Big Gov't vs. Small Gov't

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

[QUOTE="alexmurray"]Anyway we need bigger government, and universal health careferrari2001

no we dont.

yea I never got peoples facination with Universal Health Care, Wait months even years for Surjury, All hospitals are overflowed so even for major injuries you have to wait and could die before they got you in. You have to plan things like check ups months in advanced. I'm sorry I'm happy with the current system.. I'd be all for the Gov't subsidizing Insurance companies though, it's alot cheaper..

seems like canada is pretty okay with our system too considering how many of them come here.

actually it seems like most of the world who has this system secrelty likes our system. i mean how many times do they need to have THEIR elite come HERE for help?

that being said our system isnt perfect, but were better than most

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

The problem with public education right now is that the money isn't attached to the student. This means that there's very little competition between schools. Teachers who are actually good at what they do and do their job are held back by the teachers who don't. The teacher union is also ruining education. It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

It's a socialist system right now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

H8sMikeMoore

What is the alternative?

vouchers

The logistical problem there is that vouchers don't cover the full cost of sending a student to school.

Facilities such as new schools can't be built with vouchers. Those large chunks of money come from local government property taxes / bonding for the most part. If schools were not managed by the local governments, for their own local schools any school related taxes would be toast (voted down, removed by those in the government) as nobody is going to want to vote up their taxes to pay for a for profit private system and that would kill the funding source for the vouchers.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

[QUOTE="alexmurray"]Anyway we need bigger government, and universal health careferrari2001

no we dont.

yea I never got peoples facination with Universal Health Care, Wait months even years for Surjury, All hospitals are overflowed so even for major injuries you have to wait and could die before they got you in. You have to plan things like check ups months in advanced. I'm sorry I'm happy with the current system.. I'd be all for the Gov't subsidizing Insurance companies though, it's alot cheaper..

That's not necessarily a problem with universal healthcare.

A smaller government, please.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

The problem with public education right now is that the money isn't attached to the student. This means that there's very little competition between schools. Teachers who are actually good at what they do and do their job are held back by the teachers who don't. The teacher union is also ruining education. It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

It's a socialist system right now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

duxup

What is the alternative?

vouchers

The logistical problem there is that vouchers don't cover the full cost of sending a student to school.

Facilities such as new schools can't be built with vouchers. Those large chunks of money come from local government property taxes / bonding for the most part. If schools were not managed by the local governments, for their own local schools any school related taxes would be toast (voted down, removed by those in the government) as nobody is going to want to vote up their taxes to pay for a for profit private system and that would kill the funding source for the vouchers.

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to build a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

H8sMikeMoore

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

duxup

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

Oh I see what you mean.

no people would definitely pay taxes for kids to goto school. I mean I could say "people wouldnt want to pay taxes for one of the worst schooling systems in the world" but they do. attatching the money to their kid canONLY benefit education because t he schools need to compete.

I found a great site for Socialized Health Care.. Yea it's not working.. No I'm not starting an argument I just wanted to post these so people can become educated about health care.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

The problem with public education right now is that the money isn't attached to the student. This means that there's very little competition between schools. Teachers who are actually good at what they do and do their job are held back by the teachers who don't. The teacher union is also ruining education. It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

It's a socialist system right now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

duxup

What is the alternative?

We can start by attatching the money to the student (I thought it was pretty obvious from what I stated in my previous post).

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.H8sMikeMoore

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

we already have crappy watered down education.

if you compete you have to make your customers happy. the government dosent care either way. ever goto the dmv? imagine how much better the dmv would be if it were private and just f illed out the liscense forms for you and SERVED you

Exactly. The government is good at very few things. The private sector does almost everything better and more efficient.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

H8sMikeMoore

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

Oh I see what you mean.

no people would definitely pay taxes for kids to goto school. I mean I could say "people wouldnt want to pay taxes for one of the worst schooling systems in the world" but they do. attatching the money to their kid canONLY benefit education because t he schools need to compete.

You'd have to restructure how you collect those taxes. If it isn't going to a LOCAL school, people are going to be A LOT less interested in bonding or such taxes. As it is taxes that go to eduction are collected in varying amounts everywhere. If you just hand that dollar amount to vouchers you're going to have those vouchers deprecate fast as the funding drops out from under them.

That doesn't even address the complicated university system...

