really?

"What is irrefutable is that you want me to help subsidize your kids going to private school."

ONE HUNDRED percent false. That is literally 100% demonstrable bullsh*t. In my case, I'd like to direct some of MY TAX DOLLARS, to the school of my choice. How is that asking you to subsidize me by even one cent?

In the case of poor people stuck in the cities, now the truth comes out, you accidentally said the quiet part out loud. You claim all day long you want to help these people, and they are begging for more school choice, which you'd deny them, because YOU don't like the idea of any of your money going to a private school. You're OK with your tax dollars subsidizing their crappy (and more expensive)public schools. But you're not OK with your tax dollars subsidizing them to attend quality private schools (often cheaper) that actually work. Please, please tell us how that's helping poor people?

Paul, you'd rather subsidize them to attend lousy schools in Hartford which costs $20k per year per kid, than send them to my kids' tiny Catholic school which has less than 10 kids per class, and costs $5500 per kid for middle school grades? That';s just chock full of common sense.

That's liberalism, boy! "I demand to spend $20k per year of public money on a terrible school, rather than $5500 per year on a terrific school!!"

It's stupid, and it does nothing to help poor people. But more money goes to the unions, which means more money goes to helping democrats win elections. And THAT'S what matters.

You want to fix public schools? Offer school choice. Tell public schools that they now have competition. Do that, and those public schools would make some meaningful improvements in the next 5 seconds (they can't fix the effect of broken families, but they can fix some things, like get rid of lousy teachers). There's zero incentive to do a good job, when you have a perfect monopoly.

You say to poor people "keep voting democrat, and hopefully one day before your kids graduate (or drop out), those schools will improve".

You're telling poor people to suck it up. I'd offer them a huge improvement. Yet you're on the side of the angels. Sure Paul, whatever you say. Nothing but hollow, empty, virtue-signaling rhetoric.

Your country club example is way off, because catholic schools are usually cheaper than the public schools in the cities.

So would you turn down the chance to play at a private country club which had a better course and lower greens fees than your public golf course? Because that's what you're advocating for here. You're advocating to spend a fortune more money, for a vastly inferior product. That just makes all kinds of sense.

he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a free membership at a private golf course....

good grief....:huh:

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud. They want huge numbers of poor people to stay exactly where they are, because the more of them that are in the cities and addicted to welfare, the larger their reliable voting block is.

Choice a - spend $20k per year per student in Hartford public schools, which are failing sh*tholes.

Choice b - spend less than $6k per year to send them to a catholic K-8 school with less than 10 kids per class, and where kids on average perform a full grade level higher than where they are, on standardized tests.

Why is this a difficult choice? Politics. That's it. If you were at all motivated by an actual urge to help these people, that's a ridiculously easy decision.

But unfortunately for those poor people, while school choice will help lift those kids out of poverty, it doesn't help democrats win elections.

The poor people need to form a union. Then the democrats will actually act on their behalf.
The other benefit to this school choice...let's say you pull 10 kids out of Hartford (where you'd spend $20k per kid), and out them in my kids school, which costs $5500 per kid...the public school in Hartford (1) now has fewer kids, thus smaller class sizes, which everyone knows helps kids. And (2) they also have more money, because Hartford schools can keep the $14,500 they were going to spend anyway on each kid who left for private school. If it's 10 kids who leave, thats $145k that Hartford can spend on the remaining kids.

In other words, after those kids leave, the public school can now spend even more money per kid, on the kids who choose to remain there.

Win-win.

subsidized snarky one, not free

Indiana's school voucher program started in 2011

The data doesn’t match you fantasy Jim school choice is a red herring being presented as a benefit for inner city blacks . But is aimed a sending white kids to religious schools and having the government pay most of the bill ..
But keep saying it’s about poor people



Whites increased from 40 to 60% and blacks declined 24 to 12%.





For a full voucher, worth 90 percent of what a state would spend in a public school, a family of four can earn no more than $45,000 annually, but students whose parents earn up to $67,000 can still qualify for a half-voucher. And for children already in the program, their family income can rise to nearly $90,000 annually.

Yep helping those who need it most




“If the idea behind a voucher program is we’re going to have the money follow the student, if the student didn’t start in a public school, the money isn’t following them from a public school, it’s just appearing from another budget,” Stewart said. “And we’re not exactly sure where that’s coming from.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

inner city parents desperately want it. so i guess you’re saying (1) that you know better then they do, what’s best for their kids, and that (2) you aren’t really pro choice.

If you had shown the ability to EVER not tow the union line, you’d have some credibility here. If the unions told you to lay an egg, you’d squat and ask what color.

Oh you don’t like tax breaks for families making as much as $90k?

How about the $7500 tax credit for buying new electric cars? How many poor people are buying new electric cars?

as always, it’s ok when liberals do anything, such as giving. big tax credits to the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a subsidized membership at a private golf course....

good grief....



OK...that makes you sound a whole lot better :hs:

correct. that is exactly what it is.

Future "segregation academies"

I'm not thrilled with my town's snow removal. Maybe I can get a subsidy to hire a private contractor to make extra passes on my street when it snows.

you didn't even have to put words in their mouth like they frequently do with you...

we've learned that he doesn't believe other people are nearly as charitable as they claim and that he believes he is even more charitable than he claims....

and...

that some children should not benefit from a better education opportunity unless he get's his private country club membership subsidized....

fabulous....

and Wayne is saving the planet with an electric toaster....


can't make this stuff up....

Yes, let's make the schools better by taking away funding and the most engaged parents by subsidizing private schools. Makes sense.

See you cannot help yourself. No wonder you are an angry person with no friends on this site.

I support school choice with strict income caps. Especially in inner cities where schools are the worst. So please explain how that's aimed at sending white kids to better schools. I'm all ears.

when all else fails :rotf2:

You are incredible Paul. It was you, not me, who said you like your side because you think they have superior views on helping the poor, and that republicans don't like poor people or something. But when I remind you what you said, I'm angry. Make sense.

Paul: My side has better views on helping the poor and Republicans don't care about poor people.

Jim: you claim your side is the virtuous side

Paul: You're angry and scummy.

And try to control your snarkiness Scott, liberals really don't like it when their logic is exposed to the light of day.

Nope. Follow the math, or have a middle schooler explain the math to you. My idea of school choice leaves public schools with more money to spend per kid. "More money per kid", is the exact opposite of what you claim would happen.

So it's better to punish the "most engaged parents" by leaving them in failing sh*thole schools that you'd never, EVER send your kids to?

How does that help those most engaged parents, Paul? Please explain how denying school choice helps those parents? The ones who happen to be poor, but are doing everything the right way? How does denying them school choice help them?

The only ones hurt by school choice are the teachers left behind in the urban schools (as some of the most teachable students would leave) and the union, and therefore democrats who get $$ from the union. That's it.

told you right there.

You don't even recognize when you insult people any more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.



that's an insult?

Files copied from voting systems were shared with Trump supporters, election deniers

A Georgia computer forensics firm, hired by the attorneys, placed the files on a server, where company records show they were downloaded dozens of times. Among the downloaders were accounts associated with a Texas meteorologist who has appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show; a podcaster who suggested political enemies should be executed; a former pro surfer who pushed disproven theories that the 2020 election was manipulated; and a self-described former “seduction and pickup coach” who claims to also have been a hacker.

So let me guess . They are Trumps lawyers but Trump shoulders no responsibility for their actions?

It’s that how it works ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don’t find failing public schools and charter schools in wealthy neighborhoods, do you?

Why would that be?

Because wealthy locales add more burden on to their local taxpayers, who are willing to pay and insist on quality education.
Now Jim and other school choice disciples have no desire to increase funding, instead they want to spread it thinner using vouchers to replace public education funding.
The magical privatization theory, good for schools, prisons, roads, rail, etc.
Wonder why we keep losing ground in the world?
Public schools would have less money to work with because what they used to receive is now a voucher that is handed out.
The only families left behind are those who cannot make up the difference of the voucher (thus, lower-income families) and those with disabled children. Because private schools do not have to take disabled children.

Unfortunately those left behind are the most expensive and it would only get worse.

Now some think that teachers need to just do more for less, because they should feel privileged to be responsible for the education of our greatest asset.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And don't forget the issue of fixed/variable cost. If there are fewer students you still need to spend the same for services such as heating the building, provide the same security/guards, etc. You still need to run the same buses, etc. End result is lower $ to provide services while subsidizing students to go to private school. As I said the most engage parents would take their children out while the students w/o engaged parents with the most needs would be left further behind. I guess they would need to lift themselves up by the bootstraps.

yes, as you said, you advocate for punishing the few engaged parents, because you believe it’s their job to leave their kids in crappy schools for the benefit of others, rather than let them
flourish in good schools

yet you claim you care more about those parents than i do.

Keep bleating the narrative paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The few would leave and benefit while the majority would be still be in the public schools with fewer resources.

It is all about what is best for Jim - screw the less fortunate. Typical Conservate mantra.

"the majority would be still be in the public schools with fewer resources. "

(1) the majority are there anyway. Better to force them all to stay? Or better to help those who want the help?

(2) Fewer overall dollars, but more dollars per student.

(3) competition would incentivize the public school to improve.

"It is all about what is best for Jim"

How does this help me, exactly? I'm not poor in an urban area. I'm already sending my kids to private school. You're saying I'm selfish, because I want to help those engaged parents?

You keep saying you don't want to subsidize private schools, but you're OK with subsidizing public schools, whish are worse and way more expensive?

Finally, it's what they want Paul. I say let them choose what's best for their kids. You'd deny them that choice, yet you claim you're more on their side than I am.

And teh fact that dumping massive amounts of money into lousy urban schools helps democrats win elections, that has nothing to do with the liberal stance on the issue, that's just a happy coincidence for the left.

But you're going to make the urban schools stronger by continuing to throw good money after bad.

Beyond stupid. And likely racist. Keep those darkies where they belong, don't let them into the suburbs. It's better for them, actually, to stay in downtown Hartford. Keep telling yourself that, Einstein.

Again, this is why I think you are a classless, friendless person.

a whole lot easier for you to insult me, than to make me wrong.

You said it’s selfish that i support school choice for poor people
in urban areas. I asked how that’s selfish, you ignored that obviously and insulted me.

You’re opposed to helping the few engaged parents in that situation who are doing the right thing and desperately want a better future for their kids. you compared educating poor children, to something as extravagant as a country club membership. but i’m the flawed one

Tell me more, please. I’d like to sign up for your low-IQ newsletter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some people are proof that Trump merely acted as the latest conduit for America’s deep natural reserves of #^&#^&#^&#^&tiness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device