>Why would vouchers close down most public schools? To my knowledge, no candidate in favor of them has said a public school couldn't take them.<
Public schools already have a large problem with funding. Currently, our school systems are funded on a per student basis. If vouchers were to be instituted as is proposed, state and local governments would have to take the whole "pie" as it were that is currently allocated to public schools and divide it over all the students in the locality/state. (The Federal government provides less than 10% of the funding for public schools. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_162.asp).
Now, in order to ensure that all the students are funded equally within a locality, either the state/local government will have to raise revenues to continue funding at the current per student
Not sure about that either. ALL European countries have some way of making sure that everyone has health coverage, but not all the systems are "socialized." Either way though, it does not amount to socialism.
I really think it would be easier to discuss if the misconception that any kind of universal health care, for example, is "socialism" was cleared up once and for all.
Another example was Obama's idea of making preschool universal. That is no more socialism than is having a public school system.
>>> It depends what side of those "cuts" you are on...the streets look mighty "red" right now. Why should the wealthy get the tax cuts that are two times what the middle-class received? That's insane.
Why should "the rich" pay 80% of the taxes? That's insane.
Pages
>Why would vouchers close down most public schools? To my knowledge, no candidate in favor of them has said a public school couldn't take them.<
Public schools already have a large problem with funding. Currently, our school systems are funded on a per student basis. If vouchers were to be instituted as is proposed, state and local governments would have to take the whole "pie" as it were that is currently allocated to public schools and divide it over all the students in the locality/state. (The Federal government provides less than 10% of the funding for public schools. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_162.asp).
Now, in order to ensure that all the students are funded equally within a locality, either the state/local government will have to raise revenues to continue funding at the current per student
Why do so many foreigners come here for education?
((((Bush tax cuts" lowered taxes for everyone- not just the rich,))))
It depends what side of those "cuts" you are on...the streets look mighty "red" right now. Why should the wealthy get the tax cuts that are two times
Not sure about that either. ALL European countries have some way of making sure that everyone has health coverage, but not all the systems are "socialized." Either way though, it does not amount to socialism.
I really think it would be easier to discuss if the misconception that any kind of universal health care, for example, is "socialism" was cleared up once and for all.
Another example was Obama's idea of making preschool universal. That is no more socialism than is having a public school system.
Edited 10/31/2008 2:15 am ET by sild
>>> It depends what side of those "cuts" you are on...the streets look mighty "red" right now. Why should the wealthy get the tax cuts that are two times what the middle-class received? That's insane.
Why should "the rich" pay 80% of the taxes? That's insane.
Pages