Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: Tired of Taxes; Republicanprofessor; DaveLoneRanger
It's a step in the right direction.
2 posted on
07/19/2006 7:16:34 PM PDT by
Clintonfatigued
(illegal aliens commit crimes that Americans won't commit)
To: ChessExpert
What the heck took so long?
To: ChessExpert
4 posted on
07/19/2006 7:18:00 PM PDT by
GianniV
To: ChessExpert; beaversmom
to let poor children leave struggling schools ...If taxes keep going up that will eventually apply to all children.
6 posted on
07/19/2006 7:21:49 PM PDT by
TXBubba
( Democrats: If they don't abort you then they will tax you to death.)
To: ChessExpert
"Parents could get $4,000 per year to put toward private-school tuition or a public school outside their local district. They could also seek up to $3,000 per year for extra tutoring."
Supporters say poor parents deserve choices, like rich families have. When schools don't work, said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, "parents must have other opportunities."
We make 74k a year, homeschool 3 kids, pay appx. 3k per year for materials for all 3 kids, and yet somehow I feel like I've been discriminated against.
Do you think we'll qualify as "poor parents"?
8 posted on
07/19/2006 7:23:35 PM PDT by
uptoolate
(Eph 6:24)
To: ChessExpert
Typical Republicans.
Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program.
Vouchers are nothing but trojan horses.
To: ChessExpert
Under the new legislation, the vouchers would mainly go to students in poor schools that have failed to meet their progress goals for at least five straight years.
At first, I thought this was great - but not if it's only for the 'poor'. Once the definition of that gets established, it will benefit very few. And the reason many schools are failing is that the parents don't care. I'll bet most won't use the vouchers and/or still won't monitor their children's schoolwork.
Vouchers for everyone would be much better.
To: ChessExpert
Damn, Bush has been calling for this since he got into office. Get a move on it already.
17 posted on
07/19/2006 7:43:07 PM PDT by
pissant
To: agrace; bboop; blu; cgk; Conservativehomeschoolmama; cyborg; cyclotic; dawn53; Diva Betsy Ross; ...
24 posted on
07/19/2006 10:37:05 PM PDT by
Tired of Taxes
(That's taxes, not Texas. I have no beef with TX. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation.)
To: ChessExpert
25 posted on
07/19/2006 10:37:49 PM PDT by
diamond6
(Everyone who is for abortion have been born. Ronald Reagan)
To: ChessExpert
Don't worry. The Senate Democrats will filibuster school choice to death.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
27 posted on
07/19/2006 10:39:11 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: ChessExpert
This is a great election year ploy. Go for it!!! It'll never pass because the NEA is too powerful of a lobby but it can work to our advantage in November.
Another issue the GOP should find some way to raise right before the midterm elections: Reparations for Black America. That's a win/win situation for the Pubbies.
28 posted on
07/19/2006 10:39:50 PM PDT by
no dems
(www.4condi.com)
To: ChessExpert
Again...the middle class pays the bills and the "poor" get special treatment.. The code word "poor" has a very special meaning in politics...
Why should any child be forced to attend a falled government school?
37 posted on
07/20/2006 5:13:13 AM PDT by
cbkaty
(I may not always post...but I am always here......)
To: ChessExpert
The middle class, who would pay for this, would never see a penny of this.
46 posted on
07/20/2006 5:37:02 AM PDT by
tkathy
(The "can do" party can fix anything. The "do-nothing" party always makes things worse.)
To: ChessExpert
My girls will go to school.
50 posted on
07/20/2006 6:14:46 AM PDT by
netmilsmom
(To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
To: ChessExpert
The more choices in schools people have, the more likely their children will get a decent education, and the more likely underperforming schools will have to scramble to improve themselves to catch up with the competition.
56 posted on
07/20/2006 6:50:23 AM PDT by
blitzgig
To: ChessExpert
The Bush administration requested the school-choice plan, but Tuesday's media event caused some awkwardness for the Education Department. The agency just released a study that raises questions about whether private schools offer any advantage over public ones.
Interesting quote from the article.
57 posted on
07/20/2006 6:52:06 AM PDT by
Amelia
(If we hire them, they will come.)
To: ChessExpert
This could not possibly be another
election-year distraction or pandering could it?
59 posted on
07/20/2006 6:53:41 AM PDT by
WhiteGuy
(It's about the People Who Count the Votes................. - Wally O'Dell)
To: ChessExpert
Better late than never. But just wait the NEA will go ballistic and spend millions to stop this. Amen.
68 posted on
07/20/2006 9:14:58 AM PDT by
gakrak
("A wise man's heart is his right hand, But a fool's heart is at his left" Eccl 10:2)
To: ChessExpert
I would like to see a drastic reduction in federal involvement in education. Not only that, I think the Constitution clearly rules out such involvement. But I prefer to work through a political party that is relevant. Given the realistic situation, vouchers are a slam dunk. They absolutely are good.
In an election year, it makes Democrats look very bad to oppose them. This is something we can do every election year til doomsday - use the Dems slavery to special interests (teacher's unions) against them.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson