Since free college isn't free...what is wrong with actually paying it back?

[Slade3200]

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional? If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

Outside of school lunch, do local schools receive much funding?

I don't know........half of my property taxes go to our schools. I (nor my tenants) have any kids in those schools, but we are forced to pay for them.

It's not a couple of bucks either, it's thousands every single year, and I'm just one property owner. However like most places, the schools always claim they need more no matter how much you give them.

The answer is no, but.... yes.

View attachment 72292

At face value, you would assume that the answer is no. Out of a total of $200 Million dollars in revenue for my local school district, only $7 Million comes from Federal Grants. It would seem to show that Federal revenue is actually very small.

However, that would be intentionally misleading. In reality most of the state level grants are also actually Federal money.

View attachment 72293

Nearly 1/3rd of all state funds are from the Federal Government. This is how the Federal Government, dictates policy to the states. You better expand Medicaid in your state, or else we'll cut your Federal school grants.

Most of the State level "Grants-in-Aid" are actually Federal programs.

If you ever see your local schools doing really dumb programs that make no sense, like a special-education program that only has 3 students enrolled.... the reason they do this, is because if they have the program, then they can get the Federal grants, through the State government.

Extremely wasteful, but it's all about the money.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

Did you really just say that private schools are not funded and public schools get more funds than private schools?? I don't know what kind of private schools you got out there but in my town private school yearly tuition per student is 30k+...

I can appreciate what competition can do but privatizing education basically just weeds out the poor and uncommitted students so of course you are going to see better results. The real question is does that system benefit the general population. No it doesn't! Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience. Public schools exist to give every child an opportunity to learn and develop social skills, whether their parents have money/motivation or not.

Defunding is not the answer, it is the worst thing you can do as I know many teachers that have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets. They are over worked and underresourced. We can definitely be smarter about how funds are spent and which programs instituted. Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

Which of these subsidies are given to the energy companies?

If you had kept reading todd, you would have read what subsidies to the energy companies consist of.

If you want to know which companies received what, look it up yourself.

I read the entire thing.

Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

The US doesn't give "direct cash transfers to producers"

I can't think of any "indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access"

Can you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience.

There is a reason for that.

My sister sent both her kids to private Catholic schools. When my niece started to have problems with her grades, my sister made sure she was doing her homework, made sure she understood the subjects, made sure she was ready for her upcoming tests.

At the time, I believe she was paying about 13K per child and she made sure as hell that she was going to get her monies worth.

With public school? Throw the kid on the bus and he is the teachers problem.

When you have skin in the game, you will respond to problems much differently than those who don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Guy, you probably get more out of the government than you are paying in, quit your whinging.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

The public pays for that road you drive on, the infrastructure that keeps your business running. And yes, that means actually having educated people to make sure it all keeps running properly.

Still no reason why the public should fund the education for these people. It's not like they are working minimum wage jobs. They make a profit from their OWN educational investment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Guy, you probably get more out of the government than you are paying in, quit your whinging.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

The public pays for that road you drive on, the infrastructure that keeps your business running. And yes, that means actually having educated people to make sure it all keeps running properly.

Still no reason why the public should fund the education for these people. It's not like they are working minimum wage jobs. They make a profit from their OWN educational investment.

I think if more people actually treated education as an investment, they'd take it a lot more serious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Guy, you probably get more out of the government than you are paying in, quit your whinging.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

The public pays for that road you drive on, the infrastructure that keeps your business running. And yes, that means actually having educated people to make sure it all keeps running properly.

Still no reason why the public should fund the education for these people. It's not like they are working minimum wage jobs. They make a profit from their OWN educational investment.

I think if more people actually treated education as an investment, they'd take it a lot more serious.

Agreed. I knew a girl that went to college for four years to master photography. Her parents paid for her college and it was nothing but four years of parties. Last I heard she was working at a television repair place.

 

[Slade3200]

Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience.

There is a reason for that.

My sister sent both her kids to private Catholic schools. When my niece started to have problems with her grades, my sister made sure she was doing her homework, made sure she understood the subjects, made sure she was ready for her upcoming tests.

At the time, I believe she was paying about 13K per child and she made sure as hell that she was going to get her monies worth.

With public school? Throw the kid on the bus and he is the teachers problem.

When you have skin in the game, you will respond to problems much differently than those who don't.

Not everybody has skin to put in the game and not every child has a parent that cares about them or their education... Thus the need for public school

 

[Slade3200]

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

 

[Slade3200]

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

It amazes me that you can't foresee the effects that your ideas would have on communities... mainly the poor/welfare community. You have obvious contempt for them, but they aren't all lazy free-loaders, and the fact that you want to punish children whom don't have a choice in the matter is really sad. And for what? To keep a few more bucks in your pocket?

 

[Wilbur Right]

The US doesn't give "direct cash transfers to producers"

I can't think of any "indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access"

Full report



Previous Issues
FY2010

FY2007

Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013
Release date: March 12, 2015
Revised: March 23, 2015 (revision)


Executive Summary
This report responds to a September 2014 request to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) from U.S. Representative Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield, Chairman of its Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for an update reflecting Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 data of two earlier EIA reports on direct federal financial interventions and subsidies in energy markets covering FY 2007 and FY 2010.

As in the prior EIA reports on this subject, the scope of the present report is limited to direct federal financial interventions and subsidies that are provided by the federal government, provide a financial benefit with an identifiable federal budget impact, and are specifically targeted at energy markets. As requested, the report focuses on subsidies to electricity production and also includes subsidies to federal electric utilities in the form of financial support.

Given its scope, the report does not encompass all subsidies beneficial to energy sector activities (see text entitled “Not All Subsidies Impacting the Energy Sector Are Included in this Report”), which should be kept in mind when comparing this report to other studies that may use narrower or more expansive inclusion criteria. Consistent with EIA's role and mission, this study focuses on developing data rather than drawing conclusions or discussing policy issues related to subsidies, and in that regard differs from some other reports that address energy subsidies (see text entitled "A Wide Variety of Definitions, Methods and Estimates Occur in Other Energy Subsidy Studies").

Subsidy categories
Energy subsidies and interventions discussed in this report are divided into five separate program categories:

Direct expenditures to producers or consumers. These are federal programs that provide direct cash outlays which provide a financial benefit to producers or consumers of energy.1

Tax expenditures. These are largely provisions found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or Tax Code)—Title 26 of the United States Code—that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production, distribution, transmission, consumption, or conservation.

Research and development. The federal government has an extensive program of funding energy research and development (R&D) activities aimed at a variety of goals, such as increasing U.S. energy supplies or improving the efficiency of various energy consumption, production, transformation, and end-use technologies. R&D programs generally do not directly affect current energy consumption, production, and prices, but if successful, they could affect future consumption, production, and prices.

 

[Andylusion]

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional? If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

Outside of school lunch, do local schools receive much funding?

I don't know........half of my property taxes go to our schools. I (nor my tenants) have any kids in those schools, but we are forced to pay for them.

It's not a couple of bucks either, it's thousands every single year, and I'm just one property owner. However like most places, the schools always claim they need more no matter how much you give them.

The answer is no, but.... yes.

View attachment 72292

At face value, you would assume that the answer is no. Out of a total of $200 Million dollars in revenue for my local school district, only $7 Million comes from Federal Grants. It would seem to show that Federal revenue is actually very small.

However, that would be intentionally misleading. In reality most of the state level grants are also actually Federal money.

View attachment 72293

Nearly 1/3rd of all state funds are from the Federal Government. This is how the Federal Government, dictates policy to the states. You better expand Medicaid in your state, or else we'll cut your Federal school grants.

Most of the State level "Grants-in-Aid" are actually Federal programs.

If you ever see your local schools doing really dumb programs that make no sense, like a special-education program that only has 3 students enrolled.... the reason they do this, is because if they have the program, then they can get the Federal grants, through the State government.

Extremely wasteful, but it's all about the money.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

Did you really just say that private schools are not funded and public schools get more funds than private schools?? I don't know what kind of private schools you got out there but in my town private school yearly tuition per student is 30k+...

I can appreciate what competition can do but privatizing education basically just weeds out the poor and uncommitted students so of course you are going to see better results. The real question is does that system benefit the general population. No it doesn't! Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience. Public schools exist to give every child an opportunity to learn and develop social skills, whether their parents have money/motivation or not.

Defunding is not the answer, it is the worst thing you can do as I know many teachers that have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets. They are over worked and underresourced. We can definitely be smarter about how funds are spent and which programs instituted. Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

The private school that I was specifically talking about is not funded. By "funded" I mean "government funded".

And no privatizing doesn't weed out the poor, although it may the uncommitted. Again, I posted the book on this, and private schools around the world help the poorest students, end up doing far better than funded government public schools.

And the uncommitted.... yeah.. We want those people out of our schools anyway. In every single well performing school system around the world, they kick out the "uncommitted". That's how they have a well performing school. Not only do bad students lower the average outcome of the school... but they also have a negative impact on the other students in the school.

Chile also had this experience.

If what you are saying is true, and we have teachers that are paying for supplies out of pocket, that is even a greater reason to eliminate the public school system.

Again, by any estimate.... ANY estimate, the US spend more money than any other country in the world, on public education. We spend the most.... and yet you are telling me teachers are paying for supplies out of pocket? We spend more than any other country, and teachers are buying their own supplies? You realize that Vietnam has better educational outcomes than we do, and Vietnam has a tiny fraction of the money we do? And you are telling me teachers are buying their own supplies?

You yourself, just outlined the absolute best case against the public education system. This system can't be fixed. It needs replaced.

If you and I both needed to have a flat tire fixed, and I went to Bob's Car Shop, and had mine fixed for $15, and you went to the dealership and spent $1000, but while I rolled away, you couldn't even get out of the parking lot before your tire was flat again.... You wouldn't be saying "we just need more funding".

In any other situation in life, you wouldn't be making this argument. If you went to the most expensive store, and when you got home all the food you bought was spoiled, you wouldn't be sitting there going "we just need more funding is all. We should not give up on this expensive store".

But with education, no matter how pathetic our test scores are, it's "well we just need more funding". It's crazy.

Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

What crap are you talking about? We've been having THAT discussion for DECADES!

What incentives do you think you can give people who have no worries? They are in no danger of losing 'customers' because they are paid by tax revenue no matter how good, or terrible they teach. You can't fire bad teachers because of teachers unions, and the teachers know it.

What 'incentive' do you think you are going to give them? No Child Left behind? We've seen how well that worked. They simply engaged in social promotion.

Extra money for poorly performing districts? Give them support? We've seen how that works. School intentionally keep grades just at the level LOW ENOUGH, to qualify for the additional funds.

WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION FOR DECADES.

They have been asking how better incentives and what supports they can give, in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, and now today. What the heck do you mean "it's too bad we can't be having that discussion", we've been having it for ages. You failed.

Time to try a new tactic.

 

[Slade3200]

Outside of school lunch, do local schools receive much funding?

I don't know........half of my property taxes go to our schools. I (nor my tenants) have any kids in those schools, but we are forced to pay for them.

It's not a couple of bucks either, it's thousands every single year, and I'm just one property owner. However like most places, the schools always claim they need more no matter how much you give them.

The answer is no, but.... yes.

View attachment 72292

At face value, you would assume that the answer is no. Out of a total of $200 Million dollars in revenue for my local school district, only $7 Million comes from Federal Grants. It would seem to show that Federal revenue is actually very small.

However, that would be intentionally misleading. In reality most of the state level grants are also actually Federal money.

View attachment 72293

Nearly 1/3rd of all state funds are from the Federal Government. This is how the Federal Government, dictates policy to the states. You better expand Medicaid in your state, or else we'll cut your Federal school grants.

Most of the State level "Grants-in-Aid" are actually Federal programs.

If you ever see your local schools doing really dumb programs that make no sense, like a special-education program that only has 3 students enrolled.... the reason they do this, is because if they have the program, then they can get the Federal grants, through the State government.

Extremely wasteful, but it's all about the money.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

Did you really just say that private schools are not funded and public schools get more funds than private schools?? I don't know what kind of private schools you got out there but in my town private school yearly tuition per student is 30k+...

I can appreciate what competition can do but privatizing education basically just weeds out the poor and uncommitted students so of course you are going to see better results. The real question is does that system benefit the general population. No it doesn't! Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience. Public schools exist to give every child an opportunity to learn and develop social skills, whether their parents have money/motivation or not.

Defunding is not the answer, it is the worst thing you can do as I know many teachers that have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets. They are over worked and underresourced. We can definitely be smarter about how funds are spent and which programs instituted. Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

The private school that I was specifically talking about is not funded. By "funded" I mean "government funded".

And no privatizing doesn't weed out the poor, although it may the uncommitted. Again, I posted the book on this, and private schools around the world help the poorest students, end up doing far better than funded government public schools.

And the uncommitted.... yeah.. We want those people out of our schools anyway. In every single well performing school system around the world, they kick out the "uncommitted". That's how they have a well performing school. Not only do bad students lower the average outcome of the school... but they also have a negative impact on the other students in the school.

