Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow

#152 Jan 23 2014 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
[quote=someproteinguy]The real question is how can we make this same successful model work for elementary education?

Combine it with the lucrative private prison model.

Get um hooked early.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#153 Jan 23 2014 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Hey now. The for-profit higher education industry is doing gangbusters. Sure, they lie to prospective students about graduation rates and job opportunities, use hard-sell tactics to pressure them into financing through the schools, have them rack up enormous debt and have atrocious graduation rates (for degrees that really aren't worth much) but... umm... they're successful at making money! Capitalism works! The real question is how can we make this same successful model work for elementary education?

Online kindergarten is the key, I just know it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#154 Jan 23 2014 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
Pokemath.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#155 Jan 23 2014 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Online kindergarten is the key, I just know it.

Kindergarten of Canary -- Graduate in as little as 5 months!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Jan 23 2014 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
Perhaps we could spice things up with some rap?

I earned my PhD/in the K of G
You kids is stuck/back in KS3;
Going potty to pee?/ I just inked a whole tree
You kids is **** Like a **** choirboy/
In the C of E.
#157 Jan 23 2014 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
So this is a thing. It may help with the online kindergarten.

Link

Screenshot
#158 Jan 23 2014 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Poo to play
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#159 Jan 23 2014 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So this is a thing. It may help with the online kindergarten.

We got our little guy a Nabi tablet (basically an Android tablet with a thick bumper and child/parent modes & controls). He loves that **** thing. I need to learn to leverage that better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Jan 28 2014 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No one in the private sector actually attempts to compete for public education funds on anything remotely resembling an open market (charter schools aren't even close).
Because there's not a lot of money in it?


Well, there's a vast amount of money in it, but only if you create some kind of voucher system. Right now, all those public education dollars can only be spent on schools that the respective departments of education choose (ie: on public schools). Even charter schools are still selected for funding by said organizations.

Because of this fact, competition for the majority of students is stunted. Any private school option essentially starts with the parent choosing to throw away the "free" education dollars that the public school system offers (and their portion of taxes which paid for it), and then choose to spend more money on top of that. Very few people will do that. Which is why typically you only see people send their kids to private school because they are rich or really want their kids to receive some form of religious education.

A voucher system is a way to introduce competition for those education dollars. Any system which doesn't address the dollars present in the public school system can't possibly work.

Quote:
Take out the higher education and vocational schools, remove the gifted children who have parents with extra motivation to fund them, take out those with enough income to afford premium services, and you're left with a bunch of mediocre students who have little ambition to compete in a game they can't win, and parents who aren't going to throw much needed family funds down that sinkhole.


Which is why you divvy up the money currently spent by the public school system into vouchers for each child and let the parents choose where to spend them. They're not spending their own money. They're spending the public funds which would otherwise have been spent anyway. We're just changing how we decide to spend those dollars is all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Jan 29 2014 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,185 posts
Very few people do that because, if you want to spend the money on quality education, there actually isn't a lot of wiggle room in the overheard. Teachers, classrooms, and school staff cost $$$. Public schools are considered to be doing well when they break even.

When you try to make extra money on top of the costs of educating the kids, it doesn't work out that well. Not just because parents have to pay extra to send kids there, but because they also have to pad the pockets of the people who are trying to use the endeavor to make money, too.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#162 Jan 29 2014 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Because of this fact, competition for the majority of students is stunted. Any private school option essentially starts with the parent choosing to throw away the "free" education dollars that the public school system offers (and their portion of taxes which paid for it), and then choose to spend more money on top of that. Very few people will do that

Yeah, very few. A piddling 5 or 6 million.

A voucher system is a way to introduce competition for those education dollars. Any system which doesn't address the dollars present in the public school system can't possibly work.

Been tried. Failed miserably. Time after time. Not an open question. Not up for debate. Private schools do not educate children to a higher level or more cost effectively than public schools do. All done now, nothing else to pretend to continue this line of thinking. Theory - experiment - conclusion - replication. All complete. Doesn't work. Does. Not. Work. Sorry your fantasy idea turned out to not function in reality the way you'd hoped, but it didn't. Destroying the lives of more children won't fix that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#163 Jan 29 2014 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Been tried. Failed miserably. Time after time. Not an open question. Not up for debate. Private schools do not educate children to a higher level or more cost effectively than public schools do. All done now, nothing else to pretend to continue this line of thinking.

