General politics

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What I will give Warren a ton of credit for is that she's floating substantive policy ideas, seemingly a new one each week.  I doubt that she will campaign on all these ideas, but she's learning a whole heck of a lot about how they are being received.  Have any other candidates proposed any kind of policy beyond generic Medicare for all and tax the rich but we won't say how?

Good point. I like that Warren is proposing loads of controversial (but often smart and well thought-out) policy, like breaking up Silicon Valley. She's a hell of a smart woman and that's why I support her.

 

I simply think she missed the mark a bit on this one. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

My biggest problem with the EC has little to do with its "unfairness" and a whole lot to do with its "let's drive a wedge to divide the country in two, allowing politicians to crawl to their respective corners instead of the middle".

 

So, yes, let's fix that part of it. If a presidential candidate can flat-out ignore 40% of the country and still win, the system is broken and needs repair.

 

Personally, I think people going to their corners would be worse without the EC.  That's why it has to be some kind of hybrid that achieves what you're talking about.  City voters absolutely matter.  So do rural voters.  America is more successful when everyone is successful and the simple fact is that the needs of people in different areas of the country can be quite different.  We should want candidates to have broader appeal and more understanding of the overall needs of the country.

 

So whatever system we try and work towards, I hope it achieves that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Personally, I think people going to their corners would be worse without the EC.  That's why it has to be some kind of hybrid that achieves what you're talking about.  City voters absolutely matter.  So do rural voters.  America is more successful when everyone is successful and the simple fact is that the needs of people in different areas of the country can be quite different.  We should want candidates to have broader appeal and more understanding of the overall needs of the country.

 

So whatever system we try and work towards, I hope it achieves that.

It could absolutely get worse without the EC, though it would definitely minimize the party that's currently insane.

 

But short term solutions usually suck once you leave the short-term so I'd prefer the hybrid version.

[PseudoSABR]

I just think the notion that EC empowers rural voters is mostly a myth.  Outside of  Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas etc., rural voters still don't matter.  In Minnesota or Michigan or Ohio, candidates are far more likely to campaign in urban areas to maximize their efforts.  

 

The EC pushes candidates to concentrate their efforts in supposed swing states, rather than high population areas; I don't know how much of improvement that is.  And I'm not really sure if getting rid of EC would really offend all that many voters (beyond the Montanas etc. which were going for Trump anyway).  

[Mike Sixel]

It's almost like you didn't read the article. And I'm tired of being accused of only caring because of the last election. One person. One vote. We already have the Senate, and state governments to empower minority groups based on artificial state lines. We already have whole state bring ignored, even though they have large populations. Why is that better? We'd never start with this plan, why keep it?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

We'd never start with this plan, why keep it?

Actually, given that we're a federalist republic, that's a pretty big assumption we'd never start with it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's almost like you didn't read the article. And I'm tired of being accused of only caring because of the last election. One person. One vote. We already have the Senate, and state governments to empower minority groups based on artificial state lines. We already have whole state bring ignored, even though they have large populations. Why is that better? We'd never start with this plan, why keep it?

Totally agreed.  The notion that any minority group deserves a greater share of the vote is stupid absurd (esp. considering the irony that this proffered group is totally white).   

 

"I hate affirmative action" plus "I love the electoral college" is the biggest BS burger we've eaten yet.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"I hate affirmative action" plus "I love the electoral college" is the biggest BS burger we've eaten yet.

 

I agree.  Wouldn't the reverse also then be a little screwy by that logic?

 

I totally agree with affirmative action and much of my logic for it is why there are elements of the EC I'd like to retain.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Actually, given that we're a federalist republic, that's a pretty big assumption we'd never start with it.

 

Correct, the EC may have been born of shenanigans, but likely something like it would have been born either way.  Once the two party system took full hold it was going to necessitate some kind of process beyond straight popular vote.  We were founded as a republic, in part, by seeing the errors of that sort of system in other countries and the failures it lead to.

 

We can do better than the EC, certainly.  But a blog article that asserts the "only" argument for it is tradition is too simplistic to be taken seriously.

[TheLeviathan]

Warren stumping about child care now.  That is an enormous cost for most families.  My wife took a job with less salary in exchange for lower childcare costs and I know how crippling it is for many families.

 

I'm not sure "free" child care is the best bet, but time to push earlier preschool and other similar options.  Or discounted options for families in need.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Warren stumping about child care now. That is an enormous cost for most families. My wife took a job with less salary in exchange for lower childcare costs and I know how crippling it is for many families.

 

I'm not sure "free" child care is the best bet, but time to push earlier preschool and other similar options. Or discounted options for families in need.

Agreed across the board. Not really sure about free but something has to be done (and, as usual, I’d prefer to see Washington incentivize state operated implementations).

[PseudoSABR]

Recipients of welfare and SSI, might be a good labor force for child care, provided certain protections and qualifications. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Recipients of welfare and SSI, might be a good labor force for child care, provided certain protections and qualifications.