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

duxup

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

Oh I see what you mean.

no people would definitely pay taxes for kids to goto school. I mean I could say "people wouldnt want to pay taxes for one of the worst schooling systems in the world" but they do. attatching the money to their kid canONLY benefit education because t he schools need to compete.

You'd have to restructure how you collect those taxes. If it isn't going to a LOCAL school, people are going to be A LOT less interested in bonding or such taxes. As it is taxes that go to eduction are collected in varying amounts everywhere. If you just hand that dollar amount to vouchers you're going to have those vouchers deprecate fast as the funding drops out from under them.

That doesn't even address the complicated university system...

thats fine if it needs a restructure. its just going to everyone. so i dont see why people would magically not be for it.

if we used the same amount of tax money we use today for schools and just attatched it to kids i dont see how it would be a bad thing or how it would depreciate.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

H8sMikeMoore

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

Oh I see what you mean.

no people would definitely pay taxes for kids to goto school. I mean I could say "people wouldnt want to pay taxes for one of the worst schooling systems in the world" but they do. attatching the money to their kid canONLY benefit education because t he schools need to compete.

You'd have to restructure how you collect those taxes. If it isn't going to a LOCAL school, people are going to be A LOT less interested in bonding or such taxes. As it is taxes that go to eduction are collected in varying amounts everywhere. If you just hand that dollar amount to vouchers you're going to have those vouchers deprecate fast as the funding drops out from under them.

That doesn't even address the complicated university system...

thats fine if it needs a restructure. its just going to everyone. so i dont see why people would magically not be for it.

if we used the same amount of tax money we use today for schools and just attatched it to kids i dont see how it would be a bad thing or how it would depreciate.

It would depreciate because people wouldn't vote for the taxes / bonding anymore in the same rate they do now. As it is local government controls the schools and so when they ask the taxpayer to pay more it goes to the local school, their school. People will pay for that (well not most of the time). That attachment that the taxes go directly to improve THEIR school(s) is how those taxes get passed. Not for something that just goes to some private company. When it is just more money for some private company taken out of their pocket... you bet people are going to be less interested in paying.

Also funding is different in nearly every school district, so you'd have more valuable students than others. What students do you think the private schools will accept and who do you think they'll turn down?

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.lilburtonboy748

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

it's not scary...private schools have much higher ACT scores

That's a serious argument? The scores are higher because private schools can just not accept students they don't want. You look at the demographics of private schools and public and you've got very different groups. Of course they score higher, look at the parents education, the money, the teacher to student ratio. You make a private school deal with ALL students and see how they do :P

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.duxup

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

it's not scary...private schools have much higher ACT scores

That's a serious argument? The scores are higher because private schools can just not accept students they don't want. You look at the demographics of private schools and public and you've got very different groups. Of course they score higher, look at the parents education, the money, the teacher to student ratio. You make a private school deal with ALL students and see how they do :P

I go to a private school and we accept everyone who meets school standards and wants in. You don't have to be rich either. School is basically free for tuition at least, and we have 4 points higher on ACT tests and our cities private schools.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

vouchers wouldnt pay for schools to be built. that was never part of the plan. we already have enough buildings for schools anyway. But even if someone HAD to built a new school from scratch why couldnt the persuit for money be the reason its built? I mean business owners build buildings all the time, I cant logically figure out why that would be any different for school.

removing all those taxes would be a good thing. the school needs to compete if it dosent it closes and youre able to goto any school you want to.

I dont see how thats bad. I also like the idea of specialized schooling. The government isnt giving you that. Hell theyre barely giving us education in the first place

duxup

Removing all those taxes would mean the vouchers would be worthless. Vouchers don't just get their value out of thin air.

Oh I see what you mean.

no people would definitely pay taxes for kids to goto school. I mean I could say "people wouldnt want to pay taxes for one of the worst schooling systems in the world" but they do. attatching the money to their kid canONLY benefit education because t he schools need to compete.

You'd have to restructure how you collect those taxes. If it isn't going to a LOCAL school, people are going to be A LOT less interested in bonding or such taxes. As it is taxes that go to eduction are collected in varying amounts everywhere. If you just hand that dollar amount to vouchers you're going to have those vouchers deprecate fast as the funding drops out from under them.

That doesn't even address the complicated university system...

thats fine if it needs a restructure. its just going to everyone. so i dont see why people would magically not be for it.

if we used the same amount of tax money we use today for schools and just attatched it to kids i dont see how it would be a bad thing or how it would depreciate.

It would depreciate because people wouldn't vote for the taxes / bonding anymore in the same rate they do now. As it is local government controls the schools and so when they ask the taxpayer to pay more it goes to the local school, their school. People will pay for that (well not most of the time). That attachment that the taxes go directly to improve THEIR school(s) is how those taxes get passed. Not for something that just goes to some private company. When it is just more money for some private company taken out of their pocket... you bet people are going to be less interested in paying.

Also funding is different in nearly every school district, so you'd have more valuable students than others. What students do you think the private schools will accept and who do you think they'll turn down?

this dosent make any sense. how do you know people would out of nowhere vote to not pay the taxes? especially if there kid is getting better education? i dont want the money to goto a school. i want it to goto the people so they can goto any school. the fact that kids have to goto "their" school is why americas education is a joke. what you outlined is specifically why we need to get rid of this system.

nothing is improving our schools. only competition can do that. we already have taxes that goto private companies (mostly military)

I dont see why people would be less interested in paying when theyll clearly get better education. all the voucher system does is ensure everyone has money to pay for private schools.

funding would be the same under this system. the school wants enrollment, so theyll try and get kids into their schools. pretty simple. yeah you would have more valuable students, just like you do now. the benefit is that someone might try to capitalize off this and make a school for kids who have special needs. thats whats great about capitalism, is that it works unlike government monopolies.

i see no flaws.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.ferrari2001

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

it's not scary...private schools have much higher ACT scores

That's a serious argument? The scores are higher because private schools can just not accept students they don't want. You look at the demographics of private schools and public and you've got very different groups. Of course they score higher, look at the parents education, the money, the teacher to student ratio. You make a private school deal with ALL students and see how they do :P

I go to a private school and we accept everyone who meets school standards and wants in. You don't have to be rich either. School is basically free for tuition at least, and we have 4 points higher on ACT tests and our cities private schools.

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.ferrari2001

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

it's not scary...private schools have much higher ACT scores

That's a serious argument? The scores are higher because private schools can just not accept students they don't want. You look at the demographics of private schools and public and you've got very different groups. Of course they score higher, look at the parents education, the money, the teacher to student ratio. You make a private school deal with ALL students and see how they do :P

I go to a private school and we accept everyone who meets school standards and wants in. You don't have to be rich either. School is basically free for tuition at least, and we have 4 points higher on ACT tests and our cities private schools.

Most private schools are not so generous. Most cost money, and their student's backgrounds provide an advantage. THus the higher scores. Comparing those scores as if that is what you would get with privatizing all schools doesn't pass the sniff test.

And even such schools as yours still have the advantage of simply removing problem students. The public school system can remove them, but just to another school.

To be clear I'm not saying the public system is the only alternative, just that "make it private" involves a lot of compromises, that result in a system... a lot like the current system if you're still going to educate everyone.

BTW who pay's for your private school? (just curious)

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

H8sMikeMoore

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

duxup

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

no, they look at your financial records.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I think the government should primarily consist of a defense-based military, fire, police, and disability. Let the free market take care of most of the rest. All people should be able to act in any manner they so choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another person.duxup

AN interesting idea, but if all education was privatized, what's to prevent corporate sponsors from influencing curriculums? As far as I see, you'd end up with a lot of really crappy watered down schools, and a few elite specialized schools where kids are sent at a young age to be something specific.

I mean, it'd be good if you want a country with no middle class. At least, that's my take on it, but I don't really have anything to support these theories so...

But still. Privatizing all education? That's scary.

it's not scary...private schools have much higher ACT scores

That's a serious argument? The scores are higher because private schools can just not accept students they don't want. You look at the demographics of private schools and public and you've got very different groups. Of course they score higher, look at the parents education, the money, the teacher to student ratio. You make a private school deal with ALL students and see how they do :P

I go to a private school and we accept everyone who meets school standards and wants in. You don't have to be rich either. School is basically free for tuition at least, and we have 4 points higher on ACT tests and our cities private schools.

Most private schools are not so generous. Most cost money, and their student's backgrounds provide an advantage. THus the higher scores. Comparing those scores as if that is what you would get with privatizing all schools doesn't pass the sniff test.

And even such schools as yours still have the advantage of simply removing problem students. The public school system can remove them, but just to another school.

