In fact I actually went to a private school for good parts of my education and I can assure you that my parents did not get a tax break.
I'm all for school choice vounchers. I my ideal world your parents wouldn't have gotten a tax break; they would have been given a voucher for purchasing an education, and that voucher would have only been used at places that don't charge a penny more (i.e. schools couldn't charge the voucher prices +$1000 per semester).
Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.
You're right, it isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them. Where effort is required is when you decide to take away people's fundamental rights. When you claim that interfering in people's rights is a "job" then you turn reality on its head. Protecting a healthy society may require interfering in people's rights - for example we enslaved several million Americans to protect our society during WWII - but don't pretend that you're not doing what you're doing.
I don't say much about specific items in the economy because I realize I don't know enough and am probably not smart enough to understand things like why the economy crashed in the final year of Bush the Younger. Instead, when voting, I look at the things I believe I do understand - that certain rules always win out in the long run. Supply and Demand, there's no free lunch, tragedy of the commons, etc..
I believe deficit stimulus spending is like an addictive drug. It creates a temporary high but the crash that follows leaves us worse off than before, which causes the government to use more stimulus with each attempt requiring more money but achieving less effect. The Bush/Obama stimulus may have prevented a depression but it didn't create a recovery. What does seem to have create a slow recovery - like an addict who starts giving up a drug faces - is the sequester.
It's not that deficit spending can't be good. When used to build a road or a port to allow increased economic activity it can be very good. But it can also be used to build an unneeded road or port and simply be a waste of money. It is the thing that gets built that matters, not the fact that the government is the one spending the money. If the money is going to be poorly spent by the government it would be better not to spend it at all than to spend it simply for the sake of stimulus.
Why? Because every time the government spends money, whether borrowed or not, it sucks money from the rest of the economy and prevents growth of other economic activity. The government hired 50 programmers to build a pretty website that does nothing? Some would call it a stimulus; I would call it 50 programmers who aren't available to build a app to make a factory more efficient.
It's like a family where one spouse buys a house with a 30 year mortgage for $50,000 and after signing all the papers finds he misread and the actual amount is $500,000, far more than the house is work. So the guy slaves and sacrifices for 29 years and 8 months to pay off the mortgage, in part to get the house and in part to maintain the family credit rating. Then with 4 months to go he dies, so his heir look at the house, sees there is still $10,000 left of the mortgage, stops payments and burns the house down, simultaneously destroying both the family reputation and the house that was almost paid off.
In one case he's supporting puritanical fanatics who want to use state power to control the beliefs and behaviors of citizens, forcing them to follow his beliefs.
In the other case he is supporting exactly the same thing.
Whether you're a woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce children for, who she will cook for, etc.., or whether you're a baker in Indiana who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce baked goods for, who she will cater for, etc., Tim Cook does not have your back (except perhaps with a whip). Tim wants to allow people to compel you to do things against your will.
30 years ago I supported the right of gays to decide who they would engage in activities with without government interference. Today i support the right of bakers to do the same thing. Somehow this support for freedom once made me a progressive and now makes me a bigot. Suppose being a progressive and being a bigot are the same thing?