Omnibus Spending Bill proposes end to DC Vouchers

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. could both sides stop being so vitirolic? Neither of you is making much of a point... (TBF: Lefty, for all that is good in the world, stop!)

Anyway. I imagine that it's probably as simple as a pro quid pro quo(? not sure how it's spelt) for the unions.

Political graft is endemic, so I cant' really say I'm surprised.

 

[Meadmaker]

That dooms the schools that lose students to failure..

They've had vouchers in Milwaukee for 14 years. Have the public schools failed there?

 

[BPSCG]

You do realise that "wealthy parents" that send their kids to private schools still pay property taxes to the public school district the live in don't you?

So what? They owe it to society.

You're too much, you really are. It's like you have a little switch in your brain that says, "I'm gonna rail against wealthy people no matter what. We hatessss them, my preciousss..."

You hate the wealthy because they supposedly get vouchers to send their kids to private schools. When it's explained to you that the wealthy don't get vouchers, you switch your complaint to:

It isn't about paying "your share" based on your kids. It's aboput yourt share as a beneficiary of the infrastructure from which you derive your income.

Then, when Texas explains that the wealthy pay more than their fair share by paying school taxes for schools they don't send their kids to, you then switch your complaint to, "they owe it to society." Would you mind explaining to the rest of us the math by which you arrive at how much more than simply one's fair share one owes to society? Mrs. BPSCG and I have no children, yet we pay school taxes. Please provide the formula that determines how much we "owe to society" on top of our taxes.

It's funny, you talk about "the infrastructure from which you derive your income," like there's some giant magic income machine that the wealthy - and only the wealthy - can tap into. Has it occurred to you that that infrastructure is paid for by taxes? Taxes that are paid, disproportionately, by the wealthy (that's the meaning of a "progressive" tax system - the more you make, the higher your tax rate)? That infrastructure is there because people pay taxes to put it there - and the wealthy pay the biggest chunk of those taxes.

That dooms the schools that lose students to failure. But that is, after all, the GOP plan. If a government operation is working, break it and privatize the salvage.

Wow.

Just ... wow...

If you think inner-city schools are a government operation that is working, your Marxist beliefs may be the least of your delusions.

 

[leftysergeant]

You're too much, you really are. It's like you have a little switch in your brain that says, "I'm gonna rail against wealthy people no matter what. We hatessss them, my preciousss..."

You hate the wealthy because they supposedly get vouchers to send their kids to private schools. When it's explained to you that the wealthy don't get vouchers, you switch your complaint to: Then, when Texas explains that the wealthy pay more than their fair share by paying school taxes for schools they don't send their kids to, you then switch your complaint to, "they owe it to society." Would you mind explaining to the rest of us the math by which you arrive at how much more than simply one's fair share one owes to society? Mrs. BPSCG and I have no children, yet we pay school taxes. Please provide the formula that determines how much we "owe to society" on top of our taxes.

You earn your income within the infrastructure that we all built for the common good. Your share is measureable by your income.

It's funny, you talk about "the infrastructure from which you derive your income," like there's some giant magic income machine that the wealthy - and only the wealthy - can tap into.

I never said that only the wealthy can access it. But maggots like the Waltons can squeeze a lot of other people out of it.

Has it occurred to you that that infrastructure is paid for by taxes? Taxes that are paid, disproportionately, by the wealthy (that's the meaning of a "progressive" tax system - the more you make, the higher your tax rate)? That infrastructure is there because people pay taxes to put it there - and the wealthy pay the biggest chunk of those taxes.

And, since the wealthy benefit at a far greater rate, it is appropriate that they pay at a far greater rate.

If you think inner-city schools are a government operation that is working, your Marxist beliefs may be the least of your delusions.

Not working as well as you would like, but a hell of a lot better than nothing, which is what would be left if the people could just abandon them.

Even with vouchers, there are people who could not afford to send their kids elsewhere.

Vouchers are a disinsentive to repairing the schools. Bad idea.

 

[BPSCG]

You earn your income within the infrastructure that we all built for the common good.

"All?"

Some people - many people, in fact - pay no taxes at all, never have, never will. What have they contributed to the "common good?"

Your share is measureable by your income.

So are you now saying that nobody should have to pay more than his fair share? That the progressive tax system and the current tax rates are sufficient to determine what we each owe society?

I never said that only the wealthy can access it. But maggots like the Waltons can squeeze a lot of other people out of it.

If you're talking about Walmart, you understand that Walmart is a major contributor to that infrastructure, don't you?

Employees: 2,100,000
Taxes Paid (Year ending):

• 1/31/2009 - $7.2 billion
• 1/31/2008 - $6.9 billion
• 1/31/2007 - $6.4 billion
• 1/31/2006 - $5.8 billion
• 1/31/2005 - $5.6 billion

If Walmart is made up of "maggots," (and you really need to stop dehumanizing others, unless you intend to exterminate them at some point) it's fair to ask how much you paid in taxes last year. Did you pay your fair share? Or are you a maggot?

And, since the wealthy benefit at a far greater rate, it is appropriate that they pay at a far greater rate.

And they do. So whence your righteous anger?

Even with vouchers, there are people who could not afford to send their kids elsewhere.

So what? Must a remedy for a problem solve it perfectly?

Vouchers are a disinsentive to repairing the schools. Bad idea.

No, vouchers introduce competition to public schools. The good ones, with good teachers, will thrive. The bad ones will go under. Please don't try to argue that public school systems aren't having mind-boggling amounts of money thrown at them. If they are failing, it's not for a lack of money.

 

[Alt+F4]

Vouchers are a disinsentive to repairing the schools. Bad idea.

I don't think it has to be one or the other.

Parents should have the right to vouchers and where voucher programs have been successful it's because parents take an active role in their children's education.

However, vouchers are not the savior of public education. What about parents who are unwilling or unable to participate in a voucher program. Now before you say, "How hard is is? Do some research, find a better school and show up with your kid and the voucher", let me tell you there is a significant percentage of parents who won't do it, even if the voucher and instructions are mailed to them. What happens to these kids?

The answer has to be a two-pronged approach. Vouchers and fixing inner city education.

 

[Tailgater]

Don't you see BP. For every octo-mom with no accountability, some maggot parentless couple with hard earned money has to contribute extra to the common good. It's only fair.

Government-provided vouchers do. That dooms the schools that lose students to failure. But that is, after all, the GOP plan. If a government operation is working, break it and privatize the salvage.

Evidence you don't really care about details, but bad talking points you rail against talk radio for.

 

[Meadmaker]

Even with vouchers, there are people who could not afford to send their kids elsewhere.

Is that true in Milwaukee? In Sweden? (In Cleveland, it might be, because I don't think the vouchers there cover the full cost of education. I don't know about DC.)

The actual experience with vouchers does not match your claims.

 

[Meadmaker]

let me tell you there is a significant percentage of parents who won't do it, even if the voucher and instructions are mailed to them. What happens to these kids?

They are at a significant disadvantage because they have lazy, stupid, parents. Nevertheless, the public schools are still available for those kids.

In any place where a real voucher program has really been implemented, the public schools have gotten better, not worse.

 

[BPSCG]

However, vouchers are not the savior of public education. What about parents who are unwilling or unable to participate in a voucher program. Now before you say, "How hard is is? Do some research, find a better school and show up with your kid and the voucher", let me tell you there is a significant percentage of parents who won't do it, even if the voucher and instructions are mailed to them. What happens to these kids?

Three words: Criminal justice system.

I agree - the biggest problem schools face today is parents who don't care whether their kids get an education or not. If parents demanded not only that schools teach their kids, but also that their kids get the education they need, schools would be in a lot better shape.

I know I am far from the only one here who,as a kid, knew that if he got in trouble at school, he'd be in far worse trouble at home. Today, if a kid gets in trouble at school, the teachers and administrators are scared to death that Little Precious's parents will be at the principal's office raising holy hell - and that's the only time those parents will get involved in their kid's education. Viz the other thread here about how schools are eliminating playground activities like tag, ferchrissake, for fear of being sued if Little Precious falls and breaks his arm. There's a serious pathology there, that providing vouchers to motivated parents only begins to address.

 

[leftysergeant]

"All?"

Some people - many people, in fact - pay no taxes at all, never have, never will. What have they contributed to the "common good?"

Working people are the source of your wealth, whether you realize it or not. Capital does not create wealth. Either it redistrributes wealth or it becomes a poison in the body politic. Lately, it seems only to redistribute wealth upward.

So are you now saying that nobody should have to pay more than his fair share? That the progressive tax system and the current tax rates are sufficient to determine what we each owe society?

No. Reagan and the Shrub cut the rates on exactly the maggots who should be paying more right now for th4e mess they got us into. I do not consume the resources that a Walmart consumes, nor do I drive mom-and-pops out of business, no can I just enjoy a reduced rate on my income like the Walton larvae do. They get off easy with the reduced cap gains rates, while we working schlubs have to bear some of their burden. You realize, don't you, that the wages of the store workers is taxed at a higher rate than the capital gains of the Walton larvae?

No, vouchers introduce competition to public schools. The good ones, with good teachers, will thrive. The bad ones will go under. Please don't try to argue that public school systems aren't having mind-boggling amounts of money thrown at them. If they are failing, it's not for a lack of money.

You expect them to compete with a millstone around their necks. They can't turn down the problem students like the yuppie academies do. If the private school system was stuck with the same kinds of students, they would notr enjoy the illusion of superior results they do today.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

God let the stupid stop flowing before I get a chance to finish my post!

Briefly, I will say that the program was a "pilot" one set to end in 2008, the people didn't want it, it hasn't shown any benefit, and it was passed under a omnibus spending bill while the Black Caucus and key Democrats were away and the Republicans refused requests to vote with them present. The only good thing is that the parents in the program feel better, which if we are going to spend 15 million we might as well give them results that would make them feel better.

(I am forming a megapost on the topic, so if you want sources just wait a bit)

 

[WildCat]

Working people are the source of your wealth, whether you realize it or not. Capital does not create wealth. Either it redistrributes wealth or it becomes a poison in the body politic. Lately, it seems only to redistribute wealth upward.

Da Comrade!

Bwahahahahaha!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You realize, don't you, that the wages of the store workers is taxed at a higher rate than the capital gains of the Walton larvae?

Of course, without folks like the “Walton larvae”, the “store workers” wouldn't have jobs (or incomes) at all.

 

[WildCat]

Of course, without folks like the “Walton larvae”, the “store workers” wouldn't have jobs (or incomes) at all.

Oh, they'd all have mom & pop stores, and everyone would shop there because people just love paying inflated prices and hopping from one store to another all day long to get the things they want!

It's true!

 

[Texas]

And, since the wealthy benefit at a far greater rate, it is appropriate that they pay at a far greater rate.



.

In your opinion what would be the appropriate the tax rate be on the top 40%of earners and on the bottom 40% of earners?

 

[UserGoogol]

Although I sometimes make the same mistake by bringing my weird personal version of Utilitarianism into discussions, I think that lefty should probably stop talking about the capitalist leeching off the working man. There are plenty of arguments to be made against vouchers without getting all Marxisty and facing more resistance. (I happen to think he's wrong, but hey, that's a whole different discussion.)

For instance, The cost of funding students is nonlinear due to economies of scale and whatnot, so the costs incurred by transferring one student to another school are not something you can resolve simply by taking money from one school and giving it to another. (Although I don't know what DC uses to calculate voucher values so maybe it's more sophisticated than that.)

Three words: Criminal justice system.

I agree - the biggest problem schools face today is parents who don't care whether their kids get an education or not. If parents demanded not only that schools teach their kids, but also that their kids get the education they need, schools would be in a lot better shape.

Which is why I think the idea of vouchers kind of misses the point. Maybe vouchers help (I really don't know) but when it comes right down to it, parents (their wealth, their involvement, all sorts of factors) are the biggest factor in a child's academic success. Moving power from the public school system to parents does not really address this issue, and kind of makes things worse by concentrating more power in the hands of parents.

 

[Texas]

Which is why I think the idea of vouchers kind of misses the point. Maybe vouchers help (I really don't know) but when it comes right down to it, parents (their wealth, their involvement, all sorts of factors) are the biggest factor in a child's academic success. Moving power from the public school system to parents does not really address this issue, and kind of makes things worse by concentrating more power in the hands of parents.

Wow so parents having more power over their kids education is a bad thing?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Is it really so much?

D.C. parents said Thursday that they are prepared to rally against a Capitol Hill proposal to end a voucher program that helps 1,700 students from low-income families attend private schools.

"With all the programs that don't work, we're frustrated that this - one that does work - is being proposed to end," said Virginia Walden Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice. "Right now, we're preparing to fight and we're hoping not to fail."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/dc-parents-to-push-congress-to-keep-vouchers/

After all ,the stimulus bill has $650 million for TV digital converter coupons...

 

[UserGoogol]

Wow so parents having more power over their kids education is a bad thing?

It's not an inherently bad thing, but the goal should not be for children to be the slaves of their parents but for power over a child's life to be arranged in such a way as to best advance their interests. Parents are often best at that by nature of them being intimately involved in a child's life by definition, but when they are not good at their jobs, then giving more power to them isn't exactly going to resolve that.