But...
The courts are of the mindset that the kids should BE IN school where they can be exposed to the discipline and knowledge available. Never mind that the school's hands are tied on the discipline issue and when a kid (And there aint that many of them but they do exist, I dont care what the experts say) refuses to recieve the knowledge. that kid is disrupting the whole process.
I have has kids wearing Ankle bracelets, ive had kids brought to school by a deputy jailer. The courts want them there. for this to work, the court system MUST be involved. And to be honest, The hands of the CDW are tied too.

Homegrown...that is a MASSIVELY GOOD IDEA!!!!! I love posting on these boards; I get so many great ideas from my fellow posters! I was going to suggest that the kid with parents who do not work just be brought home- and if the parent ain't home, then STRAIGHT to DCBS- but your idea is MUCH BETTER!! But leave the CDW's out of it; they should only be involved once the child is actually adjudicated by the court as a child in need of supervision!

Colonel: I know that you're on the front lines everyday, and your heart is showing, BIG TIME- but we GOTTA do SOMETHING, man!! I'm trying to work out a workable plan, here.....we both have the same disease, to wit: We really CARE about children. But man, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, somehow. While it bothers me no end to see lives wasted (if, indeed, they are being so!), as Spock once told Kirk- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- or the one!"...or, as Jesus himself put it, "The poor you will ALWAYS have with you!" Our society is currently set up so that those who REALLY want it, can get it. Why do we INSIST on trying to FORCE those who do not want it, to get it anyway? IMHO, doing that makes us no better than the liberals who think that they can make water run uphill!I go further- School was NEVER supposed to be made MANDATORY for ALL KIDS! That was a LARGE mistake on the part of the Government of the time (Miss. was the last state, in 1977, to make schooling mandatory!); they had good intentions. But...we all know what road is paved with good intentions.....

Ya wont get no argument outta me on that Harry! I just gotta find me a classroom or something. BTW, teachers do make a difference, it may be one kid at a time but we do make a difference.
Just get me to the kid i can relate to and vice versa. Even some of the ones that don't want to actually want to.

I cannot believe that I am reading this! As we have been regressing anyway for the last 40 or so years, we should have an inkling about how bad it can get again. To say that all children should not be schooled is preposterous. I can just see the serf, touching his forelock to his master, and signing his life away by marking an 'X' for his signature. The master taking his right with the virgin bride. The haves (and educated) doing whatever they please because they can---kind of like the Clintons's daughter, whose wedding will cost millions of dollars, while down the street beggars try to "earn a living."

Envision the Planet of the Apes movie, where the humans were kept as slaves! These days, even some apes know sign language, yet some don't think that people should be educated?

Education is a liberator, a creator of a better standard of living, THE sign of civilization.

Ye gods!

Trueself: Every point you raise was, ONCE UPON A TIME, correct. But times have changed. In a society wherein people (mostly) have self-control, and recognize their responsibilities, such as America had up until the advent of the "Great Society" (oddly enough), the principle of having a totally educated citizenry is laudable. However, what has happened is that expectations and rights have overtaken propriety and responsibilities!
Elsewhere, I have written that for everybody to have a PhD is a good aim- but then, who's gonna want to clean the toilets? THINK about this one, my friend...closely; A large problem is that people EXPECT to all have a certain standard of life, but it CANNOT happen.

I draw a parallel (and a line in the sand), here: FORCING those who do not want an education to get one anyway is EXACTLY the same as the FORCING of the Civil Rights laws down people's throats..."A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!"

You can pass all the laws you want to; if somebody just doesn't WANT to do something, or accept something, I respectfully suggest that you're wasting your time and tax dollars! The mistake our society made was, in fact, making education MANDATORY; what we should have done is keep it the way it was- just making it POSSIBLE, for those who want to be educated to be so. (See the difference?)

