-->
@TheRealNihilist
It takes your money, thus making you have to work harder to achieve the same amount.
Fix-US
Posts
Total:
143
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I refuse to believe you don't know what taxes are.No. No moral interpretation simply state what they are.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So ultimately the aim is for the workers — not the state — to take over the management of all the industries, including public services."
So, like an "employee owned" business where the workers are share/stake-holders. [LINK]
-->
@bmdrocks21
One of the key factors of this proposal (Fix-US) is that it changes nothing economically.So in other words...... you want people having as many children as possible so that they can make money? How about (and this just might be a CrAzY iDeA) but... you don't have kids if you cannot afford to have kids?!?
We currently have no prohibition against people having children. There is no test for fitness, no financial prerequisites, no license application.
People can have as many children as they want, and each of those kids will go to public school and the state will spend $20,000.00 per year per-child.
This is the reality of the situation.
The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly?
Your scathing critique is requested.
yeah more debt!
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Didn't take you long to resort to insults and name calling, typical of you.
-->
@bmdrocks21
And vouchers are the best option right now. They can use the voucher to choose the school their child goes to. If they are concerned about their child going to a school that doesn't accommodate their disabilities, they can still send them to the public school.
The problem is that in some areas the public school is completely de-funded by the voucher program, so special-needs children have no viable option.
IF THE PARENT HAD THE OPTION TO CASH THE VOUCHER THEMSELVES, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO HIRE A PRIVATE TUTOR.
Vouchers aren't a perfect free market system, but they are closer than just funding public schools. This way, there is more competition on the part of the public school to retain their funding.
A competitive free market isn't an ideal solution for necessities. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was necessary because many (if not most) businesses determined that the cost of adding wheel-chair ramps and other handicap accommodations were not worth the expense and didn't care if they lost hypothetical business from these disabled people because they are a tiny minority anyway.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yeah more debt!
It's the exact same money that's already being spent.
-->
@3RU7AL
ha
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Didn't take you long to resort to insults and name calling, typical of you.
When you're short on logic it makes sense to rush-to-disqualify your opponent.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Here's the problem though. There would be too much disruption of people constantly changing or wanting to be in control etc.
Please explain.
The personal responsibility and accountability for a suggestion like you posted wouldn't work for many people for those reasons imo.
What reasons?
I mean it should work but I don't have faith in the general public because people are what they are.
I see, are you suggesting that you personally believe that a government agency is more interested in the welfare of children than their own parents?
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm in the wrong?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm in the wrong?
I wouldn't necessarily say "wrong".
You're simply having some apparent difficulty communicating your indisputable facts.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Guess you like socialist policies.
Okay I think the idea in the OP isn't a good idea and I also happen to be against socialism but I have to point out that this is a really stupid post.
If your reason for disliking a certain idea is that "it sound socialism and socialism bad" then you don't really have a good reason for being against that idea. Show how the actual idea itself is actually bad rather than just dismissing it out of hand because it sounds like something that would be associated with a certain word you dislike.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Let me explain:
Socialist policy
Social is relating to activities in which you meet and spend time with other people and that happen during the time when you are not working:
An ist is a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
Put them together you get a system of practices which puts first spending and meeting with other people.
A policy is a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government, or a political party:
You get a plan to put in place in order to help people meet and spend time with other people.
Socialist policy: Idea put in place in order to benefit people spending time with one another. This can be maternity, paternity leave.
Capitalist policy
Now let me explain a capitalist policy.
Capital: money and possessions, especially a large amount of money used for producing more wealth or for starting a new business:
An ist is a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
Put them together you get a system which prioritizes money.
A policy is a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government, or a political party:
Capitalist policy: An idea put in place in order to prioritize money. This can be abolishing the minimum wage and reducing taxes.
Did you get that?
Didn't take you long to resort to insults and name calling, typical of you.
If it is insulting how your comment made me feel. I won't tell you. I'll just demonstrate how you are wrong.
-->
@3RU7AL
You're simply having some apparent difficulty communicating your indisputable facts.
Was the indisputable facts part a joke?
Do you have a way that can make things easier for me?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay I think the idea in the OP isn't a good idea and I also happen to be against socialism but I have to point out that this is a really stupid post.
Well thanks I guess.
