Biden Approved of Vouchers?
The_Carpathia
seems that last decade Joe Biden argued in FAVOR of
vouchers...claiming it was not a violation of the Constitution to give
money to religious schools....
http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/08/editors-note.html
Let me guess...this will be a part of Biden's "experience" brought to
Obama's table that will be left out.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
timeOday
I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
Why does it trouble you?
Bob LeChevalier
>In the ever changing world of Democrat politics, we have this. It
>seems that last decade Joe Biden argued in FAVOR of
>vouchers...claiming it was not a violation of the Constitution to give
>money to religious schools....
>
>http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/08/editors-note.html
Actually he said that it had not yet been ruled on.
>Let me guess...this will be a part of Biden's "experience" brought to
>Obama's table that will be left out.
Why? Obama said that he chose Biden in part because Biden would be
able to challenge him on issues. (Though in fact, Biden's current
position on vouchers has changed. 10 years is a lot of time to learn
how ineffectual the public school voucher programs have been.)
http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/joe-biden/2/education/14/
Unlike the Bushwhack, Obama doesn't want yesmen who agree with him on
everything.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Cary Kittrell
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.education:111805 alt.politics.elections:112035
>
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In the ever changing world of Democrat politics, we have this. It
> >seems that last decade Joe Biden argued in FAVOR of
> >vouchers...claiming it was not a violation of the Constitution to give
> >money to religious schools....
> >
> >http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/08/editors-note.html
>
> Actually he said that it had not yet been ruled on.
>
> >Let me guess...this will be a part of Biden's "experience" brought to
> >Obama's table that will be left out.
>
> Why? Obama said that he chose Biden in part because Biden would be
> able to challenge him on issues. (Though in fact, Biden's current
> position on vouchers has changed. 10 years is a lot of time to learn
> how ineffectual the public school voucher programs have been.)
>
> http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/joe-biden/2/education/14/
> Unlike the Bushwhack, Obama doesn't want yesmen who agree with him on
> everything.
Um, I believe you meant to write "Unlike Cheney, Biden doesn't
want a President who agrees with everyting he's told to do"?
-- cary
The_Carpathia
Trouble me...it doesn't. It confirms the value of vouchers that even
the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them. That
puts him at odds with the teacher unions, if we are to believe his
words were true.
It was funny when I saw an Obama spokesman saying that we should just
ignore Biden's criticism of Obama as campaign talk. Is that a
confession that nothing said in campaigns can be trusted (like
promises)?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
>> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
>>
>> Why does it trouble you?
>
>Trouble me...it doesn't. It confirms the value of vouchers
Not hardly.
>that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them.
Actually, he said nothing of the kind. He said that the USSC hadn't
ruled on them, which was true at the time.
But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
(unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
>That puts him at odds with the teacher unions, if we are to believe his
>words were true.
His words weren't what you said they were. And there is no
requirement that he be in lockstep with the teacher's union.
>It was funny when I saw an Obama spokesman saying that we should just
>ignore Biden's criticism of Obama as campaign talk. Is that a
>confession that nothing said in campaigns can be trusted (like
>promises)?
Certainly nothing said in campaigns can be trusted, including
promises. One can put a little more credence on an approved party
platform, and candidates are more likely to be in support of things
they promise than opposed to them.
But one should never believe a word of negative statements about an
opposing candidate. Only fools believe negative campaigning.
lorad
Vouchers are a good idea..
Think of it as privatization - instead of failed government services.
If the education provided is superior - that's a better deal than
churning out drop outs from public schools.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
> >> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
>
> >> Why does it trouble you?
>
> >Trouble me...it doesn't. It confirms the value of vouchers
>
> Not hardly.
>
> >that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them.
>
> Actually, he said nothing of the kind. He said that the USSC hadn't
> ruled on them, which was true at the time.
He said there wasn't anything wrong with money going to religious
groups.
>
> But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
> information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
> (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
>
Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate? Who's to say he won't
change his mind, again, once in office?
> >It was funny when I saw an Obama spokesman saying that we should just
> >ignore Biden's criticism of Obama as campaign talk. Is that a
> >confession that nothing said in campaigns can be trusted (like
> >promises)?
