So much for D.C. area public schools for Obama:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obamas-pick-sid.html
And don't give me that "security" crap. Every parent should have the ability to send their children to a private school for whatever reason. Of course, Obama will having nothing of that.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obama-tells-teachers-union-he-opposes-vouchers/81801/
1. He's a president for gawd's sake! Are there no perks acceptable for people who have climbed to the top?
2. My kids don't need the same security as the POTUS kids and I wouldn't want others to have their school experience ruined by having SS agents and papparazi injected into their lives.
3. This private school provides a superior education and they can afford it. Do you believe that all schools, public or private should be arbitrarily equalized to correct for wealth? If so, you sort of discard any incentive for excellence.
Honestly, I don't think they had much choice.
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2008/11/obamacellphonebreach.jpg)
This doesn't have anything to do with the thread but I've been looking for an excuse to post, anyway. Enjoy!
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
1. He's a president for gawd's sake! Are there no perks acceptable for people who have climbed to the top?
2. My kids don't need the same security as the POTUS kids and I wouldn't want others to have their school experience ruined by having SS agents and papparazi injected into their lives.
3. This private school provides a superior education and they can afford it. Do you believe that all schools, public or private should be arbitrarily equalized to correct for wealth? If so, you sort of discard any incentive for excellence.
Honestly, I don't think they had much choice.
Waterboy with the predictable reach around. For gawd's sake, Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is mind-blowing.
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
^^^
....and that's not Obama's fault- it's been like that for decades.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
1. He's a president for gawd's sake! Are there no perks acceptable for people who have climbed to the top?
2. My kids don't need the same security as the POTUS kids and I wouldn't want others to have their school experience ruined by having SS agents and papparazi injected into their lives.
3. This private school provides a superior education and they can afford it. Do you believe that all schools, public or private should be arbitrarily equalized to correct for wealth? If so, you sort of discard any incentive for excellence.
Honestly, I don't think they had much choice.
Waterboy with the predictable reach around. For gawd's sake, Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is mind-blowing.
Er, why? The man can afford private school. Let him send his kids there.
You can not support vouchers and still use private school for your children. That's not contradictory.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
Where do you want 'em to go, Guido? Georgetown?
Maybe you want to explain vouchers to me a little bit better, because all they look like to me is way to sap an already underfunded public education system. Is that what we're going for here? Or are we trying to break the teachers union?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
Where do you want 'em to go, Guido? Georgetown?
Maybe you want to explain vouchers to me a little bit better, because all they look like to me is way to sap an already underfunded public education system. Is that what we're going for here? Or are we trying to break the teachers union?
First, what is more important to you-preserving our public education system or getting the best possible education for our children? Is it more important to you to protect teachers unions or to provide the best possible education for our children?
Vouchers would achieve at least two results: 1) Provide families a choice on where to have their child educated; 2)Impose pressure on public schools to improve or face a reduction in student population and thus funding.
As for Obama sending his kids to private school, not only is this a thumb in the eye to all those millions of dollars teachers union gave to his campaign, it is entirely consistent with his contradiction that he can have school choice but you, inner city kid, do not. Incidentally, D.C. does have a voucher program that Obama, who at one time supported, now no longer does thanks to teachers unions:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28382
Finally, see my previous post to Waterboy about the predictable reach around. I am waiting to hear Hoss chime in to provide cover for Obama as well.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
No, what Obama has been saying all along is that the public school system needs some serious fixing, of which he has committed to work on in his presidency (remember, he's not the president yet?) and that vouchers are not the answer.
You and I both know sending his daughters to a private school is the only option for his family at this point, plus with all the supposed death threats circulating about President-Elect Obama, it would be irresponsible of them to put their kids in public school. You are trying to argue a non-issue.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
Where do you want 'em to go, Guido? Georgetown?
Maybe you want to explain vouchers to me a little bit better, because all they look like to me is way to sap an already underfunded public education system. Is that what we're going for here? Or are we trying to break the teachers union?
First, what is more important to you-preserving our public education system or getting the best possible education for our children? Is it more important to you to protect teachers unions or to provide the best possible education for our children?
Vouchers would achieve at least two results: 1) Provide families a choice on where to have their child educated; 2)Impose pressure on public schools to improve or face a reduction in student population and thus funding.
As for Obama sending his kids to private school, not only is this a thumb in the eye to all those millions of dollars teachers union gave to his campaign, it is entirely consistent with his contradiction that he can have school choice but you, inner city kid, do not. Incidentally, D.C. does have a voucher program that Obama, who at one time supported, now no longer does thanks to teachers unions:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28382
Finally, see my previous post to Waterboy about the predictable reach around. I am waiting to hear Hoss chime in to provide cover for Obama as well.
Gweedork, you really crack me up. [}:)]
As someone just stated, you're arguing a non-issue. How many other presidents with children have sent theirs to private school.
The election is over and the guy you didn't want to win did. Get over it.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
Where do you want 'em to go, Guido? Georgetown?
Maybe you want to explain vouchers to me a little bit better, because all they look like to me is way to sap an already underfunded public education system. Is that what we're going for here? Or are we trying to break the teachers union?
First, what is more important to you-preserving our public education system or getting the best possible education for our children? Is it more important to you to protect teachers unions or to provide the best possible education for our children?
Vouchers would achieve at least two results: 1) Provide families a choice on where to have their child educated; 2)Impose pressure on public schools to improve or face a reduction in student population and thus funding.
As for Obama sending his kids to private school, not only is this a thumb in the eye to all those millions of dollars teachers union gave to his campaign, it is entirely consistent with his contradiction that he can have school choice but you, inner city kid, do not. Incidentally, D.C. does have a voucher program that Obama, who at one time supported, now no longer does thanks to teachers unions:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28382
Finally, see my previous post to Waterboy about the predictable reach around. I am waiting to hear Hoss chime in to provide cover for Obama as well.
Gweedork, you really crack me up. [}:)]
As someone just stated, you're arguing a non-issue. How many other presidents with children have sent theirs to private school.
The election is over and the guy you didn't want to win did. Get over it.
Oh, because Obama won I cannot be critical of his decisions? Guess what, this is only the beginning. I am going to be all over this guy when he makes decisions I disagree with. I am going to bring the same amount of vitriol (non-hysterical) that those on the left have heaped on Bush for the past eight years.
As for presidents that sent their children to public school, I had to go WAY back in history to find one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Bush
Bogus guido...read your link.
Jenna Bush went to a private elementary school and middle school when she was the same age as the Obama girls.
When she did go to a public school, it was in Austin, not Washington D.C.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Bogus guido...read your link.
Jenna Bush went to a private elementary school and middle school when she was the same age as the Obama girls.
When she did go to a public school, it was in Austin, not Washington D.C.
AND Bush wasn't president yet when she was in public schools.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you know anything about DC public schools? No one sends their kids to DC public schools that can afford an alternative.
That's my point. Obama is telling those families that have no choice but to use D.C. public schools-tough luck and no voucher for you! Hey, change you can believe in.
Where do you want 'em to go, Guido? Georgetown?
Maybe you want to explain vouchers to me a little bit better, because all they look like to me is way to sap an already underfunded public education system. Is that what we're going for here? Or are we trying to break the teachers union?
First, what is more important to you-preserving our public education system or getting the best possible education for our children? Is it more important to you to protect teachers unions or to provide the best possible education for our children?
Vouchers would achieve at least two results: 1) Provide families a choice on where to have their child educated; 2)Impose pressure on public schools to improve or face a reduction in student population and thus funding.
