Do you get paid by the entire post or by the word?
Too bad you don't get paid to read or you might have come up with a real comment instead of another lame troll post.
It's all about giving families a choice regarding their child's school. The public schools are letting them down and the Walton family is responsible for families having other options.
Why are liberals again vouchers that offer options? Do they not think that parents are capable of making such big decisions when it comes to their child's education?
Do you actually have an opinion or are you just here to spout talking points and move on?
You should have kept on reading is what you should have done. This is not about choice.
Seems you don't understand the meaning of "choice."
And, speaking of reading.....here's some that might improve your understanding of welfare policy.
10.
Liberal policy is to get all Americans enrolled in dependency programs.....no matter their income!
Like this:
“In an effort to increase the number of schools with a School Breakfast Program the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), the University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension, and the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board have issued the Wisconsin School Breakfast Challenge. The challenge is to
encourage all public and private schools to implement a SBP if they currently do not offer one and to increase school breakfast participation by 50 percent in existing school breakfast buildings.”
a. Even if you can't claim that they cannot afford the food???
So....does that
prove that Liberals are all about increasing dependency on government with no consideration of need???
More? Here ya' go:
"Mequon-Thiensville School District was the
affluent Milwaukee suburb named winner for increasing in-school breakfast participation by 110% over the 2007-2008 school year.
This community had a median family income of more than $107,000. The mean value of houses in which said children do not partake of breakfast was $471,353." Sykes, “Nation of Moochers,” p. 80.
11. Based on the above, I look forward to the argument put forth by brain-dead Liberals geared toward supporting the idea that
the implementation of unnecessary programs is anything but an attempt to grow government.
a. "The avalanche of transfer payments are accepted by the public only if they are trained to accept what William Voegeli calls ‘non-Euclidean economics,” in which
taxpayers are led to believe that all the goodies are paid for by someone elseÂ….the welfare state manages the perceptions of its cost s and benefits to
encourage them to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistribution by the government.”
William Voegeli, “Never Enough, America’s Limitless Welfare State,” p. 7.
That's Liberals: they " to believe an impossibility."
Isn't that the definition of stupidity?
b. "The developments seem to fulfill the aspirations of the legendary liberal warhorse Hubert Humphrey, who pushed for federal funding to provide every student in the country a free daily lunch. David Stockman, who was President Reagan's budget chief, noted that since
the government already provided free meals to poor children, the only apparent benefit was to give more affluent families 'the privilege of buying school lunches on an annual purchase plan every April 15th."
William Voegeli, "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State," p.249.
Sure would like to see how many Liberals continue this absurdity if they had to put their hands in their own pockets instead of in mine.