Share This Page

Irresponsible youth

| Friday, June 21, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

The paid “Q and A” advertising that appears in Section C of the Trib on Sundays provides readers the invaluable opportunity to question experts on legal, criminal and other matters. I found a question in the June 2 ad from a grandparent on a legal matter sufficiently interesting to write about.

The grandparent had co-signed a school loan for a granddaughter who “decided not to work and go on welfare,” and the government wants to sue and take the grandparent's house. The granddaughter deciding not to work and to go on welfare speaks a mouthful about a large chunk of what ails the good old U.S. of A., which is getting further and further away from what it used to be in teaching youth responsibility early on at home and in school.

So, we have another irresponsible student or dropout who has become a “gimme” welfare-entitlement member of society. It's a better-than-even bet that the granddaughter voted for President Obama and is a likely candidate for deprogramming from the liberal/progressive brainwashing she has received.

It also seems evident that there's been a generation gap or void in teaching the granddaughter responsibility, with the grandparent belatedly inheriting parental responsibility, as is often the scenario these days.

Clay Stover

West Newton

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.