NationStates Jolt Archive

A thread on school vouchers got me thinking.

I hadn't checked the politics of that particular poster, but it seems that the common conservative view is that school vouchers = good. I don't understand this. Conservatives are supposed to be against increased public spending. Public spending on private companies is still public spending. And this isn't the only case in which their own views are at odds with themselves. I don't simply mean one principle being compromised for another like sacrificing civil rights for security. I mean simply holding the opposite of their supposed position to be their position.

School vouchers. Instead of spending efficiently to run a school managed by the government, spend inefficiently (far more money for the same return) to fund private schools that are supposed to fund themselves.

Charity. Charity is bad because it isn't the government's job to spend tax payer money to help people. We shouldn't have a government healthcare program. We shouldn't spend money to help sick and starving children in third world countries. People should help themselves. So why is it good to spend money on a charity that will send poor kids to private schools? Why is it good to charitibly spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "bring democracy to Iraq?"

Public responsibility. On this very board some people have expressed agreement with the idea being touted by the right-wing pundits that we should punish the people ruled by dictators we don't like to "punish" them for supporting our enemies. Apparently, they are fully able to overthrow their rulers whenever they want. That's why we should bomb Iran, and support Israel in their bombing of Lebanon. So why did we go and over throw Saddam "for" the Iraqi people?

It just seems that Conservatives don't really have any principles. Most of them just do what they're told and the rest just use really transparent propaganda to justify whatever the fuck they feel like doing.

A thread on school vouchers got me thinking.
...snip...It just seems that Conservatives don't really have any principles. Most of them just do what they're told and the rest just use really transparent propaganda to justify whatever the fuck they feel like doing.

This is typical behaviour for all humans, regardless of political ideology. Assuming that all, or even many, conservatives are like this is a generalisation and not conducive to good debate.

Perhaps you could start by defining what you mean by conservative.

School vouchers. Instead of spending efficiently to run a school managed by the government, spend inefficiently (far more money for the same return) to fund private schools that are supposed to fund themselves.

Stop.

It's been proven in a lot of school districts that the local government is completely inept in their ability to run schools.

See Prince George's County, Maryland, or Washington DC Public Schools, to see how badly a government can fuck up.

Just because it's "the government" doesn't mean they actually know what they're doing.

A voucher system provides incentives for existing public schools to perform well - if they don't, the parents take their vouchers elsewhere. To a private school.

Private schools in the US, overall, outperform public schools - for less expenditure per student compared to public schools.

1)Just because it's a private school doesn't mean it's superior.
2)Private school attendance is vastly more expensive than what's paid in school tax.


What vouchers amount to is a tax break for people wealthy enough to send their kids to private school. The tuition to a catholic private school where I live (population approx 10,000) costs $6k a year. Annual school taxes are less than $500. The only people seeing any benefit are those who can already afford private school. Those who suffer are those who cannot because their school loses funding and they can't afford to escape.

2)Private school attendance is vastly more expensive than what's paid in school tax.

Wrong.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=10

Wrong.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=10

No, right. No one pays $3500 a year in school taxes. The government may pay that per child, but the cost of it is distributed to every tax payer in the district wether they have children or not.

The point stands.

No, right. No one pays $3500 a year in school taxes. The government may pay that per child, but the cost of it is distributed to every tax payer in the district wether they have children or not.

The point stands.

In terms of cost efficiency, it is correct that the private school is more efficient per pupil than public schools.

It's been proven again and again and again.

What a voucher system does is force a public school to perform well. If it fails to perform, the parents in the area take their kids to another school - probably another public one. The failing school disappears due to lack of funding, and the teachers there lose their jobs because they suck.

Since this is how a conservative thinks (and not how you think), this point stands.

And the argument in the OP crumbles.

Because you're putting up a strawman conservative, and then assuming you know how they think.

QED

Today's conservatives tend to be two types of people.

The rich, or those that relate to the rich, that look out for themselves. Which covers the vouchers.

The poor, relative uneducated, that fear, hate, and Pharissitic religion appeals to. Which covers most of the other "conservative" issues. Of course, the "conservative" government talks these issues to get their votes, but totally ignores them until the next election. Bush got elected on "gay marriage", anyone heard of it since????

'Conservatives' don't have consistency of opinions for the same reason 'liberals' don't. Because they don't have opinions. At least not their own. It is marvellous to see what was once a label encompassing a certain set of political tendencies, transform into a something of a code of thought-conduct. They'll have whatever consistency they're told to have.