To be clear I'm not saying the public system is the only alternative, just that "make it private" involves a lot of compromises, that result in a system... a lot like the current system if you're still going to educate everyone.

BTW who pay's for your private school? (just curious)

The catholic Diocess of Wichita Pays for Schooling, It's all based on Stewardship, or donations. We are the only diocess that's implemented this way in the United States, but it's trying to be put together in many diocess. It works very well.

And I think we have Higher ACT scores because we have an ACT/SAT Curiculum, We study things that colleges look for not what the state wants us to study. This is a much better method. So all schools need to do is change the ciriculum for that joke Government one and base it around preparing students for college.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

H8sMikeMoore

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

no, they look at your financial records.

And I'm sure at some point they'd have to stop letting those who can't afford it or they'd go under. That still provides them an advantage over public schools. Public schools can't say no. My point being you're not going to get the performance of most current private schools, if you just privatize the existing public schools.

I'm not opposed to vouchers and such. I'd just like to see some sort of total privatization plan that has some meat to it beyond "hey private industry is always better, just privatize it!"

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

duxup

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

no, they look at your financial records.

And I'm sure at some point they'd have to stop letting those who can't afford it or they'd go under. That still provides them an advantage over public schools. Public schools can't say no. My point being you're not going to get the performance of most current private schools, if you just privatize the existing public schools.

I'm not opposed to vouchers and such. I'd just like to see some sort of total privatization plan that has some meat to it beyond "hey private industry is always better, just privatize it!"

of course they cant just let everyone in. and this has nothing to do with vouchers. this is based upon our current system. i was simply proving that private schools are some evil entity

yeah you are going to get private school performance out of public schools with vouchers. because if the schools dont perform then they close. if they want their jobs then they have to work hard.

you can youtube stupid in america, thats a nice documentary (not michael moore style) about this very thing. They bring up points that you can look at more in depth if you want to. Its legal too because 20/20 put it up for free.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

[QUOTE="alexmurray"]Anyway we need bigger government, and universal health careH8sMikeMoore

no we dont.

yea I never got peoples facination with Universal Health Care, Wait months even years for Surjury, All hospitals are overflowed so even for major injuries you have to wait and could die before they got you in. You have to plan things like check ups months in advanced. I'm sorry I'm happy with the current system.. I'd be all for the Gov't subsidizing Insurance companies though, it's alot cheaper..

seems like canada is pretty okay with our system too considering how many of them come here.

actually it seems like most of the world who has this system secrelty likes our system. i mean how many times do they need to have THEIR elite come HERE for help?

that being said our system isnt perfect, but were better than most

I am so very glad you pointed this out.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

H8sMikeMoore

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

no, they look at your financial records.

And I'm sure at some point they'd have to stop letting those who can't afford it or they'd go under. That still provides them an advantage over public schools. Public schools can't say no. My point being you're not going to get the performance of most current private schools, if you just privatize the existing public schools.

I'm not opposed to vouchers and such. I'd just like to see some sort of total privatization plan that has some meat to it beyond "hey private industry is always better, just privatize it!"

of course they cant just let everyone in. and this has nothing to do with vouchers. this is based upon our current system. i was simply proving that private schools are some evil entity

yeah you are going to get private school performance out of public schools with vouchers. because if the schools dont perform then they close. if they want their jobs then they have to work hard.

you can youtube stupid in america, thats a nice documentary (not michael moore style) about this very thing. They bring up points that you can look at more in depth if you want to. Its legal too because 20/20 put it up for free.

I think I made it clear why expecting the exact same peformance with differen't students is not likely, I think that's an obvious concept.

What happens when that is the only school in the area and it closes? You're going to have to mandate some sort of competition region by region so that there IS an alternative. Then what happens when these new private industries choose not to go into the less desirable areas because that is going to impact their overall scoring?

As it is most schools don't have large amounts of excess room, so if one closes, unless another private company just up and built extra room for the fun of it at extra cost there isn't going to be anyplace to go.

The catholic Diocess of Wichita Pays for Schooling, It's all based on Stewardship, or donations. We are the only diocess that's implemented this way in the United States, but it's trying to be put together in many diocess. It works very well.

And I think we have Higher ACT scores because we have an ACT/SAT Curiculum, We study things that colleges look for not what the state wants us to study. This is a much better method. So all schools need to do is change the ciriculum for that joke Government one and base it around preparing students for college.

ferrari2001

I went to a catholic private school as well, they had a sliding scale system there. We did well there but regardless such schools still have demographic advantages over other schools that perform poorly. It's not just the curriculum that results in high scores.

[QUOTE="Zcrimson07"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

[QUOTE="alexmurray"]Anyway we need bigger government, and universal health carealexmurray

What do you think the government should do about poverty. My worry is that there is no end to the control once universal health care hits. I myself, at least right now, am for a basic universal health care plan that would specifically be aimed towards children, (not a mandatory system) However, I am for some serious government reform in their poor spending habits before it takes place.

Yes we need to give aid to poorer people in the form of extra Food stamps, tax breaks and child aid

but we need proof that they need aid.

And look at other western nations with universal heath care, they don't have extremegovernment control

I have lived in other nations and it works, and if you don't like it, then buy health insurance

I have lived in Canada for a while and, yes, it does work, but only for the small procedures that you wouldn't need insurance for anyway. By putting things in the control of the government, who generally give pay that is far lower than what they would get in the private sector, you have fewer individuals willing to go through the training to become extremely skilled professionals, like surgeons, as it wouldn't be worth it. Thus, you have shortages when it comes to the most important procedures that you would want insurance for, like organ replacement, open heart surgery, etc., which caused, in my six months in Calgary, more than a few deaths due to lack of treatment.

I don't want the government impeding upon my life.

I believe it exists to protect it's citizens and perform major projects that aren't feasible for the public to do (ie roads, sewers, etc.).

It seems like to me that many politicians are trying to make the Federal government more powerful and weakening state governments.

Smaller than it is now.

Fewer taxes, more freedoms.

It should have a large military force, but one of strictly volunteer position(Unless there's a worldwide emergency, like WW2, where it's fight or die, no chance otherwise), and services for the people.

You don't need a huge government to give people benefits.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i actually went to a private school too and couldnt afford it and they just let me go for free. i wasnt very good at school at the time either.

its funny how people want socialism even if it means people suffer.

duxup

I'm sure they'd just let everyone in for free if they asked right?

no, they look at your financial records.

And I'm sure at some point they'd have to stop letting those who can't afford it or they'd go under. That still provides them an advantage over public schools. Public schools can't say no. My point being you're not going to get the performance of most current private schools, if you just privatize the existing public schools.

I'm not opposed to vouchers and such. I'd just like to see some sort of total privatization plan that has some meat to it beyond "hey private industry is always better, just privatize it!"

of course they cant just let everyone in. and this has nothing to do with vouchers. this is based upon our current system. i was simply proving that private schools are some evil entity

yeah you are going to get private school performance out of public schools with vouchers. because if the schools dont perform then they close. if they want their jobs then they have to work hard.

you can youtube stupid in america, thats a nice documentary (not michael moore style) about this very thing. They bring up points that you can look at more in depth if you want to. Its legal too because 20/20 put it up for free.

I think I made it clear why expecting the exact same peformance with differen't students is not likely, I think that's an obvious concept.

What happens when that is the only school in the area and it closes? You're going to have to mandate some sort of competition region by region so that there IS an alternative. Then what happens when these new private industries choose not to go into the less desirable areas because that is going to impact their overall scoring?

As it is most schools don't have large amounts of excess room, so if one closes, unless another private company just up and built extra room for the fun of it at extra cost there isn't going to be anyplace to go.

I dont think you made it clear at all. Were always going to have different students, so different students should goto the school that benefits them the most. Some kids might change their attitude, some might have to goto a special school. Its win win.

then kids goto a different school, and if theres a market for a school then chances are someone is going to open one to make money. its like asking "what if theres a shortage of internet suppliers?" i mean if the government controlled the internet and not school we would be having that discussion instead.

they wouldnt have to go anywhere they dont want to, infact kids can goto them. Also, theres always going to be a market for lower quality things. like, why does rouge continue to make guitars? Because theres a market for it. the voucher system might turn "less desirable areas" into good areas because the biggest problem in education today is no competition and the fact that schools dont have to care. With vouchers they do.

If youre going to say something along the lines of "why should they have to deal with less than high quality" then I would ask you why should kids have to deal with that now? Because they are. Why should kids be forced to stay in that low quality school? Because they are. At least with avoucher system the kid can choose to goto another school. With our system now, we cant. Choice is going to solve every problem. Schools with kids that have special needs will simply get creative to stay open. They might have to teach differently. Thats a good thing, assuming you want America to be educated.

as more kids start going to a school they might make more buildings or just expand the current building.

I dont think you made it clear at all. Were always going to have different students, so different students should goto the school that benefits them the most. Some kids might change their attitude, some might have to goto a special school. Its win win.

then kids goto a different school, and if theres a market for a school then chances are someone is going to open one to make money. its like asking "what if theres a shortage of internet suppliers?" i mean if the government controlled the internet and not school we would be having that discussion instead.

they wouldnt have to go anywhere they dont want to, infact kids can goto them. Also, theres always going to be a market for lower quality things. like, why does rouge continue to make guitars? Because theres a market for it. the voucher system might turn "less desirable areas" into good areas because the biggest problem in education today is no competition and the fact that schools dont have to care. With vouchers they do.

If youre going to say something along the lines of "why should they have to deal with less than high quality" then I would ask you why should kids have to deal with that now? Because they are. Why should kids be forced to stay in that low quality school? Because they are. At least with avoucher system the kid can choose to goto another school. With our system now, we cant. Choice is going to solve every problem. Schools with kids that have special needs will simply get creative to stay open. They might have to teach differently. Thats a good thing, assuming you want America to be educated.

as more kids start going to a school they might make more buildings or just expand the current building.

H8sMikeMoore

Companies close stores all the time. Replacements (if there are any) are not going to pop up overnight. Education can't just start and stop because some company decided to not focus on that region.

Assuming there are always going to be enough schools also implies every school is going to have space to absorb students from a competing school that may close, that's going to mean there will have to be more space in schools nationwide than we have now. That will cost more money. I don't think that will even be the case.

Private industry simply doesn't operate on the premise that it will what it has to to serve EVERY possible customer. Education however should be available to everyone.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

I dont think you made it clear at all. Were always going to have different students, so different students should goto the school that benefits them the most. Some kids might change their attitude, some might have to goto a special school. Its win win.

then kids goto a different school, and if theres a market for a school then chances are someone is going to open one to make money. its like asking "what if theres a shortage of internet suppliers?" i mean if the government controlled the internet and not school we would be having that discussion instead.

they wouldnt have to go anywhere they dont want to, infact kids can goto them. Also, theres always going to be a market for lower quality things. like, why does rouge continue to make guitars? Because theres a market for it. the voucher system might turn "less desirable areas" into good areas because the biggest problem in education today is no competition and the fact that schools dont have to care. With vouchers they do.

If youre going to say something along the lines of "why should they have to deal with less than high quality" then I would ask you why should kids have to deal with that now? Because they are. Why should kids be forced to stay in that low quality school? Because they are. At least with avoucher system the kid can choose to goto another school. With our system now, we cant. Choice is going to solve every problem. Schools with kids that have special needs will simply get creative to stay open. They might have to teach differently. Thats a good thing, assuming you want America to be educated.

as more kids start going to a school they might make more buildings or just expand the current building.

duxup

Companies close stores all the time. Replacements (if there are any) are not going to pop up overnight. Education can't just start and stop because some company decided to not focus on that region.

Assuming there are always going to be enough schools also implies every school is going to have space to absorb students from a competing school that may close, that's going to mean there will have to be more space in schools nationwide than we have now. That will cost more money. I don't think that will even be the case.

Private industry simply doesn't operate on the premise that it will what it has to to serve EVERY possible customer. Education however should be available to everyone.

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

H8sMikeMoore

People don't all have telephones because it is profitable. In fact it ISN'T profitable to serve everyone. Telephone companies don't serve rural and areas that need upgrades that cost more than the service out of greed. Same goes with power and utilities. They do so because that service is mandated by the government, same goes with the Internet even... If any fully private education system would exist it would still need to be overseen by, and to some extent have management rules regarding that service. Including mandates forcing them to serve some areas.

I'd be happy to see a detailed plan of a system large enough to phase out public schools, but i'm skeptical. I'm no fan of the public system either, but just "privatize it!" is not as simple as people make it out to be.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

duxup

People don't all have telephones because it is profitable. In fact it ISN'T profitable to serve everyone. Telephone companies don't serve rural and areas that need upgrades that cost more than the service out of greed. Same goes with power and utilities. They do so because that service is mandated by the government, same goes with the Internet even... If any fully private education system would exist it would still need to be overseen by, and to some extent have management rules regarding that service. Including mandates forcing them to serve some areas.

