OT: Latest (July 2022) county population estimates are out

[The Cooterpoot]

That doesn’t make any more sense than insisting your tax dollars only go to roads and bridges you drive on every day, power lines running to your neighborhood / house, the closest fire department to your house, etc.

No, I still have to use those things. I could move my kid to another school of my choice and not use the poor performing school down the road. Big difference. If I move out of the county, guess what, my tax money does too. Same for city taxes. If I leave the state, state taxes. My money follows me. Previously, I lived 2.6 miles from a high performing school. My kids were forced to go 5.2 miles to a low performing school. Both were same county. I paid no city taxes. Yet, I couldn't send my kids to the better school. That makes no damn sense..
I'm surprised the more liberal peeps are against a kid having a chance at a better education. I guess big government is more your thing. Education holds MS back. So does health care.
Our kids deserve better.

 

[mstateglfr]

I’m not the one claiming grocery stores are spending public funds. You either are claiming that or you are being incoherent.

This is what you did say. I don't know why you posted it as its confusing and beside the point.

Johnson- So under that definition, how is money spent by a grocery store receiving SNAP public funds?

Dollars spent by a grocery store are not public funds

I have not claimed grocery stores are spending public funds either.
You are the one that brought SNAP into this discussion about how there is apparently jo such thing as 'public funds'. You brought grocery stores into the discussion by phrasing a question in perhaps the least legible way possible. I seriously still don't understand what you are actually asking in that first question.


All this is really just a distraction though. The reality is that public funds do exist. They are real. Public funds is not some myth. When schools are funded, or roads are plowed, or fires are extinguished, public funds were used.
Yep, public funds are real.

 

[johnson86-1]

WIC is a separate program for low income pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, and children under five years old.

It supplements SNAP.

Food stamps were first used during the Great Depression in ‘39 and ended during World War II due largely to the unemployment rate being so low due to the wartime economy.

Government cheese was separately introduced during World War II. As @Mr. Cook mentioned a few posts earlier, it was created to maintain the price of dairy products when industry subsidies artificially increased the supply and created a surplus.


I had told @Boom Boom earlier this evening that Cheese was supplemental to Food Stamps earlier. It isn’t the case.

Cheese used to be part of WIC but it was separated out less than a decade ago to emphasize nutrition for the low income elderly.

Food stamps were reintroduced during JFK’s administration via Executive Order (having temporary authority to do so under a law passed when Eisenhower was president — Ike could have done this too but elected not to) and became permanent again as part of LBJ’s War on Poverty.

All three programs are under the USDA — Department of Agriculture.

Edit to Add: It’s been years since I’ve had to think of all of these programs in depth.

When your family used to own and operate a mom and pop store back in the day, you can’t help but get a little knowledge about the USDA programs…

I know WIC is separate, but I thought SNAP was originally a similar system to WIC (I.e. government selected and produced or procured food rather giving voucher to beneficiaries.) not sure why I thought this, but I thought we refused to move it to a voucher system because of concerns that mothers would not want to spend it on basic nutrition for kids and that any attempt to limit it to some sort of nutritional plan appropriate for women, children, and infants would be unsuccessful.

 

[Palos verdes]

Nailed it.

I love Mississippi and I'll always consider myself a Mississippian, but I can't conceive a situation outside of winning the lottery where I would move back there because I will never find a job close to the job I have now (web-related data and analytics) and even if I do, it won't be at comparable pay, even with a lower cost of living and if it existed, it would be at one completely random company and if I lost that job, I would have to move away again because it just doesn't exist in the state.

I'm not moving back to Corinth, MS so I can work at Caterpillar. That's no disrespect to people that work at Caterpillar. I have a lot of family (including my mother) and friends that worked at/work at that Caterpillar and I worked there one summer too. Having a job at Caterpillar keeps people from moving away from Corinth, but there's no drove of folks crossing 3 states to get a job there (or Toyota in Tupelo or Nissan in Canton or wherever), unless they're from the corporate office coming down for a

Really makes you wonder what would have happened if WorldCom had completed its purchase of Sprint in 1999 and had its headquarters in Clinton... and hadn't been a complete sham.

Nailed it.

I love Mississippi and I'll always consider myself a Mississippian, but I can't conceive a situation outside of winning the lottery where I would move back there because I will never find a job close to the job I have now (web-related data and analytics) and even if I do, it won't be at comparable pay, even with a lower cost of living and if it existed, it would be at one completely random company and if I lost that job, I would have to move away again because it just doesn't exist in the state.

I'm not moving back to Corinth, MS so I can work at Caterpillar. That's no disrespect to people that work at Caterpillar. I have a lot of family (including my mother) and friends that worked at/work at that Caterpillar and I worked there one summer too. Having a job at Caterpillar keeps people from moving away from Corinth, but there's no drove of folks crossing 3 states to get a job there (or Toyota in Tupelo or Nissan in Canton or wherever), unless they're from the corporate office coming down for a management gig.

People are flocking to the DFW area because there are multiple corporate headquarters and/or large regional entities here. That creates a safety net if you ever find yourself laid off or in a position where you want a change.

Really makes you wonder what would have happened if WorldCom had completed its purchase of Sprint in 1999 and had its headquarters in Clinton... and hadn't been a complete sham.

About 7 years ago when I was working in DFW, the metroplex was growing at a rate of around 10 thousand people a month. I imagine in the last few years it may have topped that rate. It's not like it used to be where people would work in Las Colinas or downtown and drive home in typical city life routine. These days people feel trapped and almost forced to work and live 7 days a week in their suburbs in order to avoid super long commutes into town, unless it's a special occasion. I've witnessed a lot of this and when a place gets that crowded, it's past time to leave.

As for WorldCom, had the acquisition gone through and without the corporate scam it would have started some fire in metro Jackson, and the city of Jackson. Who knows to what extent, but it would be in a much better place today than it is.

 

[Boom Boom]

Food stamps didn’t replace government cheese.

Stamps were created before cheese and they were separate programs until cheese became subordinate to food stamps.

Yeah. I disagree with your differentiating cheese and SNAP if only because there’s *always* profit somewhere.

Hark! There’s a message from @Mr. Cook …

Thanks for leading me to read up on it more, I had some misimpressions.

Anyway, the main point is rhat SNAP is a big profit generator, primarily for Walmart. Agree?

 

[WilCoDawg]

But, in a voucher system, that money very likely is coming out of the government's pocket. Or rather, ultimately from the public's pocket. That's literally the whole idea behind vouchers - it takes public money and gives it to private schools without obligating them to follow the same rules as public schools.

Honest question:
what rules are private schools not following?

 

[CoastTrash]

Unfortunately lots of folks are voting with their feet and leaving our state. Got to unite the business community to ignore the crazies and push common sense policies that attract capital investment and human investment in Mississippi.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Thanks for leading me to read up on it more, I had some misimpressions.

Anyway, the main point is rhat SNAP is a big profit generator, primarily for Walmart. Agree?

Agreed.

And Walmart is the most notable corporation, given their low-cost focus. There’s an often circulated & cited 2013 WSJ piece where Walmart officials report that 18 percent of all SNAP money is spent at their locations.

Other companies also benefit— not just larger chains like Kroger but also companies whose products are sold at supermarkets (e.g., Coke, Pepsi, Kraft).

 

[Drebin]

County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2020-2023

This page features county population estimates totals and components of change for years 2020-2023.

www.census.gov

I never knew Hinds county was such a fan of Tom Petty.

#freefallin'

 

[mstateglfr]

Honest question:
what rules are private schools not following?

I cant answer for him, but will for where I am.
A voucher bill was recently passed and signed because our Gov forced it in for the 4th legislative session in a row. She actually extended last year's session for a month and a half or so while trying to force people to vote for it.
A couple of bigger ones are in bold. Also, the list below is not the entirety.
Private schools will receive $7600 per student.

- Public schools must be accredited through the state, which means on site visits and approved 5 year plans. Private schools have the option to be accredited, but do not need to be.
- Public schools must hire teachers that have a teaching degree and current licensing. Private schools can hire any person to teach, regardless of if they have any idea how.
- Public schools must accept all students living within their district boundaries. Private schools can decline students and do not have to offer special education(which typically costs more). The financial burden is then put onto public schools while their funding is reduced.
- Public schools are required to offer free breakfast and lunch to qualifying students. Private schools do not have to.
- Public schools are held accountable to the public for the money they spend by way of audits and public elections for school boards(so the public has a say in who sets local school agenda). Private schools are not audited and have no accountability to the public for what is taught or how public funds are spent.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Unfortunately lots of folks are voting with their feet and leaving our state. Got to unite the business community to ignore the crazies and push common sense policies that attract capital investment and human investment in Mississippi.

When we have people in the Republican Party (who I have supported in the past) voting to pass pet insurance but refusing to expand our healthcare, that explains a lot. People need to stop voting for a letter (R or D).

 

[johnson86-1]

This is what you did say. I don't know why you posted it as its confusing and beside the point.


I have not claimed grocery stores are spending public funds either.

You have claimed that schools receiving vouchers are spending public funds. If that's the case, then if you are being coherent, then grocery stores receiving vouchers are also spending public funds. There is room to argue that the definition of public funds should be more expansive than it is, but it can't just be "I don't like school choice, so those voucher recipients are now government entities, but I do like SNAP and Section 8, so those voucher recipients are not."

You are the one that brought SNAP into this discussion about how there is apparently jo such thing as 'public funds'.

No, I didn't.

You brought grocery stores into the discussion by phrasing a question in perhaps the least legible way possible. I seriously still don't understand what you are actually asking in that first question.


All this is really just a distraction though. The reality is that public funds do exist. They are real. Public funds is not some myth. When schools are funded, or roads are plowed, or fires are extinguished, public funds were used.
Yep, public funds are real.

