student loan forgivemess

[Got Stripers]

Those college kids all planned to pay back those loans as soon as the millionaire tax breaks trickled down to them, I don’t understand the rush to forgive loans it would get to them haha.

[Pete F.]

I’m waiting for someone to make the argument for universal government insurance, after all competition is good.

And by the way Jim, it’s likely that all of your taxes and some paid by others go to fund your childrens education and associated costs.
We do that in this country because we believe that it’s important to do the following:
Develop a productive workforce.
Create an informed citizenry.
Provide for social mobility.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I’m waiting for someone to make the argument for universal government insurance, after all competition is good.

And by the way Jim, it’s likely that all of your taxes and some paid by others go to fund your childrens education and associated costs.
We do that in this country because we believe that it’s important to do the following:
Develop a productive workforce.
Create an informed citizenry.
Provide for social mobility.

Taxes are like insurance it goes into one big pot. Some of use use more then we put in others never use it..

But you always have some who want theirs back .. crying about fairness ..

Wouldn’t want to be on sinking ship with that crowd . You have 2 choices everyone in the life boats or we are all going down with the ship

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wouldn’t want to be on sinking ship with that crowd . You have 2 choices everyone in the life boats or we are all going down with the ship

Equity dictates that there really are only 2 choices

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Taxes are like insurance it goes into one big pot. Some of use use more then we put in others never use it..

But you always have some who want theirs back .. crying about fairness ..

Wouldn’t want to be on sinking ship with that crowd . You have 2 choices everyone in the life boats or we are all going down with the ship

catholic schools are way cheaper and far superior

i’d like to offer that benefit to people
who can’t afford it. you’d deny it to them and force them to stay in failing sh*thole schools

I’m pretty comfortable on my side of that argument. you want those people to stay right where they are. i want to get creative to help them out of poverty.

You care more about politics than helping them.

have fun make that wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I’m waiting for someone to make the argument for universal government insurance, after all competition is good.

And by the way Jim, it’s likely that all of your taxes and some paid by others go to fund your childrens education and associated costs.
We do that in this country because we believe that it’s important to do the following:
Develop a productive workforce.
Create an informed citizenry.
Provide for social mobility.

social mobility, eh?

Is social mobility helped, or is it hindered, if more children are in good schools, and fewer children are in lousy schools?’

My town spends $15k to educate each kid. If you give me $2k of that to help me pay for catholic school, the town keeps the other $13k and now has one fewer kid to spend it on. so more spent per kid. That’s good for the kids who stay in public school.

It’s win win. Except for teachers unions, which is the only key reason democrats oppose it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

social mobility, eh?

Is social mobility helped, or is it hindered, if more children are in good schools, and fewer children are in lousy schools?’It will make the public schools worse off having to give up revenue to subsidize a private school.

My town spends $15k to educate each kid. If you give me $2k of that to help me pay for catholic school , the town keeps the other $13k and now has one fewer kid to spend it on. so more spent per kid. That’s good for the kids who stay in public school. In another post you said you wouldn't benefit. Doesn't the $2K per kid benefit YOU?

It’s win win. Except for teachers unions, which is the only key reason democrats oppose it.100% wrong.

So if 10 out of 2,000 students leave a public school what will get cut?

will a teacher get laid off?
will the heat be lowered?
will the bus routes be changed?

The costs are still the same. There will be 24.2 kids in a class instead of 24.4 - that is it.

All is it does is subsidize you sending your kids to private schools. Most people can't afford the $15K it costs to send their kid to private school regardless of a subside.

Why don't the Catholic HSs take kids with handicaps and educate them instead of leaving them for the public HS?

[Jim in CT]

paul, public schools will give up revenue but what you conveniently left out, is there’s would be fewer kids.

if crappy teachers in crappy schools get laid off, boo boo. better to keep flushing money down the toilet forever?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, public schools will give up revenue but what you conveniently left out, is there’s would be fewer kids.

if crappy teachers in crappy schools get laid off, boo boo. better to keep flushing money down the toilet forever?

I showed you the fixed costs will be the same. 500 kids at a high school in hartford aren't going to go to Xavier bc they get a $2K subsidy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

social mobility, eh?

Is social mobility helped, or is it hindered, if more children are in good schools, and fewer children are in lousy schools?’

My town spends $15k to educate each kid. If you give me $2k of that to help me pay for catholic school, the town keeps the other $13k and now has one fewer kid to spend it on. so more spent per kid. That’s good for the kids who stay in public school.

It’s win win. Except for teachers unions, which is the only key reason democrats oppose it.

So federal aid to education no longer is per student?

It’s not a winner, in the long term it will decimate public education.

You rant about about student loan forgiveness and then want the rest of us to pay for special education for your kids.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Maybe the private schools will start providing free lunches for all those poor kids from the Hartford schools who will need help paying for lunch since their $ will go to pay private school tuition.

[wdmso]

I posted about Indiana school vouchers

Whites enrolled increased black enrollment decreased

And the majority of peoples kids getting vouchers never stepped foot in a public school


the average tuition at private elementary schools is $7,630, while the average for Catholic elementaries is $4,840. The same is true of high schools, where the average tuition is $16,040 and the average Catholic high school cost is $11,240.