Gbaji doesn't want better grades, he wants open markets and weakened unions and the like. Which is why his arguments for this boil down to "Sure, it might be terribly complicated and a disaster for years but if in the end parents can pick between schools A and B (neither of which actually offers better education) then isn't it all worth it?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Jan 29 2014 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,586 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Been tried. Failed miserably. Time after time. Not an open question. Not up for debate. Private schools do not educate children to a higher level or more cost effectively than public schools do. All done now, nothing else to pretend to continue this line of thinking.

Gbaji doesn't want better grades, he wants open markets and weakened unions and the like. Which is why his arguments for this boil down to "Sure, it might be terribly complicated and a disaster for years but if in the end parents can pick between schools A and B (neither of which actually offers better education) then isn't it all worth it?"
If it helps it probably wouldn't matter anyway. It's not as if we really need more college-educated people applying for seasonal jobs at Macy's.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Jan 29 2014 at 2:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
If it helps it probably wouldn't matter anyway. It's not as if we really need more college-educated people applying for seasonal jobs at Macy's.

No, no, those are just Sociology PhDs. 2 week certificate in plugging USB cables in, you're set for life.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#166 Jan 29 2014 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
My daughters bf - PhD in Pop Culture (yes there is such a thing). He's doing copy-editing.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#167 Jan 29 2014 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
My daughters bf - PhD in Pop Culture (yes there is such a thing). He's doing copy-editing.

For Tiger Beat?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Jan 29 2014 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Catwho wrote:
Very few people do that because, if you want to spend the money on quality education, there actually isn't a lot of wiggle room in the overheard. Teachers, classrooms, and school staff cost $$$. Public schools are considered to be doing well when they break even.


Given that public schools are not for profit, then by definition any amount of money spent on them is always "breaking even". It's a meaningless concept. You can't actually assess whether public schools are grossly wasting money or being very efficient because there's no metric to use. This is precisely why for profit systems work better.

Quote:
When you try to make extra money on top of the costs of educating the kids, it doesn't work out that well. Not just because parents have to pay extra to send kids there, but because they also have to pad the pockets of the people who are trying to use the endeavor to make money, too.


I'd suggest that the massive padding of pockets to union bosses and politicians campaigns puts a **** of a lot of overhead into our current costs. The key difference is that the private schools profits are going to be based on whether they provide education that parents want to pay for, while the current folks who are getting their pockets padded are more or less rewarded as long as they maintain the public system. Quality of education isn't even a consideration.

I'll also point out that right now the reason why private schools are expensive and rare is because they have to complete with "free". They must provide something significantly better than the public school (which means it'll cost more). No one would pay money for a private school that provided "just as good" an education as the free public school. That's why private schools don't compete for that market. Put vouchers in place, and they can.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Jan 29 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Been tried. Failed miserably. Time after time. Not an open question. Not up for debate.


Has never been tried. Not once. Ever.


Quote:
Private schools do not educate children to a higher level or more cost effectively than public schools do.


Of course they do. If they didn't, no one would choose to pay their tuition. Unless you have some new definition of "more cost effective" which doesn't include some sort of cost choices made by the consumer that is? Proofs kinda in the pudding, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Jan 29 2014 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Of course they do. If they didn't, no one would choose to pay their tuition.

They really don't. Even the elite ones don't send a higher percentage of kids to tier 1 universities than public exam schools do. People pay the tuition, in the main, because the public schools in their area are underfunded and suck. Some small percentage of people send their kids to very expensive private schools not for the quality of the education but for the connections later in life. All of the Saint Grottlsex schools are **** but you get to live with 500 other wealthy kids with powerful parents, which is far more important in the long run.

Has never been tried. Not once. Ever.

Right, I forgot, you don't understand math. My mistake, carry on.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#171 Jan 29 2014 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Adding back in the statement I was responding to, just so that we're all on the same page here.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Private schools do not educate children to a higher level or more cost effectively than public schools do.


Of course they do. If they didn't, no one would choose to pay their tuition. Unless you have some new definition of "more cost effective" which doesn't include some sort of cost choices made by the consumer that is? Proofs kinda in the pudding, isn't it?


Smasharoo wrote:
Of course they do. If they didn't, no one would choose to pay their tuition.

