Trump wants blacks to gamble on his "what the hell do you have to lose"

[BlackAsCoal]

Just asking the question on one of your points, and you won't answer. By avoiding the answer you said volumes.

Next point, Kennedy was the sponsor of NCLB, so Obama is trying to fix a Democrats mistake.

Yo are a joke…. the NCLB act was passed by Congress in

And too many Democrats hire illegals.

Poor people have the choice of a public school and what? Certainly poor students should have the choices that Obama's girls have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BenCarson went to a public school before entering college as did many other highly educated Black professionals.
The students who apply themselves are still going to rise to the top no matter what their families socio-economic status and no matter what kind of school they attend.

I didn't say Kennedy passed it, dummy. I said he sponsored it. Idiot!

You idea, still does not allow the poor the same choice that the Obama's have. And you are wrong about socio-economic status. They don't always rise, they face greater odds against succeeding. Surprised you don't understand that simple fact. Environment is a huge to success.

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars…If you want to send 'em to a private school YOU PAY FOR IT. There is probably a tax break for private schoolers so take advantage of it and STFU!

You can't follow your own conversation can you? You are really stupid or you are just caught and are to proud to acknowledge you are dead wrong. You brought up Obama and NCLB, it was a bill sponsored by Kennedy.

I don't have kids in school, they graduated. Poor kids, not me, should have the same choices that the rich kids have. The subsidies for the private schools are designed to go to the poor not the rich, dumb shit.

I didn't introduce Kennedy or NCLB into the conversation, one of your surrogates did. The corridors of your mind must be dimly lit. Facts can't find a path to your cognitive centers in there.

I do agree with poor kids having the same choices rich kids have but those choices would be derailed according to more objective studies. There is little or no discernible proof that performance under a voucher system is superior to public schools. Your sole example, the D.C. study, was paid for by republicans and that fact alone has earned my suspicion.
Other more objective studies of similar voucher programs have been less flattering in terms of academic excellence.

Your scheme seems to rest on promises to reform inner city schools by allowing inner city parents the choice of taking their kids out of public schools and sending them where? ALL the way across town to the better staffed private or Charter schools? How do they get there? Free busing provided by the profit driven private school?


Now I will challenge your statement that subsidies will only go towards the tuition of poor kids. That is a lie. BUt here is a comprehensive list of reasons to vote against vouchering :

1. Vouchers undermine religious liberty:

The vast majority of private schools are run by religious groups. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 76 percent of private schools have a religious affiliation. Over 80 percent of students attending private schools are enrolled in religious institutions. Most of these religious schools seek to indoctrinate as well as educate. They integrate religion throughout their curriculum and often require all students to receive religious instruction and attend religious services. Thus, there is no way to prevent publicly funded vouchers from paying for these institutions’ religious activities and education.

In other words, vouchers force Americans to pay taxes to support religion. This runs counter to the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. In America, all religious activities should be supported with voluntary contributions.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders strongly supported the separation of church and state and opposed taxation to support religion. As Ben Franklin succinctly put it: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

2. Vouchers divert public money to unaccountable private schools:

School vouchers are little more than a backdoor way for the government to subsidize religious and other private schools. Under most voucher bills, private schools can take taxpayer money and still deny admission to any student they choose. Unlike public schools, private schools can and do discriminate against students based on various criteria, including religion, disability, economic background, academic record, English language ability or disciplinary history. Public funds should pay only for public schools that are open to all children and accountable to the people.

Private schools are also free to impose religious criteria on teachers and staff. Teachers at religious schools have been fired for having the “wrong” views about religion, for marrying someone of another faith, for getting divorced, for being gay and even for taking public stands that conflict with the church’s view. This may be legal, but it shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers.

3. Vouchers violate many state constitutional provisions:

Voucher advocates say that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) that Cleveland’s voucher program did not violate the church-state provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This is true, but the advocates overlook an important fact: The Zelman case did not address state constitutional issues. Some three dozen states have church-state provisions in their constitutions that are even stronger than the U.S. Constitution. These provisions often more explicitly bar taxpayer money from being used to fund religious schools and education. Private school vouchers would likely be unconstitutional in most states – and some state courts have already ruled that they are.

4. The people do not support vouchers:

Americans have repeatedly expressed opposition to vouchers in public opinion polls. More tellingly, when people are given an opportunity to vote directly on vouchers through ballot referenda, they always reject the concept – usually by wide margins. Since 1967, voters in 23 states have rejected vouchers and other forms of tax aid to religious schools at the ballot box.

5. Vouchers do not improve student academic performance:

According to multiple studies of the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Cleveland school voucher programs, the targeted population does not perform better in reading and math than students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education studies of the D.C. program show that the students using vouchers to attend private schools do not believe that their voucher school is better or safer than the public school they left.

