Originally Posted by indigo
Originally Posted by aquinas
... my perspective on “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps” and wants vs needs changed dramatically when I experienced hardship
...
As I get older, I am growing to appreciate Rawlsian philosophy (the view that seeks to maximize the welfare of the least well off.)
Some of us may have been brought up with a similar view - loving one's neighbor as one's self (a faith-based view), and may have begun being our brother's keeper at an early age.

Originally Posted by aquinas
much of my current “success” arose from a lucky break in lineage, in asking someone genuinely hard working but poor to accept a life path I wouldn’t want for myself or my child
For many, the American Dream consists in the potential for upward mobility, and for most people this takes considerable effort and sacrifice. For many families it has taken generations of coordinated effort and sacrifice to become upwardly mobile. Knowing that one's life path differs from others, one can still be cognizant of their work ethic and sacrifice improving their life, and that of future generations.

This is all lovely—thank you for your reply and personal insights—but I’m struggling to reconcile your first and second statements. It seems inconsistent from a public policy lens to, on the one hand, advocate support for the underprivileged while, on the other hand, deny them the single most effective tool to surmount poverty. (I may be unaware of the specifics of tuition aid in the US. If it is universal, please disregard.)

What is to give light must endure burning.