They really don't. Even the elite ones don't send a higher percentage of kids to tier 1 universities than public exam schools do. People pay the tuition, in the main, because the public schools in their area are underfunded and suck.


So for those parents, it's worth paying the price for the private school. Presumably because the delta between that private school and the public school they'd have to send their child to is significant enough to make the cost worth it. So what about that makes you think that my earlier statement is incorrect? If those parents didn't think that the private school was "more cost effective", they would not have paid the money for it.


Quote:
Some small percentage of people send their kids to very expensive private schools not for the quality of the education but for the connections later in life. All of the Saint Grottlsex schools are sh*t, but you get to live with 500 other wealthy kids with powerful parents, which is far more important in the long run.


So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Do you understand yet?

Quote:
Has never been tried. Not once. Ever.

Right, I forgot, you don't understand math. My mistake, carry on.


And yet, I'm still waiting for you to actually provide an example of it having actually been tried. You repeating "it's been tried and failed!" over and over isn't terribly convincing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Jan 29 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts

So for those parents, it's worth paying the price for the private school. Presumably because the delta between that private school and the public school they'd have to send their child to is significant enough to make the cost worth it.


Nah, that's not how that decision is made. It's usually more along the lines of "I don't want my kids to have to go to school with <ethnic group I don't like>s kids"

And yet, I'm still waiting for you to actually provide an example of it having actually been tried.

I did. You know what's sometimes helpful in these sorts of discussions? Reading the posts.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#173 Jan 29 2014 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
******
43,396 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Reading the posts.
High hopes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Jan 30 2014 at 5:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Given that public schools are not for profit, then by definition any amount of money spent on them is always "breaking even". It's a meaningless concept. You can't actually assess whether public schools are grossly wasting money or being very efficient because there's no metric to use. This is precisely why for profit systems work better.

I'm going to assume that I'm missing something. Please explain how nonprofits can't waste money? Just because you aren't taking in money, doesn't mean that money isn't spent on them.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#175 Jan 30 2014 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:

So for those parents, it's worth paying the price for the private school. Presumably because the delta between that private school and the public school they'd have to send their child to is significant enough to make the cost worth it. So what about that makes you think that my earlier statement is incorrect? If those parents didn't think that the private school was "more cost effective", they would not have paid the money for it.

The delta between what you presume and what may be reality is inversely proportional to iota.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#176 Jan 30 2014 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Sure, but since he's using vouchers with my tax money, I don't think it's worth it to pay to go to a school that isn't excelling in educating but rather in building connections. Now, if this guy wants to pay out of his own pocket to send his kids to that sort of school... Hey! He can do that right now! The system works! Sure, he'll still have to pay public school taxes, just like everyone else does whether they have children or not and just like everyone pays for a multitude of things they may or may not use or appreciate. That's sorta part of living in a society.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#177 Jan 30 2014 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Sure, but since he's using vouchers with my tax money, I don't think it's worth it to pay to go to a school that isn't excelling in educating but rather in building connections. Now, if this guy wants to pay out of his own pocket to send his kids to that sort of school... Hey! He can do that right now! The system works! Sure, he'll still have to pay public school taxes, just like everyone else does whether they have children or not and just like everyone pays for a multitude of things they may or may not use or appreciate. That's sorta part of living in a society.


I'm curious why gbaji thinks that taxpayers footing a $30k private school bill for a kid merely to "make contacts" and not to get any better education is ok, but taxpayers footing the bill for people who cannot afford health insurance (and therefore cannot get necessary medical treatment to stay healthy and ALIVE) is not ok.

Makes no **** sense.
#178 Jan 30 2014 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm curious why gbaji thinks that taxpayers footing a $30k private school bill for a kid merely to "make contacts" and not to get any better education is ok, but taxpayers footing the bill for people who cannot afford health insurance (and therefore cannot get necessary medical treatment to stay healthy and ALIVE) is not ok.

FREEDOM! LIBERTY! FOUNDING FATHERS! FREE MARKETS!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Jan 30 2014 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,882 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Sure, but since he's using vouchers with my tax money, I don't think it's worth it to pay to go to a school that isn't excelling in educating but rather in building connections. Now, if this guy wants to pay out of his own pocket to send his kids to that sort of school... Hey! He can do that right now! The system works! Sure, he'll still have to pay public school taxes, just like everyone else does whether they have children or not and just like everyone pays for a multitude of things they may or may not use or appreciate. That's sorta part of living in a society.