>
> Certainly nothing said in campaigns can be trusted, including
> promises. One can put a little more credence on an approved party
> platform, and candidates are more likely to be in support of things
> they promise than opposed to them.
>
So, we can't expect Obama to deliver on his promises? Bill Clinton
said, yesterday, that that kind of person shouldn't be elected.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 26, 11:51=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
> > >> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
> >
> > >> Why does it trouble you?
> >
> >
> > Not hardly.
> >
> > >that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them.
> >
> > ruled on them, which was true at the time. =A0
>
> He said there wasn't anything wrong with money going to religious
> groups.
>
> >
> > But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
> > information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
> > (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
> >
>
> Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate? Who's to say he won't
> change his mind, again, once in office?
I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
of changing his mind in office. We've had enough of
an imperious, "my way or the highway", "because I say so"
Presidency to last a lifetime.
--cary
>
> > >It was funny when I saw an Obama spokesman saying that we should just
> > >ignore Biden's criticism of Obama as campaign talk. =A0Is that a
> > >confession that nothing said in campaigns can be trusted (like
> > >promises)?
> >
> > Certainly nothing said in campaigns can be trusted, including
> > promises. =A0One can put a little more credence on an approved party
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 26, 11:51 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
>> >> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
>>
>> >> Why does it trouble you?
>>
>> >Trouble me...it doesn't. It confirms the value of vouchers
>>
>> Not hardly.
>>
>> >that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them.
>>
>> Actually, he said nothing of the kind. He said that the USSC hadn't
>> ruled on them, which was true at the time.
>
>He said there wasn't anything wrong with money going to religious
>groups.
He said that the USSC hadn't ruled on them, which was true at the time
>> But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
>> information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
>> (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
>
>Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate?
Yes, if he gets more and better information, I certainly do!
>Who's to say he won't change his mind, again, once in office?
If he gets more and better information that justifies a change in
position, I certainly hope he will.
>> >It was funny when I saw an Obama spokesman saying that we should just
>> >ignore Biden's criticism of Obama as campaign talk. Is that a
>> >confession that nothing said in campaigns can be trusted (like
>> >promises)?
>>
>> Certainly nothing said in campaigns can be trusted, including
>> promises. One can put a little more credence on an approved party
>> platform, and candidates are more likely to be in support of things
>> they promise than opposed to them.
>
>So, we can't expect Obama to deliver on his promises?
No more nor less than any other candidate. Compromises are always
necessary. And I tend to respect a candidate who can get things
accomplished with a wise compromise, over a Bushwhack who holds his
positions regardless of what happens.
>Bill Clinton said, yesterday, that that kind of person shouldn't be elected.
Whoopie for Bill Clinton (who I have to admit did a better job than
most on fulfilling his promises.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 25, 11:46 am, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In the ever changing world of Democrat politics, we have this. It
>> seems that last decade Joe Biden argued in FAVOR of
>> vouchers...claiming it was not a violation of the Constitution to give
>> money to religious schools....
>>
>> http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/08/editors-note.html
>>
>> Let me guess...this will be a part of Biden's "experience" brought to
>> Obama's table that will be left out.
>>
>> Kenneth Clifton
>> christiansuperhero.com
>
>Vouchers are a good idea..
>Think of it as privatization - instead of failed government services.
Privatization has generally NOT improved on government services.
The places where vouchers have been tried, they have NOT produced
better students than the public schools.
>If the education provided is superior
It isn't.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> In article <b223bcea-b4be-4a40-9655-0ef64d020...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 11:51=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
> > > >> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
>
> > > >> Why does it trouble you?
>
> > > >Trouble me...it doesn't. =A0It confirms the value of vouchers
>
> > > Not hardly.
>
> > > >that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with them.
>
> > > Actually, he said nothing of the kind. =A0He said that the USSC hadn't
> > > ruled on them, which was true at the time. =A0
>
> > He said there wasn't anything wrong with money going to religious
> > groups.
>
> > > But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
> > > information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
> > > (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
>
> > Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate? Who's to say he won't
> > change his mind, again, once in office?
>
> I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
> of changing his mind in office. We've had enough of
> an imperious, "my way or the highway", "because I say so"
> Presidency to last a lifetime.