Never claimed any different and I dont' kkow where you got this argument from.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Public education in MS has been bad. I've supported it all my life. But I'm to the point now after dealing with bad schools, I believe kids deserve the best chance at success. I don't care if it's public or private. We deserve to be able to educate our kids properly. The public school system is failing us in MS.
School boards have unequal representation. In most areas, appointed supers are a terrible thing (from my experience). I just want my kid to have a chance to do more than me. I shouldn't have to move out of state.

 

[johnson86-1]

Thanks for leading me to read up on it more, I had some misimpressions.

Anyway, the main point is rhat SNAP is a big profit generator, primarily for Walmart. Agree?

Why do you see this as some argument against SNAP? Even for non-profits, people are still largely getting paid to do work. People generally can't afford to work without being paid or to invest in capital without getting a return. It's not like Walmart charges more to SNAP users. Largely thanks to Walmart, grocery stores are pretty competitive in all but the smallest towns and have pretty low margins, so it's not like they are using government programs to make obscene margins. I don't think your view that profits somehow sully things is uncommon, but it still seems like an odd view to me that I don't quite get.

 

[mstateglfr]

You have claimed that schools receiving vouchers are spending public funds. If that's the case, then if you are being coherent, then grocery stores receiving vouchers are also spending public funds. There is room to argue that the definition of public funds should be more expansive than it is, but it can't just be "I don't like school choice, so those voucher recipients are now government entities, but I do like SNAP and Section 8, so those voucher recipients are not."

Oh my gosh- this is what youve been claiming? You have actually spent this long holding onto such a view? Goodness.

Grocery stores-
- the individual person is the end spending user and products purchased in exchange for public funds are the already regulated to ensure spending properly utilized(hence you cant buy cigs and lottery tix with the funding).

Public schools-
- the school district is the end spending user, and products purchased in exchange for public funds must follow established purchasing guidelines as well as regular audits by external agencies.

Private schools-
- the private school is the end spending user and there is no oversight to ensure they are spending public funds in an ethical and responsible manner. They are not required to report spending and they dont even have to be accountable to the public by way of elections.




Your grocery store example was so completely terrible that I genuinely couldnt even follow what you were getting at. You dont have a basic grasp on who end users of various funds are.

 

[mstateglfr]

Public education in MS has been bad. I've supported it all my life. But I'm to the point now after dealing with bad schools, I believe kids deserve the best chance at success. I don't care if it's public or private. We deserve to be able to educate our kids properly. The public school system is failing us in MS.
School boards have unequal representation. In most areas, appointed supers are a terrible thing (from my experience). I just want my kid to have a chance to do more than me. I shouldn't have to move out of state.

Dont school boards hire and employ the superintendents in MS? They are effectively the sups' manager.
If school boards are bad, elect people you want leading the districts.

Curious to hear what you mean when you say school boards have unequal representation. What district(s) are you referring to and in what way are they unequal? Typically, a school board will represent the district community because those in the community are who vote for board members.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Dont school boards hire and employ the superintendents in MS? They are effectively the sups' manager.
If school boards are bad, elect people you want leading the districts.

Curious to hear what you mean when you say school boards have unequal representation. What district(s) are you referring to and in what way are they unequal? Typically, a school board will represent the district community because those in the community are who vote for board members.

They do. But the school boards are unbalanced. The school we were at had no representation on the board. We had one vote to the other school districts multiple votes. These districts are turning their backs on schools. They appointed a super who was voted out the previous term. Think about that. They overturned our votes. That's MS politics at its best. MS is doomed voting for the redneck republican machine here. And I've voted for some of those fools before, but never again. The right wing BS is out of control here. I eventually did move somewhere else in-state. Looking to get to Starkville now.
And yes, vouchers are a right thinking move. But I don't identify as an R or a D. Give me the best of both. MS is the worst of both politically.

 

[mstateglfr]

They do. But the school boards are unbalanced. The school we were at had no representation on the board. We had one vote to the other school districts multiple votes. These districts are turning their backs on schools. They appointed a super who was voted out the previous term. Think about that. They overturned our votes. That's MS politics at its best. MS is doomed voting for the redneck republican machine here. And I've voted for some of those fools before, but never again. The right wing BS is out of control here. I eventually did move somewhere else in-state. Looking to get to Starkville now.

I guess I am showing my ignorance on how school districts operate in Mississippi.
I dont understand how a school board represents multiple school districts. Here, a school board represents a district and not multiple districts.
Here, the citizens dont vote in or vote out a superintendent. Instead, the board hires and fires the sup.

I cant imagine why a system exists where a school district represents and votes on other school districts. I also cant imagine why a system exists where citizens vote for the sup instead of the board hiring/firing since that is so clearly a board responsibility.

It would be interesting to learn why those things happen in MS.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Why do you see this as some argument against SNAP? Even for non-profits, people are still largely getting paid to do work. People generally can't afford to work without being paid or to invest in capital without getting a return. It's not like Walmart charges more to SNAP users. Largely thanks to Walmart, grocery stores are pretty competitive in all but the smallest towns and have pretty low margins, so it's not like they are using government programs to make obscene margins. I don't think your view that profits somehow sully things is uncommon, but it still seems like an odd view to me that I don't quite get.