The study also showed that over a period of four years, there was no statistically significant difference between students who were offered a voucher and those who were not in their aspirations for future schooling, engagement in extracurricular activities, frequency of doing homework, attendance at school, reading for enjoyment or tardiness rates. In fact, students who participated in the program may actually have been more likely to be absent from school. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the student-teacher ratios in their classrooms or the availability of before-and after-school programs in their schools.

6. Vouchers do not improve opportunities for children from low-income families:

Vouchers do little to help the poor. The payments often do not cover the entire cost of tuition or other mandatory fees for private schools. Thus, only families with the money to cover the cost of the rest of the tuition, uniforms, transportation, books and other supplies can use the vouchers. In Cleveland, the majority of families who were granted a voucher but did not use it cited the additional costs as the reason they could not use the voucher. Vouchers actually hurt low-income families by undermining the public schools they rely on.

7. Vouchers do not save taxpayer money:

Vouchers do not decrease education costs. Instead, tax money that would ordinarily go to public schools now pays for vouchers, thus harming public schools. A 1999 study of Cleveland’s program showed that the public schools from which students left for private voucher schools were spread throughout the district. The loss of a few students at a school does not reduce fixed costs such as teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies and utilities and maintenance costs. Public schools run the risk of losing state funding to pay for vouchers without being able to cut their overall operating costs. In addition, voucher programs cost the state money to administer. In Milwaukee, which has been disproportionately burdened in a statewide voucher funding scheme, the city has had to raise property taxes several times since the voucher program began in order to ensure adequate funding for the city’s schools.

8. Vouchers do not increase education choice:

Voucher programs do not increase “choice” for parents because it’s the private schools that will ultimately decide whether to admit a student. These institutions are not required to give parents the information necessary to determine whether the school is meeting their children’s needs. Under voucher programs, private schools are often not required to test students, publish curriculum or meet many other standards. Even when legislatures have attempted to mandate accountability standards in voucher programs, private schools have not done what was required of them.

9. Vouchers lead to private schools of questionable quality:

In Milwaukee and Cleveland, the availability of vouchers led con artists to create fly-by-night schools in order to bilk the public purse. One Milwaukee school was run by a man with a long criminal record. In Cleveland, one school operated out of a dilapidated building with inadequate heat and no fire alarms. Another school “educated” children by having them watch videos all day.

Fundamentalist Christian academies have been growing in number. Many of these schools offer education far outside the mainstream. They teach creationism in lieu of evolution, offer a discredited “Christian nation” approach to American history and put forth controversial ideas about other religions, the role of women in society, gay rights and other issues. These schools may legally teach this way, but taxpayers should not be expected to pay for it.

10. Vouchers distract from the real issue of reform:

Voucher plans usually allow a small percentage of children to leave public schools for enrollment in private schools. This does nothing for the large percentage of youngsters left behind. Most public schools do a very good job; those that don’t should be fixed, not abandoned. Vouchers become an excuse for politicians to dodge issues like adequate funding, class size, teacher training and curriculum reform.

Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. Our focus should be on fully funding and improving this system, not siphoning money into private systems.

AU makes available a pamphlet titled “Should You Pay Taxes To Support Religious Schools?” that outlines several arguments against vouchers. It is available for free online at:

www.au.org/resources/brochures/should-you-pay-taxes-to-support-religious-schools/

Print copies are available for $1 apiece from Americans United’s national office.

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE

 

[JQPublic1]

Well, golly gee Homer. You disparage the democrats for the plights of a few cities but the republicans rule over the poorest states in the country. Last time I checked the red states were quite numerous and many of those, if not most, were economically depressed.
OTOH Democrat controlled states are footing the bill for your poor republican enclaves.

Last time I checked in my state, there are 6 red districts and 1 blue one. NONE of the 6 red ones comes anywhere close to getting the freebies the 1 blue one does. In fact, the blue one is the only one of them 7 where more than 20% of the residents use food stamps. Demographics explain a lot of that.

WTF does Demographics have to do with it? Don't republicans want to showcase how well their Black constituents can thrive under their rule?
Why aren't their Black citizens doing better than those on the "Democratic Plantations"? And the poor White republicans in red states aren't doing too good either.

That 1 blue district is 60% black. Blacks, as a group, have a higher unemployment rate that all other groups. In the district where I live, unemployment is well below the state average and that includes whites, blacks, and all other groups.

You can run but you cannot hide. When I see the numbers for myself from your source I might attach some credibility to your anecdote.
Until then, you can't escape that red states are the poorest in the union. Blue state Black democrats have a lot to lose if the republican ran states are any indication of what conservatives have to offer.

Like I said, the blue one is the poorest in the state by far. Not my fault the 60% black district can't take care of itself.

WHAT state do you live in? And what does your microcosm have to do with the larger picture of republican controlled poverty in the red states.?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yo are a joke…. the NCLB act was passed by Congress in
BenCarson went to a public school before entering college as did many other highly educated Black professionals.
The students who apply themselves are still going to rise to the top no matter what their families socio-economic status and no matter what kind of school they attend.

I didn't say Kennedy passed it, dummy. I said he sponsored it. Idiot!

You idea, still does not allow the poor the same choice that the Obama's have. And you are wrong about socio-economic status. They don't always rise, they face greater odds against succeeding. Surprised you don't understand that simple fact. Environment is a huge to success.

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars…If you want to send 'em to a private school YOU PAY FOR IT. There is probably a tax break for private schoolers so take advantage of it and STFU!

No, there isn't....you rob us makers to fund your public school cesspool....

We are dealing with it....we are going to shove public schools up your liberal ass....

Just how are you going to do that with a loser presidential candidate? And it looks like Senate seats will tip towards the Democrats too. heh heh heh!

Here's the difference between Obama's majority and Bush's. Bush delay and hastert purposely robbed from the poor to feed the rich.

Obama got obstructed from the start and lobbyists proved they can get to both parties so people didn't show up in 2010 to vote out the bums instead the people who voted in 08 didn't show up in 2010 and rewarded the obstructionists. Even if Republicans lose this year they know they will win in 2018. That's why the poor are losing.

And if this is true how come the liberal media ain't tellin it?

So minority Democrats can't obstruct but minority Republicans can? How stupid are the Democrats?

 

[Conservative65]

Last time I checked in my state, there are 6 red districts and 1 blue one. NONE of the 6 red ones comes anywhere close to getting the freebies the 1 blue one does. In fact, the blue one is the only one of them 7 where more than 20% of the residents use food stamps. Demographics explain a lot of that.

WTF does Demographics have to do with it? Don't republicans want to showcase how well their Black constituents can thrive under their rule?
Why aren't their Black citizens doing better than those on the "Democratic Plantations"? And the poor White republicans in red states aren't doing too good either.

That 1 blue district is 60% black. Blacks, as a group, have a higher unemployment rate that all other groups. In the district where I live, unemployment is well below the state average and that includes whites, blacks, and all other groups.

You can run but you cannot hide. When I see the numbers for myself from your source I might attach some credibility to your anecdote.
Until then, you can't escape that red states are the poorest in the union. Blue state Black democrats have a lot to lose if the republican ran states are any indication of what conservatives have to offer.

Like I said, the blue one is the poorest in the state by far. Not my fault the 60% black district can't take care of itself.

WHAT state do you live in? And what does your microcosm have to do with the larger picture of republican controlled poverty in the red states.?

What it does is prove that the claim of red states are the poorest is not necessarily true especially when the only majority black district has more than 1 in 5 living off the white people of the state.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

August 28, 2016

“Trump’s outreach to African American voters appears to be falling flat among that demographic, with only 5 percent of black voters saying they will vote for Trump; 79 percent of African American respondents say they will vote for Clinton, with 16 percent undecided,” said the pollsters.
Donald Trump halves Hillary Clinton’s lead: poll

... and I'm betting that 90% of the undecided 16% will vote for Clinton.

It is however, fun and entertaining watching Trump supporters flopping around for black voters. :0) Not going to happen.

 

[JQPublic1]

WTF does Demographics have to do with it? Don't republicans want to showcase how well their Black constituents can thrive under their rule?
Why aren't their Black citizens doing better than those on the "Democratic Plantations"? And the poor White republicans in red states aren't doing too good either.

That 1 blue district is 60% black. Blacks, as a group, have a higher unemployment rate that all other groups. In the district where I live, unemployment is well below the state average and that includes whites, blacks, and all other groups.

You can run but you cannot hide. When I see the numbers for myself from your source I might attach some credibility to your anecdote.
Until then, you can't escape that red states are the poorest in the union. Blue state Black democrats have a lot to lose if the republican ran states are any indication of what conservatives have to offer.

Like I said, the blue one is the poorest in the state by far. Not my fault the 60% black district can't take care of itself.

WHAT state do you live in? And what does your microcosm have to do with the larger picture of republican controlled poverty in the red states.?

What it does is prove that the claim of red states are the poorest is not necessarily true especially when the only majority black district has more than 1 in 5 living off the white people of the state.

Prove it. I am still waiting for your sources! BTW tell Gomer and Sally Sue not to spend their welfare checks on rebel flags

 

[JQPublic1]

WTF does Demographics have to do with it? Don't republicans want to showcase how well their Black constituents can thrive under their rule?
Why aren't their Black citizens doing better than those on the "Democratic Plantations"? And the poor White republicans in red states aren't doing too good either.

That 1 blue district is 60% black. Blacks, as a group, have a higher unemployment rate that all other groups. In the district where I live, unemployment is well below the state average and that includes whites, blacks, and all other groups.

You can run but you cannot hide. When I see the numbers for myself from your source I might attach some credibility to your anecdote.
Until then, you can't escape that red states are the poorest in the union. Blue state Black democrats have a lot to lose if the republican ran states are any indication of what conservatives have to offer.

Like I said, the blue one is the poorest in the state by far. Not my fault the 60% black district can't take care of itself.

WHAT state do you live in? And what does your microcosm have to do with the larger picture of republican controlled poverty in the red states.?

What it does is prove that the claim of red states are the poorest is not necessarily true especially when the only majority black district has more than 1 in 5 living off the white people of the state.

Since you want to play stupid, here is a more direct approach to White poverty in red states:

Why the Left Isn’t Talking About Rural American Poverty - Rural America

The demographics of poverty in rural and urban America are quite similar. Though whites make up the majority of both metropolitan and non-metropolitan populations in the United States—resulting in a higher numbers of whites living in poverty.

 

[Kondor3]

...Ahh, yes, life is far better for Blacks in the republican led red states where they sweat and toil for their former "conservative" friends for a pittance. Them evil democrats got 'em n a plantation up north but the republiKLANS in the south hs done so much better for them.

Oh, the Republicans aren't going to do shit for them... which is probably the biggest favor they could do Blacks... make 'em Do For Themselves.

The Democrats phukk 'em over too, it's just that their way is more seductive, insidious and longer-term and further reaching and a far more profound screwing-over...

 

[sealybobo]

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars

So you think public schools are free and don't take your tax dollars? WTF do you live anyway?

Over half of my property taxes go to our schools that I nor my tenants have children in. One of my tenants home schools their kids and that's a huge financial loss to them because the mother has to stay home to do so.

The average public school cost around 13K a year per student. Your argument is not about the failure of school vouchers, your argument is that your leaders told you what to think.

There you go again telling me what I think. Your simple mind isn't capable of grasping what I think. take your time and read s-l-o-w-l-y. That might give that other brain cell time to fire up and facilitate better understanding.

Here goes: I know your tax dollars pay for public schools as does mine and people who don't even have kids. The problem with a national voucher system those tax dollars will be redirected to private schools while public schools will have far less funding than they do now. That is problematic because if vouchers do not cover the entire tuition of private schools the poor will still be going to public schools since many likely can't afford to take money out of their pockets to make up the difference. And wealthier kids , whose parents can afford to meet the co payment, will be going to voucher schools where the best teachers will be attracted by higher pay and where profit margins rule.

So would you think most Americans are going to support the tax dollar financing of TWO schools systems. One for the middle class and one for the poor? I'd rather leave it like it is, overhaul the present system and make it better. Some studies have shown no appreciable academic advantage for private schools over public schools.

I'll correct one thing. Those charter schools do not pay teachers well they take teachers with shaky credentials or no credentials at all. They don't get pensions, a union, summer pay. But the schools are safe and actually teach

I can't fathom a school with subpar teachers teaching very well. Also, I think we have to define the type of schooling is covered by the voucher initiative.. Private schools, Charter schools, Magnet schools, public schools and home schooling are all different approaches to education and different rules apply to each.

My nephew goes to the best private school in Michigan. Every kid has to do their homework. Don't do it and you don't pass.

In my public school, and I went to a good one, I don't remember doing homework. The kids that worried did homework but us slackers were allowed to skate by. This put me at a huge disadvantage my freshman year of college. Funny my brother had the same problem his first year at msu. His counselor suggested maybe he was over his head. It infuriated him. He became obsessed with studying. He now has a masters and he's a VP of a fortune 500.

Me? I barely got my bachelor's. Hated school. But I'll say one thing. It's not just the teachers fault. At a private school the students, school and parents are held accountable.

I still agree they shouldn't defund public schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars

So you think public schools are free and don't take your tax dollars? WTF do you live anyway?

Over half of my property taxes go to our schools that I nor my tenants have children in. One of my tenants home schools their kids and that's a huge financial loss to them because the mother has to stay home to do so.

The average public school cost around 13K a year per student. Your argument is not about the failure of school vouchers, your argument is that your leaders told you what to think.

There you go again telling me what I think. Your simple mind isn't capable of grasping what I think. take your time and read s-l-o-w-l-y. That might give that other brain cell time to fire up and facilitate better understanding.

Here goes: I know your tax dollars pay for public schools as does mine and people who don't even have kids. The problem with a national voucher system those tax dollars will be redirected to private schools while public schools will have far less funding than they do now. That is problematic because if vouchers do not cover the entire tuition of private schools the poor will still be going to public schools since many likely can't afford to take money out of their pockets to make up the difference. And wealthier kids , whose parents can afford to meet the co payment, will be going to voucher schools where the best teachers will be attracted by higher pay and where profit margins rule.