Chile also had this experience.

If what you are saying is true, and we have teachers that are paying for supplies out of pocket, that is even a greater reason to eliminate the public school system.

Again, by any estimate.... ANY estimate, the US spend more money than any other country in the world, on public education. We spend the most.... and yet you are telling me teachers are paying for supplies out of pocket? We spend more than any other country, and teachers are buying their own supplies? You realize that Vietnam has better educational outcomes than we do, and Vietnam has a tiny fraction of the money we do? And you are telling me teachers are buying their own supplies?

You yourself, just outlined the absolute best case against the public education system. This system can't be fixed. It needs replaced.

If you and I both needed to have a flat tire fixed, and I went to Bob's Car Shop, and had mine fixed for $15, and you went to the dealership and spent $1000, but while I rolled away, you couldn't even get out of the parking lot before your tire was flat again.... You wouldn't be saying "we just need more funding".

In any other situation in life, you wouldn't be making this argument. If you went to the most expensive store, and when you got home all the food you bought was spoiled, you wouldn't be sitting there going "we just need more funding is all. We should not give up on this expensive store".

But with education, no matter how pathetic our test scores are, it's "well we just need more funding". It's crazy.

Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

What crap are you talking about? We've been having THAT discussion for DECADES!

What incentives do you think you can give people who have no worries? They are in no danger of losing 'customers' because they are paid by tax revenue no matter how good, or terrible they teach. You can't fire bad teachers because of teachers unions, and the teachers know it.

What 'incentive' do you think you are going to give them? No Child Left behind? We've seen how well that worked. They simply engaged in social promotion.

Extra money for poorly performing districts? Give them support? We've seen how that works. School intentionally keep grades just at the level LOW ENOUGH, to qualify for the additional funds.

WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION FOR DECADES.

They have been asking how better incentives and what supports they can give, in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, and now today. What the heck do you mean "it's too bad we can't be having that discussion", we've been having it for ages. You failed.

Time to try a new tactic.

Whats troubling about your statement is the fact you seem ok with discarding children from the education system who don't want to go to school and who don't have parents that force them to go to school. I think just about every kid complains about going to school at some point, and we aren't all fortunate enough to have vested parents. Yes, these kids can be challenging, but if we simply discard them, then what?? What does that do to our future and our communities? They go to shit. Your short sightedness baffles me.

You compare our education system to capitalist businesses that operates on principles of competition, profits, and demand. These are all good things to push progress but there are many more factors involved with our public school systems, which serve a much greater purpose... This fact seems to be going right over your head. You bring up Vietnam and other countries that don't invest in their school systems and imply that our test scores would go up if we cut the fat by dismissing the uncommitted... that is just stupid. Of course our scores would go up if we only educated the best and brightest. If we don't include our poor, our mentally handicapped, or "trouble" kids... Yes these are obstacles and we have much progress and reform to be made with the programs we institute and where our funds go, but we don't just quit. My girl works in the school system and I know many many teachers. I see this shit first hand and there is zero doubt that cutting funds is just about the worst thing that can happen for both the schools, staff, and students. Stop spreading the poison and try to add something useful to the discussion.

 

[Andylusion]

The US doesn't give "direct cash transfers to producers"

I can't think of any "indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access"

Full report



Previous Issues
FY2010

FY2007

Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013
Release date: March 12, 2015
Revised: March 23, 2015 (revision)


Executive Summary
This report responds to a September 2014 request to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) from U.S. Representative Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield, Chairman of its Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for an update reflecting Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 data of two earlier EIA reports on direct federal financial interventions and subsidies in energy markets covering FY 2007 and FY 2010.

As in the prior EIA reports on this subject, the scope of the present report is limited to direct federal financial interventions and subsidies that are provided by the federal government, provide a financial benefit with an identifiable federal budget impact, and are specifically targeted at energy markets. As requested, the report focuses on subsidies to electricity production and also includes subsidies to federal electric utilities in the form of financial support.

Given its scope, the report does not encompass all subsidies beneficial to energy sector activities (see text entitled “Not All Subsidies Impacting the Energy Sector Are Included in this Report”), which should be kept in mind when comparing this report to other studies that may use narrower or more expansive inclusion criteria. Consistent with EIA's role and mission, this study focuses on developing data rather than drawing conclusions or discussing policy issues related to subsidies, and in that regard differs from some other reports that address energy subsidies (see text entitled "A Wide Variety of Definitions, Methods and Estimates Occur in Other Energy Subsidy Studies").

