mandrewsf,
"U mad? Because it seems that clear, cogent arguments are too much for your impotent intellectual capacity...."
You posted some retarded spam. I said that it was idiotic. Cry about it.
"And anyone who's ever received a decent education (and this clearly excludes you) would understand that it is hard to be a teacher."
And you go on to hypocritically call anyone who doesn't agree with you uneducated.
"I've been a TA in both high school and college and I know first-hand how much time and effort it requires to be a good teacher, and how little compensation they receive in return."
And here we learn the motivation for your drivel: You're not up to the task that idiots often accomplish. You feel society owes you more.
You didn't make "arguments," you made outrageous claims and I called you a troll or a moron. Your tone is condescending, your arguments are nonexistant, your claims are ridiculous, and everything about your posts is juvenile. You're clearly upset and you're ranting about me being "mad." Get over yourself. Nobody is impressed by you being impressed by you.
"From my personal experience, teachers seldom use the same curriculum twice, due to the different pace of different classes. "
Your experience? 2 months of TAing? You're such an expert. I stand corrected. Obviously many teachers often have to re-plan how to teach the same history, language, etc... Oh wait, that's retarded. That's a moronic claim. You're pissed that you didn't get a legitimate response, but my point is that garbage like this doesn't deserve one.
"My English teacher usually came to school at 6:30 in the morning and usually left around 5--a work day of 10 and half hours, not counting the extra time she spends for meetings, for school events, for grading big assignments like final papers, etc."
Completely irrelevant to the topic. You could have had 12 teachers that worked 14 hour days and it'd still be irrelevant. We're talking about teachers putting in the minimum hours with bachelors degrees getting $80,000+, 2 pensions, and premium benefits. That you have trouble learning to teach on a K-12 level isn't evidence of this not being unjustly burdensome on Amerikan taxpayers. We're talking about overcompensated teachers as an example of overpayed unionized government workers, and you're talking about teachers who aren't overcompensated. That many teachers aren't overcompensated in no way negates the point that has been made.
If you had a point I'd respond to it. I respect intelligence and knowledge, even when it doesn't support my position. But the ranting on irrelevant facts (nevermind the ridiculous claims), because presumably the poster doesn't have the presence of mind to understand what the topic is, is hardly a position of intellectual high ground.
Purin,
You quoted my summation of my point, then accused me of making an ad-hominem attack in calling someone a troll. Seeing as neither he nor you address points, you're sounding like a troll too.
"Here is another fallacy."
A fallacy is an error in reasoning, not a false claim. And, regardless, you're equivocating on irrelevant claims of personal experiences. I may have been wrong. Some people I mistake for trolls could be small children or just really stupid.
Zarf BeebleBrix,
I'm not "arguing" points like that the earth is round or water is wet to juvenile idiots/trolls. He was wrong. I said it. I don't care about a "legitimate" "method of arguing" to respond to angry simpletons ranting about irrelevant personal experiences and presumptions. You're not helping them by encouraging them. 
Purin,
"Teaching is something that I believe is underpaid."
Yet salaries are all determined locally and vary greatly from area to area, so this is a stupid generalization.
"Why not pay teachers that kind of salary, so the cream of the crop will have a monetary motive to become a teacher?"
Way to think inside the box! You're speaking as if salaries are the only variable here, and government control of most education, union power, and a virtual complete lack of accountability and competition don't matter.
Again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic. But if you want to ramble off-topic poorly, I'll criticize that too.
mandrewsf,
"Moreover, since teaching is already a relatively unattractive career, it will become even more difficult to attract talent if one of its only perks--that of job stability--is taken away, thus exacerbating an already serious problem."
You presume that job stability attracts good teachers disproportionately more than bad teachers. Too bad you have absolutely no basis for this claim; baseless, as well as pointless, conjecture.
The point of vouchers is to introduce competition into the education system. Private schools are still publicly funded with vouchers, but privately owned/managed. Again irrelevant, again over your head!
"If that is the case, then since maximizing success rates is a rational course of action for any doctor or lawyer, then it necessarily do not cause statistical distortions since the basis of action for all actors are the same. "
But they're not all in the same position. Different backrounds and firms give them different starting client bases, and different starting client bases influence their clients going forward.
lol @ mandrewsf not understanding Zarf BeebleBrix's well-articulated explanation.
lol @ Purin's incoherent remarks supposedly in response to Mr. BeebleBrix.
Purin,
"Generous benefits such as health insurance? Lol."
They tend to pay less into theirs than others privately employed. This is kinda relevant lol.
"I think the main issue is cultural. Education in the U.S. just isn't given as much respect as it is other cultures. Thus, it is easy to imagine cutting the Department of Education's budget and screaming about how teachers are overpaid while the Department of Defense's enormous budget lives on."
The department of education doesn't pay them. You have no idea what you're talking about but you're embarrassing yourself anyway. Don't stop. <3
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
. Someone got pwnd