So would you think most Americans are going to support the tax dollar financing of TWO schools systems. One for the middle class and one for the poor? I'd rather leave it like it is, overhaul the present system and make it better. Some studies have shown no appreciable academic advantage for private schools over public schools.

I'll correct one thing. Those charter schools do not pay teachers well they take teachers with shaky credentials or no credentials at all. They don't get pensions, a union, summer pay. But the schools are safe and actually teach

I can't fathom a school with subpar teachers teaching very well. Also, I think we have to define the type of schooling is covered by the voucher initiative.. Private schools, Charter schools, Magnet schools, public schools and home schooling are all different approaches to education and different rules apply to each.

My nephew goes to the best private school in Michigan. Every kid has to do their homework. Don't do it and you don't pass.

In my public school, and I went to a good one, I don't remember doing homework. The kids that worried did homework but us slackers were allowed to skate by. This put me at a huge disadvantage my freshman year of college. Funny my brother had the same problem his first year at msu. His counselor suggested maybe he was over his head. It infuriated him. He became obsessed with studying. He now has a masters and he's a VP of a fortune 500.

Me? I barely got my bachelor's. Hated school. But I'll say one thing. It's not just the teachers fault. At a private school the students, school and parents are held accountable.

I still agree they shouldn't defund public schools.

You hit the nail on the head.

My niece has some mental and many physical problems, so she was no joy to raise for my sister. She sent both her children to Catholic private school, and it cost her a fortune.

Once my niece started to slack off, the school contacted my sister. She stayed up every night with that kid studying with her until her grades greatly improved. When you're paying your own money to educate your children, you bet your ass you're going to make sure you get your monies worth.

That's much unlike public school. Once that kid is on the bus, it's no longer the parents problem. If the kid is failing in subjects or not doing well, it's less likely the parent will put much effort into helping the child. That's the teachers problem.

 

[sealybobo]

Detroit Detroit Detroit…That is ALL you know. Your whole world revolves around Detroit and that is what you measure every other city by. I can see how your world view became so slanted.

There are other cities just like Detroit and they all have the same two things in common

Well, golly gee Homer. You disparage the democrats for the plights of a few cities but the republicans rule over the poorest states in the country. Last time I checked the red states were quite numerous and many of those, if not most, were economically depressed.
OTOH Democrat controlled states are footing the bill for your poor republican enclaves.

Last time I checked in my state, there are 6 red districts and 1 blue one. NONE of the 6 red ones comes anywhere close to getting the freebies the 1 blue one does. In fact, the blue one is the only one of them 7 where more than 20% of the residents use food stamps. Demographics explain a lot of that.

I'd rather live in the 6 that have all the money and jobs.

If you fall for the Con's anecdote you'll fall for anything!

No. What I'm saying is the guy acts like the poor district is lucky to be getting the freebees. He should trade his financial stability for those freebees.

Red states like to make fun of Detroit but go down south and next to every poor black city is a rich white city. Those white hiring managers are not hiring the most qualified they hire the guy they'd rather work with. This is the truth. This is why blacks are disadvantaged.

If white hiring managers went out of their way to hire some blacks, we'd be good.

 

[sonic]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There you go again telling me what I think. Your simple mind isn't capable of grasping what I think. take your time and read s-l-o-w-l-y. That might give that other brain cell time to fire up and facilitate better understanding.

Here goes: I know your tax dollars pay for public schools as does mine and people who don't even have kids. The problem with a national voucher system those tax dollars will be redirected to private schools while public schools will have far less funding than they do now. That is problematic because if vouchers do not cover the entire tuition of private schools the poor will still be going to public schools since many likely can't afford to take money out of their pockets to make up the difference. And wealthier kids , whose parents can afford to meet the co payment, will be going to voucher schools where the best teachers will be attracted by higher pay and where profit margins rule.

So would you think most Americans are going to support the tax dollar financing of TWO schools systems. One for the middle class and one for the poor? I'd rather leave it like it is, overhaul the present system and make it better. Some studies have shown no appreciable academic advantage for private schools over public schools.

There you go, you have no idea WTF you're even talking about.

Do you think they pass out vouchers like cracker jacks? Qualifications for vouchers are low income families, not wealthy white families. And those low income families do find a way to make up any difference the voucher doesn't cover. Plus vouchers are not restricted to just private schooling. You can use that voucher for your child to attend a better public school as well.

Democrat politicians only care about vouchers because their buddies at the teachers unions don't want them. Public school union is a monopoly and they want to keep it that way. Competition would mean they would have to perform better, and that means more work. The teachers union doesn't want that. They want to force all kids that can't afford private school into those union public schools with no choice whatsoever. And when the kid graduates high school without the ability to read his or her diploma, oh well, we tried..........

And that's not urban legend either. I've been contacted by some of those very same black people when posting one of my apartments. Their emails are atrocious. No punctuation, misspelled words throughout the entire email. Some of them I couldn't even make out what they were trying to ask me. Through interviews I learned that they were high school graduates. A seven year old could compose a better letter.

1. Vouchers undermine religious liberty:

The vast majority of private schools are run by religious groups. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 76 percent of private schools have a religious affiliation. Over 80 percent of students attending private schools are enrolled in religious institutions. Most of these religious schools seek to indoctrinate as well as educate. They integrate religion throughout their curriculum and often require all students to receive religious instruction and attend religious services. Thus, there is no way to prevent publicly funded vouchers from paying for these institutions’ religious activities and education.

In other words, vouchers force Americans to pay taxes to support religion. This runs counter to the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. In America, all religious activities should be supported with voluntary contributions.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders strongly supported the separation of church and state and opposed taxation to support religion. As Ben Franklin succinctly put it: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

2. Vouchers divert public money to unaccountable private schools:

School vouchers are little more than a backdoor way for the government to subsidize religious and other private schools. Under most voucher bills, private schools can take taxpayer money and still deny admission to any student they choose. Unlike public schools, private schools can and do discriminate against students based on various criteria, including religion, disability, economic background, academic record, English language ability or disciplinary history. Public funds should pay only for public schools that are open to all children and accountable to the people.

Private schools are also free to impose religious criteria on teachers and staff. Teachers at religious schools have been fired for having the “wrong” views about religion, for marrying someone of another faith, for getting divorced, for being gay and even for taking public stands that conflict with the church’s view. This may be legal, but it shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers.

3. Vouchers violate many state constitutional provisions:

Voucher advocates say that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) that Cleveland’s voucher program did not violate the church-state provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This is true, but the advocates overlook an important fact: The Zelman case did not address state constitutional issues. Some three dozen states have church-state provisions in their constitutions that are even stronger than the U.S. Constitution. These provisions often more explicitly bar taxpayer money from being used to fund religious schools and education. Private school vouchers would likely be unconstitutional in most states – and some state courts have already ruled that they are.

4. The people do not support vouchers:

Americans have repeatedly expressed opposition to vouchers in public opinion polls. More tellingly, when people are given an opportunity to vote directly on vouchers through ballot referenda, they always reject the concept – usually by wide margins. Since 1967, voters in 23 states have rejected vouchers and other forms of tax aid to religious schools at the ballot box.

5. Vouchers do not improve student academic performance:

According to multiple studies of the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Cleveland school voucher programs, the targeted population does not perform better in reading and math than students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education studies of the D.C. program show that the students using vouchers to attend private schools do not believe that their voucher school is better or safer than the public school they left.

The study also showed that over a period of four years, there was no statistically significant difference between students who were offered a voucher and those who were not in their aspirations for future schooling, engagement in extracurricular activities, frequency of doing homework, attendance at school, reading for enjoyment or tardiness rates. In fact, students who participated in the program may actually have been more likely to be absent from school. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the student-teacher ratios in their classrooms or the availability of before-and after-school programs in their schools.

6. Vouchers do not improve opportunities for children from low-income families:

Vouchers do little to help the poor. The payments often do not cover the entire cost of tuition or other mandatory fees for private schools. Thus, only families with the money to cover the cost of the rest of the tuition, uniforms, transportation, books and other supplies can use the vouchers. In Cleveland, the majority of families who were granted a voucher but did not use it cited the additional costs as the reason they could not use the voucher. Vouchers actually hurt low-income families by undermining the public schools they rely on.

7. Vouchers do not save taxpayer money:

Vouchers do not decrease education costs. Instead, tax money that would ordinarily go to public schools now pays for vouchers, thus harming public schools. A 1999 study of Cleveland’s program showed that the public schools from which students left for private voucher schools were spread throughout the district. The loss of a few students at a school does not reduce fixed costs such as teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies and utilities and maintenance costs. Public schools run the risk of losing state funding to pay for vouchers without being able to cut their overall operating costs. In addition, voucher programs cost the state money to administer. In Milwaukee, which has been disproportionately burdened in a statewide voucher funding scheme, the city has had to raise property taxes several times since the voucher program began in order to ensure adequate funding for the city’s schools.

8. Vouchers do not increase education choice:

Voucher programs do not increase “choice” for parents because it’s the private schools that will ultimately decide whether to admit a student. These institutions are not required to give parents the information necessary to determine whether the school is meeting their children’s needs. Under voucher programs, private schools are often not required to test students, publish curriculum or meet many other standards. Even when legislatures have attempted to mandate accountability standards in voucher programs, private schools have not done what was required of them.

