View Single Post
Old 02-26-2011, 05:43 AM   #85 (permalink)
Junkyard Engineer
Jim-Bob's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167

Super-Metro! - '92 Geo Metro Base

$250 Pizza Delivery Car - '91 Geo Metro Base
Team Metro
90 day: 43.75 mpg (US)

Fronty the wonder truck - '98 Nissan Frontier XE
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Holy Hanna, it NEVER fails, someone has to get all extreme right away.

What about simply abolishing dependent deductions and making parents fund schools for starters? If you still wanna play JimBob Duggar and can afford it, well there ya are. Those two actions would be a pretty sweet disincentive right there- especially in trying times- I'd wager...

How about eliminating AFDC, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead? Your theory also has a flaw in that it seems to treat children as chattle instead of as human beings. I do support public education to a REASONABLE extent, but I also support school choice initiatives that would allow parents to opt out of the public schools and credit them the money that they would have paid in taxes towards those schools towards private schools instead. Private schools tend to provide better educations at a lower per child cost than public ones do because of the lack of waste. If they could be used to induce competition then maybe we could cut public school costs as well. As for me, I have no children. I wish I did but it takes two to tango and I have yet to find a dance partner at 37 so it is unlikely I ever will.

I also would ask what you would do to someone who had a child and could not afford to pay for their education? Put the child to death? Throw the parents into forced labor camps? Force the mother to have an abortion against her will before the child was born? Deny the child an education and condemn them to a life of poverty and citizenship in a crime-ridden underclass as an adult? Your solution is overly simplistic and lacks enough details to deal with the realities of how life plays out. Therefore my analysis was legitimate because you make broad, open ended statements instead of writing well-reasoned, detailed arguments.
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation

(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)