I'm curious why gbaji thinks that taxpayers footing a $30k private school bill for a kid merely to "make contacts" and not to get any better education is ok, but taxpayers footing the bill for people who cannot afford health insurance (and therefore cannot get necessary medical treatment to stay healthy and ALIVE) is not ok.

Makes no @#%^ing sense.

Simple. The Riches stay rich and the Poors die off. it's the Republican way.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#180 Jan 30 2014 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Debalic wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Sure, but since he's using vouchers with my tax money, I don't think it's worth it to pay to go to a school that isn't excelling in educating but rather in building connections. Now, if this guy wants to pay out of his own pocket to send his kids to that sort of school... Hey! He can do that right now! The system works! Sure, he'll still have to pay public school taxes, just like everyone else does whether they have children or not and just like everyone pays for a multitude of things they may or may not use or appreciate. That's sorta part of living in a society.


I'm curious why gbaji thinks that taxpayers footing a $30k private school bill for a kid merely to "make contacts" and not to get any better education is ok, but taxpayers footing the bill for people who cannot afford health insurance (and therefore cannot get necessary medical treatment to stay healthy and ALIVE) is not ok.

Makes no @#%^ing sense.

Simple. The Riches stay rich and the Poors die off. it's the Republican way.

He makes a really argument on why we need to keep public education public.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#181 Jan 30 2014 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Given that public schools are not for profit, then by definition any amount of money spent on them is always "breaking even". It's a meaningless concept. You can't actually assess whether public schools are grossly wasting money or being very efficient because there's no metric to use. This is precisely why for profit systems work better.

I'm going to assume that I'm missing something. Please explain how nonprofits can't waste money? Just because you aren't taking in money, doesn't mean that money isn't spent on them.


Huh? I didn't say that a non profit couldn't waste money (how the **** did you get that idea?). I said that the concept of "breaking even" is meaningless to a non-profit enterprise. What do you "break even" with? In a for profit enterprise, you charge someone for the product you are selling. If you can make enough money charging people for that product to pay for the costs or producing it, then you "break even". If you can charge more, you "make a profit". If you can't charge enough, you lose money and will eventually go out of business.

In the non-profit world (particularly in the publicly funded world), the entire concept just doesn't exist. The government decides to spend $5B dollars on education. It spends $5B on education, thus "breaking even". But if it decided to spend only $4B it would also "break even". Same deal if it decided to spend $10B. There's no cost versus value calculation here. No one's choosing to buy the education, so there's no way to determine if we're actually getting our money's worth out of our public educating, or are grossly overpaying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Jan 30 2014 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So some sort of cost choices made by the consumer, right? I mean, if I think that paying $30k/year to send my kid to a school is worth it because he'll rub elbows with folks who'll provide him with valuable contacts later in life, then I've made the decision that it's worth it.

Sure, but since he's using vouchers with my tax money, I don't think it's worth it to pay to go to a school that isn't excelling in educating but rather in building connections. Now, if this guy wants to pay out of his own pocket to send his kids to that sort of school... Hey! He can do that right now!


Um... He is doing that right now. That was the point I was making. People do choose to spend that kind of money out of their own pockets to send their kids to private schools rather than to the "free" public schools, thus debunking Smash's claim that private schools do not represent any sort of cost effective alternative to public schools. Clearly they do, else people wouldn't choose to spend their own money on them.


So they question is "why limit that better education to just rich kids"? That's really what we're talking about here. People who can afford to send their kids to private schools overwhelmingly do so. So either all of those wealthy people are just foolish with their money (which seems unlikely) or maybe they know that those private schools really are better and really will represent a better chance at success for their kids. Kinda makes one wonder why someone like Smash would work so hard to argue that private schools really aren't any better than public schools, so there's no value at all to us giving everyone a chance to attend them?

But I'm the one who wants to keep the rich rich and the poor poor? Sounds like you guys have that backwards. I want everyone to have the kinds of education opportunities that right now only the rich have. Why is that so bad?

Edited, Jan 30th 2014 5:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Jan 30 2014 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,694 posts
gbaji wrote:
I want everyone to have the kinds of education opportunities that right now only the rich have.


