Sure, but then taxes would have to be raised to provide the supplies and that would make lil’ curlcoat cry because she don’t got no kids and why should she have to pay for some other person’s kids wot they shouldn’t have got in the first place ?
Do you *want *to make curlcoat cry, you big meanie ?
+1
Or they could do like my brother’s district does, and expect (as a budget line item, even!) them to spend out of their paycheck to the tune of $2500 (I think, this has been changing frequently in negotiations–the initial Board proposal was $5000!) for shared/public classroom supplies.
I’m not sure WHAT -ist that is, but it sucks.
As for anyone who expresses the idea that property school tax for the childless is unfair, so the hell what? It’s a democracy, you don’t get to choose where your tax money goes except by voting for your government, I didn’t wanna pay for a war, platitude platitude.
If the 5 year old goes to a public school, then I would expect that 5 year old to already understand that the entire education received there is socialism and that the child is relying on government just by being there. The child’s mind has already been horribly corrupted by that point, so being expected to share supplies in class is no great leap.
If I had a 5 year old, I would hope the child would have enough sense by that time to reject any attempt to get a public education and insist on a strictly private education or go without.
Also, I would never teach my child to ask a police officer or firefighter for help in an emergency. SUCK IT UP, KID!
Requiring kindergartners to share things is a “socialist” idea in the same way that a teacher controlling his/her classroom is a “totalitarian” idea.
I am assuming you want the short term feel good answer to this, which would be that any public school should be providing basic supplies to all children. If they aren’t, then the teacher should come up with a way to teach using whatever she is given, not tell the parents to pay in even more. Particularly if the school is in an area where it is likely there will be a significant number of students who will show up without supplies.
Don’t be any more of an idiot than you already are. This has nothing to do with keeping track of anyone’s stuff.
Since I do agree with this, most of the rest of your post just shows how little you know.
No, it’s not sad. The taxpayer shelling out for more and more for these neglecting children hasn’t even slowed down the number of them out there. It should be obvious to even those whose rallying cry is “think of the children!!!” that simply giving them whatever they need & want hasn’t cured the problem of neglect and abuse. What you need to do is quit insisting that anyone who wants to have children has a right to do so, stop approving of teen pregnancy, stop encouraging unfit girls/women to keep their babies and ferchrissakes quit demanding that the government support all of this!
Exactly.
Yeah, shame those children of teen moms! That’ll teach them! Five years old is not too young to learn that nobody wants you and you just shouldn’t have been born!
Maybe not too young to learn it, but far too young to be taught.
At the end of the school year when the teacher’s are doing absolutely no teaching and packing up their classroom on class time (elementary school) they ask the kids to help them pack their boxes and stuff. (Yeaaaah, good times. )
We instructed our children to say, " I’m not in the Union."
Was this capitalistic or socialistic ? I want to know which way I am scarring my children.
I fully admit that I have not read this whole thread, so this might have been addressed, but I want to comment on it anyway. From the Mother Jones article (bolding mine):
What the living fuck? I don’t know what offends me more, the stupidity of the whole thing, or that this idiot thought Minnesottans have a connection to “Dixie”. That’s ours, DAMNIT. Minnesotans can’t use it. And it’s not a protest song anyway!
To be fair, they are probably thinking they are singing about paper cups.
How many times are you going to prove that you are a complete moron? I said zero about the children that come from teen pregnancies. Are you incapable of understanding that not approving and celebrating teen pregnancy doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the resulting children are “shamed”?
But you did manage to get one thing right - five years old is not too young to learn that nobody wants you and you just shouldn’t have been born. And the more people like you try to pretend that every child is wanted and every pregnancy is cause for celebration, the more children will grow up knowing that at least one of the parents didn’t want them. All you are getting with this demand that responsible people pay to raise the children of parents who can’t be bothered to do it themselves is yet another generation of children living crappy lives. It never ceases to amaze me how you all who claim to love children so much are so willing to allow them to be born into poverty, abuse, neglect and no future.
That doesn’t make sense to me on any level.
Not that I’m super happy wow \o/ about children in general, but how do you get from parents pretending they wanted their children to children knowing they weren’t wanted is… um… wot ? Isn’t the whole point of pretending that children don’t get fucked up by the realization nobody wanted them and postpone the truth as long as possible, hopefully until they’ve grown up enough to process it or shrug it off ? Or are you really saying “unwanted kids should be informed of that fact as soon as possible” for some reason I can’t even begin to comprehend ?
Ooooh, I’m so concerned about you thinking I’m a moron! Why, it’s making me doubt my very existence! :rolleyes:
Anyways, why on gods green earth did you bring up teen pregnancy if you are now going to claim it has nothing to do with the topic? We’re talking about children here, and whether or not they should learn to share. If we’re looking at public school, I really can’t see why the kids of teen parents should (or even legally can) be treated differently than the kids of doctors or lawyers or whoever it is you think should be allowed to have children.
Like it or not, numbnuts, kids already are born into poverty, abuse, neglect, etc. We don’t have to be ‘willing’ for that to happen. If you want kids to break the cycle of poverty, education is a major part of that, and I’m going to guess that not being identified as scum as early as kindergarten is probably also a part of it. I realize that you’re stupid enough to believe that shaming the people you don’t like out of existence will work if you try hard enough, but I’m afraid you don’t have a very good track record so far.
Because it’s better to have shattered people who were raised with the knowledge that they were unwanted mistakes? Because that’s good, somehow? That will help them to be functioning, whole people in their lives?
The crack you are smoking is potent. You should cut down a few rocks per day because it’s going too far.
No, people who can’t be bothered to raise their children are why there are, at any given time, half a million kids in the underfunded and broken foster care system, being threatened by asshole legislators to not even be able to ever have a new pair of shoes.
Upward class mobility is a myth. Poor people may become somewhat less poor. What you call “can’t be bothered” is a shitty label to apply to people who are doing the best that they can. And I refuse to suggest that it’s a horrid breach of parental responsibility to not be able to buy crayons and glue.
Because I didn’t say anything about the parents pretending they wanted their children. Where did you get that from?
I imagine you cannot even begin to comprehend because you don’t have the intellectual capacity to do so. I have no idea how you come up with the things you do and by now, I just don’t care.
Again, I said that you all should quit pretending that teen pregnancy is a good thing, much less acceptable. Same with all the other less than desirable pregnancies that people rush to celebrate (I don’t know why you are so focused on just the teens). Do you even read the things you respond to or do you just glurg out some tripe in places that you think look good?
I’m not - it is you that seem to be willfully trying to turn this into a discussion of sharing. Having school supplies taken away, no matter what is done with them afterwards, is not sharing.
Like it or not numbnuts, you are. Every time you rush to hand things to a pregnancy that cannot be afforded by the girl/woman, you are supporting yet one more child to be born into that poverty, abuse, neglect, etc. Then you continue it by demanding that these children, that were probably not wanted in the first place, be supported along with their mothers by taxpayers who get poorer every year. At what point are you going to realize this just isn’t working?
Where did you get that? No where do I say anything about shaming any kindergardeners, that is just you stupid bias showing.
What the frack is wrong with you people? Blinded by diapers? Where did I say anything about the parents of these children? I said that you all, as in those of you that think any birth is to be celebrated, should knock it off and maybe then the lack of support would make some of these girls and women think twice before they think having a baby would be “cool” or “fulfilling”.
If you weren’t spending billions to house, feed and provide health care to all of their mothers, before you finally take their neglected, abused and unloved children away, you’d have a whole lot more money for foster care. Plus, if you quit supporting the mothers, they would be quite likely to quit having more kids.
It might be these days, but it wasn’t when I did it. I was born poor and lived poor until I guess my mid twenties. I don’t really know when I crossed that magic line from living in poverty to merely poor, and then the next line to doing OK.
I do not apply that “label” to people who actually do the best that they can. However, most don’t, including all of those who decide to have children they know they cannot afford. That is the major difference between folks like me and folks like you - I do not consider “doing the best that they can” to include people who have children without consideration or clue as to whether they can actually support them, whereas you appear to think “doing the best that they can” to include people who do this after they have made the selfish decision to have kids they can’t support.
Really? You think a responsible parent includes those who cannot even afford crayons and glue? A responsible parent is someone who is so freaking poor they can’t afford, what, $5 but they went ahead and had at least one kid anyway?
Right, you never said anything like that:
Are you going to argue that ‘humiliating’ them is different than ‘shaming’ them?
It was when you married the sugar daddy, remember? Poor guy.
Maybe you could express yourself a bit more clearly and unambiguously. That’d help. It wouldn’t help the abysmal content of course, but the form could become vaguely intelligible at least.
Yeah. Yeah that’s the big problem. Teenage girls want, nay, pray to become pregnant in high school. Because it’s cool and fulfilling. My god but what planet are you from ?
But of course ! That’s the solution, how could we not have seen this ! Take the welfare money away from the families, give it to the foster care system ! That way the kids can… be separated from their parents… and then still be in the exact same shit ? Hmmm. Maybe that’s why we didn’t consider this idea before. It’s downright brain damaged.
The problem here is that these are all bad assumptions. No one thinks that every birth is to be celebrated. There are always going to be pregnancies that occur at the least opportune times and for people in the worst possible circumstances in which to have a child. No one celebrates that. But we recognize that it’s reality, and that it’s not something that’s going to be changed by more approbation and more disapproval, because those births are already disapproved of. No one is applauding 13 year olds or people mired in the disease of addiction or people with absolutely no financial resources having children.
But they are having them, and once those kids are here, they need and deserve support. Whether you like or approve of their existence, that point is past.
The majority of children are never taken from their homes, and a fair number of children in foster care didn’t come from homes reliant upon safety net programs. Again, more presumptions that are just wrong on their face.
And the kids who are already here would do what? If we don’t support the families how do the kids eat? How do they get medical care?
You always miss this point. You keep advocating taking away money from existing children in order to deter further procreation and prove some fucking libertarian jackass point about bootstrapping oneself to sufficiency while raising children without ever once recognizing that doing so would be a FUCKING HUMANITARIAN DISASTER.
1 in 4 American children are already lacking food security or are outright malnourished for lack of resources. We don’t support the parents already, you daft bint from hell. And the children are suffering for it.
Sometime around the point when you were stealing from fast food restaurants and eating napkins, I guess.
And you once again don’t consider that people’s fortunes change. That the cost of children isn’t static, and that there’s still no answer in your philosophy for the families of children who are already here and already in need of help.
You can rattle on about selfishness and irresponsibility until the cows come home. But that doesn’t acknowledge reality, it’s just your incessant prattling about your ideal world. No one gives a shit about your ideals. Deal in the realm of reality or just stop with this bullshit.