Are you a parent because your First paragraph sounds like someone who knows absolutely nothing about public schools.  Why do you believe charter schools do not have the same problems as a public school.  What make you believe that the parents who children go to a public school do not care about their child education.  You are throwing out some high brow opinion but I truly wonder where your experience is coming from.

I do not agree if the child is not making an effort or a distraction the kid should be removed.  Not knowing or understanding the circumstances of that child you are already throwing them to the curb.  If a charter school wants to be discriminating like that then why should we the people fund them with our tax money.  Kids go through all type of fazes in their lives, having some draconian system like that sounds like it would be more destructive than helpful even for the very good students.  If they want to go that route then just like a Private school, they can fund themselves.  There have been many children who have overcome problems at home, in their environment and other items that may affect them when someone takes the enough time to care and reach out.  In your world, those children would be sent packing and the results is often worst.  I have no problems with a Charter school being discriminating with who they let within their walls, but I also do not believe I need to pay for such a system out of my tax money.

Just because you have a Charter School in a poor area does not mean its there as a facility to help them or raises the bar over a public school.  You forget that the majority of the funding for those schools are state and local government and some of the organizations that run are in it for the money.

http://socialistworker.org/2014/01/22/the-chicago-charter-scam

As for dumb kids graduating, who says that charter schools do not do the same thing.  They hold up to no standard besides their own and there isn't anything making them not auto pass a kids as long as that kids takes up a seat at the school so the organization gets paid.

To sum this up, I do not have a problem with private, charter or public school.  I grew up in a public school and both my younger kids go to a private school.  My older son graduated from a charter school.  The problems you believe that do not happen in these schools are not there and the totally negative view you have of public schools is also not always the case.  They all have their pros and cons.  I actually do not mind a voucher system if it allowed me to defray the cost of sending both my kids to the private school they go to today.  From my own experience, there needs to be a balance and taking money from the public system if those kids cannot attend private or charter is nothing something I would support.

I do not agree if the child is not making an effort or a distraction the kid should be removed.  Not knowing or understanding the circumstances of that child you are already throwing them to the curb.  If a charter school wants to be discriminating like that then why should we the people fund them with our tax money.  Kids go through all type of fazes in their lives, having some draconian system like that sounds like it would be more destructive than helpful even for the very good students.  If they want to go that route then just like a Private school, they can fund themselves.  There have been many children who have overcome problems at home, in their environment and other items that may affect them when someone takes the enough time to care and reach out.  In your world, those children would be sent packing and the results is often worst.  I have no problems with a Charter school being discriminating with who they let within their walls, but I also do not believe I need to pay for such a system out of my tax money.

Just because you have a Charter School in a poor area does not mean its there as a facility to help them or raises the bar over a public school.  You forget that the majority of the funding for those schools are state and local government and some of the organizations that run are in it for the money.

http://socialistworker.org/2014/01/22/the-chicago-charter-scam

As for dumb kids graduating, who says that charter schools do not do the same thing.  They hold up to no standard besides their own and there isn't anything making them not auto pass a kids as long as that kids takes up a seat at the school so the organization gets paid.

To sum this up, I do not have a problem with private, charter or public school.  I grew up in a public school and both my younger kids go to a private school.  My older son graduated from a charter school.  The problems you believe that do not happen in these schools are not there and the totally negative view you have of public schools is also not always the case.  They all have their pros and cons.  I actually do not mind a voucher system if it allowed me to defray the cost of sending both my kids to the private school they go to today.  From my own experience, there needs to be a balance and taking money from the public system if those kids cannot attend private or charter is nothing something I would support.

The democrats look at Europe socialized service in a very general sense, they spin the truth to fit their ideals. They argue Europe has free healthcare, free college education, and many other free social services. But they ignore things like high taxes and college is primarily free for people with actual potential.

People in the US have the impression we can have lots of free stuff by simply taxing the rich more, in reality everybody (working) would require a large tax increase. The problem with that is people in the US actually hate taxes, even the average democrat.

Ultimately, we can't throw an endless fortune on relatively basic services and expect much more other free services. Hence, if democrats can't entertain the idea of more efficient spending than the biggest hurdle starts with them.

The US is still a big chunk of China's exports. Also, if the US props up other countries exports than maybe other countries will look elsewhere too when it makes sense.

Unless things change its best we move away from China, they're a threat to the west in general.

Europe isn't the world.

You don't need high taxes to fund various social schemes.
Again, universal healthcare has proven to be cheaper on a per-capita basis than the USA's system, so if anything it should save money and lower taxes when done correctly.

I absolutely agree. Throwing money at something and hoping for a result is a waste.
But if you can implement a free services over a paid service and see improvements in wait times, quality of care... Then what's not to love?

Tariffs are a mixed bag.
The first thing it impacts is people.

I.E. Australia sells it's Iron Ore to China, China then turns it into Steel. - USA then buys that Steel from China and then is imported and is used in something like Harley Davidson Motorcycles.
A 25% increase on raw materials means a marked increase in production costs on motorcycles...

That means the American consumer needs to pay significantly more.

The second thing it impacts is the company, higher prices, usually means lower sales... So either they live with reduced sales or, decreased profit margins... Or. They shift manufacturing to somewhere like Mexico... You see, those motorcycles are exported all around the world, so at-least then only the Americans are paying the higher price if manufacturing is in Mexico.

Again, the rest of the world isn't going to suddenly buy from the USA just because you have thrown up Tariffs and made manufacturing more expensive, you are just going to keep turning us towards China and India, which are set to become the largest and most lucrative markets.

