Why don't liberals want the poor to have school choice and have wealth from investing SS in private accounts?

Question

It seems to me that school choice would benefit the poor the most. Rich kids already go to good public schools in their wealthy communities, or can afford good private schools. It's the poor kids that would benefit most from school choice.

Same thing with social security private accounts. Wealthy people already have substantial assets. A private account system, even if it involves investing just a portion of the 12.4% SS tax would create huge savings for even very low income workers over a lifetime of work. That's assuming even modest return on investment of say 5% annually. We're talking 100's of thousands of dollars over a life time.

My answer is that it's true that republicans are for the wealthy, and democrats are for the poor, and as such repulicans want there to be more wealthy and educated people who will vote for them, and democrats want there to be more poor to vote for them. Does anyone have another explanation that makes sense? enpower government or people?

Answer 1

First, I do not agree with your assertion that Republicans only care about rich people and Democrats only care about poor people. (Do a search on the "Generosity Index" to see ACTUAL proof and truth of my opposition.)

Second you are accurate that school choice would most benefit poor and minority students. The method of funding for school districts (beside direct state or federal money) is based upon property taxes. More affluent neighborhoods, pay more property taxes, more money to schools to buy books, computers, pay higher qualified teachers, etc. The reverse is true then of less affluent neighborhoods.

Why the are Democrats so adamantly against school choice? Why would the Democrats prevent poor and minority children from seeking a better education?

Two reasons - unions and power. First, the liberal unions are huge contributors to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party. The NEA wields a lot of power and hefty checkbooks among the politicians. Democrats typically need a group of voters (black, minority, poor, gay, etc.) to have a basic need or want that is not being fulfilled, whether it's education, marriage, etc. and then have someone to blame for why it's not being fulfilled. If their needs were met, they wouldn't need help anymore - hence Democrats couldn't have that control over them anymore. Democrats had 8 years under Clinton, control of the House and Senate for several decades (from FDR to Clinton) - and who did they help? Are the needs/wants still there?

As for private social security accounts, Democrats use a slightly different approach. They take advantage of a vulnerable demographic group, but still use control and blame to make it work. I don't think that any rational person truly believes that the federal government can invest money better than people who's careers are dedicated to investing people's money for a living. Price Waterhouse, Fidelity, heck even your local bank's CD can get a better, more profitable return than the federal government has been proven to get. Here Democrats scare elderly people into believing privitzing SS will result in them "eating cat food" and living in squalor - and they BLAME Republicans. It's truly despicable. President Bush acually had a very solid plan of allowing workers to take a small portion of their SS taxes and invest it themselves - giving them OWNERSHIP of the account, that would result in higher returns, greater personal wealth, and not allow the government to take it away from them. This would not be limited to rich Republicans, as the Democrats would have you believe. Every American that works - pays into SS - ould have their own private wealth to use when they retire. That works for every American! By Democrats having "control" over a particular group - they can scare and blame, but not have any incentive to fix it themselves because then they lose control.

Answer 2

They are beholding to many teachers unions and they don't want to lose their support by allowing us choice in where we are educated. They also do not want to give up the money in the SS account that we would be able to invest at a much larger return and thus make us not depend on SS and the government. Investing in private accounts is not for the wealthy it is for everyone that has a retirement account. However if you invest in a retirement account you will have more money than if you relied on SS only. I guess if you don't want people to have more money when they retire and you want every one to be equal that sounds like communism to me.


Why do liberals have a problem with people having money?

Answer 3

The liberals assumed that school vouchers would take the wealthy out of public schools and leave the poor behind. Mistaken assumption, as you've correctly pointed out.

I see the refusal to privatize government, including public education and social security (among many others), as a liberal democrat attack on the middle class, and nothing else.

Answer 4

the "liberal" puzzles me.School choice is an excellent idea But I have heard no good reason from the left why they actually oppose it They say "just because" And I am all for private SS accounts Under the "liberal" plan my money goes to help the lazy, crooks that the left has invented and sustained through social program slavery

Answer 5

"That's assuming even modest return on investment of say 5% annually."

Like the last 5 Bush years when an equal amount of money invested in the Dow and the Nasdaq would have lost you money?

It's a fact folks, the markets do better under Democrats.

Answer 6

I don't understand what your saying here in the begining of your expalination your explaining what the libs and democrats are stopping people from doing and then you say its the republicans fault.privatization of SS is from republicans and school vouchers are from republicans - democrats shot it down.

Answer 7

Please. School choice (I.E. vouchers) is a way for the republicans to privatize the public school system, and to cater to the far right christians who only want children exposed to their brand of medieval morals and ideas.

Social Security private accounts is privatization too, but with the risks that go along with it. That flies in the face of why SS was created in the first place.

Answer 8

Why won't you learn that generalizing is wrong?

Answer 9

Because they won't have any money going to the teacher's unions and going into their own pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!