10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

To go to a purely private model we would need to amend the state constitution.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12?

---

Yes the Baylor vs A&M was just an analogy in how people have that choice now. I understand that vouchers are K-12.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12?

---

Yes the Baylor vs A&M was just an analogy in how people have that choice now. I understand that vouchers are K-12.

---

What about the rest?

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

ftaggie09 said:

---

Bius keeps his 0'fer streak alive (0-6) in primary races
Has yet to win his home county, but he keeps running

---

Like Beto, he has zero dignity. He's a straight up awful candidate but he can't accept it.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Little more color in this interview, if interested. At this point it doesn't really matter. His position has always been about the burden on the taxpayer.

Start @ 5:25

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video/state-rep-dewayne-burns-makes-his-case-for-reelection/

---

Did he propose his own voucher plan that was less of a burden? Or even revenue neutral?

---

Even better - tax reform:

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=883&Bill=HB99

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB43

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Little more color in this interview, if interested. At this point it doesn't really matter. His position has always been about the burden on the taxpayer.

Start @ 5:25

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video/state-rep-dewayne-burns-makes-his-case-for-reelection/

---

Did he propose his own voucher plan that was less of a burden? Or even revenue neutral?

---

Even better - tax reform:

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=883&Bill=HB99

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB43

---

So no.

You understand that tax reform is orthogonal to school privatization? That one can propose tax reform AND vouchers to improve efficiency.

He not only refused to propose his own voucher plan, he voted down the ones that were proposed.


It's a good think this RINO got his ass handed to him.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

We do not have 100% public education now. Private and homeschooling options are there for everyone this very day.

Yep, that RINO refused to add another government run program. How dare he.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

We do not have 100% public education now. Private and homeschooling options are there for everyone this very day.

---

They still have to pay the same taxes. So that's like saying "we have the option to move to Antarctica".


Edit: and yet you STILL avoided the question. Do you agree that vouchers are closer to privatization than what we have now?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep, that RINO refused to add another government run program. How dare he.

---

He had every opportunity to propose a bill that enacts vouchers within the current education department. Hell he could have pushed to cut 50 departments in that same bill.

Yet he did not.


RINO confirmed.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

We do not have 100% public education now. Private and homeschooling options are there for everyone this very day.

---

They still have to pay the same taxes. So that's like saying "we have the option to move to Antarctica".


Edit: and yet you STILL avoided the question. Do you agree that vouchers are closer to privatization than what we have now?

---

No, it's a socialist program by nature. In the new voucher world, Little Johnny's parents pay $5K in property taxes for the year but will receive a ~$10K handout to go to the private school down the road. I pay $10k in property taxes and homeschool our child and there is no tax break for me.

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

Sure, I will take option 2. That is not on the table.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

We do not have 100% public education now. Private and homeschooling options are there for everyone this very day.

---

They still have to pay the same taxes. So that's like saying "we have the option to move to Antarctica".


Edit: and yet you STILL avoided the question. Do you agree that vouchers are closer to privatization than what we have now?

---

No, it's a socialist program by nature. In the new voucher world, Little Johnny's parents pay $5K in property taxes for the year but will receive a ~$10K handout to go to the private school down the road. I pay $10k in property taxes and homeschool our child and there is no tax break for me.

---

If you think a voucher system is more socialist than our current system, then you have no idea what the hell socialism is.


And what is hilarious about your own made up scenario is that it shows how our current system is STILL worse. Currently both you and Johnny are forced to pay those taxes and and ONLY have the choice to homeschool or go to your nearby school. Under vouchers, you both pay taxes, have the same choice to homeschool or go to nearby school PLUS you have the ADDITIONAL OPTION to go to any other school within driving distance.

That is SUPERSET of choices that you have now. To pretend that is more socialist is a total joke.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

Sure, I will take option 2. That is not on the table.

---

What's not on the table? #1? This congress hasn't even been officially elected yet. of course, nothing is on the table yet.

If you are claiming that if you were governor, and bill #1 came across your desk as I specified, that you would veto it, then you can't pretend you are a conservative. That is as RINO as it gets.

Conservatives understand economics. You'd disqualify yourself.

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

A program in which you raise your hand and say you want a refund and they just write you a check with no oversight or strings attached is neither rational nor realistic. Now who is proposing a utopian option?

What you want is what I proposed: Not taking it in the first place.

I don't believe we are starting from different sides here. The government takes way too much money, namely in ISD taxes through property taxes, and either holds it hostage or spends it frivolously and poorly. Not to mention this is the case for every citizen, even those not utilizing the school system. I'm all for more of us keeping more of our money in our pocket. But I want it put in my pocket and kept there; not taken out, handed over, and given back, and especially not given back with strings and more costs. The bills to date have done those very things.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

A program in which you raise your hand and say you want a refund and they just write you a check with no oversight or strings attached is neither rational nor realistic. Now who is proposing a utopian option?

What you want is what I proposed: Not taking it in the first place.

I don't believe we are starting from different sides here. The government takes way too much money, namely in ISD taxes through property taxes, and either holds it hostage or spends it frivolously and poorly. Not to mention this is the case for every citizen, even those not utilizing the school system. I'm all for more of us keeping more of our money in our pocket. But I want it put in my pocket and kept there; not taken out, handed over, and given back, and especially not given back with strings and more costs. The bills to date have done those very things.

---

Again, it's a HYPOTHETICAL. Whether or not you think it is likely to occur is unimportant to the question. I'm testing your actual ideology. Stop being cowardly by refusing to answer the question. Man up.

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

A program in which you raise your hand and say you want a refund and they just write you a check with no oversight or strings attached is neither rational nor realistic. Now who is proposing a utopian option?

What you want is what I proposed: Not taking it in the first place.

I don't believe we are starting from different sides here. The government takes way too much money, namely in ISD taxes through property taxes, and either holds it hostage or spends it frivolously and poorly. Not to mention this is the case for every citizen, even those not utilizing the school system. I'm all for more of us keeping more of our money in our pocket. But I want it put in my pocket and kept there; not taken out, handed over, and given back, and especially not given back with strings and more costs. The bills to date have done those very things.

---

Again, it's a HYPOTHETICAL. Whether or not you think it is likely to occur is unimportant to the question. I'm testing your actual ideology. Stop being cowardly by refusing to answer the question. Man up.

---

So current system or you can call up the government, ask for a refund check, they write it, you cash it, and that's that, no new entity, no testing, no demands on curriculum, no strings whatsoever - sure, sounds great, but also highly irresponsible.

You seem to have misunderstanding of my motives and priorities.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

No, vouchers are not better when they create a new paid with tax dollars entity and force testing on private schools and homeschoolers. I won't even let the disparity between how much a household pays in taxes vs how much voucher money per child they would receive be a factor, though getting back what you pay would make much more sense. Still wouldn't win me over with the other two issues. But the other two issues won't go away because we shouldn't be advocating for a government that can spend tax dollars without oversight. See the problem?

Let me see a bill where you get a tax exemption preventing it from ever going into the government's hands in the first place and maybe we can talk.

---

You keep pretending there is a utopian 3rd option and then compare vouchers to that. Furthermore, you add baggage to the voucher option to make it worse than what I said. Can you answer the question without lying?

Let's try AGAIN: What do you think is preferable?
1) My hypothetical voucher systems with NO NEW ENTITIES, that is REVENUE NEUTRAL OR LESS, that lets PARENTS spend it however they wish (including on homeschooling), that let's schools and parents chose their own standards
2) Our current system

---

A program in which you raise your hand and say you want a refund and they just write you a check with no oversight or strings attached is neither rational nor realistic. Now who is proposing a utopian option?

What you want is what I proposed: Not taking it in the first place.

I don't believe we are starting from different sides here. The government takes way too much money, namely in ISD taxes through property taxes, and either holds it hostage or spends it frivolously and poorly. Not to mention this is the case for every citizen, even those not utilizing the school system. I'm all for more of us keeping more of our money in our pocket. But I want it put in my pocket and kept there; not taken out, handed over, and given back, and especially not given back with strings and more costs. The bills to date have done those very things.