I don't perceive Boom Boom's argument as being anti-SNAP so much as it is anti-corporate.

One notable consequence of market consolidation in the grocery industry is food deserts and people spending more money to travel to buy groceries.

Another side-effect affecting independent and small retailers: price hikes by suppliers that they can't do to Walmart since they controlled nearly 25 percent of the sector as of 2019.

 

[johnson86-1]

Oh my gosh- this is what youve been claiming? You have actually spent this long holding onto such a view? Goodness.

Grocery stores-
- the individual person is the end spending user and products purchased in exchange for public funds are the already regulated to ensure spending properly utilized(hence you cant buy cigs and lottery tix with the funding).

Public schools-
- the school district is the end spending user, and products purchased in exchange for public funds must follow established purchasing guidelines as well as regular audits by external agencies.

Private schools-
- the private school is the end spending user and there is no oversight to ensure they are spending public funds in an ethical and responsible manner. They are not required to report spending and they dont even have to be accountable to the public by way of elections.




Your grocery store example was so completely terrible that I genuinely couldnt even follow what you were getting at. You dont have a basic grasp on who end users of various funds are.

It's not that it's terrible, it's that you still apparently are so opposed to school choice that you can't see the obvious mistake you are making. With vouchers, , with SNAP, Section 8, and school choice vouchers, the voucher beneficiary is the one doing the spending. The grocery store, landlord, and school respectively just receive public funds in exchange for the vouchers. They are all similarly situated, but you want to claim the schools are the end users of various funds but not the grocery stores or landlords. That's just incoherent. They all take vouchers and submit them to the government to be paid. There are basic rules around what qualifies for voucher payments, but provided those basic requirements are met, you don't suddenly treat the entity accepting vouchers as a public body that needs to have all of their spending audited.

 

[Boom Boom]

Why do you see this as some argument against SNAP? Even for non-profits, people are still largely getting paid to do work. People generally can't afford to work without being paid or to invest in capital without getting a return. It's not like Walmart charges more to SNAP users. Largely thanks to Walmart, grocery stores are pretty competitive in all but the smallest towns and have pretty low margins, so it's not like they are using government programs to make obscene margins. I don't think your view that profits somehow sully things is uncommon, but it still seems like an odd view to me that I don't quite get.

Profit itself is not the problem. It's when the profit becomes the purpose of the program, rather than a side effect, that it becomes a problem. The latter is why SNAP is geared towards unhealthy outcomes and increased taxpayer spending for less result. Vouchers for schools will do the same.

If you like our bastardized half-socialist, half-capitalist, worst of all worlds healthcare system, well we're going to bring that to schools too!

 

[The Cooterpoot]

I guess I am showing my ignorance on how school districts operate in Mississippi.
I dont understand how a school board represents multiple school districts. Here, a school board represents a district and not multiple districts.
Here, the citizens dont vote in or vote out a superintendent. Instead, the board hires and fires the sup.

I cant imagine why a system exists where a school district represents and votes on other school districts. I also cant imagine why a system exists where citizens vote for the sup instead of the board hiring/firing since that is so clearly a board responsibility.

It would be interesting to learn why those things happen in MS.

Example is a county school board. Multiple schools within that county. The districts are manipulated to give certain schools more power on the board. It's very common in MS. You can't pick which school you go to. It's where the district line for each school falls.

 

[johnson86-1]

I don't perceive Boom Boom's argument as being anti-SNAP so much as it is anti-corporate.

One notable consequence of market consolidation in the grocery industry is food deserts and people spending more money to travel to buy groceries.

Another side-effect affecting independent and small retailers: price hikes by suppliers that they can't do to Walmart since they controlled nearly 25 percent of the sector as of 2019.

I may be misinterpreting his position, but I think it is anti-SNAP in the sense that he'd rather have a program that operates like WIC, where the government procures food and distributes it, which would stop grocery stores from making money off of it and would allow the government to use pricing power to drive prices lower (although presumably with a reduction in quality).

I'm obviously skeptical that the government could do that and actually spend less money and I also think it'd be much worse for the beneficiaries, who would lose the ability to choose what foods they buy. I do think you'd hopefully end up providing a mix of food that is more nutritionally balanced, but if we're going to spend the money, I'd just as soon the beneficiaries get what they want, although I do wish we'd disqualify the most unhealthy foods (e.g., soft drinks, candy). I'd even be good with loosening up some of the rules on prepared food if that helped make disqualifying empty calories more palatable.

 

[Perd Hapley]

No, I still have to use those things. I could move my kid to another school of my choice and not use the poor performing school down the road. Big difference. If I move out of the county, guess what, my tax money does too. Same for city taxes. If I leave the state, state taxes. My money follows me. Previously, I lived 2.6 miles from a high performing school. My kids were forced to go 5.2 miles to a low performing school. Both were same county. I paid no city taxes. Yet, I couldn't send my kids to the better school. That makes no damn sense..
I'm surprised the more liberal peeps are against a kid having a chance at a better education. I guess big government is more your thing. Education holds MS back. So does health care.
Our kids deserve better.

Nobody’s against a kid having a better chance at an education. But surely you must realize there are things called school districts for a reason. You can’t just have people picking and choosing what public school to send their kid to because the “good” schools would then just become insanely overcrowded and no longer have the infrastructure to remain serviceable.

In your case, you obviously live out in the county in a crappy county district, but still want the benefits of the better city district school even though you don’t pay the same property taxes, etc. If you want to get your kid in the better school and really think they “deserve better”, then move 3 miles into the other district…..not hard. Or, take “your money that follows you” to another state or city where you are also going to have the same problem. Or stop paying taxes, and see how that works out for you, or move to a 3rd world country and have none of the above problems but numerous others in place of them.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I may be misinterpreting his position, but I think it is anti-SNAP in the sense that he'd rather have a program that operates like WIC, where the government procures food and distributes it, which would stop grocery stores from making money off of it and would allow the government to use pricing power to drive prices lower (although presumably with a reduction in quality).

I'm obviously skeptical that the government could do that and actually spend less money and I also think it'd be much worse for the beneficiaries, who would lose the ability to choose what foods they buy. I do think you'd hopefully end up providing a mix of food that is more nutritionally balanced, but if we're going to spend the money, I'd just as soon the beneficiaries get what they want, although I do wish we'd disqualify the most unhealthy foods (e.g., soft drinks, candy). I'd even be good with loosening up some of the rules on prepared food if that helped make disqualifying empty calories more palatable.

Coca-Cola & Pepsi spend a lot of lobbying money to ensure that their products are SNAP eligible.

Kraft Foods is a major SNAP proponent: Lots of folks buy macaroni and cheese, you know... I alluded to it in my earlier response to Boom Boom that I've copied below:

Other companies also benefit— not just larger chains like Kroger but also companies whose products are sold at supermarkets (e.g., Coke, Pepsi, Kraft).

 

[Boom Boom]

I may be misinterpreting his position, but I think it is anti-SNAP in the sense that he'd rather have a program that operates like WIC, where the government procures food and distributes it, which would stop grocery stores from making money off of it and would allow the government to use pricing power to drive prices lower (although presumably with a reduction in quality).

I'm obviously skeptical that the government could do that and actually spend less money and I also think it'd be much worse for the beneficiaries, who would lose the ability to choose what foods they buy. I do think you'd hopefully end up providing a mix of food that is more nutritionally balanced, but if we're going to spend the money, I'd just as soon the beneficiaries get what they want, although I do wish we'd disqualify the most unhealthy foods (e.g., soft drinks, candy). I'd even be good with loosening up some of the rules on prepared food if that helped make disqualifying empty calories more palatable.

WIC no longer produces food and distributes it, as of a year or two ago. They have EBT-like cards, but there are heavy restrictions on what can be bought, unlike SNAP. It does not operate on the principle that the beneficiaries will make better decisions than the govt. It has categories that each have an allotment for the month, and only certain (generic-ish) brands can be bought, and nothing with unhealthy adders (added sugar, sauced veggies, etc).

But yes, when consumers use taxpayer money to buy name brand goods rather than generic, I believe that is enabling profiteering rather than sensible spending of taxpayer dollars. WIC somewhat is much better on this front, though with ample room to nitpick how they are doing it now. For example, compliance on the provider is difficult, so it favors larger suppliers/grocers.

In short, we could spend taxpayer money much more wisely than we do with SNAP, but the profit train ensures that we won't reform it. Let's not repeat that mistake with schools.

 

[Boom Boom]

Nobody’s against a kid having a better chance at an education.

Many Americans are very much against their tax money being used to provide other people's kids with an education. Many more are against the idea of public education, as they get their panties in a twist when things they don't like get taught. Thus, vouchers. Vouchers have nothing to do with providing quality education.

 

[mstateglfr]

Example is a county school board. Multiple schools within that county. The districts are manipulated to give certain schools more power on the board. It's very common in MS. You can't pick which school you go to. It's where the district line for each school falls.

You are confusing yourself now.
Earlier, you posted that school boards are 'unbalanced' because the school your kids went to had 1 vote compared to other school districts having multiple votes. And you said those other school districts are turning their backs on schools.
Now. you posted a scenario where there are multiple schools within a county district, so its all one district.

Those are fundamentally different.

Now as to your clarified issue, that a county school is effectively outnumbered by a city school in the same district, yes that is a concern. How that is handled in my state is that school board members must come from geographic areas within a school district. This helps ensure that if a consolidated district with 5 towns exists, there is representation from each town/area. And if the board needs to be large enough, there are 'open' seats too, where someone can be elected regardless of residence within the school district. This helps ensure no towns are unrepresented.


I feel it valuable to point out that your scenario is not solved by vouchers allowing kids to go to private schools paid for by public dollars. Private schools dont have to answer to anyone, so the situation you describe is potentially worse.
Private schools dont need to have board members elected by vote- the members can be appointed. Talk about potential for collusion and cronyism! Private schools dont need to hear parents speak. Private schools dont need to release agenda minutes.

You clearly have an issue with the school district you live in, and that sucks, but your solution has the potential to be even worse.

 

[mstateglfr]

Nobody’s against a kid having a better chance at an education. But surely you must realize there are things called school districts for a reason. You can’t just have people picking and choosing what public school to send their kid to because the “good” schools would then just become insanely overcrowded and no longer have the infrastructure to remain serviceable.

In your case, you obviously live out in the county in a crappy county district, but still want the benefits of the better city district school even though you don’t pay the same property taxes, etc. If you want to get your kid in the better school and really think they “deserve better”, then move 3 miles into the other district…..not hard. Or, take “your money that follows you” to another state or city where you are also going to have the same problem. Or stop paying taxes, and see how that works out for you, or move to a 3rd world country and have none of the above problems but numerous others in place of them.

In my state, kids are now allowed to easily open enroll into other school districts.

Up until a couple years ago, it was a bit of a pain to open enroll into other school districts. There was a deadline date that was firm, you had to request and receive approval from both districts, etc. I know all this for a couple reasons, but mainly because my 2 kids have open enrolled into a neighboring district for 11 years now. The money follows them from my home district to the one they attend. Its never been an issue for us because we send them to the 'worse' district so of course the district wants kids. We chose to continue their schooling in that district since they started there and the specific schools involved are fantastic. If it were any other schools in the district, we wouldnt open enroll.

Anyways, kids can now change districts on a whim, so mid-year if they want. Of course this will cause and has caused issues with funding since districts plan ahead for enrollment and staff accordingly.

I have long thought school funding shouldnt be based on town or county taxes, but rather a larger area. The fact that districts right next to one another can be so different in tax funding is absurd. In my state we have 9 AEAs(area education agency) and in general that seems like it would be a good way to more evenly distribute tax dollars for education. 9 AEAs and funding would be proportionately equal to all schools in each AEA.
Of course that will never fly. People want the benefits of a city without having to live in or help maintain the city existing. Mooching is a time honored tradition in this country.

 

[mstateglfr]

It's not that it's terrible, it's that you still apparently are so opposed to school choice that you can't see the obvious mistake you are making. With vouchers, , with SNAP, Section 8, and school choice vouchers, the voucher beneficiary is the one doing the spending. The grocery store, landlord, and school respectively just receive public funds in exchange for the vouchers. They are all similarly situated, but you want to claim the schools are the end users of various funds but not the grocery stores or landlords. That's just incoherent. They all take vouchers and submit them to the government to be paid. There are basic rules around what qualifies for voucher payments, but provided those basic requirements are met, you don't suddenly treat the entity accepting vouchers as a public body that needs to have all of their spending audited.

Its a terrible example. I already showed why, but I will try a different way.

Grocery store
- public funds are given to and held by the end user(individual) and funds are used to purchase goods from qualifying vendors(grocery stores).

Public school
- public funds are given to and held by the end user(district) and funds are used to purchase goods and services from qualifying vendors(books, technology, software, supplies, etc).

Your argument that the grocery store is the end user is absurd. Its like arguing Staples or Microsoft is the end user for school funds just because they sell paper and software to a district. Those arent the end users of public funds, they are vendors who sell a product or service to the end user.
The end user for SNAP benefits is the person that is receiving the food...to use. The end user for public school funs is the district that is receiving goods and services...to use.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Many Americans are very much against their tax money being used to provide other people's kids with an education. Many more are against the idea of public education, as they get their panties in a twist when things they don't like get taught. Thus, vouchers. Vouchers have nothing to do with providing quality education.

I was 100 percent in agreement with you until your last sentence if only because what's not quality for one person can indeed be quality for another.

And that's no big surprise.

Qualitative research is primarily subjective since it studies human behavior and people ain't logical.

(yeah, yeah, semantics I know...)

Edit to add: Now if you did a quantitative study comparing student success at Public & Voucher schools but you've still got to consider demographics among other things...

 

[johnson86-1]

Its a terrible example. I already showed why, but I will try a different way.

Grocery store
- public funds are given to and held by the end user(individual) and funds are used to purchase goods from qualifying vendors(grocery stores).

Public school
- public funds are given to and held by the end user(district) and funds are used to purchase goods and services from qualifying vendors(books, technology, software, supplies, etc).

Your argument that the grocery store is the end user is absurd. Its like arguing Staples or Microsoft is the end user for school funds just because they sell paper and software to a district. Those arent the end users of public funds, they are vendors who sell a product or service to the end user.
The end user for SNAP benefits is the person that is receiving the food...to use. The end user for public school funs is the district that is receiving goods and services...to use.

Yes, it's absurd, but you keep making that argument. It's absurd applied to a grocery store just because they take vouchers related to snap and its absurd applied to a private school just because they take vouchers related to a school choice program.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Nobody’s against a kid having a better chance at an education. But surely you must realize there are things called school districts for a reason. You can’t just have people picking and choosing what public school to send their kid to because the “good” schools would then just become insanely overcrowded and no longer have the infrastructure to remain serviceable.

In your case, you obviously live out in the county in a crappy county district, but still want the benefits of the better city district school even though you don’t pay the same property taxes, etc. If you want to get your kid in the better school and really think they “deserve better”, then move 3 miles into the other district…..not hard. Or, take “your money that follows you” to another state or city where you are also going to have the same problem. Or stop paying taxes, and see how that works out for you, or move to a 3rd world country and have none of the above problems but numerous others in place of them.

Again, I shouldn't have to move when I live 2 miles from a good school and my county taxes are paid. It's the district's responsibility to provide the education I pay for. They didn't.

 

[mstateglfr]

Yes, it's absurd, but you keep making that argument. It's absurd applied to a grocery store just because they take vouchers related to snap and its absurd applied to a private school just because they take vouchers related to a school choice program.

Its absurd because you are working really hard to equate two things that are fundamentally different, even after I have shown they are fundamentally different.
There is oversight for the 'vouchers' given to SNAP users. That oversight does not exist for private school vouchers.

This conversation began with discussing oversight and how critical that is, so I figured I would bring it back to that.

Do you also enjoy forcing square pegs into round holes? I wasnt sure if your refusal to accept fundamentally different things not fitting extends outside of this argument.

 

[johnson86-1]

WIC no longer produces food and distributes it, as of a year or two ago. They have EBT-like cards, but there are heavy restrictions on what can be bought, unlike SNAP. It does not operate on the principle that the beneficiaries will make better decisions than the govt. It has categories that each have an allotment for the month, and only certain (generic-ish) brands can be bought, and nothing with unhealthy adders (added sugar, sauced veggies, etc).

But yes, when consumers use taxpayer money to buy name brand goods rather than generic, I believe that is enabling profiteering rather than sensible spending of taxpayer dollars. WIC somewhat is much better on this front, though with ample room to nitpick how they are doing it now. For example, compliance on the provider is difficult, so it favors larger suppliers/grocers.

In short, we could spend taxpayer money much more wisely than we do with SNAP, but the profit train ensures that we won't reform it. Let's not repeat that mistake with schools.

I don't disagree with the position that people on SNAP should be using their dollars more economically, but there are two practical problems with just disallowing brand name goods. One is that the temptation to the supermarket will be to put higher margins on generics knowing they will have people that will be forced to buy it. The other is that the temptation to the producers of generics will be to cut costs at the expense of quality knowing that they have buyers that are limited to just them. Now obviously competition between supermarkets will tamp down on the first problem, and competition between generics will cut down on the other, but then the question becomes which producers qualify as generics? Are we going to spend gov't time and resources classifying producers as generics or not? For how many products?

At the end of the day, the SNAP beneficiaries are making tradeoffs on volume versus quality based on their preferences. I certainly don't have a problem with limiting their options, but if we generally limit it to food (and ideally excluded nutritionally empty products, although politically, nobody is going to take on Coke or whoever else on that), I don't think there's a lot of extra benefit to be gained from micromanaging which brands of a certain product beneficiaries are allowed to buy.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

But yes, when consumers use taxpayer money to buy name brand goods rather than generic, I believe that is enabling profiteering rather than sensible spending of taxpayer dollars.

I don't disagree with the position that people on SNAP should be using their dollars more economically, but there are two practical problems with just disallowing brand name goods. One is that the temptation to the supermarket will be to put higher margins on generics knowing they will have people that will be forced to buy it. The other is that the temptation to the producers of generics will be to cut costs at the expense of quality knowing that they have buyers that are limited to just them. Now obviously competition between supermarkets will tamp down on the first problem, and competition between generics will cut down on the other, but then the question becomes which producers qualify as generics? Are we going to spend gov't time and resources classifying producers as generics or not? For how many products?

And then there's the separate issue of private label items.

Would they be considered generic or not?

I see what Boom Boom is saying here but johnson's argument is more practicality based.

Consumers go to Walmart because their prices are often cheaper than independent grocers and Walmart markets themselves as such.

 

[johnson86-1]

Its absurd because you are working really hard to equate two things that are fundamentally different, even after I have shown they are fundamentally different.
There is oversight for the 'vouchers' given to SNAP users. That oversight does not exist for private school vouchers.

This conversation began with discussing oversight and how critical that is, so I figured I would bring it back to that.

Do you also enjoy forcing square pegs into round holes? I wasnt sure if your refusal to accept fundamentally different things not fitting extends outside of this argument.

