Meet and Greet Happy Hour With Our Politicians in Royerford 4/11 @1800

[giant_g2]

Additionally, I think it's time that they got with the times and started schooling kids at home via the internet rather than in outdated brick and mortar buildings. Of course, parents should be able to send their kids to private schools if they want to cover the expenses.

Who watches the kids while they learn from the internet? It seems that most people rely on school and other childcare to watch their children since many families are single parents or have both parents working. If you have to pay somebody to watch the kids, then why not pay a teacher? Presumably the cost would be similar as you are still paying for a building, employees, administrative/legal costs, and insurance.

The only things I see this potentially saving on is union related costs and corrupt/inept administration. Although we see that in the private sector too. Some of this could be fixed in the law. For example, the school systems throughout PA have about $4.5 BILLION in reserve funds yet constantly complain about needing to raise taxes. Of course they spend that money on unnecessary things (East Vincent Elementry just built a fancy new school and tore down the old one for no appeareant reason).

The problem is that the average person trusts that the government (or any authority) is adapt and has their best interest in mind, they aren't aware of the issues, or are weak-minded and misguided by the media. These are the people who vote for the leaders who make the policy and are the people on juries.

The root of this issue, and many in society today, is the lack of education of the citizens. I'm not talking about education such as diplomas or degrees as these are more a sign of conformity rather than skills or knowledge. What I am talking about are individuals capable of reason, logic, and free thought. Until this underlying deficit is corrected, the people will be victim to the wills of the institutions, wether those be government or corporate.

[Walleye Hunter]

Who watches the kids while they learn from the internet? It seems that most people rely on school and other childcare to watch their children since many families are single parents or have both parents working. If you have to pay somebody to watch the kids, then why not pay a teacher? Presumably the cost would be similar as you are still paying for a building, employees, administrative/legal costs, and insurance.

Parents would have a few options according to my plan. Mom can stay home and watch her kid(s), people could pool their resources and one mom could watch several kids and of course, there will always be the private school option for any who want to go that route.

[giant_g2]

Parents would have a few options according to my plan. Mom can stay home and watch her kid(s), people could pool their resources and one mom could watch several kids and of course, there will always be the private school option for any who want to go that route.

So mom can miss out on a paycheck, or you can depend on the good will of one of your friends who is a mom to miss out on a pay check, or you could spend a lot of money for a private school? So how about single parents, rural areas, or situations where nobody wants to pool resources? If pooling resources or staying home is such a good choice, why isn't it more popular? Another way to phrase that is why are childcare options today in business if pooling resources is so easy? Doing away with school taxes and allowing parents to foot the bill for their child's education whether through physical or virtual schools is an option, but you seem to be implying that the online option is public. I'm just trying to understand how this would be better than the current scheme.

I can see how it attempts to reduce taxes, but somebody still has to pay for the administration, infrastructure, and licensing of the online material. Under current systems, there are usually instructors too (who could be physically present to watch the kid). Of course we would save money by doing away with lunch assistance, sports programs, the arts, and increasing student to instructor ratios (physical class ratios are already higher than online) - things which could be done virtually or physically. So there's the cost of the facilities which are being saved, but I assume those will be mostly offset by the hiring or outsourcing of IT professionals, a datacenter, and related costs. You would still need facilities for standardized testing and noneducation related uses of schools, such as voting places and disaster relief sites.

This also assumes that virtual and physical learning are equally effective. Some studies do not indicate this, but it's still anyones guess. Perhaps I'm just more of a minarchist to your anarchist.

[Walleye Hunter]

So mom can miss out on a paycheck, or you can depend on the good will of one of your friends who is a mom to miss out on a pay check, or you could spend a lot of money for a private school? So how about single parents, rural areas, or situations where nobody wants to pool resources? If pooling resources or staying home is such a good choice, why isn't it more popular? Another way to phrase that is why are childcare options today in business if pooling resources is so easy? Doing away with school taxes and allowing parents to foot the bill for their child's education whether through physical or virtual schools is an option, but you seem to be implying that the online option is public. I'm just trying to understand how this would be better than the current scheme.

Why should any of that be my problem? Can't afford the kids don't have them but don't make me pay their bills.

[giant_g2]

Why should any of that be my problem? Can't afford the kids don't have them but don't make me pay their bills.

