phathui5 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 So in the other thread, it seems like a lot of people are bothered by people who may not be desperate or homeless getting food stamps. There are a lot of "take care of yourself" and "don't mooch off of the taxpayer" sentiments. If you're ok with paying for government education, why? And how is that different than medical assistance or food assistance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanessaS Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 It's not different, it's just cultural. There are countries in which medical care is free but education isn't. I don't really understand all of the controversy. I thought food stamps where for people "going through a rough patch" anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmom Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 It's not different, it's just cultural. There are countries in which medical care is free but education isn't. I don't really understand all of the controversy. I thought food stamps where for people "going through a rough patch" anyway. I agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff in TX Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Well, I didn't read through the other thread, but the main difference I see is that public education is offered to all children, no matter how much their parents have/don't have. Whereas government assistance programs are only available to those who need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phathui5 Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 the main difference I see is that public education is offered to all children, no matter how much their parents have/don't have That's true. Personally, I would be happier with medical care being available to all children and education being something you have to apply to get for free. Not having the government food the bill for your kids' schooling won't kill them, but there are lots of kids in the US who are getting less medical care than they need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 That's true. Personally, I would be happier with medical care being available to all children and education being something you have to apply to get for free. Not having the government food the bill for your kids' schooling won't kill them, but there are lots of kids in the US who are getting less medical care than they need. :grouphug: Good to see another MDC mama here :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 It's not different, it's just cultural. There are countries in which medical care is free but education isn't. I don't really understand all of the controversy. I thought food stamps where for people "going through a rough patch" anyway. Therein lies one of the big problems with foodstamps......the "rough patch" for some people goes on for many many many years, or their entire life. THat is not assistance that is a lifestyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phathui5 Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 Therein lies one of the big problems with foodstamps......the "rough patch" for some people goes on for many many many years, or their entire life. THat is not assistance that is a lifestyle. Kinda like how we pay upwards of $10,000 in taxes for children for 12 years to go to schools that are sometimes ok, but mostly factory style babysitters? We're not encouraging people to take charge of their children's education by providing an average/mediocre product for free. People would rather take a free ride than take responsibility for their own families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Kinda like how we pay upwards of $10,000 in taxes for children for 12 years to go to schools that are sometimes ok, but mostly factory style babysitters? We're not encouraging people to take charge of their children's education by providing an average/mediocre product for free. People would rather take a free ride than take responsibility for their own families. Not sure if you are agreeing with me....or what..:confused: Anyway like someone else said Public education is offered to everyone not just some that meet certain requirements. I think the majoirty of public education is worthless nad extremely flawed, but that is another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginevra Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 So in the other thread, it seems like a lot of people are bothered by people who may not be desperate or homeless getting food stamps. There are a lot of "take care of yourself" and "don't mooch off of the taxpayer" sentiments. If you're ok with paying for government education, why? And how is that different than medical assistance or food assistance? I didn't participate in the other thread, but just to offer a POV, I'm actually not okay with paying for government education. I am forced to pay for it no matter how terrible (or good) it might be. I am forced to pay for it whether or not I ever want or need to use it. In my little idealistic world, either all schools would be private, or at least the only "government schools" would be a form of public assistance, something you had to apply for. Or a voucher, that you could use if you could demonstrate need. Clearly, the country is never going to privatize all the currently public schools, so it's just a pipe dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I didn't participate in the other thread, but just to offer a POV, I'm actually not okay with paying for government education. I am forced to pay for it no matter how terrible (or good) it might be. I am forced to pay for it whether or not I ever want or need to use it. :iagree: 100% with this part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LND1218 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I didn't participate in the other thread, but just to offer a POV, I'm actually not okay with paying for government education. I am forced to pay for it no matter how terrible (or good) it might be. I am forced to pay for it whether or not I ever want or need to use it. :iagree::iagree::iagree: I am not okay with government schools, food stamps or universal health care. The amount of money being poured into schools is outrageous! I school 4 kids with a fraction of what our district spends for one. Frankly, I school my kids for what I pay in taxes to our local school. And my kids are getting a far better education. There is a better way to this, but it's not going to happen. There is a better way to meet the needs of those down and out, but our system isn't going to make the changes needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersDozen Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I am not okay with government schools, food stamps or universal health care. The amount of money being poured into schools is outrageous! I school 4 kids with a fraction of what our district spends for one. Frankly, I school my kids for what I pay in taxes to our local school. And my kids are getting a far better education. :iagree: What I would like to see will never happen: kids get one year of each school level paid for; if they don't pass, their parents pay for them to repeat the level. Watch how involved parents suddenly become, how much more valuable education would be. Free education was a nice thought but has become an abused "right" that is taken for granted. Just like food/medical assistance I feel that education should be limited when it is taxpayer