Originally Posted by homestead
The kids you are paying to educate now will get jobs and help make payments to your ss and medicare. What you are giving now for education comes back to you later. If a generation as a whole get selfish, then later in their life they will reap what they have sown or in this case what they haven't sown.
Well, let's do it up right then. If paying for education, we can reap what we sow, let's do it all the way through college. I'm all for investing for the future, so why stop at high school? Wouldn't the return on investment be so much greater, they would get way better jobs and contribute so much more to SS and medicare? I heard on the radio yesterday about half the kids in Houston quit school before finishing high school. Why do we even allow them to quit?
Also, you didn't address my question. What's the difference between forced payment for someone else's child-schooling and forced payment of the little bugger's health care? Why is taking care of the learning of the kid any different, fundamentally, than taking care of the sicknesses of the kid? Why is one so much better for society than the other. I don't understand the logic that's all. How does that line get drawn, by what calculus?
Edit: I do remember Bushy telling us, in a speech, to take your kids to the emergency room for health care, oh maybe that is the answer.