Indiana vouchers prompt thousands to change schools (1 Viewer)

[DashingAmerican]

Not too much, but this specific one would blow up huge.

I don't think so, but thus are differences in opinion.

 

[Ikari]

Childless people are reneging on the implicit basis of the generational social contract - they're not providing society with kids who society will tax to help care for their parents later in life.

We're at replacement, that's exactly where you want to be.

The point is to fund the education of the children, not a particular type of education in a particular ideology in a particular location. You don't have to pay to send little Johnny to Catholic School, all you have to pay is a tax, a portion of which is allocated equally to every child. If Catholic School costs more than the state grant, then the parents can choose to supplement the grant with their own money, find a cheaper school or direct the grant to a public school.

I reality, I am all for funding education. I think a well educated populace is a necessity for the future of a democratic republic. But I don't want it flowing into private schools. If we have public schools, then we need to keep public schools and maintain them and ensure that students are getting equal funding and are being provided with proper education. I think this is the current major failing of our education system and why there is such a large difference between inner city and suburban schools.

 

[Ikari]

I don't think so, but thus are differences in opinion.

Indeed, but parents usually freak out huge if new forms of violence begin breaking out near their children. Lovejoy and all.

 

[DiAnna]

Conservatives are Pro-Choice. Liberals are Anti-Choice, as a general rule.

Posts in the Abortion Forum would not support that observation.

 

[AdamT]

I love the idea of the voucher program, but the amount the voucher is worth should not exceed the amount of tax a person pays towards schools.

I don't have kids either. Can I get a voucher to buy boating supplies and camera equipment?

 

[AdamT]

That is true, but the point still remains that single people come out ahead and here's why - our retirement systems are not actuarially sound and younger generations actually have to subsidize the retirement income and especially the cost of medical care for seniors. The retirement system we have is, in big picture terms, a compact between parents and kids, where the kids help kick in to pay for the retirement of their parents, because the parents, over their lifetimes, DO NOT PAY ENOUGH IN FICA TAXES to self-fund their own retirement expenses.

For single people, the cost that they pay for school taxes and the other programs which aid parents with families, do not come close to the amount that they're going to be receiving from other people's children during their retirements. The last figure I saw for just Medicare subsidy was on the order of $250,000 more in benefits than people have paid in over their lives. That's just one program for the elderly.

Childless people are reneging on the implicit basis of the generational social contract - they're not providing society with kids who society will tax to help care for their parents later in life.



The point is to fund the education of the children, not a particular type of education in a particular ideology in a particular location. You don't have to pay to send little Johnny to Catholic School, all you have to pay is a tax, a portion of which is allocated equally to every child. If Catholic School costs more than the state grant, then the parents can choose to supplement the grant with their own money, find a cheaper school or direct the grant to a public school.

The greatest problem plaguing this planet is overpopulation. I think that people who don't create more resource hogging spawn should get a yearly bonus.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The greatest problem plaguing this planet is overpopulation. I think that people who don't create more resource hogging spawn should get a yearly bonus.

Well - overpopulation by people who aren't able to care for their selves or even for the children they produce - meanwhile some of us are just fine, pull our weight and aren't a burden on the world or society.

 

[Paschendale]

No matter how many vouchers are given out, it's a system that can never cover every child. Unless there's actually one for every child, but that would essentially mimic public education. Funneling children out of the public system and removing support for it will weaken it. There's no way around that. Private education can only help some children. The only way to educate all of them is through public education.

Vouchers only help promote a system where education is something only the rich can afford. They are a short term solution that sacrifices the long term gain.

 

[GBee]

It comes down to this... You either think it's best for parents to make the educational choices for their children, or you think the government knows what's best for our children and they should control how they're educated...

It doesn't 'come down to this', at all.

Another option is for parents/schools/government to work together for the benefit of our children. There is no reason why this cannot happen.

There are some things--No Child Left Behind, for one--that in theory were workable ideas. In practice, however, it is another story entirely. NCLB is punitive and it hurts the very population it was intended to help.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It doesn't 'come down to this', at all.

Another option is for parents/schools/government to work together for the benefit of our children. There is no reason why this cannot happen.

There are some things--No Child Left Behind, for one--that in theory were workable ideas. In practice, however, it is another story entirely. NCLB is punitive and it hurts the very population it was intended to help.

Ironically: NCLB has a clause that requires every state to vouch-fund a student's private schooling if the public schooling environment has been proven toxic to the child's safety or education overall.

 

[RiverDad]

The greatest problem plaguing this planet is overpopulation. I think that people who don't create more resource hogging spawn should get a yearly bonus.

If you design or advocate for someone else's design of an actuarially sound system which supports this goal, then I have no problem with it. Right now, it's just doubling down on stupid.

 

[RiverDad]

It doesn't 'come down to this', at all.

Another option is for parents/schools/government to work together for the benefit of our children. There is no reason why this cannot happen.

