The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow

FREEDOM! LIBERTY! FOUNDING FATHERS! FREE MARKETS!

He makes a really argument on why we need to keep public education public.

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

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.


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

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!

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 damn sense at all.



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.



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?

Ya, see! That less than 1% of the US that practices Islam can band together and make their Muslim-only school. Exactly the same!

True. You probably want schools that ban gays as well.

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.

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.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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

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.)

Says the guy who adamantly argued against the World Trade Center Mosque because of those pesky Radical Muslims.