Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this idea is that it is rooted in the "survival of the fittest" mentality and the belief that the average American can plan for everything without running into hard times.
So if you can't afford to educate a child, you simply shouldn't have one? I can agree with that statement to an extent. But why should having children be a luxury for the rich or privileged? And what about those people who planned well and had children but suddenly found themselves on hard times and could no longer afford education for their children? Is it the fault of the children? Why should they have to suffer and not get a decent education?
The beauty about America is that we have grown up caring about each other and see ALL children as OURS. At least that's what I've always felt. We all want the children to succeed, not just those who come from wealthy families who never have to worry about not having money to pay for education. We believe in equal opportunity for all. I'll admit that the government is far from efficient, but it's the best option to keep equality in education and give all children a fair shot at the same opportunities.
Personally, I'd rather pay a small fee to ensure that all children get educated in our society, not just those who can afford it. Seems to me it will make things better for my children and grand children. The more educated people we have in our society the better. The risks with the alternative is a little high.
The problem with this idea is that it is rooted in the "survival of the fittest" mentality and the belief that the average American can plan for everything without running into hard times.
So if you can't afford to educate a child, you simply shouldn't have one? I can agree with that statement to an extent. But why should having children be a luxury for the rich or privileged? And what about those people who planned well and had children but suddenly found themselves on hard times and could no longer afford education for their children? Is it the fault of the children? Why should they have to suffer and not get a decent education?
The beauty about America is that we have grown up caring about each other and see ALL children as OURS. At least that's what I've always felt. We all want the children to succeed, not just those who come from wealthy families who never have to worry about not having money to pay for education. We believe in equal opportunity for all. I'll admit that the government is far from efficient, but it's the best option to keep equality in education and give all children a fair shot at the same opportunities.
Personally, I'd rather pay a small fee to ensure that all children get educated in our society, not just those who can afford it. Seems to me it will make things better for my children and grand children. The more educated people we have in our society the better. The risks with the alternative is a little high.
Thank you for your great post....rep points to you.
It is mandated by law that all children recieve an education up to the age of 16. Therefore..school MUST be kept affordable for every family. In a privitizaton scheme.. school is NOT affordable for every family.
Car insurance is mandatory for every driver in a lot of states. Does that mean insurance must be socialized & subsidized by the taxpayers to keep it affordable for everybody? You'll notice that insurance companies are privately run, and there's not a catastrophe happening. BTW, these mandatory auto insurance laws sure didn't reduce the number of drivers ... so I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that privatizing education would reduce the number of educated children. People will just find a way to pay it, as they should anyway. That's how our system works: you want something, you pay for it. Again, it's not a perfect system, but it's still a lot better than having it run by the government, and forcing every taxpayer to contribute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
Right now. . we have an education system that guarantees all children an education.. not one child is left out of the equation. This helps perpetuate the American Dream..that you can obtain more than you have through education and hard work.
Sounds a lot like "No Child Left Behind". Gee, I wonder how well that's working after it was implemented six years ago. Not very successfully according to sources:
Newsmax.com - “No Child Left Behind” Should Be Left Behind (http://www.newsmax.com/weyrich/no_child_left_behind/2007/11/15/49695.html - broken link)
Study predicts high failure rate under "No Child Left Behind" (http://www.massteacher.org/issues/esea/esea_2005-06-23.cfm - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
Take away the system we have now and convert to a system of privatized schools that leave the affordability potential out for just 1 child and you've killed a good thing we have going here.
I would be willing to bet money ($1,100 in fact) that your attitude would be a lot different if you DIDN'T have a child in public school. You seem to have this notion that society owes you just because of a choice you made. It's not a "good thing we have going here" when taxpayers are FORCED (not given a choice, mind you) to subsidize education and other services for "the benefit of the children". I'll agree that children deserve the best ... so I have to wonder WHY you want to stick them in public schools, which are failing in so many aspects nationwide. My reasons for supporting privatization of education are valid. They adhere to a much higher standard, and parents pay for the cost themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
Bottom line..there is nothing to indicate the quality between a private and a public school is better.
