One issue I think merits discussion is the concept of the public option and why it is so important in just the health care debate. As I understand it, the public option's purposes are to save money and create competition for private insurance companies. With that understanding, then why does the government object so vehemently against to giving tax breaks, tax credits or even vouchers to parents of school age children that want to send their kids to private school? The public school system in general sucks. The World just ran the story that 15 Tulsa area schools made "Oklahoma state improvement list."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20090828_19_A1_OKLAHO508181
So, why not extend the cost saving and competition concept to the "private option" to education? Here's an article that discusses the costs for public v. private education:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
We have the opposite problems in education compared to the problems of healthcare.
We have achieved free UNIVERSAL public education for our children.
If this "public option" were not available, where would we be?
Would getting a high school education become a privilege and not a right?
I would compare public schools to "single payer" in that parents don't see the blizzard of bills and paperwork present in the current employer-based healthcare system. In public schools, there is no deductible, there are no co-pays, and it is paid for by mandatory taxes for those who have children and those who do not. If you lose your job, your kids still get to go to school. There are no "pre-existing conditions." And there is a "private option" available to parents who have the financial means to do so.
I can support some reform efforts that include programs to allow for more powerful neighborhood private charter schools in DC, Chicago, LA, etc.... but the Cato Institute is being foolish or naive or both... or just playing Grover Nordquist-style games to dismantle public education in this country. Could the Catholic school system or other private schools be able to better educate the huge influx of not-necessarily-smart students coming their way? Or would their scores go down once they find themselves no longer in a position to choose who they would educate?
I am not a fan of Arnie Duncan and do not agree with Obama's politically savvy and PC decision to make this guy Secretary of Education. Here's a few reasons why....
Perspectives and Urban Prep charter schools dump 'failing' students back into public high schools?
Jackson Potter - September, 2008
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=560§ion=Article
Some private school teachers work for less money because they count it as a contribution to their church.... some work for less because they would rather not have to deal with the discipline problems you can run into working at a public school.
TPS has an open transfer policy; if vouchers or extra tax breaks are offered to subsidize private education, guess who loses?
Hale? Rogers? East Central?
No. They would continue to have the same student body with socio-economic problems and language barriers that will contribute to sub-standard test scores....
The losers would be schools like Edison and Memorial... and Booker T.
Schools that aren't even on the state's list.
The golden boy and the blob
May 7th 2009
Is Barack Obama's education secretary too good to be true?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610905
Quote from: USRufnex on August 30, 2009, 07:10:06 PM
We have the opposite problems in education compared to the problems of healthcare.
We have achieved free UNIVERSAL public education for our children.
If this "public option" were not available, where would we be?
Would getting a high school education become a privilege and not a right?
I would compare public schools to "single payer" in that parents don't see the blizzard of bills and paperwork present in the current employer-based healthcare system. In public schools, there is no deductible, there are no co-pays, and it is paid for by mandatory taxes for those who have children and those who do not. If you lose your job, your kids still get to go to school. There are no "pre-existing conditions." And there is a "private option" available to parents who have the financial means to do so.
I can support some reform efforts that include programs to allow for more powerful neighborhood private charter schools in DC, Chicago, LA, etc.... but the Cato Institute is being foolish or naive or both... or just playing Grover Nordquist-style games to dismantle public education in this country. Could the Catholic school system or other private schools be able to house and educate the huge influx of not-necessarily-smart students coming their way? Or would their schools scores go down once they find themselves no longer in a position to choose who they would educate?
I am not a fan of Arnie Duncan and do not agree with Obama's politically savvy and PC decision to make this guy Secretary of Education. Here's a few reasons why....
Perspectives and Urban Prep charter schools dump 'failing' students back into public high schools?
Jackson Potter - September, 2008
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=560§ion=Article
Some private school teachers work for less money because they count it as a contribution to their church.... some work for less because they would rather not have to deal with the discipline problems you can run into working at a public school.
TPS has an open transfer policy; if vouchers or extra tax breaks are offered to subsidize private education, guess who loses?
Hale? Rogers? East Central?
No. They would continue to have the same student body with its socio-economic problems and language barriers which will contribute to sub-standard test scores....
The losers would be schools like Edison and Memorial... and Booker T.
Schools that aren't even on the state's list.
The golden boy and the blob
May 7th 2009
Is Barack Obama's education secretary too good to be true?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610905
I agree with you on the D.C. voucher school model; however I thought this program was ended by Obama (who sends his kids to private school--I will not go there any further because we've had that debate). Here is a abject scathing article from Juan Williams: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/williams_obama_dc/
I think it's no secret that my kids do not go to public school, and that my position on tax credits and/or vouchers is somewhat skewed. Although I would like a financial break of some kind since my kids are not enrolled in a public school but I pay taxes as if they were, I would prefer that every child have access to the same educational opportunities as mine. Surprising, huh? You might recall that I felt the same about getting quality health care for children. I guess I am "liberal" when it comes to children because they are in whatever financial condition they are in through no fault of their own. When it comes to kids, money should not be a factor. It's those people who are grown up but behave like children with an entitlement mentality that sets me off. here's a often viewed example:
First, I started this "private option" thread to see how folks would look at how government essentially has a monopoly over a product, education, and your "single payer" analogy sort of confirms my position. The problem with your UNIVERSAL public education statement is actually a reason for a viable private option. To begin, these are some of the reasons for the public option: 1) reduce medical care costs, 2) improve access, 3) increase competition. Indeed, Obama has commented that: "[A] 'public option' would improve the functioning of the market because it would 'force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.'"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0716chapmanjul16,0,4615447.column
The exact same thing could be said in the context of education. Let's change the above quote a bit: "[A] '[private option]' would improve the functioning of the [education system] because it would 'force the [public school systems]' to compete and keep them honest.'"
Another issue I have with your UNIVERSAL public education is your assumption that public education would disappear if there was the private option. First, this is the exact argument insurance companies and those opposed to Obamacare are advancing with respect to the public option, except they believe private health insurance would disappear. Perhaps that is what Obamacare supporters really want to see happen, who knows. Second, and perhaps this is why I disagree with you and others in this forum, is how you throw the word "right" around so loosely and "matter of fact". In my opinion, there are very few "rights" that each of us have equally without exception. Education, health care, a job, housing (except for of course racial preferences), etc. are not "rights" simply because there is no constitutional amendment that creates these rights. Curiously, under the Constitution, it appears that the only group of people having a "right" to health care would be to prisoners under the cruel and unusual punishment provision in the Eighth Amendment.
Public schools are essentially competition free with a steady revenue stream through taxation, which private schools (not just religious-based) do not. Healthy competition is a good thing, which is the biggest argument advanced by public option proponents. Why not extend it to education?
I agree that it would be the higher end public schools that would be hurt by vouchers. I don't think that Holland Hall or Cascia Hall would start opening their doors to kids that go to McClain or Rogers. Instead you would have a bunch of fly by night private schools opening up that are just looking to take money but would provide an even worse education then what is offered now. When Jabar Shumate tried to push through a voucher plan before I read a quote from a pastor at a church in North Tulsa who said they had classroom space and were ready to open their doors. This type of a school would have no accountability and the teachers no training.
Quote from: guido911 on August 30, 2009, 09:18:15 PMAlthough I would like a financial break of some kind since my kids are not enrolled in a public school but I pay taxes as if they were,
And so do I, despite not having children and never planning to have any.
Similarly, despite up to this juncture only having ever required a few doctor's visits, I would be more than happy to pay taxes for a single payer health care plan. And just as there are private schools today, I'd be perfectly happy if there were private insurance providers providing supplemental insurance for whatever the public plan doesn't cover. (private rooms, for instance)
Given that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk amongst a large pool, what practical argument is there against the largest possible risk pool?
I think local control makes any sort of "fair" competition system unworkable. School funding in our country varies so much by locality that there's no way for counties to compete on an apples to apples basis across the whole country. Unless, of course, you like federal subsidies. And I don't think you do.
Privatization doesn't come without baggage in our country. Our free-marketers also tend to be laissez-fairers. I can see getting a school market system put into place and then let to run without adequate oversight or regulation. And when oversight and regulation break down you have what's happened in the financial industry . . . or even better, what's happened in the armed forces, where billions and billions have flowed into private industry with almost no accounting controls.
In the end you'd either have a system with cutthroat competition and no oversight . . . in which the poorer children would suffer. Or you'd have a much larger school marketplace with a much larger educational bureaucracy, into which our tax dollars would disappear even more completely than they are now.
I'm not opposed to using competition to foster efficiency, but I don't think every part of our government should be free-marketized. There are some places in which it either isn't feasible or desirable.
Quote from: buck on August 30, 2009, 10:30:59 PM
Instead you would have a bunch of fly by night private schools opening up that are just looking to take money but would provide an even worse education then what is offered now. When Jabar Shumate tried to push through a voucher plan before I read a quote from a pastor at a church in North Tulsa who said they had classroom space and were ready to open their doors. This type of a school would have no accountability and the teachers no training.
I have to agree with you. Some privately-owned "tech" schools and "colleges" exist to collect student loan money and do little to ensure the student is gaining marketable skills and do little, if anything to help assure they will find work after they have been through the program. Same with daycares which exist to collect DHS money. Certainly, not all private schools are bad, but any time the government at any level starts handing out money, the parasites manage to show up and get their share without regard to the personal outcomes of their students.
I went to a private high school and had my kids in private school for about five or six years. To be perfectly honest, I don't see where if I chose to spend my money in that way toward their education why the government should subsidize that particular decision. Why should I get any more of a break than my elderly next door neighbor whose kids are all grown?
I'd fully support a school voucher system with two contingencies (in addition to being racially neutral etc.):
1) The voucher system sets it up so the public schools still win. That is to say, the public school district gets funding of $2000 per kid (made up numbers) and grants vouchers for $1500 to anyone who wants them. Thus, the proportional funding per student remaining in public schools increases.
The reason I feel this is important is because without it we will further two-tier our educational system. If we suck too much funding from the public school it will cease to be a viable option, no matter how hard some parents would try. And at the availability of least decent educational opportunities keeps many kids from descending into poverty if not criminality.
It would seem to be a win-win, IF the laws/rules could be crafted to maintain this goal.
2) The second contingency would be that voucher funding is only available for qualified schools. A school would not be qualified unless it met certain baselines in curriculum and performance. You can run it as a for-profit, as a religious school, or as a singing academy - I don't care so long as the baseline curriculum is covered (whatever is recommended for that grade: science, math, reading, history . . .) and the baseline scores are at an appreciable level (Iowa Tests or whatever test they use these days). Tests that cannot be corrupted by the institution (not self tested) and are not altered for the institution (black, white, Christian or Hindu . . . you should all know basic math, science, etc.).
The reason I feel this is essential is because we are diverting Governmental money to private education. I want to make sure it is a school, an institution that educates kids. Not a place just to make a profit, not a football academy, not just a religious training academy, and not just a daycare. You can do all those things so long as it doesn't frustrate the purpose of a school.
- - -
However, the right wingers will insist that they should be allowed to have governmental money to run a Christian Madrasah. The "my snow flake" crowd will insist that testing is bad. The leftists will cry because there will be more non-public schools forcing kids to donate their supplies to the collective. The idiots will complain that their kid don't need no fancy building schoolin'. In short, a rational approach will fail.
And yet, CF, any of those options are destined for failure if parents neglect their part in the educational process.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2009, 09:24:09 AM
And yet, CF, any of those options are destined for failure if parents neglect their part in the educational process.
Without parents properly motivating their kids, including participation in their education, at least 90% of children will have no success in education.
Education FAIL:
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/fail-owned-partners-in-education-fail.jpg)
Must look close:
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/art_education_fail.jpg)
(http://failblogger.org/usersubmissions/selected1/Schooling%20FAIL.jpg)
Public schools need to be fixed. One good start would be parents that care. Another would be to flunk students that don't learn and make them repeat a grade (or two) until they are able to learn. More money alone won't do the job. Discipline is a problem that for the most part didn't exist in the community where I went to school through high school. I won't say there were no problems. Our average class size was about 30 kids. It evidently wasn't too many when the kids behaved.
I resist public money going to any religiously affiliated school. I believe most prominent private elementary and high schools are religiously affiliated. If you want to send your kids to private school and are able, fine. Do it on your dollar. If you can't afford it, maybe your church can help. I see some mighty big (tax free?) church buildings and properties around the area so I don't believe they are unable to help some of their own less fortunate. Vouchers are like taking money out of my pocket and putting it your church.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2009, 08:14:11 PM
I resist public money going to any religiously affiliated school. I believe most prominent private elementary and high schools are religiously affiliated. If you want to send your kids to private school and are able, fine. Do it on your dollar. If you can't afford it, maybe your church can help. I see some mighty big (tax free?) church buildings and properties around the area so I don't believe they are unable to help some of their own less fortunate. Vouchers are like taking money out of my pocket and putting it your church.
Really? How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Really? How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?
Those are reimbursements. Big diff.
How do you feel about the fact that they don't pay taxes that go to educate our neighbor's children who can't afford private schools? Or that fix the streets that run up and down their property? Or the over the top number of traffic signals?
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 08:24:05 AM
Those are reimbursements. Big diff.
How do you feel about the fact that they don't pay taxes that go to educate our neighbor's children who can't afford private schools? Or that fix the streets that run up and down their property? Or the over the top number of traffic signals?
Who the heck is "they" and what were you smoking before you posted that nonsensical and irrelevant rambling.
And reimbursements, what is the "big diff"? Bottom line is that tax dollars are going to religious-affiliated institutions. But if the difference is the term "reimbursement", then just reimburse those with the children in private school. Does that make you feel better?
Also, don't tell anyone, but Obama is following Bush's lead on faith-based initiatives, which, shhh, allows federal money to be sent to religious organizations:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/06/nation/na-faith6
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Really? How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?
I have been in both St Francis and St John as a patient. I have never felt any religious pressure from the staff or anyone. I can handle a few "pictures" of Jesus. As much as I hate to agree with FOTD, reimbursements for charity work don't bother me.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 10:12:51 AM
Also, don't tell anyone, but Obama is following Bush's lead on faith-based initiatives, which, shhh, allows federal money to be sent to religious organizations:
I didn't like everything Bush did.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 01, 2009, 01:04:53 PM
I have been in both St Francis and St John as a patient. I have never felt any religious pressure from the staff or anyone. I can handle a few "pictures" of Jesus. As much as I hate to agree with FOTD, reimbursements for charity work don't bother me.
FOTD is such an outlaw here.
He's put up with those pics and crucifixes too....so what. Such cordial nuns. But those right to die issues you can forget. Not even a legal document can get you past those 2000 year old right to life owners....
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 10:12:51 AM
And reimbursements, what is the "big diff"? Bottom line is that tax dollars are going to religious-affiliated institutions. But if the difference is the term "reimbursement", then just reimburse those with the children in private school. Does that make you feel better?
Those are two completely different topics. One is a hospital being reimbursed for medical services. The other is an educational institution whose curriculum likely includes classes specifically on the school's affiliated religion. Many people send their children to said church-affiliated schools precisely because they are affiliated with a particular religion and they want their children to be indoctrinated with that religion.
And having had several relatives treated in (and some die in) a hospital run by Catholics, I've never seen an instance of them proselytizing to a patient, excluding those who specifically asked for it. Just as the secular hospitals I've had occasion to know about have priests of several different denominations on staff, so did the Catholic hospital.
The only difference between the two is that one has nuns walking around and more art based on bible scenes.
In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2009, 02:17:48 PM
In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.
Ding, ding, ding!
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2009, 02:17:48 PM
Those are two completely different topics. One is a hospital being reimbursed for medical services. The other is an educational institution whose curriculum likely includes classes specifically on the school's affiliated religion. Many people send their children to said church-affiliated schools precisely because they are affiliated with a particular religion and they want their children to be indoctrinated with that religion.
And having had several relatives treated in (and some die in) a hospital run by Catholics, I've never seen an instance of them proselytizing to a patient, excluding those who specifically asked for it. Just as the secular hospitals I've had occasion to know about have priests of several different denominations on staff, so did the Catholic hospital.
The only difference between the two is that one has nuns walking around and more art based on bible scenes.
In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2009, 02:17:48 PM
In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.
Bullcrap. Did you attend Holland Hall? How about University School at TU? What about Riverfield Country Day? These schools are not about proselytizing. They are about academic excellence. You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 02:29:22 PM
You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.
Pardon whilst I wipe the spit from my monitor.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 02:29:22 PM
Bullcrap. Did you attend Holland Hall? How about University School at TU? What about Riverfield Country Day? These schools are not about proselytizing. They are about academic excellence. You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.
Nathan was speaking in general terms. And generally, I agree with him.
But as you pointed out Guido, many "religious affiliated schools" are scholarly institutions. The religion portion of TU is essentially none. I assume it is more so at Holland Hall or Cascia, but probably to the extent I am familiar with. And I assume other schools in the area are more geared towards religion.
I'm familiar with religious schools and am not against them. My Catholic schools had at least one religious class per semester (from the history of the Bible to Community Service). We had some sort of chapel on Wednesday. We had morning prayer. We had a quick prayer before athletic events (I think). Our graduation ceremonies included Mass.
But outside of those items, religion was anecdotal to education. We never had a book called "American History for Christians" like Lincoln Christian. We didn't have alternative history curriculum at all. We learned science in science class and let the religious instructors teach us religion. We were free to ask either about conflicts between the two and would either be told that it was a lesson, that the teacher believed X and scientific research indicated otherwise, and generally told if we wanted the official church position we were free to ask the school Priest.
We had Jews, Muslims, non-religious persons, and every denomination of Christian in our school. Many of the non-Catholics took our religious classes to get a varied perspective on their religions and frequently we visited or had guest speakers from those denominations share their faiths with us. Other people choose to sit out the religion classes and could either study with a religious affiliate of their choice or use those hours for community service. We were being educated in an environment in which religion could be present, not in an environment that had a purpose of inserting religion as education.
And that's the crux of this debate. What portion of tax payer funds would be going to fund the religious aspect of these schools? I hope you will admit that many of the private religious schools in the area ARE about proselytizing and indoctrinating kids in their parents chosen faith.
QuoteLincoln Christian School is a partnership between parents and the church – the only two institutions ordained by God to teach children. . . . Our goal is to raise the next generation of Christian leaders so that our heritage may be passed on to future generations. - Lincoln Christian School
QuoteGod is calling churches across America to build Christian schools. There is a price to pay, but the reward will be worth it. The next generation can be different if the people of God today will heed the voice of the Spirit.
The vision of Victory Christian School is to provide a place to train, prepare, and equip young people to take the ministry of Jesus to the ends of the earth, whether it be as a preacher, pastor, evangelist, prophet, apostle, teacher, or as a nurse, technician, educator, or business person. - Victory Christian Center
QuoteWith the Bible as its foundation and standard of truth, the MCA faculty familiarizes students with widely acknowledged ideas within the arts and sciences, thus providing an understanding of world views with a clear Christian perspective. - Metro Christian Academy
QuoteHolland Hall provides a challenging, comprehensive educational experience grounded in a rigorous liberal arts, college preparatory curriculum that promotes critical thinking and life-long learning. A PreK-12 Episcopal school, we seek to foster in each student a strong moral foundation and a deep sense of social responsibility.
See the difference between the former and the latter in their mission statements? Not all religiously affiliated schools are the same. It's important for everyone to realize that. Holland Hall, I'm sure, would be able to separate their "educational experience" from their religious affiliation while it would be difficult to train kids to spread the message of Jesus in a similar manner.
Agreed. Except at HO HA the new headmaster requires all kids to attend services....
Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2009, 03:06:13 PM
Pardon whilst I wipe the spit from my monitor.
When it comes to ideology, you are correct I am very narrow minded. But, if you have read this thread, you cannot honestly suggest that I am an on fire right winger when it comes to the health and education of our children. Heck, in reading the posts in this thread, it's almost as if leaving children in failing schools with disastrous drop out rates is more important than finding a solution that could include, OMG, vouchers or tax credits so they could attend private schools. D.C.'s voucher program was a success story, but we just can't have that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040302987.html
The problem is that Gweed is talking about vouchers for kids in Washington DC.... everyone else is talking about Tulsa. And all politics is local.
I am a grad of Tulsa Hale. And the people with Gweed's "failing schools with disastrous drop out rates" mentality consistently belittled my high school experience back then, just like the people who want the total destruction of our public schools try to play those games today. They told me what an awful school Hale was, etc, etc, etc. It was at Hale where I took Honors English, was on the yearbook staff, played in the school orchestra....
Back a couple of decades ago, okay, more than a couple of decades ago... for the most part, I liked my teachers at Hale better than the teachers I had at Owasso or Victory..... but none of the students at Owasso or Victory ever bloodied my nose by throwing a sucker punch... can't say the same thing about Hale. I didn't see many handicapped or special needs kids at Owasso or Victory.... but I saw many of them at Nathan Hale. And I consider myself a better man for the experience. Trade-offs? Yes.
I am sympathetic to financially struggling parents who truly want their kids to go to a private school because of their religious convictions... or because they fear for their kids safety... or because of the unique and personal options a small private school could offer over diploma factories like BA, Jenks, and Union.
But I am also sympathetic to the kids who come from a single parent home, the kids whose parents are irresponsible or don't care. It is NOT the kid's fault, so why undermine their experience by turning their public high school into a magnet school for "Culinary, Lodging and Health Management" while the kids who live in the Booker T district get to study Chinese?
I am unsympathetic to the parents who move to the rural suburbs to shield their kids from families who have a different skin color and elder parents who barely speak English..... and then unwittingly send their children to a school with a preponderance of rednecks who will probably teach their kids how to cook meth in the basement-- or the kitchen of a double-wide....
I mean, after high school, your kids can do just about anything and get federally subsidized Pell Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans whether they go to TU, OU, OSU... or choose ORU, Liberty, or Bob Jones Univ.... there's no distinction when it comes to post-secondary education.
But for kids up through high school age, your school is determined by where you live.
And your level of healthcare is determined by your employer.
/rant
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Heck, in reading the posts in this thread, it's almost as if leaving children in failing schools with disastrous drop out rates is more important than finding a solution that could include, OMG, vouchers or tax credits so they could attend private schools
What is wrong with the concept of fixing public schools rather than running away from them?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 01, 2009, 10:01:33 PM
What is wrong with the concept of fixing public schools rather than running away from them?
Well, well, where have you been? The idea that a public option is what is on the table, rather than "fixing [private payer]", is what was intended with this thread instead of "running away from "[it]". So let's hear some suggestions, since the creation of competition and reduction of costs in education through a private option (which is the entire idea of the "public option" in health care reform) has been dismissed.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2009, 10:23:52 PM
Well, well, where have you been? The idea that a public option is what is on the table, rather than "fixing [private payer]", is what was intended with this thread instead of "running away from "[it]". So let's hear some suggestions, since the creation of competition and reduction of costs in education through a private option (which is the entire idea of the "public option" in health care reform) has been dismissed.
If you hadn't been so obsessed with my statement about public money going to private schools, you might have remembered what I said in my first paragraph on 31 Aug 2009, 08:14:11 PM.
Newsflash..... this thread was created by Gweed in order to advance the argument that if you're a Democrat who is in favor of a "public option" in healthcare... then you MUST be for private school vouchers. Any other position makes you a hypocrite. Conversely, if you are a Democrat and you do not like the idea of vouchers, then you MUST be against a public option in healthcare. Any other position makes you a hypocrite.
Of course, I could make the counter-argument that any Republican who strongly supports public education MUST endorse a strong public option in healthcare..... or if you're against a "public option" in the current healthcare debate, then you MUST be against the concept of public schools.
Sorry RA, but your posts in this thread reflect the views of Republicans who don't tow the evangelically-correct party line on private school vouchers, which makes you a RINO... smile, you've been caught in the crossfire of a partisan tit-for-tat pi$$ing match.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....
(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/point-counterpoint.jpg)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306/saturday-night-live-point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola
Ruf, you ignorant slut.
/obvious?
One thing to keep in mind about the graduation rate and test scores of public schools versus private schools is that public schools have a larger variety of kids. Some are idiots. Some are geniuses. Some will never graduate, some will graduate early. This mix necessarily makes their numbers look worse. It's simple arithmetic. (Even my public school education taught me about how fractions work)
Public schools have to take everyone, including those with learning disabilities and physical handicaps that make them less likely to succeed in school. Private schools have the luxury of cherry picking their students, basically dumping the rest on public schools.
Moreover, private school attendance has a pretty solid correlation with active parents. Parents that don't care won't spend the money on the private school, after all. Once again, this serves to make public schools look like cesspools of failure, when in fact it is just a small subset of those who attend that are in such truly bad shape.
Quote from: nathanm on September 03, 2009, 10:55:20 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the graduation rate and test scores of public schools versus private schools is that public schools have a larger variety of kids. Some are idiots.
You went to public school, didn't you?
Ruf, I really wasn't trying to trap anyone. Only that the arguments for the public option in health care are equally applicable to other areas. Heck, even Obama compared the cost reduction/competition argument in the context of the U.S. post office vs. FedEx/UPS.
Quote from: USRufnex on September 03, 2009, 10:20:37 PM
Sorry RA, but your posts in this thread reflect the views of Republicans who don't tow the evangelically-correct party line on private school vouchers, which makes you a RINO... smile, you've been caught in the crossfire of a partisan tit-for-tat pi$$ing match.
RUF,
I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party. I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want. I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party. Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me. In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.
I wouldn't say I was
caught in the cross-fire. I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match. Hey, I answer you sometimes.
RA
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 03, 2009, 11:47:42 PM
RUF,
I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party. I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want. I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party. Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me. In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.
I wouldn't say I was caught in the cross-fire. I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match. Hey, I answer you sometimes.
RA
+1
I would gladly change my registration to "unafilliated" if it weren't for having to waive the opportunity to vote in primaries. Since we are decidedly "red" in NE OK, it seems more important to me to have a vote in a GOP primary.
Quote from: guido911 on September 03, 2009, 11:06:09 PM
You went to public school, didn't you?
I've been to both, although the vast majority of my schooling was in public school.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2009, 08:59:16 AM
+1
I would gladly change my registration to "unafilliated" if it weren't for having to waive the opportunity to vote in primaries. Since we are decidedly "red" in NE OK, it seems more important to me to have a vote in a GOP primary.
I'd be curious to know how many states in the Union have open primaries. Because, while I'm a registered democrat (due to the above stated policy of Oklahoma's closed primaries), I'm more like a Libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative)...I'd love to be able to file as Independent and still be able to vote in primaries.
Quote from: Hoss on September 04, 2009, 02:35:29 PM
I'd be curious to know how many states in the Union have open primaries. Because, while I'm a registered democrat (due to the above stated policy of Oklahoma's closed primaries), I'm more like a Libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative)...I'd love to be able to file as Independent and still be able to vote in primaries.
Hoss, this is not directed at you since as you have stated, you belong to the D party. You know how to play the game, even if you don't care for it.
Why should anyone not a member of a group be able to be a voting member of that group? If you don't own stock in a company are you invited to vote at stock holder meetings? If you are not a member of a sewing circle, can you vote for officers of the sewing circle? If you want a say in who is a candidate for a political party, join the party closest to your beliefs. If that's not possible, join a party to nominate the least objectionable candidate, otherwise you will just have to put up with whoever the parties nominate. We have open general elections. The primaries are for the various groups to pick their nominee. Maybe one solution to the "problem" would be for the parties to just have secret meetings to come up with a nominee. Then there would be no question of not being able to vote in an election.
Red Arrow, I disagree with you on most things but respect you enormously for your willingness to discuss openly. Proud to call you my countryman.
