English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't understand what the problem is with them. What about the pro choice people, why not pro choice on education?

2007-02-04 00:27:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

My property tax goes to my Kids education. Why should I have to pay twice? Why should we force inner city kids to go to failing schools? I think it would produce accountability

2007-02-04 00:36:26 · update #1

9 answers

Monopolies, in this case teachers unions, do not care for competition and are powerful enough to lobby the government to protect themselves. Vouchers would provide incentive to produce results which would benefit everyone in the long run (especially the children which the union purports to represent)

2007-02-04 00:32:58 · answer #1 · answered by Bullwinkle Moose 6 · 2 1

You have to remember that many, (not all) that are pro-choice and call themselves liberal, are not actually liberal. So put that aside, because they misuse the word. I think it is only fair to give vouchers, especially to those that are actually real tax payers. If I home school, or send my child to a private school and I pay property and sales tax and other taxes then when I am not using the Public School System, there should be some type of fair compensation through a voucher, or a considerable tax break.

2007-02-04 08:35:44 · answer #2 · answered by celticwarrior7758 4 · 1 1

The NEA is a very powerful Liberal Political Lobbying Origination, and they want your Education Tax Money. They don't care about Education, just their Liberal Political Agenda. They support the Demoncrap Party, so the Demoncraps will never allow Vouchers. The NEA doesn't want to loose its power, and the Demoncraps don't want to loose the NRE's support.

2007-02-04 08:37:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I think school vouchers are a great idea -- and it's interesting that many of the vouchers' biggest opponents in Washington DC, including Slick Willie and Hillary, send their own children to private religious schools while denying that choice to less affluent people.

And they say they're the champions of the common man. Yeah, right?

.

2007-02-04 08:36:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The negative side is that it could end the public school system. If no one showed up to class, Federal funding would end for that school.

I, however, doubt that would happen. Sounds like another "domino" theory to me!

Vouchers are an interesting idea.

On the OTHER HAND vouchers could also destroy private schools. It could introduce gang-banger drug dealers into those institutions.

One tends to wonder, if Bush has put the kind of funding into No Child Left Behind that he put into IRaq, would the school system be better.

2007-02-04 08:32:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

You have a choice of education already. No one is stopping you from sending your child to a private school. That is and always has been your choice. The problem is in the payment for it. Do you want the government to pay for abortion? NO. So do not expect the government to pay for your private and religious schooling. It is simple...you should understand it.

2007-02-04 08:33:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

people still have to pay taxes whether their kids go to public school or private school, so they at least should be able to benefit from their own taxes a little. Other wise their taxes send someone else's child to public school.

2007-02-04 08:42:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

The government is all for it because the Dumber people are the easier it is to spread fear and control people.

Love and blessings Don

2007-02-04 08:34:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

public schools don't like competition

personally I think it's a good idea

2007-02-04 08:32:03 · answer #9 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers