The Goat Pen

Bklyn wrote:The answer to what? Sometimes government is the answer, but it should not and can not be the answer to every question. I wonder how many people really believe that the government is the answer to everything. I think the number would be very small, but people make it seem like a whole half of the country is clamoring for the government to take over everything. I just don't see it.

the answer to solving the economy, education, social issues, healthcare, safety, banking, housing, the environment, energy...I could go on

I don't see how someone can believe that the government should get involved with promoting wind or solar energy and say health care, and then not believe it should stay out of housing or education

I don't believe our government is capable of address anything well - in regards to federal government, outside of national security issues which is their mandate.

You're as crazy as Bill O'Reilly!

The govt is involved in housing. Both the State and federal (most housing for the poor comes from federal dollars much more than states). Historically, state govts are much more likely to pick winners and losers in business than the federal govt. Much more likely to have graft, cheats, kickbacks than feds. I understand some not trusting the govt. I don't understand trusting states more than the feds based on the history

the idea would be that you would be able to find a state that has laws and policy that is more in tune with your opinions, as opposed to everyone living under the same mandates of the federal government.

Also, if Kentucky loses its ass investing in a Wind farm, 49 other states don't suffer for it.

If you really cared about poor children, give them school vouchers. Maybe they will be able to better themselves...

http://www.economist.com/node/21560570

Create increase demand to private schools, cost will increase. Voucher costs will increase as a result. Public school costs per student increase. Politicians then increase the voucher program because the middle class now has increase private school costs and they are the ones that vote.

I don't believe in a voucher system.

Schools are too vital to local communities to have them gutted by sending the kids that have a future to a school in the suburbs

I believe in mandating school for everyone under the age of 18 with very few exceptions handled on a case by case basis, revamping the school curriculum to address more vocational and high paying service sector jobs, having the school year extended to add a 6 or 8 week summer session and fining parents who have children who are habitually tardy or create a disturbance at school.

I would even consider career planning for children as early as 8th grade.

Finally, attempts to integrate special needs kids with regular students should be stopped. I feel for those kids but all we are doing are warehousing them at public high schools and stressing a system that is already overwhelmed.

Just, damn. DAMN! NUTTY people out there.

Texas judge warns of possible ‘civil war’ if President Obama is re-elected

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tex ... 45603.html

It's Texas. Not surprising.

I'd like to declare war on Rat's idiocy.

Wiz reminds me of Onion.

So many posts since I've last logged in that I want to comment on. However, my wife is out at some wacked out Christian play with a neighbor, I put my kids down to sleep at 7:30 and started in on Patron at 7:38. I'm in no real condition to string together coherent thought on government intervention and the puckered ass of America, more commonly known as Texas.

So, I'll just beg off until my headache tomorrow.

Wine is fun!

Tequila hangovers are the worst. That's why God intended for man to drink single malt whisky.

Owlman wrote:Create increase demand to private schools, cost will increase. Voucher costs will increase as a result. Public school costs per student increase. Politicians then increase the voucher program because the middle class now has increase private school costs and they are the ones that vote.

If you have the voucher means tested to benefit low income families, tuition will not increase at most private schools, especially the parochial. If the private schools increase their tuition even 500 dollars over the established voucher, low income children won't go. Public schools will not be decimated because most low income families, even given a total free ride, will stay with public schools. Why not give those poor kids who want to better their situation an option to better themselves?

My question, as it always has been, is how does the voucher system help the public school system? If it doesn't, then why do we spend so much time sinking money into that program? Are we just saying "fuck you" to the families that are still in a public school that is failing?

I never had anyone be able to satisfactorily get me past that question. Until somebody does, I find it difficult to embrace the voucher system without any other tools in place.

"My question, as it always has been, is how does the voucher system help the public school system? If it doesn't, then why do we spend so much time sinking money into that program?"

I don't think it helps or hurts the public school system since, I believe, the number of folks who take advantage of it will be immaterial to the over all budget of the public school. It helps those low income families who want a better opportunity for their children.

So, a small amount of low income children get to take advantage of this program, but it does nothing to help the current abysmal state of public education? I'm positive that the program would not impact all of the kids whose parents want their children to have a better opportunity. So, I still scratch my head over why this has been such a constant topic the past 10 to 15 years. To me, I would rather spend time trying to actually fix the broken and inefficiently funded public educational system. This voucher system (as I understand it) feels like a worse version of the government picking winners (kids who get to go to a good school) and losers (kids who stay in their current schools with crumbling facilities, minimal tools of learning and health and disengaged staff) scenario people scream about.

Public education as a whole is no where underfunded. Now, if you are trying to fund a huge bureaucratic bohemoth system of waste that is alot of school districts, then, yes, you will need lot more to feed the beast.

Let's hear from the Democratic Senator from Louisiana...

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/ ... n_cha.html

I didn't say underfunded. I think I used the term "broken" and "inefficient." So, that's a bit of a topic pivot for me.