Hoss makes an interesting point. In our system, primaries have become proxies for a multiparty system. That's where the most variety is, and also the most specificity. When we get to the generals, each candidate has to carry the expectations of so many well-heeled interest groups that there's a lot of not knowing quite exactly what you're getting. So it's not surprising that self-described independents would want their voices heard in the arena where they'd have the best chance of getting the most of what they want.
Quote from: we vs us on September 04, 2009, 10:17:33 PM
Red Arrow, I disagree with you on most things but respect you enormously for your willingness to discuss openly. Proud to call you my countryman.
Hoss makes an interesting point. In our system, primaries have become proxies for a multiparty system. That's where the most variety is, and also the most specificity. When we get to the generals, each candidate has to carry the expectations of so many well-heeled interest groups that there's a lot of not knowing quite exactly what you're getting. So it's not surprising that self-described independents would want their voices heard in the arena where they'd have the best chance of getting the most of what they want.
I obviously disagree with a lot of opinions here but am always willing to listen to a well presented position. I may still disagree but I will listen. Thanks.
I understand independents desire to vote in the primaries but respectfully disagree with their right to do so. It's one of the costs of not being able to make a choice. I agree the two choices have become dismal.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 04, 2009, 10:35:32 PM
I obviously disagree with a lot of opinions here but am always willing to listen to a well presented position. I may still disagree but I will listen. Thanks.
I understand independents desire to vote in the primaries but respectfully disagree with their right to do so. It's one of the costs of not being able to make a choice. I agree the two choices have become dismal.
How is not wanting to align with the Republicans or Democrats called 'not being able to make a choice'? I'm sure those people that align themselves with the Libertarian party would tell you they made a choice. Those that aligned with the Green party. Hell, even those that aligned themselves as Independent said they made a choice. It's just not in the majority.
I still think the two-party closed primary voting scheme is exclusionary. Let EVERYONE vote in the primaries if they want to. I always wondered why most states don't, but looking at this page... http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 .... I see that alot do, but with provisions.
Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2009, 01:05:14 AM
How is not wanting to align with the Republicans or Democrats called 'not being able to make a choice'? I'm sure those people that align themselves with the Libertarian party would tell you they made a choice. Those that aligned with the Green party. Hell, even those that aligned themselves as Independent said they made a choice. It's just not in the majority.
I still think the two-party closed primary voting scheme is exclusionary. Let EVERYONE vote in the primaries if they want to. I always wondered why most states don't, but looking at this page... http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 .... I see that alot do, but with provisions.
Yep, it's exclusionary. It was designed that way and I think it should stay that way. Maybe I should be allowed to vote in Tulsa city elections even though I actually live in Bixby. What happens in Tulsa affects me personally more that most things that happen in Bixby since I live near 111th and Memorial. I believe that primary elections were not always used to choose candidates. The party big-wigs chose the candidates. Would you like to return to that method?
It's not being able to choose between the two parties that regularly have primary elections to choose their nominee. If you want to help choose the R or D nominee, join that party. What would it take for Libertarians to have a primary besides more than one candidate? Same for other parties. Independent is a case on its own since that is a choice of no party affiliation. If you as a non-D or non-R get to vote in a primary why should I as an R not be able to vote in the D primary (giving up my vote in the R primary for that day) to vote for the D least likely to win. Ds would do the same for the Rs. If you think we have some bad choices now, just try that scenario.
I believe it was Bill Cosby that had a routine about never challenging "worse". Just as soon as you declare that things could not possibly get worse, they do.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 03, 2009, 11:47:42 PM
RUF,
I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party. I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want. I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party. Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me. In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.
I wouldn't say I was caught in the cross-fire. I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match. Hey, I answer you sometimes.
RA
The "RINO" quip was meant to be snarky, btw. ;D
These days, being a pro-choice Republican = RINO.... Urban Republicans who support sensible gun-control measures = RINO....
I vaguely remember a time when the only position that would get you expelled from the GOP was if you disavowed limited government and restraint of federal spending... yet Dick Cheney's Republican credentials aren't questioned despite famously telling us that "deficits don't matter."
Oh well.
Time to break out the hotwings and beer to watch the
Oklahoma STATE-RUN Cowboys play the
Georgia STRONG-PUBLIC-OPTION Bulldogs.
And tonight I'll be rooting for the
Oklahoma GOVERNMENT-TAKEOVER-OF-EDUCATION Sooners to beat the
BYU PRIVATE-MORMON-OPTION Cougars...
/snark
Quote from: USRufnex on September 05, 2009, 02:32:12 PM
The "RINO" quip was meant to be snarky, btw. ;D
These days, being a pro-choice Republican = RINO.... Urban Republicans who support sensible gun-control measures = RINO....
I vaguely remember a time when the only position that would get you expelled from the GOP was if you disavowed limited government and restraint of federal spending... yet Dick Cheney's Republican credentials aren't questioned despite famously telling us that "deficits don't matter."
Oh well.
From you, I take nothing as a compliment.
FWIW I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control but it should remain legal.
Describe sensible gun control. Prohibit convicted felons, probably. (It would provide another charge if they screw up again. Remember that Al Capone went to prison on tax charges, not for the violence he caused.) Many others, probably not. I expect you could cite some examples I would support. Generally outlawing them, no. I think Iraq is living proof that we don't want overly restrictive gun (or ammo) control. If none of them had guns, we would'a been outa there with a conclusive win long ago. I hope that if anyone were to attempt a take over of the USA that we could do as well as the Iraqis have done against us.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 05, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
FWIW I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control but it should remain legal.
Congratulations, you agree with the vast majority of pro-life activists. (It must be snark week, sorry)
Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2009, 03:21:24 PM
Congratulations, you agree with the vast majority of pro-life activists. (It must be snark week, sorry)
Most of the "pro-life activists" I've met or read about don't want abortion to be legal under (almost) any circumstances. I think there is a difference between that and my position. While I said I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control, which is my personal opinion and I still stand by that, did I say anywhere that it should be
illegal to do so? I don't remember writing that.
Your evaluation of my position contradicts RUF's evaluation. I answered RUF, somewhat, on my position on gun control. Lucky for me I don't value either RUF's or your opinion of me. (I expect you don't value anything I think of either of you two either.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 05, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
From you, I take nothing as a compliment.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 05, 2009, 03:49:19 PM
Your evaluation of my position contradicts RUF's evaluation. I answered RUF, somewhat, on my position on gun control. Lucky for me I don't value either RUF's or your opinion of me. (I expect you don't value anything I think of either of you two either.)
Huh?
I didn't post what I thought your position was on abortion or gun control.
I wrote that these days, republicans who are either pro-choice or for reasonable gun control have been marginalized to RINO status...... the only exception to that rule has been Rudy Giuliani....
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/V/arnold_total_rino.jpg)
If Republicans held more of
these values, I'd be more inclined to split my ticket from time to time....
http://moderaterepublican.net/id1.html
"It is our solemn responsibility to show that government can have both a head and a heart; that it can be both progressive and solvent; and that it can serve the people without becoming their master." -- Gov. Thomas E. Dewey
Quote from: USRufnex on September 05, 2009, 10:27:22 PM
Huh?
I didn't post what I thought your position was on abortion or gun control.
I wrote that these days, republicans who are either pro-choice or for reasonable gun control have been marginalized to RINO status......
By labeling me as a RINO that you implied that I was "either pro-choice or for reasonable gun control". I thought I'd let you know where I stand.
Quote from: USRufnex on September 05, 2009, 10:27:22 PM
If Republicans held more of these values, I'd be more inclined to split my ticket from time to time....
Good examples of noble goals with the implementation of these goals defining the difference between Democrats and Republicans. A few of the planks did sound a bit like Republicans should adopt Democrat policy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 05, 2009, 03:49:19 PM
Most of the "pro-life activists" I've met or read about don't want abortion to be legal under (almost) any circumstances. I think there is a difference between that and my position. While I said I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control, which is my personal opinion and I still stand by that, did I say anywhere that it should be illegal to do so? I don't remember writing that.
Your evaluation of my position contradicts RUF's evaluation. I answered RUF, somewhat, on my position on gun control. Lucky for me I don't value either RUF's or your opinion of me. (I expect you don't value anything I think of either of you two either.)
Sorry, I must have been on drugs, as I meant "pro-choice." My fault. I'm an idiot. Flog me in public, please. :o
Had I posted the other paragraph I decided to delete in favor of letting the one-liner stand on its own, it would have been obvious I meant the opposite of what I said.
I agree that most pro life activists would like to see abortion outlawed entirely. (The exception being the few who argue for it being illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or likely fatality of the mother)
To elaborate on my position, statistics bear out that the state of the economy has a much larger effect on the number of abortions performed than any restrictions placed on it being performed by freepers in the statehouse. Therefore, rather than focusing our energy on shaming women or forcing them back into coat hanger abortions, we ought to be focusing on making it easier for women to make the choice we'd all prefer they make.
I get the feeling that many pro-lifers think that the pro-choice opinion of abortion is like this:
(http://redwood.nwacg.net/gallery2/d/1911-1/abort-cat.jpg)
Since that's not the case, the fact that it's such a hot button issue is utterly stupid.
Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2009, 10:09:30 PM
Sorry, I must have been on drugs, as I meant "pro-choice." My fault. I'm an idiot. Flog me in public, please. :o
OK, consider yourself flogged.