LOL Obama shits on his supporters!

[PLAYER57832]

In Montessori, if you come into the class and f*ck around, you are not invited to come back. Your parents can waste their time trying to get you into another school. Maybe, since your kid is an underachieving loser, they will be happy in public school.

Also, in the Montessori program, you learn quite differently than you do in the public school system. You learn what you are interested in, and you generally generally do well. Plus, the program talked about in the video seemed to be quite successful. And for a lot cheaper than the shitty public school system. Just sayin... you have to actually look at the pilot programs before you can just say that "vouchers corrupt the market." If you are going to say something like that, show some data.

Except I went to a PUBLIC montessori elementary school. Years before the idea of charter schools.

My high school had over a 95% college acceptance rate. "Public" does not equal bad. Right now, my son, however, is attending a school that basically does not teach science or social studies in his grade and teaches it poorly later. (Strangely it rated as an outstanding school by US News last year, though). The only other option is a Catholic school that is not all that much better and would not be a good "fit" for my son.

What we need to do is improve public schools, not puch students off into other systems.

And this statement speaks volumes and, ironically, quite effectively states a big problem with vouchers:

In Montessori, if you come into the class and f*ck around, you are not invited to come back. Your parents can waste their time trying to get you into another school.

One of the reasons private schools do better than public schools in some areas is their ability to be selective. ANY school can achieve well if they get to pick only the "cream" of the students. A public school is tasked with teaching everyone. That is the point. And despite your assertions, despite my discontent with our local system, many public schools are actually doing a good job.

Also, the biggest problem in public schools? Dealing with that wonderful Bush implemented plan teachers like to call "every child left behind".

[Japs]

It would be an incentive for public schools to do better because now they would have to compete with private schools.

So this is gona make Public schools better and that 95%acceptance rate is only of the people that actually applied to college isnt it.

Do your son go to the IA?

[PLAYER57832]

It would be an incentive for public schools to do better because now they would have to compete with private schools.

So this is gona make Public schools better

No, it will just increase the competition, for private schools, but ultimately, the exclusive ones will just raise prices again. (see my answer above, I edited it when you were posting this) Public schools will lose funding and become even worse.

and that 95%acceptance rate is only of the people that actually applied to college isnt it.

No. That was the number of graduating seniors who went to college. Oh, and though I cannot remember the drop out rate (we did have a few), it was very low. From my class, I think there were 3 who did not graduate, at least on time.

Do your son go to the IA?

What is IA?

[Japs]

It would be an incentive for public schools to do better because now they would have to compete with private schools.

So this is gona make Public schools better

No, it will just increase the competition, for private schools, but ultimately, the exclusive ones will just raise prices again. Public schools will lose funding and become even worse.

If they increase the price again it wont matter cause the vouchers are only worth so much money. If they increase the price they loose customers so they wont. Public schools will be forced to be competetive and if a large amount of people doubt this bill just have it for like a 3 year trial in one area.

and that 95%acceptance rate is only of the people that actually applied to college isnt it.

No. That was the number of graduating seniors who went to college. Oh, and though I cannot remember the drop out rate (we did have a few), it was very low. From my class, I think there were 3 who did not graduate, at least on time.

Alright thanks for clarifying

Do your son go to the IA?

What is IA?

International Accademy - they have it where I am. Its based on a lotto system and two test you take. If you pass these two test your name gets put in the loto. IF your name comes out high enough to get into this school. Its public and its just about college level highschool, its all accelerated. The problem with it is that its extremely hard to get into. It also takes a year off your college. You get like a degree saying you did a years worth of college when your done with your four years of hs.

[StiffMittens]

Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.

Now hang on a second. According to the video there's 18,000,000 bucks in the DC voucher program and that the program spends about 7,500 bucks per student. That seems like this would send about 2400 students to private schools. That leaves probably 70,000 students who don't get this opportunity. Now let's suppose that the program works as you say and more private schools form. Is the government then going to expand the voucher program to provide vouchers for tuition to those schools? If so, then let's say that half of the remaining students wish to take the voucher. That would cost the gov't about 250,000,000 dollars in voucher money.

Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.

I totally agree with this, though. Something certainly has to be done raise the level of education in this country.

[captain.crazy]

I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy

Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.

Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.

