Filling the void in the republican party leadership..

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

The only positives I can see from this would be a) he's the "smart" one b) possibly some of my favorite posters would burst their pyloric valve in an apopletic fit of rage. That being said, I'd still rather not see another "name-based" person in the white house (or the senate).

Jeb's brother has given us good reason to oppose Jeb. It wouldn't happen by my vote.

 

[OrByte]

sarah! sarah! sarah!

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: OrByte
sarah! sarah! sarah!

Starts with a P.... ends in a..... etreus

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

He doesn't deserve a carrier named after him.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Which put's additional load on the taxpayers while the people who have the money to send their children to a private school get a tax break.

Vouchers suck. If you don't want your kids going to public school then support that decision out of YOUR OWN POCKETBOOK!!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Which put's additional load on the taxpayers while the people who have the money to send their children to a private school get a tax break.

Vouchers suck. If you don't want your kids going to public school then support that decision out of YOUR OWN POCKETBOOK!!

Taxes paid to run those schools were already taken from parents pocketbook. Why do you think they should pay twice?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

The only positives I can see from this would be a) he's the "smart" one b) possibly some of my favorite posters would burst their pyloric valve in an apopletic fit of rage. That being said, I'd still rather not see another "name-based" person in the white house (or the senate).

Well, since no-one bit, let's make this a serious thread and put a name out there.




















Newt.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Vouchers suck. If you don't want your kids going to public school then support that decision out of YOUR OWN POCKETBOOK!!

Taxes paid to run those schools were already taken from parents pocketbook. Why do you think they should pay twice?

You probably don't want to go down this road as the stench of roasted human flesh still lingers under a more pleasant fragrance of oregano, tomato and mozzarella, all that remains of the opposition when Dr. Pizza destroyed them last time school voucher game arose. So I wouldn't try it again, or Pizza will send out for you!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Vouchers suck. If you don't want your kids going to public school then support that decision out of YOUR OWN POCKETBOOK!!

Taxes paid to run those schools were already taken from parents pocketbook. Why do you think they should pay twice?

You probably don't want to go down this road as the stench of roasted human flesh still lingers under a more pleasant fragrance of oregano, tomato and mozzarella, all that remains of the opposition when Dr. Pizza destroyed them last time school voucher game arose. So I wouldn't try it again, or Pizza will send out for you!

I'd certainly be interested in reading the last thread, got a link?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett
-snip-
If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Well, I think this (math example) can work both ways.

Right now in my county we are having problems with a rapid increase in the number of students enrolled (Hispanic immigrants).

IIRC, our state mandates a class room limit on the number of children. This will result in our needing to build new schools (parents complain about trailors as class rooms).

It would probably be far less expensive to give vouchers to reduce the overcrowding than to have our county issue bonds and start constructing new schools. The cost of construction, bond interest, maintenece, utilites etc is really quite high per student when amoritized per studend. We could avoid all of that.

I don't see where encouraging the overflow to go to private schools will disadvantage our public schools. Just limit the amount of vouchers to that of the excess students.

OTOH, if our schools were under-capacity, vouchers might cause a financial problem. But that's not the case here.

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Which put's additional load on the taxpayers while the people who have the money to send their children to a private school get a tax break.

Vouchers suck. If you don't want your kids going to public school then support that decision out of YOUR OWN POCKETBOOK!!

Taxes paid to run those schools were already taken from parents pocketbook. Why do you think they should pay twice?

They're also taken from people who don't have kids. Why should they pay for someone's kid going to school and then have to pay more for somebody else's kid to go to a private school?

Save the crap about the poor parents pocketbook. they could care less about anybody but themselves, so screw them.

 

[Martin]

Palin 2010!

 

[kyle xy]

Originally posted by: K3N
The republicans, a party that once had the interest of fiscal conservatives, anti-interventionist, and anti-government libertarians, now only has the interests of social conservatives and christian evangelicals. LOL.

Man I would love to disagree with you...but well...*tip hat*

^^ Also see BoberFett's post...the Republican Party is really just a re-badged Democratic party. We need conservatives and not ones who, like K3N mentions, are only brave enough to take a stance on abortion and gay marriage. The day that those two issues become the most pressing issues of the day will be a great time in America I think. Let's focus on the economy guys!!

 

[kyle xy]

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

I will agree that the voucher system is not bullet proof but riddle me this. Let's say I do have the money to put my kid through Private school. Why should I also have to pay taxes to support the Public school if no money is spent on my kid. This is the flaw in how public schools are funded.

Please cite me where it the Constitution it calls for Federal funding of the Education system?

Also you left out the Union pay in your example...

 

[kyle xy]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
I was going to say Ron Paul.......

I actually thought Ron Paul had many great ideas...to bad he had to follow the path of Perot and get classified as another crazy loud Texan (which he may be but he is still smart)

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

The only positives I can see from this would be a) he's the "smart" one b) possibly some of my favorite posters would burst their pyloric valve in an apopletic fit of rage. That being said, I'd still rather not see another "name-based" person in the white house (or the senate).

Two words:
Terry Schiavo

Have we all forgotten Jeb's role in that sorry tale?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

A Presadental Liberry?

Come on. He's not going down in history as another Reagan. He won't even go down in history as a Carter. No airports, no warships, nothing. Don't worry about it.