2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

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. 

 

*You don't get to set aside the money you pay to repair only the roads you drive.  Again, education is a fundamental societal need.

 

*You are welcome to spend your own money on other school options.  There is no monopoly.  You just don't want those greedy poor districts getting your tax money.

 

*The goal of education should be to give every student the ability to participate in our economy and society.  Turning it over to the free market NECESSARILY undermines that. 

 

*The point you missed about colleges is not the gravy train of funds available, it's what happens when you turn colleges into for-profit institutions.  (Which they all are no, even if they aren't in name) They are all competing for that gravy train, which is precisely what you want to turn all levels of education into.  Maybe less gravy, but the same idea.

 

*Yes, money alone won't solve the problem.  But there has to be the proper funding before you can initiate changes.  When you allow school choice you will destroy many local schools - forcing children to travel, schools to shutter, and many to limp along providing inadequate education.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

*You don't get to set aside the money you pay to repair only the roads you drive.  Again, education is a fundamental societal need.

 

*You are welcome to spend your own money on other school options.  There is no monopoly.  You just don't want those greedy poor districts getting your tax money.

 

*The goal of education should be to give every student the ability to participate in our economy and society.  Turning it over to the free market NECESSARILY undermines that. 

 

*The point you missed about colleges is not the gravy train of funds available, it's what happens when you turn colleges into for-profit institutions.  (Which they all are no, even if they aren't in name) They are all competing for that gravy train, which is precisely what you want to turn all levels of education into.  Maybe less gravy, but the same idea.

 

*Yes, money alone won't solve the problem.  But there has to be the proper funding before you can initiate changes.  When you allow school choice you will destroy many local schools - forcing children to travel, schools to shutter, and many to limp along providing inadequate education.

 

You know Levi, I enjoy debate with you, but you choosing to read beyond what I'm saying to build up some sort of straw man gets old.  I'm not saying that poor districts shouldn't get more money.  I'm saying that parents should have some control in some of the funds that are set aside for their children.  They know what's in their children's best interest and cannot afford to wait around 10 years for the government to fix it's many problems.  Ironically, it is the poor that are punished the most in their current systems.  It has nothing to do with "greedy poor districts" and everything to do with the fact that there are plenty of horrible districts that all the money in the world cannot fix because their fundamental problem isn't money, it's that they are poorly run.  Like it or not, some form of school choice will go a long way to fixing that problem. 

 

I agree that the goal of education should be to give every student the ability to participate in the economy and society, but the current system in place DOES NOT DO THAT.  I'm not saying that the system needs to be turned over entirely to the free market, but I am saying that the parents SHOULD have a choice in how their children's education is handled, because at some level parents might actually have a better idea on what is best for their child than some bureaucrat at a state government or in Washington DC.

 

There's  a stark difference between colleges and lower level education.  For one, that gravy train is unlimited.  Colleges dumb down the standards because that gravy train is there for the smart kids as well as the dumb ones.  They also dumb them down because for the most part, the education system has failed those kids and colleges are forced to continue high school education for them because these students never got what they needed in K-12.  That problem isn't going to be fixed by simply paying teachers a bit more, centralizing funding, and continuing to do more of the same.  I think you know that, and I think that if you were in any other profession you'd likely acknowledge that. 

 

I think you need to take a long hard look at the schools that will be 'destroyed' by allowing school choice.  It means no one wants to send their kids there, but they have no choice, and they cannot afford to send their kids to private schools (or else they would).  It means that the parents hate these schools and that these schools are failing in every aspect of their jobs.  I cannot speak for your state, but in Indiana, those systems also get the lions share of the funding, because we do exactly as you suggest.  Funding is handled by the state, not by local authorities (and we haven't even begun to discuss the very real issue of how politics and favoritism play into this). 

 

The problem still exists because at the end of the day, the solutions aren't catered to fix the problems.  Like everything else in politics, the solutions are catered to the needs of special interests who have little or no interest in the education of our children, and they leave out the people who have the most incentive to insure that their children get the right education. 

[TheLeviathan]

School choice is the free market and it will necessarily cause wide swaths of inadequate educations for children with no choice.  It is one of the most fundamental parts of our society and every time I hear someone say "let the market decide" on schools - I want to kick something.  It's unconscionably stupid.