I bet only around 25-50% of Baraks voters even know about the idea for vouchers and those that do only know a very small portion about them which will tend to be bad. Thats what happens when you get told by other people. They leave out parts of the story and just tell you the worse to make it seem more interesting. (everyone does this not just liberals, not trying to attack anyone here)

Actually vouchers corrupt the market.
When you have underachieving participants only gaining access to these elite schools because of legislation, then the curriculum has to adjust (read lower) itself to those youths.
It doesn't happen immediately, but it does happen.
Schools work through merit, and sufficient consequences for failure. Schools don't work on coddling, improper achievement and acquiescence.
It was a d bag program, and it's probably the only thing Obama has done right.

In Montessori, if you come into the class and f*ck around, you are not invited to come back. Your parents can waste their time trying to get you into another school. Maybe, since your kid is an underachieving loser, they will be happy in public school.

Also, in the Montessori program, you learn quite differently than you do in the public school system. You learn what you are interested in, and you generally generally do well. Plus, the program talked about in the video seemed to be quite successful. And for a lot cheaper than the shitty public school system. Just sayin... you have to actually look at the pilot programs before you can just say that "vouchers corrupt the market." If you are going to say something like that, show some data.

Right buddy,
FIrst of all: it costs more than 7,500 to send those kids to those schools, that's called offering a piece of the facts in order to make a point
Second: Produce some data? Isn't that just the first request one would make without being able to logically think out how a series of events would go, just think about it and you'll see.
Third: If you'd like a source, peruse, The closing of the American Mind, that may offer a few perspectives
Fourth: /sighs.

1. Actually, The schools that my kids have attended have offered us discounts because we couldn't afford the full tuition. Since they are small businesses, they have that right. We have offset the cost by volunteering for duties at the school, but they have been very flexible with the cost.

2. I have no idea what you are talking about. What data would you like for me to produce.

3. Why don't you summarize what The closing of the American Mind is about and I will debate or agree with it based on your interpretation.

4. ...

[PLAYER57832]

1. Actually, The schools that my kids have attended have offered us discounts because we couldn't afford the full tuition. Since they are small businesses, they have that right. We have offset the cost by volunteering for duties at the school, but they have been very flexible with the cost.

Nice for you.

The local private school offers discounts, too.. for the second year. Nothing is offered for the first and it is not a full tuition discount. Furthermore, it is a Roman Catholic school and not open to everyone.

In addition, as I said before, its not that much better than the public school. Additionally, the maximum class size there is 25. My son's class is over 100 total. You could argue that in time, another school might open or more folks might home school.

All of these miss the real benefit of a free, public education open to ALL. It means that we have a voting population that can think, people who can do technical jobs, etc.
It is a equalizer. And THAT is the real reason some people don't want it. They think if things change, their kids will somehow be beneficiaries. They fail to realize it will simply create another system even more downtrodden than the current one.

[captain.crazy]

1. Actually, The schools that my kids have attended have offered us discounts because we couldn't afford the full tuition. Since they are small businesses, they have that right. We have offset the cost by volunteering for duties at the school, but they have been very flexible with the cost.

Nice for you.

The local private school offers discounts, too.. for the second year. Nothing is offered for the first and it is not a full tuition discount. Furthermore, it is a Roman Catholic school and not open to everyone.

In addition, as I said before, its not that much better than the public school. Additionally, the maximum class size there is 25. My son's class is over 100 total. You could argue that in time, another school might open or more folks might home school.

All of these miss the real benefit of a free, public education open to ALL. It means that we have a voting population that can think, people who can do technical jobs, etc.
It is a equalizer. And THAT is the real reason some people don't want it. They think if things change, their kids will somehow be beneficiaries. They fail to realize it will simply create another system even more downtrodden than the current one.

LOL at your bold section! Our public education program is one of the worst in the world among industrialized nations and after this last election, I have to tell you that more people that are totally ignorant of the platforms of the candidates or the alternative candidates voted than I thought possible.

But to your points about the Catholic Private school being the only one around in your neighborhood, then it sounds like you need some competition in your local education market, either that, or you don't actually know about the markets in your area. shop around. You could always take the Montessori certification program, get trained as a teacher, open your own school and offer to your community the opportunity of a life time. A real education...

[Nobunaga]

... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.

Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).

Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.

... Shall we compare our glorious leaders' performance and efficiency with Social Security to Vanguard, or BB&T?

... Let's see.... what's my returm on investment for Social Security to date? .... OH? Social Security is being modifed to a "Needs-Based" program? OK, so I don't have to pay now, right? ... I DO?!

... What a fabulous return on investment that"s going to be.

... I'm sorry, Player, but associating efficiency with government, or at least any government larger than city or county, is an untenable position.

...

[MeDeFe]

It's the 'No Child Left' program.

What?!? That's nonsense... after their socialist brainwashing K-12 program, they will all be on the left!

Ah, one may have to revise the name of that program, it's bound to elicit some confusion due to the ambiguity of "left".

[PLAYER57832]

But to your points about the Catholic Private school being the only one around in your neighborhood, then it sounds like you need some competition in your local education market, either that, or you don't actually know about the markets in your area. shop around. You could always take the Montessori certification program, get trained as a teacher, open your own school and offer to your community the opportunity of a life time. A real education...

I am doing all of those.
As for shopping around, do you seriously think I would say nothing else was available if I weren't sure.

Competition requires a market. I live in what's often called the "rust belt". Plants are closing left and right.

Obtaining a teaching certificate myself requires money. Aid very limited now, mostly for undergraduate programs or associate degrees in this state. PA has one of the highest costing state college systems in the country. Money I had set aside for that went to other things .. extravagences like a new boiler, fixing our car and, particularly medical bills -- all hit us 2 years ago. The part that upsets me is being told, over and over that if I were single, they had plenty of programs to help me. But, just getting a degree is no gaurantee of work here and relocation is difficult for my husband.

I AM working on a Charter school. However, there it is unlikely to be open in time for my 2 year old, never mind my older son. I want an active, outdoor, hand-on learning environment heavily based upn the Montessouri system, but perhaps not officially a Montessouri school

I am also working with the new principal of our school to improve the science education there. Oh, and I would love to substitute, but childcare is an issue.

[GabonX]

Ha!

I was educated in a Montessouri school from kindergarten through 8th grade.

You send your kids there and they may resent your decision.

If they end up like me, you probably will too..

[PLAYER57832]

... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.

Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).

Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.

... Shall we compare our glorious leaders' performance and efficiency with Social Security to Vanguard, or BB&T?

... Let's see.... what's my returm on investment for Social Security to date? .... OH? Social Security is being modifed to a "Needs-Based" program? OK, so I don't have to pay now, right? ... I DO?!

... What a fabulous return on investment that"s going to be.

... I'm sorry, Player, but associating efficiency with government, or at least any government larger than city or county, is an untenable position.

...

From the outset, the REAL truth is that social security worked quite well.. up until Reagan so nicely took the money that was to have been bankrolled for US, moved it into the general funds and used it to balance the budget and pay down debts. Now it is broken. Simlarly, the past 20 years have seen consistant lack of inforcement, even deregulation of how pension funds are managed. At the behest of big business and other private persons.

Second, you are mixing apples and oranges. One reason, the BIG reason government always seems so "bloated" is that government takes on functions that are too important to leave to profit. Education is a key example. Sure, you can get a wonderful education if you have the money to pay for it. But, guess what, not every child in this country is so lucky. Education is the foundation of our country. Every time you see a huge push to privatize education, to divest the government from it, what you are really seeing is a small group of people who want thier version of truth to succeed.

Second, you are just wrong. When you have any government agency and compare it to a private agency doing the same job (that part is key!), then the government agency is more efficient. That is the documented fact. NPR did a story on a comprehensive study on the matter completed I think about a year ago. Prisons, IRS, etc ..the study looked at them all. In the case of the IRS, private peoples firstly were far more likely to be abusive, to want their money, regardless of what the rules really said, etc. Second, they took a cut of the taxes paid and did not really increase the amount of money collected. It was a disaster, which is why the IRS is now moving back to using direct employees. I have seen the same thing happen over and over in various government agencies.

Criticizing the "bloated government" is a nice phrase, but when you really look at the issue, it comes down to some people LIKE what the government says. They don't LIKE having a functional EPA, because they might have to pay more fines. They don't LIKE having rules that they have to follow. It is not the size, it is just the fact that there are people in the government dictating their actions. However, guess what? While I am certainly NOT going to argue that every last rule is intelligent, (far from it!) the largest part were put in place for real reasons, to protect people, prevent disputes (to the extent possible), etc.

That said, every large corporation, and the government each have waste. So do most small businesses, its just not so noticeable at their level. Also, the definition of "waste" changes. A big corporation may save thousands by increasing recycling. A small business may have the same set disposal fees regardless, may even incur extra costs in recycling. Plus, much of where the government spends money gets cycled back into the economy. If a government office buys a pen, it HAS to be bought either locally or from a US supplier (at least that used to be the rule). A corporation can buy their products anywhere.

Certainly, there are things that need fixing, places where government spends too much. However, there are also areas where they spend too little, to the detriment of our future. Roads and bridges are one example. Education is probably even more important an example.

[InkL0sed]

... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.

Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).

Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.

... Shall we compare our glorious leaders' performance and efficiency with Social Security to Vanguard, or BB&T?

... Let's see.... what's my returm on investment for Social Security to date? .... OH? Social Security is being modifed to a "Needs-Based" program? OK, so I don't have to pay now, right? ... I DO?!

... What a fabulous return on investment that"s going to be.

... I'm sorry, Player, but associating efficiency with government, or at least any government larger than city or county, is an untenable position.

...

So you call Halliburton in Iraq efficient?

[PLAYER57832]

Ha!

I was educated in a Montessouri school from kindergarten through 8th grade.

You send your kids there and they may resent your decision.

If they end up like me, you probably will too..

I went to one until 5th grade myself... a public school.

[captain.crazy]

Ha!

I was educated in a Montessouri school from kindergarten through 8th grade.

You send your kids there and they may resent your decision.

If they end up like me, you probably will too..

We have love it, so far. I believe that, though the qualifications are centrally mandated from the AMS (American Montessori Society) it is not a franchised institution, so you may have been enrolled in a bad school. My kids love learning.

[PLAYER57832]

Ha!

I was educated in a Montessouri school from kindergarten through 8th grade.

You send your kids there and they may resent your decision.

If they end up like me, you probably will too..

We have love it, so far. I believe that, though the qualifications are centrally mandated from the AMS (American Montessori Society) it is not a franchised institution, so you may have been enrolled in a bad school. My kids love learning.

There are 2 types of Montessori schools, apparently (according to a Smithsonian Magazine article from a couple of years ago). One group was originally endorsed by Madame Montessouri and the other was not. Apparently there is a lot of debate/fighting between the two.

but, to get back on topic. Its great that you have found a good school for your kids at that you can afford to send them (with the discounts). However, those options simply are not available to many parents. It is not simply a matter of "competition creating a market". People cannot readily pick up and move to another county or state. Some can, but many cannot. Also, why should they have to? Every child in the US is entitled to, should receive a quality education. The only way to truly ensure that happens is to have a fully funded public education system.

If you wish to & have the ability to send your kids to a private school, great. You are correct that private schools tend to be better because of competition. However, with vouchers, the first thing that would happen is that all the kids currently going to private schools would request them. That would be a huge drain on the system that is often poorly funded now. Private schools would likely have to increase their costs or simply add in very strict criteria to select who got to attend. So, those not able to attend those schools would still be stuck in the public school system. Only now, it is drained of all the fund that went to support those private schools.

Vouchers is not a savior for public schools in any way shape or form OR a saviour for any but the same kids who already get all the advantages. That is the real reason many want the public school system to fail. To better ensure that their kids will get the leg up. It has nothing to do with providing a quality educatio for anyone else.

[Nobunaga]

... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.

Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).

Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.

... Shall we compare our glorious leaders' performance and efficiency with Social Security to Vanguard, or BB&T?

... Let's see.... what's my returm on investment for Social Security to date? .... OH? Social Security is being modifed to a "Needs-Based" program? OK, so I don't have to pay now, right? ... I DO?!

... What a fabulous return on investment that"s going to be.

... I'm sorry, Player, but associating efficiency with government, or at least any government larger than city or county, is an untenable position.

...

From the outset, the REAL truth is that social security worked quite well.. up until Reagan so nicely took the money that was to have been bankrolled for US, moved it into the general funds and used it to balance the budget and pay down debts. Now it is broken. Simlarly, the past 20 years have seen consistant lack of inforcement, even deregulation of how pension funds are managed. At the behest of big business and other private persons.

