If the gop win the midterms

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a free membership at a private golf course....

good grief....

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud. They want huge numbers of poor people to stay exactly where they are, because the more of them that are in the cities and addicted to welfare, the larger their reliable voting block is.

Choice a - spend $20k per year per student in Hartford public schools, which are failing sh*tholes.

Choice b - spend less than $6k per year to send them to a catholic K-8 school with less than 10 kids per class, and where kids on average perform a full grade level higher than where they are, on standardized tests.

Why is this a difficult choice? Politics. That's it. If you were at all motivated by an actual urge to help these people, that's a ridiculously easy decision.

But unfortunately for those poor people, while school choice will help lift those kids out of poverty, it doesn't help democrats win elections.

The poor people need to form a union. Then the democrats will actually act on their behalf.
The other benefit to this school choice...let's say you pull 10 kids out of Hartford (where you'd spend $20k per kid), and out them in my kids school, which costs $5500 per kid...the public school in Hartford (1) now has fewer kids, thus smaller class sizes, which everyone knows helps kids. And (2) they also have more money, because Hartford schools can keep the $14,500 they were going to spend anyway on each kid who left for private school. If it's 10 kids who leave, thats $145k that Hartford can spend on the remaining kids.

In other words, after those kids leave, the public school can now spend even more money per kid, on the kids who choose to remain there.

Win-win.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud. They want huge numbers of poor people to stay exactly where they are, because the more of them that are in the cities and addicted to welfare, the larger their reliable voting block is.

Choice a - spend $20k per year per student in Hartford public schools, which are failing sh*tholes.

Choice b - spend less than $6k per year to send them to a catholic K-8 school with less than 10 kids per class, and where kids on average perform a full grade level higher than where they are, on standardized tests.

Why is this a difficult choice? Politics. That's it. If you were at all motivated by an actual urge to help these people, that's a ridiculously easy decision.

But unfortunately for those poor people, while school choice will help lift those kids out of poverty, it doesn't help democrats win elections.

The poor people need to form a union. Then the democrats will actually act on their behalf.

Indiana's school voucher program started in 2011

The data doesn’t match you fantasy Jim school choice is a red herring being presented as a benefit for inner city blacks . But is aimed a sending white kids to religious schools and having the government pay most of the bill ..
But keep saying it’s about poor people



Whites increased from 40 to 60% and blacks declined 24 to 12%.





For a full voucher, worth 90 percent of what a state would spend in a public school, a family of four can earn no more than $45,000 annually, but students whose parents earn up to $67,000 can still qualify for a half-voucher. And for children already in the program, their family income can rise to nearly $90,000 annually.

Yep helping those who need it most




“If the idea behind a voucher program is we’re going to have the money follow the student, if the student didn’t start in a public school, the money isn’t following them from a public school, it’s just appearing from another budget,” Stewart said. “And we’re not exactly sure where that’s coming from.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Indiana's school voucher program started in 2011

The data doesn’t match you fantasy Jim school choice is a red herring being presented as a benefit for inner city blacks . But is aimed a sending white kids to religious schools and having the government pay most of the bill ..
But keep saying it’s about poor people



Whites increased from 40 to 60% and blacks declined 24 to 12%.





For a full voucher, worth 90 percent of what a state would spend in a public school, a family of four can earn no more than $45,000 annually, but students whose parents earn up to $67,000 can still qualify for a half-voucher. And for children already in the program, their family income can rise to nearly $90,000 annually.

Yep helping those who need it most




“If the idea behind a voucher program is we’re going to have the money follow the student, if the student didn’t start in a public school, the money isn’t following them from a public school, it’s just appearing from another budget,” Stewart said. “And we’re not exactly sure where that’s coming from.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

inner city parents desperately want it. so i guess you’re saying (1) that you know better then they do, what’s best for their kids, and that (2) you aren’t really pro choice.

If you had shown the ability to EVER not tow the union line, you’d have some credibility here. If the unions told you to lay an egg, you’d squat and ask what color.

Oh you don’t like tax breaks for families making as much as $90k?

How about the $7500 tax credit for buying new electric cars? How many poor people are buying new electric cars?

as always, it’s ok when liberals do anything, such as giving. big tax credits to the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The data doesn’t match you fantasy Jim school choice is a red herring being presented as a benefit for inner city blacks . But is aimed a sending white kids to religious schools and having the government pay most of the bill ..
But keep saying it’s about poor people

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

correct. that is exactly what it is.

Future "segregation academies"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

correct. that is exactly what it is.

Future "segregation academies"

I support school choice with strict income caps. Especially in inner cities where schools are the worst. So please explain how that's aimed at sending white kids to better schools. I'm all ears.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud.

.

you didn't even have to put words in their mouth like they frequently do with you...

we've learned that he doesn't believe other people are nearly as charitable as they claim and that he believes he is even more charitable than he claims....

and...

that some children should not benefit from a better education opportunity unless he get's his private country club membership subsidized....

fabulous....

and Wayne is saving the planet with an electric toaster....


can't make this stuff up....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

See you cannot help yourself. No wonder you are an angry person with no friends on this site.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you are an angry person with no friends on this site.

when all else fails

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

when all else fails

Paul: My side has better views on helping the poor and Republicans don't care about poor people.

Jim: you claim your side is the virtuous side

Paul: You're angry and scummy.

And try to control your snarkiness Scott, liberals really don't like it when their logic is exposed to the light of day.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

See you cannot help yourself. No wonder you are an angry person with no friends on this site.

You are incredible Paul. It was you, not me, who said you like your side because you think they have superior views on helping the poor, and that republicans don't like poor people or something. But when I remind you what you said, I'm angry. Make sense.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul: My side has better views on helping the poor and Republicans don't care about poor people.

Jim: you claim your side is the virtuous side

Paul: You're angry and scummy.

And try to control your snarkiness Scott, liberals really don't like it when their logic is exposed to the light of day.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

You don't even recognize when you insult people any more

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

Originally Posted by PaulS

You don't even recognize when you insult people any more

that's an insult?