Subj : schools To : JOSHUA LEE From : TODD HENSON Date : Thu Oct 26 2000 02:29 am > SGID: 1:167/133.0 39f63f78 > -=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOSHUA LEE <=- > > > TH> How do you know that some people wouldn't get an education unless the > > TH> govt paid for it? > > > > Elementary economics; large amounts of supply drive down profits. Thus > > the government has to be involved somehow in making sure that every Elementary economics.... A single provider of a product (publicly funded education) provides no incentive to contain costs and/improve the product, because the are the only game in town. It is not now nor has it ever been the "Federal government's" Job own and operate a school system. Students are entitled to a free and public education that is all. If there was an assurance that everyone was entitled to a car, that doesn't mean that the people should, therefore be compelled to buy a government built car. The very idea is silly. Taking public funds (if you want to call peoples own tax money public) and buying a cheaper and more efficient product, doesn't not equal removing the government from the process > > child recieves an education; even if it is being involved in subsidizing > > private education. > > TH> I'm not convinced that the supply will be so low that govt action would > TH> be required. > > If the parents always had to pay; some would go without. Also, the free > market would tend to make it only available to some people; a supply Parent always pay now. You seem to forget where tax money comes from...:-) > so large would drive down profits unless schools made their education > available to some, but not others; as private schools do today. Wrong! And endless supply of customer provides endless opertunity to make money. As long as there is money to be spent, in what ever amount, there will be a supply. Bells and wistles may differ, but there will be some type of product. > > TH> But, could you describe the difference between the Republican voucher > > TH> plan and the kind of plan that you'd support? > > > > The vouchers must not merely subsidize existing private educated children > > primarily, but must make *every* child able to choose a private school; > > TH> How is the Republican plan only subsidizing the rich? > > It doesn't pay anything close to full private school tuition, only those > who can spare several thousand dollars a year get the subsidy. If that is the case then what is your concern about losing students from the public schools? If your assumption were correct, then no one would go anywhere. Full tuition is irrelevant. "More affordable" is the issue! In terms of dollars, the public money (per child) that goes to public schools is far more then the average tuition for an average private school. We just don't see it! > TH> I have yet to see anything which indicates that only "rich" people > TH> would get vouchers. That > TH> sounds like more typical liberal scare tactics. > > No, it's simple math; if the voucher is alot less than the price of the Here again, irrelevant. Say a $1500 of additional money doesn't mean that is all that is available. It is just that much more that you have to spend. More accurately, that much less that is being taken from you. > school, only the rich can pay. Basically a subsidy for existing private Wrong. A subsidy is money that you didn't earn that is being given to you. A tax break is money that isn't being taking from you. You have the typical liberal mindset that all wealth is given to us from the government. You have it bass ackwards! Question: Who are "the rich". What dollar value of income qualifies one as such? > school students, at the expense of public school students. Why should these mythical "rich" be compelled to pay twice for the education of their children if the want them to go to a different school. Oh, I guess in a world where all things belong to the government. Marx would be proud!! --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345) .