I want people to call things what they are. That is my reason. This would be for both of us understanding what we are saying and others reading.Why would you want people to equate socialist policies to socialism?
You told me the effect it has on people.Tell what occurs during taxes and how they are used.
NoAre you an anarchist?
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
I'll tell you. People are giving a portion of their money to the government. The government uses that money in the hopes of what people need.You either hand over your money, or your wealth is seized, and/or you face some sort of threatening punishment.
So people should have the option of not being taxed even though the government resides over the land?I would call that charity. Taxes are imposed upon people.
Okay I think the idea in the OP isn't a good idea...
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.
How do any of these proposals help the current problem of 70% of minority children growing up without a father in the home?
Please elaborate.
If I could prove to you beyond a doubt that this idea is socialistic but I could not prove that it was a good or bad idea then would you say that it must be a bad idea because of that despite all the reasons you have given for thinking it is a good idea?
I currently have no way of knowing if your opinion on "what is socialism" has anything at all to do with whether or not you believe Fix-US is a "good" idea.
I'm not so ridged that my mind couldn't be changed or that I couldn't be persuaded. It's typically not easy to do but it does and has happened.
Please speak up if you disagree.
The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.Conservatives have been pressing for a while now to get that per-child funding converted to a voucher, ostensibly to fund private (often religious) charter schools. They (post-hoc) rationalize this as a "free-market solution".This seems problematic on its face for a number of reasons, separation of church and state for one, but more significantly because these private schools are not required to have the same oversight as public schools and are not required to make the same accommodations for students with special needs.However, imagine for a moment that instead of handing these vouchers to private for-profit institutions, the parents had the option to CASH IT IN THEMSELVES.Imagine how many mothers and fathers could stop working long hours to make ends-meet and could instead spend more time with their kids.Financial stress is a major contributing factor for divorce and marital strife which both have demonstrable negative, often life-long effects on children (contributing to anti-social behavior, depression, suicide and criminality behavior).If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?
It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).
(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?
(2) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer school-shootings?
(3) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer cases of child abuse/neglect?
Your scathing critique is requested.
Assuming of course, that the subsidy rather than the investment of own funds doesn't play a role in the dynamic of the two-parent household, which in and of itself, doesn't provide psychological and social stability.The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime....so if this is an issue you want to see addressed, keeping the family together should be your number one goal and all incentives should be toward that goal for the welfare of the child and the welfare of society on the whole.Perhaps if you put in a requirement that this money can only be given to 2 parent families (doesn't have to be heterosexual families), then MAYBE I can get on board.
Assuming of course, that the subsidy rather than the investment of own funds doesn't play a role in the dynamic of the two-parent household, which in and of itself, doesn't provide psychological and social stability.
If you are asking if I would dismiss or dislike something because it's labeled socialism, I would not. I try to examine ideas based on what they are, what merrit I think the do or do not have. Does that answer the question?
