Mon 29 Oct 2007
It’s been a while since anything has torked me enough for me to take the time and write up my thoughts on the matter. Dammit they torked me.
I recieved in the mail Saturday a mailing encouraging people to vote in favor of school vouchers. The logic behind their claims was that parents should be given the opportunity to decide where their children attend schools. From my understading there is nothing currently legislated that restricts parents from matriculating their children in private schools. Parents already can choose as to where their kids go, they just don’t recieve governmental help to do it.
I guess the other argument in favor of vouchers is that somehow by allowing parents to use taxpayers dollars to pay for private eduacation schools will be forced to compete with each other for funding and therefore all schools will get better. Unfortunately, that is not how it works. I can speak from experience. As you all know I lived in Chile for an extended bit. There school system is almost entirely privatized. And yes, schools compete to get students to enroll. What this really does is allow those who can pay to give their children a superior education while the regular Jose who tries to make a living struggles to get his children into school. Then when kids graduate and head off to Universities or work, they are followed by where they went to school. Those who had money and were able to attend better schools are guaranteed the places in the best Universities and are always hired in front of the others keeping the poor, well poor.
Privatizing the education system in any way is a bad idea. It is a step towards concreting the class struggle that had disappeared but is slowly reappearing since the Reagan years. If we want to keep the American dream of being able to improve one’s social and economic status we cannot allow the wealthy to take money away from children who would be stuck in the same schools with less money.
And that is all there is to it.
Peace. Love. and Revolution.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
With all of the anarchy on this website I would think that you would be a little more supportive of someone that wants to take a partial credit of the taxes they’ve paid and break out of the conformity of a mediocre education. There are many people who would choose a private school for their kids but cannot afford to pay twice for their kids education, once through taxes and again through tuition. Lets not hold everyone down to the lowest common denominator just to be fair. Let more people make their own choice and we will all be better off for it. I voted for vouchers because it’s the right thing to do. You helped provide the extra motivation for me, thanks!
Also, using the class envy card is getting to be a pretty old ploy anymore. It’s all the rich people’s fault etc. You should try something new!
Sincerely,
Ron
October 30th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
You know as someone who goes by Ronald Reagan your response is nothing surprising.
First, I think you are the only one who has class envy. You want to send your kids to the private schools like the rich folk but can’t afford to do it so you need the government to subsidize your lifestyle choice.
Second, You’ve obviously done no research of how these systems have worked elsewhere, when they have been implemented. The only ones who benefit are those who already have money, those who can’t afford to go to private schools are glued into their socioeconomic status.
Third, I don’t have children so by your logic I should receive my taxes in return. I, however, don’t have a problem paying for taxes that do benefit society. There is not one person living in this country who has not benefited from the public education system, whether they have children, have attended public schools or reaps the benefits of an educated populace. If we want to revamp the schools maybe we should divert our tax revenue from things that are not helping this world like the war department, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking money from the poor and giving it back to the wealthy.
Fourth, I highly doubt my website was of any motivation for you to vote or not vote on this issue. You were obviously searching for anything related to this topic and found my post, but thanks for boosting my ego that I might break you out of your complacency and actually try to do what you think is right.
Fifth, the argument of the rich against the poor will only be old when the rich stop trying to pass legislation that further funnels money from the poor upwards to the wealthy. Tough break but until we rebuild everything that Reagonomics destroyed the middle class will continue to disappear and the class separation will become even more of an argument.
Peace.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Bro, I’m gonna have to go ahead and agree with you. I don’t see the logic behind diverting taxes AWAY from public schools. How is that going to help the public education system? If you want the education system to improve, you need to INCREASE the funding going to these schools. We need to increase the pay for teachers, increase the funding per student for every school. That will be highly unlikely if taxes are even further diverted from public schools into vouchers for private schools. And as far as class goes, vouchers WILL increase the separation between the upper class and the middle class. I wonder if people realize you have to qualify for a voucher, so if you’re middle class you’re probably going to be too poor to afford a private school but too rich too qualify for a voucher. Therefore, your kid is stuck in a private school with drastically falling standards due to a serious decrease in funding. If you are in the lower class, you will most likely qualify for the voucher but it probably won’t be enough to cover the tuition at a private school, so you’re also stuck at a school in a substandard education system. Personally, I think that sounds like a bad idea. But that’s just me.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:43 am
I used the screen name of R.R. because of your obvious disdain for the greatest President of the century, but I dont think you got it. Oh well, I tried.
First, you know nothing about, whether I have kids or not but you may assume whatever you like.
Second, you are stuck in your own propaganda. Giving a family a voucher lowers the income threshold at which a family can afford to send a child to a school of their choice, thereby narrowing the priviledge gap between rich and poor.
Third, I dont think that you should get any of your tax money back. The lowest income groups (who demand the most in government servces by the way) already do not pay their fair share. They are always trying to shift the tax burden to those lucky “rich people.” By the way, the governments first responsibility is the security of our nation. Everything else is secondary, including education. But, education is also important as is choice. Let’s allow more people to choose a better education for “their kids”, not just be stuck with the status quo which is unacceptable. Why are you so afraid of increasing personal choice?
Fourth, wrong again! Your narrow view has emphasized the need for me to encourage my friends and family to think before they vote on this important issue.
Fifth, same old story, the current trends in government are towards shifting the tax burden ever more towards the rich. Early in Bush’s term he was able to lower capitol gains taxes which (oh my gosh) increased tax revenues dramatically. With all of the evil Bush tax cuts government revenue has never been higher! The current plan circulating through Congress to roll back the Capitol Gains tax cut has been estimated by the GAO that it will reduce tax revenues by $45 billion dollars. What a great solution!
So far you have been wrong on all 5 points but let me help you some more.
Sixth, both you and the world have enjoyed the benefits of the Reagan presidency. Germany has been re-unified, eastern Europe is mostly free, the Reagan tax cuts have created prosperity that has lasted a generation, benefitting even yourself.
Seven, your defintion a anarchy seems a bit selective.
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
You seem to want people rich and poor alike to be forced to attend the mediocre public school system. It may be disorderly for people not to want to comply or to be enabled to choose another way, but to be forced to comply with governmental policy (or control) in education seems contradictory to your positions otherwise.
Okay, the score is in, 7 to 0 and you lose. Reagan won, Bush won, get over it!!!
Peace Bro!
October 31st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Yes, Ronald I got your screen name, and no he wasn’t the best president he was the beginning of the worst era in U.S. history.
Let’s start with a your definition of Anarchy because you obviously choose to impose yours on me even though you are obviously a poor republican sap that has trouble thinking outside of economic terms. I see Anarchy as the next step after true democracy when people are allowed to choose and therefore choose to help all those involved not just themselves. It is an evolution of society towards responsibility and freedom. Unfortunately there are too many people like yourself who think only of what will benefit their pocket book for this to take place. It is apparent to me that with an argument of this sort anarchy is farther off than I thought.
Now, you are missing the biggest point of my argument, I have seen first hand how vouchers work within an organized society. They create enormous gaps between who can get a descent education and who is stuck with a medocre education. Vouchers widen the gap.
Now your third argument, I shouldn’t get my tax money back even though I use no government funded programs past those that everyone is required to use such as roads, infrastructure, etc. According to your logic, I should receive nothing back but if someone has a child they should receive a portion to help pay for their child’s education. An education that is already available through the public system, whether mediocre or not, it is being provided. I think this seems counter-intuitive that someone should receive tax money back if they are planning on using the money for education but I on the other hand should get nothing back because I use nothing.
Now your sixth argument again makes it painfully apparent that you are so stuck within republican and American propaganda that you are only able to focus on the few things we took credit for. During those same years government oppression increased seven fold in other countries and our great president Bush the 2nd has brought us back to the brink of nuclear war all in the name of protecting a nation that has nothing to fear. He has also undermined the one and only democratic world organization claiming that the U.S. has every right to act unilaterally even when the outcome affects every other nation in the world. The privatization of industry after industry has boosted the upper class and kicked the lower in the balls. Every bill passed has been to further the interests of big business which is the biggest reason that vouchers are such a bad idea. Privatizing education removes the public’s ability to analyze and enforce regulations. You may claim that privatization has the opposite affect but one must look no farther than the local Wal Mart to see where the idea of free trade and competition will get you, the lowest cost at the highest price.
Next, I would feel safer if we stopped spending all of our tax dollars for the next ten generations on a war that benefits me in no way and instead spent it on actually improving ours as well as everyone else’s lives.
You are right on a couple of things Reagon did win and we, the people lost, Bush one and the entire world lost but you still haven’t made a valid point.
Peace. and until I know who you are you can’t be my bro.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:00 am
I know it is of no use to try and reason with someone who has “drunk the Kool Aid” so to speak. But I thought your POV on vouchers needed a rebuttal. Also, you cannot redefine anarchy to your current preference, it is what it is. I would define it as disagreeable disobedience to no productive ends. You may think of it as some convenient umbrella to shade a very leftist point of view but it is what it is, not what you call it. The definition is many centuries old which predates both of us I am sure. The one I provided is from dictionary.com. If it does not meet your specifications then I suggest you select another umbrella that is more accurate to your position.
I know that you think Bush and the Republicans are war mongers and you do have 2 wars in Iraq to support that idea, but these are small skirmishes compared to prior history.
Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, led us into World War 1 in 1914.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat, led us into World War 2 in 1941.
Harry S. Truman, Democrat, led us into the Korean War in 1950.
Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, led us into Vietnam in the mid 1960’s (the date is variable depending on what you count as the end of the police action and the start of the war).
Now those are real wars! Many millions of people died on a scale that we cannot comprehend.
By contrast, Eisenhower, Republican, ended the Korean War.
Nixon (I know you hate him too) ended the Vietnam War.
Ronald Reagan, Republican, ended the Cold War in Europe with virtually no casualties!
History does not seem to agree with your idea of Republicans wanting to lead us to war. As a matter of fact history seems to contradict it. Perhaps you should just redefine warmonger to suit your agenda.
I believe that fighting the small wars helps to prevent the big ones. Human nature is based in conflict, we are demonstrating that here. That will not change. If we were having this discussion face to face you might want to slug me, that is human nature. It is also human nature to disagree about the best course for our future. It is one of our anarchist tendencies, to disagree with what we see as wrong. I think that here, I am more of the anarchist because I want to change the status quo, which is no vouchers. You on the other hand want to preserve forced mediocrity in our public shools for all but the most wealthy who can always do what they want. That seems overbearing to me. The public schools are failing, period. Lets find a better way. If we can only help a small number of kids excel at first well then thats a start, we can build on that later. But you must break out of the current stagnation somehow. The students are paying the price right now and thats not fair.
You have probably met me already and most of your assumptions stated above are wrong. If I showed up at Church Rocks on my full suspension MTB and we met you would probably say COOL! We would talk and you would think I was alright. But I would still shred the lower singletrack back to my car, drive home and vote for vouchers.
Peace Bro!
November 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
You seem quite content on using a definition of anarchy put down by the very system that anarchy opposes. You claim that the definition is centuries old. I’m assuming but based on your definition you have no clue as to what the anarchist struggle entails nor where it’s major struggles and victories have been. If you follow the first link on the right of the home page you will be thrown into a world you probably had no idea existed, that of the anarchist struggle. If you care to find out what anarchy really is and to leave your preconceived ideas behind then check it out, it’s at least worth educating yourself on.
You also make a lot of horrible assumptions about me. First you insinuate that I am a substance abuser, I am not. Second, you believe that I have violent tendencies and that every human has those tendencies. You may be correct in your second assumption but the first stands as completely wrong, I would not want to slug you nor would I. I happen to enjoy the open debate of ideas in a civilized forum. It is the idea that a certain idea is absolutely right that gets us into wars and police actions. And to finish off your list of assumptions you indicate your belief that I think Democrats are better than Republicans, to be honest I see little difference between the two. Unfortunately, the Republicans tend to be more honest in their intents to screw the majority of the population while the Democrats claim to represent that part being screwed and then screw them anyways. I am neither Republican nor Democrat nor affiliate or approve what either are doing, I’m an anarchist remember. Further, I will not numerate as I have dozens of times the many struggles where a democratically elected government was overthrown in the name of economic progress by our own country.
On your last point you are definitely right, if I saw you at Church Rock I would say hi, and think you were cool for riding because that’s what I do. I am not so shallow as to believe that everyone agrees with what I feel or espouse as right, many of the people I love and ride with disagree with me on everything except that they like to ride bikes and that’s enough.
As far as the Vouchers go, I’ve stated my position, I’ve seen what happens when these ideas are applied to real life. The only thing left to clarify is that I am not removing choice from anyone. Every parent has the right to send their child to a private school, I am in no way eliminating that choice. If you can’t afford to send your kid to private school and it’s important to you maybe you should re-prioritize your life, maybe sell a car, get a smaller house, have less stuff and send them on to the education that you think is best. What you are failing to realize is that by subsidizing private schools through vouchers you are further deepening the inability of the less fortunate to obtain a descent education. That is not only unfair it is removing choice from the equation. There are lots of better ways to improve our current system without giving the keeping anybody down.
Peace.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 am
Well, I’m not as eloquent as you guys (or long winded) but Ronald Reagan was a puppet, George Bush is a puppet, and most conservative republicans are sheep. so BAAAA BAAAA BAAAAA . Let’s all do the Republican war chant. “Long live the Chaney and the oil companys” Ok, I have to go puke now……………PEACE
November 4th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Neetrith, you forgot the rest of the standard talking points. Also, you should learn to spell.
Why are so many people afraid of trying vouchers in this country. Are they afraid that they may actually improve the quality of education? Why are teachers unions so opposed? Will their postions be weakened if kids do better. Why is there so much money from East Coast lobbying groups involved in a Utah State education initiative? If vouchers are such a bad idea then lets prove it by actually giving it a try. That should settle all arguments right! But… if they work, then what? We should keep an open mind and try something new if what we have been doing for so many years in education is not working.
Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:34 am
–>”Are they afraid that they may actually improve the quality of education?”<--
Nice trap. Yeah, that's what we are afraid of. *sarcasm*
-->“If vouchers are such a bad idea then lets prove it by actually giving it a try.”<--
That's a failing argument (an idea is a good idea until proven otherwise). According to the Deseret News (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695224430,00.html) the pro-voucher lobby just isn’t convincing Utah voters.
Another definition of insanity: Insanity is the second album from melodic death metal band Darkane. It was released on March 6, 2001. (Just as relevant to the argument as your definition )
November 5th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Yeah, I don’t spell so good cause I was home schooled by my polygamist mothers……………………….Hey, by the way Ronnie, You spelled Position wrong.