I'd be happy to see a detailed plan of a system large enough to phase out public schools, but i'm skeptical. I'm no fan of the public system either, but just "privatize it!" is not as simple as people make it out to be.

yes it is profitable to serve everyone. the more people you serve the more money you make.

everyone has telephone service. everyone has access to the internet. Just not the most advanced technology. but that wouldnt be a problem considering you dont need advanced technology for education. you can just use books really.

since people would have money attatched to them no matter where they live specifically for education it would make sense to build everywhere. The difference between that and typical business is that theyre not sure if people would buy into things in some areas. But since theres money specifically put away for education via tax dollars theres obviously a market everywhere for it.

i think the goverment should give us more rights and lower taxes, i'm pro-choice, pro gay rights and pro pretty much anything else including oil, the economy, electronics and i also think we should control ourselves fully (no EU) and people should be forced to work if they want money off the goverment for being unemployed (military, fixing roads ect)

i like a big goverment idea though made up of lots of expert advicers (not politicians) and then a small group at the top giving the go ahead and making the compremises

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

H8sMikeMoore

People don't all have telephones because it is profitable. In fact it ISN'T profitable to serve everyone. Telephone companies don't serve rural and areas that need upgrades that cost more than the service out of greed. Same goes with power and utilities. They do so because that service is mandated by the government, same goes with the Internet even... If any fully private education system would exist it would still need to be overseen by, and to some extent have management rules regarding that service. Including mandates forcing them to serve some areas.

I'd be happy to see a detailed plan of a system large enough to phase out public schools, but i'm skeptical. I'm no fan of the public system either, but just "privatize it!" is not as simple as people make it out to be.

yes it is profitable to serve everyone. the more people you serve the more money you make.

everyone has telephone service. everyone has access to the internet. Just not the most advanced technology. but that wouldnt be a problem considering you dont need advanced technology for education. you can just use books really.

since people would have money attatched to them no matter where they live specifically for education it would make sense to build everywhere. The difference between that and typical business is that theyre not sure if people would buy into things in some areas. But since theres money specifically put away for education via tax dollars theres obviously a market everywhere for it.

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

Smaller than it is now.

Fewer taxes, more freedoms.

It should have a large military force, but one of strictly volunteer position(Unless there's a worldwide emergency, like WW2, where it's fight or die, no chance otherwise), and services for the people.

You don't need a huge government to give people benefits.

-TheSecondSign-

A large military does cost money though so you'ld need taxes for that. Personally i think themilitary should be mainly defensive with a small elite forcearmed to the teath to operate offensively on specific targets, taking out saddam from the start for instance) then i'ld have the defensive force slightly too big so they could go and help the UN in peacekeeping and such.

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

The problem with public education right now is that the money isn't attached to the student. This means that there's very little competition between schools. Teachers who are actually good at what they do and do their job are held back by the teachers who don't. The teacher union is also ruining education. It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

It's a socialist system right now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

duxup

What is the alternative?

in the UK there's a budget atached to each student and you can look up the school league tables online, then if a school dosn't get enough students then it may have to fire teachers or close completely

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

The problem with public education right now is that the money isn't attached to the student. This means that there's very little competition between schools. Teachers who are actually good at what they do and do their job are held back by the teachers who don't. The teacher union is also ruining education. It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

It's a socialist system right now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

markop2003

What is the alternative?

in the UK there's a budget atached to each student and you can look up the school league tables online, then if a school dosn't get enough students then it may have to fire teachers or close completely

It is also done to some extent in the U.S. in many districts, but doing the same with private business is a different matter.

As far as I know UK is still government (local or larger) run, so large expenditures like building a school are still paid for outside the student per year funding. That's one of the catches to a private plan, how to get that money distributed to spend the large amounts of money you need to to grow now, in the future, and such.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

duxup

People don't all have telephones because it is profitable. In fact it ISN'T profitable to serve everyone. Telephone companies don't serve rural and areas that need upgrades that cost more than the service out of greed. Same goes with power and utilities. They do so because that service is mandated by the government, same goes with the Internet even... If any fully private education system would exist it would still need to be overseen by, and to some extent have management rules regarding that service. Including mandates forcing them to serve some areas.

I'd be happy to see a detailed plan of a system large enough to phase out public schools, but i'm skeptical. I'm no fan of the public system either, but just "privatize it!" is not as simple as people make it out to be.

yes it is profitable to serve everyone. the more people you serve the more money you make.

everyone has telephone service. everyone has access to the internet. Just not the most advanced technology. but that wouldnt be a problem considering you dont need advanced technology for education. you can just use books really.

since people would have money attatched to them no matter where they live specifically for education it would make sense to build everywhere. The difference between that and typical business is that theyre not sure if people would buy into things in some areas. But since theres money specifically put away for education via tax dollars theres obviously a market everywhere for it.

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

yeah they close all the time, and thats a good thing. they also open up all the time. thats also a good thing.

If you watched that video youll see that when they tried this in wyoming that even the bad schools got better. Everytime a school closes, or theres not enough room for them theres an opprotunity for some "evil greedy guy" to make money giving people what they want.

Private industry usually tries to serve every customer, just like a football team tries to score all the points. The beauty of it is that it cant, so theres competition. Education will be available to everyone, just like telephones right? That used to be controlled by the government. Would you have said the same thing then? The bottom line is, people want better education. You CANT reform a system thats been proven to not work. You NEED competition. Competition is what makes EVERYTHING in life better. With no competition, well have the garbage system we have now. I dont know of any reforms other than vouchers that could possibly work. But idle promises and idle ideas isnt solving anything. "It needs a reform... but not vouchers" okay whats your solution "I dont have anything, but I dont want vouchers" Why? "I dont want vouchers"

Ultimately what it comes down to is these people dont usually want business. This will not only help education immensely and put america back on top of education where it used to be, but it will help our economy by making a lot more jobs and making teaching a lot more competitive. Theres no downsides to this

duxup

People don't all have telephones because it is profitable. In fact it ISN'T profitable to serve everyone. Telephone companies don't serve rural and areas that need upgrades that cost more than the service out of greed. Same goes with power and utilities. They do so because that service is mandated by the government, same goes with the Internet even... If any fully private education system would exist it would still need to be overseen by, and to some extent have management rules regarding that service. Including mandates forcing them to serve some areas.

I'd be happy to see a detailed plan of a system large enough to phase out public schools, but i'm skeptical. I'm no fan of the public system either, but just "privatize it!" is not as simple as people make it out to be.

yes it is profitable to serve everyone. the more people you serve the more money you make.

everyone has telephone service. everyone has access to the internet. Just not the most advanced technology. but that wouldnt be a problem considering you dont need advanced technology for education. you can just use books really.

since people would have money attatched to them no matter where they live specifically for education it would make sense to build everywhere. The difference between that and typical business is that theyre not sure if people would buy into things in some areas. But since theres money specifically put away for education via tax dollars theres obviously a market everywhere for it.

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

Are we not talking about vouchers? With vouchers, the money is attatched to the student, making the schools compete. Everyone has to get an education, not everyone has to have a phone. That means everyone is either looking for a school to go to, or wants to be homeschooled. EVERYBODY has the money (voucher) for education. So to say no one would open a school in a rural area because they wouldn't get business doesn't make sense. It wouldn't be a big school, it would be small, but accomodate the number of kids that live in that area because they WANT their business. Every kid has the money attached to them for education, but every person doesn't have money attatched to them for phone service.

The bigger the government the bigger the problem. We only need a certain amount of people to do the work us regular people don't have time to do. It bothers me seeing a whole bunch of over paid suits telling us the economy is doing bad.

--

[QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

H8sMikeMoore

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

Public schools also suck in most places for not providing fair and even funding, but at least there IS service. That's one of the few hopes I have for voucher systems, but no large scale system will work without lots government oversight and management.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

duxup

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

"The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

If government takes over all aspects of our lives, then we become a socialist country, which in turn, takes away a lot of our freedoms. I don't want the government to make my decisions about my healthcare, money, or any other aspect of my life for me.

People need to stop expecting the government to take care of them. Seriously, when you subsidize poverty and failure, all you get is more of both, and our democracy will fail when more people want to take from their country than to give to their country. And we are fast approaching that point.

JFK said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." That statement sounds just like what McCain has been talking about. But now take a look at Obama and how his party has gone so far to the left. Instead of adhering to what JFK said, Obama and the far left are saying "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you." Obama is all for bigger government.

Now I agree we need government, but a limited one.