[Darren]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I'm not sure that I'd call life a "rat race". Also, I don't think you can fault these kids for being born to parents who happen to be rich, and live in affluent neighborhoods. I also do not think that they'll have an "assured advantage". Growing up, we lived much closer to poor than we did to rich, and I remember growing up being told constantly ... if you want something, you'll achieve it if you put everything you have into it. Which may be why growing up in a two parent family with only one high school diploma between them, my sister and I both have several graduate degrees now.

I wouldn't call life a rat race either, TomJoe - just certain aspects of, and attitudes to, modern life. Also, if you read the entire post, you will see that I make it crystal clear that I do not believe that these kids are at fault:

Originally posted by Darren - The way things are, I certainly wouldn't blame the parents for wanting a better education and future for their kids, nor could anyone fairly blame the kids for having this advantage (as much as it is through no merit of their own, so it is through no fault of their own either).

It is certainly not true that everyone can get what they want if they want it enough or put everything they have into achieving it. What you do make crystal clear in your post is the (good) influence your parents had on your (and your sister's) education and career start. That is what I'm getting at here (and I'm not faulting this per se either, or demeaning your own efforts in any way). The circumstances under which you are born and brought up have a massive influence over what you can and cannot do in life. If, as a child, one or both of your parents had yelled at you, for instance, that you were never going to university and that you could expect no help from them, or some such thing - do you really think you would have followed the same path, had the same chances?

Originally posted by TomJoe - You also do not know the civil responsibilities that these children may be presented with. To whom much is given, much is expected, and I think we can only hope that these kids who are rich, will see that money isn't everything and will give back to the less fortunate. We also do not know how the money is being spent ... all I've seen in this thread is some horrible generalizations, with little to no support for them.

That's exactly the problem. In your analysis we can only hope for charity from those who benefit from luck in how well placed they are to receive wealth generated by society. Well I disagree that this is inevitable, I don't want to just hope for charity from the lucky to the less lucky, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Society generates wealth, each individual plays a part in this generation, only a part - who should decide which part deserves a greater share than another? The well placed? The strong?
If you look at the question considering what wealth is, how it is generated, how distributed etc. you have to admit that it is not all down to the work of those who are "rich" (naturally a relative term) - their "riches" mean something in real human terms, and how "rich" an individual can become is an indicator of how much (or how little) human life is valued by the society in which they live. A society which places a low value on human life deserves changing, in my opinion.

Originally posted by TomJoe - IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

My definition of rich does not equate to being a millionaire. Rich is a relative term. The children of moderately or even slightly wealthy individuals have a better chance at maintaining their station or advancing, depending on circumstances which lean heavily on luck. Answering your generalization above with one of my own: I'm not by any means suggesting that rich people don't work hard, but at least as many poor people work just as hard.
Many people become super rich because, for example, they own shares in a company which successfully externalizes costs at the expense of a particular society or sector of society and/or the environment etc. Other people may have to work harder for less reward, but the lucky shareholder need only sit back and reap the benefits.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Do we need to raise taxes, or just allocate the current US budget more wisely than we do? Pork barrel spending needs to stop, and health care needs to become more affordable.

As an example, when I was working part-time at Buffalo General Hospital getting my Masters degree in Clincal Laboratory Science, I used to run tests which counting man power, machine cost/upkeep and reagents costs would run about $7. We charged around $150.

In answer to your first question, TomJoe: both (though by raised taxes I mean planned progressive taxation). Also, health care needs to be free to avoid massive injustice to humanity. Your (very relevant) example affirms my distaste for the private health care ideology (not, I stress, the holders of such ideology or the workers within a system governed by such a principle - just the ideology itself).