Alan Keyes is making cents!

Subby Giuliani

Thankfully, he's now just a distant memory.

1. He looks like he could be Eddie Griffin's dad.
2. I feel so bad for the 2 delegates who have to stand up for Alan at the convention. As if being a Republican these days isn't embarrassing enough they have to stand up and pretend to be happy about casting their vote for one of the most ridiculous formerish Republicans in a generation.

Keep running Alan, you're a hoot.

Alan Keyes is the Republican Party's version of "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!"

Wow, Giuliani. Who remembers looking forward to having to choose between him and Hillary in November?

/9/11

Party Boy: Subby Giuliani

Thankfully, he's now just a distant memory.

This. I'm so pleased that he didn't get the Republican nomination.

Someone help me out... too lazy to look it up. I thought Republican primaries were winner taketh all?

You know who got more than Keys, though?

/RON PAUL
//RON PAUL RON PAUL
///lol

i has an internet: You know who got more than Keys, though?

/RON PAUL
//RON PAUL RON PAUL
///lol

damnit, i was gonna say that.

Not only did he fail miserably as a Republican Presidential candidate, he couldn't even get the far-right theocratic (and horribly misnamed) "Constitution Party" to nominate him. He pissed them off with his interventionist foreign policy stance, but even moreso with his arrogance. Browse the archives of thirdpartywatch.com to see how the whole amusing farce unfolded at their convention earlier this month. Though the California affiliate might still put him on their ballot instead of Chuck Baldwin. The California affiliate of the Constitution Party, by the way, is the American Independent Party. That's right, George Wallace's party is fighting to get a black man on the ballot.

Though that's nothing compared to the dozen-way clusterfark the Libertarians have going on right now.

Also, it should be noted that the totals assigned by simply applying the vote percentages are worthless in states where the national delegates are selected by later state party conventions. The Ron Paul supporters crashing state GOP conventions across the country have proven that. They've rewritten several state platforms and will probably have enough national delegates to cause the ruckus they want in St. Paul.

terriblist: Someone help me out... too lazy to look it up. I thought Republican primaries were winner taketh

It's a bit hazy. I think the actual choice is up to the states, and some states have gone with winner take all (e.g. California) some have gone with proportional among candidates reaching a certain viability threshold (e.g. Alabama), and North Carolina apparently doesn't even have the viability provision.

kevinatilusa: It's a bit hazy. I think the actual choice is up to the states, and some states have gone with winner take all (e.g. California) some have gone with proportional among candidates reaching a certain viability threshold (e.g. Alabama), and North Carolina apparently doesn't even have the viability provision

Regardless of how the delegates are supposed to be allocated before the primary/caucus, most states have state-level party convention a few weeks/months later that actually elect the national delegates, and are free to change the rules and elect whoever they want. The main reason for that is so pledged delegates for candidates who have dropped out can be replaced with supports of the presumptive nominee, but Paul supporters have been wrecking havoc by successfully targeting the state conventions. Not enough to actually steal the nomination for Paul, of course, but enough to effectively take over some state parties and send enough delegates to the national convention to cause a stir. The official goal is to get Paul a speaking slot at the RNC, but in reality they'll just be tossing monkey wrenches into whatever they can. I'm looking forward to it, particularly since no one really seems to have noticed that it's happening.

Party Boy: Subby Giuliani

Thankfully, he's now just a distant memory.

Don't be so sure. I won't file him under "distant memory" until after the GOP Convention.

My spider-sense tells me that McCain is going to be "encouraged" to "choose" Giuliani his VP (wink, wink).

This is the man that Obama beat for his Senate seat.

Alan Keyes sounds just like kermit the frog when he speaks.

rburp: Party Boy: Subby Giuliani

Thankfully, he's now just a distant memory.

This. I'm so pleased that he didn't get the Republican nomination.

Farking Yankee Fans

Churchill2004: Regardless of how the delegates are supposed to be allocated before the primary/caucus, most states have state-level party convention a few weeks/months later that actually elect the national delegates, and are free to change the rules and elect whoever they want. The main reason for that is so pledged delegates for candidates who have dropped out can be replaced with supports of the presumptive nominee, but Paul supporters have been wrecking havoc by successfully targeting the state conventions. Not enough to actually steal the nomination for Paul, of course, but enough to effectively take over some state parties and send enough delegates to the national convention to cause a stir. The official goal is to get Paul a speaking slot at the RNC, but in reality they'll just be tossing monkey wrenches into whatever they can. I'm looking forward to it, particularly since no one really seems to have noticed that it's happening.


As much as I disagree with Paul's politics...the wrenches this is hilarious. Especially since, with the media's track record, it's not that nobody has noticed, it's that nobody wants to give him publicity.

So, in review:

Guy who runs the wedding ceremony of the daughter of the president said he's voting for the other guy - NEWS

Guy causes a stir in the Republican party - Not News

milk_plus: I feel so bad for the 2 delegates who have to stand up for Alan at the convention. As if being a Republican these days isn't embarrassing enough they have to stand up and pretend to be happy about casting their vote for one of the most ridiculous formerish Republicans in a generation.

Uh... they're people selected by Keyes to be delegates. Who volunteered to be delegates for Keyes. Who I'm pretty sure voted for Keyes.

Don't think they're going to have to pretend to be happy to cast those votes.

Larry Mahnken: milk_plus: I feel so bad for the 2 delegates who have to stand up for Alan at the convention. As if being a Republican these days isn't embarrassing enough they have to stand up and pretend to be happy about casting their vote for one of the most ridiculous formerish Republicans in a generation.

Uh... they're people selected by Keyes to be delegates. Who volunteered to be delegates for Keyes. Who I'm pretty sure voted for Keyes.

Don't think they're going to have to pretend to be happy to cast those votes.

All four of them?

Sabyen91
Larry Mahnken: milk_plus: I feel so bad for the 2 delegates who have to stand up for Alan at the convention. As if being a Republican these days isn't embarrassing enough they have to stand up and pretend to be happy about casting their vote for one of the most ridiculous formerish Republicans in a generation.

Uh... they're people selected by Keyes to be delegates. Who volunteered to be delegates for Keyes. Who I'm pretty sure voted for Keyes.

Don't think they're going to have to pretend to be happy to cast those votes.

All four of them?

13,554 people voted for him. Shouldn't be too hard to find four willing to go to the convention.

On a related note, 20,510 people voted No preference, more than for Keyes. So technically, nobody beats Alan Keyes!

burndtdan: i has an internet: You know who got more than Keys, though?

/RON PAUL
//RON PAUL RON PAUL
///lol

damnit, i was gonna say that.

I was surprised no one had done so before me.

It is considered a "Fail" if you leave the Democratic Party, and then win delegates in a Republican primary?

It'd be like if Mike Gravel started winning delegates to the DNC while he was out nailing Obama girl campaigning for the Libertarian Nod.

Gotta love his tax and education policy:

Link (new window)

"Start with control over the money. The income tax system that we accepted at the beginning of this century is literally a system that hands over control of our money, takes it away from us, makes our politicians the gatekeepers of our own money. I often have commented during the debates--you have all these guys standing on the stage arguing about who is going to give the most to this family, and that family. And I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "What's the matter with us? What are these people giving you, anyway?" And then you sit and think for a moment, and you think, "my own money." And you are supposed to be grateful to them because they are actually willing to let you keep a little more of it. You don't see through that? That means that they are in control of what you have produced through your labor. You don't even get to eat the bread that is earned by the sweat of your own brow. How much you get of it is determined by these gatekeeper politicians. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Our original Constitution forbade the income tax at the federal level. The government could not take this usurping, pre-emptive role."

"So issues like that. Are we going to get back control of our money? Abolish the income tax. Go to a national sales tax, where people can decide for themselves, based on their patterns of consumption, how much they are going to pay in taxes at any given time and period."

"Are we going to take back control of our schools, through school choice, putting parents back in the driver's seat, so that the money we spend on education follows the choice of parents, not educrats, not bureaucrats, but we will reestablish the sense that parents should be empowered to meet their responsibility and encouraged to take responsibility for the lives and education of their children."
"I think that those key areas, or areas such as that, where our liberties have been taken away, where our responsibilities are being taken away, those are the issues that we need to address. Not giving more power to government, as Kennedy wants to do, but giving more control back to the people of this country, so that they can determine the destiny of their families and communities. That is what I would like to see happen."

Remove all Republicans: Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.

Congratulations on doubling the cost of everything you buy in the stores.

Someone should tell this guy about the 16th amendment. The income tax argument is over unless he's talking about repealing it.

Is he? No? Then he should shut the fark up with his ridiculous "WAAAAAAH I DON'T WANNA PAY TAXES WAAAAAAAH" bullshiat.

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: Gotta love his tax and education policy:

You have be sarcastic? School choice will be a disaster for the underperforming school. What will happen to them once everyone leaves to the top performing ones? What will happen to the children of the underperforming schools, the ones who parents can't or won't spend the time and energy to investigate and transfer to better schools?

Not sarcastic at all. Why is choice only an option regarding abortion and not an option when it comes to the education of the child? Why should the majority be condemned to poor performing government schools they are forced into? Whys should all students be condemned to a poor education because a few parents are lazy? Why should we continue to prop up poor performing system by forcing people to buy the product it puts out? We can't continue to blame funding when as a nation we spend more on education per student than any others except Switzerland. Washington DC now ranks 3rd in the nation in spending per student but its school are near the at the bottom in results. Funding in hardly a measure of how schools will perform, it is how that money is spent.

OECD (new window)

"OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers' salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio."

"Spending is not necessarily a guarantee of higher quality in terms of education, though: Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand all have moderate expenditure on education per student at the primary and lower secondary levels but are among the countries where 15-year-olds perform strongest in key subject areas."

DCSchools (new window)

"According to a 2007 article in The Washington Post, the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district does a horrible job of teaching. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts - even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%."

AZschools (new window)

"Arizona's public schools spend 50% more per student than Arizona's private schools. The study also says that while teachers constitute 72% of the employees at private schools, they make up less than half of the staff at public schools. According to the study, if Arizona's public schools wanted to be like private schools, they would have to hire approximately 25,000 more teachers, and eliminate 21,210 administration employees. The study also said that public school teachers are paid about 50% more than private school teachers."

KansasCity (new window)

In 1985 in Kansas City, Missouri, a judge ordered the school district to raise taxes and spend more money on public education. Spending was increased so much, that the school district was spending more money per student than any of the country's other 280 largest school districts. Although this very high level of spending continued for more than a decade, there was no improvement in the school district's academic performance

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: Gotta love his tax and education policy:


Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.


Who says we need universal healthcare, at least at the Federal level. I oppose for several reasons
First and foremost it is unconstitutional. It is not among the Federal governments enumerated powers Article1 sections 8. At least 50% of the Federal budget has no constitutional mandate. Social/welfare programs are a state function. California and Massachusetts are already moving in that direction. Back in 2002 the people of Oregon rejected a statewide Universal healthcare plan. Are you suggesting that the Federal government should impose it on them against their will?
The individual states are capable of deciding what type of socialized medicine they want, financing and funding it as it should be instead f a one size fits all program imposed by the Federal government . As it should be with all social/welfare programs. Federal involvement should be limited to civil rights issues in the application of these programs. What sense does it make to take money from the tax payers, send it all the way to Washington DC to fund a massive bureaucracy and the costly regulations it imposes? Why not cut the Federal taxes by the amount to fund these programs (MEDICAID, Food stamps , education etc) and allow the State and local government to access that potential tax revenue (the Federal tax cut returned to the tax payers) to fund and administer the programs they , through the voters, see fit?

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
James Madison, Chief Architect of the United States Constitution

, "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798


For all the whining about it the Patriot Act it is not nearly has intrusive as the income tax into our privacy. Virtually all earning and banking transactions are subject to be reported to the government without them even having to show probable cause for accessing the information. How much your employer pays you to bank transaction of a certain size is reported to the government, again without benefit of a warrant. You should be upset about the patriot act but why are you not upset about the tax code? The 16th Amendment did not repeal the 4th Amendment.

Repealing the16th Amendment and replacing it with a national sales tax is certainly doable. It always makes better economic sense to tax consumption than production. I am not talking about the fair tax because that stupid prebate it proposes just needless complicates things and still invites government intrusion into financial privacy without benefit of a warrant. You can ease the burden on the "poor", which are already offset by welfare programs by exempting certain things like certain food staples, cost of primary residence, non-elective medical care etc. Since most States already have a sales tax you can reduce the size of federal government yet again by reducing it revenue collection bureaucracy. The States would collect the federal sales tax with their state tax and send the feds their cut.
Another reason I am opposed to the Universal Healthcare is why condemn everybody to poor healthcare. It would be like the VA by a factor of 1000. Despite continued budget increase (no matter what some say show me a year in which the VA budget has been cut) Government healthcare is budgeted healthcare , which means ration waiting lists and people dying on those lists:
Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations
by David Hogberg, Ph.D.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

"A recent study that examined over 5, 800 Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery found that the long wait has consequences far worse than pain, anxiety or monetary cost.29 In this study, the median wait time was found to be 55 days. While on the waiting list, 77 patients died. The authors' statistical analysis led them to conclude that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting time."30 Another study found a mean wait time of 55 days for heart surgery in Sweden and a similar rate of mortality for those on the waiting list.31 Finally, a study in the Swedish medical journal Lakartidningen found that reducing waiting times reduced the heart surgery mortality rate from seven percent to just under three percent.32"

"Sweden is one of several nations whose practices offer proof that single-payer health care systems lead to the proliferation of waiting lists. It also shows that waiting lists have adverse and sometimes tragic consequences for patients."

Chaoulli vs. Quebec on June 9, 2005
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that prohibitions on private insurance are invalid since the public system has failed to deliver medical in a timely, reliable way and that Government bans on private health insurance have increased the risk to the life and health of Canadians:

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care, " the court said in its ruling.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care, "

But can you really trust a site that uses Comic Sans in its title?

TheCid: Remove all Republicans: Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.

Congratulations on doubling the cost of everything you buy in the stores.

Someone should tell this guy about the 16th amendment. The income tax argument is over unless he's talking about repealing it.

Is he? No? Then he should shut the fark up with his ridiculous "WAAAAAAH I DON'T WANNA PAY TAXES WAAAAAAAH" bullshiat.

The idiots who try to deny the 16th Amendment are talking nonsense, but there are very legitimate objections to the current tax system that can be raised on the 4th (right to be secure in papers- tax audits) and 5th (self incrimination- mandatory filing) Amendments.

The Supreme Court actually ruled on the self-incrimination part, coming to the absurd and contorted conclusion that since taxes are, at least technically, a civil rather than criminal matter, you can be forced to self-incriminate even if doing so results in criminal charges.

Churchill2004: TheCid: Remove all Republicans: Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.

Congratulations on doubling the cost of everything you buy in the stores.

Someone should tell this guy about the 16th amendment. The income tax argument is over unless he's talking about repealing it.

Is he? No? Then he should shut the fark up with his ridiculous "WAAAAAAH I DON'T WANNA PAY TAXES WAAAAAAAH" bullshiat.

The idiots who try to deny the 16th Amendment are talking nonsense, but there are very legitimate objections to the current tax system that can be raised on the 4th (right to be secure in papers- tax audits) and 5th (self incrimination- mandatory filing) Amendments.

