Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover

[GaryC 7]

The liberals will not be happy until they have a cradle to grave nanny state where no one has any choices and the government has all the control.

[Longview 0]

i seem to recall some promises made about social security too....about not being taxed, etc...and we see how that turned out.

If Republicans would cease their looting of the Social Security trust fund to pay off our burgeoning national debt, Social Security wouldn't be in such dire straits right now. Driving Social Security into bankruptcy while simultaneously promoting its privatization is a pretty obvious tactic, but one most Americans see through plainly. President Bush's attempts at privatizing Social Security have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, and rightly so.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i seem to recall some promises made about social security too....about not being taxed, etc...and we see how that turned out.

If Republicans would cease their looting of the Social Security trust fund to pay off our burgeoning national debt, Social Security wouldn't be in such dire straits right now. Driving Social Security into bankruptcy while simultaneously promoting its privatization is a pretty obvious tactic, but one most Americans see through plainly. President Bush's attempts at privatizing Social Security have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, and rightly so.

actually, it was the democrats who authorized such and first did so

[Dr_LHA 3]

The liberals will not be happy until they have a cradle to grave nanny state where no one has any choices and the government has all the control.

Go visit some liberal countries why don't you? Guess what you will find: Rich people put their kids into private schools. Even if they provide Universal education, people will still exercise choice to put their kids into private schools, that choice will not be taken away.

Also, there's nothing wrong with having a nanny when you're in pre-school.

[GaryC 7]

i seem to recall some promises made about social security too....about not being taxed, etc...and we see how that turned out.

If Republicans would cease their looting of the Social Security trust fund to pay off our burgeoning national debt, Social Security wouldn't be in such dire straits right now. Driving Social Security into bankruptcy while simultaneously promoting its privatization is a pretty obvious tactic, but one most Americans see through plainly. President Bush's attempts at privatizing Social Security have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, and rightly so.

Back up the truck there. It's the dems that have been looting the ssn trust fund. The SSN fund was in BIG trouble long before Bush was elected. It was in trouble long before the reps got the congress. I think you had better look at your history books again. You just lost any credibility there bub. That is nothing but partisan hacking.

[Longview 0]

i dislike how it runs out the private schools. that's one point i was making by my pic of her - everyone's lack of choice if she has her way.

Where does it indicate that private pre-K's wouldn't be allowed to continue business? I can't seem to find that insinuation in the article. That aside, there're still private K-12's now, and there'll still be private pre-K's under Sen. Clinton's proposal.

nor do i buy that about the taxes on those over 200k would pay for it. i've heard that line before too.

Whether you "buy" it or not, it's true. Allowing President Bush's $200K+ tax cuts to expire could easily fund something so simple as an additional grade, especially one that wouldn't require teachers with broad certifications or lengthy higher education. Methinks you underestimate the revenue generated by our nation's highest 1%.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The liberals will not be happy until they have a cradle to grave nanny state where no one has any choices and the government has all the control.

Go visit some liberal countries why don't you? Guess what you will find: Rich people put their kids into private schools. Even if they provide Universal education, people will still exercise choice to put their kids into private schools, that choice will not be taken away.

Also, there's nothing wrong with having a nanny when you're in pre-school.

yes, that's an option the rich will have. an option the middle class will probably lose in the op.

[Dr_LHA 3]

yes, that's an option the rich will have. an option the middle class will probably lose in the op.

Maybe (although private education is not out of the reach of the middle class, even with universal free education - I can attest as my very lower middle class family put me through private school), but the poor will gain free pre-school, a fact conviently ignored it would seem. Still ###### them right? If they can't afford it their kids deserve to be stupid.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Longview 0]

That is nothing but partisan hacking.

Says the fellow talking about a so-called "cradle to grave nanny state," and accusing liberals of wanting "no one to have any choices." A mirror for you, friend. Pot, kettle, black.

actually, it was the democrats who authorized such and first did so

An authorization which was a grave mistake. This also changes in no way the fact that the Republican-led Congress has been far more egregious in their looting of the Social Security Trust, nor the fact that they are looting it while also advocating a privatization. In the private sector, their actions would be a blatant conflict of interest.

yes, that's an option the rich will have. an option the middle class will probably lose in the op.

An option the poor and ever-growing lower-middle class don't have at all, currently.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Longview

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i dislike how it runs out the private schools. that's one point i was making by my pic of her - everyone's lack of choice if she has her way.

Where does it indicate that private pre-K's wouldn't be allowed to continue business? I can't seem to find that insinuation in the article. That aside, there're still private K-12's now, and there'll still be private pre-K's under Sen. Clinton's proposal.

from the op:

Clinton's proposal — introduced Thursday in the Senate — would give states $28 billion over five years to incorporate the nation's 120,000 preschools now run in firms, churches and storefronts into a government-run system. The former Goldwater girl has come a long way from the western ways and neighborhood values she once embraced.

to me that means more regulations for these private schools.

nor do i buy that about the taxes on those over 200k would pay for it. i've heard that line before too.

Whether you "buy" it or not, it's true. Allowing President Bush's $200K+ tax cuts to expire could easily fund something so simple as an additional grade, especially one that wouldn't require teachers with broad certifications or lengthy higher education. Methinks you underestimate the revenue generated by our nation's highest 1%.

or maybe you overestimate such. we saw what the grand idea of "no child left" behind did.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

yes, that's an option the rich will have. an option the middle class will probably lose in the op.

Maybe (although private education is not out of the reach of the middle class, even with universal free education - I can attest as my very lower middle class family put me through private school), but the poor will gain free pre-school, a fact conviently ignored it would seem. Still ###### them right? If they can't afford it their kids deserve to be stupid.

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We already give all children a free K-12 public education. I don't see how adding a few years of preschool will bust the budget.

That said, it shouldn't be run by the Feds. Let the same people who run our public schools run it.

[GaryC 7]

i dislike how it runs out the private schools. that's one point i was making by my pic of her - everyone's lack of choice if she has her way.

Where does it indicate that private pre-K's wouldn't be allowed to continue business? I can't seem to find that insinuation in the article. That aside, there're still private K-12's now, and there'll still be private pre-K's under Sen. Clinton's proposal.

nor do i buy that about the taxes on those over 200k would pay for it. i've heard that line before too.

Whether you "buy" it or not, it's true. Allowing President Bush's $200K+ tax cuts to expire could easily fund something so simple as an additional grade, especially one that wouldn't require teachers with broad certifications or lengthy higher education. Methinks you underestimate the revenue generated by our nation's highest 1%.

You just sound like someone that wants the rich to pay more. As it is the top 25% pay 84% of the taxes. Where do you think your job and our economy comes from? Rich people. If you tax them until they see no need to try to be rich then no one works. Your just expousing socialistic views.

[Longview 0]

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

My kindergarten taught us the alphabet, geography, and basic writing. Kindergarten's required in my state, though; your state's program could be completely different.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

Preschool is about teaching kids to socialize with one another.

It's also about letting parents who need a second income to run a household have that second income. This idea makes a lot of sense in a place like NJ where a household income of less than 150k means being lower-middle-class to poor. That second income is important here. Preschool should be left up to the states, I expect it doesn't make as much sense in Arkansas.