'Conservatives' don't have consistency of opinions for the same reason 'liberals' don't. Because they don't have opinions. At least not their own. It is marvellous to see what was once a label encompassing a certain set of political tendencies, transform into a something of a code of thought-conduct. They'll have whatever consistency they're told to have.

To quote Propellerheads, "BANG ON!"

Most of them just do what they're told

but it certainly seems to matter who does the telling

Wrong.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=10
And the ISF covers for all private schools? I would suspect that they mostly just aid in the more affordable ones.

If you want a realpolitik reason, think of it this way: Teachers vote overwhelmingly Democratic, ergo Republican politicians hate the public school system.

A voucher program that refunds the taxes paid to support schools will always favor the wealthy, because the poor don't pay enough in taxes to cover it. A voucher program that pays out a flat rate to cover expenses will be attacked as a welfare program.

In general, they tend to cost more than anticipated. A voucher program run by the government is not going to be greatly more efficient. A quick search finds that the governor of Wisconsin (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/wb/03wb4De3supp.pdf) finds that expanding the voucher program there would cost the state and local governments an additional $6,000 per pupil. Since local governments provide half of it, those living in poorer regions - who are therefore likely to want vouchers - get the short end of the stick.

It's a nice way to help some kids get educated, but it's far from a miracle cure. It stands as essentially pouring state funds into less regulated private institutions. Of course they cost less; they also don't necessarily meet all the same standards. I've worked at a summer camp run at a private boarding school; tuition there is substantially higher than the figures above, but it doesn't match the quality (or safety, or healthiness, etc) of the public schools I grew up with.

Not all school systems are so lucky, of course, but in the long run, you need to fix public schools - pouring money into private schools is at best a short-term solution.

'Conservatives' don't have consistency of opinions for the same reason 'liberals' don't. Because they don't have opinions. At least not their own. It is marvellous to see what was once a label encompassing a certain set of political tendencies, transform into a something of a code of thought-conduct. They'll have whatever consistency they're told to have.


But liberals dont' have the same authoritarian personalities that conservatives do. I've stated that many times here just from personal observation, but now someone's gone and done the research.
(http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670037742,00.html)

Today's conservatives tend to be two types of people.

The rich, or those that relate to the rich, that look out for themselves. Which covers the vouchers.

The poor, relative uneducated, that fear, hate, and Pharissitic religion appeals to. Which covers most of the other "conservative" issues. Of course, the "conservative" government talks these issues to get their votes, but totally ignores them until the next election. Bush got elected on "gay marriage", anyone heard of it since????

Phhht! Next you're going to tell me that the color coded alert system was a political tool. Or that Republicans don't care about flag burning in odd numbered years.

Stop.

It's been proven in a lot of school districts that the local government is completely inept in their ability to run schools.

See Prince George's County, Maryland, or Washington DC Public Schools, to see how badly a government can fuck up.

Just because it's "the government" doesn't mean they actually know what they're doing.

And in many more it's shown that they do just fine.

For the most part the public schools do just as well if not better. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-22-charter-schools_x.htm)

A voucher system provides incentives for existing public schools to perform well - if they don't, the parents take their vouchers elsewhere. To a private school.

Private schools in the US, overall, outperform public schools - for less expenditure per student compared to public schools.

That's like saying that busting kneecaps of losers provides incentive to marathon runners not to lose. It provides the incentive, but takes away the ability. But in this case you're busting the kneecaps of charity run-a-thoners. "I won't pledge any money, but if you slow down too much I'll attack you with a baseball bat and you won't be able to help those children in the oncology ward. Bet the motivation will help you, right?"

A thread on school vouchers got me thinking.

I hadn't checked the politics of that particular poster, but it seems that the common conservative view is that school vouchers = good. I don't understand this. Conservatives are supposed to be against increased public spending. Public spending on private companies is still public spending. And this isn't the only case in which their own views are at odds with themselves. I don't simply mean one principle being compromised for another like sacrificing civil rights for security. I mean simply holding the opposite of their supposed position to be their position.

School vouchers. Instead of spending efficiently to run a school managed by the government, spend inefficiently (far more money for the same return) to fund private schools that are supposed to fund themselves.