9. Vouchers lead to private schools of questionable quality:

In Milwaukee and Cleveland, the availability of vouchers led con artists to create fly-by-night schools in order to bilk the public purse. One Milwaukee school was run by a man with a long criminal record. In Cleveland, one school operated out of a dilapidated building with inadequate heat and no fire alarms. Another school “educated” children by having them watch videos all day.

Fundamentalist Christian academies have been growing in number. Many of these schools offer education far outside the mainstream. They teach creationism in lieu of evolution, offer a discredited “Christian nation” approach to American history and put forth controversial ideas about other religions, the role of women in society, gay rights and other issues. These schools may legally teach this way, but taxpayers should not be expected to pay for it.

10. Vouchers distract from the real issue of reform:

Voucher plans usually allow a small percentage of children to leave public schools for enrollment in private schools. This does nothing for the large percentage of youngsters left behind. Most public schools do a very good job; those that don’t should be fixed, not abandoned. Vouchers become an excuse for politicians to dodge issues like adequate funding, class size, teacher training and curriculum reform.

Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. Our focus should be on fully funding and improving this system, not siphoning money into private systems.

AU makes available a pamphlet titled “Should You Pay Taxes To Support Religious Schools?” that outlines several arguments against vouchers. It is available for free online at:

www.au.org/resources/brochures/should-you-pay-taxes-to-support-religious-schools/

Print copies are available for $1 apiece from Americans United’s national office.

Gee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. No bias there.

You do realize the the Democrats already tried to throw blacks under the bus by fighting vouchers, don't you? The court ruled against them.

It's not a mixture of Church and State when the parent decides on what kind of education they want their child to have. Nobody is forcing religion into pubic schools, therefore, if a parent desires a religious environment for their children to have in school that they can't fully afford themselves, it's not bothering anybody else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. What I'm saying is the guy acts like the poor district is lucky to be getting the freebees. He should trade his financial stability for those freebees.

Red states like to make fun of Detroit but go down south and next to every poor black city is a rich white city. Those white hiring managers are not hiring the most qualified they hire the guy they'd rather work with. This is the truth. This is why blacks are disadvantaged.

If white hiring managers went out of their way to hire some blacks, we'd be good.

We already have multiple laws against discrimination. So if a black is not hired, they have the availability to have the case heard in court.

A business owner does have a favorite color, and that color is green. The employee that makes the employer the most green is that employers favorite employee. Is there race preference? You bet, but not the way you might expect.

Several of our customers have eventually replaced their mostly all white crew with nearly all black. Why? Because blacks can work cheaper than whites.

The cost of living is lower in black communities because of lower cost housing and lower priced rentals. So blacks can afford to work for less money. Even though they don't get the same quality of work, companies save a fortune by lower labor costs, and that puts white people off to the side of the road.

 

[Jroc]

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars

So you think public schools are free and don't take your tax dollars? WTF do you live anyway?

Over half of my property taxes go to our schools that I nor my tenants have children in. One of my tenants home schools their kids and that's a huge financial loss to them because the mother has to stay home to do so.

The average public school cost around 13K a year per student. Your argument is not about the failure of school vouchers, your argument is that your leaders told you what to think.

There you go again telling me what I think. Your simple mind isn't capable of grasping what I think. take your time and read s-l-o-w-l-y. That might give that other brain cell time to fire up and facilitate better understanding.

Here goes: I know your tax dollars pay for public schools as does mine and people who don't even have kids. The problem with a national voucher system those tax dollars will be redirected to private schools while public schools will have far less funding than they do now. That is problematic because if vouchers do not cover the entire tuition of private schools the poor will still be going to public schools since many likely can't afford to take money out of their pockets to make up the difference. And wealthier kids , whose parents can afford to meet the co payment, will be going to voucher schools where the best teachers will be attracted by higher pay and where profit margins rule.

So would you think most Americans are going to support the tax dollar financing of TWO schools systems. One for the middle class and one for the poor? I'd rather leave it like it is, overhaul the present system and make it better. Some studies have shown no appreciable academic advantage for private schools over public schools.

Close down under preforming schools and give teachers Marriott pay ....Competition is the answer school choice

 

[Jroc]

Yeah, Ferguson was just somebody accidently dropping a few hundred matches whilst trying to light a cigarette.

Ferguson was a reactive approach to racism. The catalyst that set that reaction off was the shooting of Michael Brown, even if he was a thug!

Was it rational?
Was there any possible positive outcome?
Did 40 years of Globalism make it a possibility?

No, no and no…Outsiders who didn't even live inFerguson were the perps. After all it wasn't their town…they just took advantage of the peaceful protest to loot and burn!

Outsiders?

Yep, some of the ferguson residents tried to protect buildings from being torched because they worked there .

Ferguson: outsiders spread unrest and unease in pursuit of eclectic aims

Obama and those congress people perpetrated a fraud and fomented violence for political gain you should be embarrasses suburbanite boy

 

[Indeependent]

Ferguson was a reactive approach to racism. The catalyst that set that reaction off was the shooting of Michael Brown, even if he was a thug!