As for Obama sending his kids to private school, not only is this a thumb in the eye to all those millions of dollars teachers union gave to his campaign, it is entirely consistent with his contradiction that he can have school choice but you, inner city kid, do not. Incidentally, D.C. does have a voucher program that Obama, who at one time supported, now no longer does thanks to teachers unions:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28382
Finally, see my previous post to Waterboy about the predictable reach around. I am waiting to hear Hoss chime in to provide cover for Obama as well.
Gweedork, you really crack me up. [}:)]
As someone just stated, you're arguing a non-issue. How many other presidents with children have sent theirs to private school.
The election is over and the guy you didn't want to win did. Get over it.
Oh, because Obama won I cannot be critical of his decisions? Guess what, this is only the beginning. I am going to be all over this guy when he makes decisions I disagree with. I am going to bring the same amount of vitriol (non-hysterical) that those on the left have heaped on Bush for the past eight years.
As for presidents that sent their children to public school, I had to go WAY back in history to find one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Bush
Are the black helicopters finding you ok?
Hey, you can spend energy criticizing every little thing President-elect Obama does. Here's a newsflash for you though.
I didn't waste my time criticizing every little thing Bush did. Why?
There weren't 25 hours in a day for me to devote to it.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Bogus guido...read your link.
Jenna Bush went to a private elementary school and middle school when she was the same age as the Obama girls.
When she did go to a public school, it was in Austin, not Washington D.C.
AND Bush wasn't president yet when she was in public schools.
First, my link was not "bogus" RM. Hoss essentially asked what president had not sent their child to private school and I gave him one. Now you want to change the question to what president sent their child to public school while they were president. I knew exactly what the link I posted read. Bush was governor at the time Jenna was in public high school and president while she attended that small, private University of Texas. Incidentally, did Obama's kids attend public or private school while he was a senator? Any guesses?
You guys are hilarious with the excuses you are making for this decision. Obama is supposed to be all about helping the "middle class". One way to help would be to give middle class families the same opportunity he has, which is to get their children out of failing public schools. It's interesting that you all have ignored the point that he is against the D.C. voucher program which has given those minority families a chance to get their kids out of that atrocious public school system. I liken this story to John "Two Americas" Edwards and his fighting for the middle class while living in a 28K square foot home and Ted "Environmentalist" Kennedy fighting against a wind farm near his home.
Let me make this plain. I do not blame Obama for not going with public schools. Heck, my children have never attended a public school and, God willing, they never will attend a public school. But do not tell me that he is about helping those middle class families who simply want the same as him--the best (and, yes, safest) education available.
You know, I used to be against vouchers because the first thing I saw that would happen is that a large number of children, those most likely to need better schools, would be the ones left behind in the worst schools.
How many times have we heard stories of children whose parents dont even know IF their kid is in school, or where they are? How bout the parent who would like their kid to go to a better school but cant get their kid to that school? Perhaps they dont have a car, work odd hours so cant drive the kid to school or pick them up, perhaps the private school is too far away,etc. Not every little school that would crop up under a voucher program could have buses that can cover a large area. And in many areas, where would these other schools be? How big would they be? How many students could they have? Would every private school be forced to take every student that wanted to go to that school? Where would they get all the teachers etc and wouldnt all of that in a way do the very thing we have said needs to be done anyway... more money on more teachers, more classrooms and smaller class sizes, smaller or more schools, each with their own libraries, other school services and facilities etc.
Say you have a bad school in the area. Then one or 2 other schools open up to "compete" for vouchers. You then have 3 schools, 3 principals, 3 librarians, 3cafeterias, auditoriums, sports facilities, science labs, etc. More teachers, possibly smaller class sizes etc. since not all students will leave the first school. Each school will have to have its own buses or make the parents drive the students to the school. Each school will have to pay to be maintained, cleaned, built,etc. And on and on. Kind of similar to why the College Regents do not want too many duplicate programs at local colleges and want each to specialize in different degree programs. Limited funds doing the most they can.
But again... I say let em. Let the vouchers go ahead. In very short order you will see that costs are going to go up. In very short order you will see that many many students still arent in better schools and or are under-performing. THEN we will stop arguing back and forth about vouchers, and will finally get serious about actually fixing the schools and spending more money on those students who need more care, not less on the poor kids and more on the rich kids who would likely do well regardless.
Again, guido...you are making up facts...the schools in DC are not "atrocious".
The public elementary schools in DC are very average. Here is a link to their most recent scores I could find on their website...
http://www.k12.dc.us/Dcps/data/Stanford-9/SAT9_2002_Read-elem.htm
http://www.k12.dc.us/Dcps/data/Stanford-9/SAT9_2002_Math-elem.htm
Obama's daughters are 1st and 4th grade. This test has the national average at 50.
The city-wide average for the 1st grade is
reading 50 math 56
The city-wide average for the 4th grade is
reading 48 math 51
Most private schools have some kind of religious affiliation. I don't want may tax dollars, via vouchers, supporting someone else's religious views.
Fix the public schools.
On the other hand...
...if the Obamas had decided to send their children to public schools, they'd be criticized for more elitist posturing, putting other people's children at risk, and for not doing what's best for their own kids.
The bleating heart's candidate lost the election, and they will find fault with absolutely everything about the Obama presidency.
The Clinton's received the same grief when they chose to send Chelsea to a private school. Everyone griped, why not a public school. The truth is being the child of the president makes attending a public school in DC virtually impossible. The last kid that did it was Amy Carter. When the Clinton's looked into the same school, they learned how difficult it was for the daughter of the president to have attended that school. Amy was not allowed to play on the playground with the other kids because it was too close to the street, and did not provide adequate protection. And that was back in the 70s, when fears of terrorism were much lower. Sidwell has a large enclosed campus, and is use to high profile students. While "choice" might sound nice, Obama's girls had no choice in being the daughters of the most powerful man in the US. No other parent has to chose not only which school will provide the best education, but also which school can best ensure that terrorists will not be able to blow their children up.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911Guess what, this is only the beginning. I am going to be all over this guy when he makes decisions I disagree with. I am going to bring the same amount of vitriol (non-hysterical) that those on the left have heaped on Bush for the past eight years.
See, the difference is that you hate him already, that you want to tear down the new president only because his not of your (Limbaugh's) political kind.
Bush has proven over eight very long and bad years to be the worst president in the history of this nation. Through a needless war, wrecked economy, destroyed credibility, lost moral high ground, reduced personal freedoms, inept leadership and constant insider deals he has earned his "vitriol".
The far right that's attacking Obama over his choice of school (when he is the first to say the public schools are failing) is just being petty. It's why it's going to be a very long winter for the Republican party.
People are tired of very real Republican failures and attacks over meaningless nonsensical issues are only going to hurt your side. Politically it's 1932 again. After Hoover's loss how long was it before Republicans took power again? This being the second time the Republican party has destroyed this nations economy they may never recover. Espeically if is this is how they are going to continue to practice politics. Stupid personal attacks over the choice of a private school for the president's children while the nation descends into depression just continue to prove the rights failure and lack of ideas for solutions to the problems they have created.
Keep it up and the Republican party will soon find itself with the status of being the third or fourth party in American politics. Go Bull Moose in 2016!
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by guido911Guess what, this is only the beginning. I am going to be all over this guy when he makes decisions I disagree with. I am going to bring the same amount of vitriol (non-hysterical) that those on the left have heaped on Bush for the past eight years.
See, the difference is that you hate him already, that you want to tear down the new president only because his not of your (Limbaugh's) political kind.
