Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Wow, Mari, you're really on the warpath today. Most of those things (russotto's kids' college education, medical care, their savings or investments or a retirement plan) do not fall into the category of "systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving."
|
A college education does NOT fall into this catagory while a primary school education does?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
The only one you listed that might fit that category is the military, and who the hell's talking about the military here? We're talking about whether "high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending."
|
Well, I'm glad you, at least, are addressing my point. That long litany of mine was my way of expressing how weary I am of conservatives calling any expenditure they don't approve of "throwing money at it." "Throwing money at it" has becme the lazy conservative's way out of any debate
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Historically, we don't spend as much on welfare spending as other countries because we don't think it's a good idea. It's far from a documented fact that all our problems would just disappear if we threw more money at the problem. How can the D.C. school district be the lowest-performing and the most highly-funded if that's the case?
|
I never said all our problems would disappear if
we invested in the education of our young. I said such an investment would place us in a more competitive position in the coming global economy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
And this is just sentimental nonsense:
First of all, Abe Lincoln did more than study a book by firelight. He started business after business, failing at most of them, being relatively poor for a lot of those years. Bus boys don't start their own businesses, or they don't stay bus boys for long. Abe Lincoln was successful because he was determined to be, not because social welfare spending was somehow higher back in his day (far, far from it.)
|
I never said social welfare spending was higher in Lincoln's day. My point was that the US of Lincoln's time was a far less complex era. People could get away with being relatively uneducated and still make a go of it. Someone could come from a simple backwoods education and still rise to be president - THEN. Today's society with its technology and competition requires a better education for a person to be successful (Yes, I know there are the occasional individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the country as a whole).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
The past global economy favored those with an education from MIT, too. Your homilies break down your credibility, mari. (And though you may not think it, you do have credibility with me in many areas.) The human refuse pile? Where, pray tell, is that? I can only guess that you must mean that those with just a high school diploma will have to work a lower-paid job. Well, duh. The man from MIT is designing nanotechnology to cure cancer, the high-school graduate isn't capable of that. He's not going to get paid the same.
|
An education from MIT was ALWAYS a good thing. Never said otherwise. My comments about graduates from high schools that provide a lower quality of training and preparation refer back to the Atlantic Monthly article I quoted. If global competition means that a minimum of a degree from a state university will be required, what is going to happen to kids who are forced to attend under funded inner city or rural schools? They will NOT be competitive and it won't necessarily be through any fault of their own. Of course, a college grad should be paid more than a high school grad. You are missing my point which was that all children should have the chance to attend schools that will equally give them the opportunity to be accepted into university programs if they have the desire, drive, and intelligence to attend. Right now, our schooling that we offer our children is not equal.
If you had bothered to look properly at what I wrote, I cited the work and conclusions of several people. If you wish to feel that the authors of the Atlantic Monthly article and the other sources I cited have no credibility, that's your free choice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Unless! he has studied hard all through high school, despite the fact that his school was crappy, and he is able to get into a college--probably not MIT, but better than a community college--on a scholarship which he will most certainly qualify for, and he perhaps will have the ability to become a technician for that MIT guy one day... and here's the important part: his children will be in a better position because of it. They won't have to go to that crappy school, they'll move to a better neighborhood and go to a better school, and maybe get into MIT. It almost always takes more than a generation to be extremely successful, just like it takes more than a generation to find oneself squarely in poverty.
|
Why should ANY child in this wealthy country have to attend a "crappy school"? Especially with the coming pressures of a global workforce and economy, isn't it in the best interests of this nation to ensure that our people are as well educated as possible?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Here's the thing: I would like to know how many people today who make, say, over $300,000, had grandparents who made an equivalent sum of money in their time. I would guess (though I don't know) that many if not most of them did not.
|
I have no idea. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was talking about maintaining US global competitiveness in the future by ensuring our young get the best possible education.