*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

Well it's a problem that affects the entire state of NH. One fiftieth of the country. That's a huge fucking cherry.


So you would selectively implement this voucher program only in certain neighborhoods?



By whom? With what money?

1. NH is hardly 1/50 of the country by any measure.

2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.

3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.

[BananaStand]

1. NH is hardly 1/50 of the country by any measure.

Any measure?? What about Senate representation? HA!

2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.

So a universal solution that only solves problems for a fraction of the population is a good thing?? I thought you were a conservative?

3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.

That means that the existence of the school, like any private enterprise, is subject to risk. And in a nationwide aggregate, surely some schools will fail, leaving some kids education-less. So you've traded one problem for another. Where's the upside??

As I've discussed previously, one of the the few core responsibilities of government is to provide every citizen with access to a fair marketplace. Someone without an education has less, or no access. Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education. And in that endeavor, I don't think it's right for the government to be taking risks. In the aggregate, long-enough term, some risks are realized. And when they are....real lives are hurt.

[wufwugy]

As I've discussed previously, one of the the few core responsibilities of government is to provide every citizen with access to a fair marketplace. Someone without an education has less, or no access.

Ah I'm happy you've made this point. Because a good deal of education is counterproductive. For example, somebody who will be a janitor or a plumber is wasting valuable resources with the vast majority of the education he receives. This even applies to others it may seem like it doesn't, like accountants, just to a lesser degree. Each hour a future janitor spends reading Shakespeare or doing algebra that he otherwise wouldn't if the government didn't tax and spend and organize the structure such that he decides to do that schooling, the worse off he will be than if he just started working early. This person at the lowest rung will tend to gain skills better that way, and at the higher rung will accrue significantly more wealth by doing so (time value of money because he smartly saves as a young worker).

I get that people think everybody deserves a chance at an education. Okay, so then make that the policy, make it so that if they want to pay for it they have that option. But structuring it like we do now hurts the least skilled and least intelligent the most by displacing them and taking away their most productive years.

Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education.

Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?

[wufwugy]

The most valuable concept I learned in college is along these lines. If somebody is not gravitating towards education, get him out of it, get him working, and get him saving. In that case, his most productive years will be remarkably productive. A poor as dirt and unintelligent person can become a millionaire by retirement if he just works early enough and saves within reason. Policy can make that common. If he spends too much time in education, he will just be worse off by wasting time and energy and getting poor results.

I know that there is big hubbub these days about how so many jobs require so many skills that can't be acquired on the job. Some do. Most don't.

[BananaStand]

I get that people think everybody deserves a chance at an education. Okay, so then make that the policy, make it so that if they want to pay for it they have that option. But structuring it like we do now hurts the least skilled and least intelligent the most by displacing them and taking away their most productive years.

Who refers to ages 14-18 as "their most productive years"

This is pretty farfetched wuf. Plus, it only holds water if that 15 year old janitor saves money instead of blowing it on microtransactions in video games.

Furthermore, you're destroying income mobility. By sending this 15 year old out into the world with a narrow education and set of skills, you have committed him on a path with few future options. That's not a good thing.

Further, furthermore, how would you even implement this plan? Do you really want the government evaluating the long-term prospects of each kid and deciding which teens should stay in school, and who gets handed a broom??

Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?

Is hunger really the result of a lack of access?? Is it at least possible that this hungry person had access to food, but decided to spend money on heroin instead? I would contend that the majority of cases of hunger and homelessness are caused by a person's bad choices, and not because of a lack of access, or opportunity.

Regardless, in those cases, a humane society would provide safety nets for those people. Food stamps are a thing wuf.

[wufwugy]

Who refers to ages 14-18 as "their most productive years"

In many ways they are. At those ages you have bigger capacity to benefit your life in ways that you don't at older ages.

There are other ways of looking at this, like with the time value of money. A 15 year old who saves til he's 65 is making significantly more money than is in his paycheck and it's significantly more than if he started at 35.

Furthermore, you're destroying income mobility. By sending this 15 year old out into the world with a narrow education and set of skills, you have committed him on a path with few future options. That's not a good thing.

The people who gravitate towards that work are already in that situation. For them, education is already wasting their time, energy, and earnings potential. I'm not interested in "sending" anybody anywhere, but allowing them to more accurately adjust for their skills and preferences than the k-12 (and college grants/loans) are doing.

Further, furthermore, how would you even implement this plan? Do you really want the government evaluating the long-term prospects of each kid and deciding which teens should stay in school, and who gets handed a broom??

I want the government to spend zero dollars and zero cents on education. Let parents choose what kind of path best suits their children. Like you said earlier, the gains kids make are coming from the parents anyways.

Is hunger really the result of a lack of access?? Is it at least possible that this hungry person had access to food, but decided to spend money on heroin instead? I would contend that the majority of cases of hunger and homelessness are caused by a person's bad choices, and not because of a lack of access, or opportunity.

This is as it is now. We're talking hypotheticals and philosophy. You said that because of how important education is, the government has a duty to provide it. I am applying this logic to food.

[BananaStand]

This is as it is now. We're talking hypotheticals and philosophy. You said that because of how important education is, the government has a duty to provide it. I am applying this logic to food.

You're still not explaining how hunger denies access to the market. Can a hungry person not work, earn money, and buy food?

[wufwugy]

You're still not explaining how hunger denies access to the market. Can a hungry person not work, earn money, and buy food?

I didn't say hungry, I said can't eat. If you can't eat, yeah, you have a significant to whole inability to work, earn, etc.. But that doesn't matter. Here's what matters: the assumption in your point is that the food is already available. Okay, why is it available? The private sector has made it available. Since this is the case, does it work for education?

[wufwugy]

Regardless, in those cases, a humane society would provide safety nets for those people. Food stamps are a thing wuf.

The net effect of food stamps is not one of a safety net. Besides, when is it government's job to make a safety net? Why is it not your job, your parents' job, your family's job, your friends' and selected community organization's (like a church) job? Those listed have comparative advantage in providing over government, and when government "provides" its typical fashion, like has resulted regarding food stamps, is to not even function like a safety net but an entitlement.