Video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a 2nd Trump term

a reply to: strongfp

We do with our taxes.

Taxes on our homes, on our income, on our gas etc etc.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Vermilion

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Money is alloted for children to attend public school. Not a private school.

If that's changed to allow even wealthy parents to take, I guess "their share" for their kids, do you think that's fair to families who can't afford a private school to begin with?
That's just one unethical issue I see.

It’s not fair that some people have to pay for public school and then send them to private school.

Giving parents the option to send them to a private school, when they couldn’t afford to otherwise, is a fair idea.
What exactly is your hang up here?
Class?
Race?
Religion?
All the above?

a reply to: SourGrapes

If a family can afford private school they will most likely send their kids to private school. Why should they be allowed to take money out of the pool of collected tax dollars alloted for public education and give it to a private institution?

Families that cannot afford private school to begin with aren't going to be given huge sums of money from the tax pool to attend private institutions. Which is also unethical.

I don't understand your logic of using poor families that rely on public education as an argument. I don't want wealthy families taking money away from the public schools.
Going back to my initial post ITT it's quite clear that there's an agenda to erode public education.

a reply to: strongfp

The public school system has already eroded. Thus why it's an issue.

a reply to: Vermilion

It's a public service that you opt out of, not in.

The decision to attend private school isn't the governments issue. So like all luxuries in life, you pay for it.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Vermilion

It's a public service that you opt out of, not in.

The decision to attend private school isn't the governments issue. So like all luxuries in life, you pay for it.

But you don't get to opt out of paying the tax for it

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

I'm sure we can agree on some of the issues. But the solution isn't to slowly dismantle public education or encourage taking funding away from it.

a reply to: strongfp

Just to be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the voucher program the Republicans want. However, if it brings more competition to education, I will support it.

I want to be able to have a say in what my child is taught. Our public education system is broken.

Instead of paying inner city public school teachers $100k/yr to sit on their bum, why not let some other institutions come in and offer education.

I want a choice for my children, outside the current public sector.

a reply to: strongfp

If a family can afford private school they will most likely send their kids to private school.

Wrong.
I moved halfway across the country so my kid can go to an excellent public school. I have no problem affording to send him to a private school.
I know plenty of people who can afford private school that send their kids to public school.
My parents had to scrape for me and my siblings to private schools the years we went to them.
School choice is a great idea.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

I'm sure we can agree on some of the issues. But the solution isn't to slowly dismantle public education or encourage taking funding away from it.

Dismantling public education isn't the argument.

Removing federal involvement is

a reply to: strongfp

Public education is important, but it's been hijacked by Marxism and that needs to stop.

a reply to: Moon68

Well, from a pure libertarian perspective I can't argue with that. But the majority of working class people don't mind paying a bit of tax for their family, friends, neighbors and even own kids to have the access to public education.
Just like social security.

a reply to: Vermilion

Sure, having the choice is great. But pay for it. You did by moving your whole family apparently, not everyone has that option.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Moon68

Well, from a pure libertarian perspective I can't argue with that. But the majority of working class people don't mind paying a bit of tax for their family, friends, neighbors and even own kids to have the access to public education.
Just like social security.

Agreed.
Nobody is taking away public school.
They are being given a choice.
What libertarian would not want that?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

There isn't much federal involvement tho...

Edit. If anything the prospective Trump administration wants to add more federal involvement.

a reply to: some_stupid_name

I don't get these arguments about marxism, what school program k - 12, is teaching marxist philosophy?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: some_stupid_name

I don't get these arguments about marxism, what school program k - 12, is teaching marxist philosophy?

Critical race theory, critical theory, whatever the new name for it.
It’s not just being taught in public schools by the way.

a reply to: strongfp

Yes k-12. It's plainly out in the open they don't even hide it anymore like when I went through the system. Even then it was heavily taught as the shiny philosophy on the hill and it was their job to get us there. Do you think Marxism as viable way to guide and run a society?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

There isn't much federal involvement tho...

Edit. If anything the prospective Trump administration wants to add more federal involvement.

I wouldn't consider $80bilion as "isn't much."

Not to mention the current social direction....

a reply to: Vermilion

They teach a complex subject like critical theory and marxism to kids?

Doubt. Just saying.

Most people can't even discuss Marxism seriously, let alone explain what critical theory is. Hence why it's been abandoned for the most part. How's project 1619 doing? Not too well.