How George W. Bush screwed this generation of college students...
Every kid in America could have a free public college education right now if George W. Bush hadn’t been such a war monger. In early 2001, prior to the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban government in Afghanistan issued an edict to ban opium cultivation in that nation, saying it was a violation of Islam. (Opium is the raw material for heroin.) And it worked pretty well.
In 2000, roughly 4,500 metric tons of opium was produced in Afghanistan. In 2001, that number plummeted to less than 1,000 metric tons. The price of heroin went up around the world, and the number of addicts – particularly in Europe, Russia, and America – dropped. The Bush administration was so impressed by the decrease in opium production that it gave $43 million to the Taliban, to encourage a continued halt on opium production.
While $43 million may not seem like a lot, it’s important to put it in context. At the time of the deal, Afghanistan’s total GDP was just $2 billion, putting it at the bottom of the global GDP rankings. It was, literally, the poorest country in the world. So, for the Taliban, $43 million was a lot of money. George W. Bush’s decision to fork over $43 million to the Taliban to help curb drug trafficking, use, and abuse was actually a good choice, and a smart policy.
Now fast forward to the days and weeks after 9/11. On October 14th, 2001, a senior Taliban leader, Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir, sent an official offer to Washington, saying that the Taliban would be willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden to a third-party country, if the U.S. stopped the bombing of Afghanistan. Kabir said that, “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate. Then we could discuss which third country.”
But Bush, the same man who, just months earlier, had handed over a small fortune to the Taliban government, rejected this latest offer of cooperation. Instead, he took up a “scorched earth” policy and bombed Afghanistan back into the stone ages. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan has cost our country over $713 billion since 2001. And that number is rising by the millisecond. In fact, every hour, the war in Afghanistan is costing We the People another $10.17 million.
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter, but we said no, and now it’s cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. But what if George W. Bush had taken up the offer from the Taliban, and even sweetened the deal like he did with the opium?
What if he did something similar to what he had done just months before, and offered to give the Taliban money, if they promised to cut down on terrorism and on al Qaeda’s presence and influence in that nation? We could have given the Taliban $2 billion, enough to double the nation’s GDP and make everybody in the country twice as wealthy, and it still would have only been a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve spent on the war in Afghanistan.
And, if we had done that, we would have saved ourselves enough money to provide a free public college education to every single eligible student in America. As The Atlantic points out, according to Department of Education data, public colleges across America collected $62.6 billion in tuition from undergrads in 2012.
That means that the federal government would only have had to spend $62.6 billion to help make public college tuition free for every student in America in 2012. That’s less than 11% of what we have spent on the war in Afghanistan. The bottom-line here is that George W. Bush had a chance to get America’s priorities right, and he failed. Fortunately, he’s not in Washington anymore.
So now, instead of spending trillions of dollars on prolonging the Bush legacy of unjust wars, we should be spending those trillions on the things that will make America great again, like giving every eligible student in America a free public college education.
Comments
chuckle8 ~ That's an amazing story. I had no idea. Nice that it was video taped. I wonder if all that video could be subpoenaed for a class action lawsuit destined for the supreme court. That case is one that just has to be heard before any serious talk of a revolution takes place. It certainly sounds like a clear violation of the constitutional right to privacy and to be free of cruel and inhumane treatment. It was definitely, unnecessary and uncalled for. It sure was nice of those clowns to video tape the evidence for We the People.
insite != insight
So Matt, I have friends involved with Our Walmart and The Fight for Fifteen and I don't remember hearing the Black Friday protests were poorly attended.
I also participated in some of the very nascent protests at McDonalds and other fast food and low wage retail outlets myself before the movement really had a name and both there and at La Salle and Jackson with Occupy people were, by and very large, very supportive of us and identified with us, as of us, as 99 percenters. Even the police were, in both cases, extremely supportive of us - only at Occupy we squandered that when some adolescent brats, rebelling against all forms of discipline, started a positively retarded FTP (Fuck the Police) campaign. That adolescent element was a constant bane at Occupy.
France has a nice socialist democracy, protests there are commonplace. No one would ever think of banning or suppressing them. Their long bicycle races, for example, are routinely interrupted several times a day by large labor and other protests.
Quote ChicagoMatt:But if a sizable percentage of the 99% disagree with Progressivism, then what? Do you really think that ALL 60 million-plus people who voted for Romney are brainwashed idiots? Or maybe some of them are geniunely doing just fine for themselves and don't want anyone's help.
Those who voted for Romney are either brainwashed idiots, uniformed idiots, a combination of the two or one percenters or one percent wannabes and their suck asses.
There always needs to be a public education campaign to build a movement before much action can take place. Noam Chomsky talked of how, when he started his campaign against the Viet Nam war in the early '60s, two or three people would show up and they usually came to sock him in the jaw. Four or five years later, the number of Americans opposing the war has grown to almost a majority. Another five years and it is, in fact, a substantial majority. One must always have patience with the benighted.
Quote ChicagoMatt:The way I see it, liberal policies would be great, if everyone agreed on them. But conservative policies work well (for the conservatives) with or without liberal participation.
The ACA, for example, only "works" because people are forced into it, sometimes against their will. If you have to drag people kicking-and-screaming into something, they will do everything they can to avoid/subvert/change/escape it.
The `ACA is a very conservative plan, it's Mitt Romney's plan, Richard Nixon's proposed plan and the Heritage Foundation's proposed plan. Its purpose is to mandate people's taking responsibility for their own healthcare instead of having the insured effectively pay for the emergency care of the uninsured - which is a stupid idea when healthcare has become a luxury of the well to do. Much better would be a single payer system.
Anyway, I don't think you speak for anybody, Matt. Pretty much all but a very few Americans have the same concerns, they only disagree on solutions. The Tea Party, the militias at the Bundy ranch and the Occupy groups all agree on the problem as corporate control and money corrupting politics only the two former, the Tea Party and the militias, are stupidly brainwashed into supporting the corporate agenda - in response to their outrage at the corporate agenda.
Matt, it's all in the framing of the message, or the semantics. Thanks to the brainwashing Americans have been subjected to over the past several decades, via corporatized media, the mere mention of socialism, or anything socialized, is enough to send a "sizable percentage" of our populous into a full tilt-panic attack. Uh-oh… evil socialism! AAAAAAGGGHHHHH!
But if you frame the topic differently and simply ask people if they want non-profit, universal healthcare, the overwhelming majority give thumbs up. Ditto with social security & medicare, ditto with the minimum wage, ditto unemployment benefits extension… on and on it goes, Matt. So what you see or hear on the surface is not always what you get.
What you're missing is that the Kings and Masters of this New World Order have nothing vested here in the U.S. anymore. With their twisted, dumbed-down version of the "news" hammered into our collective consciousness, they've got much of our citizenry under their spell, convinced that government is evil, that government can't do anything right, that everything has to be privatized, that anything our government can do The Market can do better. But don't believe it. That is a dangerous lie their little puppet pundits keep telling us. To illustrate my point, I'll begin with what privatization has done to healthcare here in America.
Unlike you sir, I happen to be old enough to recall a time when healthcare in this country was affordable. In the fifties & sixties while I was growing up, doctor bills were no big deal. Medical bills got paid just like the electric bill or the water bill. It wasn't universal tax-funded healthcare but back in those days, healthcare and health insurance were nonprofit. Consequently nobody was bankrupted or left destitute by medical bills. That's before healthcare became for-profit and morphed into the extortion racket it is today. Insurance company death panels decide who lives and who dies. People are losing everything, even their lives, because of it. This is what privatization has done to healthcare, here in the good ole USA. "Your money or your life!"
I remember attending tax-supported public school where books, writing paper, writing utensils, art supplies, musical instruments, sports gear, etc. etc. were all paid for by the state. Now teachers and parents are forced to dig into their pockets for things their property taxes used to pay for. Beyond that, charter schools get to pick and choose their pupils. Unlike tax-funded public schools, private for-profit charter schools are not required to accept all students. so that those with disabilities, learning problems or special needs can be excluded.
That's what privatization is all about. Exclusion. Some folks in, some folks out.
I get so tired of hearing conservatives spouting off the same old talking points with their self-serving, fictitious spin on everything. How stridently you keep insisting a "sizable percentage" of my fellow Americans reject core progressive values! No matter how stridently the message is delivered, it's still hogwash. Power elites, through their recruits and their enablers, have been lying to us for decades about what the majority of us thinks and desires. I hate to break it to ya Matt, but it's nothing but hogwash.
I'm sick to death of you conservatives whining and bitching about the ACA. It's not anywhere close to what we really need, Matt, but it's helped a lot of people anyway (including me and my husband) and it's still a step in the right direction. Those who opt out of the ACA are forced to pay a tax penalty which, I'll admit, does piss me off. But it's way less than the cost of an insurance premium. Many of us have benefitted from the ACA, however, and are much better off than we were without it. If you don't like it, Matt, that's too bad.
And for your information, we progressives aren't trying to "help" people who don't want our "help"; we're just trying to protect ourselves from these damn predators our esteemed "public servants" have set loose upon the public, via deregulation, consolidation and privatization.
Earth to Matt! Time to wake up. - Aliceinwonderland
I have friends involved with Our Walmart and The Fight for Fifteen and I don't remember hearing the Black Friday protests were poorly attended.I believe he went to the one in Bedford Park. I will ask him for more specifics when I see him this weekend. The way he put it to me was something like: "What does it say about a person's character, that they are willing to stand in line for hours and support WalMart's unfair labor practices just to save a few bucks on a toaster." He had a point. I try to buy what I can from small shops and made in America.
Atta boy.
Hear that Wendalore? - AIW
I remember attending tax-supported public school where books, writing paper, writing utensils, art supplies, musical instruments, sports gear, etc. etc. were all paid for by the state. Now teachers and parents are forced to dig into their pockets for things their property taxes used to pay for.
I also went to a public school in the 80s and 90s. It was the only option in my small hometown. I have nothing against public education. But you can't deny the fact that Chicago Public Schools spends twice as much per student as my school does, and CPS gets much worse results. Maybe money isn't the only problem.
The problem with education (we discuessed this a lot during my graduate studies) is that everyone went to school, so everyone thinks they know how a school should be run. And public education has been "failing" for so long that no one knows how to fix it. In all of my 34 years, I've never heard anyone say public education is doing well. (I can see you rolling your eyes: the reason I haven't heard it is because of some corporate conspiracy/Koch brothers/media blackout designed to make me vote Republican, right?)
Beyond that, charter schools get to pick and choose their pupils. Unlike tax-funded public schools, private for-profit charter schools are not required to accept all students. so that those with disabilities, learning problems or special needs can be excluded.
So, it sounds like you don't think the regular education students should get a chance at a charter school because the special needs students can't get that same chance? That sounds like, "We must keep EVERYONE down because some people can't get up".
I got my educational start in special ed at a public school, so I happen to know a lot about it. I was paid a full-time salary to be a "one-on-one aide" for a wheelchair-bound student. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but back when you were in school in the 50s and 60s, we're special ed students kept in a separate classroom, away from the other students? Didn't the idea of full classroom inclusion come about in the early 90s? If you want to go back to the way things were in the 50s and 60s, wouldn't that also include special education isolation within the school?
ChicagoMatt ~ I work on equipment in public schools all throughout the bay area and get the opportunity to talk to teachers from grade school to high school level and what I hear is that education had been sabotaged by a combination of standardized testing and budget cuts--all from right wing interest groups. With standardized testing--no child left behind--teachers are forced to teach to the test instead of teaching about the world. Budget cuts have squeezed out all but the most mediocre teachers. From my perspective I've learned that even in the wealthiest communities the schools are also stripped of books and supplies. The teachers are forced not only to photocopy all assignments for students; but, they are also forced to supply their own paper. Just what do you expect when you treat teachers like that? Even the best mechanic in the world can't fix your car right without the right tools and the right parts. If that is how little we as a society want to invest in our next generation as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for."
If you want to know why public schools are doing so bad point your finger at privatization and right wing policies. They love to sabotage something that works perfectly well, blame the victims, and then sell the wreckage to the highest bidder so they can suck the blood out of it. The same thing is happening right now with the post office. The mere fact that these organizations have been able to stand on their feet for so long under this assault is a testament to their viability. No private entity would ever have endured as long.
Chi Matt -- I truly like your inquisitive mind. In this case, I wish we could have stayed on the subject of the 99% determining the rules of the game via democratic representation. You have pointed out the things to dislike about democracy; that is, 51% of the people forcing the other 49% to rules they do not like. I want to point you to what Winston Churchill said. Paraphrasing, he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". Even our founders did not have the fortitude to apply it. The usual point is that no women, no blacks, no non-landowners could vote. I find it much more disturbing that they did not even trust a democratic process for the white landowners. For example, if I were a white landowner at the writing of our constitution I might have objected to them not trusting us to defend freedom of speech. I would have said requiring a 2/3 votes sounds to me like a lack of trust. I find support in my feelings when one notices freedom of speech is being used in the takeover of our democracy. It is the main argument they use to defend the citizens united decision.
Matt - There ya go again, reading more into my post than was actually there. I never claimed to know how to run a school. I simply stated that when I was growing up, schools were part of the commons, and people's property & state taxes are what funded them. Teachers and parents didn't have to dig into their pockets for supplies like textbooks, writing paper, writing utensils, etc.
I've mentioned this for two reasons: #1 to remind people that it hasn't always been this way, and #2 that if it hasn't always been this way, there's no reason it has to remain so. Since it serves only the interests of the privatizers and not the public, I believe it should go bye-bye, just like for-profit health insurance needs to go bye-bye. I couldn't care less about telling you or anyone how to run a school, nor do I fancy myself even qualified to do so. I just don't think parents and teachers should have to dig into their pockets for these kinds of things people's taxes once paid for, that' s all. I believe it is unfair, that privatizers are just ripping people off. As I've pointed out already, this phenomenon of the hostile corporate takeover extends well beyond education, into other areas like healthcare and our postal service.
I just love how you twist my paragraph to mean those with special needs should be admitted to your school at the sacrifice or expense of those without such needs. Excuse me, but I did not suggest that. Meanwhile I don't hear you flat-out denying those candidates are turned away, denied enrollment without viable alternatives offered them. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
When you can't present a good argument, Matt, it hardly adds credence to your position when you try twisting the meaning of what someone else has said.
As to whether disabled and/or handicapped pupils were kept separate from the rest of us, back when I was a kid in public school, I can't answer that question in depth or with confidence. Even growing up during that era, the fifties & sixties, I wasn't up on that, lacking the circumstances, motive or inclination to be aware of how that part of our school system functioned. I think it depends on the kind of disability we're talking about. I don't recall any of my classmates being blind or deaf. My guess is, they weren't rejected and turned away, even if taught separately. There could be practical and/or logistical reasons why certain students might need to be taught separately. But those my age or older who are handicapped themselves, or had a relative or close friend who was blind or deaf (for example), would be better qualified to answer such a question. - Aliceinwonderland
You have pointed out the things to dislike about democracy; that is, 51% of the people forcing the other 49% to rules they do not like. I want to point you to what Winston Churchill said. Paraphrasing, he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".
We agree, I think. After so many years of each side calling the other side name - so much polarization - how can it be fixed now? Will people start suddenly respecting the choices of others - listening to Obama even if they didn't vote for him, or understanding that the reason the House isn't doing anything is because people elected Republican reps for that purpose - to stop Washington?
If this were a marriage, I feel like the marriage counsellor would even be calling for divorce by now.
I work on equipment in public schools all throughout the bay area and get the opportunity to talk to teachers from grade school to high school level and what I hear is that education had been sabotaged by a combination of standardized testing and budget cuts--all from right wing interest groups.
These are public school teachers (traditionally pro-union and liberal) from the San Fransico area (almost as blue as Chicago), and they blame the right wing? That'd be like me going to a gay bar and asking them what they thought about marriage equality.
But, even if the problem is right wing policies, which I am not conceding, what is the solution now, at this point? We're two generations into it. Is it even fixable now? And, if so, where should that fix come from?
Being the local government kind of guy I am, I say let San Francis worry about its kids, Chicago worry about its kids, and everyone one else worry about theirs. If San Francis wants to pay its teachers $200,000 a year, and raise property taxes to do it, then go for it. None of this should involve the federal government.
And, while politicians bicker over how to fix education, the students continue going to failing schools. Those same kids pass by my private school every day on their way to their overcrowded, failing public school. It's like watching people trapped in a burning car, and wondering what caused the accident, rather than trying to save the victims.
Ok, maybe I am being hyperbolic and a little heavy with the similes tonight. I'm an English teacher - it's in my blood. And, for what it's worth, I am doing my part by trying to convince the priest at my school to adopt the airplane mentality to the classroom. If the plane (class) is about to take off, try to fill the seats at any price you can get, since I'm teaching the same stuff anyway. Getting $50 a month for a desk that would otherwise be empty is better than nothing. We can't save all Chicago Public School students, but we can save a few.
Quote ChicagoMatt:But, even if the problem is right wing policies, which I am not conceding, what is the solution now, at this point? We're two generations into it. Is it even fixable now? And, if so, where should that fix come from?
ChicagoMatt ~ We have a federal Department of Education for a reason. It is a grave matter of national security to have a well educated and informed electorate. Without that, why defend anything? Without an informed citizenry, what is there to defend? we have a $1 Trillion annual military budget. Half of that would easily cover all the text books every child in this nation would need in one year. The surplus would easily cover pay extensions to teachers. The spare change would cover physicals and all medical expenses, healthy school lunches, and the rest could be used to cure our homeless problem.
We throw away so much money on our military it is a disgrace. We siphon away so much money from our children and their future it is a disgrace. Perhaps it is this reason why the right wing so desperately wants to starve education--the less the electorate knows and is able to think for themselves the more likely right wing wackos chances of winning elections. Wow! Seems to be working. The Tea Party should be the poster child for the right wing educational platform. If they only had someone who could spell write their protest signs for them: ie. "Youth in Asia Will Kill Your Grandmother!" "No Pubic Option" "Get A Brain, Morans" "Calculis Is Easy Tax Forms Impossable" "English Is Our Language, No Excetions, Learn It" "Respect Are-Country, Speak English" "California, A Glaring Example Of Liberal Failor".
Google Images: Teaparty Spelling Errors
A glaring example of our current "informed electorate." I'm sure this is a pretty sight for an English teacher. Just imagine how much worse it just might get. It would be funny if it wasn't true.
Apropos to #116 ~ And don't even think about blaming this travesty on federally funded public education. This is a direct result of 30 years of Reaganomics and the build up of a Corporate mercenary military industrial complex at the sacrifice of public education. Don't forget, many of my fellow bloggers including myself are products of the old public educational system. We are living proof that the system works and we won't mind reminding you of that fact.
At least since I was a teenager I was always for the pubic option - and also the public option.
Quote ChicagoMatt:I work on equipment in public schools all throughout the bay area and get the opportunity to talk to teachers from grade school to high school level and what I hear is that education had been sabotaged by a combination of standardized testing and budget cuts--all from right wing interest groups.
These are public school teachers (traditionally pro-union and liberal) from the San Fransico area (almost as blue as Chicago), and they blame the right wing? That'd be like me going to a gay bar and asking them what they thought about marriage equality.
Matt, are you willfully obtuse or genuinely so? The starved local, municipal budgets come from Grover Nordquist's tax policies. He wanted "a few of the states to go bankrupt just to teach them a lesson". The Federal Government cut off the states of funds so then the states cut off the cities and, of course, the standardized testing is also a Federal policy of the Bush adminisration.
In addition, California had Arnold Schwarzenegger forever as governor.
Why don't you and your buddy, Kend, admit that you don't know - and don't wanna know - what you're talking about.
Matt, you think you're going to be Robinson Crusoe? You can only afford the luxury of that fantasy because of the democracy we still have left in our society. The basic rights of the Constitution allow you to live as unmolested as you do and to dream as you would. Without it you'd never be able to forget that you live in and depend on your society and have to share it fairly with others.
We both agree that the military budget is a disgrace. I know that building billion-dollar, state-of-the-art jets is just a moneymaking scheme for the defense industry. (My inner asshole wants to invest in those companies, but I stamp out that voice.)
As usual, the disagreement comes in the solutions, not the problems. I say reduce the military, give that money back to the taxpayers, and let the taxpayers pay for their children's education as they see fit.
Pointing out that Reaganomics did this still doesn't solve the problem. I stick with my car wreck simile. If people are trapped in something that's on fire, then is not the time to point out they were driving too fast. Telling students who, in two days, must return to their failure of a school that Reagan is to blame doesn't get them out of that school. Giving the parents a choice - attaching school funding to the child and letting the parents take that funding to a private school if they want to - that is something that can be implemented much quicker and easier than a complete rebuild of the way things were 35 years ago.
And those misspelled Tea Party signs - The media always finds the person in the crowd that reaffirms the stereotype of that crowd. Want stock footage of Occupy Wall Street? Find the guy in the dreadlocks... Something happened in the Alabama... better find the nearest stereotypical Redneck.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Telling students who, in two days, must return to their failure of a school that Reagan is to blame doesn't get them out of that school. Giving the parents a choice - attaching school funding to the child and letting the parents take that funding to a private school if they want to - that is something that can be implemented much quicker and easier than a complete rebuild of the way things were 35 years ago.
ChicagoMatt ~ Once again you are saying that, 'because it worked before doesn't mean it can ever work again.' That is utter nonsense. You are trying to privatize education. That is what is not going to work. Privatizing anything public is a disaster. Why would you want to compromise something that has worked fine for decades for a pipe dream? Somehow Conservatives know what is best for everything and that is privatization. Show the proof! So far, there are over 100 posts on this thread alone that prove I'm right.
Quote ChicagoMatt:The media always finds the person in the crowd that reaffirms the stereotype of that crowd. Want stock footage of Occupy Wall Street? Find the guy in the dreadlocks...
I'm so sorry Matt, I missed the guy at the OWS protests in the dreadlocks... Did he misspell something? Or are you just implying another racially motivated stereotype that only makes sense in your little mind?
Content repeated, therefore deleted.
"English Is Our Language, No Excetions, Learn It"
are you missing an "r" or a "p"? ;-}
Quote ChicagoMatt:I also went to a public school in the 80s and 90s. It was the only option in my small hometown. I have nothing against public education. But you can't deny the fact that Chicago Public Schools spends twice as much per student as my school does, and CPS gets much worse results. Maybe money isn't the only problem.
The problem with education (we discuessed this a lot during my graduate studies) is that everyone went to school, so everyone thinks they know how a school should be run. And public education has been "failing" for so long that no one knows how to fix it. In all of my 34 years, I've never heard anyone say public education is doing well. (I can see you rolling your eyes: the reason I haven't heard it is because of some corporate conspiracy/Koch brothers/media blackout designed to make me vote Republican, right?)
Public education does well in wealthy suburbs and wealthy neighborhoods of the city, e.g., Lincoln Park H.S. in Chicago, not a charter or magnet school and which also has tremendous funding compared to other schools in not so rich neighborhoods. Thus is our unjust system of funding schools in the city and in Illinois, by local property taxes, which helps maintain a cycle of poverty. Poorer communities generate less tax revenue so their schools are underfunded. The correlation between a school's funding and school's academic results is undeniable.
There may well be, nevertheless, an influence of other factors on academic success than school funding which is why education is not just an education issue but also a labor issue, a health issue and every other kind of issue. I.e., if things aren't alright at home, mom and dad don't have a decent job, the refrigerator's empty, people aren't well and can't go the doctor and what have you, junior can't concentrate on school, at least not like a rich kid can. Under some circumstances there's only so much a teacher can do.
Anyway, with the privatization schemes, charters and vouchers, it was found that the students at charters - and especially students with vouchers - would end up back at the general public schools because the private schools and the charter schools have selective admissions policies and don't have to take everybody. Then, when the better students are siphoned off from the public schools by charter schools, the public shools becomes a "failing" schools because their averages are now much lower.
I think the reason for ending isolation of special ed. students is because including them is better for their performance. Perhaps more able students could be separated in another classroom (like Thom was) if including them would hold them back but it's not at all necessary to steal the system from the people and put it in some rich asshole's pocket - to privatize it - or to disempower and pauperize the teachers - bust their union - to do that.
Public education does well in wealthy suburbs and wealthy neighborhoods of the city, e.g., Lincoln Park H.S. in Chicago, not a charter or magnet school and which also has tremendous funding compared to other schools in not so rich neighborhoods. Thus is our unjust system of funding schools in the city and in Illinois, by local property taxes, which helps maintain a cycle of poverty. Poorer communities generate less tax revenue so their schools are underfunded. The correlation between a school's funding and school's academic results is undeniable.
The correlation between school funding and academic results is indeed undeniable. Are the wealthier students supposed to feel guilty for living in a wealthier area? Should residents in wealthier areas be forced to pay for both their children's education, AND subsidize a high-quality education for those that live in poorer areas? Aren't better schools one thing that attracts people to better suburbs? I'm not saying we call all live in Highland Park (or the wealthier suburb of whatever city you are in.) But does that mean we should look at those people with contempt?
If you're going to do that with education, why stop there? Why not charge wealthy people extra for stamps? Why not charge them extra if they want to take public transportation?
There is also a direct correlation between single-parent households and academic success. I've seen this firsthand with my students. Why not force parents to live together until their child is 18, for the child's sake? Or, why not have one parent from a wealthy family spend two or three days per week with a single-parent family, to "even the playing field".
To focus on educational funding alone as the key factor in the failure of public education sounds just as silly as what I just said.
There may well be, nevertheless, an influence of other factors on academic success than school funding which is why education is not just an education issue but also a labor issue, a health issue and every other kind of issue. I.e., if things aren't alright at home, mom and dad don't have a decent job, the refrigerator's empty, people aren't well and can't go the doctor and what have you, junior can't concentrate on school, at least not like a rich kid can. Under some circumstances there's only so much a teacher can do.
Oh good. We agree then. Teachers make great punching bags for the ills of society. Just like illegal immigrants and the wealthy, depending on which side of an issue you're on.
Quote ChicagoMatt:The correlation between school funding and academic results is indeed undeniable. Are the wealthier students supposed to feel guilty for living in a wealthier area? Should residents in wealthier areas be forced to pay for both their children's education, AND subsidize a high-quality education for those that live in poorer areas? Aren't better schools one thing that attracts people to better suburbs? I'm not saying we call all live in Highland Park (or the wealthier suburb of whatever city you are in.) But does that mean we should look at those people with contempt?
If you're going to do that with education, why stop there? Why not charge wealthy people extra for stamps? Why not charge them extra if they want to take public transportation?
What a sorry assed argument against progressive taxation and equitable school funding! Government social programs are an attempt to make up or the undercompensation of working people - particularly the working poor - and the fluctuating economic activity of business cycles. That all children should have equal opportunity is so basic a human right that I have to ask what reptilian species you belong to if you don't support it. I would have to ask this of all conservatives as that's the very issue that set off the conservative revolution in 1978 as the Proposition 13 tax revolt in California seeking to make greed into a virtue.
Quote ChicagoMatt:There is also a direct correlation between single-parent households and academic success. I've seen this firsthand with my students. Why not force parents to live together until their child is 18, for the child's sake? Or, why not have one parent from a wealthy family spend two or three days per week with a single-parent family, to "even the playing field".
To focus on educational funding alone as the key factor in the failure of public education sounds just as silly as what I just said.
Wealthier single parent households commonly manage okay, in less wealthy or poor ones the already existing problems are compounded by the absence of a second parent. Some archaic welfare laws encourage this, or, rather, they penalize parents staying together. The presence of a man in the house can get a household cut off as he is, ostensiby, a "bread winner" and thus makes welfare benefits to that household "unnecessary". As late as the '90s such laws were in effect in Illinois and may still be today, I don't know, can't say.
There are, in fact, many factors coming from poverty that influence the academic success of children and a wholistic approach addressing all the injustices surrounding and resulting from it must be taken. Progressive taxation and equitable - and even compensatory, extra - funding for schools of the disadvantaged would be an essential part of that.
I believe that teachers are way underpaid for their education level and importance to us. I believe they deserve far more in compensation than some of the scum bag CEOs or Wall Street flim-flammers. But I also think that the school system should be totally public and heavily financed (to pay for top quality teachers not burdened with trying to make ends meet all the time..paying for their own teaching materials, etc). We need universal healthcare so people won't be put on the auction block and sold as slaves to the highest bidders. We need to get rid of the elitism in educational systems. There needs to be a leveling out of our school systems...no more "ivy league" or private "proselytizing institutions" or expensive colleges or universities. There needs to be a leveling out of those who have managed to get extremely wealthy by screwing everyone else out of their money. We need a system where no rapacious wolves could manage to get filthy rich while leaving everyone else in poverty. Such people don't play fair and use their greedy talents to wheedle people out of the little they have. We could have a better chance of coexisting more peacefully with much less stress over monetary worries.
After experiencing capitalism, is it any wonder many Russians want to go back to the way it was before capitalism? All it did was produce a few extremely wealthy people and a lot more extremely poor people....just like is happening here in the US.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Just like illegal immigrants and the wealthy, depending on which side of an issue you're on.
... or racial miorities and the poor, etc.. Although, wealthy people are, in fact, responsible for the state of society as they have greatly disproportionate power and influence and generally don't hesitate to exercise it - usually to create and maintain more power and privilege for themselves, commonly at the expense of all other societal values. Some, like the Kochs, do that on a massive scale affecting not only our society but the entire world as well.
It was actually a ruse of the neocon PR machine at the early stages of the "conservative revolution", the late '70s to early '80s, to riff on the current lefty political narratives of the time and try to characterize the rich and powerful as "victims of society".
I believe that teachers are way underpaid for their education level and importance to us. I believe they deserve far more in compensation than some of the scum bag CEOs or Wall Street flim-flammers.Who decides which CEOs are scumbags, and which ones actually earned their position? I think you'll find scumbags up and down the chain of command. I've worked with some myself.
There needs to be a leveling out of our school systems...no more "ivy league" or private "proselytizing institutions" or expensive colleges or universities. There needs to be a leveling out of those who have managed to get extremely wealthy by screwing everyone else out of their money.
This is something I've heard before, and I always wonder, where would that level be? What income is too much? Like, an actual number. Are we going to try to bring everyone to the average? Do you see how half of the people - the above average half - might get a little angry about that?
