And how does shipping our money overseas to buy foreign made goods stimulate the economy?
So you got nothing.
Here’s a (PDF) 2004 CBO study that shows that the Bush tax cuts reduced the share of taxes paid by the richest quintile, at the expense of the three middle quintiles (with the bottom quintile remaining unchanged). (Table 2 on pp.10-11 of the report.)
FWIW, Johnnie, it was widely reported back in 2001 that Bush’s tax cuts overlapped in ways that generated a (percentagewise) huge tax cut for a handful of lower-to-middle-income families situated perfectly to take advantage of multiple provisions of the cuts, while not really doing that much for lower-income families generally. So Bush could trot out a few lucky-duck beneficiaries (as you have in post #6) that are far from representative of how most non-rich families fare under the cuts.
With respect to the small businesses (post #6 again), 26 million small businesses is a lot of businesses - one business for every eight or nine adults. Most of those small businesses either exist only on paper, or are something one does on the side that produces a modest amount of revenue. The average increase of $4000, if accurate, would be the sort of average you get when averaging you, me, and Bill Gates - on the average, we’re all billionaires, but in reality most of us aren’t. Same with the $4K - a handful of successful small businesses are generating most of that. If you can produce the effect of the tax cut repeal on the median small business of those 26 million, then let’s talk. But right now those are bullshit numbers.
Let’s start by gutting the educational bureaucracy made necessary by NCLB. That’d free up money that can be used for actually educating kids.
Robin
In response to your straw men? Sure.
Regards,
Shodan
Excellent question. If we had a voucher system, no one would be left behind. As it stands now, rich kids get school choice, and poor kids don’t. Sounds fair to me. :dubious:
Yes! I, Joe $30K/yr, can afford to send my kid to a $8K a year school if the government would just subsidize 2000 of those dollars! 6 of my 30 thousand a year instead goes to the school — halle-freakin-luyah!
That’s a fair counterpoint. Still, fixing that problem while ignoring the fix’s impact on those students remaining in public schools, seems a blinkered way to go about matters.
Perhaps Mr. Bush can explain his intitiative in more detail. It might be brilliant 
And when the rich pull their children out of competitive schools that will open for the poor, will this really be an improvement? I do not see how, once a new educational equilibrium is reached, matters will be any better for underpriviliged children, especially with unstable families.
Yeah, but you were talking about Bush and company. “Decent” isn’t a word they’re versed with.
Do they ever?
I forget, when did it become law that private schools had to accept special needs kids? ESL kids? Kids with a troubled history? Oh, that’s right. They don’t. They can kick them out if they don’t like their hair.
Nonsense – of course there would still be children left behind. As it stands now, all children get a free education, rich and poor alike. Just because some students have parents who can afford to pay for their kids’ education outside of the public school system, doesn’t relieve the government of its responsibility to provide quality education for those who can’t. Every one of my tax dollars that are removed from my local, public school and get funneled into a private (often religious) schools, means further dilapidation of buildings, fewer books and accessories, less-qualified teachers, larger classrooms and a decline in overall performance.
I suggest that if Republicans want poor kids to have greater access to private schools, that you get busy in your local communities and do fund raisers or start scholarship funds. You should not have the right to destroy neighborhood schools to line the pockets of your private institutions.
Rich people already to pull their kids out of schools that have a majority of poor kids, either by moving out of the neighborhoods or by sending their kids elsewhere to go to school. Even if new, privately-run schools open “for the poor,” and even if those schools aren’t able to attract “rich” kids, you still have the advantage of those schools being privately run vs. government-run. And, those poor kids will still have the opportunity to select different schools, such as already-existing Catholic schools and such.
I put “rich” in quotes, because what we are really talking about here aren’t rich kids, but in fact, “not poor” kids, who are mostly middle-class.
It’s “strong”. It’s always “strong” in these speeches. From Bush last night:
Just once I’d like to hear something besides “strong”. How about “indifferent”, “weakening”, or “aroused”?
So can public schools.
True, but the rich usually get good educations and the poor usually get crappy educations.
The government’s responsibility to provide the education would still be met. Just because they don’t run the schools and hire the teachers, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t ensuring that children receive an education.
As the tax dollars are funneled away, so are some the students. With needed fewer resources to educate fewer students, you should be able to get higher-quality resources, including teachers, if the government really knows what they’re doing.
Believe me, it’s not just Republicans who want poor kids to have greater access to private schools. In my town the vast majority of people are Democrats, or farther to the left than that, and the Catholic schools are packed with kids who normally couldn’t afford to go to private school, because of the fundraisers and scholarships you mention. Parents want QUALITY education for their children, no matter who they are. And, by the way, those schools are “neighborhood” schools, too. They are in the neighborhood, and neighborhood children attend them.
Does it really sound right to you that we should raise private funds to help poor children go to private schools, and still keep their share of the tax dollars in your school to help educate your children?
I think perhaps Squink realized this may be a complete waste of time to continue this, but I would really like something more than a few lines telling me that I am wrong. Anyone can tell me that.
Please describe to me in what way taking money from publicly funded schools so that a portion of children can potentially benefit from an education at a private school in any way helps the other children who still attend the public schools. These would be the same public schools who are now receiving less money as direct result of those funds going to assist private school’s enrollment.
I’m looking for details. I’ve read what you had to say, and what you have said only amount to assertions. Assert all you would like. I would enjoy a line of reasoning we can all follow to see how this logically works out. Just act normally, and assume I am a complete moron who can’t see the benefit of conservative thinking.
So on the Diane Rehm show this morning, they were breaking down some of the numbers. Coincidentally, ether are 15 million millionaires in America and also 15 million poor children. If you divide the amount given to each camp (poor kids in the initiative he spoke about last night and extending the tax cuts like he did last night), that’s 20 bucks a poor kid and 280 thousand a millionaire.
This show was on at 10 o’clock today, by the way.
I think we should fund the hell out of the school system and take care of it (which is a vague statement, I realize). If you want to pay to send your kids to a private school, that’s fine, but you’re still paying for the public school system. Yes, that does sound right to me (if that’s what you’re asking).