Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Wulfy wrote:Hmm... and who pays for this "foster-schooling"? The state?Just like they do now with food and clothes. I had a friend who was a foster parent for several years. He and his wife have taken in many kids over the years. Basically, he said it went like this: - take in foster child - spend up to $X on clothing (which is reimbursed by the state, of course you can spend more and it won't be reimbursed) - spend up to $Y on food (same as above) - ensure the child receives necessary medical care (many have been abused, etc; this is also reimbursed) There is no reason why school can't fit into the same model. In this case, someone has volunteerd (out of the goodness of his heart) to take in foster children to give them a more stable home environment than what they were getting before. The government compensates them for their expenses. This is not a difficult thing. -Roberto
Do you honestly believe that if the state stopped providing education that the state would stop taking the money in taxes? Or would they just find another high-cost military project to spend it on? Even if they did "give it back", do you think that what the tax-payer saved would pay for a good, private education? How many would have their children taken off them because they couldn't afford it? How many households would be destroyed by this measure? Only the "bad" ones? We all know that Social Services are exemplary in the way they operate... like taking children away from parents just because they're not Christian. Do you remember the "Satanic Abuse" fiasco started in America and subsequently here in the UK? How many families were destroyed? How many children were abused by the state employees at Social Services?
-- Blessings Wulfmann Wulf Credo:Respect the elders. Teach the young. Co-operate with the pack. Play when you can. Hunt when you must. Rest in between.
Share your affections. Voice your opinion. Leave your Mark.