Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Repugnant: Rich Schools get Richer

Schilling for Marxism again, what a shocker. The Arizona Republic today is screaming how a tax-credit program is helping rich Arizona schools get richer:

Do you know how much of your state tax dollars in Arizona go to the schools and universities? Take a guess. Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty?

Try a whopping 50%. Don't believe me? Here it is:

Hard to believe, isn't it? And that's just the state tax money, following the money trails for the public schools in Arizona is pretty hard.

And that's the way they want it.

Get quite a bit for our money don't we? And in typical Socialist fashion, you get to pay the same taxes for education if you are childless as the guy down the street with ten kids. If he pays taxes. Which he doesn't, because he has ten kids. And if you make more money, you pay a higher percentage.

They call that tax system Progressive. And the Socialists call themselves progressive. If you want to retry socialism, and we know that socialism has failed for every society that has tried it, shouldn't it be called regressive? Or maybe Progressive is short for Passive-Regressive.Cause they're kind of passive aggressive regressives over there at the Republic, aren't they?

I've seen the argument that it is for society's benefit whether you are childless or not to promote an education system. That might be true if we had an education system, which we don't. The public cesspools of the Phoenix School system where I live are rife with drugs, knives, and kids that can't read. If I had a kid, I couldn't send him to Camelback High School where I went, he'd be stabbed, shot, and run over, probably with weapons and cars made in the school's shops:

And the Repugnant wants to redistribute the wealth to the that environment and to administrators of our public schools so they can line their pockets with per diem:

Or sell drugs. If they teach kindergarten.

Oddly enough, the Republic seems to have missed out on that news. But they miss out on most news that doesn't make their socialist bullshit palatable. Ya know, if you don't print it, it's like it didn't happen. And we had to get that info from the New Times, a publication whose "Progressivism" would make Stalin blush. The one thing that they depend on is covering up the news, or distorting it.

Socialism, while it appeals to a person's compassion, cannot in reality exist or grow in a society where politicians and the media are virtuous.

No comments: