- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,057
- Likes
- 10,851
- Points
- 113
His answer is to help students with their college loans.
Gimme a break.
But he opposes vouchers, which is basically the same thing as helping students with college loans.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
His answer is to help students with their college loans.
Gimme a break.
Did we have a problem with the Clinton tax rates during the Clinton years?
Did we have a problem with the Clinton tax rates during the Clinton years?
But he opposes vouchers, which is basically the same thing as helping students with college loans.
But he opposes vouchers, which is basically the same thing as helping students with college loans.
Vouchers are simply an attempt to privatize education. Stop funding public schools and give the children of working class families vouchers that won't cover private school tuitions. Good way to take education away from those who can't afford private schools.
Vouchers are simply an attempt to privatize education. Stop funding public schools and give the children of working class families vouchers that won't cover private school tuitions. Good way to take education away from those who can't afford private schools.
Yes, because public schools are fan-tastic!![]()
I don't know, you tell me. Were taxes flat? If no, then he was punishing success as well.
So your argument is fuck the kids, the system is all that matters.
Vouchers good ONLY for public school choice would be a huge change for the better.
So your argument is fuck the kids, the system is all that matters.
So your argument is fuck the kids, the system is all that matters..
What's the relevance? They largely suck, but it's superior to children of poor families receiveing no education at all. Education needs to be overhauled, not simply have the children of poor families dumped.
That's the opposite of what I said. I pointed out that vouchers are simply a way to dump children of poor families from education. Therefore, opposing vouchers is an argument in the interest of children.
There are still private schools for those who wish to pay for them and can afford them.
The funny thing is, with a cascading tax system, I don't feel bad about poor schools in bad neighborhoods. Rich people = pay higher percentage, get better schools. Poor people = get handouts and lower tax rates, get shit schools.
Kind of infinite justice.
Yes, because school vouchers will make poor children receive no education whatsoever.
The problem is greed. If we taxed everyone 20%, the people at the bottom would be hit hard. We need to have a graduated tax system, because frankly, those who can pay more, should pay more. But we need to have a progressive system, where the tax rate is calculated by a formula. That way we can work on eliminating situations where people will try to stay under a certain tax bracket.
When the vouchers don't cover private school tuition and public schools are phased out, that is indeed the result.
Lets not pretend that you can't get a good education at a public school. I went to a public school that was labeled failing, based on the test scores. I think I got a fine education. The teachers did a fine job teaching, even if we were using a bit outdated textbooks. Vouchers are not going to make students stop skipping school. Vouchers are not going to make students do their homework. That has to come from primarily the student and to a lesser extent their parents.
That's the opposite of what I said. I pointed out that vouchers are simply a way to dump children of poor families from education. Therefore, opposing vouchers is an argument in the interest of children.
There are still private schools for those who wish to pay for them and can afford them.
When the vouchers don't cover private school tuition and public schools are phased out, that is indeed the result.
The vouchers will cover a school where the parents can choose from a host of options. What is this, 19th century England? please.
really now? people who can pay more, should pay more?If we taxed everyone 20%, the people at the bottom would be hit hard. We need to have a graduated tax system, because frankly, those who can pay more, should pay more.
I don't care if the people at the bottom get hit hard. It should be an equal system. They'll work harder to get more money.
I'm not sure why you feel this is invoking Oliver Twist. In every era, including the current one, privatized systems price a number of people out of services. For some services, that's fine. Not everyone should be able to eat in fine restaurants or buy pricey cars, if they can't afford it. Some services many of us consider essential, like education and health care. Those should definitely be socialized, in my opinion, so that everyone has access to them.
really now? people who can pay more, should pay more?
come on.
I agree we shouldn't steal money from the rich and give it directly to the poor. But I do believe, as a society, we have a moral obligation to provide for people when times are hard. I think we have a moral obligation to help people with their health problems.