Charity. Charity is bad because it isn't the government's job to spend tax payer money to help people. We shouldn't have a government healthcare program. We shouldn't spend money to help sick and starving children in third world countries. People should help themselves. So why is it good to spend money on a charity that will send poor kids to private schools? Why is it good to charitibly spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "bring democracy to Iraq?"

Public responsibility. On this very board some people have expressed agreement with the idea being touted by the right-wing pundits that we should punish the people ruled by dictators we don't like to "punish" them for supporting our enemies. Apparently, they are fully able to overthrow their rulers whenever they want. That's why we should bomb Iran, and support Israel in their bombing of Lebanon. So why did we go and over throw Saddam "for" the Iraqi people?

It just seems that Conservatives don't really have any principles. Most of them just do what they're told and the rest just use really transparent propaganda to justify whatever the fuck they feel like doing.



The typical Tory view is that each should be able to provide for themselves. Just this basic viewpoint makes for a community that is run by greed.

When a Tory goverment privatises anything it is to save the taxpayers money, and thus spend on other thig, all well and good on paper. The reality is that the once state service gets missmangaged in the search for profit. Omnce this happens then Joe Bloggs gets largely forgotten about, and a few people make shit loads of cash before retireing.

Take the Bush monkey, (please somebody and shot him) for instance, what's he got 3 years left of his second term? The next few years we shall see the Bush monkey pull all sorts of stunts, to make his pot grow before he has to leave. war for oil, or war so that his intrest in arms companies can earn him more money. I really would not be supprised if he pulled out all of the stops to stop the war just before his term is up. Shit man the wolrds not a nice place to spend your cash if it is war torn.

Ultimatly a libral/socalist goverment is the only way to go. In fact scratch that, ultimatly power does indeed corrupt, so some form of power sharing scheme can really be the only sane way to go.

Today's conservatives tend to be two types of people.

The rich, or those that relate to the rich, that look out for themselves. Which covers the vouchers.

The poor, relative uneducated, that fear, hate, and Pharissitic religion appeals to. Which covers most of the other "conservative" issues. Of course, the "conservative" government talks these issues to get their votes, but totally ignores them until the next election. Bush got elected on "gay marriage", anyone heard of it since????

Let's not forget the middle class, who have 401k plans and mortgages on their houses (which they expect to increase in value). So they're pro-business, too.

And don't forget the majority of gun owners - which is one of the reasons that a lot of American labor union members DO NOT vote Democrat.

Liberals wish to nationalize everything and thus ruin our country's economy. Conservatives wish to privatize whenever possible, and thus make our country run more efficiently. However, they do feel that the poor should have a chance to succeed despite being under-privileged. Thus, they are for privatizing the educational system while still giving everybody a fair chance. I see no contradiction.

Let's not forget the middle class, who have 401k plans and mortgages on their houses (which they expect to increase in value). So they're pro-business, too.

And don't forget the majority of gun owners - which is one of the reasons that a lot of American labor union members DO NOT vote Democrat.

The gun people tend to fall into the poorer relatively uneducated. And they definitley fall into those that fear tends to motivate. I don't carry any of my guns because I have no fear of being without them, but if I did, I would strap one on and walk down the street with no fear that someone may know. Concealed carry is the ultimate of fear and cowardace. That is the only area of guns that has changed and it changed at the state and not fed level. The feds bring it up at election time but then ignore it as they do with the "moral" issues.

The middle class that tend to vote conservative again tend to be the less educated or those that are social climbing. Those that are social climbing are winning with the rules as they are so don't want any change in the rules that might not favor their climb and might favor the climb of someone else. Again this is a motivation of fear. A fear that they might not be able to compete as well as with different rules.

Simply look at the education level of the red states and compare it to the education level of the blue states. There is a direct correlation. The less education the more people vote conservative. But they get almost nothing out of it. All of the issues they vote on are ignored as soon as the election is over. Instead the issues of the rich are addressed.

May I recommend "What's The Matter With Kansas" Thomas Frank

Today's conservatives tend to be two types of people.

The rich, or those that relate to the rich, that look out for themselves. Which covers the vouchers.

The poor, relative uneducated, that fear, hate, and Pharissitic religion appeals to. Which covers most of the other "conservative" issues. Of course, the "conservative" government talks these issues to get their votes, but totally ignores them until the next election. Bush got elected on "gay marriage", anyone heard of it since????

Here are some cute lil' stereotypes you can use in your next post. Just substitute Conservative for Republican where appropriate.

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/frowners/becomerepublican

Begoner21;11624584']Liberals wish to nationalize everything and thus ruin our country's economy. Conservatives wish to privatize whenever possible, and thus make our country run more efficiently. However, they do feel that the poor should have a chance to succeed despite being under-privileged. Thus, they are for privatizing the educational system while still giving everybody a fair chance. I see no contradiction.

And the top three spenders of Fed money:

GW Bush
Ronald Reagan
GHW Bush

All spent more and went in debt more than all of the 20th Century presidents.

How much of that money went to the poor and middle class? How much better are the poor and middle class than they were 26 years ago? In terms of buying power---All have lost ground. The poorer someone is the greater the loss in buying power over the last 26 years. Tinkle down, did not in any way benefit the bottom 75% of Americans. Look up the statistics.

Here are some cute lil' stereotypes you can use in your next post. Just substitute Conservative for Republican where appropriate.

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/frowners/becomerepublican

The problem of Stereotypes is it is a taking of the general and applying it to the specific. That doesn't mean that the general isn't true generally.

I love this page. It is so generally true.

To be a conservative is seems you have to somehow believe a) Bill Clinton is a liberal; b) Noam Chomsky is a liberal; c) that Bill Clinton was running the US in a way Noam Chomsky would approve of.

I love this page. It is so generally true.

It stands to reason that you would.

To be a conservative is seems you have to somehow believe a) Bill Clinton is a liberal; b) Noam Chomsky is a liberal; c) that Bill Clinton was running the US in a way Noam Chomsky would approve of.

Noam Chomsky does have certain unfortunate liberal tendencies.

The gun people tend to fall into the poorer relatively uneducated. And they definitley fall into those that fear tends to motivate. I don't carry any of my guns because I have no fear of being without them, but if I did, I would strap one on and walk down the street with no fear that someone may know. Concealed carry is the ultimate of fear and cowardace. That is the only area of guns that has changed and it changed at the state and not fed level. The feds bring it up at election time but then ignore it as they do with the "moral" issues.

The middle class that tend to vote conservative again tend to be the less educated or those that are social climbing. Those that are social climbing are winning with the rules as they are so don't want any change in the rules that might not favor their climb and might favor the climb of someone else. Again this is a motivation of fear. A fear that they might not be able to compete as well as with different rules.

Simply look at the education level of the red states and compare it to the education level of the blue states. There is a direct correlation. The less education the more people vote conservative. But they get almost nothing out of it. All of the issues they vote on are ignored as soon as the election is over. Instead the issues of the rich are addressed.

May I recommend "What's The Matter With Kansas" Thomas Frank

Ahh, lots of unsupportable stereotypes as well as they typical "red/blue" state BS. Of course this can only be argued if one completely ignores the fact that the countries actual voting demographics makes it primarily purple.

Ahh, lots of unsupportable stereotypes as well as they typical "red/blue" state BS. Of course this can only be argued if one completely ignores the fact that the countries actual voting demographics makes it primarily purple.

If you look at the counties each state has red counties and blue counties but which counties are red and which are blue still falls into the pattern. And yes half the counties are red and halfe blue hence a close election.

As stated above a stereotype is looking at the big picture and trying to apply it to the individual. Even though the general doesn't always apply to the specific, the general is still generally true.

If you look at the counties each state has red counties and blue counties but which counties are red and which are blue still falls into the pattern. And yes half the counties are red and halfe blue hence a close election.

No, it's purple.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

As stated above a stereotype is looking at the big picture and trying to apply it to the individual. Even though the general doesn't always apply to the specific, the general is still generally true.

No. It isn't. It's taking whatever opinions you may have on a specific group and applying them whereever you feel like w/o any factual support.

And the top three spenders of Fed money:

GW Bush
Ronald Reagan
GHW Bush

All spent more and went in debt more than all of the 20th Century presidents.

How much of that money went to the poor and middle class? How much better are the poor and middle class than they were 26 years ago? In terms of buying power---All have lost ground. The poorer someone is the greater the loss in buying power over the last 26 years. Tinkle down, did not in any way benefit the bottom 75% of Americans. Look up the statistics.

Don't you know that statistics have a liberal bias? They're compiled by statisticians who went to college. And we all know that colleges are hotbeds of liberal propaganda. Only people with no education or information have reliable opinions that are unswayed by pieces of propaganda, or "facts" as liberals like to call them.