On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:43:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Christopher Nelson wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:02:30PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > >>Mumia W wrote: > >> > >>>[somebody] wrote: > >>> > >>>> And public schools are doing such a fine job of educating, too! > >>> > >>> > >>>Yes, they are. I was educated in a public school. > >>> > >> > >>As was I. That is exactly the reason why none of my children will > >>*ever* go to a public school. I like to think that I am succeeding in > >>life *in spite* of the fact that I went to public school. > > > > > > That's your right, but unless you can *gaurantee* that I can, for no > > cost, send my children to a 100% secular school with decent teaching, > > there is no way I can support abolishing public schools. And if you can > > gaurantee that, where does the line between public and private come? > > > Umm. You do realize that not all private schools are Christian, > correct? There are Jewish, Muslim, and yes even secular private > schools. If there are not enough secular private schools now, I'm sure > that a market would open up for them if public education was abolished.
I do realise that not all private schools are religious, but it seems that the minority are secular, and I am of the opinion that it is important that a child have the option to go to a secular school. I also know that none of the private schools in the county I grew up in in Kentucky were secular, which is why I raised the issue. > Besides, why is it my job to *guarantee* that you can send your children > to school for free? If you can't afford to raise them, then don't have > them. Really, why should I pay taxes for education my entire life when > kids only go to school for 12-16 years? The same reason you should pay taxes for roads you don't drive on--because at all stages of life having an educated workforce benifits you, just as it benifits you for people (eg utility companies) to drive on roads you particularly don't use. Or would you rather not pay your doctor to pass high school anatomy and biology? As to the free--I don't plan on having children before I can afford them, but that doesn't help the middle class who can't afford most private schools (the ones I've seen advertised aren't cheap), but can otherwise afford to raise children in a decent environment. Do you purport that you must be wealthy to raise children, or just well enough off? > Besides, my contempt of public education has little to do with my > religious beliefs and more to do with the utterly dismal quality of them. > > > And yes, I had a nearly 100% secular learning experience, and we got the > > one temp for was trying to preach at us disinvited to return; my > > teaching was more than adequate prep for college; those aren't > > unreasonable demands. > > > Ah. So you want a venue where you as a student can get a teacher > disinvited to return. That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking > about with public education. The kids basically run the schools. Not > to say that this doesn't happen in expensive prep schools either, but > that is the beauty of private education. I can take my kids and dollars > to another school. I can't do that in the public school system. Sure you can. Nothing's forcing you to have your kids in public schools. And shopping around for a good public school district is part of being a responsible parent if you can't afford/don't like private school. Plus, she was blatantly violating the schools policy (based on the secretary of the Department of Education) that you cannot teach religious tenets as matters of fact in the public school system. > > <snip> > > > >>>> Income taxes, hell yes. Consumption taxes levied equally upon > >>>>all? No. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Consumption taxes are a regressive (targeting the poor) idea that the > >>>Right Wing has touted for years. > >>> > >> > >>For an example of a consumption tax that is super-advantageous to the > >>poor, please go review the FiarTax. > > > > > > It's a very interesting idea (I just read a brief on it). It would be > > interesting to see it at work, I'm not sure if people would look at the > > 23% sales tax and balk at buying any luxuries, though. But then I don't > > know much about tax systems besides that I put money in and file for a > > refund the beginning of the next year, so take my thoughts for what you > > will... > > > > If you can, read the book. If not, watch the debate that Neal Boortz > had with Michael Graetz: > > http://www.booktv.org/Feature/index.asp?schedid=412&segid=6995 > > Graetz has some good points, but I still think that the FairTax is the > way to go. I didn't see the book mentioned on www.fairtax.org -- is there somewhere else I should look for it? I will check out the debate. -- Christopher Nelson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In Boston, it is illegal to hold frog-jumping contests in nightclubs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