If your reason for disliking a certain idea is that "it sound socialism and socialism bad" then you don't really have a good reason for being against that idea. Show how the actual idea itself is actually bad rather than just dismissing it out of hand because it sounds like something that would be associated with a certain word you dislike.
I wasn't dismissing the idea because it was more socialist than capitalist. I was directing my comment to pirates. He said he liked the idea and I said "Guess you like socialist policies." which would I think go against him being a conservative.
-->
@3RU7AL
For you first message, no we don't have any prerequisites for having kids. We absolutely should. If you are a single, financially unstable, or are a drug user, you should not have kids.
I have issues with our current welfare system in which people on welfare can, in most states, continue having kids and taking more from the taxpayer. That is disgusting.
All that will likely happen is drug addicts have kids so they can buy more drugs, then will send their kid to the cheapest school so they can pocket the money. Having kids should not be a way to make money from the government. How about we go with the cheaper option: vouchers. Most private schools are cheaper per student that public schools. Giving kids a better, cheaper education is a better idea than giving parents a monetary incentive to have more children.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I wasn't dismissing the idea because it was more socialist than capitalist. I was directing my comment to pirates. He said he liked the idea and I said "Guess you like socialist policies." which would I think go against him being a conservative.
I don't really know the guy at all but just based on what you are saying here it sounds like he doesn't look at the world as black-and-white/red-and-blue but instead examines each idea on it's own merit and doesn't dismiss them out of hand because they might be associated with a word that he dislikes.
Good for him. We need more people like that in democratic societies.
-->
@3RU7AL
That is my understanding
You told me the effect it has on people.It takes your money, thus making you have to work harder to achieve the same amount.
Tell what occurs during taxes and how they are used.
Are you an anarchist?
-->
@3RU7AL
You are assuming no one else will choose to send their kid to the public school. There will still be kids that go there because the local private schools couldn't accommodate them until more schools are built. They would just risk losing funding, so they would actually have to improve the quality of their school rather than expect government checks for being the only option for the poor.
Well, the ADA added more competition for the handicap market, problem solved :P
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't really know the guy at all but just based on what you are saying here it sounds like he doesn't look at the world as black-and-white/red-and-blue but instead examines each idea on it's own merit and doesn't dismiss them out of hand because they might be associated with a word that he dislikes.
That word is a problem of his. I can't distinction between a socialist policy and socialism. When I first made that claim then told him to give his take he jumped straight to socialism instead of asking what I mean. I wasn't expecting anything different. Just wanted to see if you know he would ask questions instead of jumping the gun but he didn't.
Good for him. We need more people like that in democratic societies.
Good for who?
The position that he agrees with is more in line with a democratic socialists, neo-liberals and social democrats than a conservative one.
-->
@Snoopy
#51
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Good for who?The position that he agrees with is more in line with a democratic socialists, neo-liberals and social democrats than a conservative one.
Right, and he is willing to look at it anyway instead of dismissing it out of hand just because it isn't something that a certain group he identfies with (conservatives) might not like on average.
Like I said I disagree with the idea personally but what you are saying demonstrates this guy may not have a red-and-blue mentality, which is a good thing.
So yeah. Good for him.
-->
@3RU7AL
School districts are drawn to maintain a level of students which is necessary to maintain the services needed. School size, support staff etc is all based on that. I could see a constant fluxuation of the numbers would be disruptive and problematic.
Consider the parents who blame the teachers, schools etc, everything except their child. I see scenarios where they constantly change schools.
Would they provide their own transportation?
I mean I really like the idea of minimizing government but from a practical perspective I think it would fail many
I think he would disagree with it if he knew what it actually means given his lack of questioning with what a socialist policy is or not understanding it is a part of socialism not the entire thing.Right, and he is willing to look at it anyway instead of dismissing it out of hand just because it isn't something that a certain group he identfies with (conservatives) might not like on average.
Like I said I disagree with the idea personally but what you are saying demonstrates this guy may not have a red-and-blue mentality, which is a good thing.
I don't believe that. He has shown his biases and his unwillingness to engage or even comprehend how he is wrong. I should really stop helping him understand since it isn't going anywhere.
So yeah. Good for him.
Good for him for agreeing with a good idea but bad for not realizing it is a socialist policy and equating it to socialism.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Above.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
but bad for not realizing it is a socialist policy and equating it to socialism.
Why would you want people to equate socialist policies to socialism?