>
> --cary
So, you hope Obama is capable of rejecting liberal influence and
giving money to religious groups, once elected? Maybe he will change
his mind and support vouchers, too. Further, he may outlaw late term
abortions or more...who cares what he promised. Right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 1:00=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <b223bcea-b4be-4a40-9655-0ef64d020...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.=
> com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 26, 11:51=3DA0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I don't think it's very realistic to expect the President and Vice
> > > > >> President to be in perfect agreement on everything for all time.
> >
> > > > >> Why does it trouble you?
> >
> >
> > > > Not hardly.
> >
> > > > >that even the Democrat VP once said there was nothing wrong with the=
> m.
> >
> > > > Actually, he said nothing of the kind. =3DA0He said that the USSC had=
> n't
> > > > ruled on them, which was true at the time. =3DA0
> >
> > > He said there wasn't anything wrong with money going to religious
> > > groups.
> >
> > > > But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
> > > > information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
> > > > (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
> >
> > > change his mind, again, once in office?
> >
> > I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
> > an imperious, "my way or the highway", "because I say so"
> > Presidency to last a lifetime.
> >
> > --cary
>
> So, you hope Obama is capable of rejecting liberal influence and
> giving money to religious groups, once elected?
How many times, rounded to the nearest dozen, would you estimate
I've asked you to keep your words out of my mouth, as I have
no idea where they've been?
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>> > > But if he had said so, and later changed his mind with more
>> > > information, I would consider that evidence that he has an open mind
>> > > (unlike Kennie the torpedoed and sunken ocean liner).
>>
>> > Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate? Who's to say he won't
>> > change his mind, again, once in office?
>>
>> I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
>> of changing his mind in office. We've had enough of
>> an imperious, "my way or the highway", "because I say so"
>> Presidency to last a lifetime.
>>
>> --cary
>
>So, you hope Obama is capable of rejecting liberal influence and
>giving money to religious groups, once elected? Maybe he will change
>his mind and support vouchers, too. Further, he may outlaw late term
>abortions or more...who cares what he promised. Right?
Why would he do such nutty things? He's being elected because he is
***smarter*** than you?
Jerry Okamura
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb5f983a-88f4-47b1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_faithbased_service.html
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder writes:
(W.E.W): "Ahh...so, you WANT a flip-flop candidate? Who's to say he
won't change his mind, again, once in office?"
(Cary): "I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
of changing his mind in office. We've had enough of an imperious, "my
way or the highway", "because I say so" Presidency to last a
lifetime."
Bush never said "My way or the highway" (or can you provide a cite),
so whom do you quote here? Principle and honesty are virtues, and so
are practicality and diplomacy, but they are contradictory virtues. We
all strike a balance. I think the President's critics underestimate
his flexibility in the interest of branding him "ideological".
Remember that he originally (2000 election) campaigned against
ambitious nation building. Those who criticize this balance (wherever
it lines up) in their politiocal opponents and laud it in allies
(wherever it lies) exercise the sort of judgment that people who
assert that Clint Eastwood cannot act or Sinead O'Connor cannot sing
exercise. You let your emotions cloud your judgment.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
lorad..wrote:
(lorad): "Vouchers are a good idea..
Think of it as privatization - instead of failed government services."
(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
services."
In other words, society would be better off if the goons with the guns
(the State) monopolized all industry? I suspect this is a distinct
minority position.
(Bob): "The places wherevouchershave been tried, they have NOT
produced better students than the public schools."
Flat false. I recommend E.G. West, "School Vouchers in Principle and
Practice: A Survey" (The World Bank __Research Observer__) and
__Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services__ (Brookings).
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical
findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Joshua Angrist,
"Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education Research"
NBER Reporter, summer, 2003. http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
Jay Green's blog lists research on vouchers.
http://jaypgreene.com/2008/08/27/the-meta-list-an-incomplete-list-of-complete-lists/
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 5:00=A0pm, Cary Kittrell wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder writes:
>
> won't change his mind, again, once in office?"
> (Cary): "I SERIOUSLY hope whichever one becomees President is capable
> way or the highway", "because I say so" Presidency to last a
> lifetime."
>
> Bush never said "My way or the highway" (or can you provide a cite),
> so whom do you quote here?
