went to his house to do it basically they have also accused her o beating the kids and my sister has had alot of amily suppot and social servives are trying to pull that apart by playing one of on the other the children were taken into foster care today after monday they went to court and it was ajuned as social services didnt bring all the paperwork and today they chose to take them this is not normal i think to take children or a miner hygine problem of which i told early this is not right chiuldren are getting eally beaten and malesting ad they leave them so why are they taking children they shouldnt be we want to sue social services but i need some ino on this can u help
______________________________________...
Where have social sevices gone wrong?
all government agencies are run in black and white, right or wrong, up or down, with nothing in the middle. this is the only way they can function constitutionally (otherwise, they would treat some people one way and other people another way. all goverment agencies must react the same way to all people.)
therefore, "right" and "wrong" are decided by the lowest common denominator. look at airline security. nail clippers are contraband? all liquids over 5 ounces? this is ridiculous, yet dictated by a single occurance.
the single greatest constitutional protection against the government is the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." they cannot punish you for what they think you will do, only for what you have done. imagine the chaos if they could imprison us if we looked at a bank the wrong way, or thought about killing someone.
what went wrong with social services is that somewhere along the line, society decided to allow social services to determine "threatening situations" rather than actual transgressions. in any government agency where this is allowed (e.g. public schools and their metal detectors) things go to hell very quickly.
Reply:Everything they do and everything they say.
SWocial Services fail so often, it's about time we came up with a more sensible alternative.
dds
Monday, May 4, 2009
Social Security truth, anyone, and everyone?
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income
--------------------------------------...
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
--------------------------------------...
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed
citizens believe it!
Social Security truth, anyone, and everyone?
Amazing how the democrats turned it into a cash cow and are still able to have republicans blamed for it! And the remedy that President Bush proposed last year was very much like the congress and senate enjoy and prosper from. (democrats included of course) Yet, they were able to convince the American public that it would be a failure! Go figure? you'd think that what was good for our congressmen would be good for the rest of us!!!!
Reply:Tinker you have it wrong. You should have said what is good enough for the common individual should be good enough for our leaders. Our Leaders RAPE us with their retirement plan. Report It
Reply:well, I'm not 100 percent sure of all the things you state, but most are probably true...
but, I don't like many things the democrats have done granted.... and many of those things are pretty bad...
but I just like things the Republicans have, overall, done a lot less...
and many Republicans want to turn social security into a wall street investment program... which I don't like personally... because if wall street breaks... bye, bye even social security, which would be disasterous, considering that many people have a lot of their other retirement funds tied into wall street already... so they would loose everything... including social security...
I don't hear either party talking about fixxing it, back to the way it was now
Reply:I'm not real sure what your point is...I can just say that FDR put the program into place in the 30's...and, like most everything else, societal changes require changes in government, benefits and everything else.
You would'nt want every car to come off an assembly line to be a Model A Ford, would you?
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being composed, it only applied to White, male landowners. Women, the poor, servants, slaves and others weren't covered. Would you still want it that way?
Times change and we must change with it.
Reply:Don't forget he maintained a top corporate tax rate of 90% which prevented reinvestment of corporate profits thus preventing growth thus preventing an increase in the stock market thus creating a "need" for a government retirement program to begin with.
Reply:Sources please.
Reply:Which political party shouts about - no tax increase! - cutting your taxes - and then deficit spends 100 billion/ year for the last 4 years on a dumb war?
Guess who will be paying off this debt to the Chinese after that party is gone. You.
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income
--------------------------------------...
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
--------------------------------------...
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
--------------------------------------...
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed
citizens believe it!
Social Security truth, anyone, and everyone?
Amazing how the democrats turned it into a cash cow and are still able to have republicans blamed for it! And the remedy that President Bush proposed last year was very much like the congress and senate enjoy and prosper from. (democrats included of course) Yet, they were able to convince the American public that it would be a failure! Go figure? you'd think that what was good for our congressmen would be good for the rest of us!!!!
Reply:Tinker you have it wrong. You should have said what is good enough for the common individual should be good enough for our leaders. Our Leaders RAPE us with their retirement plan. Report It
Reply:well, I'm not 100 percent sure of all the things you state, but most are probably true...
but, I don't like many things the democrats have done granted.... and many of those things are pretty bad...
but I just like things the Republicans have, overall, done a lot less...
and many Republicans want to turn social security into a wall street investment program... which I don't like personally... because if wall street breaks... bye, bye even social security, which would be disasterous, considering that many people have a lot of their other retirement funds tied into wall street already... so they would loose everything... including social security...
I don't hear either party talking about fixxing it, back to the way it was now
Reply:I'm not real sure what your point is...I can just say that FDR put the program into place in the 30's...and, like most everything else, societal changes require changes in government, benefits and everything else.
You would'nt want every car to come off an assembly line to be a Model A Ford, would you?
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being composed, it only applied to White, male landowners. Women, the poor, servants, slaves and others weren't covered. Would you still want it that way?
Times change and we must change with it.
Reply:Don't forget he maintained a top corporate tax rate of 90% which prevented reinvestment of corporate profits thus preventing growth thus preventing an increase in the stock market thus creating a "need" for a government retirement program to begin with.
Reply:Sources please.
Reply:Which political party shouts about - no tax increase! - cutting your taxes - and then deficit spends 100 billion/ year for the last 4 years on a dumb war?
Guess who will be paying off this debt to the Chinese after that party is gone. You.
Social distance - sociology question helpp?
Social distance is the degree to which people are accepted or not accepted. Willingness to admit someone to one's family shows the least social distance [1 on the social distance scale], and refusal to admit them to the country shows the greatest social distance [7 on the social distance scale].
Surprisingly, social distance in America with regard to many ethnic groups has actually been rising since 1975.
Why do you think social distance has not declined despite all the efforts to foster "diversity" and "equality?"
Have you seen examples of social distance (such as mean-spirited ethnic jokes or prejudiced remarks)? Being careful not to reveal anyone's identity or repeat any offensive remarks, give an example of what you have heard or seen. How did you react to the incident?
Social distance - sociology question helpp?
The US has become more and more individualistic over the last 40 years.
Life is more inwardly driven and people do not trust each other, regardless of diversity and (sorry) inequality.
Over the last ten years the manufactured threat of terrorism has worsened the situation.
Reply:I am a white woman from the U.S. living in Central America. The men look at me as easy prety and often intrude into my space. The women cast mean looks at me, make a comment under their breath or push their way in front of me. I ignore the men and smile at the women. I believe it diminishes us when we act this way toward others, and worse.
Reply:I question your statement that "social distance in America with regard to many ethnic groups has actually been rising since 1975".
How do you know that? How can that be measured? Consider that a hundred years ago in the U.S. white bigots were lynching blacks from the nearest tree.
Surprisingly, social distance in America with regard to many ethnic groups has actually been rising since 1975.
Why do you think social distance has not declined despite all the efforts to foster "diversity" and "equality?"
Have you seen examples of social distance (such as mean-spirited ethnic jokes or prejudiced remarks)? Being careful not to reveal anyone's identity or repeat any offensive remarks, give an example of what you have heard or seen. How did you react to the incident?
Social distance - sociology question helpp?
The US has become more and more individualistic over the last 40 years.
Life is more inwardly driven and people do not trust each other, regardless of diversity and (sorry) inequality.
Over the last ten years the manufactured threat of terrorism has worsened the situation.
Reply:I am a white woman from the U.S. living in Central America. The men look at me as easy prety and often intrude into my space. The women cast mean looks at me, make a comment under their breath or push their way in front of me. I ignore the men and smile at the women. I believe it diminishes us when we act this way toward others, and worse.
Reply:I question your statement that "social distance in America with regard to many ethnic groups has actually been rising since 1975".
How do you know that? How can that be measured? Consider that a hundred years ago in the U.S. white bigots were lynching blacks from the nearest tree.
Why can't the rest of USA do this Social Security Alternative Already Working in Texas?
The personal retirement plan sketched out in President Bush's State of the Union Address has been universally derided by Democrats as an unworkable privatization of the retirement program.
"As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers, and the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts," Bush said during the address Wednesday night.
"Here is how the idea works: Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees," Bush explained. "If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
President Bush warned the nation that 13 years from now -- in 2018 -- Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in. He also had a message for Americans 55 and older: "Do not let anyone mislead you;" he said: "For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that all 44 Senate Democrats were united against the president's plan to reform Social Security. Without knowing any details, Reid told reporters, "President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," adding, "It will not happen."
But privatized Social Security has been a fact of life for municipal employees in Galveston County, Texas, for nearly a quarter century. Local government workers voted overwhelmingly in 1981 to opt-out of Social Security in favor of a locally controlled system that has since been widely described as a phenomenal success.
Under federal law at the time, municipal workers had the option of not participating in the Social Security program, replacing it with private retirement accounts. The private system is subject to regular payroll deductions and employer matches, essentially mirroring Social Security tax withholding and employer match provisions.
"There are a number of [county employees] that are strong advocates and say it's really a very, very good, solid, strong, financially and fiscally strong program that is for the benefit of county employees far in excess of what Social Security would be," Galveston County Legal Department Director Harvey Bazaman told Cybercast News Service.
Under Galveston's "Alternate Plan," the county withholds approximately six percent of each employee's salary for retirement. That money, along with a partial match by the county, is invested in personal accounts for each participating employee. The remaining county match covers the cost of disability and life insurance policies for employees, which also pay benefits much higher than those offered by Social Security.
While the employee-employer funding formulas are nearly identical under both Social Security and the Galveston Alternate Plan, the results are very different.
The U.S. Treasury Bonds purchased with money from the Social Security "trust fund" pay approximately two percent. But for the period from 1982 through 1997 the rate of return on funds invested in the Galveston plan has averaged 8.6 percent, a return more than 400 percent greater than Social Security.
Data from First Financial Benefits, which administers the Galveston Alternate Plan, shows that county workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security.
Due to having more money withheld and the effects of compounding interest, higher income employees in Galveston see even larger benefits under the Alternate Plan. Workers earning $51,263 a year could retire at 65 with a monthly benefit of $3,846, while the same worker participating in Social Security would receive $1,540 each month.
Even the relatively low "guaranteed rate of return" in the Galveston plan roughly doubles the rate of return for Social Security. Funds already invested in annuities have a guaranteed yield of 3.75 percent, according to Bazaman. As for money being placed into private accounts today, Bazaman said the rate is slightly higher at 4.24 percent.
"They have never lost money. They have gone through double recessions in the 1980s, recessions in the 90s, and a tech boom and bust in the 1990s and into 2000," said Charles Jarvis, chairman and CEO of USA Next-United Seniors. "They've gone through another recession, an attack on this country and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they have steadily provided income for people."
The Galveston County, Texas Alternate Plan enacted in 1981 with the approval of 78 percent of local employees proved popular locally. By 1983, local government workers in three nearby municipalities -- Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, and Texas City -- also voted to quit Social Security in favor of private retirement plans.
Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions giving municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.
The Social Security Administration estimates that, nationwide, seven million public employees opted out of the federal retirement plan before Congress eliminated that choice. Those employees' combined annual incomes for 1999 totaled $129 billion. Based on that figure, and including estimated employer matching funds, those public employees invested approximately $17 billion in variations of private retirement accounts that year rather than in Social Security.
In testimony before the President's Commission on Social Security in 2001, former Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook relayed the story of a county commissioner who died in office.
According to Holbrook, the commissioner's widow received a $255 death benefit from Social Security. But under the Galveston Alternate Plan, she also received a lump-sum survivor's benefit of $150,000 and was entitled to her late-husband's $125,000 reserve account.
Holbrook's anecdote underscores another aspect touted by backers of private accounts -- that the money paid into them is the private property of the employee. As a result, private retirement account funds are passed on to an employee's heirs upon his or her death, unlike unpaid Social Security benefits, which are forfeited to the government.
Why can't the rest of USA do this Social Security Alternative Already Working in Texas?
the hole reason is if you put the money back to the people the the congress loses the power.
Reply:didn't we kill this idea in 2005?
There is no way to do with without taking money out of social security and creating a huge shortfall. That would screw people who've been paying into it their whole life unless the government made up the money from the treasury. That would necessitate a huge tax increase to subsidize private savings of young people. That's even more socialistic than social security is.
Reply:Maybe you think a 'private' fire dept. would be cheaper just so you can have lower taxes? Privatization of govt. services is one of the steps to corporate facism. How about we tax the sht outa the fat cats on Wall Street! Just think of how low peoples taxes would be if the 'mega rich' paid there fair share to build America! People like Bill Gates and the rest. He's got 50 or 60 billion bucks,and a 'donation' of 100 million is a drop in the bucket for him. It would be the same as me putting a fiver in the Salvation Army Kettle! The guy makes that in a day! Here in Seattle,we lost a very cool trans.plan because of a 100 million dollar tax battle. All those rich guys needed to do was to make a no interest loan to the city or state . It wouldve put Seattle into the 21st century with RAPID mass transit with a monorail! Now we're stuck with 'at' grade trolleys that will crawl along with the traffic making things worse! The 'public' voted 3 times in favor over three elections,and still the fat cats put up a 4th and heavily financed 'no' vote to kill the monorail. What makes you think that private rich corporations have our best public interests in mind?
Reply:So, what lobbying firm do you work for? Because no one bothers to go through the trouble you have unless you're getting something out of it. Just human nature.
But while we're on the subject - Social Security is FOR THE LAST DAMNED TIME - an insurance policy, not a retirement account. Will you demand Allstate return your premiums if you didn't have a car accident this year? No, of course you won't. So stop clouding the issue, go out and get a job that doesn't demand you hand over your soul.
Reply:...what that all boils down to is a private investment account, which is essentially "hinged" on the stock market.... And you know the stocks aren't a great place to be keeping your money these days.
"As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers, and the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts," Bush said during the address Wednesday night.
"Here is how the idea works: Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees," Bush explained. "If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
President Bush warned the nation that 13 years from now -- in 2018 -- Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in. He also had a message for Americans 55 and older: "Do not let anyone mislead you;" he said: "For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that all 44 Senate Democrats were united against the president's plan to reform Social Security. Without knowing any details, Reid told reporters, "President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," adding, "It will not happen."
But privatized Social Security has been a fact of life for municipal employees in Galveston County, Texas, for nearly a quarter century. Local government workers voted overwhelmingly in 1981 to opt-out of Social Security in favor of a locally controlled system that has since been widely described as a phenomenal success.
Under federal law at the time, municipal workers had the option of not participating in the Social Security program, replacing it with private retirement accounts. The private system is subject to regular payroll deductions and employer matches, essentially mirroring Social Security tax withholding and employer match provisions.
"There are a number of [county employees] that are strong advocates and say it's really a very, very good, solid, strong, financially and fiscally strong program that is for the benefit of county employees far in excess of what Social Security would be," Galveston County Legal Department Director Harvey Bazaman told Cybercast News Service.
Under Galveston's "Alternate Plan," the county withholds approximately six percent of each employee's salary for retirement. That money, along with a partial match by the county, is invested in personal accounts for each participating employee. The remaining county match covers the cost of disability and life insurance policies for employees, which also pay benefits much higher than those offered by Social Security.
While the employee-employer funding formulas are nearly identical under both Social Security and the Galveston Alternate Plan, the results are very different.
The U.S. Treasury Bonds purchased with money from the Social Security "trust fund" pay approximately two percent. But for the period from 1982 through 1997 the rate of return on funds invested in the Galveston plan has averaged 8.6 percent, a return more than 400 percent greater than Social Security.
Data from First Financial Benefits, which administers the Galveston Alternate Plan, shows that county workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security.
Due to having more money withheld and the effects of compounding interest, higher income employees in Galveston see even larger benefits under the Alternate Plan. Workers earning $51,263 a year could retire at 65 with a monthly benefit of $3,846, while the same worker participating in Social Security would receive $1,540 each month.
Even the relatively low "guaranteed rate of return" in the Galveston plan roughly doubles the rate of return for Social Security. Funds already invested in annuities have a guaranteed yield of 3.75 percent, according to Bazaman. As for money being placed into private accounts today, Bazaman said the rate is slightly higher at 4.24 percent.
"They have never lost money. They have gone through double recessions in the 1980s, recessions in the 90s, and a tech boom and bust in the 1990s and into 2000," said Charles Jarvis, chairman and CEO of USA Next-United Seniors. "They've gone through another recession, an attack on this country and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they have steadily provided income for people."
The Galveston County, Texas Alternate Plan enacted in 1981 with the approval of 78 percent of local employees proved popular locally. By 1983, local government workers in three nearby municipalities -- Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, and Texas City -- also voted to quit Social Security in favor of private retirement plans.
Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions giving municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.
The Social Security Administration estimates that, nationwide, seven million public employees opted out of the federal retirement plan before Congress eliminated that choice. Those employees' combined annual incomes for 1999 totaled $129 billion. Based on that figure, and including estimated employer matching funds, those public employees invested approximately $17 billion in variations of private retirement accounts that year rather than in Social Security.
In testimony before the President's Commission on Social Security in 2001, former Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook relayed the story of a county commissioner who died in office.
According to Holbrook, the commissioner's widow received a $255 death benefit from Social Security. But under the Galveston Alternate Plan, she also received a lump-sum survivor's benefit of $150,000 and was entitled to her late-husband's $125,000 reserve account.
Holbrook's anecdote underscores another aspect touted by backers of private accounts -- that the money paid into them is the private property of the employee. As a result, private retirement account funds are passed on to an employee's heirs upon his or her death, unlike unpaid Social Security benefits, which are forfeited to the government.
Why can't the rest of USA do this Social Security Alternative Already Working in Texas?
the hole reason is if you put the money back to the people the the congress loses the power.
Reply:didn't we kill this idea in 2005?
There is no way to do with without taking money out of social security and creating a huge shortfall. That would screw people who've been paying into it their whole life unless the government made up the money from the treasury. That would necessitate a huge tax increase to subsidize private savings of young people. That's even more socialistic than social security is.
Reply:Maybe you think a 'private' fire dept. would be cheaper just so you can have lower taxes? Privatization of govt. services is one of the steps to corporate facism. How about we tax the sht outa the fat cats on Wall Street! Just think of how low peoples taxes would be if the 'mega rich' paid there fair share to build America! People like Bill Gates and the rest. He's got 50 or 60 billion bucks,and a 'donation' of 100 million is a drop in the bucket for him. It would be the same as me putting a fiver in the Salvation Army Kettle! The guy makes that in a day! Here in Seattle,we lost a very cool trans.plan because of a 100 million dollar tax battle. All those rich guys needed to do was to make a no interest loan to the city or state . It wouldve put Seattle into the 21st century with RAPID mass transit with a monorail! Now we're stuck with 'at' grade trolleys that will crawl along with the traffic making things worse! The 'public' voted 3 times in favor over three elections,and still the fat cats put up a 4th and heavily financed 'no' vote to kill the monorail. What makes you think that private rich corporations have our best public interests in mind?
Reply:So, what lobbying firm do you work for? Because no one bothers to go through the trouble you have unless you're getting something out of it. Just human nature.
But while we're on the subject - Social Security is FOR THE LAST DAMNED TIME - an insurance policy, not a retirement account. Will you demand Allstate return your premiums if you didn't have a car accident this year? No, of course you won't. So stop clouding the issue, go out and get a job that doesn't demand you hand over your soul.
Reply:...what that all boils down to is a private investment account, which is essentially "hinged" on the stock market.... And you know the stocks aren't a great place to be keeping your money these days.
Social security cards in the US.?
when a recalcitrant f-1 student here in the US is working with his /her social security card issued to him by the SS office,do the IRS who take taxes from the social know the differences in the types of social security numbers issued(like socials for immigrant workers,students etc) and the details on the social security number? 2.Will the IRS tax the fellow as an immigrant social security number? 3.I have this f-1 friends in school and they recently had their socials issued to them by the social security office.I was sooo surprised when the had the inscription like the **this number is established for brian thomas** as like the normal **work with DHS authorization only ** that normally appears on non-permanent residents socials.How were they able to get a **permanent resident type** of social scurity number and card?Or do f-1s qualify for such social security cards and numbers?What processes did they follow?
Social security cards in the US.?
There is no distinction between the social security numbers assigned to citizens, resident aliens and non-resident aliens with permission to work in the US. The distinction is found only on the cards.
The IRS will know how much tax to assess by the type of form he files, e.g., a Form 1040NR for non-residents, and the treaty provisions he takes advantage of on that return.
dental bridge
Social security cards in the US.?
There is no distinction between the social security numbers assigned to citizens, resident aliens and non-resident aliens with permission to work in the US. The distinction is found only on the cards.
The IRS will know how much tax to assess by the type of form he files, e.g., a Form 1040NR for non-residents, and the treaty provisions he takes advantage of on that return.
dental bridge
Social workers?
is the goal of all social workers is to drug all peapole up?
mostly under age, i knew alota peapole who thay already drugged up,
thay tray to drug me up too, and thay said thayl put me in the madhouse, i had nothinbg to do i started iven a song a bout it i needed 3 verses and chours but i only have right now a verse and a chours here it is:
--------------------------------------...
thayll put you in the madhouse
thayl drug your brains out
thayl give you paxil elavil n' vivactil,
and thay'll keep you mind shout
[CHOURS x2]
social workers, social workers,
resperindal, rispardol,
social workers, social workers,
social workers, social workers,
resperindal, rispardol,
social workers, social workers,
look out, her's the social workers
----------------------
but it isn't the point,
the point is the social workers,
who are thay?
what thay want?
and who the hell invited tham?
Social workers?
maybe by the time you get out of the madhouse you will have completed verse 3and 4
Reply:What are you talking about? Report It
Reply:Where I'm from social workers can't prescribe medications. Plus they work in a variety of settings; schools, hospitals, private practices, non-profit agencies, etc. There may be some bad ones out there but don't just lump them all together because there are good ones too. Report It
mostly under age, i knew alota peapole who thay already drugged up,
thay tray to drug me up too, and thay said thayl put me in the madhouse, i had nothinbg to do i started iven a song a bout it i needed 3 verses and chours but i only have right now a verse and a chours here it is:
--------------------------------------...
thayll put you in the madhouse
thayl drug your brains out
thayl give you paxil elavil n' vivactil,
and thay'll keep you mind shout
[CHOURS x2]
social workers, social workers,
resperindal, rispardol,
social workers, social workers,
social workers, social workers,
resperindal, rispardol,
social workers, social workers,
look out, her's the social workers
----------------------
but it isn't the point,
the point is the social workers,
who are thay?
what thay want?
and who the hell invited tham?
Social workers?
maybe by the time you get out of the madhouse you will have completed verse 3and 4
Reply:What are you talking about? Report It
Reply:Where I'm from social workers can't prescribe medications. Plus they work in a variety of settings; schools, hospitals, private practices, non-profit agencies, etc. There may be some bad ones out there but don't just lump them all together because there are good ones too. Report It
Social security cards in the US.?
when a recalcitrant f-1 student here in the US is working with his /her social security card issued to him by the SS office,do the IRS who take taxes from the social know the differences in the types of social security numbers issued(like socials for immigrant workers,students etc) and the details on the social security number? 2.Will the IRS tax the fellow as an immigrant social security number? 3.I have this f-1 friends in school and they recently had their socials issued to them by the social security office.I was sooo surprised when the had the inscription like the **this number is established for brian thomas** as like the normal **work with DHS authorization only ** that normally appears on non-permanent residents socials.How were they able to get a **permanent resident type** of social scurity number and card?Or do f-1s qualify for such social security cards and numbers?What processes did they follow?
Social security cards in the US.?
Yes, all of these departments are currently being linked together.
Reply:Types of Social Security Cards
We issue three types of Social Security cards. All cards show your name and Social Security number.
1. The first type of card shows your name and Social Security number and lets you work without restriction. We issue it to:
U.S. citizens; and
People lawfully admitted to the United States on a permanent basis.
2. The second type of card shows your name and number and notes, “VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION.” We issue this type of card to people lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis who have DHS authorization to work.
3. The third type of card shows your name and number and notes, “NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT.” We issue it to people from other countries:
Who are lawfully admitted to the United States without work authorization from DHS, but with a valid nonwork reason for needing a Social Security number; or
Who need a number because of a federal law requiring a Social Security number to get a benefit or service.
VERY strange!!
Social security cards in the US.?
Yes, all of these departments are currently being linked together.
Reply:Types of Social Security Cards
We issue three types of Social Security cards. All cards show your name and Social Security number.
1. The first type of card shows your name and Social Security number and lets you work without restriction. We issue it to:
U.S. citizens; and
People lawfully admitted to the United States on a permanent basis.
2. The second type of card shows your name and number and notes, “VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION.” We issue this type of card to people lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis who have DHS authorization to work.
3. The third type of card shows your name and number and notes, “NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT.” We issue it to people from other countries:
Who are lawfully admitted to the United States without work authorization from DHS, but with a valid nonwork reason for needing a Social Security number; or
Who need a number because of a federal law requiring a Social Security number to get a benefit or service.
VERY strange!!
Which social science?
I am interested in the social sciences. I completed my undergraduate degree in social work because it uses knowledge from the social sciences. I found that I enjoyed the electives and early social work classes that focused more on social science than the social work practice courses. However, I completed my degree in social work because I only had one year left and figured I would have more options with a bachelor in social work than with a bachelor's degree in one of the social sciences. I am considering going back to school because I am interested in research and maybe teaching on the college level. I am interested more in learning knowledge rather than practice, so I think I'll major in a social science rather than social work but I am not sure with social science. I am interested in learning about behavior, family dynamics, crime, poverty, government, race relations, and mental disorders. I wish I could study them all in depth, but I don't have that much time.
Which social science?
From how you describe your interest this sounds like sociology. The critical step will be to find a program that fits with what you want to study and/or learn about. In your masters you may end up taking some Psych as these courses will build up your ability to study some of the areas you mention.
DA
Reply:I majored in psych (BA), and it covered behavior (both individual, and individuals in small groups, like family dynamics, as well as behavior in organizations, like organizational psychology); it also covered mental disorders (abnormal psych), and race relations, criminal behavior, politics and influence (in social psychology).
You could study any of these things in either psych or sociology, but you will know which you love once you decide whether you want to research the workings of the individual human mind and of small groups, how they develop and grow (psych), or research the workings of larger groups, what they share, how they develop and change (sociology).
Reply:I think that sociology would better cover those topics - especially family dynamics, crime, poverty and race relations - although it would probably touch on some of the others as well.
Mental disorders is much more psychology-based, but I think sociology would be more up your alley.
Which social science?
From how you describe your interest this sounds like sociology. The critical step will be to find a program that fits with what you want to study and/or learn about. In your masters you may end up taking some Psych as these courses will build up your ability to study some of the areas you mention.
DA
Reply:I majored in psych (BA), and it covered behavior (both individual, and individuals in small groups, like family dynamics, as well as behavior in organizations, like organizational psychology); it also covered mental disorders (abnormal psych), and race relations, criminal behavior, politics and influence (in social psychology).
You could study any of these things in either psych or sociology, but you will know which you love once you decide whether you want to research the workings of the individual human mind and of small groups, how they develop and grow (psych), or research the workings of larger groups, what they share, how they develop and change (sociology).
Reply:I think that sociology would better cover those topics - especially family dynamics, crime, poverty and race relations - although it would probably touch on some of the others as well.
Mental disorders is much more psychology-based, but I think sociology would be more up your alley.
Social problems versus social responsibility theme.?
Which theme is best supported by social structure, social process, social development and social conflict?
This what I have I ned more please help
The social process depend on the process of interaction between individuals and society for their power. This theory assumes that everyone has the potential to violate the law and criminality is not an innate human characteristic. This theory also states that criminal behavior is a learned interaction. Therefore holding to the social problem theme. Social conflict is society is made up of diverse groups and each group has its own rules. Conflict between the groups is unavoidable, based on differences. The theory further discusses that the balance of power is the root of this that law is a tool of power and furthers the interests of those powerful enough to make it and allows those in control to gain what they define. Therefore supporting the social problem theme as well. Social structure cannot predict with individuals will turn to crime, it states that a large majority of people grow up in inner city, poverty ridden areas etc, while it is true that people living under such conditions may become criminal there is also a large portion wont turn to crime, therefore supporting to some degree the social responsibility theme.
Social problems versus social responsibility theme.?
Personally I would go with Social Conflict at least if you're talking about democracies. All policies arise out of social conflict.
dental floss
This what I have I ned more please help
The social process depend on the process of interaction between individuals and society for their power. This theory assumes that everyone has the potential to violate the law and criminality is not an innate human characteristic. This theory also states that criminal behavior is a learned interaction. Therefore holding to the social problem theme. Social conflict is society is made up of diverse groups and each group has its own rules. Conflict between the groups is unavoidable, based on differences. The theory further discusses that the balance of power is the root of this that law is a tool of power and furthers the interests of those powerful enough to make it and allows those in control to gain what they define. Therefore supporting the social problem theme as well. Social structure cannot predict with individuals will turn to crime, it states that a large majority of people grow up in inner city, poverty ridden areas etc, while it is true that people living under such conditions may become criminal there is also a large portion wont turn to crime, therefore supporting to some degree the social responsibility theme.
Social problems versus social responsibility theme.?
Personally I would go with Social Conflict at least if you're talking about democracies. All policies arise out of social conflict.
dental floss
Social Darwinism?
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is a descriptive term given to a kind of social theory that draws an association between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the sociological relations of humanity. Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes meant that that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems.
"Social Darwinism" is most associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer, although researchers such as David Weinstein have argued that Spencer was not a "coarse Social Darwinist." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spence...
In Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) Spencer wrote:
"this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout."
Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Thomas Malthus, who is also cited as a Social Darwinist author. Malthus's 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, for example, argued that as increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest. Some historians have suggested that the Malthusian theory and similar concepts were used by the British to justify the continued export of agricultural produce from Ireland, even as the Irish were suffering from famine, in particular the Great Famine of 1845-1849.
The 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond was seen by its author as continuing the debate over Social Darwinism. Diamond formulated a compelling argument that observed differences of technological and social development among populations resulted from environmental factors enhanced by the passage of time.
Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism. Such criticisms are often leveled, for example, on evolutionary psychology, even though it makes no political or moral claims. Similarly, capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism, is sometimes equated with Social Darwinism because it adopts a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity. Supporters of capitalism respond that their goal is specifically to avoid ineffective economic behavior, and does not require or condone "letting the weak starve".
American Dream
The phrase the American Dream came into the American vocabulary starting in 1867 when writer, Horatio Alger came out with his book "Ragged Dick." It was a rags-to-riches tale of a poor orphan boy in New York City who saves his pennies, works hard and eventually becomes rich. It became the model that through honesty, hard work and strong determination, the American Dream was available to anyone willing to make the journey.
The American Dream is the concept widely held in the United States of America, that through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve prosperity. These were the values of the original pioneers who crossed the American plains when Europeans first came to America. What the American dream has become is a question under constant discussion.
The origin of the American dream stems from the departure in government and economics from the models of the Old World. This allowed unprecedented freedom, especially the possibility of dramatic upward social mobility. Additionally, from the Revolutionary War well into the later half of the nineteenth century, many of America's physical resources were unclaimed and often undiscovered, allowing the possibility of coming across a fortune through relatively little, but lucky investment in land or industry. The development of the Industrial Revolution defined the mineral and land wealth which was there in abundance, contrary to the environmental riches such as huge herds of bison and diversity of forests, for the original American Indians.
Many early Americans prospectors headed west of the Rocky Mountains to buy acres of cheap land in hopes of finding deposits of gold. The American dream was a driving factor not only in the Gold Rush of the mid to late 1800s, but also in the waves of immigration throughout that century and the following. Impoverished western Europeans escaping the Irish potato famines in Ireland, the Highland clearances in Scotland and the aftermath of Napoleon in the rest of Europe came to America to escape a poor quality of life at home. They wanted to embrace the promise of financial security and constitutional freedom they had heard existed so widely in the United States.
Nearing the twentieth century, major industrialist personalities became the new model of the American Dream, many beginning life in the humblest of conditions but later controlling enormous corporations and fortunes. Perhaps most notable here were the great American capitalists Andrew Carnegie and Nelson Rockefeller. This acquisition of great wealth demonstrated that if you had talent, intelligence, and a willingness to work extremely hard you were guaranteed at least moderate success as a result. The key difference here from the Old World societal structure is that the antiquated monarchies of Western Europe and their post-feudal economies actively oppressed the peasant class. They also required high levels of taxation which crippled development. America, however, was built by people who were consciously free of these constraints. There was a hope for egalitarianism. Martin Luther King invoked the American Dream in what is perhaps his most famous speech:
"Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream." (I have a dream)
Horatio Alger, Jr.
Horatio Alger, Jr. (January 13, 1832 - July 18, 1899) was a 19th-century American author, a leading proponent of Social Darwinism during the Gilded Age (1865-1900), who wrote over 130 dime novels, describing how down-and-out boys were able to achieve the American dream of wealth and success through hard work, courage, determination, and concern for others.
Poorly written and repetitive, the novels declined in popularity as Alger's target audience grew more sophisticated. Nevertheless, at the time of their writing they were bestsellers, and Alger's books actually rivaled those of Mark Twain in popularity. As the American dream took shape, Alger gave hope for a brighter future to millions of young men who were then living on the brink of society.
Alger was born in Revere, Massachusetts to a stern Unitarian minister who wanted his son to follow him into the clergy. He attended Harvard where he studied under Henry Wadsworth Longfellow with the intention of one day becoming a poet. After graduation he found work as a journalist and schoolteacher. Rejected by the Union Army because of his asthma, he took a tour of Europe where he finally decided to pursue the ministry. He took a position in Cape Cod but left for New York City rather suddenly in 1866, ostensibly to pursue a career in writing. Church records uncovered after Alger's death indicate that he was quietly dismissed for having sexual relations with several boys in his parish.
The move to New York was a turning point in Alger's career. He was immediately drawn into the work of impoverished young bootblacks, newspaper boys, and peddlers, and even took a young Chinese immigrant named Sam into his home as a ward (Sam was killed in a carriage accident a few years later). It was this world, coupled with the austere values that Alger received at home, which formed the basis of the first novel in his Ragged Dick series (1867). The book was an immediate success, spurring a vast collection of sequels and similar novels, including Luck and Pluck (1869) and Tattered Tom (1871), all with the same theme: the rise from rags to riches. In fact, the theme became synonymous with Alger.
Essentially, all of Alger's novels are the same: a young boy struggles through hard work to escape poverty. Critics, however, are quick to point out that it is not the hard work itself that rescues the boy from his fate, but rather some extraordinary act of bravery or honesty, which brings him into contact with a wealthy elder gentleman, who takes the boy in as a ward. The boy might return a large sum of money that was lost or rescue someone from an overturned carriage, bringing the boy�and his plight�to the attention of some wealthy individual. It has been suggested that this reflects Alger's own patronizing attitude to the boys he tried to help.
Despite his remarkable literary output, Alger never became rich from his writing. He gave most of his money to homeless boys and in some instances was actually conned from his earnings by the boys he tried to help. Nevertheless, by the time he died in 1899, his books could be found in virtually every home and library in America. His books may no longer be as popular today as they once were, but the moral messages they relayed were an important factor in the development of the American dream in the 20th century.
At the time of his death, Alger was living with his sister Augusta. She destroyed all of his personal papers, hoping to avoid scandal in the rigid atmosphere of the Victorian Era.
Since 1947, the Horatio Alger Association has bestowed an annual award on "outstanding individuals in our society who have succeeded in the face of adversity" and scholarships "to encourage young people to pursue their dreams with determination and perseverance".
(Source: Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License - see Copyrights for details).
Tell me about your "American Dream." What would you like to achieve in your lifetime? What steps do you plan to take to accomplish your goals? Do you think the American Dream can be reached − will Americans ever be satisfied with what we have or will we continually desire more? Is this good or bad? Why?
Social Darwinism?
This American just wants peace %26amp; quiet.
I'm working for myself, so I'm alot closer than most.
The "American Dream" of a house you have to scrape with on upkeep all the time, a faux yard, etc isn't mine, so I count myself lucky on that one too.
It's in the corporate interest to not have the majority of people reach their dreams (which for me mean spiritual happiness vs temporal) but just buy crap.
It's in the government interest not to have the majority of people reach their dreams (as above) because of our Roman bindings that urge the nation to "conqueror" in some fashion. People who have reached their dreams don't add to the tax base.
As an aside, when I mentioned spiritual happiness, that doesn't necessarily mean religious.
People by nature always want more. Just look at the people making insane amounts of cash, etc and they aren't happy. But with the national debt, standing of the dollar, and price of oil, (to name a few things) we better get used to finding happiness in a different way from the past.
Reply:my American dream has changed. now that i am a little older(42), i only hope i can eventually retire one day. i have earned a college degree, but now the economy is making it hard for me to save any money. i think the American dream (which is subjective) can be reached, but it depends on what you define it as. the majority of Americans , i think will continue to consume with no regard for moderation. it is good for the economy that we live in a culture of consumption, because we live in a credit based economy, now that there is a credit crunch, we all see the effects (recession). over all there is opportunity here that many will never know. but Americans are unique in the scale to which we consume.
Reply:First off, is this an essay for school? Never site wikipedia! it is NOT a credible source!
Social Darwinism is a descriptive term given to a kind of social theory that draws an association between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the sociological relations of humanity. Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes meant that that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems.
"Social Darwinism" is most associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer, although researchers such as David Weinstein have argued that Spencer was not a "coarse Social Darwinist." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spence...
In Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) Spencer wrote:
"this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout."
Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Thomas Malthus, who is also cited as a Social Darwinist author. Malthus's 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, for example, argued that as increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest. Some historians have suggested that the Malthusian theory and similar concepts were used by the British to justify the continued export of agricultural produce from Ireland, even as the Irish were suffering from famine, in particular the Great Famine of 1845-1849.
The 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond was seen by its author as continuing the debate over Social Darwinism. Diamond formulated a compelling argument that observed differences of technological and social development among populations resulted from environmental factors enhanced by the passage of time.
Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism. Such criticisms are often leveled, for example, on evolutionary psychology, even though it makes no political or moral claims. Similarly, capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism, is sometimes equated with Social Darwinism because it adopts a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity. Supporters of capitalism respond that their goal is specifically to avoid ineffective economic behavior, and does not require or condone "letting the weak starve".
American Dream
The phrase the American Dream came into the American vocabulary starting in 1867 when writer, Horatio Alger came out with his book "Ragged Dick." It was a rags-to-riches tale of a poor orphan boy in New York City who saves his pennies, works hard and eventually becomes rich. It became the model that through honesty, hard work and strong determination, the American Dream was available to anyone willing to make the journey.
The American Dream is the concept widely held in the United States of America, that through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve prosperity. These were the values of the original pioneers who crossed the American plains when Europeans first came to America. What the American dream has become is a question under constant discussion.
The origin of the American dream stems from the departure in government and economics from the models of the Old World. This allowed unprecedented freedom, especially the possibility of dramatic upward social mobility. Additionally, from the Revolutionary War well into the later half of the nineteenth century, many of America's physical resources were unclaimed and often undiscovered, allowing the possibility of coming across a fortune through relatively little, but lucky investment in land or industry. The development of the Industrial Revolution defined the mineral and land wealth which was there in abundance, contrary to the environmental riches such as huge herds of bison and diversity of forests, for the original American Indians.
Many early Americans prospectors headed west of the Rocky Mountains to buy acres of cheap land in hopes of finding deposits of gold. The American dream was a driving factor not only in the Gold Rush of the mid to late 1800s, but also in the waves of immigration throughout that century and the following. Impoverished western Europeans escaping the Irish potato famines in Ireland, the Highland clearances in Scotland and the aftermath of Napoleon in the rest of Europe came to America to escape a poor quality of life at home. They wanted to embrace the promise of financial security and constitutional freedom they had heard existed so widely in the United States.
Nearing the twentieth century, major industrialist personalities became the new model of the American Dream, many beginning life in the humblest of conditions but later controlling enormous corporations and fortunes. Perhaps most notable here were the great American capitalists Andrew Carnegie and Nelson Rockefeller. This acquisition of great wealth demonstrated that if you had talent, intelligence, and a willingness to work extremely hard you were guaranteed at least moderate success as a result. The key difference here from the Old World societal structure is that the antiquated monarchies of Western Europe and their post-feudal economies actively oppressed the peasant class. They also required high levels of taxation which crippled development. America, however, was built by people who were consciously free of these constraints. There was a hope for egalitarianism. Martin Luther King invoked the American Dream in what is perhaps his most famous speech:
"Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream." (I have a dream)
Horatio Alger, Jr.
Horatio Alger, Jr. (January 13, 1832 - July 18, 1899) was a 19th-century American author, a leading proponent of Social Darwinism during the Gilded Age (1865-1900), who wrote over 130 dime novels, describing how down-and-out boys were able to achieve the American dream of wealth and success through hard work, courage, determination, and concern for others.
Poorly written and repetitive, the novels declined in popularity as Alger's target audience grew more sophisticated. Nevertheless, at the time of their writing they were bestsellers, and Alger's books actually rivaled those of Mark Twain in popularity. As the American dream took shape, Alger gave hope for a brighter future to millions of young men who were then living on the brink of society.
Alger was born in Revere, Massachusetts to a stern Unitarian minister who wanted his son to follow him into the clergy. He attended Harvard where he studied under Henry Wadsworth Longfellow with the intention of one day becoming a poet. After graduation he found work as a journalist and schoolteacher. Rejected by the Union Army because of his asthma, he took a tour of Europe where he finally decided to pursue the ministry. He took a position in Cape Cod but left for New York City rather suddenly in 1866, ostensibly to pursue a career in writing. Church records uncovered after Alger's death indicate that he was quietly dismissed for having sexual relations with several boys in his parish.
The move to New York was a turning point in Alger's career. He was immediately drawn into the work of impoverished young bootblacks, newspaper boys, and peddlers, and even took a young Chinese immigrant named Sam into his home as a ward (Sam was killed in a carriage accident a few years later). It was this world, coupled with the austere values that Alger received at home, which formed the basis of the first novel in his Ragged Dick series (1867). The book was an immediate success, spurring a vast collection of sequels and similar novels, including Luck and Pluck (1869) and Tattered Tom (1871), all with the same theme: the rise from rags to riches. In fact, the theme became synonymous with Alger.
Essentially, all of Alger's novels are the same: a young boy struggles through hard work to escape poverty. Critics, however, are quick to point out that it is not the hard work itself that rescues the boy from his fate, but rather some extraordinary act of bravery or honesty, which brings him into contact with a wealthy elder gentleman, who takes the boy in as a ward. The boy might return a large sum of money that was lost or rescue someone from an overturned carriage, bringing the boy�and his plight�to the attention of some wealthy individual. It has been suggested that this reflects Alger's own patronizing attitude to the boys he tried to help.
Despite his remarkable literary output, Alger never became rich from his writing. He gave most of his money to homeless boys and in some instances was actually conned from his earnings by the boys he tried to help. Nevertheless, by the time he died in 1899, his books could be found in virtually every home and library in America. His books may no longer be as popular today as they once were, but the moral messages they relayed were an important factor in the development of the American dream in the 20th century.
At the time of his death, Alger was living with his sister Augusta. She destroyed all of his personal papers, hoping to avoid scandal in the rigid atmosphere of the Victorian Era.
Since 1947, the Horatio Alger Association has bestowed an annual award on "outstanding individuals in our society who have succeeded in the face of adversity" and scholarships "to encourage young people to pursue their dreams with determination and perseverance".
(Source: Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License - see Copyrights for details).
Tell me about your "American Dream." What would you like to achieve in your lifetime? What steps do you plan to take to accomplish your goals? Do you think the American Dream can be reached − will Americans ever be satisfied with what we have or will we continually desire more? Is this good or bad? Why?
Social Darwinism?
This American just wants peace %26amp; quiet.
I'm working for myself, so I'm alot closer than most.
The "American Dream" of a house you have to scrape with on upkeep all the time, a faux yard, etc isn't mine, so I count myself lucky on that one too.
It's in the corporate interest to not have the majority of people reach their dreams (which for me mean spiritual happiness vs temporal) but just buy crap.
It's in the government interest not to have the majority of people reach their dreams (as above) because of our Roman bindings that urge the nation to "conqueror" in some fashion. People who have reached their dreams don't add to the tax base.
As an aside, when I mentioned spiritual happiness, that doesn't necessarily mean religious.
People by nature always want more. Just look at the people making insane amounts of cash, etc and they aren't happy. But with the national debt, standing of the dollar, and price of oil, (to name a few things) we better get used to finding happiness in a different way from the past.
Reply:my American dream has changed. now that i am a little older(42), i only hope i can eventually retire one day. i have earned a college degree, but now the economy is making it hard for me to save any money. i think the American dream (which is subjective) can be reached, but it depends on what you define it as. the majority of Americans , i think will continue to consume with no regard for moderation. it is good for the economy that we live in a culture of consumption, because we live in a credit based economy, now that there is a credit crunch, we all see the effects (recession). over all there is opportunity here that many will never know. but Americans are unique in the scale to which we consume.
Reply:First off, is this an essay for school? Never site wikipedia! it is NOT a credible source!
************social???????????!...
i'm doing a research on the indigeneous people. so i need to have some background about these people.
I'll give10 points to the first person with the best information.
************social???????????!...
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
I'll give10 points to the first person with the best information.
************social???????????!...
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Social ??????
i need a quick list of canadas major allies, thanks
Social ??????
NATO! All 25 countries (excluding Canada)
Social ??????
NATO! All 25 countries (excluding Canada)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)