I'm curious how defunding public education in favor of private education will allow everyone access to these spectacular private schools? Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#184 Jan 30 2014 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... He is doing that right now. That was the point I was making. People do choose to spend that kind of money out of their own pockets to send their kids to private schools rather than to the "free" public schools, thus debunking Smash's claim that private schools do not represent any sort of cost effective alternative to public schools. Clearly they do, else people wouldn't choose to spend their own money on them.

Smash said that they don't provide a better educational alternative. That people may use them for connections with other rich parents or for religious education or because they don't want their kid at school with colored folk but they aren't teaching 2+2=4 any better. This has been born out repeatedly in various experiments. My point was that if someone wants to pay $30k for these other aspects, that's up to them. When they want to spend tax money on these non-educational perks then that's where I have a problem with it.

Quote:
So they question is "why limit that better education to just rich kids"?

Given that they don't provide a better education, I guess there's no question and no debate then. Glad we had this little chat.

As I said before, there's other nations with proven systems of providing better education. Rather than following your ideological pipe-dreams, why don't we look at what's proven to work? Oh, that's right... those proven techniques don't involve a conservative **** fantasy of crushing public unions and privatization. But, yeah, you totally made us all feel bad with your "Who really wants to keep those kids from learning?" remarks.

Edited, Jan 30th 2014 9:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Jan 30 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I want everyone to have the kinds of education opportunities that right now only the rich have.


I'm curious how defunding public education in favor of private education will allow everyone access to these spectacular private schools?


Um... Because you take the money that would otherwise have paid for the public school and you give it to the parents of the school kids in the form of vouchers that they "spend" sending their kids to the school of their choice. It's not about "defunding" anything. It's about changing the way we fund education. Currently, we spend X dollars per child on a completely non competitive school system that has become bloated and inefficient. I'm proposing we spend the exact same amount of money, but introduce competition for the funds, which will in turn ensure that the schools have to be cost effective rather than wasteful.

It's not "in favor" of anything. If the existing public schools really do provide a better education (as so many claim), then the parents will choose to spend their voucher dollars sending their kids to the same schools they're going to right now. But if another school offers a better education for the same dollars, then parents will have the choice of sending their kids there instead. No one has an advantage or disadvantage in this system whereas right now, the public school has a monopoly on the public funds. How is "fair competition" unfair?

Quote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?


No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Um... But to answer the real question: Yes. Schools could choose to be religious in nature if they wanted. And if parents want that then they can spend their dollars on those schools. If they don't, then they don't. Point being that if no parent is forced to send their kid to any particular school, and no school is forced to accept any particular student, then this doesn't present a problem. It's only in our existing public school system where we must prohibit such things because that system does not allow parents to choose which school their kids go to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Jan 30 2014 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?

No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Conservative Dreams: Schools that take white Christian tax dollars to discriminate against blacks and Muslims and it's all okay because it's their choice not to take black Muslim tax dollars.

Ooohhh... and then parents will send their kids there specifically to avoid having to see those dirty black Muslims. And this will be awesome because liberty! Tax-payer funded liberty to discriminate! Hooray for conservatism!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Jan 30 2014 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,694 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?

No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Conservative Dreams: Schools that take white Christian tax dollars to discriminate against blacks and Muslims and it's all okay because it's their choice not to take black Muslim tax dollars.

Ooohhh... and then parents will send their kids there specifically to avoid having to see those dirty black Muslims. And this will be awesome because liberty! Tax-payer funded liberty to discriminate! Hooray for conservatism!

They discriminate against the black Muslims that bath too. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#188 Jan 30 2014 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smash said that they don't provide a better educational alternative. That people may use them for connections with other rich parents or for religious education or because they don't want their kid at school with colored folk but they aren't teaching 2+2=4 any better.


And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools. One would assume they think they're getting their money's worth. And funny assumptions about racism aside, it's almost certainly because they believe that their children will have a better chance at success in life as a result. We can argue about *why* that is the case, but clearly it is.

So either all of those people are just wasting their money, or there is some value to those schools that just isn't present in the public school system.


The point is that if people consistently choose to spend money on private school when they have the choice and ability to spend their own money on such things, then why should we not spend public money on private school as well? It's clearly "better", right? Your position is like saying that instead of handing people with food insecurity food stamps and letting them buy the same food that the rest of us pay for, in the same food market, for the same prices, we should instead use the money to create a "government food store" in which we decide what food is best and provide a pre-selected allotment of food for each family based on their needs.