---

Again, it's a HYPOTHETICAL. Whether or not you think it is likely to occur is unimportant to the question. I'm testing your actual ideology. Stop being cowardly by refusing to answer the question. Man up.

---

So current system or you can call up the government, ask for a refund check, they write it, you cash it, and that's that, no new entity, no testing, no demands on curriculum, no strings whatsoever - sure, sounds great, but also highly irresponsible.

You seem to have misunderstanding of my motives.

---

No.... the difference between 100% privatization (which I do prefer) and the voucher system I am referring to is that the money follows the kid. Your kid goes to school X. Because your kid is at school X, that school contacts the government and they cut them a check for the amount. Parents get the remainder that the school does not cash. If you have no kids at all, you only pay, you get no checks or anything.

Compared to today, where you pay and you never get checks, and you have no choice of where that money goes. Even if you have 20 kids.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The smear/false/negative campaign against our Rep Burns here in JoCo has been disgusting. All Abbott cares about is this voucher program.

---

Good. Parents should have choices on where their kids are educated with THEIR money.

This whole thing has exposed how government types believe our money actually belongs to them. I have lost a lot of respect for several people.

---

Parents already have the choice now. Private and homeschooling continues to be an option. Still nothing? Move. Get involved in your current schools if you don't like it. Hold them accountable.

Vouchers are nothing but a welfare redistribution program. The state is using my tax dollars to assist others' private schooling. Private will no longer be private once the state gets their greasy fingers on them.

The solution is to overhaul the tax system and don't take the tax revenue in the first place (and redistribute it) and let you take your children where you prefer.

(This topic has been beaten to death; do we really need another one?)

---

Yeah.. you are no conservative.

So note for true conservatives:

Vote for HELEN KERWIN for house district 58

---

Reading this thread aTmAg is a detriment to actual conservatives and Republican Party. You talk down to anyone that disagrees with you or call them stupid. You act like a liberal who can't debate rather than a true conservative.

Many people don't want vouchers. I am not supportive of vouchers because no matter how "conservative" the intentions the government will screw it up. And our property taxes will continue to shoot up to fund the free money tuition heroine like college tuition now. I'm done with wheels, Lt. Dan and crooked Paxton and the whole lot of them. Playing games with education funding to throw a tantrum is not leadership.

And creating another government handout ain't conservative

angus55 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The smear/false/negative campaign against our Rep Burns here in JoCo has been disgusting. All Abbott cares about is this voucher program.

---

Good. Parents should have choices on where their kids are educated with THEIR money.

This whole thing has exposed how government types believe our money actually belongs to them. I have lost a lot of respect for several people.

---

Parents already have the choice now. Private and homeschooling continues to be an option. Still nothing? Move. Get involved in your current schools if you don't like it. Hold them accountable.

Vouchers are nothing but a welfare redistribution program. The state is using my tax dollars to assist others' private schooling. Private will no longer be private once the state gets their greasy fingers on them.

The solution is to overhaul the tax system and don't take the tax revenue in the first place (and redistribute it) and let you take your children where you prefer.

(This topic has been beaten to death; do we really need another one?)

---

Yeah.. you are no conservative.

So note for true conservatives:

Vote for HELEN KERWIN for house district 58

---

Reading this thread aTmAg is a detriment to actual conservatives and Republican Party. You talk down to anyone that disagrees with you or call them stupid. You act like a liberal who can't debate rather than a true conservative.

Many people don't want vouchers. I am not supportive of vouchers because no matter how "conservative" the intentions the government will screw it up. And our property taxes will continue to shoot up to fund the free money tuition heroine like college tuition now. I'm done with wheels, Lt. Dan and crooked Paxton and the whole lot of them. Playing games with education funding to throw a tantrum is not leadership.

And creating another government handout ain't conservative

---

Yet the "another government" handout lie. Our current public school system is THE handout. It's already being handed out. All I am talking about is giving parents CHOICE in where THEIR money is goes and which school their kid goes to.

Too bad your side lost it's ass, but I'm glad most Texans better understand economics.

Get butthurt all you like, but it's not my fault you don't have the same level of understanding.

aTmAg said:

---

Too bad your side lost it's ass, but I'm glad most Texans better understand economics.

---

This is where I know you're wrong. We both know most Texans don't understand economics.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Too bad your side lost it's ass, but I'm glad most Texans better understand economics.

---

This is where I know you're wrong. We both know most Texans don't understand economics.

---

They understand enough to realize that adding MORE choices for consumers is better than fewer choices.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

I'm critical of vouchers because of the cost. The 2023 proposal would have busted the state budget in 5 years, from $500 million annually in 2024 to $2.1 billion in 2026 to who the heck knows by 2029. That number is NET the savings in the public schools budget of around $350 million a year. For context, the Texas DPS is a $2 billion budget item.

These numbers do not account for the increase in public school spending of around $6 billion that is unrelated to vouchers.

In all, the state spends $92 billion a year on public schools (about 1/3 of that is your property taxes). No where in Abbott's voucher bill did he attempt to cut the public school budget. Rather, he increased it by $6 billion.

Sadly, the bill did not pass.

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Too bad your side lost it's ass, but I'm glad most Texans better understand economics.

---

This is where I know you're wrong. We both know most Texans don't understand economics.

---

They understand enough to realize that adding MORE choices for consumers is better than fewer choices.

---

All they need to know is TINSTAAFL (there is no such thing as a free lunch)

sanangelo said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

I'm critical of vouchers because of the cost. The 2023 proposal would have busted the state budget in 5 years, from $500 million annually in 2024 to $2.1 billion in 2026 to who the heck knows by 2029. That number is NET the savings in the public schools budget of around $350 million a year. For context, the Texas DPS is a $2 billion budget item.

These numbers do not account for the increase in public school spending of around $6 billion that is unrelated to vouchers.

In all, the state spends $92 billion a year on public schools (about 1/3 of that is your property taxes). No where in Abbott's voucher bill did he attempt to cut the public school budget. Rather, he increased it by $6 billion.

Sadly, the bill did not pass.

---

I'm against any voucher bill that increases budget or does some sort of half ass means testing where poor kids get $200/mo or something. Every kid should have ALL of his education budget directed to the school they are enrolled in. And ideally, every parent keeps the left over money to spend on their own supplemental tutoring or whatever (but that is not make-or-break).

Now that we have far fewer RINOs in congress, we are much less likely to have a RINOy voucher bill. But I will be calling every rep I can and pushing my stance.

(Despite my kids be out of school.)

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Too bad your side lost it's ass, but I'm glad most Texans better understand economics.

---

This is where I know you're wrong. We both know most Texans don't understand economics.

---

They understand enough to realize that adding MORE choices for consumers is better than fewer choices.

---

All they need to know is TINSTAAFL (there is no such thing as a free lunch)

---

And they know that. They also know that more choice is better than less choices.

aTmAg said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

I'm critical of vouchers because of the cost. The 2023 proposal would have busted the state budget in 5 years, from $500 million annually in 2024 to $2.1 billion in 2026 to who the heck knows by 2029. That number is NET the savings in the public schools budget of around $350 million a year. For context, the Texas DPS is a $2 billion budget item.

These numbers do not account for the increase in public school spending of around $6 billion that is unrelated to vouchers.

In all, the state spends $92 billion a year on public schools (about 1/3 of that is your property taxes). No where in Abbott's voucher bill did he attempt to cut the public school budget. Rather, he increased it by $6 billion.

Sadly, the bill did not pass.

---

I'm against any voucher bill that increases budget or does some sort of half ass means testing where poor kids get $200/mo or something. Every kid should have ALL of his education budget directed to the school they are enrolled in. And ideally, every parent keeps the left over money to spend on their own supplemental tutoring or whatever (but that is not make-or-break).

Now that we have far fewer RINOs in congress, we are much less likely to have a RINOy voucher bill. But I will be calling every rep I can and pushing my stance.

(Despite my kids be out of school.)

---

I don't believe even Mitch Little can craft legislation that is revenue neutral or even saves money with vouchers.

The FSP clingers like admin people and such will demand public school funding be increased to adjust for inflation on the $6397 basic allotment per pupil. And then there are the metro schools that are broke because they passed budgets anticipating the $6 billion windfall from HB1 that was killed because of vouchers.

