How are Democrats pro-abortion but anti-school voucher?

[jillian]

so odd...well educated kids are not a pro? you pay for other things you dont use....but the only one you are bitching about is education....

abortion is legal its as simple as that.....and listen to yall.....what did bush and the gop do when in power to limit abortion? banned late term which was overturned....now why wont the gop do anything about abortion...well its a big business in the us...

as for school voucher....if you want to put the child in a private school...go for it...but dont expect to siphon off public school monies...simple as that....

seems to be we got a lot of larger problems at this point

exactly right.

 

[bucs90]

Why do conservatives want the taxpayer to fund school vouchers if conservatives want lower taxes?

We want lower taxes because we aren't happy with the product we are being given in return (public schools).

So if we in the middle class wanna send our kids to a private school, but can't afford it, then what better idea than to ask for a refund of our tax dollars (school voucher) so we can send them to a private school.

Why should my kid go to 1 school, but I have to pay for 2?

so you are down with vouchers for Wahhabist schools, I assume?

Is it private and legal? If so, not much my opinion matters on it, does it?

 

[jillian]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

Why do conservatives want the taxpayer to fund school vouchers if conservatives want lower taxes?

We want lower taxes because we aren't happy with the product we are being given in return (public schools).

So if we in the middle class wanna send our kids to a private school, but can't afford it, then what better idea than to ask for a refund of our tax dollars (school voucher) so we can send them to a private school.

Why should my kid go to 1 school, but I have to pay for 2?

BS... you want to defund schools because you're not allowed to indoctrinate them in religion; not allowed to teach them nonsense like creationism is science; not allowed to tell them to hate gays.

sucks actually educating kids, huh? i can see where you'd be resentful given the level of ignorance you show on a daily basis.

but we all have to pay for things we don't approve of. my money was used for two unnecessary wars of choice. *shrug*

 

[bodecea]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

I am VERY pro-school choice. Schools should be able to choose who they accept and don't accept.

 

[Care4all]

we have no children....why can't I have my own tax money back?

If we take all the money out of public schools, then those that are left in the public schools suffer, the majority of our children being schooled will suffer even moreso than now....the FEW that can use their vouchers and some of their own money, to go to Catholic or Private school may be better off but at the expense of all other children in Public school is inherently unfair and unequal treatment towards them... imho.

 

[xsited1]

...

Of course i did: The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

A well educated population benefits everyone. A poorly educated population plagues us all

You've got that right! Emphasize the word MINIMUM. Education in America lags virtually every other industrialized nation and yet we spend much, much more. If our Public educational system is going to fail so miserably, why do we have to pay so much for it?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's simple.

If a conservative comes up with a way to better use tax money to teach kids, libs will be against it.

Teach kids to be responsible? fuck no, teach them to file welfare.
Teach them they may have to work through college? oh hell no! Teach them to bitch the grant isn't big enough.
Teach kids to keep it in their pants? pfft, don't force your faith on me!! give them directions to the "free" (tax payer funded) abortion clinic is.

and so on, and so forth.

 

[California Girl]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

because you loons want us to pay for your kids' religious indoctrination. and want to impose your religious beliefs on women.

thank heaven for the first amendment.

None of that is true. Just sayin'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

Why do conservatives want the taxpayer to fund school vouchers if conservatives want lower taxes?

We want lower taxes because we aren't happy with the product we are being given in return (public schools).

So if we in the middle class wanna send our kids to a private school, but can't afford it, then what better idea than to ask for a refund of our tax dollars (school voucher) so we can send them to a private school.

Why should my kid go to 1 school, but I have to pay for 2?

Why should I pay for ANY school if I don't have children?

And where do you think the money for the vouchers comes from??

TAXES.

 

[Agit8r]

...

Of course i did: The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

A well educated population benefits everyone. A poorly educated population plagues us all

You've got that right! Emphasize the word MINIMUM. Education in America lags virtually every other industrialized nation and yet we spend much, much more. If our Public educational system is going to fail so miserably, why do we have to pay so much for it?

lets examine. Why do you suppose that "we pay more for education" than many social democracies. The answer of course lies with how labor "compensation" is measured. Teachers receive a pension and health benefits, which are called "compensation" here.

But in most European countries the teachers and administrators receive these benefits simply for being citizens of the country, so it is not called compensation for employment and measured as education expenditures. So in this case the numbers lie.