I quote no one, nor did I intend those to appear as quotes. Those
were meant as my impressions of the current administration. Rather as
if I had said Kenneth "God luuuuvs a rich man" Clifton. Or
Dick "Well, he looked like a grouse to me" Cheney.
> Principle and honesty are virtues, and so
> are practicality and diplomacy, but they are contradictory virtues.
Yeppers.
> We all strike a balance. I think the President's critics underestimate
> his flexibility in the interest of branding him "ideological".
But I don't think of Bush as ideological. I think of him
as someone utterly uninterested in the opinions of others
as regards his his choices. "Because I said so" (again,
not intended to as a quote) is not an idealogical stance.
It's the attitude of a person with little curiosity
and no interest in any point of view other than his
own.
> Remember that he originally (2000 election) campaigned against
> ambitious nation building. Those who criticize this balance (wherever
> it lines up) in their politiocal opponents and laud it in allies
> (wherever it lies) exercise the sort of judgment that people who
> assert that Clint Eastwood cannot act or Sinead O'Connor cannot sing
> exercise. You let your emotions cloud your judgment.
I will never criticize someone simply for changing an opinion. I *will*
criticize them for making a bad choice.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>lorad..wrote:
>
>(lorad): "Vouchers are a good idea..
>Think of it as privatization - instead of failed government services."
>(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
>services."
>
>In other words, society would be better off if the goons with the guns
>(the State) monopolized all industry?
False dichotomy.
The status quo ante on the boundary between public and private was
fine by me. "Privatization" is an attempt to change that balance,
generally for ideological reasons.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
(lorad): "Vouchers are a good idea..Think of it as privatization -
instead of failed government services."
(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
services."
(malcolm): "In other words, society would be better off if the goons
with the guns (the State) monopolized all industry?
(Bob): "False dichotomy."
Dunno that I pose a dichotomy. Government control of an industry is a
matter of degree. LeChevalier wrote: "(p)rivatization has generally
NOT improved on government services." So, less State control
(privatization) is "generally" a bad idea, according to LeChevalier.
The question then becomes: "less than what?" State monopoly of all
industry? It's a question, Mr. LeChevalier.
What makes the pre-college education industry a likely candidate for
State (government, generally) operation?
(Bob): "The status quo ante on the boundary between public and private
was fine by me. "Privatization" is an attempt to change that balance,
generally for ideological reasons."
"Ante" what? Before 1820, more US States supported policies which gave
parents the power to determine which school should receive the
taxpayers' education subsidy than restricted parents' options to
schools operated by government employees.
(Bob): "The places wherevouchershave been tried, they have NOT
produced better students than the public schools."
Refutation deleted by LeChevalier. Readers may backtrack.
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>lorad..wrote:
>
>(lorad): "Vouchers are a good idea..Think of it as privatization -
>instead of failed government services."
>(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
>services."
>(malcolm): "In other words, society would be better off if the goons
>with the guns (the State) monopolized all industry?
>(Bob): "False dichotomy."
>
>Dunno that I pose a dichotomy. Government control of an industry is a
>matter of degree.
Yes. But your "counterargument" surmised the extreme result of a
slippery slope alternative without suggesting that it was merely a
slippery slope argument instead of a false dichotomy. Your words
falsely put in my mouth were (emphasis mine): "society would be better
off if the goons with the guns (the State) ***monopolized*** ***all***
industry". Two words suggesting totality and extreme, when I am
habitually opposed to extremes of any sort (though 9i tend to react to
extremists like yourself and their arguments by shifting in the
opposite direction.
>LeChevalier wrote: "(p)rivatization has generally
>NOT improved on government services." So, less State control
>(privatization) is "generally" a bad idea, according to LeChevalier.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Changes from the status quo have generally
been mixed blessings, if not for the worse.
>The question then becomes: "less than what?"
the status quo ante.
>What makes the pre-college education industry a likely candidate for
>State (government, generally) operation?
Because it is, and the nation and its culture have evolved on that
basis, and there is no non-ideological basis to believe that anything
else would be better.
>(Bob): "The status quo ante on the boundary between public and private
>was fine by me. "Privatization" is an attempt to change that balance,
>generally for ideological reasons."
>
>"Ante" what?