Helen is nothing more than a puppet.

sanangelo said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes, cut taxes and then people will essentially have to pay tuition wherever they enroll their kids. Either a private institution like Baylor or a Public school like A&M. I'd prefer all private with no government oversight, but that's never happening unless a free market dictates that. People can freely go to any school they can practically attend and afford. Maybe some are now able to afford private options. Many likely will still not be able to, but can at least go across district lines or whatever they need to do in order to choose the best options. If everyone in HISD starts driving out to Katy ISD, well then HISD will eventually close shop.

---

Strange that you are mixing Katy/Houston ISD with Baylor and A&M. You do understand that voucher policies are only for K-12? And when has simply cutting taxes forced government to cut spending? Have you not seen the federal debt? Have you not seen the plethora of state debts? If that's all it took, then those debts would never have become an issue.

And I agree that schools should be totally private. There shouldn't even be ISDs. I should pick a school for my kids like I chose daycare centers or grocery stores. The REASON that works is that it forces providers to be efficient.

HOWEVER, that is not on the table right now. It's not even close. It is unlikely that a bill to privatize education will come to a vote within our lifetime. So... given this FACT:

Do you agree that vouchers are better than 100% public education that we have now? That it is CLOSER to privatization due to the competition aspect?

---

I'm critical of vouchers because of the cost. The 2023 proposal would have busted the state budget in 5 years, from $500 million annually in 2024 to $2.1 billion in 2026 to who the heck knows by 2029. That number is NET the savings in the public schools budget of around $350 million a year. For context, the Texas DPS is a $2 billion budget item.

These numbers do not account for the increase in public school spending of around $6 billion that is unrelated to vouchers.

In all, the state spends $92 billion a year on public schools (about 1/3 of that is your property taxes). No where in Abbott's voucher bill did he attempt to cut the public school budget. Rather, he increased it by $6 billion.

Sadly, the bill did not pass.

---

I'm against any voucher bill that increases budget or does some sort of half ass means testing where poor kids get $200/mo or something. Every kid should have ALL of his education budget directed to the school they are enrolled in. And ideally, every parent keeps the left over money to spend on their own supplemental tutoring or whatever (but that is not make-or-break).

Now that we have far fewer RINOs in congress, we are much less likely to have a RINOy voucher bill. But I will be calling every rep I can and pushing my stance.

(Despite my kids be out of school.)

---

I don't believe even Mitch Little can craft legislation that is revenue neutral or even saves money with vouchers.

The FSP clingers like admin people and such will demand public school funding be increased to adjust for inflation on the $6397 basic allotment per pupil. And then there are the metro schools that are broke because they passed budgets anticipating the $6 billion windfall from HB1 that was killed because of vouchers.

---

Obviously, I'm talking purchasing power. Texas does not control inflation, and if the Fed doubles the amount of money in circulation, then of course the equilibrium price for schools, teachers, etc. would double along with everything else. When I say revenue neutral, I'm saying that vouchers should cost no more in total then what we would have spent on education for that particular year if there were no vouchers. Not that nominal budget would go down despite the Feds inflating the crap out of the dollar.

The closer we get to true privatization the more cost savings and higher quality we will enjoy.

jjksterag said:

---

Helen is nothing more than a puppet.

---

I'll take a "puppet" that is pro-free markets over a "maverick" who is pro socialism any day.

How does a voucher program NOT result in more taxes? Right now 250k kids choose to pay additional for private school. This is in addition to their public school funding. Hard to understand how it's not a windfall to them, and it's certainly justifiable if I put on my libertarian hat. But someone has to pay for that. And if it's a $5k voucher that's about 1.25 billion…

Because I don't want to pay for private schools, I choose to live in an area with good public schools. I effectively paid for this privilege as a factor in my house price. Maybe my school competes and doesn't have kids leave, but I see it attracting a lot of kids from the other side of the tracks, and quality is eroded over the next decade. My house value is impacted on top of what I have to pay extra for the 1.25billion above.

I like the idea of vouchers. I just don't feel like paying for it.

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.