Once a society starts telling its' citizens, "You HAVE to do this- whether you want to or not!"- that day starts the decline of same! You know that I have posted on the FUTILITY of trying to make someone do something that they do not want to do, and that there is NO KNOWN WAY to make someone do the right things. With that simple and unavoidable principle in mind, and as our base of operations, why in GOD'S NAME do we "Play God", by telling people what they have to have? Because WE think that a totally educated society uplifts us all? Again...who appointed US GODS- to be determining what's best for others?
Is it because we FEAR the uneducated hoi polloi? The long-time mantra (foisted on society by the liberals) has been that uneducated people are (X) times more likely to fail. Failure by WHOSE standards? Because they don't have video games, $50000 cars? House mortgages and debt out the wazoo? The uneducated just HAVE to be as unhappy as the rest of us? Whatever happened to Porgy (from Gershwin's great operetta, "Porgy and Bess") who once sang, "I got Plenty o' Nuttin- and nuttin's plenty for me!"
Is it so wrong...if our society does not either force, or PAY FOR, someone to get something that they do not want? Seems to me that as long as we do not DENY them the ABILITY to do, or get, then we have fulfilled out social contract- and we have lived up to the INTENT and the SPIRIT of our DEMOCRATIC IDEAL!

truman, you know I, many times more often than not, agree with you, and your points are good.

I am just having a problem with a society that doesn't appreciate what is has. Also remember that many nations are much older than this one and while wide-spread schooling
has not been around that long (in earth years), I still maintain that education should be for everyone and all, simply because people cannot rise above themselves without it. Not everyone has to be a PhD. Reading, writing, 'rithmatic is needed for everyone.

Of course, one is not automatically dumb if one cannot read, but even a person skilled in the art of life and how to fix stuff, grow a crop, turn a lathe, order people around, is held back when he/she tries to get more knowledge, a better way to do things. If you don't know what to ask, how do you know to ask?

Yes, it seems as if I harkened back to days of yore, but I believe that my way of thinking is still fundamentally sound. I also know that even in great civilizations, the numbers of those who were needed to do the scutwork exceeded the educated, successful ones by far. But would those civilizations have been greater if everyone had had possibilities, or would they have had an even earlier demise if the system had become a 'democracy'? Points to ponder.

America is still the ONLY country that actually makes an effort to educate all of its' citizens! All I am saying is that the GOAL is laudable, but the EXECUTION has come to naught, because we are FORCING people to be educated! I agree 100% with you that education should be AVAILABLE for ALL; all who WANT it, that is!
And, knowing what I know of Human nature, if the other great civilizations had been as the United States is now, they'd 'a fallen SOONER! I cannot see anything wrong with not having school be a MANDATORY thing; a lot of Famous Kentuckians were, (by our modern standards) dummies! But...when did we start to think that being educated was a guarantee of success, and start to FORCE people to get one, REGARDLESS of their desires or capabilities?
Our society is not that advanced and technological that we no longer have room for "Toilet Cleaners"! If that is what someone WANTS to do- then why do they need a High school education to do it? AND...if they WANT to do better, then the mechanism is in place for them to DO SO!!
You are thinking in "modern", terms; that is because most of us grew up in "modern" times! We were all taught by our parents that education was the key to success; this was done, mostly by parents who DID NOT HAVE the opportunities that they provided for us! What we, as a society, have not noticed is that (in Social Work terms), the paradigm has CHANGED!
If...everybody has an education...what is one worth? Our kids realized this awhile back; THIS is, in my opinion, why we are having such difficulties with discipline in our schools. Why should they get an education (in their eyes), when all they have to look forward to is a lifetime of job searching, and debt, and...unhappiness? They ARE, after all, watching US!

They don't force kids to attend school in Mexico. They seem to be doing just fine without mandatory public schools.

Even though I DO believe education is ONE of the keys in life, there are many more aspects that must work in tandem to succeed in life. Yes, I understand "succeeding" is subjective, but most of us on this board I believe have the same basic idea of what it means. So, Harry, having said that, for those who simply refuse to be educated, I agree, don't force it, for it won't work. BUT, IF you CHOOSE to be uneducated, I don't want those people signing up for welfare and expecting us to pay for their choice. Now, if we can get the government on board with that....no hand outs for the ones who choose to make bad decisions, then we will have accomplished something. I don't look for this to happen in my lifetime...welfare mentality is too deeply ingrained.