Was it rational?
Was there any possible positive outcome?
Did 40 years of Globalism make it a possibility?

No, no and no…Outsiders who didn't even live inFerguson were the perps. After all it wasn't their town…they just took advantage of the peaceful protest to loot and burn!

Outsiders?

Yep, some of the ferguson residents tried to protect buildings from being torched because they worked there .

Ferguson: outsiders spread unrest and unease in pursuit of eclectic aims

Obama and those congress people perpetrated a fraud and fomented violence for political gain you should be embarrasses suburbanite boy

JQ is just another angry Black guy.

 

[Jroc]

August 28, 2016

“Trump’s outreach to African American voters appears to be falling flat among that demographic, with only 5 percent of black voters saying they will vote for Trump; 79 percent of African American respondents say they will vote for Clinton, with 16 percent undecided,” said the pollsters.
Donald Trump halves Hillary Clinton’s lead: poll

... and I'm betting that 90% of the undecided 16% will vote for Clinton.

It is however, fun and entertaining watching Trump supporters flopping around for black voters. :0) Not going to happen.

Donald Trump to visit church, do TV interview in Detroit

 

[Jroc]

Was it rational?
Was there any possible positive outcome?
Did 40 years of Globalism make it a possibility?

No, no and no…Outsiders who didn't even live inFerguson were the perps. After all it wasn't their town…they just took advantage of the peaceful protest to loot and burn!

Outsiders?

Yep, some of the ferguson residents tried to protect buildings from being torched because they worked there .

Ferguson: outsiders spread unrest and unease in pursuit of eclectic aims

Obama and those congress people perpetrated a fraud and fomented violence for political gain you should be embarrasses suburbanite boy

JQ is just another angry Black guy.

More like an angry liberal..If he's black ,he 's never lived in the inner city. He operates on theory not practice

 

[BlackAsCoal]

1.Are you crazy or just dumb! The quote you are responding to has no mention of Kennedy. You need to put that bottle away… you are starting to hallucinate…

Stop trying to convince me to agree to subsidize your kids with my tax dollars

So you think public schools are free and don't take your tax dollars? WTF do you live anyway?

Over half of my property taxes go to our schools that I nor my tenants have children in. One of my tenants home schools their kids and that's a huge financial loss to them because the mother has to stay home to do so.

The average public school cost around 13K a year per student. Your argument is not about the failure of school vouchers, your argument is that your leaders told you what to think.

There you go again telling me what I think. Your simple mind isn't capable of grasping what I think. take your time and read s-l-o-w-l-y. That might give that other brain cell time to fire up and facilitate better understanding.

Here goes: I know your tax dollars pay for public schools as does mine and people who don't even have kids. The problem with a national voucher system those tax dollars will be redirected to private schools while public schools will have far less funding than they do now. That is problematic because if vouchers do not cover the entire tuition of private schools the poor will still be going to public schools since many likely can't afford to take money out of their pockets to make up the difference. And wealthier kids , whose parents can afford to meet the co payment, will be going to voucher schools where the best teachers will be attracted by higher pay and where profit margins rule.

So would you think most Americans are going to support the tax dollar financing of TWO schools systems. One for the middle class and one for the poor? I'd rather leave it like it is, overhaul the present system and make it better. Some studies have shown no appreciable academic advantage for private schools over public schools.

Close down under preforming schools and give teachers Marriott pay ....Competition is the answer school choice

Failing Milwaukee voucher schools: “These are experiments that are being run on black students”
Failing Milwaukee voucher schools: “These are experiments that are being run on black students”

Researcher ‘stunned’ by high rate of voucher school failures in Milwaukee

“I do not mean failed as in they did not deliver academically, I mean failed as in they no longer exist,” University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Professor Michael Ford wrote. “These 102 schools either closed after having their voucher revenue cut off by the Department of Public Instruction, or simply shut their doors. The failure rate for entrepreneurial start-up schools is even worse: 67.8 percent.”

Ford is a former vice president of School Choice Wisconsin.

In a summary of his study, he concludes:

“The larger, perhaps more troubling legacy of the first 25 years of the Milwaukee voucher experience is the problem of externalities…When a school closes, students and parents must find new schools, student records may be lost, student achievement will likely suffer, and the public investment in failed institutions is lost.

“In other words,” he writes, “school closures are disruptive, and inevitable in market-based school reforms that encourage entrepreneurship. Anyone in Milwaukee over the past two decades can remember specific cases of school failures, so the fact that failure occurred is likely not surprising, but I was admittedly stunned by the high failure rates.
Researcher 'stunned' by high rate of voucher school failures in Milwaukee - WEAC

If memory serves, Milwaukee is where the voucher system started.