They don't have the choice now, they likely won't have it with vouchers. OK. Also worth noting you didn't have an "example" of rural markets, I was responding to the actual example that you picked to talk about.

Who said they are going to "third rate" schools? And how do you know these third rate schools won't be better than their current option? In NYC 80% of kids graduate high school unable to read or do math at a level required for going to college. In other places that number is even higher.


Wait, how's that now? Their taxes are being given back to them in the form of a voucher. What am I missing?


The poor get a higher voucher amount to make it easier for them to enjoy the benefit. And again, 80% of kids in NYC graduate and cannot participate at the college level...the poor are getting screwed in the current system.

Source for 80% figure? Seems highly suspect.

Funniest thing I've seen on this site in a long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/ny...-standard.html

Actually, they would go from having a choice (public school) to having no good choices at all. Their public schools would be defunded as their taxpayer money is more and more sent to fund vouchers in the state. They would end up with a skeleton school system, and that's not acceptable. Rural populations matter in America, right? I thought that was supposed to be a big theme of Trump's victory.

Literally third rate if they have to go to a super-discount school while others go to a first-rate nice private school (that costs more than the voucher) on the same taxpayer money. Remember, these working class parents are taxpayers too.

You're only looking at one side of the equation. They get a crappy voucher, but their public schools in the community lose funding (somebody's gotta pay for that.) Their net gain is negative while the upper-middle-class residents who get to use the voucher to its full effect to send their kids to nice first-rate private schools get a net-gain (again, off the backs of the poor).

You're right, we should start funding public schools at higher levels and pay teachers more! If you want a better product you have to pay more for it, not attack public school teachers like Republicans love to do in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We have to start nurturing a culture that values teachers, and values education and academia in general. It is clear from the election of Trump that we have gone very very far from those values.

You keep bringing up this hypothetical world where things are so much better, but you know there's no conclusive evidence that charter schools outperform public schools. I call this "The Trumpian gambit." But you have to remember the first rule of realpolitik: things can always get worse. Charter schools are also not bound to accept ALL kids, as Namath correctly mentioned earlier. This entire system is terrible for the working poor, and especially the rural working poor.

If that were true then Kansas would have gone for Clinton, that state has imploded under crazy right wing policies.

Seriously what do you believe is Trump's voucher plan that your so worked up about?

The only plan I have seen him make was a campaign plan to take 20 billion and use it for vouchers for those below the poverty line.

It does not help the rich or even middle class. The money goes to give kids below the poverty line a choice. It does not have states take away money form public schools etc.

That other funding for their one choice is being stripped away so rich kids can get a subsidy at a rich-kids-only school.

Taking money from public schools happens because a lot of funding is per student. So, yeah, you end up with a market where poor people compete for spots in private school and those not chosen are left to increasingly bad public schools. Nothing bad could come of that.

right wing derposphere is LIT with claims that Clinton's people met with Russians

Haven't found any confirmation anywhere outside that bubble

lol

Is this a new LITness or the old news?

Podesta story from October

Uranium / Clinton Foundation story from 2015

Plus whatever other Clinton + Russia story that has been around for a while.

Somewhat clickbaity. The number in question here is actually called Aspirational Performance Measurement. It reports the percentage who scored >= 80% in math and English on a particular standardized test. They say this is a good predictor of scoring >= C in college classes in those subjects.

I have further minor objections, but probably the biggest gripe I have is that in order to be counted by APM, you have to have scored well on BOTH subjects. But in college, very few students need classes in both areas except maybe one baby level class to satisfy a requirement. Why should we be alarmed that the future American history majors of NYC sucked at math in high school?

Seems like the opposite phenomenon would be legitimately troubling. If a college-level class would be passed with >= C by a generic high school grad from the state, then the standards at the colleges will have slipped below an appropriate level.

ETA: Should've said this between the second and third paragraphs above, but a more appropriate measurement of "college readiness" would count those who scored >= 80% on at least one of the two areas (but I'd still have issues with that).

My feed is full of trumpers trumpeting the latest job data like it's gospel, it's so amazing that three months ago all those numbers were fake. if the economy starts tanking in a year, all it'll take is one tweet saying they're fake, and they will be fake again. It's incredible.

Not incredible when you realize we are talking about some of the lowest information and dumbest citizens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

If they're acknowledging the job figures are real, you have the perfect gotcha. Show them the data from the end of GWB and the data from the beginning of Trump - which they acknowledge as real - and ask them what happened in between. Do the same thing with the Dow.

thats perfect

Here Are Some Photographs of Donald Trump's Face and Hand

Got anything recent? That 80% figure is from 2012

So if hypothetically his son in law said to him something like:

Hey Dad if you changed the plan to something that works a lot like Medicare except its not just for old people, you could call it Trumpcare, you would totally fulfill your promise to repeal and replace Obamacare with something better, and it would absolutely pass Congress, what are the chances he would say "Why didn't you tell me this before? Let's do it."?

Funny you bring that up....
Vox headline: Close Trump friend says ditch Paul Ryan's plan and embrace universal healthcare

I think with that he buys himself the ire of the GOP stablishment, but also a second term.

Just a little fraud nbd

I have assigned this a nonzero chance from the get go. There is plenty of fat to be shaved off of the corrupted US healthcare system. Seems like a strong move strategically for a number of reasons, and will allow for more breathing room on enacting the rest of a crooked agenda.