Government Should Teach Traditional Values

[Samson]

I have to agree with Dave on that one. Herman Cain's dad, for instance, was a chauffeur and his mom was a maid. And look at what he has accomplished and now he is running for POTUS. I can point to my own family and my own life to demonstrate that nobody is confined by the circumstances of his/her birth in this country. Disadvantaged? Yes. In a situation where you have to work harder than the other guy? Yes. That happens and is sometimes the luck of the draw. But that is very different from a caste system.

That is one of the traditional values that I think should be emphasized in the schools and by everybody. If you are born poor, you don't have to stay poor. If you are ignorant there are limitless opportunities to educate yourself. Some of our most distinguished citizens would have been called 'disadvantaged' in their childhood and youth, and yet rose above their circumstances to achieve great things. Nobody should accept being a victim in this country but instead take advantages of the limitless opportunities that our Constitution affords us. Stop blaming and resenting the other guy and get busy.

I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.

My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.

Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


I can testify to the truth of that quote.

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.

 

[Samson]

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.

Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.

 

[Si modo]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

So, would you be in favor of legislating morality? If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?

 

[Samson]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

So, would you be in favor of legislating morality? If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?

It would be a heluva lot easier to begin sterilizing the stupid.

Where is rdean when we need him?

 

[Money]

Using the term caste is a bit of hyperbole, but the fact remains that a lot of people identify very strongly with their station in life, commonly their parents' station in life, and the values that go along with that.

I don't align well neither with working class nor welfare-state value systems. I would be upset if the school aims to teach my children working class values, but that would be better than leaving the values education to the media and to Xbox 360.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.

My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.

Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


I can testify to the truth of that quote.

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.

My husband was born into poverty as this country defines it. I was born into better financial circumstances but also into alcoholism and physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Because of the freedoms this country gives us, both of us were able to rise above our circumstances, live much different lives than our parents, and landed squarely in the Middle Class. Did others have a leg up on us? Of course they did. But that still did not limit our ability to accomplish as much as we had the strength, intellect, and will to accomplish.

We gave our kids what we could in the way of teaching values, emotional support, encouragement, and provided them what we could afford in exposure to sports, music, the arts, and solid academics. Both are now successful functioning adults each earning well over what Mr. Foxfyre and I earned together at the height of our earning cycle. Were other parents able to give their kids much more than we were able to give ours? Of course they did and I don't begrudge them that in the least. What good is it to work and excel if you can't pass some of that on to your children?

Some of the richer kids have done very well and others not so well. Our kids have excelled to the level of most of their peers despite having fewer advantages and some of their poorest friends who had almost no advantages as kids are right up there with them.

Sure money, access, and all of that gives some a leg up and there is nothing wrong with that. I should be able to pass on to my kids what I can of what I have worked for and accomplished. None of us are restricted to the circumstances we were born into and it is up to each of us what we make of the freedom we have.

That is a value that needs to be taught again. The values that now seem to be emphasized is that it isn't fair that some have more than others, and the less advantaged are entitled to what the more successful have worked for and accomplished. That is wrong, destructive to all, and should be removed from the national psyche.

 

[Money]

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.

I have a fortune cookie in my office that says "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence." All this time I thought "Confucius say…"

 

[Money]

My husband was born into poverty as this country defines it. I was born into better financial circumstances but also into alcoholism and physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Because of the freedoms this country gives us, both of us were able to rise above our circumstances, live much different lives than our parents, and landed squarely in the Middle Class. Did others have a leg up on us? Of course they did. But that still did not limit our ability to accomplish as much as we had the strength, intellect, and will to accomplish.

We gave our kids what we could in the way of teaching values, emotional support, encouragement, and provided them what we could afford in exposure to sports, music, the arts, and solid academics. Both are now successful functioning adults each earning well over what Mr. Foxfyre and I earned together at the height of our earning cycle. Were other parents able to give their kids much more than we were able to give ours? Of course they did and I don't begrudge them that in the least. What good is it to work and excel if you can't pass some of that on to your children?

Some of the richer kids have done very well and others not so well. Our kids have excelled to the level of most of their peers despite having fewer advantages and some of their poorest friends who had almost no advantages as kids are right up there with them.

Sure money, access, and all of that gives some a leg up and there is nothing wrong with that. I should be able to pass on to my kids what I can of what I have worked for and accomplished. None of us are restricted to the circumstances we were born into and it is up to each of us what we make of the freedom we have.

That is a value that needs to be taught again. The values that now seem to be emphasized is that it isn't fair that some have more than others, and the less advantaged are entitled to what the more successful have worked for and accomplished. That is wrong, destructive to all, and should be removed from the national psyche.

Foxfyre, I think that's great.

Now, wouldn't you advocate for students who lack these sorts of values to be informed of them and taught about their virtues? I grew up with religion classes and this was common place in Catholic private education. Without a religious aspect in play, I think it is plausible to teach values that are American in American public schools. And just like religion classes, the effects of having values-education will permeate into other subject matter... too many kids don't know that they're slackers. They don't know the long-term implications of that.

The subject matter shouldn't be negative; it should really break down the long-term implications of ambition and other values.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.

My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.

Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


I can testify to the truth of that quote.

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.

"We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[Samson]

Sure money, access, and all of that gives some a leg up and there is nothing wrong with that.

Gives "SOME a leg up?"

Let's not try to bury our heads in the sand:

Wealth gives ALMOST ALL a "leg up."

But I agree, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with having a wealthy class: there is no better sociological motivator than gold. Any sociological system that has been based on anything else (and I'm not talking about a dozen hippies living together with goats in a log cabin somewhere in Virginia), is a failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.

Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.

As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

So, would you be in favor of legislating morality? If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?

"So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"

And you gleaned that from the OP....where?

 

[Samson]

Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


I can testify to the truth of that quote.

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.

"We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.

I have a fortune cookie in my office that says "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence." All this time I thought "Confucius say…"

No, the recipe for the cookie was Confucius'....
...and he baked it with the one candle he lit....

 

[NoNukes]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.

 

[Samson]

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.

Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.

As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.

Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.

"We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.

No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

"Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.

a. Journalists and academics alike endlessly repeat that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. What these discussions ignore is that people move with some frequency from category to category over time. Only 5 percent of Americans who were in the bottom quintile of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. Only 25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 (the top 1/100th of 1 percent of income earners) remained in that category in 2005.

b. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”

c. Abstract talk about “inequities” in income distribution presupposes a social problem, where strictly speaking one may not exist at all. Sowell’s analysis helps us understand why intellectuals so often call for government to promote economic redistribution."
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.

Thank you, Cyndi Lauper.

 

[Foxfyre]

Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.

As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.

Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!

The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can. Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have. That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.

Nobody is required to stay where they are. The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is the job of the parents to teach their children values. It is the role of school teachers to teach children to value learning and work, and how to get along with others. I think it takes a village to raise a child. All of us citizens should be looking out for the vulnerable in our communites.