I don't have much time here either, but just so you know what I'm doing, I will not snip /any/ of Mark's post. I will respond to /all/ of it. I will, however, snip the parts of /my/ post that /he/ quoted, since he didn't really respond to that post anyway.

> It is not the place of the government to solve the problems of everyone. Our government has a responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The have the right to enforce law and defend us. But in my opinion, they don't have the right to try to fix everything.

I agree that the government does not have the right to try to fix everything. But it does have the right, and the responsibility, to educate our youth. I have argued, and I will continue to argue, that the education of all American citizens is something that benefits every American, not just the parents of individual children. As a result, educating the children is as important a function of government as is enforcing law and defending the nation. Indeed, it is vital to these two functions, for it is the very children that the nation educates who will create and enforce law and who will forge the foreign relationships, create the technologies, and improve the American marketplace to defend America both monetarily and militarily in the future.

You have not given any reasons here to explain why the government should not be involved in education -- you have only said that they should not be involved in /everything/ and with that I am in agreement. But education is so important that it is one of the exceptions -- it is one thing that the government /must/ be involved in.

> In trying to eliminate poverty and debt, they tax businesses and hurt the economy. It's estimated that taking the income tax off of businesses would create 20 million new jobs. But instead our wonderful government decides that it can spend the cash better than the rest of us, and thinks that propsperity will come faster and better if they're the ones in charge. I disagree.

Do you believe, therefore, that businesses should /not/ pay tax? That is absurd. You do not live in a pure capitalist anarchy, and therefore, the government must provide some services, such as police and military, as you have pointed out, and such as education, as I am arguing. Businesses profit from American education because a good education system means that American businesses can hire skilled workers. They also profit from the police that defend their property and the military that defends their country. It is only /fair/ that the businesses contribute to these services on which they depend. That is why there is a tax, both on businesses and on people.

If you believe, on the other hand, that there is /too much/ tax because the government is spending money /inefficiently/, then that is a different issue. I agree with you. However, the solution is not to hand the responsibility of the American government and the American people over to private corporations by, for example, replacing essential services with "vouchers". The only solution is to have the /courage/ and the /intelligence/ to /fix/ the services that the government currently provides, by streamlining government agencies and looking for ways to improve the quality in these systems. And although beurocracy is slow, I have pointed out that the government is at least making some effort to improve the services that they do provide.

If you have a better idea of how the services provided by the government should run, write your congressman! But if you don't, then it is cowardly and reactionary to simply say "the government sucks, they should quit wasting our money." It may be true -- but many people in government are also doing their level best to provide /you/ and /your nation/ with the essential services that you /need/.

> In the system in which we have now, my parents would have an easier time paying for my college education if they went out and bought a Lambourgini. Then they could claim need based scholarships and grants, and have the government pay for my education.

We're talking about the need for a public education system (read: you don't pay for it, whether or not you buy a Lambourgini). We are /not/ talking about tax credits for University-level education. Stick to the topic!

>The principle of the idea sounds nice: have the government help poor families send their kids off to college. But in reality, people just manipulate the system, and

Again, it seems to me that the system should be /fixed/, not /scrapped/ -- because the system is important; it just doesn't work properly as it stands right now. I won't say much more, though, because I don't know what /you/ were trying to say.

> We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to seek to become propserous. But we don't have a right to happiness, and we don't have the right to prosperity.

I am not talking about a right to happiness, and I am not talking about a right to prosperity. I am talking about a right to a decent education, and I am arguing that the government guarantees this right because it benefits /all/ Americans and not just the parents of the children who attend public school.

You are not /completely/ off-topic, however. Children who are born into poor families deserve the right to seek to become prosperous, just like everybody else. /Even/, I think, if their parents happen to be too lazy or drunk or stingy to pay for them to go to private school.

> "If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat"-a Bible quote that means a lot to me. To have the government tax those who are propserous to feed those who are not is wrong. The number of people in welfare and the number of people unemployed continues to rise. The government paying people not to work has not solved the problem. It has only increased it.

I think that both welfare and unemployment insurance are important -- but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the public school system. I think that talking about welfare and unemployment insurance and University-level tax credits, which you have brought up without even an attempt to connect them to the issue of public schools, simply confuses the issue.

> Only in communism is equal propsperity a right. In capitilism, your prosperity is proportional to how hard you work.

The American system is neither pure capitalism nor communism, as I have pointed out. It is a system very near capitalism, but in which equal /opportunity/ is a right. Part of this means that Americans must all have an opportunity for a decent education. That will allow everybody at least a chance to grasp the /bottom/ rung of the ladder you're about to describe, and to /start/ climbing.

Also, this "ladder" is unlike a real ladder in that the /more/ people who are on it, the /stronger/ it gets and the /better/ the system works (more competition, more innovation). The government must be there to help people get started.

> It's not a perfect system. Some people will be on the bottom end of the ladder, and have a hard time working their way up. Such individuals should be helped by charity, the church, and by those who are prosperous... but voluntarily. A system which just redistributes income for nothing is unjust.

I don't know what you mean by "a system which just redistributes income for nothing". Is having an intelligent work force with the tools to be competitive "nothing"? Is having equal opportunities for youth to get a start in life "nothing"? Is having an intelligent and informed leadership "nothing"? Is being competitive in a global marketplace "nothing"? Is being a worldwide leader in technology and innovation "nothing"? Is the FUTURE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "nothing"? All of these things are goals of the public education system -- and all of these things are considered /priorities/ by your government. It is the responsibility of all Americans to recognize these priorities, and the responsibility of your government to invest in meeting these priorities. That is the way that it is set out in the laws of the country that you live in.

I believe that this responsibility is something that your government should uphold, rather than pass off to charities or churches.

> Governments don't have a responsibility to shirk. PARENTS have the responsbility to see to the education of their children. PEOPLE have the responsbility to take care of themselves. I have the responsbility to look for a job. The government doesn't have the responsbility to find one for me.

You have said a number of times now that you don't believe that the government has a responsibility to guarantee the right of Americans to an education. But you have never said /why/ you don't believe this. Instead -- as here -- you change the topic. We are not talking about people looking for jobs. We are talking about children -- the future of America -- getting an opportunity to be /qualified/ for these jobs so that one day that have at least the /opportunity/ to "go out and look for a job".

> Keep the government out of education. In California, they'd like to make homeschooling illegal because they see it as in inferior education system. Maybe it is. But the choice is not the government's to make. Let parents have the freedom to choose the schools for their children. My parents have homeschooled me, but because of the taxes they pay for the public schools, they are having a difficult time paying for my education. The current system limits the freedom of parents and the monopoly on education in the public schools will not easily be broken. Until it is though, the public schools will continue to degrade and parents who choose a better system will continue to be at a financial disadvantage.

Here I agree with you, at least to some extent. The government should not make homeschooling illegal. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone gets an education, not to regulate the manner in which this education is recieved. But again, this is not the issue.

What the government does not and should not allow is for people to decide that they are not going to allow their children an education in /any/ form. Because a child who does not recieve any education will lack the knowledge and skills to benefit America in the future, while one who does recieve an education can go on to be competitive in a global marketplace.

> I have some more to say... but I've got to get going.

So far, when you aren't talking about taxes or unemployment ensurance or welfare, you have only said that you do not believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure the education of American citizens. I have argued that the government /must/ ensure such an education in order to protect America's future and ensure that America is competitive in a global marketplace. I have yet to hear some argument against this position -- or any other real argument against public education.

You have argued successfully that the government should not be involved in /everything/ -- but that isn't the issue.

> Mark"It's about my arguments, not me"N

-Spacebar