Vouchers and votes

[miko2d]

JBA: That’s an average cost of 10,540 per student.
Don't tell me schools are under funded. That’s Democrat demagoguery.

 To put those numbers into prospective, $10-11,000 is a cost per student in abysmal New York and Washington schools.

 At the same time private for-profit schools charge 6-8,000 per year tuition. They teach well, charge less and they turn profit!

 Though I do have to add a great insight - that I've got from another Thomas Sowell's article.

 When my child goes to school at age 5, he will be able to read fluently and know arithmetics. If the school administers tests, he will increase total average and that would reflect beneficially on the school - even tho the school may have nothing to do with it.

 So the private schools may not be as much better in teaching than public school as some believe.

 It's just the patents of the children in those schools may be doing their jobs.

 miko

[Sandman]

Sowell may have credentials coming out of his wazoo... this doesn't change the fact that there are Democrats that support vouchers.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sowell may have credentials coming out of his wazoo... this doesn't change the fact that there are Democrats that support vouchers.

I think you're missing the point here. It is the Democrats that are opposed to and blocking vouchers.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by AKIron
I think you're missing the point here. It is the Democrats that are opposed to and blocking vouchers.

That's exactly my point. There are indeed Democrats that support vouchers and some Republicans that don't.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That's exactly my point. There are indeed Democrats that support vouchers and some Republicans that don't.

They are relatively few. To cite them would seem to be a diversionary tatic to me.

[popeye]

So, if we privatize education, only people with children in school will have to pay for it?

Sign me up!

[DmdNexus]

>>During a recent visit to Washington, I was told by a high official there that he had posed this question to Democrats: "Why are you so opposed to vouchers?"
The reply: "We aren't going to give you guys a victory."

So this question was given to every Democrat and every Democrat replied the same?
Why not name names... who was interviewed?

Sounds like more Rethorical BS to me.

Since the Republicans control congress, the Executive, and most of the Judicial branches of the government..

heck... why don't you Republicans just out law Democrats... call them enemy combatants and be done with it.... throw them all in prison... like those two Australians down in Cuba.

After all Liberals do no good for this country... they hate America. and they support terrorists...

This country doesn't need two parties... one party is good enough.

Pass a law and get done with it.... already.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by popeye
So, if we privatize education, only people with children in school will have to pay for it?

Sign me up!

Did you go to public school? Soon as you pay us back for your education.

[popeye]

Most of my primary education was done by the good Sisters of St. Joseph, paid for entirely by my mother, without the benefit of government welfare, er....vouchers.

Maybe she should collect retroactive vouchers....

[AKIron]

poooopeyyyye, I am your mother.



Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others. Your taxes should indeed go down however. Based on the numbers I've seen posted here, private schools will cost us much less than government run schools.

[popeye]

Great.  Can I have the car keys?

[miko2d]

AKIron: Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others.

 You think that spending money on:
 - keeping the uneducatable children in school - and out of workforce;
 - destroying the chances of educatable children that are bottled up with hopeless ones under control of inept (monopoly, remember) teachers;
 really outweights his loss of money to taxes?

 Let's hear it.

 miko

[popeye]

Yeah, let's get those hopeless children into the workforce where they can do us some good.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others.

 You think that spending money on:
 - keeping the uneducatable children in school - and out of workforce;
 - destroying the chances of educatable children that are bottled up with hopeless ones under control of inept (monopoly, remember) teachers;
 really outweights his loss of money to taxes?

 Let's hear it.

 miko

Where did you ever get the idea that I wanted to allow disruption in private schools? That is what you're assuming right? That I think kids with behavior problems should be forced on private schools? You assume too much. Private schools must be allowed to enforce discipline however they see fit.

One thing is for certain, I don't want it left up to you to decide as to who is uneducatable. Nor do I want the responsibility.

[miko2d]

AKIron: That I think kids with behavior problems should be forced on private schools? You assume too much. Private schools must be allowed to enforce discipline however they see fit.

 Nothing to do with public or private schools. If the price of a product is artificially kept below the market price - to zero in this case, it's going to be overused and underutilised. Sure, in private schools the education would be better for those who can absorb it. Here I am in agreement with you.

 The uneducatable will still go to some schools, since the education is free for them. Either public or some scummy private schools will provide them with room for a day in return for the money from the government. How does that benefit a person who foots the bill?

One thing is for certain, I don't want it left up to you to decide as to who is uneducatable.

 Why not? It's my money, after all. Why shouldn't I be able to decide who gets it? I would not presume to deny you the right to dispose of your money.

 Even forgetting the charity - where a giver has much greater control over the teaching process than he does over the public school.
 If a child is educatable and going to earn a lot of money due to extra education, then his education is a valuable capital. I've seen the numbers how much the extra education is worth - quite a lot. Why wouldn't a profit-seeking investor be eager to finance such an education in return for some share in profit? If I can buy a piece of machinery for the kid to work on and make money for both of us, why couldn't I buy him tutoring? That would of course be possible if legislature made such deals legal, since there is a considerable risk involved.

 Would you agree if some stranger paid for the education of your bright child so that if he lands a good job, he pays off the full sum, no interest and say 5% of his earnings above the median salary?

 We would see much more education happening and of better quality in this country if people were allowed to profit from it - like we've see the explosion of industry, technology and wealth once people were freed from madieval rules and allowed to profit from those.

Nor do I want the responsibility.

 Of course you do. You vote for the laws that make it legal for armed goons to come in and take my property (and kidnap/maim/kill me if I resist) in order to fund your egalitarian fantasies the way you see fit.
 You are just acting like a typical liberal liar. You have control over me due to your vote and you are not shy a bit about exercising it, whatever denials you care to print.

 miko