Ante the loonytarian ideological commitment to privatize everything.
>(Bob): "The places wherevouchershave been tried, they have NOT
>produced better students than the public schools."
>
>Refutation deleted by LeChevalier. Readers may backtrack.
No refutation was provided. There are only two places where public
school vouchers are in use in the US, Milwaukee and Cleveland, and
they have not produced the desired results (and indeed have done a
better job of destroying the old private schools that weren't
competitive with the new voucher schools, than they have been at
improving across the board student results). Florida's attempt was
cancelled by its courts, but was more noted for the scams that were
uncovered than for any academic successes.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
lorad..wrote:
(lorad): "Vouchers are a good idea..Think of it as privatization-
instead of failed government services."
(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
services."
(malcolm): "In other words, society would be better off if the goons
with the guns (the State) monopolized all industry?
(Bob): "False dichotomy."
Dunno that I pose a dichotomy. Government control of an industry is a
matter of degree.
(BoB): "Yes. But your 'counterargument' (why is this in "quotes"?)
surmised the extreme result of a slippery slope alternative without
suggesting that it was merely a slippery slope argument instead of a
false dichotomy. Your words
falsely put in my mouth were (emphasis mine): "society would be better
off if the goons with the guns (the State) ***monopolized*** ***all***
industry".
Bob omitted the "?" here.
(BoB): "Two words suggesting totality and extreme, when I am
habitually opposed to extremes of any sort (though 9i tend to react to
extremists like yourself and their arguments by shifting in the
opposite direction."
"Opposite" to what" Doesn't --that-- create a "dichotomy", at least of
direction along a one-dimensional continuum? And Bob said
"privatization has generally NOT improved on government services". The
mainland Chinese might disagree. Citizens of the Czech Republic might
disagree. Swedish parents who use tax-funded vouchers to send their
kids to private schools might disagree.
(MK): "LeChevalier wrote: '(p)rivatization has generally NOT improved
on government services.' So, less State control
(privatization) is "generally" a bad idea, according to LeChevalier.
(BoB): "Sometimes, sometimes not. Changes from the status quo have
generally been mixed blessings, if not for the worse."
The world has been going downhill since the Archaeozoic Era?
(MK): "The question then becomes: 'less than what?' "
(Boob): "the status quo ante."
"Ante" what?
(MK): "What makes the pre-college education industry a likely
candidate for State (government, generally) operation?"
(Boob): "Because it is...
Is what? Or is the case for State operation of schools axiomatic to
LeChevalier?
(BoB): "and the nation and its culture have evolved on that basis, and
there is no non-ideological basis to believe that anything else would
be better."
"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic". Aside
from abstract considerations (see, e.g., E.G. West, "School Vouchers
in Principle and Practice: A Survey", World Bank, __Research
Observer__), abundant empirical evidence supports market delivery of
education services. I recommend Chubb and Moe, __Politics, Markets,
and America's Schools__ (Brookings) and Steuerle, Reischauer, et. al.,
__Vouchers and the Delivery of Public Services__.
(Bob): "The status quo ante on the boundary between public and private
was fine by me. "Privatization" is an attempt to change that balance,
generally for ideological reasons."
(MK): " 'Ante' what?"
(BoB): "Ante the loonytarian ideological commitment to privatize
everything."
You mean before the Berlin wall fell? Or before the American
Revolution? Or perhaps before the Carter Presidency (Deregulation
began under his appointee, Alfred Kahn)?
(Bob): "The places where vouchers have been tried, they have NOT
produced better students than the public schools."
(MK): "Refutation deleted by LeChevalier. Readers may backtrack."
(BoB): "No refutation was provided. There are only two places where
public school vouchers are in use in the US, Milwaukee and Cleveland,
and they have not produced the desired results (and indeed have done a
better job of destroying the old private schools that weren't
competitive with the new voucher schools, than they have been at
improving across the board student results). Florida's attempt was
cancelled by its courts, but was more noted for the scams that were
uncovered than for any academic successes."
Readers may backtrack and assess. Bob doesn't appear to have read
anything in the link. First, DC has a tax-funded voucher program.
Georgia just enacted State-wide vouchers. There are private voucher
programs up and running across the US, and these have been studied. Go
here...