Well. That is why you should build up a working relationship.
China and the USA being close allies is far better for the planet then having them at odds with each other.

India will be China's counter balance going forwards anyway as the USA's importance on the world stage continues to recede.

Here is some food for thought on public vs private schools and kids performance.

Have you been to college yet? Do you notice the difference that kids put into their education depending on if they are paying for it themselves or their parents are?

I have. The kids that are paying for it themselves seem to try much hard than those on some sort of free ride, parents paying, federal aid, ect.

You argued that parents of kids in public school care about their kids grades? I sure hope so. But is it hard to believe that if you were a parent that you might care a little more if you were paying 10 grand a year versus nothing? Same for anything else. You send your kid to a baseball camp and you find out he just screwed around the whole time. That would make you more upset if it costs money versus if it didn't.

So parents probably care more about their kids performance in private schools than in public. Might be more for a monetary reason than a altruistic/parental reason, but doesn't matter if its a good reason, selfish reason or for the kids best interest, they will likely push their kids to do better.

Or what is sadly also true in this day and age, they will go after the teachers and say I'm paying os much, why is my kid getting an F.

irstupid gave a great response, he gets exactly what I'm saying. I'm not arguing parents of public schools don't care, I'm arguing people who put their kids in alterative schools generally care more. Shame I have to even elaborate on this, it should be common sense.

Nobody is arguing we throw them to curb entirely, but if a certain charter has higher standards and expectations than a child is will to put then the school shouldn't have to tolerate that. Sometimes performance is crucial to being apart of a program, even tax payer programs. And again, public school is still an option and they get more tax payer money than the alternatives.

You're bitching about where our tax money goes. But that same money goes into the public even if they're shit. If parents want to use that same tax money to pay for private or charter school, what business is it of yours? Let the parents choose what they feel is best for their kids and let them have the financial resources to give their kids more options. Bear in mind your ideology only hurts poor, you rather they be forced into public school with no options if charter and private schools have expectations.

I don't care if any charter schools are in it for the money, I care if they exist as an alternative to parents looks for something else and I would hope they get good results. If people get rich while helping kids, I'm fine with that. Either way, charter schools get less money than public school.

On a side note, I find if funny you gave me a link to socialist website. Its clear where you're coming from now.

I'm not arguing charter schools don't push dumb kids through. I'm arguing public do plenty of bad stuff even with government oversight.

In the last paragraph you sound very reasonable. I think the only area we really disagree is lazy/dumb kids. If alterative schools have higher expectations in performance and behavior, I think that's fine and I still believe they should get public funding vouchers.

No shit, I'm saying democrats look to Europe as the ideal implementations of socialism (socialist policies in reality). But they spin also spin facts to make it fit their ideals. Democrats don't actually want socialism how Europe does it per se, because those countries are still to responsible in their spending.

Hence, when our government can do better job with vast amount of resources it already receives then I would be open to more government operated services. You've argued we could get more done with efficient spending. Well lets have more efficient spending before we pour more into government. Is that a crazy concept?

I think I should stress the point we would all love free stuff in the US. I wish I didn't have to think about my healthcare costs, education fees, etc. But the US is has proven to be terrible at offering quality services and inefficient at spending. If democrats and government in general can't solve those problems, people aren't gonna be interested in throwing more money into government. That simply means higher taxes and less choices.

I see the problem with tariffs, that means we pay more for goods. You got one party potentially hurting consumers with tariffs, while the opposing part wants significantly higher taxes. So it certainly feels either way you go people are getting hit in the wallet. But either way, we could rely on other countries as well for exports and that would prop up other countries, which is arguably best.

We aren't starting a war with China, this negations. Many feel we're getting a bad deal with China and they're taking advantage of us, you seem to be suggesting we tolerate that so they don't become an enemy. I don't think that's a great plan.

Then Democrats are doing it wrong. But Republicans don't want anything to do with socialist policies and are also at fault.

You want to implement the schemes first, then look at measures to cost-cut.
My own country constantly does audits in order to look for ways to efficiently cut costs without compromising quality of care.

But we had to get a system that actually functioned first, that has certainly been a long and expensive road, but it's paying for itself now generations later.

It's not actually free. - But it's also not for-profit either, thus you don't need to stress about things like profit margins.
Inefficient spending comes straight from the top, Republicans, Democrats... All just waste, waste, waste.

Tariffs are both good and bad. It is what it is.
Essentially it's just another tax that everyone ends up paying for in the end anyway.

But like I iterated prior, the USA would do well to put a focus on towards India, which is China's counterbalance, hopefully the USA doesn't alienate themselves from the rest of the world before that happens.

Well. I never said you were starting a war with China.
But without a doubt China is going to overtake the USA in economic power, the USA needs to work with them, not against, for everyone's sake.

That's bullshit, the republicans absolutely support social services. They get attacked for trying to reduce spending and reduce safety nets that people exploit. On the otherhand democrats subscribe to the theory, more spending = more quality. Although, its military where the republicans don't mind pouring lots of money into but democrats don't obstruct that either.

Again, democrats are not interested in cost cuts and would prefer if all health care went the public route. Many western countries with socialized healthcare don't even agree with that. Hence, democrats look to countries who have socialized healthcare but don't actually want to practice it the same way they do.

I know profitable is a dirty word, but its also synonymous with quality.

 Generally speaking in capitalism, you need to create something people want for profits. With that said, companies seeking a profit also have an ability to be more efficient with spending and offer high quality service. That's why people tend to opt for private healthcare even when public is an option.

We are working with China, working with the US has been great for them and they're obviously going to be stubborn when it comes to making changes.