If the gop win the midterms

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, YOU are the one saying that republicans care less about the poor.and it is reflected in their being more concerned w/low taxes There's no evidence that's true, other than your desperate wish for it to be true. The study I posted shows the 2 sides give about the same, so no big difference.But yet you are the one always saying that cons. give more to charity than liberals! I don't bring up charity - you do!!!

"Conserv. always look down at the poor"

Then please explain the stance taken by each side, regarding school choice. I'll wait.Liberals want to make the public schools stronger. Cons. want the ability to go to private schools and want the cities to subsidize their tuition.

"Tell me where I ever said that.
Your (for Scott) a liar."

You're claiming , that you have never dismissed the results of the "Who Really Cares" study, on the basis that the difference is largely due to giving to churches. You've never once said that? Is that what you're saying I made up? Because every single time I bring up that study, you say something like "that's only because republicans give more to their church..."

You said "since you like to dismiss that because you don't think donating to churches qualifies as charity" I have never said it doesn't count as charity - just that the difference between lib/cons. giving is that cons. give to their church. Some of the studies I posted show that. One thing I learned is that the giving is not to the national church but to the local congregation.

I can't read that yellow font., sorry...

Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow

ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?

the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?

Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable.

The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?

And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?

the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?

Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable. What is irrefutable is that you want me to help subsidize your kids going to private school.

The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?

And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As soon as you subsidize my ability to join a private country club instead of the local town owned course I might change my mind.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As soon as you subsidize my ability to join a private country club instead of the local town owned course I might change my mind.

really?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As soon as you subsidize my ability to join a private country club instead of the local town owned course I might change my mind.

"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.

[scottw]

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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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....

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud.

.

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....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

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....

subsidized snarky one, not free

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

subsidized snarky one, not free

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