Only 10% Don't Pay Federal Taxes, Stop Complaining

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

You have an idiot for an administrator, otherwise, your school is trying to provide better services for more people, sometimes that will require a rise in tuition, don't like it switch to a more affordable school

The thing is the school provides a strong education, and I don't mind paying extra as compared to a local college, and I agree the administration is idiotic, but this is happening with all bigger colleges they are competing against themselves, actually driving cost up, which happens in some strange cases competition can raise prices. The problems I can point to they demolished and are have rebuilt/rebuilding the student center and book store, they are demolishing/renovation several buildings that had they paid small amount of attention to would not need to be renovated now, there is the I think it was 200 million rec center, which is now only the 2nd best in the nation, then not to mention the Greek people taking up unnecessary space that could be better used, so our administration wasn't renting out apartments for excess freshman.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

You have an idiot for an administrator, otherwise, your school is trying to provide better services for more people, sometimes that will require a rise in tuition, don't like it switch to a more affordable school

The thing is the school provides a strong education, and I don't mind paying extra as compared to a local college, and I agree the administration is idiotic, but this is happening with all bigger colleges they are competing against themselves, actually driving cost up, which happens in some strange cases competition can raise prices. The problems I can point to they demolished and are have rebuilt/rebuilding the student center and book store, they are demolishing/renovation several buildings that had they paid small amount of attention to would not need to be renovated now, there is the I think it was 200 million rec center, which is now only the 2nd best in the nation, then not to mention the Greek people taking up unnecessary space that could be better used, so our administration wasn't renting out apartments for excess freshman.

Let me get this right: a few posts ago, you were complaining about how the free market schools might have bad facilities, and now you're complaining about how they're spending money to improve facilities?

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

If they state hadn't stepped in they would be going up, which they might just do. Because the state has a shortfall in tax revenue, and by there constitution must maintain a balanced budget, no deficit spending, and that is where my problem lies in the government, they need to amend the constitution so that the Federal Government was required to maintain a balanced budget.
As I said tuition will more than likely go up since the State had a budget shortfall, and need to rectify the situation.

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

You have an idiot for an administrator, otherwise, your school is trying to provide better services for more people, sometimes that will require a rise in tuition, don't like it switch to a more affordable school

The thing is the school provides a strong education, and I don't mind paying extra as compared to a local college, and I agree the administration is idiotic, but this is happening with all bigger colleges they are competing against themselves, actually driving cost up, which happens in some strange cases competition can raise prices. The problems I can point to they demolished and are have rebuilt/rebuilding the student center and book store, they are demolishing/renovation several buildings that had they paid small amount of attention to would not need to be renovated now, there is the I think it was 200 million rec center, which is now only the 2nd best in the nation, then not to mention the Greek people taking up unnecessary space that could be better used, so our administration wasn't renting out apartments for excess freshman.

Let me get this right: a few posts ago, you were complaining about how the free market schools might have bad facilities, and now you're complaining about how they're spending money to improve facilities?

My complaint comes in that they have perfectly good facilities, but keep redoing them which cost a whole of a hell lot more than just slightly improving them.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

If they state hadn't stepped in they would be going up, which they might just do. Because the state has a shortfall in tax revenue, and by there constitution must maintain a balanced budget, no deficit spending, and that is where my problem lies in the government, they need to amend the constitution so that the Federal Government was required to maintain a balanced budget.
As I said tuition will more than likely go up since the State had a budget shortfall, and need to rectify the situation.

How much did tuition go up by?

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

[The Black Plains]

*forehead smack* Ok.

A: Anything the government does is something that NEEDS to be done (hopefully) right? Otherwise why would it do it? Services for the sake of services? If you defend that, well, you're stupid.

B: If everything the government does is NEEDED and required by people then they are WILLING TO PAY FOR IT (as you good folks so obviously display "No we need these tingz pl0x!") otherwise WHY would people pay taxes?! They realize at the very least on a shallow, sheep-like, follow-the herd ideologically mislead level that they are gaining something.

C: If people are willing to pay for them they can be subscription based. That is the true test of a necessary government service.

E.G.: "BUT THESE HOMELESS PPLZ NEEDZ HOMEZ!" "Ok do the majority of you think that?" "YEEEEZ!" "Ok so why don't you all donate...?" "Do- donate?" "Yea instead of forcing us to. Cuz if the majority of us supported it like you said, we'd have enough to cover them through charity, right?" "Uhm... but we need... uhm sweeping... uh... broad-moving... uhm on a high level... UHHH! UHH!! *self-destruct*"

"Anything taxes do, business does better, business does everything better than feds."
"No it doesn't"
"Yes it does, yes it does! Anything taxes do business does better, I am a winner, a pick-upper, go-getter, you arrest anybody who does not pay you!"
"No I don't"
"Yes you do yes you dooo! Any insurance there is I do better, I do insurance much better than you!"
"Social security?"
"401k's"
"Mal-investments?"
"Financial consultants"
"Bank insurance?"
"Bank surety loans!"
"But I do it for free!"
"Free plus a small fee!"
"No I don't!"
"Yes you do yes you dooooo!"

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

If they state hadn't stepped in they would be going up, which they might just do. Because the state has a shortfall in tax revenue, and by there constitution must maintain a balanced budget, no deficit spending, and that is where my problem lies in the government, they need to amend the constitution so that the Federal Government was required to maintain a balanced budget.
As I said tuition will more than likely go up since the State had a budget shortfall, and need to rectify the situation.

How much did tuition go up by?

19.3 percent over the past 4 years
And that is just tuition they are raising student fees, and you have to pay those.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

If they state hadn't stepped in they would be going up, which they might just do. Because the state has a shortfall in tax revenue, and by there constitution must maintain a balanced budget, no deficit spending, and that is where my problem lies in the government, they need to amend the constitution so that the Federal Government was required to maintain a balanced budget.
As I said tuition will more than likely go up since the State had a budget shortfall, and need to rectify the situation.

How much did tuition go up by?

19.3 percent over the past 4 years
And that is just tuition they are raising student fees, and you have to pay those.

Have you been able to tell noticeable improvements?

[The Black Plains]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

If they state hadn't stepped in they would be going up, which they might just do. Because the state has a shortfall in tax revenue, and by there constitution must maintain a balanced budget, no deficit spending, and that is where my problem lies in the government, they need to amend the constitution so that the Federal Government was required to maintain a balanced budget.
As I said tuition will more than likely go up since the State had a budget shortfall, and need to rectify the situation.

How much did tuition go up by?

19.3 percent over the past 4 years
And that is just tuition they are raising student fees, and you have to pay those.

Damn straight it did! Because the government keeps forcing it to go up!
*pre-emptive forehead smack at nobody getting what I'm about to say*

Why is tuition going up? The price of running a school hasn't gone up much, right? It's certainly not parallel with the jack in tuition. Anyway you notice a trend right? There's like these schools that have a rep and have been around forever basically yatta yatta. Schools don't have much competition. Schools have been steadily closing for a while. So of course tuition will go up, so few schools are opening because *sigh because nobody who wants to get this will* the government provides a barrier to entry to competition. They put SO MANY regulations on schools that they make it like... impossible for people to open up a decent for-profit school. Which causes lack of competition. So you have these schools like Saint Beenaroundawhile able to jack up their prices cuz they got nobody else competing with them and there are only so many slots nationwide for so many students and the rich people can afford to pay, so it just cuts out the middle class and below. The government is the root of your problems, my brethren.

EDIT: A lot of what I said probably doesn't apply now because I was talking about PRIVATE schools or at least privately run

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

[Novistrainia]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

I would imagine home schooling wouldn't increase too much; charter schools ARE free.

[Novistrainia]

[spoiler]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

[/spoiler]
I would imagine home schooling wouldn't increase too much; charter schools ARE free.

Then haven't we just replicated the public school system.

[Caninope]

[spoiler]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

[Novistrainia]

[spoiler]

[spoiler]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

[/spoiler]
I would imagine home schooling wouldn't increase too much; charter schools ARE free.

Then haven't we just replicated the public school system.

No, it's privately run.

[/spoiler]

With Public money, and only some of the restrictions removed, the industry would probably set there curriculum based off of the educators they hire opinions, so they would be extremely similar to public schools, we are still paying the same amount if not more in public funds to education.

[Caninope]

[spoiler]

[spoiler]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

But it wouldn't be that simple. Once again what about the home schools. For even a slightly workable system to come in place it would take probably 10 to 15 years, and for a good replacement probably 20 to 35 years, you have to change mind-set cultural belief get a industry standard going. I mean it is do able to lead to a person led system, but you would have to change the cultural mindset of the people.

[/spoiler]
I would imagine home schooling wouldn't increase too much; charter schools ARE free.

Then haven't we just replicated the public school system.