funded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'm sure others on here will know more about this than I do, but I believe the idea of compulsory government-paid education came about through the efforts to get kids out of the factory jobs where they were being exploited, working long hours in bad conditions for next-to-nothing wages. Unfortunately, I guess we've just had nothing in our history which provoked as much passion about ensuring that every child is guaranteed medical care. Personally, I do support the idea (if not always the reality) of public education even though I have never put my daughter in that system, because I think it's probably better for our society as a whole to have that available for those who need it. I also support the idea of public health care, and really think that should take first priority. I also support programs like WIC and food stamps, because despite the abuses, I think these programs as a whole do much more good than harm. In other words, I am a liberal. :D The way my husband puts it is that it's "enlightened self-interest" to support these kinds of public programs. In other words, while there is definitely some altruistic motivations behind our viewpoint, it's also somewhat selfish, but the truth is we feel we are better off living in a society where people are not illiterate, starved, and sick. We believe that public programs provide a "safety net" which helps everyone, and not just the people that it helps directly -- something of a ripple effect I suppose. We are all better off when . . . well, when we're all better off! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'm not sure I completely agree with this idea, but one could say that providing education reduces class barriers. Providing food and medical care do not. If our "free" schools only had very poor children, they would be truly terrible. In good schools which have diverse populations not all poor children are able to improve their situation, but a good many do. My neighborhood high school has a 35% participation in reduced price lunch program. A significant number of poor children graduate with scholarships awarded because of high academic performance. They work hard and take advantage of resources at the school. So while their parents may not have been able to make enough money to get off public assistance, public assistance doesn't perpetuate with the children. If we provided food or medical care to everyone, but subsidize education for poor children, there would be children who didn't get any education because their parents made too much to qualify. Public schools would most likely significantly lower standards because parents who are educated would probably no longer participate, making public schools lose their strongest advocates. As a result public schools would no longer provide a place a poor child with drive could gain the skills to move up and out of poverty. He would just be a well fed/healthy poor person with no chance at any skills. I'll have to think more on this. However, whether or not I send a kid to public school I want strong public schools because the children who graduate from them will be adults I have to deal with one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Yes I am being sarcastic. When the government is giving money to bail out this and that, why not? The government waste money here and there, why not? I better zip my lips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphabetika Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I agree with Quill. Privatize education. Stop taking my dh's paycheck and giving $10,000-plus per child to a system that is failing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing lioness Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I am not okay with government schools, food stamps or universal health care. quote] :iagree: Also, the government school system was not set up to get kids out of factories. The government school system was set up to get kids off the street and keep them away from drugs while their parents worked round the clock at the factory, to assimilate them into the wider culture through a common language and body of knowledge and to provide a worker class for the rich and famous. A huge amount of kids graduating from the free government school system are functionally illiterate- a "free" education- maybe, but you usually get what you pay for. Disadvantaged youth with decent grades will always get scholarships becasue it is mandated by law, not by ability. I worked in admissions at a private, expensive grad school. If a person of color, woman, or esp. woman of color applyed she was admitted as long as he/she was breathing, could form a sentence and usually attended free. (these were programs where white males had less than a 3% acceptance rate and paid well over $100, 000 for the privilage of atteding). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I am also against the government providing education. I am a libertarian. I believe the government should handle the justice system and national defense (and ideally both of those systems should cover their own costs), nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaTanya Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm not sure I completely agree with this idea, but one could say that providing education reduces class barriers. Providing food and medical care do not. If our "free" schools only had very poor children, they would be truly terrible. In good schools which have diverse populations not all poor children are able to improve their situation, but a good many do. My neighborhood high school has a 35% participation in reduced price lunch program. A significant number of poor children graduate with scholarships awarded because of high academic performance. They work hard and take advantage of resources at the school. So while their parents may not have been able to make enough money to get off public assistance, public assistance doesn't perpetuate with the children. If we provided food or medical care to everyone, but subsidize education for poor children, there would be children who didn't get any education because their parents made too much to qualify. Public schools would most likely significantly lower standards because parents who are educated would probably no longer participate, making public schools lose their strongest advocates. As a result public schools would no longer provide a place a poor child with drive could gain the skills to move up and out of poverty. He would just be a well fed/healthy poor person with no chance at any skills. I'll have to think more on this. However, whether or not I send a kid to public school I want strong public schools because the children who graduate from them will be adults I have to deal with one day. I always vote for improvements in education. Not because I used to be a teacher. Not because dh currently works for the school system. Because I feel responsible to make the future better for my children and me by having safe and effective schools for the children in our community. Dh and I both have worked in schools with high poverty rates. We want those children to be fed and educated in safe schools by excellent teachers. It doesn't always work, of course, but we feel it is our responsibility for the present AND for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 For those who do support public education (or food stamps, etc...) why are the children in your country more deserving of these things than children in other countries? Why are you happy to pay for kids here but not for kids elsewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaTanya Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 For those who do support public education (or food stamps, etc...) why are the children in your country more deserving of these things than children in other countries? Why are you happy to pay for kids here but not for kids elsewhere? I send money to support global assistance agencies, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 For those who do support public education (or food stamps, etc...) why are the children in your country more deserving of these things than children in other countries? Why are you happy to pay for kids here but not for kids elsewhere? As far as I am aware, our country spends tremendous amounts of money providing aid to third world countries. Am I misinformed? Don't many Americans also privately (through various charities) support medical care, education, orphanages, and schools in other countries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 As far as I am aware, our country spends tremendous amounts of money providing aid to third world countries. Am I misinformed? Don't many Americans also privately (through various charities) support medical care, education, orphanages, and schools in other countries? Most people give far more through taxes than through charity. And the money that most govs give doesn't help the people in the 3rd world, it only helps often corrupt governments. It just seems strange to me that people would be willing to pay for education that costs thousands of dollars per year per child here, while children in the 3rd world can't afford a notebook or a vacine that costs a few cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Whereas government assistance programs are only available to those who need it. This is a very naive statement. You would have to define the word "need" and see if we could all agree. There is also the question of WHY you "need" help. For instance, I know a man who "get's a check" from SS because he "can't get along with authority." He is perfectly able bodied and he does nothing and laughs about it. There are millions of similar stories. I know of many, many people who get checks because of totally bogus reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 For those who do support public education (or food stamps, etc...) why are the children in your country more deserving of these things than children in other countries? Why are you happy to pay for kids here but not for kids elsewhere? On what basis are you making these assumptions? Saying that we should take good care of people here is NOT the same as saying that we shouldn't take care of people elsewhere. Believe me, I am aware of that fact that being a middle-class American makes me super privileged and wealthy by global standards. Precisely because so much of our income goes towards taxes and that some, at least, of that goes towards helping other Americans, a great deal of our charitable giving is for organizations that help people in other nations, as well as environmental causes which we firmly believe helps everyone on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 :iagree::iagree::iagree: I am not okay with government schools, food stamps or universal health care. The amount of money being poured into schools is outrageous! I school 4 kids with a fraction of what our district spends for one. Frankly, I school my kids for what I pay in taxes to our local school. And my kids are getting a far better education. There is a better way to this, but it's not going to happen. There is a better way to meet the needs of those down and out, but our system isn't going to make the changes needed. :iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Never mind. Edited June 2, 2009 by GretaLynne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amy g. Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) I do not have a problem with public schools, or food stamps, but I would like to see a couple of reforms. I would happily support public schools if they were not allowed to spend more that 10% of their budget for sports, and another 10% for administrators. I'm happy to spend money on education, but I'd like the money to actually be spent on education. We always say that no one is going to change their opinions based on what they read in a post, but after the thread about limiting the kinds of foods people on assistance can buy, I really don't think it is a practical idea any more. I'll support the idea of people buying any food that they like if we can make the punishment for abusing the system the same as the penalties for insurance fraud and tax fraud. I'm all for helping people in needs so long as the money is actually being spent by people in need. Edited June 2, 2009 by amy g. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabrett Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Most people give far more through taxes than through charity. And the money that most govs give doesn't help the people in the 3rd world, it only helps often corrupt governments. It just seems strange to me that people would be willing to pay for education that costs thousands of dollars per year per child here, while children in the 3rd world can't afford a notebook or a vacine that costs a few cents. I don't "give" money to taxes. Taxes are taken without my say unless I choose to go to jail. I don't "willingly" pay for public education. Again, I have no choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mama2cntrykids Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Kinda like how we pay upwards of $10,000 in taxes for children for 12 years to go to schools that are sometimes ok, but mostly factory style babysitters? We're not encouraging people to take charge of their children's education by providing an average/mediocre product for free. People would rather take a free ride than take responsibility for their own families. :iagree:with that statement. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I do not have a problem with public schools, or food stamps, but I would like to see a couple of reforms. I would happily support public schools if they were not allowed to spend more that 10% of their budget for sports, and another 10% for administrators. I'm happy to spend money on education, but I'd like the money to actually be spent on education. We always say that no one is going to change their opinions based on what they read in a post, but after the thread about limiting the kinds of foods people on assistance can buy, I really don't think it is a practical idea any more. I'll support the idea of people buying any food that they like if we can make the punishment for abusing the system the same as the penalties for insurance fraud and tax fraud. I'm all for helping people in needs so long as the money is actually being spent by people in need. Thank you, Amy. You expressed my sentiments much better than I could. I am very much in favor of public programs that help the poor, but that does NOT mean that I senselessly support government waste. I am absolutely in favor of accountability and penalties for fraud, like you mentioned. But to me, the notion that because there is fraud and waste means that these systems should be done away with entirely is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let's fix what is broken, rather than just tossing it away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.