Even Thom says on his show that the wealthy will always find a way to separate themselves from the institutions the rest of us share. Wasn't one result of the ACA a rise in consierge doctors? I've looked into buying into one myself, but now isn't the time. Maybe when I am older. Why shouldn't I have that option, if I want it and can afford it? Why shouldn't I be able to save money for my children to go to a nice, private university? Because you don't like what they teach? Or not everyone can go, so nobody gets to go.
Here comes my English teacher analogy of the day: I feel like, if we were all on the Titanic, the Progressives would be complaining that the captain hit the iceberg, telling people how things were before the iceberg, blaming the iceberg on the Koch brothers, complaining that some lifeboats were nicer than others, and drilling holes in all of the lifeboats, since there wasn't enough room for everyone on them. But the whole time making no effort to save themselves.
ChicagoMatt: But, on the Titanic, the rich people were more free to jump ship, ie: save themselves, than the poor ones shut up in the below decks. I think that the world is a sinking Titanic, and all the rich people may survive just a little bit longer than the poor people but even they will not be able to survive much longer than the rest.
The Titanic was a monstrous waste of resources and had all that steel been used in making smaller, more maneuverable ships, the death toll would have been much smaller if one of them had hit an iceberg and perhaps, being more maneuverable, might have even avoided hitting an iceberg in the first place.
Perhaps those egocentric and narcissistic bombastions (I made it up...like palindromedary) of capitalism need to have their bubbles burst in the interest of saving the world from themselves. The Czars and French Kings, and all of those wealthy dandies of the times, saw what could happen when the people, the masses, finally have had enough.
The Titanic (touted to be unsinkable) was such an ego deflator (however temporary). As the world becomes more uninhabitable and the costs of just being able to eat and breathe becomes much more difficult, the world's populations may very well explode with desperation and rip those arrogant, selfish, capitalist criminals apart. Some of those arrogant capitalists know what's coming and some are even trying to prepare for it by building palatial underground bunkers.
Perhaps those egocentric and narcissistic bombastions (I made it up...like palindromedary) of capitalism need to have their bubbles burst in the interest of saving the world from themselves. The Czars and French Kings, and all of those wealthy dandies of the times, saw what could happen when the people, the masses, finally have had enough.
Do you see how someone like me, a newly-upper-middle-class white guy in Chicago might be just a little worried about talk like that? The really downtrodden people in Chicago, if and when this "revolution" comes, will look for people within reach to lash out at. Good thing I'm allowed to own a handgun now in Chicago.
I stick by my theory that things aren't nearly as bad as the Progressive talkers make them seem. Although I respect them and enjoy listening to them, they, like the Conversative talkers, know what their audience wants to hear, and style their shows accordingly. (For example, Ring of Fire just spent the first 20 minutes talking about Donald Sterling, because it fits the Progressive "Rich white guys are racist" narrative. I'll bet they were actually happy when this story broke, like the Conservatives are when they catch a real-life welfare queen.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Are we going to try to bring everyone to the average? Do you see how half of the people - the above average half - might get a little angry about that?So, they get angry...so what? What about all of the angry people at the bottom that greatly outnumber those far fewer people at the top? It is high time our government cracks down on those who have rigged the game in their favor leaving everyone else their victims. We had strong and good government regulations and progressive taxes that created a world of much less poverty in the Eisenhower years up until St. Raygun. And some people still managed to amass great fortunes, despite the greater taxes they had to pay, that they, or their children's children, could never manage to spend in their lifetimes. But since...it has gotten out of hand. The aristocrats in prerevolutionary France thought they were too good to pay their fair share of the taxes and so they used their influence to put the taxes off on the people who could least afford it. The people rebelled and some of those aristocrats lost their heads along with the royalty.
ChicagoMatt: Yes, I agree that these things get pretty messy and it's too bad that the riled up crowds don't go after the ones at the top. They lash out at those who are closest and most visibly wealthy. But often, they do such stupid things like destroying their own downtrodden neighborhoods.
I agree that it is a very good thing to be armed. You have to protect you and yours when the cops can't..or won't. I am afraid that I might be just as much a victim as anyone else in such an unstable situation.
Chi Matt -- Democracy does not imply respecting the choices of others. I think democracy means accepting the choices of the majority and then try to convince the majority that you have a better idea.
DAM -- "Youth in Asia will kill your grandmother". I thought that meant education in Asia was so good that their economy would kill grandmothers in the US (LOL).
Getting back to the Titanic analogy - back before I had a wife and kid, I'd be the officer who, upon realizing the situation, pointed his gun at his own head.
As with everyone else, my life experiences shape my thinking, and those experiences change my world view over time. Having children probably changed me the most.
I am going to get accused of living in a bubble, but everyone I know, including several minimum-wage workers - they all seem happy. Like the coffee shop I go to every morning - a chain one where I doubt the people behind the counter are making a living wage - they all seem genuinely happy to be there. The guys I hired to do some home improvements for me - things I didn't have to time, tools, talent, or manual dexterity to do - they were really happy to do it. The underpaid Spanish-speaking (I don't know their legal status, so I won't stereotype) members of my church - they are all really happy, friendly people. If we are on the verge of some societal-changing revolution, it sure doesn't look like it from here.
