Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools.

Been tires...doesn't work. It doesn't work because government still has
those schools by the jewels and to a great extent defines curriculum and
method.

All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

How about just having a straight tax CREDIT for school costs, regardless of
what school a parents kids attend?



Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education. Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got
to happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow
passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education.

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Operative word: "exactly"

To me, that sounds like you agree.

Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

Quite.

If you can't feed, clothe, provide for their education, provide for thei
health care, etc., for you kids, don't have them. Don't make them parasites
at the public trough.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."


Read his post in its entirety. You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."


Read his post in its entirety.

I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
"solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
anything else.

You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:



Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is
not going to do away with the nanny state.


Yeah, we all need to build our own roads!


Bertie

Its impossible to say how well a "private school only" system will
turn out in the long run. It may do just fine on average but it may
work poorly during bad economic times when several schools in a city
suddenly go out of business for example. It is impossible to run
control experiments to determine which system is the best on average
over an extended period of time.
Besides, I was just pointing out that it is possible to privatize
education completely unlike things like a missile defence system that
cannot be privatized at all. Whether it is desirable is hard to tell
even though I would be inclined to say it is.

On Dec 3, 4:26 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message

...

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Read his post in its entirety.

I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
"solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
anything else.

You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.