|Guess which one represents anti-voucher|
people . . .
So lets explore just the first two talking points that I could come up with. First, does government money used to allow parents to send their children to private schools, many of which may be religiously based, violate the Establishment Clause in the Constitution?
Are we being serious here? Some Democrats are trying to say that this is an example of government promoting religion. Do people just throw around arguments like that hoping that someone, somewhere will actually be retarded enough to believe it and get all indignant? Not all private schools are religiously based. So should we say that the voucher money should only be used for non-religious private schools?
Congress is not saying to the citizens of D.C. “we’re going to give you money because we want you to go to a Catholic school.” They’re saying “we see that your school sucks a giant asshole, and it’s a bit unfair that you can’t get a better education because you’re poor. Here’s some money, take your kid to a better school.” These private schools provide better education, and they just so happen to be religiously based. Are we seriously suggesting that we deny these families the opportunity to obtain a better education just because these private schools happen to affiliate themselves with religion?
Yes, Boehner went to Catholic school growing up, but I highly doubt he has a religious agenda behind this. Please provide any information to the contrary. I do find it funny thought that Boehner went to Catholic school and now he’s Speaker of the House . . . Of course that’s not to say that everyone in government benefited from private education, but it worked for him, and according to the article it seems to be working for people who get the vouchers.
This sort of brings me to my second point. The kids that get these vouchers are poor. Without the vouchers, they would have no choice but to be stuck in these failing schools. And according to the article, there’s no argument as to the lame quality of D.C. public schools. So by denying them these vouchers, we’re basically saying that because they’re poor they are not allowed to get a better education.
“Sorry little Timmy, but private school is only available to people who can afford it. You’re just going to have to deal with the fact that you’re poor and continue to attend a shitty school.” How in the blue fuck is that justice?
What I find ridiculously hilarious is that the original voucher program in D.C. was supported by Democrats in 2004. So when they start shouting “oh well that money should be used to better public school education,” I sort of snicker, because apparently, D.C. public schools are far from underfunded. So what’s it going to be? Continue to pour money into public school systems that seem to be squandering it anyway, or actually help some of these poor kids like the bleeding hearts say they want to do? So for now, poor kids, I guess the answer is: