Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

aTmAg said:

---

angus55 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

angus55 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

My money should follow my kids. simple as that. If that's my local public school, great.

If that's the high school across town, great.

If that's a charter school, great.

If that's a private school, great.

---

If I don't have kids in school give me my money back, great

---

So you are for pure privatization then. Good, you are catching on.

---

No, just taking that logic to natural conclusion.

Privatization would not be good for our national interests . Look at student loan stupidity. And its natural conclusion would be haves and have nots in terms of learning and growth of citizens. Public education is a public good when done correctly. It is important to the what should be the real economic engine of our economy. And full privatization would be a detriment. It is something I don't mind paying taxes for when administered correctly.

---

The student loan stupidity is created and fueled completely by government. To pretend that is an issue of "privatization" is a joke.

And it's improper to call something a "public good" merely because you want government to pay for it. Otherwise, I can just declare my own personal Lamborghini to be a "public good". There is an economic definition of public good (that it be non-rivalrous and non-excludable), and education does not fit into that category. And THAT is why government schools have been such a failure. Government sucks at providing private goods.

If you really wanted schools to be good (and understood economics), then you would be BEGGING for schools to be 100% privatized.

---

Dead on.

Some people think they are smart arguing against privatization but really they are just ignorant slaves for the bureaucratic wealth redistribution interests and high power in the hands of the few elite. That's why the left fights so hard on the education side. It's a double whammy of power control and slush funds while screaming "won't someone think of the children?"

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Not really. It irks me how people can call basic government functions (that have been present in almost all forms of government in human history) "socialism".

WT FOX said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Robin Hood is a socialist abomination.

---

good Lord.

It i entirely reasonable to discuss whether funding of schools at something higher than the local level is a good idea. Reasonable people could certainly disagree.

But "socialist?"

Some of the most right wing governments on the planet fund their local schools at a higher-than-local level.

---

My particular school district has had right at $1 billion stolen from our residents. What would you call that?

---

I would call that another poster not understanding the definition of socialism … or "theft," apparently.

I would call it a system of school funding that you personally do not support.

Texas has had a long history of local funding for local schools. We were accustomed to it. It worked, especially for property Ridge District. Perhaps changing it was a good idea, and perhaps not. But it was not "socialism."

most people who throw out the words "Marxism" and "socialism" have absolutely no idea what they are saying. They are just hurling pejoratives that have lost all meaning. They are essentially saying "poopy head."

It's quite obvious that there are a lot of people who were "taught" economics at a public school.

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Incorrect. Military is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. It is impossible for every citizen to not benefit from defense. Therefore taxpayers are being taxed for something that they personally benefit from. That is far different than taxing one group to pay another.

(BTW, US citizens who live outside of the US should not pay taxes. That is total BS.)

Antoninus said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Robin Hood is a socialist abomination.

---

good Lord.

It i entirely reasonable to discuss whether funding of schools at something higher than the local level is a good idea. Reasonable people could certainly disagree.

But "socialist?"

Some of the most right wing governments on the planet fund their local schools at a higher-than-local level.

---

My particular school district has had right at $1 billion stolen from our residents. What would you call that?

---

I would call that another poster not understanding the definition of socialism … or "theft," apparently.

I would call it a system of school funding that you personally do not support.

Texas has had a long history of local funding for local schools. We were accustomed to it. It worked, especially for property Ridge District. Perhaps changing it was a good idea, and perhaps not. But it was not "socialism."

most people who throw out the words "Marxism" and "socialism" have absolutely no idea what they are saying. They are just hurling pejoratives that have lost all meaning. They are essentially saying "poopy head."

---

Dude, that is the definition of a socialized system. Like... textbook. Public schools the way they are currently are by definition a socialistic system.

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

No.

That's dumb.

I think it fits the definition

The govt owns the education industry and ultimately controls the funding of said industry by foricng wealthier districts (read- tax payers in wealthier areas) to fund schools in poorer areas with money otherwise delegated to their own students.

Probably not really socialism but something analogous to it

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

Libs try to create new terms and redefine socialism over and over each time it fails.

Even when you come across a person who claims it is merely "workers owning the means of production", they backtrack when you point out that people can do that perfectly fine in a capitalists system. They always show their true redistributionist colors when pressed on it.

Antoninus said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

---

Wrong. I just showed how defense does not count as socialim.


You have yet to define what you think socialism is. We are waiting.

Antoninus said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

---

I mean other than the military, police, courts, roads, diplomacy, immigration enforcement and emergency services, most of everything else is socialism.

Booma94 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It's not like they actually should get a check.