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/downloadFile.do?id=301
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
LeChevalier may be a cunning linguist but he doesn't appear to keep
abreast of voucher research.
Bob LeChevalier
>(BoB): "Two words suggesting totality and extreme, when I am
>habitually opposed to extremes of any sort (though 9i tend to react to
>extremists like yourself and their arguments by shifting in the
>opposite direction."
>
>"Opposite" to what" Doesn't --that-- create a "dichotomy", at least of
>direction along a one-dimensional continuum?
No.
>And Bob said
>"privatization has generally NOT improved on government services".
The Mainland Chinese are not part of the United States of America, and
I see nothing that they have done that have improved government
services in the United States,
Arguably al Qaeda is an example of privatization of an international
war. I don't think that al Qaeda has improved government services in
the United States.
>The
>mainland Chinese might disagree. Citizens of the Czech Republic might
>disagree. Swedish parents who use tax-funded vouchers to send their
>kids to private schools might disagree.
But if they aren't citizen residents of the United States, their
opinions are entirely irrelevant to our politics.
>(MK): "The question then becomes: 'less than what?' "
>(Boob): "the status quo ante."
>
>"Ante" what?
Ante the loonytarian movement to "shrink the size of government". Ante
the loonytarian definition of government as "goons with guns"
Sarah Palin shooting wolves from a helicopter is no more nor less a
goon with a gun whether she serves in elective public office or acts
as a private citizen.
>(MK): "What makes the pre-college education industry a likely
>candidate for State (government, generally) operation?"
>(Boob): "Because it is...
>
>Is what?
The default status quo ante.
<>(Bob): "The status quo ante on the boundary between public and private
>was fine by me. "Privatization" is an attempt to change that balance,
>generally for ideological reasons."
>(MK): " 'Ante' what?"
>(BoB): "Ante the loonytarian ideological commitment to privatize
>everything."
>
>You mean before the Berlin wall fell? Or before the American
>Revolution? Or perhaps before the Carter Presidency (Deregulation
>began under his appointee, Alfred Kahn)?
Barry Goldwater started the modern libertarian-conservative main
stream movement, Reagan propelled it into high gear. Bushwhack has
been a near-continuous display of its excesses.
>
>(Bob): "The places where vouchers have been tried, they have NOT
>produced better students than the public schools."
>(MK): "Refutation deleted by LeChevalier. Readers may backtrack."
>(BoB): "No refutation was provided. There are only two places where
>public school vouchers are in use in the US, Milwaukee and Cleveland,
>and they have not produced the desired results (and indeed have done a
>better job of destroying the old private schools that weren't
>competitive with the new voucher schools, than they have been at
>improving across the board student results). Florida's attempt was
>cancelled by its courts, but was more noted for the scams that were
>uncovered than for any academic successes."
>
>Readers may backtrack and assess. Bob doesn't appear to have read
>anything in the link. First, DC has a tax-funded voucher program.
Off and on. Studies showing no improvement and lots of problems. Most
DC private schools are converting to charter schools, which likewise
show no improvement across the board, and which have a brewing scandal
over the schemes used to prevent special ed kids from enrolling, and
providing services to those kids.
>Georgia just enacted State-wide vouchers.
If just enacted, there are no results.
> There are private voucher programs
which is not a public school voucher program, even if there are
argument that they work.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
The tragedy of balding men with long hair
Sadly, Biden represents the new Democrats. These pseudo Democrats,
most being members of the DLC, believe that Democrats can only win if
they act more like Republicans. Unfortunately, Obama is a member of
this group.
buckeye
>:|
>:|No refutation was provided. There are only two places where public
>:|school vouchers are in use in the US, Milwaukee and Cleveland,
Actually that isn't true.
When I moved to Virginia in 1983 there was a public school system in my
home town. It consisted of three elementary schools, two middle schools
and one high school.
In addition there was one Catholic elementary school.
When I moved back in October 2006 I find that there is a public school
system consisting of two elementary schools one middle school one high
school/ There is still a Catholic elementary school which is doing quite
well as far as keeping afloat thanks to vouchers. They even run ads in the
paper telling parents to enroll their kids in their school, it's free
(thanks to vouchers)
In addition to that there is also now a Christian k-12 school. This school
is the result of vouchers.
