No. of Recommendations: 1
http://askheritage.org/are-we-helping-poor-americans?utm_sou...

"At the end of the year, many people take time to make charitable donations. But caring for those in need is a year-round responsibility—and when it comes to public policy, conservatives have an important opportunity to articulate an effective response to poverty and social breakdown in America.

A half-century into the War on Poverty, liberals can hardly declare victory. But they can claim the dominant anti-poverty narrative: Fight poverty by spending more, by starting another federal program.

Americans seldom look to conservatives for policy answers to the problems of poverty.

That’s not to say we don’t have answers. To the contrary, we’ve had important policy successes. The 1996 welfare reform rises to the top. School choice, which allows low-income parents to get their children out of failing and often violent public schools, is another a vital example of a policy that can help lift those in poverty and give them a chance at a different future.

But we’ve made precious few attempts to string these single notes of success together into something larger. We have yet to popularize a competitor to the prevailing tune about how to meet the needs of our neighbors.

It’s time to change that—first and foremost in the interest of our neighbors.

A single mother on welfare may reflexively accept liberal policies. But if we believe that long-term government dependency doesn’t do justice to her dignity, we ought to be able to explain that in a way that taps into her aspirations for a better future — particularly for her children. Anyone who thinks that’s not possible should consider how low-income parents have clamored for school choice.

In 2012, The Heritage Foundation hosted an anti-poverty conference to bring leaders together from around the country. About 90 policymakers, policy implementers, researchers and program evaluators, service providers and ministry leaders, representatives of philanthropy networks, and communicators gathered. Fourteen leaders of state welfare agencies participated.

Our objective is to help more Americans escape poverty by promoting work, marriage, civil society, and welfare-spending restraints.

The many disciplines represented at that conference on Capitol Hill reflect the complexities of the human needs we seek to meet. But because we work in different disciplines, we might not often think of ourselves as a cohesive anti-poverty movement. And if we don’t, that means the public certainly doesn’t. ...

...Content. Conservatives need to offer a concrete description of our near-term objectives: We want to build on the success of the welfare reform of 1996, which reformed just one of 80 federal means-tested programs that in total are now funded to the tune of $1 trillion annually. ..."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anyone who thinks that’s not possible should consider how low-income parents have clamored for school choice.

Aren't school vouchers just another entitlement program?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
vkg
Aren't school vouchers just another entitlement program?


Not exactly. Ask anyone (MetalDecathlete enthusiastically raises hand) who has paid out school taxes and also beared the expense of private school and home school because their local school is crappy.

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
vkg
Aren't school vouchers just another entitlement program?
_______________________

When someone quotes one of these idiots, I always wonder why they think all who disagree with them feel all government spending is bad.

Now there are some who feel that way. But they are really an insignificant minority.

However, even in that insignificant minority, the folks there, if the money does have to be spent, would want it both minimized in amount and offering maximum benefit

So, bottom line, the comment was so dumb on so many levels, we must have another PA lib visiting. (and no they are not all that dumb, just the ones with no restraint who demonstrate serial doofusinteruptus)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When someone quotes one of these idiots, I always wonder why they think all who disagree with them feel all government spending is bad. Now there are some who feel that way. But they are really an insignificant minority.

Yeah, they like to bring up the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system and flood control arteries as proof that we need government...like we should bow down to government because it does what a government should do, such as create and support infrastructure projects that individual states couldn't possibly afford or create.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not exactly. Ask anyone (MetalDecathlete enthusiastically raises hand) who has paid out school taxes and also beared the expense of private school and home school because their local school is crappy.

decath


We have paid for private school. I still don't see that paying school taxes entitles anyone to more than a public school education.

Most of those who are demanding school vouchers aren't even paying school taxes.

I also remain unimpressed with the requirement to supply special needs students with unlimited funds for education. The general whining in California that Prop 13 is causing problems with school funding, but the elephant in the room that is being ignored is the entitlement for disabled students.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, they like to bring up the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system and flood control arteries as proof that we need government...like we should bow down to government because it does what a government should do, such as create and support infrastructure projects that individual states couldn't possibly afford or create.
______________________________________________

Personally, I'll grant them interstate highways. They make a lot of sense from a government perspective.

Someone could have made serious change in developing the Hoover Dam far in excess of the investment. So, I am not all that sure about that one

Same goes with flood control arteries, someone would have made big bucks on that land, then they would also be paid for the upkeep too. If it couldn't have been profitable it would not have been developped, that sounds like a better path too!

The liberal assumption on issues after issue is if the government didn't do something it would never have been done. That is just silly. If it actually is capable of giving benefit to folks in excess of the cost it would be done. If it does not give benefit in excess of cost, then a hard look needs to be done every time, a very hard look, there are lots of projects that would survive that scrutiny. But the first thought should always have been and needs to be going forward, can someone make a buck on this and if so can we get it done without government.

Government cured a lot of social issues, liberals want to give huge credit to government for making better the social issues that government had codified in the first place. As if societies and peoples do not progress.

There are many reasons why discussing things with them IMO typically does not make sense, you must go back so far to disabuse them of their initial error on which their crooked foundation was built it is simply too much work when you are trying to mold damaged material anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anyone who thinks that’s not possible should consider how low-income parents have clamored for school choice.

Aren't school vouchers just another entitlement program?


Yes, but it's for a goal that people are extremely widely supportive of - and does have the virtue of being an entitlement program for students, with a defined termination of each student's eligibility, rather than an entitlement program for teachers and school bureaucrats and teacher-union officials with no defined termination of anyone's eligibility. (Through spousal benefits on pensions, eligibility can extend even after death.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We have paid for private school. I still don't see that paying school taxes entitles anyone to more than a public school education.

I think that paying school taxes ought to entitle one to have one's kids educated. In certain areas the public schools routinely fail at that task.

Most of those who are demanding school vouchers aren't even paying school taxes.

I'm proposing school vouchers *in place of* the public schools. Eliminating government-run schools entirely.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If it actually is capable of giving benefit to folks in excess of the cost it would be done.

Not quite. There also has to be a way - legal and practical - for the people who do it to put enough of that benefit in their own pockets to cover the cost and make a reasonable profit. What "reasonable" means depends on the risk, what other investments are available, inflation rates, and how long it's going to take to pay back the cost if things go reasonably well, among other factors.

That isn't always possible - the overwhelming majority of the time, yes, far more of the time than "liberals" appear to believe, but not always.

Heck, a way was found to allow individual lobster fishermen to profit by protecting lobsters in the ocean (and it doesn't require a subsidy). They now treat the law as their friend and go beyond its requirements, rather than as an obstacle to be worked around.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
vkg
We have paid for private school. I still don't see that paying school taxes entitles anyone to more than a public school education.

Most of those who are demanding school vouchers aren't even paying school taxes.


How is that? From what I've observed, people asking for school vouchers tend to be of a conservative nature, have jobs, pay taxes and own homes.

I would put school vouchers in a simliar category (but not exactly) as Social Security and Medicare. They are paid for by tax payers and the tax payers eventually get something back.

Medicaid and most of welfare are true 'entitlements', where the vast majority do not contribute much if at all.

I guess it depends if school vouchers only go to the poor. If that is the case, then yes it would be an entitlement.

But IMHO, school vouchers should be accessible to everyone across the board. Let's shake things up and see if we can fix our failing public school system. Vouchers would be a huge step in the right direction.

I've already raised my kids so I no longer have a dog in this fight with nothing to gain.

But I remember those early years of home schooling. No second income from DW, I sacrificed job offers so I could be home by 4:30pm to help raise my children. My income range was 35k - 48k during that time back in the 90's. Not starving but I sure could have used that extra $ I was throwing away to my local crappy school system.

There are many middle class people that would love to take advantage of vouchers. Not for home school and perhaps not even private school (which vouchers would not cover completely), but at least driving their kids to a local school that had more to offer than their current gov't mandated school. Talk about anti-choice.

MetalDecathlete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We have paid for private school. I still don't see that paying school taxes entitles anyone to more than a public school education.

Most of those who are demanding school vouchers aren't even paying school taxes.
___________________________

What liberal clown brought this to the table?

Is the clown willing to say if you do not pay taxes you do not get to vote?

Anyone wanting vouchers, wants the best education for their kids. What is supposedly wrong with that? No one, other than a few liberal loons somewhere(I do not know where, but they gotta be out there somewhere) are claiming vouchers will cost more.

Although this does make sense, liberals have ensured a lousy education for people in poverty with lousy initiatives and lousy everything for them. They think the folks there should just shut up and take it, because well they are not even paying school taxes in many cases.

Liberalism is not defensible. When they are asked to actual show what they believe, it is scary. They would be very embarrassed, were they capable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not for home school and perhaps not even private school (which vouchers would not cover completely),

My prediction is that if school vouchers are available to everyone, then the tuition at private schools will immediately increase by the value of the voucher. Government intervention rarely achieves its goal.

If every kid has the "right" to a school voucher, then it is an entitlement program.

The public school system needs to be shaken up, but I don't see vouchers as the solution.

States are already spending a great deal of money on education of illegal aliens. States are required to provide education to all regardless of legal status. If all students are eligible for vouchers, then illegal aliens would be eligible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Barack Obama & the DC School Voucher Program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Milton Friedman - Public Schools / Voucher System

Lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syp_jR4BNBk

Q&A - Part 1: (Somewhat heated)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrn3hAGtFY

Q&A - Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doSz1TSoA9I
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
vkg
My prediction is that if school vouchers are available to everyone, then the tuition at private schools will immediately increase by the value of the voucher. Government intervention rarely achieves its goal.

If every kid has the "right" to a school voucher, then it is an entitlement program.

The public school system needs to be shaken up, but I don't see vouchers as the solution.

States are already spending a great deal of money on education of illegal aliens. States are required to provide education to all regardless of legal status. If all students are eligible for vouchers, then illegal aliens would be eligible.


You would be correct that immediately, private schools would probably be able to jack up prices. But eventually, the invisible hand of Adam Smith would, IMO, create a new market of schools that would compete for top kids...something that is hugely missed in today's public education that teaches to the dumbest kid in everyclass while everyone else twiddles there thumbs. Ya we have smart kids that take advanced, AP and dual credit courses...but they are a joke compared to many private school curriculums.

The market would adjust and bad schools would be forced to improve or die. You'd also see teachers become more competative and be able to demand higher salaries.

I don't believe vouchers will fix everything. Just a start. The core issue of why kids don't learn is rooted in our culture. The baby boomers are spoiled brats and their children and grandchildren are far worse. It's our culture that ultimately needs a wake-up call.

Poorly educated kids is just a symptom.

metal
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ya we have smart kids that take advanced, AP and dual credit courses...but they are a joke compared to many private school curriculums.

I don't think this is true across the board. There are many outstanding high schools that graduate kids ready to enter top tier colleges as sophomores. My son was one of them.

Whitney H.S. in Cerritos, CA conducts an annual lottery to gain admission--that's how elite it is.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You would be correct that immediately, private schools would probably be able to jack up prices.
________________________________


Vkg starts with an invalid assumption, forwards some of the most inane 'logic' imaginable and needless to say has an invalid conclusion.

I will address simply your point. And to that I will ask why would private schools be able to charge more?

In fact with more private schools, there would be MORE competition and the need to keep prices moderate would be as high as ever.

You can not buy a liberal's invalid point, If you argue from that you give them an undeserved foothold and then you are forced trying to defend. Then they nitpick and take things out of context going forward, and create bogus stats that they can't back up like he did on abortion backed by another absurd assumption.

But here, check your own assumptions. Check each of his claims, each one hold an egregious logical error, have some fun tear them up. But do not concede to nonsense, that is how liberals have gotten as far aas they have, people who know better conceding ground to them believing they are sincere. If they are sincere, they should appreciate how wrong they are. So again read the post he put up, what is wrong with it? There is so much, and I know you can see it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is why I didn't move to Cerritos so my son could go to Whitney.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california...

The student body (see graph) is nearly all Asian. Not that I have anything against Asians, but Asian parents are pathologically driven--and they drive their children nearly crazy--to achieve scholastically.

One of my son's Asian classmates (at the HS he did attend) always looked miserable when he came to our house. One day I sat him down and asked, "Is everything OK at home, Charles?" He broke into sobs, saying that he couldn't stand the (academic) pressure anymore. And this was at Poly HS, where the competition wasn't nearly as intense as Whitney! I felt so sorry for poor Charles, but his response made me glad I didn't move to Cerritos.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One of my son's Asian classmates (at the HS he did attend) always looked miserable when he came to our house. One day I sat him down and asked, "Is everything OK at home, Charles?" He broke into sobs, saying that he couldn't stand the (academic) pressure anymore. And this was at Poly HS, where the competition wasn't nearly as intense as Whitney! I felt so sorry for poor Charles, but his response made me glad I didn't move to Cerritos.
___________________________

Not as a knock on you, or I for I did not pressure mine as much as I thought might actually be appropriate

But it would be immensely interesting to be able to see 10 years down the road, who is happier in the life they are leading.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
School of Dreams: Making the Grade at a Top American High School

http://books.google.com/books/about/School_of_Dreams.html?id...

The pressure to succeed in our nation's most competitive public high schools is often crushing. Striving to understand this insular world Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Edward Humes spent a year at California's Whitney High, a school so renowned that parents move across town--and across the world--hoping to enroll their children. That's because schools like Whitney deliver everything parents want: love of learning, a sense of mission, and SAT scores that pave the way to elite universities. Attending such a school, of course, carries its own toll: High-achieving, pressured kids survive on espresso and four hours' sleep a night, falling into despair if they get a B.

The students are programmed for success because many of the parents have moved from across the world so their children can attend Whitney. Humes writes: "Thousands of Korean and Chinese immigrants have chosen Cerritos over other communities in the United States because of Whitney's reputation. Several real estate agencies in town have focused their businesses — and made their fortunes — courting future immigrants by placing advertisements in South Korean newspapers listing homes for sale in Cerritos. Whitney and its achievements are always prominently mentioned in the ads, the lure of the number one public school making an otherwise ordinary, landlocked slice of suburbia irresistible to foreign house hunters."

Gretchen Whitney High School in Cerritos is truly a "School of Dreams." This is a school where discipline problems are rare and test scores astronomical. Because the parents have sacrificed so much, their children are under tremendous pressure to pass the highly competitive entrance exam, which they take in the sixth grade. The desperation to gain admittance to the school — which spans seventh to 12th grade — has resulted in numerous professional after-school tutoring academies sprouting up in the neighborhood, Humes writes, "at first catering to sixth-grade students, then fifth, and finally rolling back to first grade and even kindergarten." Once students earn a coveted spot, however, they have no time to savor their success. They immediately embark on a high-pressure six-year journey whose only acceptable destination is admittance to a prestigious university, preferably "HYP" — the school's shorthand for "Harvard, Yale or Princeton."

To reach this promised land, many students arise before 6 and study until 2 or 3 the next morning, needing frequent infusions of Starbucks triple grande lattes to stay awake. Few of the teenagers at Whitney, Humes contends, take drugs or engage in premarital sex. In fact, he writes, there is peer pressure to avoid sex, drugs and alcohol. These students are uniformly disciplined, goal-oriented, respectful of their parents and obsessively motivated. Compared with the stereotypical American teenager — a promiscuous, boozing, drug-addled slacker who slides through high school with the minimum of effort — the resolute teenagers Humes depicts are a welcome alternative. And the result of their onerous schedules is impressive. Their average SAT score in 2001 was 1,343 — more than 300 points above the national average and the second highest in the country among public high schools. (New York City's Stuyvesant High School is No. 1.) They ace the AP exams, and the overwhelming majority gain acceptance to HYP, a University of California campus or other prestigious private colleges.


I doubt you'll find any future welfare weenies and queenies at schools like Whitney.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But it would be immensely interesting to be able to see 10 years down the road, who is happier in the life they are leading.

Yes, it would be. I should look Charles up, but there so many Charles Chang's in the U.S.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The market would adjust and bad schools would be forced to improve or die. You'd also see teachers become more competative and be able to demand higher salaries.

I don't believe vouchers will fix everything. Just a start. The core issue of why kids don't learn is rooted in our culture. The baby boomers are spoiled brats and their children and grandchildren are far worse. It's our culture that ultimately needs a wake-up call.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

By worrying so much about integration in a district that was already three-quarters nonwhite, the judge and the plaintiffs ended up ignoring a whole list of far more likely reasons for students' lack of achievement. Because of steadfast union opposition, the district rejected merit pay for teachers.(103) It promoted principals on the basis of their race instead of their merit (which it had no systematic way to assess in any event). Because it failed to develop a core curriculum, many teachers simply geared their teaching to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, a standardized multiple choice exam--a short-run strategy that hurt students long term.(104) For fear such a plan would reduce enrollment and jobs (and possibly show up the school district), the district rejected an initiative by 50 private schools to take 4,000 Kansas City students and educate them in return for vouchers for one-third to one-half of what the district was currently spending.(105) The KCMSD also rejected an offer by the Missouri Department of Education to run a demonstration school in the district because the state insisted on the right to pick its own teachers.(106)

I thought the Kansas City experiment would show that vouchers weren't the answer. Unfortunately, it only shows that the current educational system can spend any amount of money with no results.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would put school vouchers in a simliar category (but not exactly) as Social Security and Medicare.

I wouldn't it. SS and Medicare money is spent on senior citizens, and totally consumed. A school voucher, on the other hand, provides a child with a better education. This may eventually result in the child producing more taxable income when he becomes an adult. There is a return to the coffers via taxes that way. I find vouchers a better expenditure than food stamps, for example, for the poor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Most of those who are demanding school vouchers aren't even paying school taxes.


How is that? From what I've observed, people asking for school vouchers tend to be of a conservative nature, have jobs, pay taxes and own homes.


That is only partly true.

A large share of those demanding school vouchers simply want to be able to take the money ALREADY being spent on schools for their kids, and move their kids - with the money - to schools that actually educate. Of these people, many technically aren't paying property taxes for schools directly because they rent - and quite a few aren't paying those same taxes indirectly because their rent is government-subsidized.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
warrl
A large share of those demanding school vouchers simply want to be able to take the money ALREADY being spent on schools for their kids, and move their kids - with the money - to schools that actually educate. Of these people, many technically aren't paying property taxes for schools directly because they rent - and quite a few aren't paying those same taxes indirectly because their rent is government-subsidized.


Perhaps vouchers should only be legal to people that actually pay school taxes. lol

Like that would fly. It would be about as popular as not being able to vote only if you are currently not on welfare. <g>

MetalDecath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Like that would fly. It would be about as popular as not being able to vote only if you are currently not on welfare. <g>
_________________________________

Your vote should be weighted by your income tax paid.
Print the post Back To Top