I think democracy means accepting the choices of the majority and then try to convince the majority that you have a better idea.
I agree. The majority of voters went Republican in 2010 and again in 2012, giving the House to the Republicans. Most of the efforts I've seen at convincing those majority of Americans revolve around name calling and guilt-tripping.
Pal -- I keep saying this over and over because no one can believe facts. When raygun lowered the top tax rates the rich paid 2 to 3 times more in taxes. I have explained why on several occasions. Do you want me to tell you again?
There was an interesting testing experiment that they did in LA. They included a "value added" metric to the results. I know in one case, a teacher at the grade school level was near the top in previous evaluations. After value added metric was included she was near the bottom, I wonder how Chi Matt would have done.
Chi Matt -- The democrats in the house in 2012 received 1.5 million more votes than the republicans. Have you heard of gerrymandering?
So, they get angry...so what? What about all of the angry people at the bottom that greatly outnumber those far fewer people at the top?
So maybe they leave. How did that work out for Detroit, when everyone who could left? How is that working for California? For Hollywood? I just read a few months ago how Louisiana is taking over the film industry, to avoid California's taxes. It's happening here in Chicago too. Keep vilifying the wealthy until they leave, then see what you're left with. Besides the lower tax base, you'll also have a brain and talent drain.
Chi Matt -- They are paid to appear genuinely happy. If they do not appear that way, they are fired. With any unemployment rate above 4% the negotiation between employer and employee is unbalanced.
chi matt -- You see progressives complaining. I see progressives analyzing to improve the situation.
Have you heard of gerrymandering?You mean like NC's 12th district, which is Gerrymandered to assure a black representative? I guess on the assumption that blacks will always vote for a black. Or the 4th district here in IL, which looks like a giant letter "C" and just happens to be 71-percent Hispanic?
If they could find a way to gerrymander one that included mostly women, they would.
Chi Matt -- We had a system that was working for everyone. It was the New Deal followed by the Great Society. The wondrous feature that brought it down was it gave too much voice to the middle class. Among other things, it gave voice to students to ask why are you asking us to go into a war for nebulous reasons (Vietnam War). It scared the economic elite so much it motivated Lewis Powell to write his "confidenatial memo" to them. Jude Winewski jumped in with his 2 santa claus plan. This is all detailed in Thom's "Crash of 2016".
Chi Matt -- You do understand it. I did not see you comment about the 1.5 million more votes for the democrats in the house.
You blame the elites. The racist blame integration. Evangelicals blame "godless liberals". Capitalists blame Socialists. Some people might even blame self-centered baby boomers. Everyone has reasoning behind their choice of culprit.
Do most Progressives really, really feel like there is some secret society of "elites" who meet together in smoke-filled rooms and think of ways to screw over the middle class? James Bond villan style? Really? There isn't that voice in your head saying that's a little crazy/far-fetched/paranoid?
I know exactly one Vietnam veteran. He is, and always has been, bitter about how the war ended.
I did not see you comment about the 1.5 million more votes for the democrats in the house.
I have two comments for this:
1. How many people don't vote because they live in "safe" districts, where a single vote doesn't really count? Both red and blue districts. Of course, it's their own fault for not bothering to show up, even if it's like voting for McCain in Illinois, as if he had a chance...
2. I sometimes hear callers to Thom's show lament over how disproportionate representation is for people in some place like Wyoming to some place like New York, since even Wyoming gets at least one representative. That, to me, sounds like an attempt to change the rules of the Union AFTER a state has already joined. Each state joined with the same minimum representatives. If you want to change that now, you have to give states the option to leave.
Which makes me think of something else - Congress' low approval rating, and how Progressives use this against Republicans. But what those polls do - the ones where they ask about Congress' approval - is ask people from all over the country about Congress as a whole. I'll bet if you ask people about their individual representative, the approval rating will be much higher. It's everyone else's representatives that they don't like.
Chi Matt -- Repugs always show up to vote. Just listen to Paul Warwick.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
But if a sizable percentage of the 99% disagree with Progressivism, then what? Do you really think that ALL 60 million-plus people who voted for Romney are brainwashed idiots? Or maybe some of them are geniunely doing just fine for themselves and don't want anyone's help.
The way I see it, liberal policies would be great, if everyone agreed on them. But conservative policies work well (for the conservatives) with or without liberal participation.
The ACA, for example, only "works" because people are forced into it, sometimes against their will. If you have to drag people kicking-and-screaming into something, they will do everything they can to avoid/subvert/change/escape it.
Payroll taxes are another example. When I was younger, I worked for a small company (about 10 employees) that would pay some of the employees minimum wage above the table, and then pay them cash under the table, to avoid taxes AND allow those employees to still qualify for government benefits. This kind of stuff happens all of the time and is, I feel, WAY under-reported.
I say this with sincerity - how long will progressives keep trying to "help" people who don't want their help, and actively fight against that help? And, conversely, how long with the right-wingers continue to fight these "reforms", sometimes for no reason other than spite?
According to the internet, I am not in the top 1% of income earners. Not even close. But I resent being counted among the 99% that the Occupy Wall Street people are trying to help. But I guess "We are the 99%" sounds better than "We are the 30% or so."