The oversight is basically that SNAP be used for food and not prepared food, although that distinction is borderline meaningless in the grocery store. I suspect most school choice vouchers have a requirement that they be used for education, with varying levels of strictness as to what qualifies as educational expenses. But there are plenty of requirements that can be placed on accepting vouchers without treating them like a public entity. You can require that they be used at accredited schools. You can require that they be used at accredited schools that have at least 10% (or 20% or 30%) of their enrollment spots available to students for no more than 10% more than the value of the voucher. Or you could require that at least 5% of the enrollment spots are available to students for no more than the value of the voucher (with which students qualify be based on means testing), and then have 10% at no more than 10% more than the voucher and another 10% at no more than 20% more than the value of the voucher. You can require that schools not discriminate based on race in order to receive vouchers. All of that would be the same type of regulations applied to other voucher programs. You can disqualify schools from vouchers if a certain percentage of their students don't test on grade level over a certain period of years, or you can just require that they provide that info to parents (which would probably be more effective b/c feedback would be faster than several years).

None of that would be particularly inconsistent with how SNAP or Section 8 payees stay qualified, but it is extremely different from just treating them as a public entity and their spending as public funds.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Y'all all have made great points about how to make better economic opportunities er al. One glaring issue of all of this is educating children starts AT HOME.
Here in Copiah County we check all the boxes for an industry to want to locate here (access to rail and interstate, proximity to MS river ports, an industrialpark with utilities, etc. )..except one: Our public schools, outside of Wesson Attendance Center, are horrible. It's not because of lack of funding. It's because of a high ratio of single parent households and households on heavy transfer payments. In many cases the children are born so that the mama can get more welfare funds for the household. They are not being reared properly.
By the time they are school-age, they aren't prepared to learn. So, the school system plays the role of parent until learning can begin. A student may well be into middle school before any progress is made.
So, until the people elect a government that removes benefits for having more babies, for one reason, our education system in this part of the world will continue to fail. Industry will continue to move on to other areas.

Amen! I teach Engineering at a Career Technology Center. During my Masters Degree program I met and discussed education with a lot of teachers. One in Columbus, MS taught SPED for Kindergarten. She told me 95% of the kids she gets were never taught ABCs, counting or have been read to. They aren't SPED kids, they were abandoned kids and the sad thing about this is that from 2 to 5 years old your personality and psychological profile are being developed. Great way to start a life???

Our education system needs to be revamped. 1-8th grade should be more focused on basic education and vocational education. 9th through 12th should be directed toward continuing education for the correct field of study. That would make high school meaningful to students.

 

[Boom Boom]

I was 100 percent in agreement with you until your last sentence if only because what's not quality for one person can indeed be quality for another.

And that's no big surprise.

Qualitative research is primarily subjective since it studies human behavior and people ain't logical.

(yeah, yeah, semantics I know...)

Edit to add: Now if you did a quantitative study comparing student success at Public & Voucher schools but you've still got to consider demographics among other things...

Yeah, that's because I started to say one thing then cut it out, and left a hanging sentence with no good explanation.

I wasn't attempting to make a statement about quality. It was a statement about...politics I guess. Voucher proponents aren't arguing in good faith. They pretend it's about increasing quality or options for all. But in reality they are against the very idea of public education and are using vouchers as a Trojan Horse to kill it. Or at best just don't care that they would be dealing a massive blow to public education because they don't care about the kids that go there.

 

[Boom Boom]

I don't disagree with the position that people on SNAP should be using their dollars more economically, but there are two practical problems with just disallowing brand name goods. One is that the temptation to the supermarket will be to put higher margins on generics knowing they will have people that will be forced to buy it. The other is that the temptation to the producers of generics will be to cut costs at the expense of quality knowing that they have buyers that are limited to just them. Now obviously competition between supermarkets will tamp down on the first problem, and competition between generics will cut down on the other, but then the question becomes which producers qualify as generics? Are we going to spend gov't time and resources classifying producers as generics or not? For how many products?

At the end of the day, the SNAP beneficiaries are making tradeoffs on volume versus quality based on their preferences. I certainly don't have a problem with limiting their options, but if we generally limit it to food (and ideally excluded nutritionally empty products, although politically, nobody is going to take on Coke or whoever else on that), I don't think there's a lot of extra benefit to be gained from micromanaging which brands of a certain product beneficiaries are allowed to buy.

This is missing the point because I didn't explain things best. Note I said "generic-ish". I said that because it's not limited to "generics". I don't really know how to describe it, as I don't really know how or why they are making their decisions. I think it's because only the grocery "generics", or cut rate brands, are offering "pure" products without added sugar etc. But I don't know for sure.

Given the obesity and health stats for people on SNAP, I favor a change. I think you could do the category approach of WIC but relax the rules so more stuff is eligible, and that would (barely, maybe) be politically palatable enough yet give significant improvement.

But of course I'm not factoring in that conservatives don't want to fix SNAP. "Food stamps" is a real good bugaboo for them to rail on and drive people to vote for more tax cuts for the rich. BS stories about you know who buying a cart full of steaks on the 1st of the month. They don't want to fix it any more than they want to fix immigration or welfare (which really Clinton already fixed).