Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[jasonnfree]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

Better kids eat the junk food than no food.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

So what if the Democrats like the system too? I don't like them and I don't like the Republicans.

How do you change the minds of voters? Sometimes you need that person who can do it. Sometimes you turn it into a cult. Sometimes it's out of necessity. However in the US I'm not sure it's possible any more. The country is lost.

Vouchers don't always go to lower income parents. That's why in Arizona 75% of vouchers went to RICH KIDS IN PRIVATE SCHOOL. Don't tell me they were designed for poor kids, you need to go research vouchers.

No, I don't think the only way to make school choice is with federal or state run schools.

I'd sure like to see where you get your stats from. Do you have a credible link that shows 75% of kids in Arizona that gets vouchers are rich kids?

Yes, we are stuck with a a two-party system. That's because as time goes on, both parties are drifting further and further from the middle, so the goal is to keep the other side out of power.

On the right, the Tea Party types are fighting for power over the establishment. On the left, the US Communist Party supported their last three presidential nominees. So where is the middle ground between Communism and constitutionalism? There is none. And let's be honest here, if not for Hil-Liar, your nominee would have been an admitted Socialist.

No Child's Behind Left - Greg Palast

"According to No Child Left expert Scott Young, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher program has gone to children already in private schools."

Greg Palast is a BBC journalist and Guardian (one of the most respected papers in the UK). He seems to specialize in journalism which goes and finds out the truth of things.

Scott Young is, apparently, an expert on No Child Left Behind.

https://commons.wvc.edu/jminharo/pols202/Articles to Choose/No Child Left Behind.pdf

Here's an article.

As for "your nominee", I'm not a Democrat, I don't vote Democrat. Don't paint me with that "if you're not Republican, you're Democrat" nonsense.

Wait a minute, you said "wealthy" parents, not just parents with kids in private schools. My sister sent her two children to Catholic schools. With that and college, she is in debt until after retirement. She's now working two jobs trying to catch up. She makes a good living, but hardly what anybody would consider wealthy.

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

 

[jasonnfree]

I guess I should have added that kids don't usually eat the healthy food, but they will eat the junk food.

 

[Coyote]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

Okay, and how do you raise that quality? After all, the US spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world. Money isn't the problem.

When my suburb started to really go downhill (during the housing bubble) we had one of the best schools in the county. It was well funded and we had great teachers. But when the inner-city people started to move in, our schools became zoos.

Drug busts all the time, teachers getting assaulted every month, police had to attend the school to prevent gang fights after school. The good people who's family lived here for generations moved out in fear for their children. The good teachers found work in other cities to escape assault.

So what would you suggest for the people that didn't have the money to move out and wanted a secure and decent environment for their kids to learn?

What I would suggest is parents get more involved and band together to demand accountability in their schools. Get rid of some of the bullshit bureauracy that interferes with effective discipline and teaching. Increase accountability on both teachers and on students and their families. Find ways to get smaller classroom sizes, increased safety and attract better teachers. Who knows what's possible with the right changes...

Schools that have turned around:
How an unconventional principal turned around a struggling urban school
Turning around failing schools is no easy task, but here's one success story. Now, can it be duplicated?
How One District Fixed Its Failing Schools

 

[Coyote]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

Okay, and how do you raise that quality? After all, the US spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world. Money isn't the problem.

I think this particular statistic is misleading. The US does not spend more than any other industrialized country - there are four European countries that spend more per capita on primary education. The other aspect is that large portions of that spending in US education are on non-instructional items such security. The other thing is spending varies widely across the country: Per Pupil Spending Varies Heavily Across the United States

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

Okay, and how do you raise that quality? After all, the US spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world. Money isn't the problem.

When my suburb started to really go downhill (during the housing bubble) we had one of the best schools in the county. It was well funded and we had great teachers. But when the inner-city people started to move in, our schools became zoos.

Drug busts all the time, teachers getting assaulted every month, police had to attend the school to prevent gang fights after school. The good people who's family lived here for generations moved out in fear for their children. The good teachers found work in other cities to escape assault.

So what would you suggest for the people that didn't have the money to move out and wanted a secure and decent environment for their kids to learn?

What I would suggest is parents get more involved and band together to demand accountability in their schools. Get rid of some of the bullshit bureauracy that interferes with effective discipline and teaching. Increase accountability on both teachers and on students and their families. Find ways to get smaller classroom sizes, increased safety and attract better teachers. Who knows what's possible with the right changes...

Schools that have turned around:
How an unconventional principal turned around a struggling urban school
Turning around failing schools is no easy task, but here's one success story. Now, can it be duplicated?
How One District Fixed Its Failing Schools

A real pipe dream for sure. Getting parents involved? How does one do that? If the parent doesn't GAS, then they don't GAS. It's the schools responsibility.

It's not bureaucracies that interfere with discipline. It's liberal law makers that give people the right to sue anybody for anything. Smack my kid, I'll see the school and city in court with my ambulance chasing lawyers.

Smaller class sizes? What does class size have to do with anything? The only reason teachers want smaller class sizes is because of their unions. Smaller classes means the need for more teachers. More teachers means more union dues.

 

[Coyote]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

Okay, and how do you raise that quality? After all, the US spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world. Money isn't the problem.

When my suburb started to really go downhill (during the housing bubble) we had one of the best schools in the county. It was well funded and we had great teachers. But when the inner-city people started to move in, our schools became zoos.

Drug busts all the time, teachers getting assaulted every month, police had to attend the school to prevent gang fights after school. The good people who's family lived here for generations moved out in fear for their children. The good teachers found work in other cities to escape assault.

So what would you suggest for the people that didn't have the money to move out and wanted a secure and decent environment for their kids to learn?

What I would suggest is parents get more involved and band together to demand accountability in their schools. Get rid of some of the bullshit bureauracy that interferes with effective discipline and teaching. Increase accountability on both teachers and on students and their families. Find ways to get smaller classroom sizes, increased safety and attract better teachers. Who knows what's possible with the right changes...

Schools that have turned around:
How an unconventional principal turned around a struggling urban school
Turning around failing schools is no easy task, but here's one success story. Now, can it be duplicated?
How One District Fixed Its Failing Schools

A real pipe dream for sure. Getting parents involved? How does one do that? If the parent doesn't GAS, then they don't GAS. It's the schools responsibility.

If they don't want to get involved then the school can only do so much.

It's not bureaucracies that interfere with discipline. It's liberal law makers that give people the right to sue anybody for anything. Smack my kid, I'll see the school and city in court with my ambulance chasing lawyers.

Gotta agree there.

Smaller class sizes? What does class size have to do with anything? The only reason teachers want smaller class sizes is because of their unions. Smaller classes means the need for more teachers. More teachers means more union dues.

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

I do believe this, I just don't think it should work the way around that you think it should work. I think all schools should be good, not just private schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

 

[initforme]

Corporations and businessexz now own the country. I don't trust american corporations to treat their workers humanely. Most all businessmen hate with a passion even their most productive workers. I donbt trust america to do the right thing anymore for the working class. Disagree, come get me.

 

[initforme]

Keep our filthy greedy american corporations out of education. They have zero interest in seeing kids succeed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

 

[initforme]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

 

[initforme]

Well ray why should one iota of my tax money go for military funding if I don't want it to? Why should the streets be plowed so businesses can continue if I have no interest in whether or not they shut down or go on?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

 

[initforme]

Spot on frigid. We need a lot less factory workers(exploited).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?