Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16574)	7/3/2002 3:47:12 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

if people were actually handed checks. Checks? WHo said checks? The word is "vouchers". You can't them down to the Mercedes dealer; only a school can get $$$ for them. Having a library down on Main Street for your use is not the same as getting a check from the government to read twenty books a year. Wrong analogy. You already have a library, but you're not required to read 20 books a year. You ARE required to put your kids in school. The other thing money changing hands does is make the discrepancies in amounts more conspicuous. People are more likely to be proud that their school system does what it does for $2K/student less than the town down the road. But if they get a check for $2K less, they dynamics change. And who said it has to be less? Here in CA school taxes go to the STATE gov't. They are then returned to the school districts, with each pupil registered getting the same amount. With processing expenses deducted, of course. So a district serving Watts gets the same amount per pupil as one serving Atherton (houses there start about $2M.) And when the dynamics change, costs go up. Always? Prove it. And that is an argument against ANY change. Certainly by any govermental entity. So I guess the liberals can forget all these goodies they want the gov't to give them. Parents want a bigger voucher and the other taxpayers resist. You didn't notice that war already exists? Next thing you know there are lawsuits and regulations and voucher values go up just as there was a movement to equalize welfare payments from state to state. See that bit above about dividing on a per-pupil basis. State to state? Federal Aid To Education already exists, It was one of the factors that drove costs up in the first place. And we can always tell the feds to a long walk off a short pier. But even given NATIONAL level vouches: Is that supposed to be an argument against? Are you advocating discrimination on a state-by-state basis? And you want to build a new system with all the problems of the old one because...? Oh, I'm not admitting you're going to the same problems as badly. I doubt it. I'm just pointing out that EVERY OBJECTION to vouchers already exists as a full-blown problem in the current system. Let's face it: The current system exists to serve the teachers and education bureaucrats and their unions. And the public be damned. Maybe the new one won't have the problems "in spades." How much mitigation of the problems do we need for it to be worth building a whole new system rather than fix the one we have? Do you really go out and buy a new air handler for your house when the ducts get dirty and the thermostat breaks? How "broke" does "broke" have to be before you throw it away? And welfare recipients started shopping states, etc., etc. This is an objection? I thought that was their right.