I found the debate embarrassing.
Palin just came across as an absolute idiot. I’m sure there were a lot of embarrassed Republicans out there.
she knows what dem dere americans be cravin. yer darn right!
I can’t believe she didn’t drop a ‘get er done’ in her drivel.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
<<< And I’m tired of hearing about hockey moms. No one plays hockey in America.
No one?
That seems to me an incorrect sweeping statement.
[/quote]
No it’s not. I’ve never met anyone that plays hockey, so I don’t believe they exist. You guys are making this up to screw with my head.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
malonetd wrote:
<<< And I’m tired of hearing about hockey moms. No one plays hockey in America.
Hey, watch yer mouth bub.
I can’t believe he didn’t grow up with hocky players in wisconsin. I’m friends with some, and know several others.[/quote]
Seriously, I never knew any growing up. Maybe because I grew up in the city where basketball is king. I don’t even think a single high school in Milwaukee has a hockey team.
I will admit, the first person I ever met that played recreational hockey was from Wisconsin. But I met him in California.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Again, fuck the poor kids. [/quote]
Asshole!
Was the double-entendre really necessary?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.
Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.
Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.
Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.[/quote]
Word, I can’t wait for some politician to say take less of your money a supposed to "giving " a tax break. I own my money as you said. I wish tyhe republicans would start to say take less of your money and drill in people’s heads that they own their property and the fruits of their labors as opposed to this creeping insidious as you said.
Good job Push.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
…Tyranny. The system that we have now empowers the state, not the individual…
One small snippet of proof that the constitution ratified in 1789 by the 13 States has been brutally and repeatedly raped into submission and now remains in a perpetual on-all-fours posture in front of the empowered state meekly awaiting another pounding.
The empowered state (federal) was absolutely dreaded by the founders, the author - Madison, the signers, and the individual states. IMO, all of them including Hamilton - an ardent Federalist, would have preferred life under the Articles of Confederation or King George over the hideous fat bastard child that our system has now become.
True. But then many of the founders felt that the greatest threat to our country was a central banking system. The Federal Reserve is just that, a non government agency which disguises itself as a federal branch.
They feared it rightfully so. Please tell me how they are non-government?
[/quote]
The Federal Reserve (central bank system) is not so much a governmental branch/entity; it OWNS the government. It lends the government it’s money at interest which basically gives it’s true owners a LOT of influence. These are the people pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Hopefully no one. Yet, what Jefferson feared has been allowed to happen. Woodrow Wilson said (upon signing the Federal Reserve Act):
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation therefore, and all our activities, are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world. No longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
dhickey keep in mind junior is still in school. He’s probably never made more than beer money in a week.
It hit me when I made my first real pay check and I noticed that a good deal of it was not there…
I’m not in school anymore. I make $160,000 a year base salary before bonus.
The fact that you would post this on a forum probably means you make half this at best. What does your salary say anyway. It doesn’t matter if you make 12k a year or 500k a year. You are 100% missing the point of a voucher system.
You don’t work for the teacher’s union do you?[/quote]
I could give two shits what you think I make. I only posted that to answer Mick’s post that I’m still in school and only have to worry about beer money. I don’t work for the teacher’s union.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.
Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.
Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.
Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.[/quote]
Yes, I get that part of it. Vouchers save parents money who can already afford to send their kids to private or parochial school. What they don’t do is actually help poor, struggling students whose parents have no other alternatives.
Where voucher programs have been implemented, most of these students have not been accepted. And many of the ones who have been cannot attend because the vouchers don’t cover the full cost of tuition and those parents can’t pay the difference.
So they stay in the shitty inner city schools or podunk country schools which are now even shittier. Additionally, there are problems because these struggle to handle the curriculum, and other students who are in these classes suffer as well.
If I want to send my kids to private school, I’ll appreciate avoiding the doubletax as much as the next guy. Sounds good. Seems right. Fundamentally fair. But that’s all vouchers do. They’re a money saver.
That’s it. Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway. Vouchers don’t make a difference for the people that actually need help. My kids will get a great education no matter what. That would be true if there was no federal funding for education.
I suspect it’s the same with your kids. Nice for me to pay less. I appreciate that. But most parents who couldn’t have afforded to give their kids a good education still can’t under a voucher system.
By contrast to public voucher systems which have been a disaster in Milwaukee, Florida, California, and Cleveland, private vouchers work very well. In Pittsburgh, there is a privately funded Extra Mile Foundation. It doesn’t use public tax money to pay for vouchers.
It uses private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools. Over 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches.
The program works with the private schools and sets up special support for the students to handle the curriculum, educates parents and works with them to set up a good home environment and support, and pushes these private schools to accept students. These students tend to excel.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.
Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.
Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.
Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.
Yes, I get that part of it. Vouchers save parents money who can already afford to send their kids to private or parochial school. What they don’t do is actually help poor, struggling students whose parents have no other alternatives.
Where voucher programs have been implemented, most of these students have not been accepted. And many of the ones who have been cannot attend because the vouchers don’t cover the full cost of tuition and those parents can’t pay the difference.
So they stay in the shitty inner city schools which are now even shittier. Additionally, there are problems because these struggle to handle the curriculum, and other students who are in these classes suffer as well.
If I want to send my kids to private school, I’ll appreciate avoiding the doubletax as much as the next guy. Sounds good. Seems right. Fundamentally fair. But that’s all vouchers do. They’re a money saver. That’s it.
Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway. Vouchers don’t make a difference for the people that actually need help. My kids will get a great education no matter what.
That would be true if there was no federal funding for education. I suspect it’s the same with your kids. Nice for me to pay less. I appreciate that. By contrast to public voucher systems which have been a disaster in Milwaukee, Florida, California, and Cleveland, private vouchers work very well.
In Pittsburgh, there is a privately funded Extra Mile Foundation. It doesn’t use public tax money to pay for vouchers. It uses private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools. Over 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches.
The program works with schols and sets up special support for the students to handle the curriculum and pushes these private schools to accept students. The students excel.[/quote]
Your posts would be much easier to read if you would break them down into paragraphs.
Surely, with all of your law schooling, you have been taught to write properly.
See how I am breaking my posts into smaller, easier to read paragraph-like blocks?
But on topic - you have no kids. You have paid no real taxes. Your opinion is pretty fucking worthless when it comes to education. Seriously - you are trying to sound like an expert on a subject with which you have absolutely zero experience.
Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.
Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.
Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.
Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.
Yes, I get that part of it. Vouchers save parents money who can already afford to send their kids to private or parochial school. What they don’t do is actually help poor, struggling students whose parents have no other alternatives.
Where voucher programs have been implemented, most of these students have not been accepted. And many of the ones who have been cannot attend because the vouchers don’t cover the full cost of tuition and those parents can’t pay the difference.
So they stay in the shitty inner city schools which are now even shittier. Additionally, there are problems because these struggle to handle the curriculum, and other students who are in these classes suffer as well.
If I want to send my kids to private school, I’ll appreciate avoiding the doubletax as much as the next guy. Sounds good. Seems right. Fundamentally fair. But that’s all vouchers do. They’re a money saver. That’s it.
Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway. Vouchers don’t make a difference for the people that actually need help. My kids will get a great education no matter what.
That would be true if there was no federal funding for education. I suspect it’s the same with your kids. Nice for me to pay less. I appreciate that. By contrast to public voucher systems which have been a disaster in Milwaukee, Florida, California, and Cleveland, private vouchers work very well.
In Pittsburgh, there is a privately funded Extra Mile Foundation. It doesn’t use public tax money to pay for vouchers. It uses private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools.
Over 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches. The program works with schols and sets up special support for the students to handle the curriculum and pushes these private schools to accept students. The students excel.
Your posts would be much easier to read if you would break them down into paragraphs.
Surely, with all of your law schooling, you have been taught to write properly.
See how I am breaking my posts into smaller, easier to read paragraph-like blocks?
But on topic - you have no kids. You have paid no real taxes. Your opinion is pretty fucking worthless when it comes to education. Seriously - you are trying to sound like an expert on a subject with which you have absolutely zero experience.
Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.
[/quote]
And yet you can’t dispute the substance of what I said. A public voucher system is a money saver. That’s very appealing. But the number of people who receive educational opportunities they could not otherwise have had a voucher system is infinitestimally small.
And education is a state issue, dummy. Over 90% of education is state and locally funded. These taxes you are complaining about are state and local taxes. The federal government’s involvement under a voucher system is by far the most intrusive proposal and federalizes education far more than anything else.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway…
Did you REALLY mean to type that?[/quote]
Show me I’m wrong. Show me all the evidence that people who couldn’t afford a good education get one under the voucher system. Most of the students who’ve benefited from vouchers come from families with decent (though not great) incomes.
Take Arizona, for example. In Arizona, almost 80% of students who received vouchers were ALREADY in private school and had parents making well over $100,000.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.
Don’t you remember his (or was it Malone’s?) post that dripped contempt all over the 10th Amendment and how antiquated it is?
[/quote]
Wasn’t me. I think education is and should be a predominantly local issue. Which is why a FEDERAL voucher program is totally inappropriate.
Like I said, the state ones have pretty much been failures though. Well, middle-class parents get some money back and avoid a double-tax. By that measure they’ve been a success. But only by that one measure.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.
Don’t you remember his (or was it Malone’s?) post that dripped contempt all over the 10th Amendment and how antiquated it is?
[/quote]
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/abortion_1?pageNo=8#2526502
If you’re referring to my post, I was hoping it was easily recognized sarcasm. I thought it oozed sarcasm.
I thought you would especially get it since we had the conversation before about the 10th. (Now, I’m thinking maybe it wasn’t you.)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.
Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.
Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.
Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.
Yes, I get that part of it. Vouchers save parents money who can already afford to send their kids to private or parochial school. What they don’t do is actually help poor, struggling students whose parents have no other alternatives.
Where voucher programs have been implemented, most of these students have not been accepted. And many of the ones who have been cannot attend because the vouchers don’t cover the full cost of tuition and those parents can’t pay the difference.
So they stay in the shitty inner city schools which are now even shittier. Additionally, there are problems because these struggle to handle the curriculum, and other students who are in these classes suffer as well.
If I want to send my kids to private school, I’ll appreciate avoiding the doubletax as much as the next guy. Sounds good. Seems right. Fundamentally fair. But that’s all vouchers do.
They’re a money saver. That’s it. Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway. Vouchers don’t make a difference for the people that actually need help. My kids will get a great education no matter what.
That would be true if there was no federal funding for education. I suspect it’s the same with your kids. Nice for me to pay less. I appreciate that. By contrast to public voucher systems which have been a disaster in Milwaukee, Florida, California, and Cleveland, private vouchers work very well.
In Pittsburgh, there is a privately funded Extra Mile Foundation. It doesn’t use public tax money to pay for vouchers. It uses private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools.
Over 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches. The program works with schols and sets up special support for the students to handle the curriculum and pushes these private schools to accept students. The students excel.
Your posts would be much easier to read if you would break them down into paragraphs.
Surely, with all of your law schooling, you have been taught to write properly.
See how I am breaking my posts into smaller, easier to read paragraph-like blocks?
But on topic - you have no kids. You have paid no real taxes. Your opinion is pretty fucking worthless when it comes to education. Seriously - you are trying to sound like an expert on a subject with which you have absolutely zero experience.
Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.
[/quote]
I don’t want to send my kids to private school or parochial school. When I have them, I plan to live in an area with great public schools, supported by high property and other taxes. This is exactly what my parents did. And what I plan to do.
Why should I pay high STATE and LOCAL taxes to support public schools I choose to send my kids to AND pay taxes to the FEDERAL governnment to support a federal voucher program so you can get money back because you choose to send your kids to private school?
Why should the rest of us who pay state and local taxes to support an educational system that BENEFITS us be forced to subsidize a program that predominantly gives a break to parents who prefer private school but can ALREADY afford to send their kids there?