piper17 1 #26 May 7, 2008 Well, the US Consitutution does authorize the federal government to "provide for the common defense" so I guess that would be where it makes it okay to "subsidize the military". I take it you never served?"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #27 May 7, 2008 QuoteWell, the US Consitutution does authorize the federal government to "provide for the common defense" so I guess that would be where it makes it okay to "subsidize the military". I take it you never served? Well, our military seems to be more offense than defense these days, what with invading countries that presented no threat to us. Don't forget the common welfare too. I submit education falls under that provision.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 May 7, 2008 QuoteOh that's right, somewhere in the twisted view of things, the military is excluded as a 'socialist concept' nonsense, the military is a perfect example of a pure socialized concept as a service to all not anyone in particular ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 May 7, 2008 QuoteEducation benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, I didn't know you were a proponent of school vouchers. Refreshing. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #30 May 7, 2008 The Constitution says "promote the general welfare"...NOT provide it. Since education is not specified by the US Constitution as one of the responsibilities of the federal government, it defaults to being the responsibility of the individual states. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to be taxing citizens for "education" and then doling out money to the states. All this does is subsidize a bureaucracy in Washington and drain tax dollars away from the states who are responsible for collecting taxes for local schools. As far as "invading countries"...the best defense is a good offense. You can quote me on that!"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #31 May 7, 2008 Maybe we should just tack on eduction to the defense budget. Seems to work for $billions worth of other less important pork. Then no one will complain because the DoD budget is always sold as "money for the troops". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 May 7, 2008 Quote If education benefits society and society should pay for it, what is wrong with allowing children to attend parochial schools if these schools provide a better education? That would work very well in a theocracy...... we are not quite there yet... but the religious right keeps trying. I hear all those parochial schools in the NW provinces of Pakistan ( aka Madrassas) turn out very devout members of society. Typically they tend to be very conservative.. and follow the Taliban.. but oh well.. caint have everything. How about home schooling.. and teaching the bible as so many do.. to protect their children from the secular world. Hell that is what my cousins did in South Carolina... They sure do know the bible... and they know the people in their little holy roller church.. the only people in the world who are safe to be with because all their demons have been cast out.. but they are completely, totally socially inept... and fully prepared for life in the 18th century. To bad they will have to make their living in the 21st century Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #33 May 7, 2008 Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? So, you are comparing Catholic high schools to "Madressas"? Interesting. From what I've read, home schooled students often greatly out-perform their public schooled contemporaties in such tests of their learning as SATs, National Spelling Bees, National Math competitions, etc."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #34 May 7, 2008 >There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to be >taxing citizens for "education" and then doling out money to the states. Same reason the government taxes people and then doles out money for highways. Same reason the government taxes people and then doles out money for the FAA, ATC and the CDC. And yet, amazingly, the highway system, the FAA, ATC or the CDC are not mentioned in the constitution! Strange but true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 May 7, 2008 QuoteEvidently, you don't remember Hillary's healthcare plan from the 1990s when slick willie was in the White House. As a voter, I'm more concerned with the proposal she has now than with what she proposed in the nineties.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteEducation benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, I didn't know you were a proponent of school vouchers. Refreshing. I'm not. Of course you know that, you just chose to misquote me. Here's the sentence I wrote: Education benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, their kids are grown, or they don't even have kids. Notice how you cut out important phrases? When you do that, you need to replace them with an ellipsis (…). If parents want to send their kids to private schools, let them. That should not change their responsibility to fund public education, just as parents with grown children fund it, and just as non-parents fund it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 May 7, 2008 QuoteThe Constitution says "promote the general welfare"...NOT provide it. And there is nothing about "promote" that excludes "provide." In fact, providing one way to partially promote. QuoteAs far as "invading countries"...the best defense is a good offense. You can quote me on that! If we were talking about football, I would agree. When it comes to foreign policy, there's not much evidence to support your assertion. Why isn't Switzerland constantly under attack? Their military offensive strategy is terrible.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 May 7, 2008 Quote Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with corporate welfare. It's OK to prop up the airlines, but not to educate the nation's children. It's OK to kill tens of thousands of brown skinned people in the Middle East but not to provide a helping hand to poor Americans. You come across just like a Bush supporter.