For the purpose of discussion could you be more specific about what you mean by welfare?



It seems to me the big welfare program that resemble handouts and are targeted at the poor are:

USDA Food Stamps
WIC
Section 8 Housing
Educational Grants
Medicare/Medicade
Social Security Disability
Social Security Retirement

Are there others or did I cover them all?

Gene,
I'm gonna have to jump in here and dispute your assessment of social security retirement as a welfare dole.

Back when President Bush was pushing to privitize part of our retirement, I posted an hypothetical re: a high-school graduate opting to enter the workforce (rather than obtaining higher education) at a minimum-wage job.

I showed through the amoritization process that said individual could remain on minimum wage all their work-life and retire at age 59 with some $2.2M in their account (factoring in what their employer was mandated to match), using an average gain of what the DJ Industrials have returned over the past 80 years.

PLUS, say that individual married and the spouse did likewise (minimum wage throughout their career), then the couple would have a nest egg exceeding $4,000,000. And if either (or both died), that nest egg would remain intact to pass on to their progeny. Guess what happens today to all the monines you and your employer have put in through the years when you die!! (Reason for "death panels" in the health-care bill--if you die rather than being treated through a rationing program, then the government won't have to pay you back as much!!.)

Yes, I suppose ss retirement today can be considered an entitlement, but only because we have allowed our political leaders to spend what we and our employers have paid into the treasury and which did NOT go into our accounts ("lockboxes")!

Seeker

Thank you for the respectful disagreement. It is true that Social Security funds have been entirely supplied by the bottom half of the wage earners and small businesses including the self employed. And it is also true that the congress, instead of setting aside that money has borrowed every single dime of it for the general budget. But that's why I would like to see SS ended along with all direct taxes on labor and payroll. Because those millions that would have been generated by investing that money was instead diverted to the inefficiency of government spending.



I opposed that on the same grounds as I oppose the whole idea of SS. Taking OUR money by force and redistributing it. That's not a free market.




That's all well and good but we should leave that to free markets and the private sector. The government should just butt out.



I would love it if the government would just send my and my employers a check giving us our money back that we have paid. I'll take care of myself as I have always done. We don't take government money of any kind. Taking their money means playing by there rules.

Once I had the DoD contact me for some services. I considered it until they sent me a list of rules and terms that I had to obey and if I didn't I would go to jail. I told them no thanks. They were shocked. So I do not plan on ever taking anything from the government. Never have. Not a single dime!

Thank you, Seeker, for preventing me from exploding over this again.

Gene et al, How can you liken social security, even Medicare, with Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing?
Even educational grants don't belong here. Universities sit on millions and millions of dollars, they certainly can help out someone who has enough smarts to go to college and cannot afford it. Note that I specified enough smarts. As should grants be rewards for very good students in any bracket who may need to avail themselves of it.
Is social security an entitlement? Yes, it is. It has been paid into by workers with the expection that the system we have in this country will be there when they retire. If we were in Yemen, politicians as criminals who robbed the kitty, may lose a hand. Here, they get reelected.
Are Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing entitlements? No. How could they be when nobody pays for those? They may be entitlements granted by a government gone awry, but you factually cannot be entitled to something into which you put nothing of yours.
Then again, maybe the "underprivileged" are the more recent royalty, to whom one has to pay tribute. And, mind you, I am all for helping someone who is down, but not for generations. There is something designed in a system that keeps people that way.

Gene,

I'm in full agreement with you on killing ss. Let us make our own retirement plan, no problem. However, the people who have paid into it for decades need to get something back for monies invested, ALONG WITH A REASONABLE RETURN on the investment. Just getting back what we paid in would be a raw deal.

You do raise very interesting points. I guess I thought you were advocating doing away with it and leaving the vested "investers" out to dry. My bad!!

Seeker

Socialism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

All those programs have one thing in common. They are wealth redistribution schemes.