Whatever $ amount assigned to a school per pupil should follow that kid to whatever school they attend, not automatically be claimed by whatever school they'd be enrolled in without choice.

Either way, you the individual tax payer, will be supplementing the same way

---

Tell me you don't understand how school funding works without saying you don't understand how school funding works...

---

Which part does he not understand?

---

Schools receive state funds based on average daily attendance. So they receive money for the students that attend the school. If a kid moves schools, the school they left has 1 less kid so the school gets less money. The school the kid went to has one more kid, so they get more money. The money follows the kid.

Schools do not get money based on how many kids "should" be there, they get money based on how many kids ARE there.

---

I think you misunderstood his post. A kid enrolled means a kid attending based on what I read.

---

He said money "should follow that kid to whatever school they attend". That's exactly what happens. I'm not sure what I misunderstood.

---

Yes, but in most school.districts. the child does not get to choose which school.the district assigns. If the child could choose the other elementary or high school, the money would follow them. If he chose a private school, it would not. With vouchers and school choice, the moneybtruly follows the child.

Booma94 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

That's not how this works broseph.

I can choose the type of truck or vehicle. I can choose the amount of which I drive it. The vehicle cannot pass bonds or taxes when it wants to upgrade its stereo system.

I can fire the truck and replace it at will.

Get out of here with that bull****

---

I'm pretty sure passing bonds is done in an election where the voters who are affected get to say yes or no. But maybe I don't understand how the process works.

---

Yes in principle, however certain school districts keep putting the same bond up over and over again until the "representatives" of the school district get the yes vote they want. Unfortunately, that is how a broken system works. The only way to fix it is to vote the current representatives out of office.

Antoninus said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

---

Enlighten us oh wise one from your ivory tower.

Define socialism for us uneducated peasents so we can be worthy of discussion with you.

Antoninus said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

---

BMX asked you to define Socialism and you have yet to do that…you're telling people to get a library card and yet you have yet to define Socialism.

All redistribution programs are fundamentally socialist.

Government programs that proportionally benefit those getting taxed are not.


It's actually pretty simple. (For non-leftists).

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Not really. It irks me how people can call basic government functions (that have been present in almost all forms of government in human history) "socialism".

---

We all pay for it. Some pay more than others . We benefit when it works. We suffer when it doesn't. You can argue about whether or not it and education is "basic" as a government function, but the fact that it is a shared social cost is at its root socialism

Antoninus said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

some people believe that anything to the left of anarcho capitalism is automatically "socialism."

Those people need to get a library card.

---

Anything that the government provides outside of a public good (that has a specific definition, you can't just say it is "good for the public", that is NOT the same thing) is in part socialistic. Because of the moral hazards involved in government the larger it is, it is the worst possible provider long term for any good or service. It slowly takes over everything surrounding it, and eventually all progress grinds to a standstill, and it progressively just sucks resources for diminishing returns. It has the opposite effects of a private market.

There was a bond election in 2010 ish in round rock that something like 6000 people turned out for because they held it in May purposely to reduce voter turnout.


300 million bond passed with less than 6000 votes in a 100000 person city and larger isd district that spans austin and round rock.

I'd submit that simply paying local taxes for local schools isn't socialism and is better defined as paying for necessary public goods.

Bur, forcing local taxpayers, because of the value of their property, to send their money to districts far across the state is a socialistic practice

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

My money should follow my truck, simple as that.

If that's the state highway I drive on to get to my town, great.

If that's the street into my neighborhood, great.

If that's the private road into my ranch, great.

The fact is that the money I pay in gas taxes should only fund the roads on which I drive.

---

if everyone thought like you, the vast majority of rural Texas would still not have paved roads

---

Aren't rural roads usually county roads and funded by that particular county precinct? Harris county ain't paving roads in Kimble county...

Explain how they are not? $6160 is the basic allotment. That's what the state allows districts to have. Hasn't changed since 2019.

Burdizzo said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Not really. It irks me how people can call basic government functions (that have been present in almost all forms of government in human history) "socialism".

---

We all pay for it. Some pay more than others . We benefit when it works. We suffer when it doesn't. You can argue about whether or not it and education is "basic" as a government function, but the fact that it is a shared social cost is at its root socialism

---

Everybody should pay for the government resources they consume. If one person pays $1 for a service that benefits him $100, while another pays $1000 for a service that benefits him than $500, then that is also redistribution. Ideally, the first guy should pay $100, and the second $500.

The closer to this ideal, the less socialist we become.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'd submit that simply paying local taxes for local schools isn't socialism and is better defined as paying for necessary public goods.