I’ve long thought this was a good idea but don’t know enough about the specifics to really know if it’s possible or reasonable to implement.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Agreed across the board. Not really sure about free but something has to be done (and, as usual, I’d prefer to see Washington incentivize state operated implementations).

 

One thing I wish was talked about with this is the need for universal preschool.  People assume school is like it was when they were a kid.  Well, when I was in kindergarten I remember spending most of my time playing and learning social skills.  Now, if you can't add and subtract to 20 and read by the time you leave kinder you are behind.  

 

My son entered kindergarten reading while some kids couldn't even recognize letters.  The disparities are real and have real harm to the confidence and and success of children.  So kill two birds with one stone....get preschool starting at age 3 and start child care savings earlier.

 

Then work on ways to subsidize the three and under care.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I’ve long thought this was a good idea but don’t know enough about the specifics to really know if it’s possible or reasonable to implement.

The costs would be in the logistics, insurance, and facilities.  But I think it is feasible.  If we can bus kids to school and keep them there all day without killing or losing too many of 'em, we can do this too.

[ewen21]

 

Recipients of welfare and SSI, might be a good labor force for child care, provided certain protections and qualifications. 

There is a reason why people go on welfare and a lot of them can't even take care of themselves so I am not sure it's a good idea they take care of other people's children

[Brock Beauchamp]

There is a reason why people go on welfare and a lot of them can't even take care of themselves so I am not sure it's a good idea they take care of other people's children

Sigh. There are LOTS of reasons why people go on welfare, not one (being a deadbeat screwup, as you just implied).

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is a reason why people go on welfare and a lot of them can't even take care of themselves so I am not sure it's a good idea they take care of other people's children

I made clear that they would have to be screened.  And I think you're just making assumptions that aren't based on fact.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

One thing I wish was talked about with this is the need for universal preschool.  People assume school is like it was when they were a kid.  Well, when I was in kindergarten I remember spending most of my time playing and learning social skills.  Now, if you can't add and subtract to 20 and read by the time you leave kinder you are behind.  

 

My son entered kindergarten reading while some kids couldn't even recognize letters.  The disparities are real and have real harm to the confidence and and success of children.  So kill two birds with one stone....get preschool starting at age 3 and start child care savings earlier.

 

Then work on ways to subsidize the three and under care.

Yep. I'm going to experience that rift in the coming years. The five year old we took in was developmentally delayed all over the place. Since we've taken her (eleven months now), she has caught up in many ways: her vocabulary has exploded (it was age 2.5-3 when we got her, now is pretty close to a five year old) and while she can count to 40 reliably and knows her alphabet, reading is off the table for quite some time. She's doing all sorts of emotional work and while we push academics, we can't push too hard (the poor kid is already working 9+ hour days five days a week).

 

Meanwhile, her sister, who we took out of the hospital, is now 19 months old and developmentally on target across the board. I fully expect her to enter preschool at age three or four and be reading by the time she enters kindergarten.

 

While I'm on the subject, the foster care system really grinds my gears. So many foster homes out there just phone it in with these kids. There was no excuse for the five year old to be where she was when we got her: an emotional mess that hadn't progressed in any meaningful way in the two (!) full years she had already been in the system. Hell, they didn't even bother getting her into preschool until she was nearly five years old and there was only 6-8 weeks left in the school year.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

While I'm on the subject, the foster care system really grinds my gears. So many foster homes out there just phone it in with these kids. There was no excuse for the five year old to be where she was when we got her: an emotional mess that hadn't progressed in any meaningful way in the two (!) full years she had already been in the system. Hell, they didn't even bother getting her into preschool until she was nearly five years old and there was only 6-8 weeks left in the school year.

 

When we started our adoption process we specifically avoided fostering for exactly that reason.  It isn't a well run or incentivized way of doing things.

 

Mandated preschool will help so many families and so many kids at a key age for learning.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

When we started our adoption process we specifically avoided fostering for exactly that reason.  It isn't a well run or incentivized way of doing things.

 

Mandated preschool will help so many families and so many kids at a key age for learning.

I specifically targeted foster because I wanted to help Minnesota kids more than I wanted to help, say, Mississippi kids. 

 

Minnesota largely gets things right but even so, this process is arduous.

 

What fascinates me about this situation is that the child was basically hell on wheels. Yet the foster parents didn't put her in preschool, because... why? Hell, if a kid was as bad as she was on a daily basis, I'd be shipping her off to whatever the **** institution would take her for free.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I specifically targeted foster because I wanted to help Minnesota kids more than I wanted to help, say, Mississippi kids. 

 

Minnesota largely gets things right but even so, this process is arduous.

 

What fascinates me about this situation is that the child was basically hell on wheels. Yet the foster parents didn't put her in preschool, because... why? Hell, if a kid was as bad as she was on a daily basis, I'd be shipping her off to whatever the **** institution would take her for free.

Well, I don't know how Minnesota run its "dependency" and "severance" proceedings, but if those kids were in the legal system, it should be on the state to provide them services and it shouldn't be simply left up to the foster parents.

 

In Arizona, the state is supposed to make "reasonable efforts" towards these sort of things, but no one bothers challenging such efforts until it's too late, may as well call them "token efforts."

[TheLeviathan]

 

I specifically targeted foster because I wanted to help Minnesota kids more than I wanted to help, say, Mississippi kids. 

 

Minnesota largely gets things right but even so, this process is arduous.

 

What fascinates me about this situation is that the child was basically hell on wheels. Yet the foster parents didn't put her in preschool, because... why? Hell, if a kid was as bad as she was on a daily basis, I'd be shipping her off to whatever the **** institution would take her for free.

 

Yeah, in AZ we had to leave a bed open and we could be placed with any kid, at any moment's notice, at any age.  With two little ones of our own, we just weren't comfortable with that.  We want to help, but that wasn't going to be the way for us.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well, I don't know how Minnesota run its "dependency" and "severance" proceedings, but if those kids were in the legal system, it should be on the state to provide them services and it shouldn't be simply left up to the foster parents.

 

In Arizona, the state is supposed to make "reasonable efforts" towards these sort of things, but no one bothers challenging such efforts until it's too late, may as well call them "token efforts."

Minnesota has pretty good resources but, like most things, you have to roll up your sleeves and prepare to fight to get some of them. In our case, we basically told the social worker how this was going to play out before we even took the child. The state had no options left with her, as she was such a disruptive force in the house that no one else was interested in taking her.

 

But mostly, her lack of services fall back to a lack of trying on the part of previous foster parents... though her first placement, who we now know pretty well, was flat-out denied services because the child was new to the system and the state didn't see a need for specialized services. Where the state really failed the child is in her second placement, which treated her mostly with indifference. I *really* dislike the second placement and their attitude (we also know them fairly well).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, in AZ we had to leave a bed open and we could be placed with any kid, at any moment's notice, at any age.  With two little ones of our own, we just weren't comfortable with that.  We want to help, but that wasn't going to be the way for us.

Really, AZ wouldn't let you specify age? That's absurd. In MN, you can specify pretty much anything you want and they'll go with it, though they obviously prefer you stay open to as broad a spectrum of kids as possible. Our initial parameters were ages 0-3, no ICWA.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Really, AZ wouldn't let you specify age? That's absurd. In MN, you can specify pretty much anything you want and they'll go with it, though they obviously prefer you stay open to as broad a spectrum of kids as possible. Our initial parameters were ages 0-3, no ICWA.

Was the no ICWA because it would be less likely that the kid would be adoptable (because they would prefer to find someone with the tribe)? Just curious, please feel free to decline to answer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Was the no ICWA because it would be less likely that the kid would be adoptable (because they would prefer to find someone with the tribe)? Just curious, please feel free to decline to answer.

Yes, adoption was part of it but ICWA is just hard overall. It adds another layer of uncertainty to a situation already rife with uncertainty. Perhaps the most important job of a foster parent is to provide security and stability. ICWA makes an already hard job almost impossible.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Really, AZ wouldn't let you specify age? That's absurd. In MN, you can specify pretty much anything you want and they'll go with it, though they obviously prefer you stay open to as broad a spectrum of kids as possible. Our initial parameters were ages 0-3, no ICWA.

 

If it was possible, they sure made it seem like it wasn't.  We would've been broad too, like any kid younger than 13.  So that steered us in a different direction.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If it was possible, they sure made it seem like it wasn't.  We would've been broad too, like any kid younger than 13.  So that steered us in a different direction.

Understandably so.

[ewen21]

 

Sigh. There are LOTS of reasons why people go on welfare, not one (being a deadbeat screwup, as you just implied).

That isn't what I impled by any means.  That was what you inferred, unfortunately.

 

You actually admitted to have not given much thought as to the feasibility of such an initiative.  Not sure how or why you can disallow skepticism about such an initiative when you admitted have not given it much thought. How does it actually work?  I really could not say and neither can PseudoSABR.  Develop the thought or else you really can't blast someone who is a skeptic.

 

I could say we need to end violence by taking guns away from everyone and while that sounds great, how does it work?  Sadly, lots of ideas die because we lack the means, resources, feasibility etc. to actually make it possible.  I am a certified NY State Teacher and have been for 23 years.  That makes me a mandated reporter, someone who is supposed to report on child abuse, etc...as an advocate for children. I have seen a few things in my years of doing this and I wish you hadn't made the assumption that I believe those on Welfare are lazy screw ups.  That could not be further from the truth.  I met with a parent yesterday who broke down and cried about her situation (living with her daughter in a hotel and unemployed for almost a year now).  At no point was I unsympathetic and I am actually endeavoring to help her find a way (behind the scenes) through her problem.  There are no easy answers and quite frankly I find SABRs cavalier comment: "If we can bus kids to school and keep them there all day without killing or losing too many of 'em, we can do this too." kind of telling.  What am I supposed to infer from that?  That he is serious about this?  

 

Please don't assume my stances are born out of bigotry or from being uniformed just because we haven't agreed on certain other items.   Please don't infer things in a way that automatically portrays me as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.  These tactics are rather Clintonesque 

 

 

I like to believe you are above that