So here we have a town that is declining in population as a result of lost
jobs over the past 30 years. A current population of 12,000 with two high
schools, one public and one Christian.
This town is not Cleveland nor one of its suburbs. It is East Liverpool,
Ohio and we are about 90 miles south east of Cleveland, We are actually
closer to Pittsburgh, Pa (40 miles) than Cleveland, Ohio
So one has to assume that the Cleveland Voucher case opened the door to
vouchers in the state of Ohio not just Cleveland.
I can't speak for any other place in Ohio but can say for certainty that
vouchers are in use in East Liverpool, Ohio
The guy that owns the Christian School also runs the following
“The American Spirit Initiative”
http://www.americanspiritinitiative.us/index.html
http://www.americanspiritinitiative.us/news/innovative_plan.html
He has bought up at least 1/3rd of all the buildings in the downtown area.
One he has turned into a faith based drug addictions counseling place,
flop house homeless soup kitchen, probably taking in some of Bush's faith
based monies from the govt. The Christian school was located in one of the
local townships but beginning this school years is located in one of the
building her owns downtown. The building next to it was torn down to
provide green space for the school. That building was on the historical
registry with noting wrong with the building other then this had bought
it and decided to tear it down.
Info on the Christian school:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&q=Christian+school++East+Liverpool+Ohio&btnG=Search
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(Bob): "Privatization has generally NOT improved on government
services".
(Malcolm): "The mainland Chinese might disagree. Citizens of the Czech
Republic might disagree. Swedish parents who use tax-funded vouchers
to send their kids to private schools might disagree.
(BoB): "The Mainland Chinese are not part of the United States of
America, and I see nothing that they have done that have improved
government services in the United States,
a) "Generally" wasn't restricted to the US.
b) Bob may see no improvement with privatization, but others disagree.
See, e.g., Steuerle, et. al, __Vouchers and the Provision of Public
Services__ (Brookings).
(Bob): "But if they aren't citizen residents of the United States,
their opinions are entirely irrelevant to our politics."
Evidence is irrelevant to strident defenders of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel. That is clear.
Discussion deleted...
(Bob): "Barry Goldwater started the modern libertarian-conservative
main stream movement, Reagan propelled it into high gear. Bushwhack
has been a near-continuous display of its excesses."
More evidence of LeChevaliers indifferennce to facts. Neither Bush I
nor Bush II was a libertarian-conservaitive. Remember, it was Bush I
who called Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics". The Cato
institute has been complaining about Bush II's spendthrift ways for
years.
(Bob): "The places where vouchers have been tried, they have NOT
produced better students than the public schools."
(MK): "Refutation deleted by LeChevalier. Readers may backtrack."
(BoB): "No refutation was provided. There are only two places where
public school vouchers are in use in the US, Milwaukee and Cleveland,
and they have not produced the desired results (and indeed have done a
better job of destroying the old private schools that weren't
competitive with the new voucher schools, than they have been at
improving across the board student results). Florida's attempt was
cancelled by its courts, but was more noted for the scams that were
uncovered than for any academic successes."
(MK): "Readers may backtrack and assess. Bob doesn't appear to have
read anything in the link. First, DC has a tax-funded voucher
program.
(Bob): "Off and on. Studies showing no improvement and lots of
problems. Most DC private schools are converting to charter schools,
which likewise show no improvement across the board, and which have a
brewing scandal
over the schemes used to prevent special ed kids from enrolling, and
providing services to those kids.
a) DC has a voucher program, which refutes LeChevalier's assertion
that "(t)here are only two places where public school vouchers are in
use in the US,"
b) Maine, Massachusets, and New Hampshire have supported parent
control through voucher-like programs, where the community is too
small to support a government school, for decades.
c) Fraud in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools is rampant and grossly
underreported by complicit journalists.
(MK): "There are private voucher programs..."
(Bob): "which is not a public school voucher program, even if there
are argument that they work."
These programs support tuition vouchers. How could the difference in
the source of revenue possibly make a difference to program success.
Parent control enhances overall system performance.
Voucher evidence...
http://jaypgreene.com/2008/09/03/modest-programs-produce-modest-results-duh/