Bur, forcing local taxpayers, because of the value of their property, to send their money to districts far across the state is a socialistic practice

---

I won't argue with that. I also won't argue that public schools, generally speaking, are well run. Usually the bigger they are the worse they suck. All that said, I am not fully convinced vouchers are the solution to those problems.

angus55 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

angus55 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

My money should follow my kids. simple as that. If that's my local public school, great.

If that's the high school across town, great.

If that's a charter school, great.

If that's a private school, great.

---

If I don't have kids in school give me my money back, great

---

So you are for pure privatization then. Good, you are catching on.

---

No, just taking that logic to natural conclusion.

Privatization would not be good for our national interests . Look at student loan stupidity. And its natural conclusion would be haves and have nots in terms of learning and growth of citizens. Public education is a public good when done correctly. It is important to the what should be the real economic engine of our economy. And full privatization would be a detriment. It is something I don't mind paying taxes for when administered correctly.

---

You think the student loan debt crisis is driven by private banks? For real?

1992 was a big change. That year, a change was made to government backed student loans wherein all borrowers would be able to seek government backed student loans regardless of financial need - which had previously been a prerequisite.

2005 was another big change by a Bush. PLUS government backed loans became available to graduate students where they had not previously been allowed.

In 2010, Obama removed private underwriting completely from student loans and mandates ALL Federal student loans be made directly by the government.



See any rate of change difference around 2010? I think I can make one out....

aTmAg said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Not really. It irks me how people can call basic government functions (that have been present in almost all forms of government in human history) "socialism".

---

We all pay for it. Some pay more than others . We benefit when it works. We suffer when it doesn't. You can argue about whether or not it and education is "basic" as a government function, but the fact that it is a shared social cost is at its root socialism

---

Everybody should pay for the government resources they consume. If one person pays $1 for a service that benefits him $100, while another pays $1000 for a service that benefits him than $500, then that is also redistribution. Ideally, the first guy should pay $100, and the second $500.

The closer to this ideal, the less socialist we become.

---

Can you tell me what shade of blue colors the sky in a perfect world?

Many of you misunderstand Robin Hood. The majority of taxes that fund schools come form businesses not houses. Many "poorer areas" with economically disadvantaged students send a lot of money back to the state. Many school districts with wealthy students and families receive money from the state. Example: Friendswood vs. Galveston

Vouchers are a step in the right direction. To make it whole, state regs need to be reined in. Administrative positions need to be limited. Its insane how much money is spent in schools on people and things that have absolutely nothing to do with educating kids.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'd submit that simply paying local taxes for local schools isn't socialism and is better defined as paying for necessary public goods.

Bur, forcing local taxpayers, because of the value of their property, to send their money to districts far across the state is a socialistic practice

---

It doesn't matter how local it is, if taxes paid by you benefit others and not yourself, then it is socialism.

And a person who living in one county should be able to send his kid to school in another county, and that school should receive his tax dollars. That is not socialist. As he is benefitting from his own taxes.

Maybe not for the school....


But, it might very well be the solution for the student.

And that's what this fight is about. School leaders are afraid their schools might fail the public vote. They don't seem to care all that much about the kids.

BMX Bandit said:

---

can you define socialism for us so we are all on the same page?

---

The Economic Times condenses it pretty well:

Quote:

---

The general socialism definition, broadly speaking, is a political and economic system in which the means of production and property have public ownership and are not controlled by the government. The core essence of socialism meaning is that public ownership of means of production contributes to equality in society.

Socialism meaning has changed over the years. Common socialism meaning is that every person in a community should have an equal share in the production and distribution of resources. Socialism has practical challenges and is often referred to as a "utopian society". Socialism meaning is that it creates equality in society and provides a sense of security. People receive a share in the community according to their contributions.

---

Anyone arguing that no government should ever provide public education might have a leg to stand on and arguing that public education, in general, constitutes "socialism." I would disagree with them, but they would at least have a decent argument

what is being argued here is simply a question of the level of government at which education should be funded.

Is it "socialism" to fund education at a district level, rather than town or city? What if (egad) two districts combined to form a consolidated district? my God, Marx is beating at the door. County wide school? Lenin is at the gates.

Schools have been funded by governmental entities through taxation for centuries. The theory, and it is not a bad one, is that an educated populace is better-able to exercise the obligations of citizenship in a democracy (cue the quibbling about "republic"). in essence, this makes education a "public good," because the effect of the rational exercise of the franchise affects not only the voter himself, but everyone in his community.

is the system 100% effective? Of course not. We see 100 posts per day here, clearly demonstrating that a fine public institution like Texas A&M is, in many cases, doing a rather poor job of educating its graduates

Doesn't matter if the money comes from people or businesses. They are taxpayers all the same.