Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • and now your tax money that pays for the decaying public schools will be siphoned off by the school voucher [cnn.com] plan so you can either have religion in the public schools or you can watch the public schools decay at an even faster rate while people who are rich enough to send their kids to parochial schools can get a break. I suppose the 17% of kids who don't finish high school are less important than religion. Move back to NZ and just keep hoping biotech will find the religion gene and remove it from the genep

    • Fact: schooling of children is a mandate by the government. If the public schools are too bad for the children attend, then schooling of children becomes an unfunded mandate by the government on the parents. It is an obligation of the government to provide parents the funds to fulfill their legal requirement of providing education for their students.
      • It is a mandate for "public" schooling. If they start cutting checks to people for sending their kids to parochial schools then us non-breeders should be able to opt-out of paying property taxes since I have no kids and don't wish to pay for religious education. The public schools will not benefit from this and the next step would be to abolish public education altogether and just make people pay for their own education like college/university. Your desire for religious education for your children is not my

        • The government decides everyone must be schooled, so it is obliged to pay for that, and to say that public school is the only way this should be achieved is nonsense, because public schools simply are not an option sometimes. This isn't about religious schools in many cases -- to frame it otherwise is dishonest -- and even when it is, it would be unconstitutional to not pay for it just because it is religious. That is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment in regard establishments of religion. To
          • In the pilot program over 80% of the beneficiaries were catholic schools. Why should I be obligated to pay for the middle class to siphon money away from the already hurting public schools so that they can buy an SUV on the money my tax dollars helped them save on their kids school tuition? The government provides for a public education and that is all the constitution provides for so if a public school isn't 'an option' for you then you'll just have to cough up the cash like my parents and others have done

            • In the pilot program over 80% of the beneficiaries were catholic schools

              So 20% weren't. I am just saying you cannot frame this as an issue only for religious instruction, because it is not.

              Why should I be obligated to pay for the middle class to siphon money away from the already hurting public schools

              Because you -- the American people -- have mandated that these children must be schooled, so you must provide the means for them to be schooled. And again, saying the public schools are the only means
              • You still haven't answered why I should help you pay for an alternate school without providing a reason why it should be federally mandated, why my money should fund religious schooling of any kind or what exactly it is about public education that is unsuitable and how abandoning it is a solution for all the people. One dollar of my tax dollars paying for religious schooling of any kind is too much. The libertarians seem to think that public schooling is too governmentally controlled yet want my federal and

                • I have already clearly addressed pretty much everything you ask; that you don't see it is evidence that to reiterate it would be unhelpful.

                  As to your final point: I do feel that a high school diploma is unnecessary for many people, of course. You don't need a high school diploma for most jobs. I never said you don't need an education to succeed, I said you don't need a high school diploma; those are two vastly different things.

                  On the other hand, the standards of high school are a lot lower than they use
                  • Most jobs? I encourage you to go look for a job and claim you have no HS diploma or GED. What you are encouraging is a class system of rewarding people with college educations to pay you to send your kid to college with their tax dollars while those who can't afford private schools even with the subsidy will be forced to go to public schools with even less money and even less hope of getting a better education. If this is what you think is constitutional and 'american' and 'democratic' I think it's far too self-serving to be any of those. Abolish public education then and privatise education altogether making that distinction even greater to ensure that there is always a cheap labour force to flip burgers at McDonald's and work in the fields. Do that, just don't call it democratic.