 

[Oddball]

You have it exactly backwards.

Why should people who send their kids to private schools or even have no children at all be obliged to pay for gubmint schools?

tax break if you send your kid to a private school? It wont get you out of paying town and state taxes, but i dont see a reason why not to if you dont send your kid to public.

Rube Goldberg for those who have kids and prefer sending them to private schools, and no use to the childless.

Here's a novel idea: You want a product or service, you pay for it.

 

[Oddball]

The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

Public funding should never go to the indoctrination of religion, molestation, and other nonsense that takes place in religious schools

I notice that you didn't answer my question, deflectasaurus rex.

Of course i did: The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

A well educated population benefits everyone. A poorly educated population plagues us all

Platitudes aren't a cogent answer.

 

[kaz]

I notice that you didn't answer my question, deflectasaurus rex.

Of course i did: The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

A well educated population benefits everyone. A poorly educated population plagues us all

Platitudes aren't a cogent answer.

Yeah, but you gotta go with what you got when you don't have any facts to support your argument

 

[Sarah G]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

And how are you both continuously creating threads and stupid at the same time?

 

[xsited1]

...

Of course i did: The purpose of pubic schools is (or at least ought to be) to provide a minimum standard of education for all regardless of their parent's circumstances.

A well educated population benefits everyone. A poorly educated population plagues us all

You've got that right! Emphasize the word MINIMUM. Education in America lags virtually every other industrialized nation and yet we spend much, much more. If our Public educational system is going to fail so miserably, why do we have to pay so much for it?

lets examine. Why do you suppose that "we pay more for education" than many social democracies. The answer of course lies with how labor "compensation" is measured. Teachers receive a pension and health benefits, which are called "compensation" here.

But in most European countries the teachers and administrators receive these benefits simply for being citizens of the country, so it is not called compensation for employment and measured as education expenditures. So in this case the numbers lie.

There is some truth to that, but unfortunately Americans still spend significantly more per student than all industrialized nations. Furthermore, the real cost of Public Education is even higher than what is published. Here's documentation on that:

They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools | Adam B. Schaeffer | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

But even if the spending levels were the same with all things being equal, one would expect American students to at least perform as well as other countries and they don't. So not only are we paying more for education, our kids are not being educated adequately.

 

[Care4all]

well, for over 20 years now, the hubby and I have been taxed for the schools for other people's children....

Why should you get a voucher of money that helps pay for your kid's private school, while matt and I get no tax break at all, and have to pay for the private and public schooling of all of your children?

Does the +/- $2500 you pay in property taxes each year even come close to covering your child's or children's education.....?

We pay for your children to go to public school with our taxes, because it is better for our country on the whole to have an educated workforce.

I don't want our taxes to go towards private schools for your kids...simple as that.....if you want them to go to private schools, then pay for it yourselves.

It's bad enough that matt and me going our marriage without children, having to pay for schooling of other people's children in public school is good enough.

Make the Public schools work.

 

[Agit8r]

You have it exactly backwards.

Why should people who send their kids to private schools or even have no children at all be obliged to pay for gubmint schools?

tax break if you send your kid to a private school? It wont get you out of paying town and state taxes, but i dont see a reason why not to if you dont send your kid to public.

Rube Goldberg for those who have kids and prefer sending them to private schools, and no use to the childless.

Here's a novel idea: You want a product or service, you pay for it.

that is dumb. Children are the recipients, and should not be excluded simply because their parents are too fucktarded to value an education

 

[xsited1]

...

Make the Public schools work.

Good luck with that.

And it's worse for my family. Not only do we have to pay for Public Education, but we also pay for Private Education because Public Education where we live sucks. Talk about getting ripped off.

 

[Polk]

In light of the huge education debate the past few weeks, I can't help but wonder:

Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion. "Freedom of choice" they say.

But they despise the thought of school vouchers (Because it would take money away from unions).

So I conclude....

Democrats are only pro-choice when it comes to killing a child, not educating one.

Last time I checked, we don't have taxpayer funding of abortion in this country, so it's a pretty moot point.

 

[Greenbeard]

Dude, you do know a school voucher would involve giving those parents "their own dime" back to them to do just that, pay it on their own time.

An education voucher is generally a public subsidy to buy from a private organization a good whose acquisition is compulsory.

I'm glad you can see this a concept that's viewed much more favorably by the right than the left. On that you're correct.