> The socioeconomic situation in the U.S. is so poor that some of the top things public schools offer their attendees is food, water, shelter, and socialization. The people benefiting from these aspects have 0% of attending private schools.

They would have a >>0% chance of attending private schools if they were each given their share of the public school budget.

I am not convinced that would be a good thing — my big concern is that a lot of 'private schools' would pop up which would just hoover up the vouchers, much as one sees with for-profit higher education.

I didn't mention public vs private. This isn't what the debate is about, although telling that you brought it up unprompted, because most of these programs are government funded and are not private schools (there have been programs where public students are funded to attend private schools...these existed decades ago, and are not anything like today's programs...those did work too though btw, it just wasn't possible to do this at scale). The issue is introducing competition (and btw, this isn't a left/right issue either...in the 90/2000s almost every left-wing govt moved in this direction...it is amazing how quickly people forget things that were common knowledge in the recent past).

The socioeconomic situation in the US isn't poor. It is tragic that someone thinks this but I would suggest leaving the US for a few days. Suggesting that schools are there to prevent some kind of public health catastrophe is ludicrous. The irony of incredible fortune is being unable to understand that you are fortunate.

> this isn't a left/right issue either...in the 90/2000s almost every left-wing govt moved in this direction...

True, and yet as someone who is extremely liberal on social issues and cannot possibly find a home on the right, I still feel uncomfortable among many on the left who don't worry as I do about the potential for stagnation in the absence of competition. It's different than it was back in the 80s but there is still a divide.