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

[Markle]

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

Where do you live? $30,000 in most states will pay for a decent state college or university. We're a state capital and have two universities a community college and a tech school. From experience, I know that one of our very best private K-12 cost about $6-8,000 a year plus transporation and other odds and ends. Affordable depending on your priorities.

A simple solution for low income people is to provide them with vouchers. Problem solved.

 

[Centinel]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

I guess once you get the amendment passed, that may be true.

 

[Markle]

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.

As a sophisticated nation we need an educated population. The problem is how to do it economically. A total government system cannot accomplish those goals. You personally benefit from an educated society.

 

[Markle]

Yeah, and if we were motivated by greed and a lust for cash, then you would have a great point.

But we're not. I do not want to get more out of government, than I put in. I'm not spending my life, trying to figure out how I can screw over other tax payers for my benefit.

And quite frankly, if my taxes ONLY paid for the roads I drive on and the infrastructure that keeps my business going.... I would have no problem at all.

We could do all of that, and cut taxes across the country by 50%. The problem is, left-wingers do not just pay for roads and infrastructure. You guys blow the money on crap that helps no one anywhere, do anything. It's a complete and total waste.

We've seen where that ideology leads to. It's called "Greece".

Actually, Greece's problems have nothing to do with infrastructure. It has to do with the fact the Germans fucked them over after they joined the EU and they couldn't control the value of their own currency anymore.

If there are people who are getting more than they put in, it's because most of us don't have anything to start with, thanks to the 1% and their morbid fear a working family might actually be able to make ends meet.

Greece has one of the most generous social systems in the world. Few days working, nearly impossible to fire someone early generous retirement, "free" health care, etc., etc., etc... Proving Margaret Thatcher's adage that sooner or later, Socialism runs out of other peoples money.

 

[Markle]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

 

[Rustic]

If every single American citizen had the option of a college education for a single generation, we would essentially eliminate poverty and crime in this nation. The need for public assistance would wane......we'd have a better informed electorate and the debt would be reduced.

You dumb shits don't want those who are now below you to rise above you......so you allow those who control you to continually fuck you.

Pay it forward, assholes.

Tissue?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

All costs are considered when coming up with a rental price. No matter what kind of lease you may have, that's the way it's calculated.

One of the reasons people rent (and growing all the time) is they don't want to deal with those costs. They pay the rent, and I deal with the costs. But that doesn't mean they are paying anything on my behalf.

My tenants can come home and just relax. That's part of the deal. I'm the one that mows the lawn, I'm the one that removes the snow, I'm the one who repairs the items in those units, I'm the one who has to sort through all the receipts and taxes, I'm the one that has to deal with the city and the problems they bring on.

I spend every vacation tending to this place while my tenants are free to use their time off of work for relaxation. Me? I haven't had a vacation in 25 years.

So it's not charity as you and others may suggest. I'm being paid to take on the burdens of home ownership that my tenants don't have to deal with. It's a trade-off no different than if you buy a basket of apples from your farmers market. You exchange money to others that did the work you didn't want to do.

 

[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.

As a sophisticated nation we need an educated population. The problem is how to do it economically. A total government system cannot accomplish those goals. You personally benefit from an educated society.

Yeah.......I keep hearing that, but nobody has been able to point out how I personally benefit.

We don't have a problem of not enough college students. We don't have a problem with not enough kids in high school.. One of the main reasons college is so expensive today is because WE DO have too many people in there. We don't have enough people willing to learn a skill and work with their hands, or otherwise learn a trade.

Okay, so we as a whole benefit from educated young adults. We can take that to other directions.

I think society benefits by me working for a living, but that doesn't mean I should expect them to fund my automobile, the maintenance, gasoline or insurance in order to get to work. I work because it mainly benefits me, and the residual benefits belong to society.

That's the same with education. The individual mostly benefits, and like having a job, society benefits secondly.

It benefits my property value if my neighbor takes care of his lawn, plants flowers or trees, trims his hedges....... but should taxpayers fund his lawn care equipment or flowers? No, because my neighbor invests his money to benefit himself mostly. I (as the neighbor) reap the benefits of his work and investments secondly.

So it's a weak argument to try and say that educated kids benefit society as if we were the only people that did. Education primarily benefits the individual, and that's why they should pay for their own education.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

You're a dinosaur. Unfortunately not a quiet one.

no......not a quiet one, but a truthful one.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

 

[Slade3200]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

 

[Slade3200]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

 

[Andylusion]

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

Yeah, but see that's where I have a problem. Both my parents were public school teachers. You can ask either one, as I have, that the students from parents who don't care.... aren't going to learn anyway.

So you are simply flushing money right down the drain. THIS.... is exactly why we have the most expensive school system on the planet, that provides crappy results. Countries that spend a fraction as much on education as we do, end up with much better results for this reason right here. If you are not willing to work your butt off, they kick you out.

And what is worse, is that students who don't care to learn.... end up disrupting and dragging down the students who do want to learn.

Every minute that a teachers is wasting dealing with a student who has not intention of putting in the effort to learn... is a minute less the teacher is spending with students who DO want to learn, and could be doing better.

Instead they do worse, and the student with no intention of doing better, ends up terrible anyway.

This issue right here is the crux of the whole problem. And this is why the Chile system does so well. Parents who don't care, and do not motivate their children, don't pay tons of money to have them in good schools. And the parents who do... make sure their kids are getting something out of it.

As a result, society as a whole is better off. Chile now has the leading education system in Latin America, and it's a pay-for-service capitalist system.

 

[Andylusion]

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..

Our leaders have done it your way, and your way has failed. I don't understand you. You claim our leaders are smarter than me, because they keep doing it your way..... and your way is how we got to the crappy situation we are in.

How is that smart? If you try the same thing 50 times, and expect to magically get a different result, that is not smart... that's insane.

Out of touch? If I'm out of touch for looking at your plans, and seeing your results, and saying it's dumb to keep pushing the same plan that has never worked..... then I'm proud to be out of touch. Because being in touch, is to be a freakin idiot.

This is hilarious.... here you are attacking me.... and yet, we have done it your way. We have. We have put in place extra funding for schools with low grades. It hasn't fixed the problem. We have tried to create incentives to better educate. It hasn't worked. How long We have tried to do everything that you have suggested in this thread. How long have we been expanding and running the "Head Start" program? That program was started in 1965!!! IT HAS NOT WORKED! How many more dumb programs, do we need before you figure out your system doesn't work?

You realize that in Finland, they don't even send their children to public school until they are age 7 or 8? We are starting two full years earlier, and ending up with dumber kids!

Yet we can look around the world, and see systems that other countries have put in place, and HAVE IN FACT WORKED.

And your only response is to start insulting me as being dumb? Based on the above, which of us really looks stupid?

 

[Andylusion]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

Ask the Greeks.

 

[Andylusion]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

LOL...... So you support poor people. "You can't afford our taxes, get out."

Funny given that is exactly what France said to business, and the businesses left, and France is now in an economic emergency.

You left-wingers. You claim to be for the poor, and then attack the poor, and ridicule the poor every chance you get.

It's amazing how many times in an argument with a left-winger, I mention how much money I make a year, and immediately they attack me for being poor. "Why should we listen to someone who is a failure?!".... You leftists are all the same. All hypocrites.

There seems to be a lack of comprehension with the post you are responding too... Good ol Ray wasn't complaining because he's poor and couldn't afford the property taxes, he was complaining because he didn't want money taken out of his pocket to support other peoples kids. He is a landlord who owns multiple properties, not even in the realm of what we consider poor. It's an extremely selfish point of view which he is entitled to have, however, I'm glad our leadership is evolved enough to not even be discussing that line of thinking.

Regardless, what I said is the truth. People on the left claim to be for the lower-class, but when it comes to taxes and paying for leftist policies, they have a pay up or leave attitude.

In the 1970s, the Michael Manly PM of Jamaica in planning socialist policies and high taxes, famously said there are 5 flights a day to Miami if you don't like it..... shockingly all the rich and wealthy, packed up their stuff, and their businesses, and jobs, and left.

Jamaica went into a death spiral of impoverishment, drugs and crime.

But hey, they had to pay for free education! To educate all those criminals and drug dealers, since there were no jobs.

I've seen the same attitude on this forum. Doesn't matter how many people are harmed by left-wing politics, they don't care. And the moment someone who is part of the low class speaks up, they immediately move to insult and belittle them. I've seen it countless times.

 

[Slade3200]

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..

Our leaders have done it your way, and your way has failed. I don't understand you. You claim our leaders are smarter than me, because they keep doing it your way..... and your way is how we got to the crappy situation we are in.

How is that smart? If you try the same thing 50 times, and expect to magically get a different result, that is not smart... that's insane.

Out of touch? If I'm out of touch for looking at your plans, and seeing your results, and saying it's dumb to keep pushing the same plan that has never worked..... then I'm proud to be out of touch. Because being in touch, is to be a freakin idiot.

This is hilarious.... here you are attacking me.... and yet, we have done it your way. We have. We have put in place extra funding for schools with low grades. It hasn't fixed the problem. We have tried to create incentives to better educate. It hasn't worked. How long We have tried to do everything that you have suggested in this thread. How long have we been expanding and running the "Head Start" program? That program was started in 1965!!! IT HAS NOT WORKED! How many more dumb programs, do we need before you figure out your system doesn't work?

You realize that in Finland, they don't even send their children to public school until they are age 7 or 8? We are starting two full years earlier, and ending up with dumber kids!

Yet we can look around the world, and see systems that other countries have put in place, and HAVE IN FACT WORKED.

And your only response is to start insulting me as being dumb? Based on the above, which of us really looks stupid?

Just because you type a bunch of BS doesn't make you smart nor does it make you right. There's plenty that can be done to improve the culture and educational programs of schools to help produce better results. The high school I went to ranks in the top 20 high schools in CA and it is a public school. It was a great school and there are many like it. The more we learn and successes that are made will help us evolve and improve like we have done for centuries.

You think tossing out the trouble kids and focusing on the rich and committed kids will get better scores... You are right! So fucking what?! It's not all about scores. You fail to consider two very important things. 1. There is a tremendous amount of social development that children learn In school. The environment of mixing different races, religions, and wealth levels is a very important thing for kids to be exposed to. And 2. You fail to explain what happens to all the fat you want to trim off.

Now you have tons of poor, mentally handicapped, and "trouble" children whose parents don't give a shit about them, all left with nothing. No guidance, no structure, no exposure to positive or outside influences that may turn things around for them. What are they going to do? It's not only inhuman to throw the bird at these people but it effects our communities and bogs down the progress and potential of this country.

So yes I back up my statement about your pathetic ideas and I double down.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Doesn't matter how many people are harmed by left-wing politics, they don't care.

Ain't that the truth. Anything to try and make everybody equal in this country. Even when you point it out to them, they refuse to acknowledge.

A little off topic, but relates to what I just wrote: On the radio yesterday, one of our local hosts dug up some statistics about the flakes in our country. This was in discussion of transgender people in our public restrooms.

His statistics showed that out of all the people in the US, transgender people made up 0.3% of our population. So they start all this trouble to make it (in their minds) right for .3% of our population at the expense of the other 99.7% of us. This is how liberals think.

Commie Care is the same way. Before this tragedy took place, only 1/7 of our population did not have healthcare insurance. There are various reasons why: many were younger and felt they didn't need insurance, others were wealthy enough to pay their own medical expenses, some for religious reasons, and of course, some who couldn't afford it. So what did the liberals do? They made attempts to force insurance on that 1/7 of our population at the expense of the other 6/7 of us, and many still don't have health insurance today!

Liberals can't accept the fact that we are not all equal in this country. So what they do is try to make everybody equal, and in the process (as you pointed out) harm the majority.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

To those poor people you speak of.

All money handed to government is used, abused and wasted in many cases. Money is better managed by the creators of that money and not the takers. If we don't put a stop to liberalism in our government, we just may have free college. After that, free cars, free boats, free swimming pools, free houses and so on.

It's already happening of course, but that's why it's important to keep Democrats out of power; to stop it from spreading.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.