Yep low income and middle income family’s have 50 k to send 3 kids to high school x 4 years

School choice is a scam by republicans. Using school choice for minority’s as their straw man .

Statistics. Don’t back up their claims
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Paul I concede school choice isn’t good for public teachers. Is the point of education to help teachers, or to help children?

[Jim in CT]

paul, you’ve talked a lot about the impact to the public school. and to be fair, that’s part of the discussion. Another part, is the benefit to the kids who participate. I haven’t seen you comment in that part of this. what do you suppose the effect is, of taking poor but eager students out of godawful public schools, and putting them in small private schools?

Parents want school choice. Public teachers, their unions, and politicians who take big $$ from the unions, don’t want it.

So who do schools exist to serve? The students and their families, or the teachers?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, you’ve talked a lot about the impact to the public school. and to be fair, that’s part of the discussion. Another part, is the benefit to the kids who participate. I haven’t seen you comment in that part of this. what do you suppose the effect is, of taking poor but eager students out of godawful public schools, and putting them in small private schools?

If you take a few students out and it benefits them but you're removing Revenue from the remainder it hurts more people than it is helping. You currently have teachers spending their own money for supplies because the schools are under funded.


You haven't commented on how a subsidy would benefit you because it will. And you haven't answered why the private schools don't accept handicapped students
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Parents want school choice

Some do Jim some … And the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them

But keep thinking it’s about unions and politics

I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers …

To bad all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools ..

Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility…. You have Ron and other politicians who have lied and convinced theses gullible parents that their smarter than the teachers . And suggesting their villains .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Parents want school choice

Some do Jim some … And the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them

But keep thinking it’s about unions and politics

I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers …

To bad all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools ..

Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility…. You have Ron and other politicians who have lied and convinced theses gullible parents that their smarter than the teachers . And suggesting their villains .

Where to begin...

"the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them"

That's a very pro-left, self serving statement. Please support it. Please back that up with data, or admit you made it up because it serves your agenda...

"I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers … "

As always, you respond to something I never came close to saying. I never said public schools send zero kids to the Ivy League. Please respond to what I'm saying. Why do you constantly respond to radical nonsense that no one ever even came CLOSE to saying?

"all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools"

That's probably true, I'd agree most who enter the trades are graduates of public school. But most arent graduating from disgusting, failing, inner city public schools. Not all public schools are failing sh*tholes, but some are, and we all know which ones they are, and that's where parents who are doing the right thing, should be offered a choice.

"keep thinking it’s about unions and politics"

So it's just a coincidence that the democrat position on this issue is to protect teachers unions from a tiny speck of competition, and that teachers unions give huge money to democrats. That's just a coincidence? Or do you deny that teachers unions give money to democrats?

"Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility"

I agree! Most educational success (not all, but most) is determined in the home. But if you agree with that, why do you support democrats who mock traditional family values, and give all their effort and money to teachers, instead of to programs that support strong families?

In addition , there are some schools that are so bad, that even good parents have a tough time getting a good outcome for their kids. These are the places where there should be choice.

You guys keep whining about subsidizing education. But with poor people, you're already subsidizing their public school education. If there's an opportunity to subsidize better schools at a lower cost, why would you rather that your money go to worse schools that are more expensive? We're subsidizing their e3ducation either way. Why not provide then with the best possible opportunities?

You are paying for their schooling already. Why not have your money provide them with the best schooling available, especially if its cheaper?

Politics. That's why. Why else would you choose to keep those kids in stinky schools that are more expensive than the good schools?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Politics. That's why. Why else would you choose to keep those kids in stinky schools that are more expensive than the good schools?

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn, yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn,yes, for the most part yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.BC it will make the public schools worse skimming off the "cream of the crop"


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

Agree - mainly bc I went there also. I don't know that we had "poor" kids. Prob. blue collar. Most teachers (public and private) have summer jobs in the summer. Atleast the younger ones.

[PaulS]

Yes, ND

I think is skims some of the cream of crop off. The kids who demonstrate all the things that people want their kids to be (polite, hard working, etc).

Someone who would bring a gun to school isn't going to get anything from those kids but maybe the people who work hard for their grades everyday can look up to them.

I think overall it is better to have those kids remain in the public schools. And that has nothing to do w/teachers or unions.

Edit: I also feel that citizens are providing an education to the students they shouldn't have to subsidize an "alternative" education. Sort of the same as a star band member in those same schools where there is a music teacher. Should there be funds for that student to go out and get private music lessons somewhere else.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, ND

I think is skims some of the cream of crop off. The kids who demonstrate all the things that people want their kids to be (polite, hard working, etc).

Someone who would bring a gun to school isn't going to get anything from those kids but maybe the people who work hard for their grades everyday can look up to them.

I think overall it is better to have those kids remain in the public schools. And that has nothing to do w/teachers or unions.

Edit: I also feel that citizens are providing an education to the students they shouldn't have to subsidize an "alternative" education. Sort of the same as a star band member in those same schools where there is a music teacher. Should there be funds for that student to go out and get private music lessons somewhere else.

"maybe the people who work hard for their grades everyday can look up to them"

you're saying maybe. You'd deny these kids a better shot at escaping poverty, because "maybe" some kids left behind will miss them? The kids who are trying against all odds to succeed, it's THEIR responsibility to stay behind so that "maybe" some other kids look up to them?

"I think overall it is better to have those kids remain in the public schools."

But you won't specify why it's better, other than to say "maybe" there are kids left behind who will miss them. Isn't that kind of a thin reason?

"Sort of the same as a star band member in those same schools where there is a music teacher. Should there be funds for that student to go out and get private music lessons somewhere else"

This, isn't that. I'm talking about kids who are stuck in the worst schools in the country, not pulling a kid out of West Hartford public schools and sending them to the Juliard school of music.

Kids get pulled out of public schools regularly, when the public school isn't a good fit, if the kid isn't behaving, if the kid is being bullied, etc...

And I'm talking about situations where the private school isn't only far better, but is often far cheaper.

SO again, with due respect, you're basing your opposition to school choice, on the "maybe" that kids behind might miss the kids who leave. That really outweighs the incredible potential benefit to the kids whod leave?

Finally, if the left is opposed to using taxpayer money to fund private education, please explain why student loan forgiveness isn't limited to those who went to public universities. Isn't that a massive public subsidization of private school costs for those who chose to go there? Come on, Paul.

Many cities have public magnet and charter schools, which also take the cream of the crop out of horrible public schools. Are you opposed to this?

For the green, for the green, for the green fight fight!

[wdmso]

Mississippi First State to Declare It Will Tax Forgiven Student Loan Debt

what cry babies

Georgians can now claim an "unborn child" as a dependent on their state taxes, the state's Department of Revenue announced this week.

Maga logic hard at work

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Mississippi First State to Declare It Will Tax Forgiven Student Loan Debt

what cry babies

Georgians can now claim an "unborn child" as a dependent on their state taxes, the state's Department of Revenue announced this week.

Maga logic hard at work

Keep bleating what you hear on CNN, big guy.

I thought you liberals were opposed to tax breaks for the wealthy? I guess only sometimes (only when it suits your political agenda).

Plumbers paying off student loans for families making $250,000 a year. And remember, that's taxable income of 250k a year (after deductions). So their gross income could easily much higher if they have a lot of deductions.

But this transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy helps recent college grads and really helps universities, those are reliable voting blocks for the left. But that's just a pure coincidence.

[PaulS]

Yes, it sucks for some people in "poorer" areas. We do the best we can (and we can and should do better).

I live in damn nice (expensive) town. There are certain things my town doesn't have the other nicer (more expensive for the most part) towns have. lt is a function of my income (and were I want/have to live). The state gives my town $. We get more than Bridgeport but less than Greenwich. Not complaining but that is the way it is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, it sucks for some people in "poorer" areas. We do the best we can (and we can and should do better).

I live in damn nice (expensive) town. There are certain things my town doesn't have the other nicer (more expensive for the most part) towns have. lt is a function of my income (and were I want/have to live). The state gives my town $. We get more than Bridgeport but less than Greenwich. Not complaining but that is the way it is.

i get that’s there’s inequality. but here’s a way to address it in a way that could actually save money while improving education. And i still don’t get specifically why you oppose it, other than it might make some kids sad who’s miss the kids who leave. so should we tell upperclassmen who are role models to freshman, that they can’t go away to college because it make make the school worse if they leave? you basically said that if a kid is an asset to his current lousy school, that’s a reason why he should
be forced to stay there instead of going someplace better.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i get that’s there’s inequality. but here’s a way to address it in a way that could actually save money while improving education. And i still don’t get specifically why you oppose it, other than it might make some kids sad who’s miss the kids who leave. so should we tell upperclassmen who are role models to freshman, that they can’t go away to college because it make make the school worse if they leave? you basically said that if a kid is an asset to his current lousy school, that’s a reason why he should
be forced to stay there instead of going someplace better.

There is an interesting video from project veritas it’s with a Connecticut vice principal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

There is an interesting video from project veritas it’s with a Connecticut vice principal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my state senator and i just spoke about that video. Assistant principal at a public school
on tape saying that he won’t hire catholic applicants for teaching jobs ( nothing illegal about that!) , and very specifically says that the curriculum is designed to ensure that students eventually become democrats.

But there’s no liberal bias in education.

He’ll probably get promoted.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

my state senator and i just spoke about that video. Assistant principal at a public school
on tape saying that he won’t hire catholic applicants for teaching jobs ( nothing illegal about that!) , and very specifically says that the curriculum is designed to ensure that students eventually become democrats.

But there’s no liberal bias in education.

He’ll probably get promoted.

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

project veritas

Not really Shocking what you 2 sheep use to support your views

the conservative organization delights in embarrassing liberals and taunting the press with quick-cut video exposés that critics say often rely on recordings that are manipulated or presented out of context.

Project Veritas was recently implicated by federal prosecutors in the theft of a diary belonging to the daughter of President Joe Biden, according to The New York Times. Authorities executed a search warrant at the homes of several Project Veritas employees, including O’Keefe, the Times reported.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device