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. 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? 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. > <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. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature