2016 Election Thread

[Willihammer]

 

IMO, we are a generation or 2 from another revolution, and the Koch brothers and their friends will have brought it upon themselves with their greed. At some point, there will be enough poor, desperate, under - educated people that they'll just start shooting the wealthy. It's pretty much how history works, isn't it?

Last Thursday night I went to McDonalds and bought TWO ice cream cones (one vanilla, one chocolate) for $1.38 total. Then I walked over to the Redbox and rented a Taken 3 on blu-ray. Its a ****ty movie I know but I was watching with friends and access to media is so easy that we've come around to watching the crappy stuff ironically. Drove to someone's house 10 miles away for less than $1 in fuel. Then drove home. That was my night. Didn't cost $5. I don't care that the CEO of Bank of America makes 400,000x my earnings. You can live like a king in this country on a very little amount of money.

 

God I love capitalism.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The best and most efficient way is just cut a check for everyone. For many it would just be a tax refund.

 

Straight percent tax (either income or VAT) and then everyone gets the same check.

 

Obviously will never happen for a variety of reasons.

 

I have long proposed this:

 

You are born. You get a RHA created, Retirement, Health Account.

 

You get basic insurance that ONLY covers when costs go over 10K per year. You get 5K into your RHA every year from birth to 18. That can be invested in safe, less safe, risky assets, your parent's choice until you are 16, then yours. That money may be withdrawn by your parents to pay for any health insurance or health costs. Once you turn 18, you can use that money for any health care costs you want (or leave it there). You may  begin withdrawing cash after you turn 50 or so. You can add to it anytime you want, after tax, that money is like a Roth IRA is today.

 

It may be means tested, such that if your parents have $xxx millions or more, you get nothing, other than the account being opened for you.

 

Something like that, the details can be adjusted. This would probably still require some Medicaid, but it could be all gap insurance or something........not sure. This isn't 100% thought out, but frankly, with robots taking our jobs, owning companies is the way to go. Let's just give everyone that right from birth. Maybe it starts with 10K at birth, and then less every year after that.......

[Mike Sixel]

 

Last Thursday night I went to McDonalds and bought TWO ice cream cones (one vanilla, one chocolate) for $1.38 total. Then I walked over to the Redbox and rented a Taken 3 on blu-ray. Its a ****ty movie I know but I was watching with friends and access to media is so easy that we've come around to watching the crappy stuff ironically. Drove to someone's house 10 miles away for less than $1 in fuel. Then drove home. That was my night. Didn't cost $5. I don't care that the CEO of Bank of America makes 400,000x my earnings. You can live like a king in this country on a very little amount of money.

 

God I love capitalism.

 

That doesn't change millennia of history, and the lessons of putting more and more money and power in fewer and fewer peoples' hands, and what happens to every single country in the history of this planet......does it?

[Willihammer]

 

That doesn't change millennia of history, and the lessons of putting more and more money and power in fewer and fewer peoples' hands, and what happens to every single country in the history of this planet......does it?

There was also destitution in most cases. But you're talking about a country where better than 1/3 are obese. There is no precedent for the abundance and standard of living that even low-income Americans enjoy.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

As much as I don't need the government to do everything......if they aren't in education, that's a problem, imo. You can see that in places like England, where they've created a dual class in education.

 

Having watched what big companies have done throughout history, when they aren't restrained somehow, well, I'm not interested in a completely free market anymore, like I used to be.

 

When the Department of Education was formed, US children were number 1 across the board globally compared to their peers.  Where are they now?  Have American children simply got dumber over the last few decades or perhaps the idea of a Federal education standard somehow muddied education reform?  I think government involvement in education needs to happen more at state and local levels.  What I see now are a whole lot of federal standards and teachers that are teaching to a test as opposed to educating our children.  That doesn't work well for anyone, especially teachers who are forced to act in the best interest of the school system instead of the children they teach. 

 

As for big companies, I think there's something here.  Though the failure has been allowing them to get as big as they have gotten and not used the anti-trust laws that have been in existence for a century.  These big companies have bought our federal politicians, essentially allowing them to regulate the markets to their advantage.  In a true free market system, when Lehman failed, it would have taken down Goldman and Morgan with it.  Instead, they got you and I to purchase their junk assets at 100 cents on the dollar.  That's not a free market. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

When the Department of Education was formed, US children were number 1 across the board globally compared to their peers.  Where are they now?  Have American children simply got dumber over the last few decades or perhaps the idea of a Federal education standard somehow muddied education reform?  I think government involvement in education needs to happen more at state and local levels.  What I see now are a whole lot of federal standards and teachers that are teaching to a test as opposed to educating our children.  That doesn't work well for anyone, especially teachers who are forced to act in the best interest of the school system instead of the children they teach. 

America got out spent by other nations on education.  If anything it's the lack of a nationalized education funding that has allowed for mediocre schooling to exist.   Local governments have been handling (or mishandling) education for generations, under the inane policy of connecting education to property taxes.  States have been instituting their own standardized tests etc. without any federal influence for decades.  Locality isn't the answer; it's more funding, so that local governments don't continually try to stream-line the process through cheap assessment (like standardized tests).  The problem is we're cheap.  We underfund essential government programs and then claim that they don't work--a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

 

Of the nations that are ahead of the US in education, how many have privatized education?  How many have more nationalized and socialized education than the US? 

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, lots of those countries past us because they nationalized, and planned at the national level, and we did the typical half way stuff we always do. The US hasn't been passed because more nations decided to spend less on education, and privatized it, and had no national plan........

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

America got out spent by other nations on education.  If anything it's the lack of a nationalized education funding that has allowed for mediocre schooling to exist.   Local governments have been handling (or mishandling) education for generations, under the inane policy of connecting education to property taxes.  States have been instituting their own standardized tests etc. without any federal influence for decades.  Locality isn't the answer; it's more funding, so that local governments don't continually try to stream-line the process through cheap assessment (like standardized tests).  The problem is we're cheap.  We underfund essential government programs and then claim that they don't work--a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

 

Of the nations that are ahead of the US in education, how many have privatized education?  How many have more nationalized and socialized education than the US? 

I'm against national education. I think it can be handled more efficiently on the state level and if Mississippi wants to be a ****hole and undereducate their populace, have at it, you friggin' morons.

 

I swear that at least half of my state's rights issues revolve around how much I hate the south and how much of a drag they are on the rest of us. If they want to continue living in a pit of despair, that's not my problem. I care about Minnesota, I don't give a flying **** about backwater Alabama and their 200+ years of trying to drag America backwards at every opportunity. Let them live in their neocon utopia of degraded civil rights, underemployment, and massive wealth inequity. I think the fastest route to killing the horrible neocon/tea party movement is to let them have it, at least on a state level. That'll teach 'em real fast.

 

But I agree that managing educational assets through property taxes is asinine. Not only does it create wild fluctuations in school budgets, it also ensures that states will continue to create an underclass of people through piss-poor education in low-income areas (less property value, less school funding). I think educational assets should be moved more toward the state level and away from the municipal level.

[PseudoSABR]

To be clear, I am not for nationalized standard of education, per se.  I'm for a nationalized funding of education, and a nationalized minimal standards for class-size, pay-rate, resources; and I'm opposed to minimal standards that measure achievement or attempt to standardized curriculum. 

 

That said, I'm not sure Mississippi or Alabama even have functional democracies.  The states that seem to object to government solutions also seem to have the most people dependent upon the government for their livelihood.  We have a vested interest in those southern school children, too, I think.

[TheLeviathan]

 

America got out spent by other nations on education.  If anything it's the lack of a nationalized education funding that has allowed for mediocre schooling to exist.   Local governments have been handling (or mishandling) education for generations, under the inane policy of connecting education to property taxes.  States have been instituting their own standardized tests etc. without any federal influence for decades.  Locality isn't the answer; it's more funding, so that local governments don't continually try to stream-line the process through cheap assessment (like standardized tests).  The problem is we're cheap.  We underfund essential government programs and then claim that they don't work--a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

 

Of the nations that are ahead of the US in education, how many have privatized education?  How many have more nationalized and socialized education than the US? 

 

The meme that we underfund education really isn't accurate.

 

You could argue we don't spend money wisely, that would be true.  It's true that property taxes as a means of local funding is stupid.  (If we insist on property taxes they should be collected by the state and redistributed by pupil population)  But we spend a TON of money on our students, the problem is allocation.

[drjim]

 

I'm against national education. I think it can be handled more efficiently on the state level and if Mississippi wants to be a ****hole and undereducate their populace, have at it, you friggin' morons.

 

I swear that at least half of my state's rights issues revolve around how much I hate the south and how much of a drag they are on the rest of us. If they want to continue living in a pit of despair, that's not my problem. I care about Minnesota, I don't give a flying **** about backwater Alabama and their 200+ years of trying to drag America backwards at every opportunity. Let them live in their neocon utopia of degraded civil rights, underemployment, and massive wealth inequity. I think the fastest route to killing the horrible neocon/tea party movement is to let them have it, at least on a state level. That'll teach 'em real fast.

 

But I agree that managing educational assets through property taxes is asinine. Not only does it create wild fluctuations in school budgets, it also ensures that states will continue to create an underclass of people through piss-poor education in low-income areas (less property value, less school funding). I think educational assets should be moved more toward the state level and away from the municipal level.

 

This is also why the US is not number 1. There are many areas within the US that has educational levels as good or better than anywhere in the US, and many places that are much worse. Combine it and there it is.

 

To put this all on the creation of Dept of Education or increased Federal spending kind of misses the reality (not saying you are arguing this, just responding to earlier posts).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

To be clear, I am not for nationalized standard of education, per se.  I'm for a nationalized funding of education, and a nationalized minimal standards for class-size, pay-rate, resources; and I'm opposed to minimal standards that measure achievement.  

 

That said, I'm not sure Mississippi or Alabama even have functional democracies.  The states that seem to object to government solutions also seem to have the most people dependent upon the government for their livelihood.  We have a vested interest in those southern school children, too, I think.

Moving funding to the national level might work but I'm always skeptical of the federal government and their ability to rationally implement systems that work for everybody, which is why I generally default to intelligently-implemented state solutions. It's easier to manage the needs of Minnesota than the needs of Minnesota, Alabama, and California in one fell swoop.

 

I agree that Mississippi and Alabama barely have functioning democracies, which is partially why I'm in favor of abandoning them unless national civil rights (which have to be implemented across the board) are in play. Instead of dragging them along with the rest of us as we've done for the past 200 years, let them reach their desired outcome. In the short term, it'd be disastrous but in the long term, I think we'd see the populace revolt to the point that they'd start to catch up with the rest of the country. We've tried negotiating with them for far too long and it simply doesn't work. It's time to try a different approach. Give them what they want and grab some popcorn because it's going to be entertaining in a train wreck sort of way.

[drjim]

 

There was also destitution in most cases. But you're talking about a country where better than 1/3 are obese. There is no precedent for the abundance and standard of living that even low-income Americans enjoy.

 

This is the key point. A revolution really won't happen until the middle feels they are being left out and struggling for basics. Just don't see that happening. There certainly might be some unrest but not sure if revolution is result.

[drjim]

 

I'm a tad confused by this Jim, do you really mean everyone?

 

Basically yes. And it's amazing how much lower tax burdens would be.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

America got out spent by other nations on education.  If anything it's the lack of a nationalized education funding that has allowed for mediocre schooling to exist.   Local governments have been handling (or mishandling) education for generations, under the inane policy of connecting education to property taxes.  States have been instituting their own standardized tests etc. without any federal influence for decades.  Locality isn't the answer; it's more funding, so that local governments don't continually try to stream-line the process through cheap assessment (like standardized tests).  The problem is we're cheap.  We underfund essential government programs and then claim that they don't work--a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

 

Of the nations that are ahead of the US in education, how many have privatized education?  How many have more nationalized and socialized education than the US? 

 

That's just it though, we did nationalize education, and we spend billions on it.  I'm not sure 'underfunding' is the right answer here.  It didn't work.  When states were doing their own things (as backwards as it may look to some of us), they had better results.  This is one of the biggest problems I have with any government involvement.  If it doesn't work (and it usually doesn't), it becomes a 'well we didn't do it enough' answer instead of killing it off.  That's how government bureaucracy works, and it's also how things end up being around for far too long.  There's really no accountability, nor is there ever an exit strategy to failed government intervention, and the solution to bad results is always more intervention, even if intervention is the reason the results were bad in the first place.

 

I think one of the biggest problems is not allowing competition within the schools.  I pay property taxes for education.  However, I cannot turn around and use those funds towards the education system that best fits my child.  If I don't like my chosen option, my only real options are to pay out of pocket for a better school or to move.  Both options tend to be cost prohibitive and punish the poor more than anyone else.

 

The other big problem is the idea that everyone is entitled to go to college (no child left behind is a great example).  That's something that many of these other countries who have passed us have figured out.  I don't think it's the right of the state to designate this, but I do think that in our zeal for fairness, Americans ignore that there IS an intelligence bell curve.  We simply throw money/resources at all of them.  There's no shame in working in a factory, or becoming a plumber, and if we are going to hand money to people, there's nothing wrong in making sure it's earned. 

 

Likewise, all funding gets collected at higher levels and then redistributed.  I don't see how that ever works others than to create additional bureaucracy.  As already mentioned, collecting property taxes at the state level and then distributing locally doesn't work, so explain to me how collecting it at the national level, distributing to states, who then turn and distribute it locally is somehow going to solve (and cheapen) the problem?  It won't.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think one of the biggest problems is not allowing competition within the schools.  I pay property taxes for education.  However, I cannot turn around and use those funds towards the education system that best fits my child.  If I don't like my chosen option, my only real options are to pay out of pocket for a better school or to move.  Both options tend to be cost prohibitive and punish the poor more than anyone else.

 

The other big problem is the idea that everyone is entitled to go to college (no child left behind is a great example).  That's something that many of these other countries who have passed us have figured out.  I don't think it's the right of the state to designate this, but I do think that in our zeal for fairness, Americans ignore that there IS an intelligence bell curve.  We simply throw money/resources at all of them.  There's no shame in working in a factory, or becoming a plumber, and if we are going to hand money to people, there's nothing wrong in making sure it's earned. 

 

Likewise, all funding gets collected at higher levels and then redistributed.  I don't see how that ever works others than to create additional bureaucracy.  As already mentioned, collecting property taxes at the state level and then distributing locally doesn't work, so explain to me how collecting it at the national level, distributing to states, who then turn and distribute it locally is somehow going to solve (and cheapen) the problem?  It won't.

 

One at a time:

 

1) Do you want our national defense to go to the highest bidder?  Perhaps we should have competing mercenary forces in order to better streamline military spending.

 

No?  Right, that would be silly.  The logic is the same on education.  Education, like defense, is a pillar of necessity for a democracy.  The nature of competition/market forces is that some lose and in terms of education the losers are children.  Just like you wouldn't have "competition" in our military services, you shouldn't put the basic need of any democratic citizen (education) in the hands of the market. It's the most ridiculous notion of the right wing and libertarianism today.  And that's saying something.

 

2)  This is true.  Bernie Sanders is stupidly going around pimping the German model for efficiency in education.  I wonder if he knows that in Germany as early as 4th grade you are dictated on a path away from higher education.  Basically, the less intelligent and less educationally gifted students as young as 10 are steered on the path of apprenticeship and not college.  Let that soak in and tell me Sanders or any liberal really wants that.

 

But it's not a bad idea.  We waste a lot of resources and money dragging the bottom 10-20% along and let the middle and high end kids go with far less time, effort, and money devoted to them.

 

In Germany they lower the standards, slow the pace, and put them on a life path towards a skills job.  The higher achieving students are challenged more and put on a path towards more professional ends.

 

3)  Education money should be re-distributed per-pupil by states.  No longer Minnetonka money staying only in Minnetonka.  It gets spread evenly across all districts in the state.  That would help things enormously.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

One at a time:

 

1) Do you want our national defense to go to the highest bidder?  Perhaps we should have competing mercenary forces in order to better streamline military spending.

 

No?  Right, that would be silly.  The logic is the same on education.  Education, like defense, is a pillar of necessity for a democracy.  The nature of competition/market forces is that some lose and in terms of education the losers are children.  Just like you wouldn't have "competition" in our military services, you shouldn't put the basic need of any democratic citizen (education) in the hands of the market. It's the most ridiculous notion of the right wing and libertarianism today.  And that's saying something.

 

I work almost exclusively with DoD clients, and I can say for certain that the way we do military spending desperately needs to change, just like everything else.  I'm not saying education needs to be farmed out to the highest bidder, but I am saying that right now, public schools that aren't very good at education get the lions share of the dollars and if I don't want my kid going to said schools, I either need to move or pony up extra cash for private schools.  This isn't about the highest bidder, it simply recognizes that parents need a say in their children's education and it incentivizes those who do it well.  I live in one of the top school systems in the state of Indiana.  How is it that we continue to be one of the top systems despite the fact that we are the lowest funded of all Indiana's districts?  The problem isn't underfunding.  I agree that education is a necessity, but let's not pretend that we've been doing it very well or that we can simply fix it by throwing some additional cash at it.  And while we are at it, let's stop pretending that parents shouldn't have a say in how their children are educated. 

 

I think freedom, more than education is a cornerstone to any democracy, which means that people are free to be dumb too, and that education systems should be more focused on giving people the tools to make intelligent decisions than telling them what the 'intelligent decisions' are...  you and I both know that at the end of the day, this is nothing more than another means to manipulate the masses into doing the bidding of those in charge.  At the end of the day, it no longer educates.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

3)  Education money should be re-distributed per-pupil by states.  No longer Minnetonka money staying only in Minnetonka.  It gets spread evenly across all districts in the state.  That would help things enormously.

 

I'm fine with that, but I do believe that the parents of said pupil should have every right in deciding what school to send their children to, and by proxy, which school receives those funds.

[drjim]

I'll second the need the reform how defense spending occurs, but good luck on that. DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS? WHAT ARE YOU, WEAK ON DEFENSE! ISIS IS COMING! DON'T YOU THINK PUTIN IS WATCHING, HE CAN SMELL OUR WEAKNESS!

 

(And thank you defense contractor for your generous campaign contribution, absolutely we'll renew our contract for that obsolete piece of military hardware that is partially built in my district).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I work almost exclusively with DoD clients, and I can say for certain that the way we do military spending desperately needs to change, just like everything else.  I'm not saying education needs to be farmed out to the highest bidder, but I am saying that right now, public schools that aren't very good at education get the lions share of the dollars and if I don't want my kid going to said schools, I either need to move or pony up extra cash for private schools.  This isn't about the highest bidder, it simply recognizes that parents need a say in their children's education and it incentivizes those who do it well.  I live in one of the top school systems in the state of Indiana.  How is it that we continue to be one of the top systems despite the fact that we are the lowest funded of all Indiana's districts?  The problem isn't underfunding.  I agree that education is a necessity, but let's not pretend that we've been doing it very well or that we can simply fix it by throwing some additional cash at it.  And while we are at it, let's stop pretending that parents shouldn't have a say in how their children are educated. 

 

I think freedom, more than education is a cornerstone to any democracy, which means that people are free to be dumb too, and that education systems should be more focused on giving people the tools to make intelligent decisions than telling them what the 'intelligent decisions' are...  you and I both know that at the end of the day, this is nothing more than another means to manipulate the masses into doing the bidding of those in charge.  At the end of the day, it no longer educates.

I agree that top-down organizations (eg. the federal government) aren't efficient models but the free market doesn't have the right mindset for something as important and necessarily egalitarian as education. Look at the disastrous results we've seen from privatizing the prison system. What have we accomplished with privatization? Better ways to keep people in prison!

 

The problem with the free market is that yes, it's more efficient than a government model... But its primary goal is to make money, not serve the greater good. The prison system is a great example of how the free market fails the public in these situations. Education needs to serve the greater good... So, while I believe that government is a necessary evil here, I think fair distribution of funds from a state level is the most logical (read "least wrong") way to accomplish that goal.

 

It also has the added side benefit of trying 50 different education models and picking the best of the bunch instead of lording over the entire country with One Education System To Rule Them All.

[Craig Arko]

My fear for education is that it all winds up as Feynman describes here:

 

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

[biggentleben]

 

This is how I feel as well. I'd like to see benefits expanded in many cases but there has to be an exit strategy in place. I don't have a lot of great ideas how to go about that but more extensive education benefits seem a reasonable place to start.

 

I also believe that welfare recipients should continue receiving a partial paycheck after they start working. Wean them off the benefits slowly and give them an incentive (more money) to get back to work. If you get a job that pays the same as welfare benefits, why leave welfare? If you give them welfare money on top of the job's paycheck for, let's say a year of decreasing benefits, that's an incentive to get out there and work.

 

Will those ideas work for every person on the dole? No, of course not... But that's not the point. There are always going to be the "slackers" in society who leech from the system. In a socialist world (and we are in a socialist world), that's the reality of it. We should work on incentivizing getting off welfare in a positive manner, not punishing people because we've tried punishment and it doesn't work (and I'm against the idea of punishing poor people for being poor in the first place).

 

Again, I'm very pragmatic about this issue. What turns the most people from societal leeches into tax-paying citizens? To me, the money spent doesn't matter so much as the later return on that money. Whatever has the end result of getting people back to work and paying taxes is the best idea.

 

With various programs, this already exists, but it is poorly executed. Social Security Disability offers a gradual decline in benefits as you increase your work income, but there's still a cliff in the system where you work too much to get any more benefits, yet you're actually losing money from earning $1 less. The exact numbers have changed some, but it's usually right around $1200. If you were earning $1150, you'd still get a total of ~$1315. Once you earn $1200, you lose all benefits and all you make is the $1200, so it actually works against someone working to earn $1200. It's called the "disability work cliff". You need to somehow earn another $125+ per month, or another ~15 hours per month at an $8/hour job, or another 5 hours per week, not exactly the easiest thing.

 

I have told many people that I've seen it enough to know that having work gives someone purpose. Those I've worked with who have developmental disabilities or SPMI that prevents them from working find tremendous joy, purpose, and meaning from simply showing up to work, but so many of them are scared of losing money if they start working due to the terribly slow reactions of the government costing them money down the road in spite of how frequently and accurately they provide the government with updated income information.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I work almost exclusively with DoD clients, and I can say for certain that the way we do military spending desperately needs to change, just like everything else.  I agree that education is a necessity, but let's not pretend that we've been doing it very well or that we can simply fix it by throwing some additional cash at it.  And while we are at it, let's stop pretending that parents shouldn't have a say in how their children are educated. 

 

I think freedom, more than education is a cornerstone to any democracy, which means that people are free to be dumb too, and that education systems should be more focused on giving people the tools to make intelligent decisions than telling them what the 'intelligent decisions' are...  you and I both know that at the end of the day, this is nothing more than another means to manipulate the masses into doing the bidding of those in charge.  At the end of the day, it no longer educates.

 

I'm going to take these apart again:

 

1) But it is about the highest bidder.  It's about the school that is able to artificially control it's own admissions so as to create a phony educational environment that caters to the rich.  Meanwhile, all those dollars that are needed for poor kids are non-existent and they get an inferior education.  It's the equivalent of throwing our defense behind the company that kills the most "bad guys" for the lowest amount of money.  Do you really want something as necessary as national defense at the whim of private

companies and the motive of profit?  I sure as hell hope not. 

 

Education SHOULD be on the same level of concern.  It is a fundamental necessity to society.

 

2) Parents can have a say, go take part in your local school board.  But that often gets ugly because people are stupid.

 

3)  You don't have freedom when a sizable portion of your population is unequally educated because of their parent's wealth.  

 

4)  Sorry your property taxes go to help a student from a poorer area, but you made the choice to live where you did and the choice to go to a private school.  I really can't say more than tough **** on that.

 

And it strikes me as the worst kind of whining when people say what you did because it really amounts to this "I'm tired of all these poor kids with limited opportunities getting some of my tax money!"

 

Yeah, what an awful thing.

[Mike Sixel]

I think people have timing and causation issues here...........as Mississippi and Alabama and others cut spending relative to the rest of the world's increases, as they teach non-science, as they do what they can to dumb down the populace, that is the fault of the Fed's trying to stop them? Not buying it at all.

[Badsmerf]

Holy **** i missed a debate about whether or not zombies are considered alive! Missed the boat there boys and girls. Was too busy watching third eye blind at the cabooze and the going up near the Canadian border. I'm not reading through the rest of the thread until now... Right now at least.

 

Some food for thought. Today the Confederate flag was taken down in south Carolina. First off, how has that piece of **** been flying on government property this long? Secondly, on npr this morning i heard some disturbing statistics. 48% of the population doesn't think the civil war was about slavery. Even worse, 60% of the youth in the south don't think it was about slavery. Texas treats Davis and Lincoln as moral equivalents in their text books.

 

Should we still give educational power to the states? Last state ranking i saw the other day put Minnesota 6th in the country. Just sayin.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm going to take these apart again:

 

1) But it is about the highest bidder.  It's about the school that is able to artificially control it's own admissions so as to create a phony educational environment that caters to the rich.  Meanwhile, all those dollars that are needed for poor kids are non-existent and they get an inferior education.  It's the equivalent of throwing our defense behind the company that kills the most "bad guys" for the lowest amount of money.  Do you really want something as necessary as national defense at the whim of private

companies and the motive of profit?  I sure as hell hope not. 

 

Education SHOULD be on the same level of concern.  It is a fundamental necessity to society.

 

2) Parents can have a say, go take part in your local school board.  But that often gets ugly because people are stupid.

 

3)  You don't have freedom when a sizable portion of your population is unequally educated because of their parent's wealth.  

 

4)  Sorry your property taxes go to help a student from a poorer area, but you made the choice to live where you did and the choice to go to a private school.  I really can't say more than tough **** on that.

 

And it strikes me as the worst kind of whining when people say what you did because it really amounts to this "I'm tired of all these poor kids with limited opportunities getting some of my tax money!"

 

Yeah, what an awful thing.

 

Levi, I've seen you castigate others for making similar idealistic claims with a bit of an elitist attitude as you are doing here, and I'm rather disappointed that you are resorting to the same methods.  I understand that you are in education as a profession (and I wish more educators had your intelligence), but on this I think your viewpoint is a tad bit clouded.

 

1)  I'm not sure where you are getting on about the highest bidder.  This is about me as a parent being given the option to send my children to the school I choose, not the one I'm forced to send them to because of where I currently live, and to use some or all of the dollars allocated for my child at that school.  The ones who suffer under this current system more than anyone else are the poor, as up and moving from a bad education system isn't an option, nor is private school.  I send my kids to public schools and can do so because I can afford to live where I live.  The reality right now is that most of the money being taken from taxes are being sent to these poorer schools and the results have hardly been satisfactory, because at the end of the day, the government's main solution to all of it's problems is just to throw a bunch of money at it and hope it goes away, and rarely is there any real accountability.  As you have argued on so many occasions, this doesn't work.  Why is education somehow different?   You may deplore the profit motive, but having worked in enough government environments I can simply point out the fact that the lack of a profit motive usually leads to a whole bunch of other problems that you are conveniently overlooking (particularly an enormous amount of waste).  I have no problems with private schools (or other public schools in other districts) being able to operate on a for profit basis b/c at the end of the day, they will outperform government run schools both in results and in the cost to operate.  While that will not be true for every scenario, history has shown that this will be true far more often than not.  On top of that, if the school does not operate within the best interests of a particular child or is just not very good at what they do, those parents can make the decision to transfer them to one that is a better fit for their needs.  Free markets work.  There's no reason to think this won't work in education either.

 

2)  Do you realize how unrealistic this is?  If I have an issue with how my school system is managing something, going to the school board will do absolutely no good.  I think you know that.  This is a cop out answer as it doesn't work.  The only thing that will make them change is when a huge number of parents start making those complaints, and even then it will take years because heaven forbid these officials are going to freely admit their mistakes.  But beyond that, your insinuation that parents are stupid is flat out arrogant.  I'd be willing to bet that about 50% of parents are below average when it comes to intelligence and 50% are above average.  I'd willing to bet that this same distribution exists among educators and administrators.   I've met my fair share of educators, administrators, and stupid people.  These groups are hardly mutually exclusive.   I also think that the idea that you as an educator or an administrator or board member can some how have a better pulse on the best interest of a particular parent's child is incredibly arrogant.

 

3)  You are correct.  This is my point.  The system as it is setup right now simply pumps a bunch of money into underperforming school systems while not allowing those parents to get their children out of them.  The systems still underperform, and the children of the poor are the ones that suffer the most.  The system we have in place DOES NOT fix this problem, if anything it exacerbates it, especially since the government doesn't have some of the most necessary tools at its disposal to fix many of the problems that need addressing.  If a parent wants their kid out of a particular school system, some form of school choice allows them to take action into their own hands, immediately.  My public school system is the lowest funded district in the state, yet it consistently out performs the others.  The problem isn't money.  The poorest systems in the state (at least here in Indiana) get the lions share of the wealth.  Yet they consistently underperform.  Why is that?

 

4)  I never once said I sent my kids to a private school.  Truth is, I don't.  My kids attend public school.  I made the choice to move to an area that had a good public school system.  Poor people cannot do that, as they cannot afford to live where the better schools are, and that's a crying shame.  They are punished because they are poor.  Money is sent to their school systems in far greater quantities, and yet they still do not get the education that their kids deserve.  Why is that? 

 

As I said before, this has nothing to do with whining about poor people getting additional funding and everything to do with the problem that said additional funding isn't working, which punishes those poor people as they have zero means of getting their children out of these environments.  For the record, I have zero problem with the idea of allocation additional dollars for poorer children if there some well thought out way to do it.  My problem is the assumption that their parents can't possibly know what is best for them and should not be allowed any realistic options to do something about it.  My problem is the assumption that only the government knows what is in the best interest of educating my children.  My problem is the assumption that profit is always a bad option while pretending that publicly run education is somehow void of corruption, ulterior motives, indoctrination, waste, and other failures that are quite frankly just as bad if not worse than a profit motive (not quite sure you believe this Levi, but the system as it is in place today most certainly does). 

 

The awful thing is the fact that the system that is currently in place does nothing to protect the poor or the rich.  It is designed to protect a whole lot of people's best interest, none of whom happen to be the children receiving the education.

[TheLeviathan]

Free markets work.There's no reason to think this won't work in education either.

 

 

Do you want to apply the free market to our military as well?  Sell out the defense of our country to the most efficient and effective killing force?

 

If your answer is the only sane one (hint: no), it's because the free market should not be applied to all things.  Some things should not be subject to the motive of profit.  The very nature of the free market is to induce failure.  In education the real effect of inducing failure is destroying the education of some children. 

 

2)  So what, you want parents voting on things?  What is it you want?

 

3)  Not all people are able to move their child to another district.  The poorest and most rural especially.  School choice only works when you have enough money and options to make it work.  The real solution is to stop tying district funds to local property taxes and evenly distribute funds to all students per child.

 

Money is not sent to poorer schools in "far greater quantities".  I'm not sure where you get that preposterous idea, but poor neighborhoods get poor funding.

 

 

You are allowed to know what's best for your child, but the system you propose only helps those children with a choice in the first place.  And profit?  Profit is not "always a bad option", but the free market in charge of schools means (by the damn definition of free markets) will necessarily fail children and leave many of them without an education.  That is a preposterously bad idea. 

 

We don't subject the military to the free market because when profit is the prime motivator - all allegiances, but to profit, are out the window.  

 

You want to know what free market education looks like in America?  Look at college universities.  Tell me that's what you want, because that's what you're going to get.  A severe dumbing down of rigor in order to keep people thinking they are successful.  Spending money on glitz and glamour rather than substance.  Soaking people for money to keep that process going.  That's what education looks like when the goal is to keep mouths at the trough.  Education becomes the lowest possible priority. 

[Badsmerf]

I really hate or education system....

 

Can we talk about zombies again?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Do you want to apply the free market to our military as well?  Sell out the defense of our country to the most efficient and effective killing force?

 

If your answer is the only sane one (hint: no), it's because the free market should not be applied to all things.  Some things should not be subject to the motive of profit.  The very nature of the free market is to induce failure.  In education the real effect of inducing failure is destroying the education of some children. 

 

2)  So what, you want parents voting on things?  What is it you want?

 

3)  Not all people are able to move their child to another district.  The poorest and most rural especially.  School choice only works when you have enough money and options to make it work.  The real solution is to stop tying district funds to local property taxes and evenly distribute funds to all students per child.

 

Money is not sent to poorer schools in "far greater quantities".  I'm not sure where you get that preposterous idea, but poor neighborhoods get poor funding.

 

 

You are allowed to know what's best for your child, but the system you propose only helps those children with a choice in the first place.  And profit?  Profit is not "always a bad option", but the free market in charge of schools means (by the damn definition of free markets) will necessarily fail children and leave many of them without an education.  That is a preposterously bad idea. 

 

We don't subject the military to the free market because when profit is the prime motivator - all allegiances, but to profit, are out the window.  

 

You want to know what free market education looks like in America?  Look at college universities.  Tell me that's what you want, because that's what you're going to get.  A severe dumbing down of rigor in order to keep people thinking they are successful.  Spending money on glitz and glamour rather than substance.  Soaking people for money to keep that process going.  That's what education looks like when the goal is to keep mouths at the trough.  Education becomes the lowest possible priority. 

 

I want parents to be able to choose where send their kids to school.  I don't think education should be monopolized by the government, especially given that I've yet to see any government initiative that is done well.  It just doesn't exist. 

 

BTW, I have no problem if the government wants to run schools, but I have a huge problem with the idea that parents cannot use the funding set aside for their children on schools other than the one that their local government provides.  That penalizes everyone.

 

For all the talk about profit in education, it's the poor that suffer the most under the current system, as they have no means to redress the poor education that their children are receiving.  States would be far better off providing standards and requirements for education and letting the free market run it.  More kids would end up with a better education than what exists today, and it would effectively prevent your concerns about it being dumbed down (side note, that's already happening under the current system of education in this country).

 

To answer your 3rd point, in Indiana, we do exactly what you describe.  Education is defined at the state level and distributed in that manner.  Our school system has been asking parents to petition the state to fix the funding problems now for several years because we are the lowest funded system in the state, despite being one of the best and by proxy providing more in property tax funding that our school system is received.  The state caps property taxes at 1% for owner occupied and 2% for rental properties, collects all of it, and distributes accordingly.  The poorer systems get most of the money and yet they somehow still cannot improve.  The problem isn't funding.  Certainly that helps to an extent, but at the end of the day, the problem is somewhere else.

 

Finally, I've seen you write about the college system as it is today, and you know full well that the problem you described is different than that.  Colleges are being dumbed down because as a society we've decided that everyone needs to go and the government provides a near unlimited amount of backed funds allowing just about anyone to go.  It's the student load bubble that is causing that problems as colleges are lowering standards to get more and more students there.  You pull the plug on easy money and take away the government backing of student loans, and this problem will resolve itself in a huge hurry.  Colleges can spend on all that glitz and glamor b/c of the sheer volume of money being funneled into them.  The free market was destroyed a long time ago with colleges and universities and replaced with a never ending  gravy train of easy money. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I really hate or education system....

Can we talk about zombies again?

walking dead season five should be on Netflix this fall.

 

http://netflixlife.com/2015/06/30/when-will-the-walking-dead-season-5-be-on-Netflix/