Bush has proven over eight very long and bad years to be the worst president in the history of this nation. Through a needless war, wrecked economy, destroyed credibility, lost moral high ground, reduced personal freedoms, inept leadership and constant insider deals he has earned his "vitriol".
The far right that's attacking Obama over his choice of school (when he is the first to say the public schools are failing) is just being petty. It's why it's going to be a very long winter for the Republican party.
People are tired of very real Republican failures and attacks over meaningless nonsensical issues are only going to hurt your side. Politically it's 1932 again. After Hoover's loss how long was it before Republicans took power again? This being the second time the Republican party has destroyed this nations economy they may never recover. Espeically if is this is how they are going to continue to practice politics. Stupid personal attacks over the choice of a private school for the president's children while the nation descends into depression just continue to prove the rights failure and lack of ideas for solutions to the problems they have created.
Keep it up and the Republican party will soon find itself with the status of being the third or fourth party in American politics. Go Bull Moose in 2016!
Oh give me a freakin break. Man you have short term memory. The day Bush was sworn in, "Bush Derangement Syndrome" kicked in with the "selected not elected" crap. Then 9/11 happened and one of the major stories was Bush not dropping the book he was reading to school kids and leaping into action. Then there was the never-ending criticisms of how he speaks (i.e. Bushisms").
And Swake, pay attention to what I post and not what you think I posted. My beef is not that his kids go to private school (if you read what I posted, I admitted that my kids go to private school). Rather, it is that middle class, "working" families in D.C. (as if rich families do not work), which he claims he wants to help, are using a voucher system to get their kids out of that failing public school system. To appease teachers unions, he opposes that plan. Now, so you and the other Obama apologists out there can understand, the impression, no the effect of this, is that the middle class are unable to have what he has--the best education available.
Does anyone really think the Secret Service was going to even allow him to put his kids in a public school?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Does anyone really think the Secret Service was going to even allow him to put his kids in a public school?
Guido knows that. He simply is using any decision Obama makes as a prybar to open issues that he and his party feel strongly about yet differ from the winners of the election. A landslide election btw. Actually, I think that's fair, though it makes for a rather dismal day to day existence as most everything that Bush & Co. have championed in the last decade has been repudiated.
Reaching across the aisle is anathema to idealogues who lost. Gonna' be a long hard decade for you Guido!
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh give me a freakin break. Man you have short term memory. The day Bush was sworn in, "Bush Derangement Syndrome" kicked in with the "selected not elected" crap.
which he claims he wants to help, are using a voucher system to get their kids out of that failing public school system. To appease teachers unions, he opposes that plan.
First off, he was selected, not elected. (the first time) Get over it.
As far as school vouchers go, the way to fix a school system isn't to take money away from it. Vouchers are a stupid idea. The real purpose of them is to starve the public schools of money so as to lead us further down the road of a permanent underclass.
I say this as someone who thinks public schools are run mostly by complete morons and that they indoctrinate rather than teach. They have no place for alternative means of learning. Even good ones are terrible in many ways. Nevertheless taking money from them will only make things worse.
The last thing we need are religious schools being funded with public money. We already have too much religion in the public sphere as it is. Religion should not be worn on the sleeve.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911Oh give me a freakin break. Man you have short term memory. The day Bush was sworn in, "Bush Derangement Syndrome" kicked in with the "selected not elected" crap.
Seriously, you think it was unfair for people to have been upset that the candidate that received a million more votes wasn't the winner?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I liken this story to John "Two Americas" Edwards and his fighting for the middle class while living in a 28K square foot home and Ted "Environmentalist" Kennedy fighting against a wind farm near his home.
The best one though is Sarah "six pack" Palin and her $150,000 spending spree on clothes.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Does anyone really think the Secret Service was going to even allow him to put his kids in a public school?
Guido knows that. He simply is using any decision Obama makes as a prybar to open issues that he and his party feel strongly about yet differ from the winners of the election. A landslide election btw. Actually, I think that's fair, though it makes for a rather dismal day to day existence as most everything that Bush & Co. have championed in the last decade has been repudiated.
Reaching across the aisle is anathema to idealogues who lost. Gonna' be a long hard decade for you Guido!
I agree. If guido is the best the GOP has to offer on this board, then the Republicans are in deep, deep trouble.
Good for Obama!
I think everyone should have the opportunity and choice to send their children to the best school they can afford, and with the state of the DC public school system, I would think far less of him if he chose to send them to a public school for PR reasons.
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Good for Obama!
I think everyone should have the opportunity and choice to send their children to the best school they can afford, and with the state of the DC public school system, I would think far less of him if he chose to send them to a public school for PR reasons.
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
Make enough money or grab off enough power and pay for private school yourself like the other parents. You want some sort of "special treatment"? You want the government to intercede in the process and equalize income and social opportunity? You some kind of socialist or something?[;)]
Vouchers are one of those seemingly "fair play" ideas (like private SS accounts) that sound good but are doomed because they are an attempt to change nature coupled with an unholy motive. Just the kind of thing most conservatives abhor. They ignore the reality of wealth and its love affair with privilege.
The real motive of vouchers is to destroy the public school system through budget starvation. Its promoters see religious schools as less challenging to their principles. It also helps private schools which never seem to be able to be profitable.
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
You're absolutely right, WB. Conservatives like to act as though private schools do better simply because they are private, not public. But the truth is private schools do better generally than public for two reasons. One is that parents who seek out private schools are parents who care about education, and therefore are going to have children who do better. The other reason is that private schools don't have to take everyone, and they can expel anyone who doesn't meet up to their standards. Its the same reason that schools like BTW & Carver do better. But if you required private schools to take any kid--even those kids who had never seen a book--you can bet that their test scores overall would drop. Seriously, there are kids that start kindergarten without knowing what their name is. Try getting good test scores when you start with that.
And when you start getting into funding religious schools, I get very uncomfortable. Sure, it may sound ok when its your local Catholic school, but what about the Muslim extremest school that teaches children that the US is the great infidel? When you fund one religious school, you have to fund them all.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Good for Obama!
I think everyone should have the opportunity and choice to send their children to the best school they can afford, and with the state of the DC public school system, I would think far less of him if he chose to send them to a public school for PR reasons.
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
Make enough money or grab off enough power and pay for private school yourself like the other parents. You want some sort of "special treatment"? You want the government to intercede in the process and equalize income and social opportunity? You some kind of socialist or something?[;)]
Vouchers are one of those seemingly "fair play" ideas (like private SS accounts) that sound good but are doomed because they are an attempt to change nature coupled with an unholy motive. Just the kind of thing most conservatives abhor. They ignore the reality of wealth and its love affair with privilege.
The real motive of vouchers is to destroy the public school system through budget starvation. Its promoters see religious schools as less challenging to their principles. It also helps private schools which never seem to be able to be profitable.
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
What a load of horse crap. The purpose of vouchers is to allow parents, all parents, the opportunity to get their children out of failing public schools. Parents of children in th D.C. public school system are not exactly the privilged class.
As a parent with children in private schools (very limited religious), I can personally attest to their superiority over public schools. The regimen is more structured, there is a better teacher-student ratio, and private schools are performance driven.
As for this "fair play" issue, my question is why should I pay to educate someone else's kids?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As for this "fair play" issue, my question is why should I pay to educate someone else's kids?
It's that whole "provide for the common good" thing.
Also, why should I pay to pave the road to your house?
You and I both know, Guido, that that's a crap argument.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As for this "fair play" issue, my question is why should I pay to educate someone else's kids?
Also, why should I pay to pave the road to your house?