 

Schools won't just die overnight.  You'll have years of diminished education that will harm millions of children every year across the country.  Worse yet, in time, the motive of profit will override the motive to be the best at educating.  This is precisely what happened with colleges  - they didn't shift overnight.  But as the money became a bigger and bigger factor in their motives the education element eroded.  If you turn primary and secondary education into a "competition" for parent dollars you will transform the primary motivation of those schools from "education" to "money".  It will happen.  Hell, that's the basic idea behind the free market - profit as a motivator will make the "best" survive.  That is going to create a HUGE problem.

 

That problem isn't going to be fixed by simply paying teachers a bit more, centralizing funding, and continuing to do more of the same.

 

 

Centralizing funding will help considerably.  Paying people enough to justify the difficulty of the profession and the work that goes into it will help considerably.  (We'll actually keep some people around instead of losing half our teaching force before they're experienced enough to get really good at it)  But no one said "more of the same".  There are a variety of other things we need to fix, such as: no longer worrying so much about age and worry more about ability for class structure.  We need to shift the focus from spending such an inordinate amount of time and money on the lowest rung of ability and more into the middle.  (Not abandon the lowest rung, but shift some of those resources)  We need to break apart the bureaucratic hierarchy of schools and stop wasting so much money on big projects and spend it on day to day help for teachers and students.  We need to understand that unions today are not what they once were - they have too much power to keep people employed and dictate money spent.  (This goes for police, labor, and every other major union)

 

All of that will go much farther than giving parents "choice" with their tax money.  The only parents with "choice" will already have choices available to them.  The ones that will be hurt the most will be the ones that never really had a choice.  Rural kids will still have no choice.  The poorest kids will still have no choice.  All that will happen is a diminishing of their education.  And for a very few lucky ones from those areas it might mean sitting on a bus for two hours every day to get there.  And, worst of all, in time schools will worry more about their bottom line than their effectiveness at educating.

[TheLeviathan]

In other news, Trump may not even make it to the actual debates.

[drjim]

 

In other news, Trump may not even make it to the actual debates.

 

If a 5 time draft dodger can't question the heroism of a fighter pilot who was shot down and held as a POW (and refused special treatment, including early release, that was unavailable to his fellow prisoners) without consequence, do we even have freedom of speech anymore?

 

Kind of a shame, it would have been fascinating if he made it to the general as a third party candidate. He's a joker, but a joker might be necessary to shake up our stale, cliche, conservative, say nothing political debates we now have. Might have even forced discussion on some issues people actually care about.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If a 5 time draft dodger can't question the heroism of a fighter pilot who was shot down and held as a POW (and refused special treatment, including early release, that was unavailable to his fellow prisoners) without consequence, do we even have freedom of speech anymore?

 

Kind of a shame, it would have been fascinating if he made it to the general as a third party candidate. He's a joker, but a joker might be necessary to shake up our stale, cliche, conservative, say nothing political debates we now have. Might have even forced discussion on some issues people actually care about.

 

I actually agree with you on this, I wanted to see him on the debate stage ruffling feathers.  Even stupid honesty is better at this point than phony lying.  

 

But, seriously, how did his campaign manager not force his ass back out there to apologize immediately much less allow him to double down on it all weekend?  Holy crap.

[PseudoSABR]

Trump's not running for President; he's running for his own publicity. 

[drjim]

 

Trump's not running for President; he's running for his own publicity. 

 

These need not be mutually exclusive.

[twinsnorth49]

US elections are the best reality shows I get to watch.

[PseudoSABR]

 

These need not be mutually exclusive.

True.  One is the end, and one is the means. 

[DaveW]

I could see trump running as a third party candidate, he would probably get 15% of the vote.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I could see trump running as a third party candidate, he would probably get 15% of the vote.

 

He still has a little time to make that decision, but the post McCain polls are out and Trump's lead is actually increasing.  Because Trump wants to win, and full ballot access for third parties takes time that at this point we probably no longer have (probably could still get around 48 states) I can't imagine he doesn't see the Republican run through.  It's possible some fringe group would get him access in 20 or 30 states but with limited ballot access I think he finishes more in the Nader range then Perot.  While I see a possibility of Trump get the nominee (Bush and/or Walker mistakenly dropping out to early) my bigger question is does he have the power to be, and embrace the role of king maker, and if so for who?

[DaveW]

That's a good question, I almost think he would be to fringe and toxic for his own good. Seems like most of the GOP is distancing themselves from him.

 

What's funny about trump is he doesn't care nor has any reason to care about anything about his own brand, if he burns the GOP's chances to the ground in 2016 I don't think he minds one bit.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What's funny about trump is he doesn't care nor has any reason to care about anything about his own brand, if he burns the GOP's chances to the ground in 2016 I don't think he minds one bit.

 

I think that's true and I think the GOP is becoming more aware of that fact.  It may not matter though.

[DaveW]

I think that's true and I think the GOP is becoming more aware of that fact. It may not matter though.

Relevant (possible NSFW subject matter, but not really)

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-i-28589

[Musk21]

I don't think there is any way that Trump makes it through the debates.  Something from his past will be unearthed or an offensive comment he can't recover from will knock him out.  Or at the very least, he'll be exposed as not having any sort of grasp on the issues and/or plausible solutions.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't think there is any way that Trump makes it through the debates.  Something from his past will be unearthed or an offensive comment he can't recover from will knock him out.  Or at the very least, he'll be exposed as not having any sort of grasp on the issues and/or plausible solutions.

 

Offensive remark he can't recover from? hahahahahha. Ya, I don't think that will stop him.

 

Lack of any plan might.

[mikecgrimes]

I've started to hear people call Trump Tea Party, I understand opponents of the tea party define it as everything but what it's really about, but this really is a joke.  Trump in his brief campaign which he's done a good job avoiding discussing issues has already proposed increasing taxes, and while I might be OK with that as part of a complete package he has not and will not present a complete package, his history on tax and spend issues is to the left of GW Bush/McCain.  The tea party was formed because of Bush and McCain, of course we disagree with Obama, but he's a Democrat and he won the election he gets to be a Democrat in office.  As much as I don't care if Trump destroys the Republican party this idea that people will use him to try to destroy the tea party is disgusting.  If the Tea Party is going to fail it better not be because some would be Democrat destroyed it.

[Mike Sixel]

I gotta say, we don't agree on a lot on politics, but I agree, Trump is no Tea Party member....

[Brock Beauchamp]

Trump shares a few views of Tea Party members but he's no Tea Partier.

 

While I vehemently disagree with most of the Tea Party's platform, at least they're somewhat consistent. Trump is just ****ing insane.

[Willihammer]

Assuming the nominees are Trump and Hillary, you know who'd be a great 3rd party candidate? Amy Klobuchar.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Assuming the nominees are Trump and Hillary, you know who'd be a great 3rd party candidate? Literally anyone else on the planet.

Fixed that for you.

[Willihammer]

 

Fixed that for you.

Well, yeah. Who could beat those two though? I'd say Klobuchar is the perfect mix of, sanity, sex, track record in Washington (longer than Trump's, shorter than Hillary's), middle of the country, sane, etc. Did I mention sane?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, yeah. Who could beat those two though? I'd say Klobuchar is the perfect mix of, sanity, sex, track record in Washington (longer than Trump's, shorter than Hillary's), middle of the country, sane, etc. Did I mention sane?

 

if you can pair her with someone from one of the big swing states.....maybe......

[TheLeviathan]

She has absolutely no national presence.

[Willihammer]

 

She has absolutely no national presence.

No, but neither did Obama or WJ Clinton. She's already endorsed Clinton though.

[TheLeviathan]

No, but neither did Obama or WJ Clinton. She's already endorsed Clinton though.

You also just compared her to the two most charismatic politicians of the last 25 years.

[Willihammer]

 

You also just compared her to the two most charismatic politicians of the last 25 years.

Is Klobuchar not likeable enough? Maybe. The lack of presence out the gate wouldn't necessarily doom her. Carter's another example.

[Mike Sixel]

She's the Pawlenty of national candidates.....imo. Nice and likable, not much really done.

[TheLeviathan]

Is Klobuchar not likeable enough? Maybe. The lack of presence out the gate wouldn't necessarily doom her. Carter's another example.

You can't be unknown, have little notable achievements, and be a rather average charismatic figure and be a presidential candidate.