Subsidy categories
Energy subsidies and interventions discussed in this report are divided into five separate program categories:

Direct expenditures to producers or consumers. These are federal programs that provide direct cash outlays which provide a financial benefit to producers or consumers of energy.1

Tax expenditures. These are largely provisions found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or Tax Code)—Title 26 of the United States Code—that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production, distribution, transmission, consumption, or conservation.

Research and development. The federal government has an extensive program of funding energy research and development (R&D) activities aimed at a variety of goals, such as increasing U.S. energy supplies or improving the efficiency of various energy consumption, production, transformation, and end-use technologies. R&D programs generally do not directly affect current energy consumption, production, and prices, but if successful, they could affect future consumption, production, and prices.

Right, and I disagree with the subsidy claims here, because....... it doesn't fit the definition of the a subsidy.

A tax deduction is not a subsidy.

If it is, then everyone in the entire government is subsidized. You are subsidized. We should eliminate your subsidy first.

Claiming that "not paying tax" is equal to "being subsidized by the government", implies that all the money you earn... is really the governments money, and the benevolent government is 'allowing you' the privilege of keeping some money. When the government allows you to keep your own money, you are being subsidized.

That ideology is both un-American, and wrong.

A sum of money granted by the government. "Not taking money" is not a sum of money granted by the government. It's allow you to keep what is already rightfully your own money.

So when it says

"reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals" That is by the definition of "subsidy" not a a subsidy.

Now when you look at the tables, you again, do not see subsidies for the conventional energy providers.

Even so, when I look at the links you provided, the evidence show clearly that what I said was right. The money is going to green-energy projects. Virtually nothing is going to coal, oil, and nuclear.

Even when the report claims some money is, you look it up, and it's not going to the big companies, but to special environmental projects.

$8 Billion in direct money outlays, to "renewables", biomass, wind, solar, and so on. Only $173 Million going to conventional power.

But I found that suspicious, and did some digging.....

This money isn't going to big energy companies. It's going to "carbon capture and storage" projects. "Clean Coal Power Initiatives", and Waste Disposal. And "low income heating subsidies". That's not going to the oil company. That's going to citizens who have another way to get welfare.

Even the Nuclear Waste Disposal isn't even a subsidy. Nuclear power companies pay a special tax to the Federal Government to cover nuclear waste disposal.

In short, your own links justify pretty much everything I said.

 

[Andylusion]

The answer is no, but.... yes.

View attachment 72292

At face value, you would assume that the answer is no. Out of a total of $200 Million dollars in revenue for my local school district, only $7 Million comes from Federal Grants. It would seem to show that Federal revenue is actually very small.

However, that would be intentionally misleading. In reality most of the state level grants are also actually Federal money.

View attachment 72293

Nearly 1/3rd of all state funds are from the Federal Government. This is how the Federal Government, dictates policy to the states. You better expand Medicaid in your state, or else we'll cut your Federal school grants.

Most of the State level "Grants-in-Aid" are actually Federal programs.

If you ever see your local schools doing really dumb programs that make no sense, like a special-education program that only has 3 students enrolled.... the reason they do this, is because if they have the program, then they can get the Federal grants, through the State government.

Extremely wasteful, but it's all about the money.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

Did you really just say that private schools are not funded and public schools get more funds than private schools?? I don't know what kind of private schools you got out there but in my town private school yearly tuition per student is 30k+...

I can appreciate what competition can do but privatizing education basically just weeds out the poor and uncommitted students so of course you are going to see better results. The real question is does that system benefit the general population. No it doesn't! Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience. Public schools exist to give every child an opportunity to learn and develop social skills, whether their parents have money/motivation or not.

Defunding is not the answer, it is the worst thing you can do as I know many teachers that have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets. They are over worked and underresourced. We can definitely be smarter about how funds are spent and which programs instituted. Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

The private school that I was specifically talking about is not funded. By "funded" I mean "government funded".

And no privatizing doesn't weed out the poor, although it may the uncommitted. Again, I posted the book on this, and private schools around the world help the poorest students, end up doing far better than funded government public schools.

And the uncommitted.... yeah.. We want those people out of our schools anyway. In every single well performing school system around the world, they kick out the "uncommitted". That's how they have a well performing school. Not only do bad students lower the average outcome of the school... but they also have a negative impact on the other students in the school.

Chile also had this experience.

If what you are saying is true, and we have teachers that are paying for supplies out of pocket, that is even a greater reason to eliminate the public school system.

Again, by any estimate.... ANY estimate, the US spend more money than any other country in the world, on public education. We spend the most.... and yet you are telling me teachers are paying for supplies out of pocket? We spend more than any other country, and teachers are buying their own supplies? You realize that Vietnam has better educational outcomes than we do, and Vietnam has a tiny fraction of the money we do? And you are telling me teachers are buying their own supplies?

You yourself, just outlined the absolute best case against the public education system. This system can't be fixed. It needs replaced.

If you and I both needed to have a flat tire fixed, and I went to Bob's Car Shop, and had mine fixed for $15, and you went to the dealership and spent $1000, but while I rolled away, you couldn't even get out of the parking lot before your tire was flat again.... You wouldn't be saying "we just need more funding".

In any other situation in life, you wouldn't be making this argument. If you went to the most expensive store, and when you got home all the food you bought was spoiled, you wouldn't be sitting there going "we just need more funding is all. We should not give up on this expensive store".

But with education, no matter how pathetic our test scores are, it's "well we just need more funding". It's crazy.

Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

What crap are you talking about? We've been having THAT discussion for DECADES!

What incentives do you think you can give people who have no worries? They are in no danger of losing 'customers' because they are paid by tax revenue no matter how good, or terrible they teach. You can't fire bad teachers because of teachers unions, and the teachers know it.

What 'incentive' do you think you are going to give them? No Child Left behind? We've seen how well that worked. They simply engaged in social promotion.

Extra money for poorly performing districts? Give them support? We've seen how that works. School intentionally keep grades just at the level LOW ENOUGH, to qualify for the additional funds.

WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION FOR DECADES.

They have been asking how better incentives and what supports they can give, in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, and now today. What the heck do you mean "it's too bad we can't be having that discussion", we've been having it for ages. You failed.

Time to try a new tactic.

Whats troubling about your statement is the fact you seem ok with discarding children from the education system who don't want to go to school and who don't have parents that force them to go to school. I think just about every kid complains about going to school at some point, and we aren't all fortunate enough to have vested parents. Yes, these kids can be challenging, but if we simply discard them, then what?? What does that do to our future and our communities? They go to shit. Your short sightedness baffles me.

You compare our education system to capitalist businesses that operates on principles of competition, profits, and demand. These are all good things to push progress but there are many more factors involved with our public school systems, which serve a much greater purpose... This fact seems to be going right over your head. You bring up Vietnam and other countries that don't invest in their school systems and imply that our test scores would go up if we cut the fat by dismissing the uncommitted... that is just stupid. Of course our scores would go up if we only educated the best and brightest. If we don't include our poor, our mentally handicapped, or "trouble" kids... Yes these are obstacles and we have much progress and reform to be made with the programs we institute and where our funds go, but we don't just quit. My girl works in the school system and I know many many teachers. I see this shit first hand and there is zero doubt that cutting funds is just about the worst thing that can happen for both the schools, staff, and students. Stop spreading the poison and try to add something useful to the discussion.

What baffles me is.... we've done it your way, and our communities and future have gone to sh!t. You are sitting here claiming that if we do it a different way we'll have bad results. Well we're doing it your way for 40 to 50 years now, and we've had terrible results. You way sucks. It's time to try something new.

Oh yes, I absolutely ok with that. 100%. The movie Lean on Me, is about Joe Louis Clark. He was given charge of the school system, which was completely failing. The very first thing he did was expel all the bad students. Clark understood that bad students drag everyone down. Hard to concentrate on studies, when half the students are passing notes, shooting spit wads, and causing problems.

I too, had the exact same problem when I was in high school. When students are causing problems, and teachers can't get rid of them, you don't tend to learn that much.

And again, every good school system around the world understands this. In Singapore if you don't keep your grades up, you are kicked out. In Sweden, if you don't keep up, you are shipped out. In Finland, students who don't make the grade, don't even go to high school. They have an entrance exam for just high school... and forget about college.

Again.... you have had your way for decades. We have done it exactly as you suggest in this thread, and it simply has not worked. Period. Your system has failed us. Most expensive system in the world, with low quality results.

And you keep saying "the poor". Vietnam is poor. They are doing better than us. So clearly your system is the problem, not income level of students. You are not making sense. "We dismiss the poor.... our test scores would go up".... huh? Vietnam isn't super rich, and they have better test scores.

The problem is the public education system, not how much money they earn.

 

[Slade3200]

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

Did you really just say that private schools are not funded and public schools get more funds than private schools?? I don't know what kind of private schools you got out there but in my town private school yearly tuition per student is 30k+...

I can appreciate what competition can do but privatizing education basically just weeds out the poor and uncommitted students so of course you are going to see better results. The real question is does that system benefit the general population. No it doesn't! Private schools exist and are available for the wealthy and committed and they will likely yield a better educational experience. Public schools exist to give every child an opportunity to learn and develop social skills, whether their parents have money/motivation or not.

Defunding is not the answer, it is the worst thing you can do as I know many teachers that have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets. They are over worked and underresourced. We can definitely be smarter about how funds are spent and which programs instituted. Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

The private school that I was specifically talking about is not funded. By "funded" I mean "government funded".

And no privatizing doesn't weed out the poor, although it may the uncommitted. Again, I posted the book on this, and private schools around the world help the poorest students, end up doing far better than funded government public schools.

And the uncommitted.... yeah.. We want those people out of our schools anyway. In every single well performing school system around the world, they kick out the "uncommitted". That's how they have a well performing school. Not only do bad students lower the average outcome of the school... but they also have a negative impact on the other students in the school.

Chile also had this experience.

If what you are saying is true, and we have teachers that are paying for supplies out of pocket, that is even a greater reason to eliminate the public school system.

Again, by any estimate.... ANY estimate, the US spend more money than any other country in the world, on public education. We spend the most.... and yet you are telling me teachers are paying for supplies out of pocket? We spend more than any other country, and teachers are buying their own supplies? You realize that Vietnam has better educational outcomes than we do, and Vietnam has a tiny fraction of the money we do? And you are telling me teachers are buying their own supplies?

You yourself, just outlined the absolute best case against the public education system. This system can't be fixed. It needs replaced.

If you and I both needed to have a flat tire fixed, and I went to Bob's Car Shop, and had mine fixed for $15, and you went to the dealership and spent $1000, but while I rolled away, you couldn't even get out of the parking lot before your tire was flat again.... You wouldn't be saying "we just need more funding".

In any other situation in life, you wouldn't be making this argument. If you went to the most expensive store, and when you got home all the food you bought was spoiled, you wouldn't be sitting there going "we just need more funding is all. We should not give up on this expensive store".

But with education, no matter how pathetic our test scores are, it's "well we just need more funding". It's crazy.

Better incentives and support... Etc. it's too bad we all can't be having that discussion

What crap are you talking about? We've been having THAT discussion for DECADES!

What incentives do you think you can give people who have no worries? They are in no danger of losing 'customers' because they are paid by tax revenue no matter how good, or terrible they teach. You can't fire bad teachers because of teachers unions, and the teachers know it.

What 'incentive' do you think you are going to give them? No Child Left behind? We've seen how well that worked. They simply engaged in social promotion.

Extra money for poorly performing districts? Give them support? We've seen how that works. School intentionally keep grades just at the level LOW ENOUGH, to qualify for the additional funds.

WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION FOR DECADES.

They have been asking how better incentives and what supports they can give, in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, and now today. What the heck do you mean "it's too bad we can't be having that discussion", we've been having it for ages. You failed.

Time to try a new tactic.

Whats troubling about your statement is the fact you seem ok with discarding children from the education system who don't want to go to school and who don't have parents that force them to go to school. I think just about every kid complains about going to school at some point, and we aren't all fortunate enough to have vested parents. Yes, these kids can be challenging, but if we simply discard them, then what?? What does that do to our future and our communities? They go to shit. Your short sightedness baffles me.

You compare our education system to capitalist businesses that operates on principles of competition, profits, and demand. These are all good things to push progress but there are many more factors involved with our public school systems, which serve a much greater purpose... This fact seems to be going right over your head. You bring up Vietnam and other countries that don't invest in their school systems and imply that our test scores would go up if we cut the fat by dismissing the uncommitted... that is just stupid. Of course our scores would go up if we only educated the best and brightest. If we don't include our poor, our mentally handicapped, or "trouble" kids... Yes these are obstacles and we have much progress and reform to be made with the programs we institute and where our funds go, but we don't just quit. My girl works in the school system and I know many many teachers. I see this shit first hand and there is zero doubt that cutting funds is just about the worst thing that can happen for both the schools, staff, and students. Stop spreading the poison and try to add something useful to the discussion.

What baffles me is.... we've done it your way, and our communities and future have gone to sh!t. You are sitting here claiming that if we do it a different way we'll have bad results. Well we're doing it your way for 40 to 50 years now, and we've had terrible results. You way sucks. It's time to try something new.

Oh yes, I absolutely ok with that. 100%. The movie Lean on Me, is about Joe Louis Clark. He was given charge of the school system, which was completely failing. The very first thing he did was expel all the bad students. Clark understood that bad students drag everyone down. Hard to concentrate on studies, when half the students are passing notes, shooting spit wads, and causing problems.

I too, had the exact same problem when I was in high school. When students are causing problems, and teachers can't get rid of them, you don't tend to learn that much.

And again, every good school system around the world understands this. In Singapore if you don't keep your grades up, you are kicked out. In Sweden, if you don't keep up, you are shipped out. In Finland, students who don't make the grade, don't even go to high school. They have an entrance exam for just high school... and forget about college.

Again.... you have had your way for decades. We have done it exactly as you suggest in this thread, and it simply has not worked. Period. Your system has failed us. Most expensive system in the world, with low quality results.

And you keep saying "the poor". Vietnam is poor. They are doing better than us. So clearly your system is the problem, not income level of students. You are not making sense. "We dismiss the poor.... our test scores would go up".... huh? Vietnam isn't super rich, and they have better test scores.

The problem is the public education system, not how much money they earn.

Keep on preaching from your soapbox... fortunately, our leaders are smarter than you (which isn't saying much) and your ideas will NEVER be a reality in this country... Not even the most conservative of candidates are not even close to your wavelength. Perhaps you can move to Vietnam and be happy getting your way. I have plenty of grips with the public school system so don't claim that everything has been going my way for 40 years. I'm just not stupid enough to think that defunding and privatizing school is going to make our country a stronger place. The fact that you suggest so just shows how out of touch you are..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

It amazes me that you can't foresee the effects that your ideas would have on communities... mainly the poor/welfare community. You have obvious contempt for them, but they aren't all lazy free-loaders, and the fact that you want to punish children whom don't have a choice in the matter is really sad. And for what? To keep a few more bucks in your pocket?

So you object with people who have kids in school paying more than people without? As it stands now, I'm paying more for the schools than many of the people that have kids in them. You call that fair?

Over here, schools are paid by property tax. If you have kids in school, you should just have to pay much higher taxes than those of us with no kids in school. If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

You promote people having kids they can't support, and if I say I don't want to support other people's kids, I'm the bad guy--not the parents.

 

[Slade3200]

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

It amazes me that you can't foresee the effects that your ideas would have on communities... mainly the poor/welfare community. You have obvious contempt for them, but they aren't all lazy free-loaders, and the fact that you want to punish children whom don't have a choice in the matter is really sad. And for what? To keep a few more bucks in your pocket?

So you object with people who have kids in school paying more than people without? As it stands now, I'm paying more for the schools than many of the people that have kids in them. You call that fair?

Over here, schools are paid by property tax. If you have kids in school, you should just have to pay much higher taxes than those of us with no kids in school. If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

You promote people having kids they can't support, and if I say I don't want to support other people's kids, I'm the bad guy--not the parents.

The parents do pay more for school... Books backpacks, fund raisers erc etc etc. don't be and idiot you know these things

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

It amazes me that you can't foresee the effects that your ideas would have on communities... mainly the poor/welfare community. You have obvious contempt for them, but they aren't all lazy free-loaders, and the fact that you want to punish children whom don't have a choice in the matter is really sad. And for what? To keep a few more bucks in your pocket?

So you object with people who have kids in school paying more than people without? As it stands now, I'm paying more for the schools than many of the people that have kids in them. You call that fair?

Over here, schools are paid by property tax. If you have kids in school, you should just have to pay much higher taxes than those of us with no kids in school. If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

You promote people having kids they can't support, and if I say I don't want to support other people's kids, I'm the bad guy--not the parents.

The parents do pay more for school... Books backpacks, fund raisers erc etc etc. don't be and idiot you know these things

Oh, big deal. They pay for books. And what public school has fund raisers anyway? I've never seen that here.

Quit making excuses. You know I am right. It's amazing we've let liberalism pollute our country to such a point where we don't expect parents to take care of their own kids anymore--taxpayers now have to.

"When you go out of your way to create more irresponsible people--don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.
Rush Limbaugh