The Supreme Court actually ruled on the self-incrimination part, coming to the absurd and contorted conclusion that since taxes are, at least technically, a civil rather than criminal matter, you can be forced to self-incriminate even if doing so results in criminal charges.

I cannot understand those who condemn the Patriot Act but embrace the current tax code. Both are massive affronts the 4th Amendment. It is of course possible to keep the current income tax but have those responsible for collecting it adhere to the Constitution but those dong the collecting would have to work harder to get those who fail to pay.

You can argue that the Supreme Court has said all this is OK but the Supreme Court has also ruled at one time that separate but equal was OK.

This is not some anti-tax rant. While all taxes are evil some are necessary evils I would just like for them to be collected in a Constitutional manner, that makes the most economic sense and does not give government a disproportionate share of my income.

Churchill2004: TheCid: Remove all Republicans: Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.

Congratulations on doubling the cost of everything you buy in the stores.

Someone should tell this guy about the 16th amendment. The income tax argument is over unless he's talking about repealing it.

Is he? No? Then he should shut the fark up with his ridiculous "WAAAAAAH I DON'T WANNA PAY TAXES WAAAAAAAH" bullshiat.

The idiots who try to deny the 16th Amendment are talking nonsense, but there are very legitimate objections to the current tax system that can be raised on the 4th (right to be secure in papers- tax audits) and 5th (self incrimination- mandatory filing) Amendments.

The Supreme Court actually ruled on the self-incrimination part, coming to the absurd and contorted conclusion that since taxes are, at least technically, a civil rather than criminal matter, you can be forced to self-incriminate even if doing so results in criminal charges.

The 5th amendment complaint is pretty straightforward to deal with- they get the records from the employers, banks, etc; so they could just skip the whole filing nonsense and tax you the maximum and standard deduction based on the employer side of things, you should be able to file and get it reduced from there (higher deductions, dependents, whatever).
That'd be a much better way of handling it from an end-user perspective ANYWAY.

The 4th amendment complaint makes a lot of sense, but don't they get a warrant to do an audit anyway? I honestly don't know.

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: First and foremost it is unconstitutional. It is not among the Federal governments enumerated powers Article1 sections 8. At least 50% of the Federal budget has no constitutional mandate.

That's your view and you know what? Ron Paul argued that and lost. People don't care about enumerated powers, they want stuff period, government paid for if possible. That's the world we live in and the US needs to catch up and take care of its citizens. In the 1790s, people lived in outhouses, boys worked at age 10 and girls sat at home, barefoot and pregnant. That's not reality. Deal with it.

State governments can constitutionally provide services for those who decide they can handle the burdens of freedom: self-responsibility and self-reliance. If the government wants more power and/or the people want to give it more power the correct way to do it is through amending the Constitution not ignoring the Constitution.

"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788


I can only assume you support the Patriot Act because you find the Bill of Rights as equally outdated as you do Article 1 Section 8.

"Don't be idiots mouthing absurdities. It is obvious that this general statement is qualified and limited by the Constitution itself in what follows. No right reasoning person would ever conclude that that the enumeration of the particulars wouldn't set definitive parameters on the meaning of 'general Welfare, ' nor would reasonably intelligent people ever conclude that the specifying of the particulars was only intended to confuse and mislead as to what is meant by the 'general Welfare' phrase."
James Madison

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: Why is choice only an option regarding abortion and not an option when it comes to the education of the child?

I can't believe you are stupid enough to be comparing a women's right to her bodily integrity with letting rich people send their kids to private school on government funds.


School choice is not just about rich folks and you know it. Vouchers anyone?

TheCid: Churchill2004: TheCid: Remove all Republicans: Also, without the income tax, how is the government supposed to get the money to run all those programs? We can't possible pay for universal healthcare if we are eliminating the personal income tax? Unless it's a proposal to eliminate personal income tax and set the corporate tax rate to something like 80% to make it up. That I'll get behind.

