quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Edekit
You can spin things all you want, but any american that enjoys freedom should hate socialism.
Please, don't P*** on my leg and tell me its raining.
USA1, I know the dictionary definition of Socialism. I also know that there has never been a pure socialist state.
I also know that the extreme of capitalism is as tyrannical as the most vicious communist dictatorship. In fact, if you go to the microcosm of a corporation, you see as much tyranny as you will find in any organization. The only difference is the corporation can be escaped in a society that has competing corporations.
The Schools of the US system are escapable. Public school can be substituted for parochial school and vice versa. But only if a public school system stands alongside a private school system. THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IS A SOCIALIST INSTITUTION. It is wholly owned by the public. It is not the only system, parochial and other private schools also exist, and are free to come and go as their finances allow.
Putting public money into private schools weakens the ability of the public system to provide services. Diverting money from the public system to the private system by any method weakens the public system.
If you want to deny education to children on the basis of the economic situation, allow the rich to deny funding to the public schools. REGARDLESS of the justification, diverting tax money from the Public, to the Private sector is denial of educational opportunity to the poor.
Vouchers, Tuition deductions, any plan to divert tax revenue to private schools is the moral equivalent of requiring Ted's shoe store to invest some of his profits in The Runner's Den.
Or, allowing the Diamond Exchange to deduct the cost of Private security from their sales tax obligations.
I am going to use that example, the Diamond Exchange to show you what I mean.
The Public Police protection is available to the Diamond Exchange at exactly the same level as it is available to Joe's Junk Shop. Under a communal system, Diamond Exchange could hire security guards, but could not deduct any of the cost of those guards from its tax liabilities. They would be permitted to put steel bars on their doors and windows, but the cost would have to come out of their sales income. Joe's Junk Shop could do the same, with the same requirements. Joe's Junk Shop is not likely to be robbed of its inventory. Diamond Exchange is likely to be robbed of its inventory. Joe does not need to protect his inventory, and he should not be required to pay to protect Diamond Exchange's inventory. But, Diamond Exchange should not be required to pay for a higher level of police protection than is required by Joe, or any other business with a lower risk of robbery than theirs.
So, we compromise. Instead of collecting a flat tax on all sales to pay for a HIGH level of police protection, we pay for a moderate level of police protection with sales taxes.
Diamond Exchange pays the sales tax, and Joe pays the sales tax. We then add another type of tax, a tax on profits. That money is used to pay for other services. Fire Protection, Schools etc. Diamond Exchange can deduct the cost of Private Security Guards and Steel Bars from the income those taxes are paid from. Joe, who does not bear those added security costs cannot.
What is being argued here is that you and I are not willing to pay to protect the Diamond Exchange from ALL of its risk. We might not want to protect Joe either, but if we end all police protection, neither Joe nor the Diamond Exchange can remain in business. If either store is robbed, the public sector takes on the task of solving the crime, arresting the perpetrators and punishing them.
When you look at Fire Protection, the Diamond Exchange can probably get by with a little caution and a fire extinguisher. Joe on the other hand is at high risk of fire damage.
We do the same for Joe's fire protection as we do for Diamond Exchange's Robbery Protection.
Verify this by checking the cost of Fire Insurance and the cost of Theft Insurance for Joe and the Diamond Exchange. You can actually look at your homeowners insurance policy to see what I am talking about. Your home is rated according to building material proximity of Fire stations, and other risk factors. The liability coverage for a frame house is identical to that of a brick house. But fire insurance is higher for the frame structure.
The problem, as I see it, is the Diamond Exchange is more important to the politician than Joe's junk Yard. It should not be.
In a School System, the rich man's son is not entitled to a better education, but he may well be more important to the politician. He may even be the politician's son. The campaign to increase private participation in education is NOT intended to make education more affordable, or more accessible. It is designed to reduce the investment in educating the children of people who get their living by working for the well to do.
As wealth migrates upward, services to the general public are reduced.
quote:
Edekit
You can spin things all you want, but any american that enjoys freedom should hate socialism.
You can spin things any way you want, but any American who wants his children to have the best opportunity they can utilize should love and cherish a strong and effective public school system.