You believe that to be true because you don't seem to want to believe somebody who has had personal experience in both the private and public schools. I also know several people who have had the same experiences with both sectors, and they all agree that private schools are far superior in quality education AND disciplne standards. Have you even looked into, or taken tours of private schools in your area? I think you will be satisfied with the results if you'd simply give them a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
Some, like Valley Native, want to proclaim they care about the quality of our future generations education. All he has shown in his posts is that he cares about the $1100 he wouldn't have to pay every year under his "charity" and privitized theoretical school system. If his motivation was truly what is best for this country and it's future leaders and innovators he would get involved in his local school administration, board, etc. etc. His motivations, with this post have NOTHING to do with what is best for this country and the children in it , but what is best for his bottom line.
And that's the American way. Don't like it? Move to a socialist nation, or a country that doesn't operate on the bottom line, and see how content you would be. Your standard of living would likely be a lot lower than it is in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris
The problem with this idea is that it is rooted in the "survival of the fittest" mentality and the belief that the average American can plan for everything without running into hard times.
It IS survival of the fittest. Even in the economic downturn we're in now, most of us will survive with a little planning & sacrifice. For instance: right now, I'm not going to invest in risky investments, take a long vacation, or buy a new SUV which I don't need. It's all about taking care of your own , and living within your means. With that in mind, people need to quit spending to the hilt on frivolous items, and then expecting Big Brother to run to their rescue every time they have financial problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris
Personally, I'd rather pay a small fee to ensure that all children get educated in our society, not just those who can afford it. Seems to me it will make things better for my children and grand children. The more educated people we have in our society the better. The risks with the alternative is a little high.
Then you're more than welcome to "pay the fee" and contribute to the cause on your own. Too many people expect a free ride on many things as soon as they become parents, and that results in an unfair burden on the rest of the taxpayers.
Car insurance is mandatory for every driver in a lot of states. Does that mean insurance must be socialized & subsidized by the taxpayers to keep it affordable for everybody? You'll notice that insurance companies are privately run, and there's not a catastrophe happening. BTW, these mandatory auto insurance laws sure didn't reduce the number of drivers ... so I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that privatizing education would reduce the number of educated children. People will just find a way to pay it, as they should anyway. That's how our system works: you want something, you pay for it. Again, it's not a perfect system, but it's still a lot better than having it run by the government, and forcing every taxpayer to contribute.
Your argument is weak for many reasons.
First..there is no law stating that someone MUST drive a car. If there were such a law that every citizen over the age of x must drive an automobile than the answer would be YES.. because if the law states that everyone MUST drive a car, but then makes said car out of reach of a lot of people, then those people would then be in violation of the law and be sent to jail.
SO>. it is mandated by the states and the U.S Gov't that EVERY child under the age of 16 must be educated or face criminal charges. Therefore,if you make education unaffordable you make it impossible for people to comply with the law!
Education , sir, is NOT a luxury!
Sounds a lot like "No Child Left Behind". Gee, I wonder how well that's working after it was implemented six years ago. Not very successfully according to sources:
Newsmax.com - “No Child Left Behind” Should Be Left Behind (http://www.newsmax.com/weyrich/no_child_left_behind/2007/11/15/49695.html - broken link)
Study predicts high failure rate under "No Child Left Behind" (http://www.massteacher.org/issues/esea/esea_2005-06-23.cfm - broken link)
Do you know what NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND was about. It had nothing to do with no child not recieving an education. It had to do with children meeting a certain testing criteria. The reason it is a "failure" is because, while it's intentions were good, it made teachers teach to hte TEST.. which goes BACK to my arguments that HOW we teach our children needs to be changed (ie, memorization method vs. Logic and reasoning method). It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with affordability of schools and making sure every student gets an education through affordability. We already have that.
I suggest that before you use a point in your argument you need to make sure it actually addresses the relevent point, which your argument does not.
I would be willing to bet money ($1,100 in fact) that your attitude would be a lot different if you DIDN'T have a child in public school. You seem to have this notion that society owes you just because of a choice you made. It's not a "good thing we have going here" when taxpayers are FORCED (not given a choice, mind you) to subsidize education and other services for "the benefit of the children". I'll agree that children deserve the best ... so I have to wonder WHY you want to stick them in public schools, which are failing in so many aspects nationwide. You have YET TO PROVE THIS STATEMENT!! You have not provided any proof whatesoever to back your claims.. I have repeatedly shown numbers that PROVE there is NO DIFFERENCE between the quality of a public school and private school education. .
First, I don't have a child in school. My son is 2 and I've been a taxpayer and homeowner for MANY years prior to having my child.
You believe that to be true because you don't seem to want to believe somebody who has had personal experience in both the private and public schools. I also know several people who have had the same experiences with both sectors, and they all agree that private schools are far superior in quality education AND disciplne standards. Have you even looked into, or taken tours of private schools in your area? I think you will be satisfied with the results if you'd simply give them a chance.
I'm not questioning wether I'd be "satisfied" with a private school or not.. that is not in question.. they are equal in quality to that of public schools! Again.. your "experience" can be DIFFERENT than someone els's experience. YOu also have NO COMPARISON in your experience. For example.. I went to public school my entire life, I enjoyed my school, think it's a great school and it was a great experience for me. As a result I and my siblings were very well educated.. and both my brothers went on to complete higher educations..one getting hs PHD in Genetics. They had a GREAT EXPERIENCE in public schools and would go on to say that the public school system is just great!. Does that make their argument that public school is better than private any more relevent than your argument that private is better than public. NO Because EXPERIENCES VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON! However.. you can take overall performance of the two type of schools and analyze test scores etc. AND IN ALL THOSE CASES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CAME UP WITH NO DIFFERENCE! They were both EQUAL in the quality of education they provided.
And before you once again spew out that more private school students go to college you need to include that private school students tend to be white from a good socio economic backgrounds and when comparing samples of the private school population to that of public school population and comparing socio - economic status of both populations they came up EQUAL in the number of students that go on to complete bachelors degrees
And that's the American way. Don't like it? Move to a socialist nation, or a country that doesn't operate on the bottom line, and see how content you would be. Your standard of living would likely be a lot lower than it is in the U.S.
AH yes.. the old.. we are turning socialist argument. It's old and tired. We are a nation of BALANCE.. we have BALANCE in our government , and we have BALANCE in our people.
Look around.. there are socialistic aspects to our society all around you. The Fire dept you may never use, you pay for, The Police that you may never need you pay for. The road you may never travel on you help pay for. We also have SS that helps the elderly avoidn being driven into poverty, we have programs that allow those less fortunate make better for themselves that we all pay for and will never use (yes.. I do not agree with the abuses of the system by some)
Do you think without those programs U.S would be better? Go buy a book about life BEFORE and during the Great Depression. Find out what happened to those that were sick and less fortunate. Read about how the elderly are treated..etc. Then come back and tell me how much better you'd feel the U.S would be if the U.S didn't have some socialistic programs mixed in and BALANCED with a capatilistic nation.
It IS survival of the fittest. Even in the economic downturn we're in now, most of us will survive with a little planning & sacrifice. For instance: right now, I'm not going to invest in risky investments, take a long vacation, or buy a new SUV which I don't need. It's all about taking care of your own , and living within your means. With that in mind, people need to quit spending to the hilt on frivolous items, and then expecting Big Brother to run to their rescue every time they have financial problems.
Then you're more than welcome to "pay the fee" and contribute to the cause on your own. Too many people expect a free ride on many things as soon as they become parents, and that results in an unfair burden on the rest of the taxpayers.
Survivial of the fittest huh.. I tell you what.. you come back when you're 60 years old or you get sick or injured on the job and are unable to work. . .. you tell me how that "survival of the fittest" mentality is working out for you .. When you're old and unable to work, unless you are amongst the wealthiest of the population, which I highly doubt given your objection to an $1100 / year school tax bill, you come back on these boards and tout how BAD socialistic programs are! You'll need medicaid to help you get your heart medications.. or you'll die. .. you'll need medicaid to help pay for your Dr. visits.. or you could end up really sick and die. Youll need your sS to help pay for your bills and put food on your table.. or you'll die.
Here in America we believe that every persons life is worth something. Someone's value is NOT based on what they have in their wallet. You just don't get that.
I'm through debating with you because it's pointless. You have continually failed to meet with the standard in this form of "Great Debates" . You've provide NO PROOF no anectodal evidence to support anything that you say. I provided tons of links and informations to rebutt everything you have posted and you keep ignoring them and going back to tired statements without anything substantial to back them up. Funny how you skipped over my whole "educatino by charity " analogy.. because I actually went, found the numbers and did the research to prove to you that it was an absolutey absurd proposal.. I didn't just say it.. I proved it.
Again.. the education system was set up LONG before you and I were born and it's been working for this nation for a very long time. I don't have to make the choice to move to a different country.. this one has everything I need and i'm happy with the system we have. I'm not tryring to change it to fit my needs and wants. You are the one living within a system you don't agree with.. so you have a choice.. either stay or go where you will be more happy.
OH. . and those countries without education for all.. they are third world and developing nations.. not 1 nation that has a comfortable way of living operates with a non publicly funded school system.. I think YOUR standard of living would be a lot lower if you elected to move to a nation that had an uneducated and undereducated population.
Then you're more than welcome to "pay the fee" and contribute to the cause on your own. Too many people expect a free ride on many things as soon as they become parents, and that results in an unfair burden on the rest of the taxpayers.
So I guess by being a parent and not wanting to see a bunch of children go without an education I "expect a free ride"? There are plenty of taxes that I pay that don't benefit my family directly. But there are plenty that do. I'm sure it evens itself out. How can you say that education for all American children is an unfair burden?
Education only for those who can afford it... hopefully it's not a test we run on our children just because some don't feel like paying the tax bill for it.
I have differing opinions on this subject----
I like the idea of people being able to choose where they send their kids, but I don't think education should be totally private. With all the Corporate scandals I'd hate to think we want to run schools like Corporations with greedy CEO's!!!!!!!!!!
But I read the post suggesting only people with kids pay the taxes to keep public schools alive, and I really like that idea.
I can understand how people that don't have kids feel like they're being cheated. It's really not a fair system. Single people don't get to claim hardly anything for write-offs but they still have to pay the same amount of taxes or sometimes more than the people that are married with children.
I don't know what the solution is, it's complicated. The school districts are pretty corrupt, lots of money goes in but teachers are under-paid and get a bad rap. Kids bring weapons to class, they'd rather text each other and use Google than study a textbook, and parents want the school district to raise them. I think it's time for a major change of some kind!!!!!
The school districts are pretty corrupt, lots of money goes in but teachers are under-paid and get a bad rap. Kids bring weapons to class, they'd rather text each other and use Google than study a textbook, and parents want the school district to raise them. I think it's time for a major change of some kind!!!!!
Not all teachers are underpaid. There are very good teachers who aren't paid what they're worth, and very poor teachers who are paid too much. A common argument that teachers are underpaid focuses on salary and not on the benefits, especially retirement benefits which are usually far better than the private sector's retirement options.
Not all parents want the school district to raise their kids. I don't want the school district having any part of raising my two grade-schoolers. The "job" of the public school system is to educate, not indoctrinate. Teach the kids how to do math, how to use proper grammar, and other academic studies. Stay out of the "raising the child" business.
I agree that it's time for a major change, or at least some kind of change. I think that change should start with vouchers. I believe that schools based in the private sector, where their success and livelihood is determined by parents' choice, would be a better solution than the current public school system.
I have differing opinions on this subject----
I like the idea of people being able to choose where they send their kids, but I don't think education should be totally private. With all the Corporate scandals I'd hate to think we want to run schools like Corporations with greedy CEO's!!!!!!!!!!
But I read the post suggesting only people with kids pay the taxes to keep public schools alive, and I really like that idea.
I can understand how people that don't have kids feel like they're being cheated. It's really not a fair system. Single people don't get to claim hardly anything for write-offs but they still have to pay the same amount of taxes or sometimes more than the people that are married with children.
I don't know what the solution is, it's complicated. The school districts are pretty corrupt, lots of money goes in but teachers are under-paid and get a bad rap. Kids bring weapons to class, they'd rather text each other and use Google than study a textbook, and parents want the school district to raise them. I think it's time for a major change of some kind!!!!!
I respect your opinion and I can see how you , being single, would feel that parents get an unfair shake. But here me out for a second.
When a couple gets married their combined income can raise a couple into a higher tax bracket. I believe that was called the tax marriage penalty.. so then they end up paying more in taxes. (Has that recently been fixed.. I don't remember).
As for raising children.. I see your point.. but consider this for a minute.
A couple raising a child is feeding, clothing and paying Dr. bills and more insurance to cover another human being that can not take care of him or herself. Without those parents doing what they do, that human life would then be left to the state to feed, cloth...etc. Of course, we made the decision to have that child and with that comes those expenses.. all well worth it by the way.
Now.. for every child we get a $1,000 tax credit. $1,000 tax credit, considering the cost of raising a child is a drop in the bucket.
So let's say you were making $50,000 a year when you were single and childless.. and you paid your taxes (is it 15 or 20% not sure.. but for the sake of this analogy .. lets just say 20%) That's $10,000 in taxes leaving you $40K in take home pay.. and lets say you contribute $120/month toward your company medical insurance.. that's $38560 of other income. That income would normally go to your rent, food, clothes..etc. and lets say at the end of all that you are able to save and have discretionary income.. to which you enjoy the benefits of such.
NOw.. if you have a child and you are working.. you have to pay for childcare for that child.. cheap childcare can run you $300/week... then you ahve the extra foo and expenses associated with raising that child. If you still have to pay the same % in insurance. So while you might spend $3600 / year on child care so you can work , you get $1,000 of credit on yoru tax bill.. bringing your bill to $9,000.
We make sacrafices for our children and we don't mind doing that.. but when you are upset about our $1,000 tax credit, just remember that YOU actually have more descretionary spending that you can use to take that cruise, go on a safari in Africa etc etc. AGain.. we make those sacrafices.. but would you really begrudge a parent a $1,000 tax credit?
The only people that really get to write a lot of things off on their taxes are teh self employed--- and they pay DOUBLE the taxes you do because they also pay the matching % of SS.
As far as I know the only thing parents get over singles is the child credit of $1,000. There are no other real write offs ..well accept the mortgage interest if they own a home. The middle income family does not have many more write offs than you do.
Let's put it this way.. we decided to have a child.. yes.. so why should I get the $1,000 for my choice is the question you ask...
Well...why do homeowners get a write off for their mortgage interest payments? etc.
Here is also another way to look at it. Parents pay for just about everything for our kids.. which means in the end if we have one kid we will consume double the amount you will... 2 kids, three times the amount you will.. so in the end we will actually be contributing 3x's to the GDP and thereby paying 3x's in sales tax for those taxable items than the single childess person / couple.
$1,000 tax credit every year is a drop in the hat in comparison to what we end up putting INTO the tax pot year after year.
And there was something interesting you or someone else said.. you said you don't want the school district raising kids..
THAT is a VERY true statement and THAT is the reason why schools have been suffering.. BECAUSE parents have NOT been parenting at home and leaving it up to the school system. THAT has nothing to do with wether a school was private or public. As a matter of fact a few posts back I had posted a study that, when comparing the socio-economics of the private school population to the same socio-economic equivilent in teh public school population teachers had the same complaint about parental involvement in both the public and private system.
The problem with the schools is NOT the schools.. but the follow up and follow through at home. It is NOT the schools fault when a child does not complete an assignement. It is NOT the schools fault when a kid pulls outa cell phone in class and starts texting... the parents shouldn't allow their student to have a cell phone during school hours! Wether a child is in a public or private system is not going to change that.
And wether you realize it or not you indirectly benefit from teh children in your community being educated. They may someday become the Dr. that saves your life, they may someday become the dentist that fixes your teeth. They may someday become the pharmacist that fills your prescriptions.. and so on and so forth. We all benefit from having an educated population... both individually and as a nation as a whole.
I think that allowing parents to choose what schools their children attend is a great solution to the problem. First, this would creat some competition and competition drives people! Instead of getting rid of our public schools (it takes a village to raise a child) this would allow our public schools to stay open if they are any good and/or close if they are horrible. As a tax payer and parent with a child in the school system, I would love to have the option to place my child where the best school is. This is such a hard debate because on one hand I understand not wanting to fund the schools if you don't have kids in the school system, but at the same time it is the never ending cycle of we have to educate children because they are the future and if you were educated at a public school then it's not fair not to pass that on!