Sure there is - I for one don't want to subject my kids to the social indoctrination that is enforced in public schools.

 

[GBee]

Sure there is - I for one don't want to subject my kids to the social indoctrination that is enforced in public schools.

For example?

 

[RiverDad]

For example?

-Normalization of homosexuality.
-Celebration of historical figures of little merit only to appease race warriors who are badgering the schools to have a more racially diverse curriculum.
-The political and social aspects of environmentalism.
-The nonsense about "diversity is our strength."
-The femininization of male behavior.
-The deemphasis of competition.
-The revision of historical events to align them with a more liberal world view.
-The emphasis in Young Adult Literature on social dysfunction and the deemphasis on tales of historical heroes.

These are just the social malignancies that liberals are introducing into the public schools. Don't even get me started on the pedagogical experiments.

 

[GBee]

-Normalization of homosexuality.
-Celebration of historical figures of little merit only to appease race warriors who are badgering the schools to have a more racially diverse curriculum.
-The political and social aspects of environmentalism.
-The nonsense about "diversity is our strength."
-The femininization of male behavior.
-The deemphasis of competition.
-The revision of historical events to align them with a more liberal world view.
-The emphasis in Young Adult Literature on social dysfunction and the deemphasis on tales of historical heroes.

These are just the social malignancies that liberals are introducing into the public schools. Don't even get me started on the pedagogical experiments.

Ahh.

LOL

You're 'one of those'.

How much time do you spend in a classroom on a weekly basis?

 

[GBee]

You DO realize that your list is 'opinion' and not hard fact, right?

 

[RiverDad]

You're 'one of those'.

I don't speak your code. Please write more plainly.

 

[GBee]

How much time do you spend in a classroom on a weekly basis.

 

[GBee]

I don't speak your code. Please write more plainly.

A conservative, homophobic, historical revisionist Troglodyte.


You know.

'One of those'.

 

[RiverDad]

A conservative, homophobic, historical revisionist Troglodyte.

You know.

'One of those'.

That may, or may not, be true and in either case it's irrelevant. It's not for liberals to impart their social values onto other people's children. If parents are objecting to this type of socialization being imposed on their children then we've pretty much falsified your position that "Another option is for parents/schools/government to work together for the benefit of our children. There is no reason why this cannot happen."

Now, if you were a teacher and you acted upon these private beliefs, it really wouldn't be kosher. What you're demonstrating, if you're a teacher, is that you have no interest in working together for the benefit of the children by removing all of the social indoctrination that liberals have injected into the system. What you mean by working together is continuing what you're doing and parents shutting up.

 

[AdamT]

A conservative, homophobic, historical revisionist Troglodyte.


You know.

'One of those'.

You left out racist.

 

[AdamT]

If you design or advocate for someone else's design of an actuarially sound system which supports this goal, then I have no problem with it. Right now, it's just doubling down on stupid.

What rubbish. The system was designed so that people pay into it what they take out of it, on average. Obviously it can't be actuarially sound if it requires an ever spiraling population.

 

[RiverDad]

What rubbish. The system was designed so that people pay into it what they take out of it, on average. Obviously it can't be actuarially sound if it requires an ever spiraling population.

What a piece of half-truth rubbish. There is a world of difference between the way a system was designed and the way it currently operates.

SS and Medicare were not sold as welfare, they were sold to the middle class as basically a forced retirement savings system. Today, Medicare premiums are covering only about 40-44% of expected lifetime costs.

To clarify, there is also a difference between the way the Social Security system was designed and the way it was sold. It was sold as a forced retirement savings system for everyone. The way it was designed was as a Ponzi scheme, that is, it was actuarially unsound. Here is a link which demonstrates the ever-shrinking dependency ratio.

1940 = 159.4 workers per retiree
1955 = 8.6
1965 = 4.0
1975 = 3.2
2010 = 2.9

 

[Risky Thicket]

No doubt for many families just dying to move to Indiana, this recent news may end their Indiana jones. :lamo

 

[AdamT]

What a piece of half-truth rubbish. There is a world of difference between the way a system was designed and the way it currently operates.

SS and Medicare were not sold as welfare, they were sold to the middle class as basically a forced retirement savings system. Today, Medicare premiums are covering only about 40-44% of expected lifetime costs.

To clarify, there is also a difference between the way the Social Security system was designed and the way it was sold. It was sold as a forced retirement savings system for everyone. The way it was designed was as a Ponzi scheme, that is, it was actuarially unsound. Here is a link which demonstrates the ever-shrinking dependency ratio.

1940 = 159.4 workers per retiree
1955 = 8.6
1965 = 4.0
1975 = 3.2
2010 = 2.9

I agree that the programs aren't operating as designed -- never said otherwise. But it's obvious that they will have to be reformed if they are to stay solvent. They cannot rely on a constantly spiraling population that would eventually cause many more problems than it would solve.