True, but that same reasoning can be applied to anything. Why should I care if you're not allowed to own/carry firearms but I am? Not my problem. How about police, courts, the military? I don't care if they protect you. Not my problem. Let's say you don't work, or that you work but make less than others. Should you receive these service in a reduced form or not at all since other people fund them more than you do? Those people who contribute more in taxes than you may feel the same way about you - if you can't afford the services that's not their problem and they shouldn't pay your bills. I suppose you would prefer a straight tax and prevent those who don't pay from using public services? I really am curious about your position on this.

[Walleye Hunter]

True, but that same reasoning can be applied to anything. Why should I care if you're not allowed to own/carry firearms but I am? Not my problem. How about police, courts, the military? I don't care if they protect you. Not my problem. Let's say you don't work, or that you work but make less than others. Should you receive these service in a reduced form or not at all since other people fund them more than you do? Those people who contribute more in taxes than you may feel the same way about you - if you can't afford the services that's not their problem and they shouldn't pay your bills. I suppose you would prefer a straight tax and prevent those who don't pay from using public services? I really am curious about your position on this.

Now you're getting/being ridiculous. You make it sound like you are not aware that the right to own/bear arms is a right granted by our constitution. All those other services that you identified are paid for with our taxes and and benefit everyone...EVERYONE...not just people with kids. I would prefer everything be a straight sales tax, have more kids, need more stuff, pay more taxes. Retired, expenses are down, no kids, less taxes. On welfare and spending money, pay taxes, something that they don't do now.

[giant_g2]

Now you're getting/being ridiculous. You make it sound like you are not aware that the right to own/bear arms is a right granted by our constitution. All those other services that you identified are paid for with our taxes and and benefit everyone...EVERYONE...not just people with kids. I would prefer everything be a straight sales tax, have more kids, need more stuff, pay more taxes. Retired, expenses are down, no kids, less taxes. On welfare and spending money, pay taxes, something that they don't do now.

The reason I brought up the right is that it's the same logic - if it doesn't benefit me then why should I bother to support your right through voting? Also, disparity between who can exersice this right does exist - law enforcement vs citizen, PA LTCF is a privilege, etc. This is the reasoning that is used by liberals and if their opinion becomes popular enough, they could change the constitution (watch for 80% urbanization of 3/4 of the state's, 80% urbanization is the indicator of extreme gun control). Recognizing that individual rights benefit everyone even if you don't exercise that right yourself is the other side of your position.

How do the police or courts benefit me? The impact is indirect until I go to court, file a police report, etc. You could very well charge for these services on a per use basis. Call 911 - pay for it. File a police report - pay for it. These services do provide an indirect public benefit to EVERYONE. What you are missing is that schools/education provide a similar indirect benefit to EVERYONE. Educated citizens are an important component to an effective democracy. Otherwise you end up with stupid people voting for stupid politicians who enact stupid laws. Case in point Philly. Also, educated people earn more money and contribute more taxes, which benefits EVERYONE. Even under your sales tax plan, you have to have money to spend money. Finally, the point about welfare recipients paying into taxes via a sales tax is a bit ridiculous - give them $1 from tax money, they spend it, government collects 10 cents in sales tax, government is down 90 cents. Without sales tax the government could pay 90 cents and the economy wouldn't have to incur the cost of administering that tax and the artificial inflation of the tax would not exist, so they could have just paid 90 cents (or lower due to administrative savings).

Please research higher order thinking or systems thinking. I'm not saying your pay for what you use stance is wrong. What I'm saying is that the deliniation between what you see as beneficial to everyone vs an individual is arbitrary and missing higher order impacts for some services but not others.

[Walleye Hunter]

Oooohhhhhh boy, what a fucking joke, up close and personal even. Four Democrat legislators and no Republicans yet 'We The People' claim to be non-partisan group looking to solve things in a bipartisan way. All they did was yap about $15/hr minimum wage, 'fair tax' structure, affordable healthcare for everyone and college too. Melissa Shuster was fixated on my PAFOA hat while she was telling us all about it. They are NOT interested in incarcerating repeat offenders for appropriate amounts of time and all but Joe Ciresi think they can just take our guns. Whoever is in Joe Ceresi's territory should reach out to him and work on him. I was the only one asking questions and they stifled me after my second one.

When we got there I told the wife to check out the crowd. She said, "They're all nerds", and she was right. They are not representing those of us who make the world go 'round and I was probably the only one in there who had a real job in my lifetime.

[bogey1]

Sounds like its going to be a meeting on how to GROW the government.