Some people are coming up on social security benefits soon, is it fair that we stop paying those now and say I want to keep mine and if you didn't prepare better than take out a loan and it's not my fault? No, of course not. You have to continue to pay it forward.
I think that allowing parents to choose what schools their children attend is a great solution to the problem. First, this would creat some competition and competition drives people! Instead of getting rid of our public schools (it takes a village to raise a child) this would allow our public schools to stay open if they are any good and/or close if they are horrible. As a tax payer and parent with a child in the school system, I would love to have the option to place my child where the best school is. This is such a hard debate because on one hand I understand not wanting to fund the schools if you don't have kids in the school system, but at the same time it is the never ending cycle of we have to educate children because they are the future and if you were educated at a public school then it's not fair not to pass that on!
Some people are coming up on social security benefits soon, is it fair that we stop paying those now and say I want to keep mine and if you didn't prepare better than take out a loan and it's not my fault? No, of course not. You have to continue to pay it forward.
Though advocates of "choice" and vouchers claim that "...the cure for the problems of a socialized monopoly is a good dose of competition." (Gross and Gross, 19885:352), there is no guarantee that competition would elevate the quality of schools or drive poor schools out of business. Furthermore, it is even less likely that "good" schools that cater to the affluent will be made accessible to all who desire admission. Poor parents seeking to use vouchers to take advantage of elite private schools are unlikely to obtain access given the probability that such schools will not expand enrollment in order to accommodate increased demand"
What the article goes on to talk about is how there will be what it called a "triage" affect. That the good schools will attract only the best students.. the rest the bad students. Bad schools will flounder and those that couldn't get into the good schools due to economic reasons..or lack of space, will be stuck with the poorer schools regardless. As a result or decreased enrollment, the schools not deemed as "good" will loose funding and will not be given the resources to improve. It would most likely end up that those schools will be filled with minorities or those of lower socio-economic status as those parents may be left out of the choice since they would be less likely selected for the "good" schools. It also mentions how private schools can be selective of which students they chose, as they do not fall under the "public" umbrella.
Another article here Monthly Review March 2006 Michael Perelman ¦ Privatizing Education talks about how , if a voucher system is developed it would need to be structured so that people over a certain income level wouldn't qualify for the voucher. The voucher system can then called an i"entitlement" l program much like other welfare programs The following is a quote from that article:
Soon, taxpayers will protest having to subsidize the undeserving; they will demand that schools eliminate their “frills.” The outcome will be that the politicians will relieve the rich of much of the tax obligation of supporting education, while the poor will see their educational opportunities degrade even further.
So many people talk about "choice" but there are plenty of choices for parents. They have the choice, if they can afford to.. to send their child to a private school. But just as the senior citizen without a child in school or the single person or couple without a child must pay property taxes,so must the family that is sending their child to a private school.
One thing we must remember is that "choice" will still be limited to what schools are located near and around your home. Schools can not be choosen across state lines unless you elect to send your child away to school, which increases the cost and requires schools to have boarding facilities. Your choice is still limited to your regional or immediate area.
Rather than worry about whether a school is run by your local community via elected school boards etc, vs. a corporation (which are out for profit, by the way) doesn't it make more sense to demand of your own local school district changes in the way schools are taught.. or how they hire teachers or what teachers they attract? If you are not happy with your school, then find out what about it makes you unhappy and then call the PTA..go to a board meeting and have your voice heard.. NOT happy.. then fire the board members at re-election.
AND.. the #1 problem in schools has nothing to do with wether it's private or not.. it has to do with parenting. Too many parents are leaving it up to the schools to raise their kid and that is spilling over into education. Family dynamis are very different now then they were a long time ago. Did anybody ever stop to think that maybe the reason why things are falling apart with our kids at school si because we stopped sitting around the dinner table together (although who can blame us when middle income families need both parents working to make ends meet!). Privatizing schools is NOT going to get to the root of the problem, which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with wether it's public or private.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