Second, you are mixing apples and oranges. One reason, the BIG reason government always seems so "bloated" is that government takes on functions that are too important to leave to profit. Education is a key example. Sure, you can get a wonderful education if you have the money to pay for it. But, guess what, not every child in this country is so lucky. Education is the foundation of our country. Every time you see a huge push to privatize education, to divest the government from it, what you are really seeing is a small group of people who want thier version of truth to succeed.

Second, you are just wrong. When you have any government agency and compare it to a private agency doing the same job (that part is key!), then the government agency is more efficient. That is the documented fact. NPR did a story on a comprehensive study on the matter completed I think about a year ago. Prisons, IRS, etc ..the study looked at them all. In the case of the IRS, private peoples firstly were far more likely to be abusive, to want their money, regardless of what the rules really said, etc. Second, they took a cut of the taxes paid and did not really increase the amount of money collected. It was a disaster, which is why the IRS is now moving back to using direct employees. I have seen the same thing happen over and over in various government agencies.

Criticizing the "bloated government" is a nice phrase, but when you really look at the issue, it comes down to some people LIKE what the government says. They don't LIKE having a functional EPA, because they might have to pay more fines. They don't LIKE having rules that they have to follow. It is not the size, it is just the fact that there are people in the government dictating their actions. However, guess what? While I am certainly NOT going to argue that every last rule is intelligent, (far from it!) the largest part were put in place for real reasons, to protect people, prevent disputes (to the extent possible), etc.

That said, every large corporation, and the government each have waste. So do most small businesses, its just not so noticeable at their level. Also, the definition of "waste" changes. A big corporation may save thousands by increasing recycling. A small business may have the same set disposal fees regardless, may even incur extra costs in recycling. Plus, much of where the government spends money gets cycled back into the economy. If a government office buys a pen, it HAS to be bought either locally or from a US supplier (at least that used to be the rule). A corporation can buy their products anywhere.

Certainly, there are things that need fixing, places where government spends too much. However, there are also areas where they spend too little, to the detriment of our future. Roads and bridges are one example. Education is probably even more important an example.

... Show me where the bailouts of failed banks and automobile manufacturers is spelled out in your Constitution as a role of the national government. Specifically detail the switch to common stocks government is presently doing to gain real voting power by the Fed in the GM boardrooms.

... Show me from where carbon taxes, mileage taxes and trans-fat regulation authority is derived. While you're at it, instruct me on the authority of the US government to manage a Social Security program while taking those earned wages from me.

... I want to know where our leaders were granted the authority to pay mortgages for those who would not / could not pay. Perhaps not cash handouts, but decreased principal owed and a reduced interest rates equate to precisely the same thing... at my expense.

... Think about what caused this current economic crash: Too much government spending … too many handouts … too much wasted spending on too many failed projects, too many government employees with bloated salaries, pensions, and health benefits, too much deficit, too much debt, too many blank-check promises by government, paid for by ... once again, me.

... As to efficiency ... NPR? Please. I'll let you use that if I can use Limbaugh or Savage.

... <InkLosed> ... Haliburton? Efficient? I have no idea, but I didn't choose them... once again government took that choice away from me. Or perhaps you mean to show me how grossly inefficient a private corporation can be in attempt to shoot down my Vangard vs Uncle Sam argument? (I chose Vangard, Ink).

... Arguments about government's role and allowable intrusion should be limited to those between actual tax-payers. I have a feeling that would eliminate from the dialogue 80% of the folks here (kids) and 90% of the "progressives".

...

[got tonkaed]

I pay taxes and dont really think that government spending is what is behind the current economic crisis as a first cause.

It seems a bit quaint to suggest that you want to know where the authority to do many of these things came from. I think its pretty obvious where that authority comes from in the system. While it may be difficult to justify the why and how, its odd to act like its not constitutional. The power to create bills and enact them into law assuredly is constitutional its not even really hiding (the legislative branch is pretty early on in the document). You could throw any or all of your examples under the general welfare provision if youd like, to treat the constituion as a fixed document and not a living one is essentially to kill the very thing that has made it the most effective.

Does the government spend wrongly? Quite frequently id argue that it does. Does it make it unconstitutional, when elected leaders do their jobs in a fashion that you do not like? It does not.

[captain.crazy]

Ha!

I was educated in a Montessouri school from kindergarten through 8th grade.

You send your kids there and they may resent your decision.

If they end up like me, you probably will too..

We have love it, so far. I believe that, though the qualifications are centrally mandated from the AMS (American Montessori Society) it is not a franchised institution, so you may have been enrolled in a bad school. My kids love learning.

There are 2 types of Montessori schools, apparently (according to a Smithsonian Magazine article from a couple of years ago). One group was originally endorsed by Madame Montessouri and the other was not. Apparently there is a lot of debate/fighting between the two.

but, to get back on topic. Its great that you have found a good school for your kids at that you can afford to send them (with the discounts). However, those options simply are not available to many parents. It is not simply a matter of "competition creating a market". People cannot readily pick up and move to another county or state. Some can, but many cannot. Also, why should they have to? Every child in the US is entitled to, should receive a quality education. The only way to truly ensure that happens is to have a fully funded public education system.

I think that you would have to prioritize. You can't have your rundown shitty public education and eat it too. YOU have to do something to better YOUR life. Move dammit or STFU about your sagging education program.

If you wish to & have the ability to send your kids to a private school, great. You are correct that private schools tend to be better because of competition. However, with vouchers, the first thing that would happen is that all the kids currently going to private schools would request them. That would be a huge drain on the system that is often poorly funded now. Private schools would likely have to increase their costs or simply add in very strict criteria to select who got to attend. So, those not able to attend those schools would still be stuck in the public school system. Only now, it is drained of all the fund that went to support those private schools.

right... BLA BLA BLA every one has a right to BLA BLA BLA. I can't take it any more... you have the right life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. I'm telling you also, here is 7500 bucks a year to choose your own education. If that isn't good enough for you then too bad.

Vouchers is not a savior for public schools in any way shape or form OR a saviour for any but the same kids who already get all the advantages. That is the real reason many want the public school system to fail. To better ensure that their kids will get the leg up. It has nothing to do with providing a quality educatio for anyone else.
That's your opinion. since it seems that the only pilot program that has been tried is being shut down despite its success, I guess that we really know the deal on that one. Its good for the kids, bad for the teachers unions, and bad for the failing big government. But you keep going on about how its going to suck all the money out of the government... meanwhile, I am going to keep my eye on the massive amounts of cash that is hemorrhaging from our children's future and being funneled into the deep deep pockets of filthy and corrupt bankers.

Damn...

[Nobunaga]

I pay taxes and dont really think that government spending is what is behind the current economic crisis as a first cause.

It seems a bit quaint to suggest that you want to know where the authority to do many of these things came from. I think its pretty obvious where that authority comes from in the system. While it may be difficult to justify the why and how, its odd to act like its not constitutional. The power to create bills and enact them into law assuredly is constitutional its not even really hiding (the legislative branch is pretty early on in the document). You could throw any or all of your examples under the general welfare provision if youd like, to treat the constituion as a fixed document and not a living one is essentially to kill the very thing that has made it the most effective.

Does the government spend wrongly? Quite frequently id argue that it does. Does it make it unconstitutional, when elected leaders do their jobs in a fashion that you do not like? It does not.

... The General Welfare Provision, yeah, that's right. Covers everything from wire-taps to trans-fats. a.k.a. The Bush-Obama Clause.

... That's where everything is placed by those who support huge government.

... I will avoid expanding on this, not because I see your claim as valid, but because entire books have been written on the argument, both sides, and neither you or I have the ability to make clear what is unclear even to the Supreme Court in most cases.

...

[captain.crazy]

I pay taxes and dont really think that government spending is what is behind the current economic crisis as a first cause.

I don't think anyone suggests that government spending is the cause of our economic problem. What is under scrutiny is the fact that many believe that government spending, abusive spending... unconstitutional spending is not helping the economic situation.

It seems a bit quaint to suggest that you want to know where the authority to do many of these things came from. I think its pretty obvious where that authority comes from in the system.

I can't believe that you actually don't see the problem with that statement. The correct answer for any authority that our government claims is simple... "does it come from the constitution." If the answer is no, then we have a problem.

While it may be difficult to justify the why and how, its odd to act like its not constitutional. The power to create bills and enact them into law assuredly is constitutional its not even really hiding (the legislative branch is pretty early on in the document). You could throw any or all of your examples under the general welfare provision if youd like, to treat the constituion as a fixed document and not a living one is essentially to kill the very thing that has made it the most effective.

And yet, the 10th amendment is VERY clear that the federal government is to be limited with regards to the states. Today, you have countless examples where the Federal government levies excessive taxes against the people of the states, only to turn around and give it back, but with strings attaches. These are the very kinds of things that the Framers fought against England for.

Does the government spend wrongly? Quite frequently id argue that it does. Does it make it unconstitutional, when elected leaders do their jobs in a fashion that you do not like? It does not.

I would agree with you... but I would add that it is unconstitutional when elected leaders do their jobs in a fashion that is unconstitutional... and the frequency of this is on the rise.

[PLAYER57832]

... Show me where the bailouts of failed banks and automobile manufacturers is spelled out in your Constitution as a role of the national government. Specifically detail the switch to common stocks government is presently doing to gain real voting power by the Fed in the GM boardrooms.

... Show me from where carbon taxes, mileage taxes and trans-fat regulation authority is derived. While you're at it, instruct me on the authority of the US government to manage a Social Security program while taking those earned wages from me.

... I want to know where our leaders were granted the authority to pay mortgages for those who would not / could not pay. Perhaps not cash handouts, but decreased principal owed and a reduced interest rates equate to precisely the same thing... at my expense.

What, exactly does this have to do with education or social security, the two issues I mentioned. For that matter, it does not even really have to do with government efficiency, you are objecting to the policies, not the efficiency in which they were implemented.

Are those things constitutional? The Supreme court will decide. That is their role.

Do I like those measures? No. But the real problem is that if Reagan, Bush and the rest had not so de-regulated, had not allowed the banks to create new types of business without implementing regulations for it.. then we would not be in this mess.

... Think about what caused this current economic crash: Too much government spending … too many handouts … too much wasted spending on too many failed projects, too many government employees with bloated salaries, pensions, and health benefits, too much deficit, too much debt, too many blank-check promises by government, paid for by ... once again, me.

I have thought about it PLENTY. No, this economic crisis is not caused by too many government handouts. The primary cause is banks and corporate heads, stockholders looking to their own greed instead of the future stability of companies. It was a mentality that says "I get my profit FIRST and only after that do I look to see if I can afford to pay my employees." Health care costs absolutely a big part of this.

It is caused by government bloat.. but not in direct government employment (for the most part ... I would never say all government jobs are needed or efficient, but that kind of waste is relatively minimal). The problem is the government contractors, particularly Haliburton, which was -- gee, heavily tied to our former Vice President. THAT is where the real waste lies .. in the exact opposite direction from what you claim is the "answer". It is not in privatization at all, it is in retaining those positions within the government.

... As to efficiency ... NPR? Please. I'll let you use that if I can use Limbaugh or Savage.

Mike Savage is so radical he is not even allowed any more in the UK. Rush Limbaugh is admittedly heavily biased. NPR, by contrast has been cited over and over and over by independent groups as providing reasoned, detailed and objective news. They have a slight liberal bias, but that has more to do with the kinds of subjects they cover, not the facts they present in stories. Further, they did not complete the study, just reported it. Other media mentioned it, too, but only a brief blurb.

... Arguments about government's role and allowable intrusion should be limited to those between actual tax-payers. I have a feeling that would eliminate from the dialogue 80% of the folks here (kids) and 90% of the "progressives".

...

[/quote][/quote]
Kids ... debateably. Many kids pay taxes .. sales taxes, even income taxes. As for that other "90%". There are roughly 3 groups who don't pay income taxes. Fulltime students without significant income, some of those on welfare (not all), and the very, very rich. I wish I could find the website I once saw listing numbers of millionaires who pay absolutely no taxes, but I cannot.

Even many homeless people pay taxes. Many homeless people nowadays work, they just cannot earn enough to get an apartment. In many cities, a woman making $10 an hour fulltime, with kids cannot even qualify for an interview for an unsubsidized apartment.

[got tonkaed]

Perhaps i should be more clear. I dont so much disagree with the idea that we should question the mandate of congress or if we are passing good or bad legislation in the spirt of the document but i do question anyone who harks back to it expecting line and verse from the constitution. It goes against the very strength of the document itself which allowed for the future improvements and actions of government to be in line with the document. It really is only a debate in the abstract and actually is counterproductive to something we should all be fighting toward, stopping bad legislation. If we have issues with the expansion of the government, we should be attacking the legislation on the grounds of the legislation itself (which to many people on the boards credit they do) not on a weak historical (weak in terms of argumentative style) ground that is very likely to do next to nothing in terms of persuasion. It is a bit of wasted breath (similar to many of my excess words here).



They are also the type of things that are far less important in todays union than in the one the founders lived in. While interstate issues are still very important, the weak central government that was incapable of making direction for the whole nation on a variety of issues then, is not your big federal government now. While states should maintain authority and responsiblity whenever possible, it is foolish to assume that because there is a tenth amendment we must always put the state in front of the federal. The fact that this is so rarely done is probably evidence to the fact that it would not work as a commonplace practice today.

[captain.crazy]

Perhaps i should be more clear. I dont so much disagree with the idea that we should question the mandate of congress or if we are passing good or bad legislation in the spirt of the document but i do question anyone who harks back to it expecting line and verse from the constitution. It goes against the very strength of the document itself which allowed for the future improvements and actions of government to be in line with the document. It really is only a debate in the abstract and actually is counterproductive to something we should all be fighting toward, stopping bad legislation. If we have issues with the expansion of the government, we should be attacking the legislation on the grounds of the legislation itself (which to many people on the boards credit they do) not on a weak historical (weak in terms of argumentative style) ground that is very likely to do next to nothing in terms of persuasion. It is a bit of wasted breath (similar to many of my excess words here).



They are also the type of things that are far less important in todays union than in the one the founders lived in. While interstate issues are still very important, the weak central government that was incapable of making direction for the whole nation on a variety of issues then, is not your big federal government now. While states should maintain authority and responsiblity whenever possible, it is foolish to assume that because there is a tenth amendment we must always put the state in front of the federal. The fact that this is so rarely done is probably evidence to the fact that it would not work as a commonplace practice today.

I don't think that you could be more wrong! Stop and suppose for a moment that there were to come a president that took it upon himself to do away with the laws in this country that made it possible for government agencies to perform surveillance and arrest people for not more than wild suspicion without warrant. Okay... you don't have to imagine to hard, because that is called the patriot act, put in place by the most phony of Republicans that ever walked the earth. Now imagine that just a few short years later, through the constant division and dumbing down of the people that put candidates into office, that we elected a tyrant that actually did want to seize power of our country and change it into a dictatorship, going even so far as to eliminate term limits on the presidency (after all, we don't have them for Congress.) If you think about that kind of situation, you can pretty quickly see how a highly powerful federal government should be resisted at all costs. there is much power already at the top. We are looking at a government that is willing to blindly follow the whims of our current political office. These are dangerous times. These are the times that our constitution was written for.

Just a few months ago, Professor Igor Panarin made some startling predictions. Maybe you heard about them, I laughed at them when I heard them, but these days, I am thinking that he may be right...

http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2008/11/top-russian-analyst-predicts-us-breakup.html

This is a possibility, I think, because, even this past week, I heard that china was already starting to cut our credit, which means that we are going to have to start monetizing our own debt. If you think that is no big deal, you should look research that. It can lead to hyper inflation. We will all be eating egg shells if that happens. You can thank Nixon for that, since he was the one that took us off the gold standard, which is what keeps nations from doing things that they cannot afford to do.

I am selling my house, I have a lease lined up for a nice place in the mountains, there is a Farm in walking distance to the house. I have guns and a lot of bullets. I can hunt, and fish. I also don't have any qualms about killing someone that thinks that they are going to "tread on me" so to speak. With all of these things that are happening in our country, and infact, our world, these days, I see that it is clear to me that the Revelation of Peter is upon us.

War and rumors of war... Israel and Iran are close to slugging it out... it will be Armageddon, whether you are a subscriber to that or not, it will happen.

My advice to all of you... Get out of your cities... move to high ground and learn some basic survival skills... Failure to do so could mean the difference between life and death. I know that you think that I am crazy, I guess that my user name doesn't help with that, but as the events unfold, I see ever clearly that they have been foretold.

You have been warned.