I would have to pay for everyone's schooling. While we're at it, I guess let's have our choice. I will pay only for my brother in the air force, not everyone else. I will only pay for how many times I use the highway each year, not everyone else--I need my choice. I will only pay federal taxes for projects in my own state, not anyone else's. I will only pay taxes for the 1 time I go to the zoo each year, not for everything else... We're talking welfare here, with a capital W.
I don't understand your point here. Yes, I think people should pay for their own. We did that in this country until about 1852. Same for roads. In fact even today in Texas a group is proposing a private highway to be paid for with tolls. The private sector is alive and well in all these areas. As for the military - no, defense, police, judiciary will always have to be paid for with taxes. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with paying for other people. I'd rather pay for my expenses myself, as I'd rather you pay for yours yourself etc. We've spent trillions of dollars on the New Deal and Great Society, and the poor are still with us. Welfare is an incentive to use more of it - so we'll never be without the poor.
Yes, I know, I guess I will have to quit being so liberal.
I've met few teachers who aren't liberal. No offense intended, just an observation.
However, I don't think using CHILDREN for profit is.
This I think is where your liberal views lead you logically astray. We all make money (create value, even if non-monitarily) off interactons with each other. Doctors of all kinds make money off kids. So do drugstores, social workers (their paychecks), teachers of all types, babysitters, car companies (kids ride in cars, and buy cars when they turn 16) and on and on and on. What is the problem with that ? If you provide someone a good or a service, someone is making money whether as a direct payment or in a paycheck. As long as it's a voluntary transaction there should be no objection. Where I object is when you have no choice - such as, having to pay for 12 years of public teaching service if I don't want it. I'd have the same reaction if I had to pay for 12 years of medical services whether I wanted it or not - in this I have a choice, I can choose to be without medical insurance if I wish.
The idea of not profiting from children is just a gut reaction to the perceived non-voluntary nature of the transaction - really thinking this thru shows the fallacy of this argument. As long as the child receives a value - a good or service - there can be no problem.
I don't make fun of your story - I've met kids who were very brave in less-than-ideal circumstances not of their own making. What counts is that we all try to do the best we can and most importantly, be responsible for lessening the mess we see around us.
Actually, I'm not angry - annoyed, perhaps. I don't complain about teachers in general - just in the particular :)
I have had similar feelings at times too, but I have taken it on a case-by-case basis. I know of many dedicated teachers who do a good job despite dealing with many obstacles. There are teachers who I don't get along with. In fact, I probably get along better on average with parents. But I do admire those who are trying their best and doing a good job at it--who really know what teaching is all about.
I would have to pay for everyone's schooling. While we're at it, I guess let's have our choice. I will pay only for my brother in the air force, not everyone else. I will only pay for how many times I use the highway each year, not everyone else--I need my choice. I will only pay federal taxes for projects in my own state, not anyone else's. I will only pay taxes for the 1 time I go to the zoo each year, not for everything else... We're talking welfare here, with a capital W.
I don't understand your point here. Yes, I think people should pay for their own. We did that in this country until about 1852. Same for roads. In fact even today in Texas a group is proposing a private highway to be paid for with tolls. The private sector is alive and well in all these areas. As for the military - no, defense, police, judiciary will always have to be paid for with taxes. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with paying for other peoplealbeit my problem with other taxpayers subsidizing a personal choice like vouchers (not ones that come from private entities though--those don't use tax money) I'd rather pay for my expenses myself, as I'd rather you pay for yours yourself etc. We've spent trillions of dollars on the New Deal and Great Society, and the poor are still with us. Welfare is an incentive to use more of it - so we'll never be without the poor. My simple point was that there are all sorts of taxes that we pay for that often don't benefit us directly (at least in our perception). In fact, almost all of my taxes are that way.
No, I am not going to go into a long argument about vouchers now. I think that I have said enough. My other point is that sometimes we take the "choice" issue to an extreme--especially the liberals. I don't believe that a pro-abortion person should have a taxpayer-funded personal choice either. The choice has been made already when that person made whoopie and got pregnant. There are already other choices on what to do with the baby.
We have more choices in our society than ever before it seems. Along with that, the biggest influence (or lack of it at times) on most children are their parents. Every parent has a "choice" on how their children are educated and what they learn. It depends on effort and attitude. My mother and father didn't need a welfare subsidy for their kids--they taught us values and did things like help us with homework, limit TV (we never even had cable--we must have been "deprived"), put education as a priority in our house (no friends on weeknights), made us go to Church, had high expectations of us (my 7 siblings and I all got 3.7 or above and continued it in college too), supported us in extracurricular activities, and so on. We had no "choice" but to succeed. We were all publicly educated in somewhat "inner-city" schools. We have all gone on to lead productive lives after college too. That was definitely my mom's choice--she has said so on many occasions.
Yes, I know, I guess I will have to quit being so liberal.
I used this sarcastically. I am conservative and believe that my respect for education and teachers is too. I've met few teachers who aren't liberal. No offense intended, just an observation. Maybe so, though at my school most never really reveal their political persuasions as they are more concerned about kids, but I have met few (actually none) teachers who are the America-hating, gay-promoting, liberal indoctrinator communists that some claim all teachers are--please note this applies to my experiences with K-12 teachers, not college.
However, I don't think using CHILDREN for profit is.
This I think is where your liberal views lead you logically astray. We all make money (create value, even if non-monitarily) off interactons with each other. Doctors of all kinds make money off kids. So do drugstores, social workers (their paychecks), teachers of all types, babysitters, car companies (kids ride in cars, and buy cars when they turn 16) and on and on and on. What is the problem with that ? If you provide someone a good or a service, someone is making money whether as a direct payment or in a paycheck. As long as it's a voluntary transaction there should be no objection. Where I object is when you have no choice - such as, having to pay for 12 years of public teaching service if I don't want it. I'd have the same reaction if I had to pay for 12 years of medical services whether I wanted it or not - in this I have a choice, I can choose to be without medical insurance if I wish.
You are right, I really did not make my point clear here. I really don't have any liberal viewpoints here. I have nothing wrong with anyone making money at all. I do support good, honest profit--not those from pyramid schemes, money-launderers, and so on--in other words--money obtained illegally or when people use the mantra of getting profit no matter what the cost and no matter who(m) it hurts--more on this later.
The idea of not profiting from children is just a gut reaction to the perceived non-voluntary nature of the transaction - really thinking this thru shows the fallacy of this argument. As long as the child receives a value - a good or service - there can be no problem. I don't make fun of your story - I've met kids who were very brave in less-than-ideal circumstances not of their own making. What counts is that we all try to do the best we can and most importantly, be responsible for lessening the mess we see around us.