Is A Revolution Possible In America?

[GePap]

Originally posted by snoopy369
In general, education to me is a local thing that should be monitored on the local level. Funding can be applied at all levels to ensure adequate education is given to all; there's no reason to require substantial federalization.

Well, except that in most other industrialized states where complaints about the quality of public education aren't as widespread there are national education systems not handled by localities.

The simple fact is that if locals are left to manage things, then poor localities will provide poor educations, perpetuating their poverty.

[PLATO]

I think the only real key to raising education is to do it on the local level. At most, State government should be involved. Priorities should be set on identifying the failing schools and realistic plans for their improvement. Improvement will not come overnight. Emphasis should be given on innovation in increasing performance on a year over year basis. Given time, these schools can and will catch up. The idea that it is going to happen overnight is ridiculous. When you make a generation long plan and commitment to a failing school, then you will begin to see the problem solved. Of course, making a commitment to that school will also involve making a commitment to that community. Most people are not really serious about that kind of change. In my opinion, there is no stronger priority for local and State government than improving education.

If we need a revolution in this country, it is in the way we educate our children.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, except that in most other industrialized states where complaints about the quality of public education aren't as widespread there are national education systems not handled by localities.

The simple fact is that if locals are left to manage things, then poor localities will provide poor educations, perpetuating their poverty.

A couple of things strike me here. One is that most countries don't have the land area or population that we have. Many of the countries you reference would more closely resemble a State in size and population. Secondly, if you make it a State priority, then States can allocate the tax base where it is more needed. The feds don't need to have any involvement because the educational needs of a Mississippi are most likely different than those of a New York...the feds would simply try to standardize everything.

Finally, snoopy makes a good point about innovation and federalizing that would certainly stifle that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
A couple of things strike me here. One is that most countries don't have the land area or population that we have. Many of the countries you reference would more closely resemble a State in size and population.

Russia is twice our size physically, and somehow they do it. And in population most of the comparable states (Germany, Japan, France, UK) have significantly higher populations than even our most populous state, California.

Secondly, if you make it a State priority, then States can allocate the tax base where it is more needed. The feds don't need to have any involvement because the educational needs of a Mississippi are most likely different than those of a New York...the feds would simply try to standardize everything.

How exactly are the educational needs of a child in Mississippi in terms of reading or math ANY different than those of a child in LA, or Anchorage, or New York City?

You could say that all children in poor rural areas, or in poor urban areas, or in middle class suburban areas need to be treated in some uniform ways, but then that is purely a socio-economic consideration, having nothing to do with culture.

That is in fact the thing that keeps education local - people afraid that they won't be able to inculcate their kids with their local values throught the public education system, but instead the values of those "others" will be passed on, even though we are all theoretically "American citizens" with the same rights and responsibilities.

Finally, snoopy makes a good point about innovation and federalizing that would certainly stifle that.

Given that each locality has its own public system and rules (a vast waste and incredible duplication of work), "local" innovation is no easier than innovation with a master further away.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare.

Those programs are unquestionably welfare programs; they're direct assistance programs to people on (supposedly) a fixed income. It doesn't matter if the average salaried laborer "pays into" the system, because it's a giant Ponzi scheme that cannot support itself without a certain number of new laborers entering the workforce.

I'm sure you've heard this before, but when Social Security started, the payout ratio was 1 beneficiary for every 16 people in the workforce. That has dwindled down to 3 and is approaching 2 within the next two decades. Raising the payroll tax didn't stop it, and raising it again (or raising the caps at which people are expected to pay) aren't going to stop it; it's like trying to fill in a crack in a dam with your finger...

[Jon Miller]

What are we talking about? Earlier when you condemned welfare, it was that people should be working weren't, but were isntead getting on welfare. Medicare and SS are about people who are retired, and shouldn't be working. So they don't fall under your earlier reasons to condemn welfare.

Medicare and SS weren't created for people to get on and then go back onto the work force later. It was created for people who were never to be in the workforce again.

JM

[rmsharpe]

I didn't say that the goal of welfare programs (during the 1960s) was to get people off welfare; I said that's how it was sold to us. I never believed that the goal was to get people off those programs, especially ones for seniors; it is the government assuming responsibility for something that they should be doing themselves.

Why do you think so many young people have the foresight today (well, not today... look at the size of the Obama camp...) to start saving their money for their retirement? They know what's going on. You can't ride the gravy train forever.

[Jon Miller]

Show me where SS and Medicare were ever suggested to get people off welfare. They were always known and intended to care for those who couldn't care for themselves. This was because of demographic and social changes caused a broad part of society to no longer be cared for.

You are spewing crap.

Jon Miller

[rmsharpe]

I didn't say they were; I was writing about the direct cash assistance programs (and food stamps, etc.) that started to come about in the 1960s.

I presume that since you are Canadian, you don't get the same kind of teachings in American history that we do. Likewise, I know little to nothing about how your government functions above and beyond that you have a Prime Minister and some parliamentarians probably still wear those white powdered wigs. But I digress.