[mhking]

You are so wrapped up in a faulty definition of "welfare" that you can't see the forest for the trees. From your definition, "welfare" amounts to any payment from the government in any way, shape or form. You keep ranting about vouchers being nothing but a welfare program; I can't look at it that way - it is nothing of the sort. Until you get off of that kick (and the associated rants about Republicans not being real while discussing that notion), we can't even get to square one.

You don't understand what and where these will benefit. That's fine. But you're as bad as the guy last week who got on this RINO kick with J.C. Watts.

You've got no clue as to what belt tightening is - otherwise, you wouldn't make such a statement. I'm not going to go on a rant about how hard my life is; that's immaterial here.

What is material is that you and I are on the same page about public schools being inferior to private schools. Given that, what is the problem with demanding not to have to pay into such a system?

Not only that, what's wrong with getting my money back out of that system?

Here's the other side of the coin here - the vouchers cannot and will not be able to pay the entire freight for most private schools. This alone will keep quite a few in the public schools right where they are.

I'm done with your circular logic. When you come back from throwing up, let this one alone. We obviously aren't on the same page overall, and won't be.

[Twodees]

You asked a question, though. There's nothing wrong with demanding not to have to pay into the failed public school system. Let's do that instead of letting them continue to soak us while giving us a damn little "school stamp" that isn't even going to pay tuition.

You get that done at the county level, BTW. State and federal politicians have no business even being in the loop on this either. I could teach you a thing or two about belt tightening, too but you don't want to hear it.