Congratulations on doubling the cost of everything you buy in the stores.

Someone should tell this guy about the 16th amendment. The income tax argument is over unless he's talking about repealing it.

Is he? No? Then he should shut the fark up with his ridiculous "WAAAAAAH I DON'T WANNA PAY TAXES WAAAAAAAH" bullshiat.

The idiots who try to deny the 16th Amendment are talking nonsense, but there are very legitimate objections to the current tax system that can be raised on the 4th (right to be secure in papers- tax audits) and 5th (self incrimination- mandatory filing) Amendments.

The Supreme Court actually ruled on the self-incrimination part, coming to the absurd and contorted conclusion that since taxes are, at least technically, a civil rather than criminal matter, you can be forced to self-incriminate even if doing so results in criminal charges.

The 5th amendment complaint is pretty straightforward to deal with- they get the records from the employers, banks, etc; so they could just skip the whole filing nonsense and tax you the maximum and standard deduction based on the employer side of things, you should be able to file and get it reduced from there (higher deductions, dependents, whatever).
That'd be a much better way of handling it from an end-user perspective ANYWAY.

The 4th amendment complaint makes a lot of sense, but don't they get a warrant to do an audit anyway? I honestly don't know.

They also do not need a warrant to obtain just regular finaicial information. Your bank is required to report the interest you earned and any transaction abouve a certain amount just as your emplyer reports your income all without probable cause.

Income tax withholding was started in 1942 as a temoprary wartime emergency measure.

"Under the current tax system, before you have put bread in the mouths of your children, before you put a roof over the head of those children, before you put a stitch of clothes on their backs today, you pay the government. We're worse off than serfs. Serfs used to pay their masters after they were fed and clothed. We have to pay our master before we're fed and clothed. I think, I think it's a travesty. And I think it's time we ended it."
Alan Keyes

"I think part of the problem is that folks would still be subject, under your plan, to an income tax. When they wanted a tax cut, they'd still have to beg their politicians. When under a sales tax system, they'd give themselves a tax cut by changing their pattern of consumption. If we really want to give people control of their money, shouldn't we just abolish the income tax?"
Alan Keyes

Link (new window)

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: Why is choice only an option regarding abortion and not an option when it comes to the education of the child?

I can't believe you are stupid enough to be comparing a women's right to her bodily integrity with letting rich people send their kids to private school on government funds.

"Rich" people can already send their kids to private schools. Why are you opposed to giving the average guy the same option? Should only the rich be able to pull their kids out of a failing system?
Why are you so anxious to make sure they have no option other than the one forced up on them by government?
"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?"-- ALAN KEYES

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: School choice is not just about rich folks and you know it. Vouchers anyone?

No, it's about giving the private schools government money without accountability. What if the parent send their children to a dumb school, or worse yet, to a "school" that simply funnels the money back to the parents? The best part about public schools is the ability to make sure schools are all teaching the right things to children.
You mean teaching the "right thing" as defined by the government or the NEA? You seem to forget the government and the NEA are the ones who have made a mess of schools in the first place with stupidity like invented spelling or ebonics.

It is because of them that in 2006 40,000 high school seniors in California could not pass an exit exam that consisted of 10th grade level reading and 8th grade level math. It is government and the NEA that let these kids get to the 12th grade without mastering the 8th or 10th grade. This applies across the nation. Why are high school exit exams not at the 12th grade level? If schools did their jobs in the first place exit exams would not be necessary.


The private schools would be accountable for the money spent by the people giving them the money the parents. If the parents do not like the job the private school is doing they can take their business elsewhere,an option not available with government schools. Your argument that some parents might not show enough concern for their child's education hardly justifies depriving all parents of their rights. By that line of thought why not just deprive everybody of their rights to privacy because some might abuse it.
That "it takes a village" nonsense is being used to justify government being the replacement for parents .

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: It is because of them that in 2006 40,000 high school seniors in California could not pass an exit exam that consisted of 10th grade level reading and 8th grade level math.

That's from the lack of funding and low quality teachers we have. I'm glad the NEA is working hard to get higher teacher pay. Teachers should be paid six figures minimum.

B.S. As I previously posted, It is not because of funding. The U.S. spends more per student than almost any other country and we pay teachers more yet we do not get better peformance. IT IS NOT HOW MUCH WE SPEND BUT HOW WE SPEND IT (form prvious post above with links):

OECD (new window)

"OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers' salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio."

"Spending is not necessarily a guarantee of higher quality in terms of education, though: Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand all have moderate expenditure on education per student at the primary and lower secondary levels but are among the countries where 15-year-olds perform strongest in key subject areas."

DCSchools (new window)

"According to a 2007 article in The Washington Post, the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district does a horrible job of teaching. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts - even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%."

AZschools (new window)

"Arizona's public schools spend 50% more per student than Arizona's private schools. The study also says that while teachers constitute 72% of the employees at private schools, they make up less than half of the staff at public schools. According to the study, if Arizona's public schools wanted to be like private schools, they would have to hire approximately 25,000 more teachers, and eliminate 21,210 administration employees. The study also said that public school teachers are paid about 50% more than private school teachers."

KansasCity (new window)

In 1985 in Kansas City, Missouri, a judge ordered the school district to raise taxes and spend more money on public education. Spending was increased so much, that the school district was spending more money per student than any of the country's other 280 largest school districts. Although this very high level of spending continued for more than a decade, there was no improvement in the school district's academic performance

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: B.S. As I previously posted, It is not because of funding.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't it mean it's true. Besides, averages are worthless. The question is how much are we spending on urban schools? The poorest neighborhoods should be getting the most money and the richest the least. Those rich kids could do anything and be fine, but it'll take a ton to get those poor kids interested in education.

It isn't just me saying it I have given sources from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development to local newspapers.
Let us look at URBAN FUNDING:

"the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district does a horrible job of teaching. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts -"

"even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%."

Link (new window)

If funding is the issue why doesn't Washington D.C. have the 3rd best schools in the nation?

ONCE AGAIN IT IS NOT HOW MUCH WE SPEND BUT HOW WE SPEND IT.

"OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers' salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio."

"Spending is not necessarily a guarantee of higher quality in terms of education, though: Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand all have moderate expenditure on education per student at the primary and lower secondary levels but are among the countries where 15-year-olds perform strongest in key subject areas."

Link (new window)

Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: If funding is the issue why doesn't Washington D.C. have the 3rd best schools in the nation?

It's in a poor area. You can't just give it average funding and expect average results. Poor areas need more funding just to barely stay afloat.

You are not paying attention

IT GETS ABOVE AVERAGE FUNDING AND ITS POOR STUDENTS DO WORSE THAN OTHER POOR STUDENTS WITH LESS FUNDING:

"the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district does a horrible job of teaching. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts -"

"even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%."


Throwing more money at a failed system is not the answer, changing the sytem is. School choice should be one of those changes.

hasty ambush: Remove all Republicans: hasty ambush: If funding is the issue why doesn't Washington D.C. have the 3rd best schools in the nation?

It's in a poor area. You can't just give it average funding and expect average results. Poor areas need more funding just to barely stay afloat.

You are not paying attention

IT GETS ABOVE AVERAGE FUNDING AND ITS POOR STUDENTS DO WORSE THAN OTHER POOR STUDENTS WITH LESS FUNDING:

"the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district does a horrible job of teaching. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts -"

"even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%."


Throwing more money at a failed system is not the answer, changing the sytem is. School choice should be one of those changes.

Or to put it another way . Why do students in Washington D.C. which spends over $12,000 per student, preform worse than students in Utah, which spends less than $5000 per student?