Because I pay to pave the road to your house. That's "common good".
What is not "common good" is paying taxes to fund other children's education and then paying exorbitant tuition for my children's private education because I want them to have the very best.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Good for Obama!
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
Make enough money or grab off enough power and pay for private school yourself like the other parents. You want some sort of "special treatment"? You want the government to intercede in the process and equalize income and social opportunity? You some kind of socialist or something?[;)]
Vouchers are one of those seemingly "fair play" ideas (like private SS accounts) that sound good but are doomed because they are an attempt to change nature coupled with an unholy motive. Just the kind of thing most conservatives abhor. They ignore the reality of wealth and its love affair with privilege.
The real motive of vouchers is to destroy the public school system through budget starvation. Its promoters see religious schools as less challenging to their principles. It also helps private schools which never seem to be able to be profitable.
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
What a load of horse crap. The purpose of vouchers is to allow parents, all parents, the opportunity to get their children out of failing public schools. Parents of children in th D.C. public school system are not exactly the privilged class.
As a parent with children in private schools (very limited religious), I can personally attest to their superiority over public schools. The regimen is more structured, there is a better teacher-student ratio, and private schools are performance driven.
^Now that's some fine quality horse crap Guido.
I'll take my public schools, Mayo, Eisenhower, Lee, Elliot, Carver, BTW over yours any day for cost effectiveness. They are structured (though that is highly overated imo), their feedstock is high (prosperous middle to upper class) and they use innovative teaching techniques. They have motivated teachers who match or exceed what is available privately, judging by scholarships and college test scores. Maybe not to the extent of Holland Hall but like I said, well run public schools are comparable to well run private ones. The most important key to success for either of these systems is the quality of the feedstock and the motivation of the teachers.
So, offer those students from underperforming schools a voucher to your religious private school, then sit back and watch as tuition creeps up. Watch as the newer students are separated both socially and intellectually. Watch as the public school system is recreated before your very eyes! Performance as evaluated by testing will start to drop and the more wealthy will pull their kids and will pay more to get them into more prestigious, selective private schools.
The motivations for vouchers are anything but fairness, morality or the common good. They are business and religion. Privatizing public functions is a mantra for the Gingrich era Reaganistas.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As for this "fair play" issue, my question is why should I pay to educate someone else's kids?
You pay to educate someone else's kids so they have a chance to be a productive member of our society. They can become a taxpayer rather than a tax drain. The fact that you choose and are able to send your kids to private school is irrelevant.
Class size: Class size from 1st grade to Senior at High School was about 30 when/where I grew up. It was a mixed Blue collar/ white collar area. There were few (not none) discipline problems because the parents cared about their kids and got involved in the kids' education. As I remember, about half of my graduating class (approx. 400 graduated) at least started college. I don't know how to transfer that interest to today's parents.
FWIW, I went to private schools for preschools, 1-12th grade and graduate school. Public school for K and for undergrad. My son went to private schools for P&K then we transferred to public schools because we felt our district would do as good a job as the private school he was enrolled in. I am very please and outspoken about our satisfaction with TPS.
Also, I am not religious in the slightest. Many people that want vouchers actually want money from the government to fund religion in various ways (get 'em while they're young!). That they won't just admit this is to their discredit (hidden goals in religious politics are somewhat hypocritical).
However, I should point out the religious (Catholic) education I received encouraged free thought, taught science, and allowed discussion of religious themes (you could ask why). At the time it was, of course, a draconian hell hole that was out to indoctrinate us all... but in hindsight my Catholic schools were strict but fair, religious by open minded.
So... with that context and background...
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
The real purpose of them is to starve the public schools of money so as to lead us further down the road of a permanent underclass.
That basic sentiment is echoed over and over in this thread. The bourgeoisie is plotting to keep down the proletariat masses. To arms, to arms!
If you honesty believe a secret group meets and tries to decide the best way to keep the people down, then you should be taking up arms against them. Not rambling about it on the internet. As is usually the case, instead of a grand conspiracy to keep someone down the truth is much simpler.
If I choose to pay for my sons education I am removing one pupil from the public charge. I am saving the public money by doing so. I will likely pay less for my child to go to a private school than it would cost the state and may get MORE for less. I will also pay to help send your child to public schools (where we too often pay more for less). People who pay twice for schools while saving the educational system money think that is not fair.
A well structure voucher system would raise the per pupil funds available to the public school system. If the cost per pupil is $6,000, cut a voucher for half that amount. The school system gains a net $3,000 to distribute to the remaining pupils.
Worried about "Religious Schools" being bible schools that also sometimes teach kids how to write? Then have a standardized test minimum score in order to be eligible for vouchers (which should include science). If the school fails to perform academically, then pupils attending are not eligible for vouchers as they are not utilizing state funds for education effectively.
Frankly, I agree with this fear - a friends kid goes to a private school in Tulsa and was reading from the book "American History for Christians." Very interesting stuff in there... I had no idea most of the founders were devote Christians (neither did they for that matter, why do religious people need to claim great men were religious to validate their beliefs?). Nor did I realize we frequently fight wars to uphold Christ's principles etc. etc. etc.
So yeah, I have my concerns. Particularly in fundamentalist territory that the education will be merely religious indoctrination. But if it is education first and foremost and a system could be setup whereby vouchers are given that enable people to choose a school, leave more money with the public school and at the same time facilitate competition for students and wise use of educational dollars... wouldn't that be a good thing?
- - -
As a side note, public education actually is a product of the bourgeoisie plotting to take over our nation. The reason public schools really took off was to warehouse children so their parents could work in the factories. Now their demise is claimed to be a plot by the bourgeoisie. Damned if you do...
And finally, we spend more per pupil (inflation adjusted) than we ever have. Have our results improved? I think not. It isn't the funding that matters.
Clearly a base line of funding is required, but if parents at home don't care, teachers don't care, and kids are allowed to just pass on through. The results are predictable. Throw as much money as you want. Guild the lockers. It won't matter.
Like my cynical old Nam buddy used to say, "When 'ifs' and 'buts" are candy and nuts, we'll all be happy at Christmas"!
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Good for Obama!
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
Make enough money or grab off enough power and pay for private school yourself like the other parents. You want some sort of "special treatment"? You want the government to intercede in the process and equalize income and social opportunity? You some kind of socialist or something?[;)]
Vouchers are one of those seemingly "fair play" ideas (like private SS accounts) that sound good but are doomed because they are an attempt to change nature coupled with an unholy motive. Just the kind of thing most conservatives abhor. They ignore the reality of wealth and its love affair with privilege.
The real motive of vouchers is to destroy the public school system through budget starvation. Its promoters see religious schools as less challenging to their principles. It also helps private schools which never seem to be able to be profitable.
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
What a load of horse crap. The purpose of vouchers is to allow parents, all parents, the opportunity to get their children out of failing public schools. Parents of children in th D.C. public school system are not exactly the privilged class.
As a parent with children in private schools (very limited religious), I can personally attest to their superiority over public schools. The regimen is more structured, there is a better teacher-student ratio, and private schools are performance driven.
^Now that's some fine quality horse crap Guido.
I'll take my public schools, Mayo, Eisenhower, Lee, Elliot, Carver, BTW over yours any day for cost effectiveness. They are structured (though that is highly overated imo), their feedstock is high (prosperous middle to upper class) and they use innovative teaching techniques. They have motivated teachers who match or exceed what is available privately, judging by scholarships and college test scores. Maybe not to the extent of Holland Hall but like I said, well run public schools are comparable to well run private ones. The most important key to success for either of these systems is the quality of the feedstock and the motivation of the teachers.
So, offer those students from underperforming schools a voucher to your religious private school, then sit back and watch as tuition creeps up. Watch as the newer students are separated both socially and intellectually. Watch as the public school system is recreated before your very eyes! Performance as evaluated by testing will start to drop and the more wealthy will pull their kids and will pay more to get them into more prestigious, selective private schools.
The motivations for vouchers are anything but fairness, morality or the common good. They are business and religion. Privatizing public functions is a mantra for the Gingrich era Reaganistas.
When I said "limited religious" I meant it. As an FYI, the school I am referring to is Holland Hall. There are also several other fine, non-religious private schools in Tulsa: Riverfield and University School.
"Cost effectiveness" is your standard for guaging the quality of a child's education. wOW.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
My son went to private schools for P&K then we transferred to public schools because we felt our district would do as good a job as the private school he was enrolled in. I am very please and outspoken about our satisfaction with TPS.
Are you kidding? A decent public school in midtown? The hell you say. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaspar
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
"Cost effectiveness" is your standard for guaging the quality of a child's education. wOW.
No where did I say that. Standards for quality are not related to cost of education as has been pointed out here. After certain basic overhead costs(building, equipment, teachers, administration) are established, the amount of money thrown at educating a student reaches a point of diminishing returns. My point is that considering the quantity and quality of students served, public schools are more cost effective.
If you want to match the cost of 4 years of high school for your kids at BTW vs 4 years at Holland Hall you would find that both will prepare them for college. Both schools produce students who will ace their ACT's. BTW does it cheaper and exposes more students from lower income demos.
Its YOUR contribution as parents that makes the difference.
I are a graduate of public schools.
So there.
quote:
"Cost effectiveness" is your standard for [gauging] the quality of a child's education. wOW.
Hell yes.
To pretend that isn't a standard involved is simply a lie. Of course cost has something to do with hit. If he can get a 27 on his ACT with public education, or a 28 spending $70,000 on 12 years of private education... the 27 will be just fine. To pretend anything else is just not accurate.
Likewise, if Tulsa spent 50% the national average on education and performed accordingly, so be it. But if we spend near the average and under perform I am more upset. If we overspent and still under performed I'd be even more upset. Or in each instance my angst would at very least be directed differently.
As in all endeavors, public and private, the goal should be get to the most bang for your back. At a certain funding level you are wasting money because the job can not be done with the resources provided. At the other end, you are also wasting money because the return on investment is reduced.
Cost effectiveness is not my standard, but it is part of the equation.
Once again Guido, you prove yourself a fool...
I'd consider Obama a hypocrit if he DIDN'T send his kids to a private school in DC... after all, he sent his kids to Chicago Lab School, which costs about $20k per year per kid to attend.....
I consider people like Guido911 and Cannon Fodder to be hypocrits every time they suggest the NEA is responsible for all that is wrong in public schools and how vouchers are going to be some magical panacea that will force public schools to reform themselves... as if teachers and their unions were part of some horrible bureaucracy and have little interest in educating students....
LIE.
I believe in capitalism.... if you have the money to send your kids to private schools, feel free, it's your right as an American...
I worry about Obama from the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to support for public education....
Chicago School Days
Obama's lackluster record on education.
By Alexander RussoPosted Wednesday, April 2, 2008, at 3:05 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2188010/
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11575&SearchTerms=Englewood,high,school
Yeah, it's all about "accountability" -- except that when funding/success/failure are measured solely on test scores above all other standards, teachers are no longer accountable to their own students' successes..... they're slaves to a system of pseudo-accountability that rewards quick fixes and punishes teachers who are more interested in teaching their students "critical thinking" and "life skills" over unattainable average test scores...
[:(!]
Critical thinking and life skills (shop, home ec, making change at the burger stand, and a few sarcastic ones I'll omit) are good. How do you intend to measure the achievement of the student.
Some basic hardware for living includes communication (I hated English class but my engineer dad insisted I needed to be able to tell someone what I had created.) and Math. Math teached critical thinking and problem solving. Most people will not spend their lives figuring out if Car A leaves the station at 9:00AM and Car B...... What that does teach is how to solve a problem. At each grade, students should achieve a skill level. How do you determine if that skill level has been attained without tests of some kind? Good self esteem comes with achieving something that challenges the person in some way. Buy the weigh, if ewe cant add to and too to git the some of fore, maybee you knead to find some buddy to learn you sum moore skoolin.
Republicans use the politically correct buzzword of "accountability" to systematically shortchange poorer public schools.... discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Good for Obama!
I think everyone should have the opportunity and choice to send their children to the best school they can afford, and with the state of the DC public school system, I would think far less of him if he chose to send them to a public school for PR reasons.
I'm liking him more every day.
I wonder if he would consider a voucher system to allow the rest of us to do the same?
Make enough money or grab off enough power and pay for private school yourself like the other parents. You want some sort of "special treatment"? You want the government to intercede in the process and equalize income and social opportunity? You some kind of socialist or something?[;)]
Vouchers are one of those seemingly "fair play" ideas (like private SS accounts) that sound good but are doomed because they are an attempt to change nature coupled with an unholy motive. Just the kind of thing most conservatives abhor. They ignore the reality of wealth and its love affair with privilege.
The real motive of vouchers is to destroy the public school system through budget starvation. Its promoters see religious schools as less challenging to their principles. It also helps private schools which never seem to be able to be profitable.
In short, a well run private school would not welcome a voucher system. A well run public school can produce similar results as a private.
Strange? vouchers have worked in Wisconsin for about 20 years now and caused the Public schools to compete for students and teachers, with the private schools. The outcome continues to be excellent, High-scoring public schools and some of the best private.
Damn that competition thing!
Are you prepared for the litany of failed voucher system stories to compete with your Wisconsin story? They are there and some here for that matter. Anecdotal.
Everything in Wisconsin and Minnesota seems to work well and fail in the rest of the states. The populations there are better educated, more tolerant and more progressive. Too bad about their weather though...
RUF:
Generally you and I are able to civilly discuss may different topics. I have been very clear on my position here and you completely misconstrued it. Please read my point of view before attacking it.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I consider people like Guido911 and Cannon Fodder to be hypocrits [sic] every time they suggest the NEA is responsible for all that is wrong in public schools and how vouchers are going to be some magical panacea that will force public schools to reform themselves... as if teachers and their unions were part of some horrible bureaucracy and have little interest in educating students....
LIE.
Did you read my post at all?
I never suggest the teachers union is responsible for all that is wrong with our schools. Nor did I say that vouchers are some magic pill. I said that if structured correctly vouchers could help public education and allow people to choose qualified private schools if they desired.
1) IMHO, lazy parents are the underlying cause for the decline of education in America. Myself included. I try to do homework with my boy, make him read and/or read with him, allow him to ask questions, take him to the zoo, museums, travel, etc. I try to give his teachers all the tools they need and support them in their job. But I could do more (except during college football season). Even the best teacher is crippled by a lazy parent. And even a good parent can be handicapped if a social circle mocks education as "selling out." Certainly the teachers union is not the root of the problem.
2) And how are my qualms with the teachers union hypocritical? I feel any organization that inflates the cost to the public with no discernible gain to tax payers is detrimental to my interests. Isn't that logical?
If the union spent more money upholding the quality of its members and the integrity of the profession than it does on politics, I might give it some concern. Unfortunately, more often than not the union blindly supports teachers even in the face of gross incompetence instead of upholding any standards. More so, it serves as a giant political action committee than anything else.
My wife was a teacher, many of her friends are teachers, my friends wives are teachers (in TPS), a real good friend of mine was a teacher (also in TPS)... Surely that doesn't mean I'm "in the know." But I'm not in the dark here. This is a reasoned opinion.
What does the teachers union provide for me, as a consumer of public education? The Operators Union provides safe professionals. The Teamsters fight for safe operating procedures for trucks (CDL drivers hours log). Heck, most unions don't cost me money at all - if their products don't provide a benefit to me over others I won't consume them. But many union products DO provide a benefit to me (quality, consistency, safety).
While I support their right to fight for better wages and benefits for themselves - unless it provides a service to the public by equating to better public education, then it is not "for the children" (a god awful catch all excuse). As such, it is self serving and against my interests. You and I both know there are teachers who work their asses off go the extra mile to teach children... and there are teachers that run out the door with the kids and simply don't care. The teachers union ensures they are both treated the same and I don't agree with that goal.
Correct my ignorance as it needs to be corrected. My take on unions is pretty standard. Unless they provide a benefit, they merely artificially inflate wages serve as a detriment to the industry. Unions have played vital rolls and they still can, but just by being "union" does not mean you are fighting the good fight.
3)
quote:
Republicans use the politically correct buzzword of "accountability" to systematically shortchange poorer public schools.... discuss.
And Democrats use the buzz word "underprivileged" to siphon resources and opportunities away from my child. Yay. Clearly Republicans hate poor people and Democrats hate middle class white people. Surely that must be the way of it.
Seriously, neither side is out to destroy any segment of society. Get over that mindset. Each thinks they are advancing the best plan to educate the country.
Again, read my voucher take. Provide an incentive to remove your student if you so choose, but in doing so you will burden yourself with added costs AND leave more per-pupil money in the public school. With the limitations I discussed above, how is that not beneficial? In what ways does it destroy poorer public schools?
4)
My interest is not to advance religion (I'm not religious at all). It is not to destroy public schools (my son goes to public schools). It is not to break unions (worked with the AFL/CIO - UAW and Operating Engineers for years). Nor is it to destroy minorities, poor people, Democrats, or whomever else the bourgeois are supposed to plot against (I once had a poor black Democratic friend).
Like you, my interest is to facilitate the best education for America. All classes, racist, situations. It is in my interest to do so.
Please accept the premise that we both want the same thing and merely differ on how to get there. I think we could have a much better discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Please accept the premise that we both want the same thing and merely differ on how to get there.
Applies to a lot more than education. I think it is one of the basic differences between non-extremist left and right. There's no accounting for guys bouncing off either the left or right wall (Or falling off the cliff, if you prefer.)
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Are you prepared for the litany of failed voucher system stories to compete with your Wisconsin story? They are there and some here for that matter. Anecdotal.
Everything in Wisconsin and Minnesota seems to work well and fail in the rest of the states. The populations there are better educated, more tolerant and more progressive. Too bad about their weather though...
Nothin better than watching Green Bay in -10 wind chill!
I do agree, they are very tolerant and progressive, and that gives them an attractive atmosphere to raise a family and educate children. They however are very far from liberal-social-dependance, which also makes them a very attractive atmosphere to raise a family.
Yes the teacher's unions hate vouchers and hate the system in Wisconsin. . . Bla bla bla.
Freedom encourages competition and from competition comes excellence.
Currently we are still free to choose what school our children go to, ONLY if we can afford to send them there, but in doing so, we are still required to relinquish money to send another less fortunate child to a lesser school in their place through our tax system.
I just want to see a system where we can choose what school our children go to no matter how wealthy or successful we are.
The side-effect is that schools will have to compete or cease to exist. As long as the money exists within the system, schools will continue to spring up offering new and exciting possibilities to our children rather than old text books and unhappy teachers.
We all want the same thing, smart, happy kids, can't we just agree that something needs to be done? Can't we just agree that it's a performance issue, not a funding issue? The wealthiest public school systems in the country still have the same problems as the poorest, and some of the poorest produce some of the sharpest kids.
Respectfully, your stance always seems to be one of throwing more money at problems. I simply have never seen where that works.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Freedom encourages competition and from competition comes excellence.
I can agree with this to a degree, but competition isn't the only avenue towards excellence. Not everything can or should respond as a market. Markets simply don't account for human costs, especially when we trust wholesale in a market's infallibility.
Look around at what Wall Street is teaching us. Markets are excellent when they are on an upswing, but the destruction that they can cause while unwinding can be extensive. And they're subject to whims, to fear, and to greed. You nailed it: vouchers are another way of saying "let's let the free market take care of our education" And I have to say that, seeing what an unfettered free market has wrought in our financial system, vouchers seem to be one of the worst ideas to make it out of the GOP Ideology Factory yet.
Wevus:
The free market created all the wealth you see. It created all the wealth that is now evaporating. The person that is losing their $1,500,000 house in California would not have had that house in the first place without the free market.
Thus, at the end of the day, even after all this crap... we will be ahead of where we would have been sans market economics. It hurts to lose what we have, but we would not of had it to lose.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
Respectfully, your stance always seems to be one of throwing more money at problems. I simply have never seen where that works.
Well, this was my post yesterday-
"....... Standards for quality are not related to cost of education as has been pointed out here. After certain basic overhead costs(building, equipment, teachers, administration) are established, the amount of money thrown at educating a student reaches a point of diminishing returns. My point is that considering the quantity and quality of students served, public schools are more cost effective.
If you want to match the cost of 4 years of high school for your kids at BTW vs 4 years at Holland Hall you would find that both will prepare them for college. Both schools produce students who will ace their ACT's. BTW does it cheaper and exposes more students from lower income demos.
Its YOUR contribution as parents that makes the difference."
I think we agree on a that.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
Respectfully, your stance always seems to be one of throwing more money at problems. I simply have never seen where that works.
Well, this was my post yesterday-
"....... Standards for quality are not related to cost of education as has been pointed out here. After certain basic overhead costs(building, equipment, teachers, administration) are established, the amount of money thrown at educating a student reaches a point of diminishing returns. My point is that considering the quantity and quality of students served, public schools are more cost effective.
If you want to match the cost of 4 years of high school for your kids at BTW vs 4 years at Holland Hall you would find that both will prepare them for college. Both schools produce students who will ace their ACT's. BTW does it cheaper and exposes more students from lower income demos.
Its YOUR contribution as parents that makes the difference."
I think we agree on a that.
Very good point!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wevus:
The free market created all the wealth you see. It created all the wealth that is now evaporating. The person that is losing their $1,500,000 house in California would not have had that house in the first place without the free market.
Thus, at the end of the day, even after all this crap... we will be ahead of where we would have been sans market economics. It hurts to lose what we have, but we would not of had it to lose.
Agreed and agreed. I understand how competition works only too well. And in my business, it works pretty well. But my point is that it shouldn't be applied everywhere to everything. It may ultimately provide an upward trend, but that's only on average. Within that trend are spikes and troughs . . . and the occasional free fall like we're seeing now.
Imagine if we'd trusted our Social Security funds to the general market back in 2004. Think about what kind of retirement the bleeding edge of the Boomer generation would be entering right about now. Or alternately, think about the kind of services and programs we'd have to create on the fly to deal with these retirement funds losing half their value, and the resultant millions of old folks catapulted into poverty through no fault of their own.
Or we could rely on spikes and troughs and say, "well, dollar cost averaging -- on paper -- says that you should be better off than you were, so suck it up old people. The paper is right."
My fear with an educational free market (vouchers) is that something similar could result, and the peaks and troughs wouldn't average out into an improved situation for everyone. You'd just get a lot more inequality, even more than you have now.
Imagine if we would have put our social security in the markets in 1935 when it first started... our current return has been ZERO percent. Likewise, the funds have provided no economic capital to our system.
DJIA 1935: 144
DJIA 2008: 8500
A whopping 5,900% return on investment! The S&P 500, a better market picture, shows even more promise. The recent decline wouldn't matter in the big picture. It would have taken social security from godly over funded amazingly over funded.
In the LONG run you can't beat the return of the market. It should not be a short term investment. From 2005 - 2008 is a short term perspective and would have resulted in a healthy loss. Over the long run you can expect a 7% gain from market investments (broadly).
I understand this does not apply directly to education. Clearly not. But if schools were only eligible for vouchers if they met a set of criteria, it would limit the impact of the free market. If you are not a performing schools, you get no incentive to send your children there.
Logically I can't really see education in such a way ebbing and flowing like a free market. It is much more controlled. If kids are not getting good grades at a private school it will die and they go back to public schools. If there is greater disparity it will be because of a sample of the population having an increased level of education.
Frankly, that's a good thing. If you are fighting to hold every one back to par and refusing to let other excel to promote equality, then I disagree. Not that private schools will necessarily do such a thing mind you...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Imagine if we would have put our social security in the markets in 1935 when it first started... our current return has been ZERO percent. Likewise, the funds have provided no economic capital to our system.
DJIA 1935: 144
DJIA 2008: 8500
A whopping 5,900% return on investment! The S&P 500, a better market picture, shows even more promise. The recent decline wouldn't matter in the big picture. It would have taken social security from godly over funded amazingly over funded.
In the LONG run you can't beat the return of the market. It should not be a short term investment. From 2005 - 2008 is a short term perspective and would have resulted in a healthy loss. Over the long run you can expect a 7% gain from market investments (broadly).
I understand this does not apply directly to education. Clearly not. But if schools were only eligible for vouchers if they met a set of criteria, it would limit the impact of the free market. If you are not a performing schools, you get no incentive to send your children there.
Logically I can't really see education in such a way ebbing and flowing like a free market. It is much more controlled. If kids are not getting good grades at a private school it will die and they go back to public schools. If there is greater disparity it will be because of a sample of the population having an increased level of education.
Frankly, that's a good thing. If you are fighting to hold every one back to par and refusing to let other excel to promote equality, then I disagree. Not that private schools will necessarily do such a thing mind you...
That doesn't help the people that have to retire this year. (or next)
Let the old folks eat their 401k statements, I guess?
And no, I think 401ks are great, so long as they have a backstop with a somewhat reasonable minimum. One can survive on Social Security. It may not be great, but one can eat and have a few minor luxuries. Market investments are great for going above and beyond that point. Then you don't have to worry if the market takes a nose dive a few years before you retire or whatever.
Free marketeers amaze me. I'm all for a market economy, but there have to be rules. Beyond that, a market does not make everything better, although it does make a lot of things better. As in almost anything, moderation is key. Deregulating to the point that transparency in a market is lost results in bad things.
So does trying to make a market out of something where there is no feasible transparency. Or trying to make a market out of a limited number of suppliers. (the ever-rising cost of healthcare is a good example, although much more complex than just limited supply and lack of transparency, although those are definitely issues in that market..same goes for higher education)
And adjusted for inflation, a dow index fund isn't too hot an investment. Pretty crappy, really, unless you happen to time the market just right. But if you forget that little bugaboo, it sure looks a lot better, so why bother thinking about it!
Nathan, your argument is without merit in this matter.
Folks that were to retire this year would have a higher return on investment in the market than with the Fed. Even considering the down market (note what DOW number I used) and taking inflation into account. That's ignoring the ancillary positives of capital investment in our economy.
If given to the government and "adjusted" for inflation (read: tax current income to make up the shortfall), that $144 in 1935 would turn into $2154.59 (//%22http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi%22). The market, even in this downturn, would yield a return 3 times that amount. 300% greater than the nominal inflationary adjustment.
Why would a retiree be better off with the government's $2150 than the markets $8500? True, they lost $4,000 in fictitious wealth, but they are STILL far better off than the other scenario. If you time it so you cashed out during the worst market year in 75 years you would still be OK compared to the alternative.
HOWEVER, I do agree with you wholeheartedly that government regulation to ensure transparency and to correct other market imperfections is required. Though I believe most regulation is just a hindrance and serves no real function (sounds good, does nothing... ie. Sarbanes). Regulators rarely have an idea of what the actual effect of their rules will be.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Nathan, your argument is without merit in this matter.
Folks that were to retire this year would have a higher return on investment in the market than with the Fed. Even considering the down market (note what DOW number I used) and taking inflation into account. That's ignoring the ancillary positives of capital investment in our economy.
If given to the government and "adjusted" for inflation (read: tax current income to make up the shortfall), that $144 in 1935 would turn into $2154.59 (//%22http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi%22). The market, even in this downturn, would yield a return 3 times that amount. 300% greater than the nominal inflationary adjustment.
Why would a retiree be better off with the government's $2150 than the markets $8500? True, they lost $4,000 in fictitious wealth, but they are STILL far better off than the other scenario. If you time it so you cashed out during the worst market year in 75 years you would still be OK compared to the alternative.
HOWEVER, I do agree with you wholeheartedly that government regulation to ensure transparency and to correct other market imperfections is required. Though I believe most regulation is just a hindrance and serves no real function (sounds good, does nothing... ie. Sarbanes). Regulators rarely have an idea of what the actual effect of their rules will be.
I think you underestimate the effect (real, not the fudged numbers we're spoon-fed) inflation has on the market. T-bills get you nearly the same return, on average, and are far safer. Or CDs with some banks, much of the time.
http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/com-dj-infl.htm
Even if you use the government's fudged inflation figures, it still doesn't look nearly as good as you make it out to. (Nor will it, once we give back the 1990s gains thanks to soon-to-be rampant inflation, at least if Bernake has anything to say about it)
Besides, you're being disingenuous. One could have easily earned an average 5% since 1935 (probably more), which would leave you with around $5000 today.
As I said before, market-based retirement funds have their place. So do retirement funds based on treasuries. Having a backstop for times when the chips are down is a good thing. Let's forget that if you entered the workforce in 1945 and retired in 1985 your net gain in the market (using DJIA as a guide, and adjusting for inflation) would be about zero. You'd have exactly what you started with (or less, really, since your contributions would have mostly been at a time when the market was higher relative to inflation)
Of course, dumping all that social security money into the market would do wonders for our 401k performance. That's short sighted, though. I have a feeling that the 90s runup in prices relative to inflation (largely driven by 401k and other retirement fund money which has been increasingly invested in stocks) has colored many people's view of the market.
I think it's a bit funny that you're getting your back up not because I don't believe in markets or am some sort of commie, but because I'm not fervent enough about it to believe that a safety net is a bad thing. I guess you think I have to be a true believer to be rational?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
So much for D.C. area public schools for Obama:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obamas-pick-sid.html
And don't give me that "security" crap. Every parent should have the ability to send their children to a private school for whatever reason. Of course, Obama will having nothing of that.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obama-tells-teachers-union-he-opposes-vouchers/81801/
Personally I think it is a security issue and I think his children should be home schooled. The minor children of any president should be home schooled. We got too many whackjobs in the world who wouldn't think twice about kidnapping the children of the most powerful man in the country. It is possible that some terrorist nutjobs would shoot up a school full of children in order to get the president's children and extort the president.
Obama sending his children to private schools with his own money does not make him a hypocrite just because he wouldn't vote for vouchers for private school. If he sent his kids to private schools and the tax payer picked up the cost and he didn't vote for school vouchers then it would make him a hypocrite. I do support vouchers for private schools. I think parents should have that option seeing how their tax dollars are used to pay for schools in the first place. If a public school is doing a crappy job or something the parent disapproves of then the parent should have that option of sending their kids to a decent private school at tax payer expense.
Nathan:
I did not invent numbers. I used real data for from 1935 to present for inflation and market performance. I did not underestimate inflation.
Also my market perspective has not been colored by any short term trend. I used the entire trend from 1935 to the day I made that post.
And disingenuous? I think not. There are alternatives out there that have a place. T-Bills could be a small part of the portfolio, but you forget that is government lending YOUR money to itself. That is what was done, but they decided interest was not payable. So not only do you not get a fair return, but your money is free floating in a government debt pool (read: dissolves on a government whim).
Finally, when you pick random low-market retirement dates you are fictitiously pretending you cash out at that point. NO. When one retires you merely begin drawing down the fund, NOT cash it out. Hence, a person who retired in 1985 would have seen the vast majority of their wealth sky rocket in the 1990's. Retirement does not mean you pull all your money and stuff it in a mattress. I believe that understanding, which you have repeated thrice, is the core of the misunderstanding.
PLUS... a zero return is exactly what the return on social security is. There is NONE. There is no saving involved at all. It's just gone.
- - -
I am not arguing that all retirement money is better off in the markets. I keep nearly 20% in cash or commodities most of the time, 50% in the markets, 20% in bonds and 10% in government markers of various kinds. Luckily I have the freedom to do so.
I understand the market has inherent danger to it. All of my focus is on the LONG RUN and in the long run the markets have outperformed all other investments. Retirement is a long run game.
I am also not opposed to a safety net. Unfortunately social security is no longer a safety net - it is looked at as the primary retirement tool. Worse yet, it is built as a pyramid scheme:
Generation 1 did not pay in but got funded by Generation 2. Generation 2 gets funded even more by Generation 3 (baby boomers). At this point Generation 3 has promised funding for social security in conjunction with medicaid to serve as a retirement vessel to be retroactively funded by Generation 4 (me).
Unfortunately, the funding promises have grown too large and the pyramid base too narrow to support it. There has been no saving. There is no money stuffed away in T-Bills, in a safety deposit box, gold reserves, or anything else. The government has taken the money in and simply spent it, leaving behind IOU notes that bear no interest.
THAT has colored my thinking. My money is better have having a shot at a return on investment in the markets than a guarantee of a zero return and possibly no payout with the government. The entire system is flawed on a massive scale, reflective our too many Americans unwillingness to save (CONSUME DAMN YOU CONSUME!).
So revamp the system. The safety net concept has been bastardized to mean "I don't have to save" for too many people. Make it a forced retirement plan if you think you must.
I don't fault you nor think you are a commie, nor have I insulted you personally. I just think my money would be better off int he markets than with the government. While my market return has been really bad lately, my government has loaned out 10 times more money than it collects in a year.
Without a significant correction in our nations borrowing habits, we are in a for a shock (can you say currency devaluation?).
Social Security actually does make a market driven return, and is as solvent as our government is. (//%22http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=540%22)
All Social Security assets are invested in treasury bonds, which are currently hovering at around %3.0 return, but, of course, which fluctuate with the bond market. They are backed by the US government, probably the safest investment in the world at this point (and yes, I can appreciate the irony).
Also, Social Security is not going broke. It's estimated, that at the current tax rates we will have to reduce benefit payouts by 2042, but that doesn't take into consideration further efforts to increase the trust fund.
The wikipedia entry (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund%22) made an interesting distinction that I hadn't heard before. Its analysis stated that the controversy is really over how to interpret the accounting method. There're two camps, one essentially saying that because SS money has come in and gone out as treasury bonds then there's no real SS trust fund, and it's simply an internal scheme to launder the tax money. The other camp says that it simply converted the cash in the fund into fungible instruments that are also valued the world round as one of the most stable investment vehicles anywhere.
Anyway, I hadn't really figured that that was the crux of the issue, but it makes more and more sense.
I think that Ken Neals column in the Sunday World is spot on. Vouchers would only be about saving some rich people money on private school tuition. Do you think that Cascia, BK, or Holland Hall would start accepting kids from poor, underfunded schools? When the "scholarship" program was proposed before, a pastor in North Tulsa was quoted as saying "we got a new building and 16 classrooms ready to open up". You would have all these fly by night school open with no accountability.
Thanks, Buck...
I would rather Nathan Hale HS become an "underperforming school" than a public high school specializing in restaurant and hotel management... nice bit of trickery there.
http://www.tulsaschools.org/schools1/magnet/hale.shtm
CF. You've made blanket statements very recently which I can't find right now searching through the dizzying plethora of verbose posts..... you have previously scapegoated the NEA for the perceived failures of the public schools... you post that a 50% plus 1 vote to legally unionize a workplace would be HORRIBLE.... yet we don't even do that for the POTUS....
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I just want to see a system where we can choose what school our children go to no matter how wealthy or successful we are.
^^^LOL. Libertarian or Cafeteria Socialist?
Children can't choose their parents, either... is there a voucher system for that?....
[}:)]
Rule #1. Life ain't fair.
Rule #2. See rule #1.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Please accept the premise that we both want the same thing and merely differ on how to get there.
Applies to a lot more than education. I think it is one of the basic differences between non-extremist left and right. There's no accounting for guys bouncing off either the left or right wall (Or falling off the cliff, if you prefer.)
Who knows what's far right or far left these days...
I'd be considered a MODERATE in at least 40 other states....
Funny dat.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I'd be considered a MODERATE in at least 40 other states....
That only leaves 10 states where I'd be willing to live. I guess I'll have to stay here. [:D]
I have been very clear that the teachers union is not the lone culprit in our schools. Look no further than this thread for such statements. As the largest influence on public education they certainly do suffer some of the blame.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I did not underestimate inflation.
...
Finally, when you pick random low-market retirement dates you are fictitiously pretending you cash out at that point. NO. When one retires you merely begin drawing down the fund, NOT cash it out. Hence, a person who retired in 1985 would have seen the vast majority of their wealth sky rocket in the 1990's. Retirement does not mean you pull all your money and stuff it in a mattress. I believe that understanding, which you have repeated thrice, is the core of the misunderstanding.
...
Without a significant correction in our nations borrowing habits, we are in a for a shock (can you say currency devaluation?).
The official numbers underestimate inflation. Even so, the Dow keeps returning to the same level, adjusted for inflation, although there are peaks in between. The one in the 60s was pretty sustained. Not like the rocket-ship ride of the 90s.
And no, you don't pull all your money out when you retire, but if you pick the wrong 7 years to live out your retirement, you may not have a great retirement fund after all. Say, for example, you retired without a pension in 1976. Of course, 401(k)s weren't really around then, but that's neither here nor there, unless you think that money infusion is what drove the speculative bubble in the 90s (and, indeed, to this very day)
On that third quoted point, I agree wholeheartedly. We probably disagree on how to go about doing that, but at least we agree that it needs to happen.
On topic, one serious problem with vouchers is that there are no private schools (nor really enough money to fund them) in the places that truly need them. Poor rural districts that can barely keep the lights on and can't afford to pay teachers a livable wage as it is.