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #39 May 7, 2008 QuoteIf parents want to send their kids to private schools, let them. That should not change their responsibility to fund public education, just as parents with grown children fund it, and just as non-parents fund it. no issue there - but nor should the public abscond their responsibility to educate those kids either if they go to a different school. if we are going to provide education to the kids, I want to provide for ALL the kids' educations You seem to want to fund the establishment and the hell with some of the kids there is a difference please parse this post for me so I can see how it's done. I'm learning so much. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #40 May 7, 2008 Quotenor should the public abscond their responsibility to educate those kids either if they go to a different school. They don't. Those kids are free to use the public schools and are, in fact, required to if they do not choose other options. If we use tax dollars to subsidize private schools, parochial schools, etc; then the government should have control over the curriculum at those schools, as well as ensure a clear separation of church and state for the students. That seems counter-productive to the parents who are looking for an alternative to public schools. QuoteYou seem to want to fund the establishment and the hell with the kids No, I think implementing school vouchers is saying, "to hell with the kids." I don't want to undermine funding for public education so that a minority of kids can attend a private school. It wouldn't be fair to the kids, and it wouldn't be fair for America's future.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #41 May 7, 2008 QuoteNo, I think implementing school vouchers is saying, "to hell with the kids." I don't want to undermine funding for public education so that a minority of kids can attend a private school. It wouldn't be fair to the kids, and it wouldn't be fair for America's future. so it's a bias against the minority (.of.) students.... would you change your mind in a school district that is so bad that a quarter of the kids' parents would choose private schooling? (if they could take that tax money to the school of their choice?) half? 3 quarters? Taking 90% of the money to follow 90% of the kids, and 10% of the money following 10% of the kids... how is that considered unfair to the 10 and 'undermining' the remaining 90%?????? for that matter most voucher proposals request LESS THAN 10% of the money for those 10% of the kids - so even the proposals out their aren't really 'fair' You are not talking about funding the kids' educations, you are talking about funding a system (I agree that vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #42 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteEducation benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, I didn't know you were a proponent of school vouchers. Refreshing. I think vouchers would be a great idea IF (and ONLY IF) the value of the voucher allowed the poorest parents to send their kids to the most expensive private schools. Otherwise they are just taxpayer funded subsidy to wealthier families and religious schools.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #43 May 7, 2008 K - vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. as far as your 'subsidy' - vouchers are a taxpayer funded subsidy to ALL families with kids. Wealthy and poor alike. Why differentiate? education of all the kids benefits society, right? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #44 May 7, 2008 QuoteK - vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. as far as your 'subsidy' - vouchers are a taxpayer funded subsidy to ALL families with kids. Wealthy and poor alike. Why differentiate? education of all the kids benefits society, right? A voucher does not help a family that can't make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of tuition. So a low value voucher is only of use to wealthier families. Which is why a "fair" voucher system allows ANY family to send their kids to a school of their choice, not just the wealthy ones. And "user fees" for aviation are still a dumb idea.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #45 May 7, 2008 Quoteso it's a bias against the minority (.of.) students.... Not at all. They have access to the same education that the majority of the kids in the district have. Quotewould you change your mind in a school district that is so bad that a quarter of the kids' parents would choose private schooling? (if they could take that tax money to the school of their choice?) half? 3 quarters? If so many parents are that concerned, then some of them need to get involved by running for the school board, attending school board meetings, etc. QuoteTaking 90% of the money to follow 90% of the kids, and 10% of the money following 10% of the kids... how is that considered unfair to the 10 and 'undermining' the remaining 90%?????? If a service can be provided for 100 kids for $10,000, that does not imply the same service can be provided for 90 kids for only $9000. Fixed costs versus variable costs, as well as quantity discounts need to be considered. Quotefor that matter most voucher proposals request LESS THAN 10% of the money for those 10% of the kids - so even the proposals out their aren't really 'fair' True, they're not fair. Why should those parent get a break on their school taxes when taxpayers without kids in school don't get a break on theirs. QuoteYou are not talking about funding the kids' educations, you are talking about funding a system Schools don't operate on magic fairy dust. They operate on money. School systems require funding to provide educations to kids. Does our public education system need reform? Yes. That doesn't mean that we should reduce their funding. If anything, there should be more funding.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 May 7, 2008 I disagree - the voucher has to be able to cover a basic curriculum, defined by society, only. If your posh school offered that basic (gov-approved) curriculum for the price of the voucher with no frills or added electives, then that would suffice. Parents pay for the ''extras" Conversely, IMO, the only requirement needs to be that sufficient schools meeting the basics need to be available in the area that meet the minimums. If not, then supplementing the voucher value to allow more choice in that area with few options is definitely arguable. none of this really matters in the rural areas you know - they only have one choice other than homeschooling. And those parents should be able to spend the vouchers for the homeschooling also if they can provide the basic curriculum. it's not that difficult if you just start with the idea that every kid should get equal treatment and stop worrying about the size of the parent's paycheck (rich or poor). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #47 May 7, 2008 QuoteWhy should those parent get a break on their school taxes when taxpayers without kids in school don't get a break on theirs. where did those parents get a reduction in their property taxes - good comments overall, but this one is nonsense what gets me is that in none of you posts do you talk about teaching the kids - you talk about supporting the system and obsess about the parents' incomes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #48 May 7, 2008 Back on topic - The airlines are pussies for trying to dump their costs on the private pilots. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #49 May 7, 2008 QuoteWell, the US Consitutution does authorize the federal government to "provide for the common defense" Exactly. Countries our size have no problems defending themselves for as little as $10B in the case of Canada which shares similar labor costs. Big spenders like China and Russia who have more territory get by on $60B a year. With a budget of over $500B annually we're paying for offense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #50 May 7, 2008 Quotewhere did those parents get a reduction in their property taxes - good comments overall, but this one is nonsense The voucher is a tax funded subsidy. Those who receive them will essentially be getting a reduction in their taxes, a tax credit for pulling their kids out of public school and enrolling them in a private or parochial school. So, basically, it is a tax credit available only to those wealthy enough to pay the difference between the voucher value and the tuition price. Quotewhat gets me is that in none of you posts do you talk about teaching the kids - you talk about supporting the system and obsess about the parents' incomes Vouchers aren't about teaching kids, their about subsidizing private education at the expense of public education.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #39 May 7, 2008 QuoteIf parents want to send their kids to private schools, let them. That should not change their responsibility to fund public education, just as parents with grown children fund it, and just as non-parents fund it. no issue there - but nor should the public abscond their responsibility to educate those kids either if they go to a different school. if we are going to provide education to the kids, I want to provide for ALL the kids' educations You seem to want to fund the establishment and the hell with some of the kids there is a difference please parse this post for me so I can see how it's done. I'm learning so much. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 May 7, 2008 Quotenor should the public abscond their responsibility to educate those kids either if they go to a different school. They don't. Those kids are free to use the public schools and are, in fact, required to if they do not choose other options. If we use tax dollars to subsidize private schools, parochial schools, etc; then the government should have control over the curriculum at those schools, as well as ensure a clear separation of church and state for the students. That seems counter-productive to the parents who are looking for an alternative to public schools. QuoteYou seem to want to fund the establishment and the hell with the kids No, I think implementing school vouchers is saying, "to hell with the kids." I don't want to undermine funding for public education so that a minority of kids can attend a private school. It wouldn't be fair to the kids, and it wouldn't be fair for America's future.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 May 7, 2008 QuoteNo, I think implementing school vouchers is saying, "to hell with the kids." I don't want to undermine funding for public education so that a minority of kids can attend a private school. It wouldn't be fair to the kids, and it wouldn't be fair for America's future. so it's a bias against the minority (.of.) students.... would you change your mind in a school district that is so bad that a quarter of the kids' parents would choose private schooling? (if they could take that tax money to the school of their choice?) half? 3 quarters? Taking 90% of the money to follow 90% of the kids, and 10% of the money following 10% of the kids... how is that considered unfair to the 10 and 'undermining' the remaining 90%?????? for that matter most voucher proposals request LESS THAN 10% of the money for those 10% of the kids - so even the proposals out their aren't really 'fair' You are not talking about funding the kids' educations, you are talking about funding a system (I agree that vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #42 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteEducation benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, I didn't know you were a proponent of school vouchers. Refreshing. I think vouchers would be a great idea IF (and ONLY IF) the value of the voucher allowed the poorest parents to send their kids to the most expensive private schools. Otherwise they are just taxpayer funded subsidy to wealthier families and religious schools.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 May 7, 2008 K - vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. as far as your 'subsidy' - vouchers are a taxpayer funded subsidy to ALL families with kids. Wealthy and poor alike. Why differentiate? education of all the kids benefits society, right? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #44 May 7, 2008 QuoteK - vouchers need to ensure a basic defined curriculum at any school they are used) - above and beyond that curriculum, the parents pay the difference. as far as your 'subsidy' - vouchers are a taxpayer funded subsidy to ALL families with kids. Wealthy and poor alike. Why differentiate? education of all the kids benefits society, right? A voucher does not help a family that can't make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of tuition. So a low value voucher is only of use to wealthier families. Which is why a "fair" voucher system allows ANY family to send their kids to a school of their choice, not just the wealthy ones. And "user fees" for aviation are still a dumb idea.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 May 7, 2008 Quoteso it's a bias against the minority (.of.) students.... Not at all. They have access to the same education that the majority of the kids in the district have. Quotewould you change your mind in a school district that is so bad that a quarter of the kids' parents would choose private schooling? (if they could take that tax money to the school of their choice?) half? 3 quarters? If so many parents are that concerned, then some of them need to get involved by running for the school board, attending school board meetings, etc. QuoteTaking 90% of the money to follow 90% of the kids, and 10% of the money following 10% of the kids... how is that considered unfair to the 10 and 'undermining' the remaining 90%?????? If a service can be provided for 100 kids for $10,000, that does not imply the same service can be provided for 90 kids for only $9000. Fixed costs versus variable costs, as well as quantity discounts need to be considered. Quotefor that matter most voucher proposals request LESS THAN 10% of the money for those 10% of the kids - so even the proposals out their aren't really 'fair' True, they're not fair. Why should those parent get a break on their school taxes when taxpayers without kids in school don't get a break on theirs. QuoteYou are not talking about funding the kids' educations, you are talking about funding a system Schools don't operate on magic fairy dust. They operate on money. School systems require funding to provide educations to kids. Does our public education system need reform? Yes. That doesn't mean that we should reduce their funding. If anything, there should be more funding.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 May 7, 2008 I disagree - the voucher has to be able to cover a basic curriculum, defined by society, only. If your posh school offered that basic (gov-approved) curriculum for the price of the voucher with no frills or added electives, then that would suffice. Parents pay for the ''extras" Conversely, IMO, the only requirement needs to be that sufficient schools meeting the basics need to be available in the area that meet the minimums. If not, then supplementing the voucher value to allow more choice in that area with few options is definitely arguable. none of this really matters in the rural areas you know - they only have one choice other than homeschooling. And those parents should be able to spend the vouchers for the homeschooling also if they can provide the basic curriculum. it's not that difficult if you just start with the idea that every kid should get equal treatment and stop worrying about the size of the parent's paycheck (rich or poor). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 May 7, 2008 QuoteWhy should those parent get a break on their school taxes when taxpayers without kids in school don't get a break on theirs. where did those parents get a reduction in their property taxes - good comments overall, but this one is nonsense what gets me is that in none of you posts do you talk about teaching the kids - you talk about supporting the system and obsess about the parents' incomes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 May 7, 2008 Back on topic - The airlines are pussies for trying to dump their costs on the private pilots. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #49 May 7, 2008 QuoteWell, the US Consitutution does authorize the federal government to "provide for the common defense" Exactly. Countries our size have no problems defending themselves for as little as $10B in the case of Canada which shares similar labor costs. Big spenders like China and Russia who have more territory get by on $60B a year. With a budget of over $500B annually we're paying for offense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 May 7, 2008 Quotewhere did those parents get a reduction in their property taxes - good comments overall, but this one is nonsense The voucher is a tax funded subsidy. Those who receive them will essentially be getting a reduction in their taxes, a tax credit for pulling their kids out of public school and enrolling them in a private or parochial school. So, basically, it is a tax credit available only to those wealthy enough to pay the difference between the voucher value and the tuition price. Quotewhat gets me is that in none of you posts do you talk about teaching the kids - you talk about supporting the system and obsess about the parents' incomes Vouchers aren't about teaching kids, their about subsidizing private education at the expense of public education.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