Surely you can see how that would become incredibly cost inefficient very quickly, right? And if we were to propose such a thing most of you would be jumping up and down shouting about how we're creating two classes of food eaters, and relegating the poor to the dregs of the food world, complete with insinuation about segregation and whatnot.

But somehow this is perfectly ok for education? Seriously. Stop and think about what you're arguing *for*. It makes no **** sense at all.

Quote:
My point was that if someone wants to pay $30k for these other aspects, that's up to them.


And my point is that if someone is willing to pay $30k for that education, then they must think it's worth $30k because they are spending their own money. You're arguing that someone who's spending someone else's money on behalf of someone else's kids will make a better choice somehow.

Again, that makes no sense at all.

Quote:
Quote:
So they question is "why limit that better education to just rich kids"?

Given that they don't provide a better education, I guess there's no question and no debate then. Glad we had this little chat.


Which is strange, given that "poor education choices" is usually at the top of the list of reasons why children of poor families can't get out of poverty and become successful. It's why they are at a disadvantage compared to "the rich kids". But now, and only now that we're arguing school vouchers, suddenly the argument is that those poor kids are getting just as good of an education as the kids in the rich neighborhoods?

Really? When did this become the liberal position on wealth and opportunity?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#189 Jan 30 2014 at 9:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,454 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?

No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Conservative Dreams: Schools that take white Christian tax dollars to discriminate against blacks and Muslims and it's all okay because it's their choice not to take black Muslim tax dollars.

Ooohhh... and then parents will send their kids there specifically to avoid having to see those dirty black Muslims. And this will be awesome because liberty! Tax-payer funded liberty to discriminate! Hooray for conservatism!


It's always about race and religion for you guys on the left, isn't it? Like an obsession.


Um... If it's such a big deal for you, guess what? If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right? Funny that you can only see that in one direction though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Jan 30 2014 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,694 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... If it's such a big deal for you, guess what? If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right? Funny that you can only see that in one direction though.


Ya, see! That less than 1% of the US that practices Islam can band together and make their Muslim-only school. Exactly the same!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#191 Jan 30 2014 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools. One would assume they think they're getting their money's worth.

Setting aside the "overwhelmingly" (really? So those rich suburban high schools are vacant?) whether or not they "believe" they are getting their money's worth isn't really the same as whether or not their kids are actually getting a superior education.

Quote:
And my point is that if someone is willing to pay $30k for that education, then they must think it's worth $30k because they are spending their own money.

People also buy Grey Goose vodka under the illusion that it's superior. Again, just because you convince people to pay more for something doesn't mean it's actually a superior product, especially not in the only realm that matters so far as my tax dollars are concerned.

Quote:
But now, and only now that we're arguing school vouchers, suddenly the argument is that those poor kids are getting just as good of an education as the kids in the rich neighborhoods?

If you actually thought that was the argument, this conversation isn't even worth having because I'd have to go all the way back to Step One and try to walk you through it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Jan 30 2014 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's always about race and religion for you guys on the left, isn't it? Like an obsession.

True. You probably want schools that ban gays as well.
Quote:
Um... If it's such a big deal for you, guess what? If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right? Funny that you can only see that in one direction though.

Erm, a school that bans white Christians is the same exact direction as one that bans black Muslims. Funny (and telling, oh so very telling) that you thought discrimination could be a two-way street that makes it all okay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Jan 30 2014 at 9:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Huh? I didn't say that a non profit couldn't waste money (how the **** did you get that idea?). I said that the concept of "breaking even" is meaningless to a non-profit enterprise.

You answered your question. If you aren't "breaking even", then you're losing money. Granted, it's not automatically 'wasting money', but given the context of this conversation, that's what we're talking about. Edit..Realized that doesn't address the point.

Gbaji wrote:
In the non-profit world (particularly in the publicly funded world), the entire concept just doesn't exist. The government decides to spend $5B dollars on education. It spends $5B on education, thus "breaking even". But if it decided to spend only $4B it would also "break even". Same deal if it decided to spend $10B. There's no cost versus value calculation here. No one's choosing to buy the education, so there's no way to determine if we're actually getting our money's worth out of our public educating, or are grossly overpaying.


Ok.. I thought I was missing something, but apparently you're just confused again. There is a value calculation. If you spend money on a school, you expect people to leave school educated. If students are not receiving the desired education, then money is being lost. Just because the return isn't money, doesn't mean money can't be misspent.

