Paul Ryan in Esquire

Their argument is that it is one and the same. Grow the overall pie, and then if you don't get a big part of it, that's your fault. Their philosophy seems to be that government's sole responsibility is to grow the overall economy. Anything more is "picking winners." Which, ironically, they are doing anyway via inactivity.

 

First, congrats on raising such a smart kid. Something to be quite proud of!

But actually paying for college isn't the only issue. Educational inequality builds up over time. The rich segregate themselves--either in certain suburbs or fancy private schools--sapping the resources and dedicated parents away from the poorer K-12 school systems. Sure anyone has a shot at getting into one of those great colleges--but it's a lot easier to do so when you've attended Riverdale Country School than George Washington High School.

Further, the richest students receive many out-of-school benefits poorer students can't always take advantage of. Their parents can get them tutors and SAT prep. They can afford to spend the summer doing resume-building non-profit work rather than taking a menial, paying job. Thus even as colleges have nominally opened their doors beyond the rich and WASPy, the "meritocratic" system really just continues to benefit the elite. And in some ways makes it even worse, because those that succeed can justify their accomplishments as earned in a "meritocracy" even though the children of the elites still owe a substantial amount of their success to being born to the right set of parents.

 

I wish he had run. I love him like Democratics love Elizabeth Warren.

And, while it may be easier to run for the Presidency as a Senator or Governor, I'd rather him stay where he is.

If he's going to run in 2016, or 2020, then running for higher office will just be a distraction.

He can be a leading voice without either of those offices.

 

Also, it is really vexing for people who dream of (and worked hard to get qualified for) jobs that exist mainly in the public sector (teachers, first responders, public safety personnel) but can't get a job because municipalities/counties/states are gutting budgets.

 

Look, I agree that education is an issue.

But, I'm not sure spending more money is the solution to the problem.

The schools will eat that money up. We'll get smaller class sizes, more teachers, more "programs".

But, we'll still have shitty education. And, without involved parents, that money may as well be poured down the drain.

I went to high school in the Bronx. We had a lot of poor kids in my school. But they all had an involved parent, or in some cases two involved parents.

Those kids succeeded.

Find me a program, even if it's expensive, that will solve the education problems, and I'll get behind it.

 

As far as the tax-cutting shiites are concerned those jobs shouldn't exist. Go work at Mickey D's.

 

Large classes are like agreeing to play Tiger Woods, getting no strokes . . . you're beat, before you get off the first tee.

 

In most cases, class sizes are smaller than they've ever been.

A good teacher, with a classroom of well behaved, motivates students, who have involved parents in their home, is a recipe for success. The number of kids is largely irrelevant.

 

Disagree. So long as you've got a strong teacher and students who are interested, greater levels of learning due to more attention being paid to each individual student stands to reason.

 

This makes sense, but I'm not convinced that getting 1/20th of a teacher's attention is going to make a huge difference vs. getting 1/30th of the teacher's attention.

And, if other problems remain -- a lousy teacher, a teacher who can't get their class under control, kids who are unmotivated and/or don't have involved parents -- then a smaller class is unlikely to make much of a difference.

 

There are plenty of success stories in early-childhood education where students had difficult home situations, but still managed to succeed because the system caught them early enough. Another thing that you could put resources into is keeping poor kids engaged and learning all summer long, since that's where they often fall behind the more affluent kids.

YF, I have an honest question regarding conservative economic philosophy, because I think it breaks down here. Obviously, you believe that government dollars are spent inefficiently, and that money doesn't translate into results. You guys carry that across the board. Department of Education. Department of Energy. Environmental Protection Agency. On and on. Just throwing money away.

Why do you, then, battle cuts in defense? Can't we spend those dollars more efficiently instead? What makes defense such a special case where suddenly bottom-line dollars spent matter?

 

Get convinced then.

It's an enormous difference.