Edited, Jan 31st 2014 9:03am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#194 Jan 30 2014 at 10:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,185 posts
Actually, rather than pay to send their kids to private schools, the smart rich suburbanites move to the school district with the best schools. Housing prices are probably a lot higher there (ironically because real estate taxes are lower) so the poor people aren't clogging up the good schools.

A friend of mine who grew up in Freemont said her parents sold the house she grew up in for two million bucks because it was zoned for the "right" school. Public school, mind you.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#195 Jan 31 2014 at 4:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Smash wrote:
I learned a lot during that time, as well, but I'm a fucking genius
I learned a lot during that time as well. Maybe I'm a fucking genius as well!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#196 Jan 31 2014 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools. One would assume they think they're getting their money's worth. And funny assumptions about racism aside, it's almost certainly because they believe that their children will have a better chance at success in life as a result. We can argue about *why* that is the case, but clearly it is.

So either all of those people are just wasting their money, or there is some value to those schools that just isn't present in the public school system.
I would argue that it's more about choice and control and less about overall quality. When you pay for your own education, you can choose what's the best school for your child, whereas, public schools are decided simply by your address.

Gbaji wrote:

The point is that if people consistently choose to spend money on private school when they have the choice and ability to spend their own money on such things, then why should we not spend public money on private school as well?
Because that's less money in the public money pool. If you don't want to take the free service, then others shouldn't be punished.

Gbaji wrote:
It's clearly "better", right? Your position is like saying that instead of handing people with food insecurity food stamps and letting them buy the same food that the rest of us pay for, in the same food market, for the same prices, we should instead use the money to create a "government food store" in which we decide what food is best and provide a pre-selected allotment of food for each family based on their needs.
People don't buy education, they pay for the opportunity to learn. You're comparing tangible items with intangible items. Without public education, I would argue that there would be less schools and less resources for people to learn. As a result, less people will send their children to school when they have to choose between the bills or their children's education. With or without the government creating "government food stores", people tend to find ways to eat. You don't need education to survive, just to live a better life, which at the end only helps the nation as a whole.


Gbaji wrote:
Which is strange, given that "poor education choices" is usually at the top of the list of reasons why children of poor families can't get out of poverty and become successful. It's why they are at a disadvantage compared to "the rich kids". But now, and only now that we're arguing school vouchers, suddenly the argument is that those poor kids are getting just as good of an education as the kids in the rich neighborhoods?

Really? When did this become the liberal position on wealth and opportunity?
I actually never heard that...I'm not saying no one says that.



Edited, Jan 31st 2014 2:23pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#197 Jan 31 2014 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools.

Nah, they don't. They send them to good public schools. Private school enrollment is much lower in high median income areas because the public schools are so much better. Even in old money enclaves like New Canaan (edit: New Canaan, not New Haven. Yale is in New Haven, it just immediately comes to mind when thinking of stupid wealthy people) or whatever, most people still send their kids to public. There is a subset of people who send their children to board, but that's a cultural tradition more than anything. Most private school students are in parochial schools and live in towns with low median incomes, and live in families that are slightly about the median. It's not a mystery, some people decide to buy the $75k house in Gary, Ind and send their kids to catholic schools instead of buying a $250k tool shed in Glencoe.



Edited, Jan 31st 2014 8:42am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#198 Jan 31 2014 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,185 posts
Poverty affects education in ways besides the school itself. A kid who didn't eat breakfast is probably not going to be able to concentrate on the morning lessons that well. (Some school systems offer breakfast to kids for this reason alone.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#199 Jan 31 2014 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools.

Nah, they don't. They send them to good public schools.

Yeah, here's my anecdote: While raising our kids we were living in a pretty upscale town with good schools. We also had one of the best private, college prep schools in the area housed in our town. Our next door neighbor taught there. This meant his kids could attend the private school tuition free. The oldest did. The second and youngest didn't. He was a budding musician and our public high school had a really robust music program, so he opted for the public high school.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#200 Jan 31 2014 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,396 posts
gbaji wrote:
If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right?
Says the guy who adamantly argued against the World Trade Center Mosque because of those pesky Radical Muslims.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Jan 31 2014 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's A-OK if the majority discriminates against the minority because we'll let the minority discriminate against us right back! They stay out of our country clubs and we'll stay out of their ghettos. So now everyone's happy! Liberty!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT