From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 · Aug 24, 2016

cpwill said:
That would explain why we were so destitute and weak before that time.

that's typical libNazi BS: we need Fed bureaucrats to know to educate our children!!!!

Lafayette · Aug 25, 2016

cpwill said:
You asked how the federal government had interfered with post secondary education, and I told you how. .........................

You are ranting. Again.

You fail to recognize that the Federal government factually has very little responsibility in the either the development or management of primary and secondary national education - the principal elements of an educational system. This was my core point as regards the US educational-system.

It is both local and state administrations alone that set the spending criteria of our children. (Meaning educational expenditure is at the whimsy of local counsels and state administrations that both have an eye on local tax-revenues as their funding source.)

Granted that the US graduates 82% of its students from High School, up from 74% in 1990. With that latter score, anyone can imagine how many people today - a quarter of a century later - are in the prime-time workforce and have no high-school diploma.

I suggest that this is a Key Hurdle for lowering basic long-term unemployment rates in America. These people are qualified mostly for jobs that are disappearing at great speed.

And when it comes to cost, the total US-states' expenditure amounted to only $527B (from here) for primary and secondary education.

Federal spending is more like this (from here):
Education - Start chart $126.2B
[+] Pre primary thru secondary education - 41.8
[+] Tertiary education - 38.8
[+] Education not definable by level - 45.5
[+] Subsidiary services to education - 0.0
[+] R and D Education - 0.0
[+] Education n.e.c. - 0.0

The US's Federal expenditure on Tertiary Education is a piddling $38.8B. So, when it comes to the eternal economic question "Guns or butter/brains", we know very well on which side the Federal Budget plunks its expenditure.

"Stupid is as stupid does". (Forrest Gump)

MY POINT: Which is why I suggest that the Federal Government should subsidize state tertiary education (vocational, 2- & 4-year). But first, the kids need to have a high-school diploma. Which is a major stumbling point for them presently.
___________________________________

cpwill · Aug 25, 2016

Lafayette said:
You are ranting. Again.

:roll:

You fail to recognize that the Federal government factually has very little responsibility in the either the development or management of primary and secondary national education - the principal elements of an educational system. This was my core point as regards the US educational-system. It is both local and state administrations alone that set the spending criteria of our children.

:shrug: that is flatly incorrect. While States and Local governments (as is proper in our constitutional system) dominate local education, federal spending absolutely occurs, and comes with both federal strings and federal control. That is how, for example, the Obama administration is currently trying to force it's transgender-bathroom policy on schools.

That, however, isn't what we were talking about - since what we were talking about was college, where the federal government has played a heavily distorting role by decreasing elasticity, encouraging debt-fueled price-hikes.

Granted that the US graduates 82% of its students from High School, up from 74% in 1990. With that latter score, anyone can imagine how many people today - a quarter of a century later - are in the prime-time workforce and have no high-school diploma.

:shrug: probably a chunk, but less than would be suggested by figuring out the average between those two figures - those with lower education tend to be less attached to the workforce.

I suggest that this is a Key Hurdle for lowering basic long-term unemployment rates in America. These people are qualified mostly for jobs that are disappearing at great speed.

Sorta - to the extent that low skill labor is disappearing, it's largely because we are making it unprofitable, by increasing it's cost.

The US's Federal expenditure on Tertiary Education is a piddling $38.8B. So, when it comes to the eternal economic question "Guns or butter/brains", we know very well on which side the Federal Budget plunks its expenditure.

A bit more than $38.8B, but yes, we don't spend as much on college as we do on the DoD (nor should we).

Your claim, however, was that we couldn't be a wealthy or powerful nation if we spent more at the Federal level on Defense than we did on Education. My question to you was - given that we are the worlds' wealthiest and most powerful nation, how do you account for the fact that we have never spent more at the federal level on defense than education?

MY POINT: Which is why I suggest that the Federal Government should subsidize state tertiary education (vocational, 2- & 4-year)

The Federal Government already does this through the nationalizing of the student loan industry. As a result, price has skyrocketed, while quality seems to be either holding the same or decreasing.

But first, the kids need to have a high-school diploma. Which is a major stumbling point for them presently.
___________________________________

It is, as you point out, less of a stumbling block than it used to be - which is good. Unfortunately, key drivers for high-school dropouts include broken family and broken cultures; difficult to fix with policy.

QuadpolarNutjob · Aug 25, 2016

it isn't your boss's responsibility to pay you more than you're worth. if you think you're worth more, it's your responsibility to prove it, or find another employer who agrees with you and is willing to pay you more.

Lafayette · Aug 25, 2016

cpwill said:
that is flatly incorrect. While States and Local governments (as is proper in our constitutional system) dominate local education, federal spending absolutely occurs, and comes with both federal strings and federal control. That is how, for example, the Obama administration is currently trying to force it's transgender-bathroom policy on schools.

Look you can deny the numbers all you like.

But the fact remains that the overwhelming cost of public primary and secondary education is paid by local sources.

The US gummint pays also a piddling sum for tertiary-education scholarships.

Moreover, the US is one of the few countries to require local payment of primary/secondary education. Most developed countries are centrally organized in order to provide a "uniform" education to the children. That is, no child should be left behind because of a local lack of financial resources.

In fact, I suggest that you will find that the reason PISA scoring on secondary schooling in the US is so mediocre compared to other nations.

Education - PISA Performance Results.jpg

More readable posting of that document here. Note that the US is 35th out of 64 countries. Not bad, but not nearly good enough. You will also note that Canada, our sister country to the north, scores higher at 13th place (secondary schooling), and yet they have almost the same schooling-system as the US - with the same expenditure per capita as the US.

What does this say? That the difference in scoring between Canada and the US is NOT in the amount of money spent, but the education systems.. Meaning how and what teachers teach.

Also, the answer may be sociological in nature - which would require a separate analytical study of why there are such stark differences in the PISA-scores ...

...
______________________________

James972 · Aug 25, 2016

Lafayette said:
MY POINT: Which is why I suggest that the Federal Government should subsidize state tertiary education (vocational, 2- & 4-year). But first, the kids need to have a high-school diploma. Which is a major stumbling point for them presently.
___________________________________

USA spends more per capita on education than any other nation but results are poor because liberal unions run the schools for the teachers and not for the students. Biggest problem and best example is you cant fire the bad teachers. Liberalism is like a spreading cancer.

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Lafayette said:
Look you can deny the numbers all you like.

But the fact remains that the overwhelming cost of public primary and secondary education is paid by local sources.

Either A) you are deliberately choosing to argue against a strawman
B) you lack reading comprehension
Or C) you don't even read what you are responding to.

your data gives the lie to the claim that:

Lafayette said:
It is both local and state administrations alone that set the spending criteria of our children.

The US gummint pays also a piddling sum for tertiary-education scholarships.

We spend a goodly sum, however, the major Federal government intervention into the collegiate market is the nationalization of the student loan industry, and preceding distortion of price signals, which has resulted in A) Price Spikes that B) don't discourage students not to purchase, but rather to do so by going deeply into debt meaning that C) we get lots of people who shouldn't have gone to college going to college, not graduating, but taking on debt and D) we get people who should have gone to college going to college and taking on crippling debt to do so.

Moreover, the US is one of the few countries to require local payment of primary/secondary education.

:shrug: good for us. That is how it should be. If anything, the federal government interferes too much at current in our educational system.

In fact, I suggest that you will find that the reason PISA scoring on secondary schooling in the US is so mediocre compared to other nations.
View attachment 67206331

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

James972 said:
USA spends more per capita on education than any other nation but results are poor because liberal unions run the schools for the teachers and not for the students. Biggest problem and best example is you cant fire the bad teachers. Liberalism is like a spreading cancer.

I would say that our biggest problem is that we can't fix our broken marriage culture. But certainly unions steer schools for the good of their own coffers, rather than the good of students.

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

cpwill said:
I would say that our biggest problem is that we can't fix our broken marriage culture.

Well, the liberal cancer has attacked and destroyed our families, schools, and religions equally so its hard to say which is biggest problem. Families can be easily fixed by going back to a 1950's mentality and laws which placed a stable home for America's children far above the petty squabbles of parents.

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
Well the liberal cancer has attacked and destroyed our families, schools, and religions equally so its hard to say which is biggest problem. Family can be easily fixed by going back to 1950's mentality and laws which placed a stable home for America's children far above the petty squabbles of parents.

Going back to the 1950s mentality? Nah. Too much neuroticism and abusiveness in that. I'd rather have a 21st Century Pro-Family mentality. Nor is anything about changing cultural norms and the individual decisions of millions of people "easy".

But what did you mean about law changes.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
Going back to the 1950s mentality? Nah. Too much neuroticism and abusiveness in that.

how are empty prisons and stable homes for our children abusive???????? You must think before you post!!

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
But what did you mean about law changes.

now divorce is no fault in the 1950's divorce was almost illegal.

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
how are empty prisons and stable homes for our children abusive???????? You must think before you post!!

Virulent racism, a blind eye towards spousal abuse, alcoholism as a way of life, there was plenty that was wrong with the 50s, just as there is plenty that is wrong now.

And if i thought before I posted, I would be significantly less entertaining

one can't go around thinking all ones life.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
now divorce is no fault in the 1950's divorce was almost illegal.

I can agree to making NoFault divorce much more restrictive for couples with kids, but I'd rather start with fixing the marriage penalties in our code.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
I can agree to making NoFault divorce much more restrictive for couples with kids, but I'd rather start with fixing the marriage penalties in our code.

don't see in a million years what that has to do with providing a stable home for our children

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
don't see in a million years what that has to do with providing a stable home for our children

You don't see what the government punishing poor people for getting married to the thing of thousands or tends of thousands of dollars a year could have on leading them to avoid marriage?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
You don't see what the government punishing poor people for getting married to the thing of thousands or tends of thousands of dollars a year could have on leading them to avoid marriage?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

actually poor people don't pay taxes
so the marriage penalty does not apply to them. Sorry

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
actually poor people don't pay taxes
so the marriage penalty does not apply to them. Sorry

You haven't spent much time doing this math, have you?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

James972 · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
You haven't spent much time doing this math, have you?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

WHAT FEDERAL TAX RATES DO LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAY?

Low-income households typically pay some federal tax. The Tax Policy Center estimates that, on average in 2015, households in the lowest income quintile (the bottom fifth) will owe federal taxes equal to 3.6 percent of their incomes, much lower than the average 19.8 percent tax rate for all households.

But the income tax is not the reason these households owe federal taxes. In fact, TPC estimates that in 2015, households in the lowest income quintile have a negative average income tax rate thanks to refundable credits—namely the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC). That is, the payments they receive from refundable credits exceed any income tax they owe.How does the federal tax system affect low-income households? | Tax Policy Center

cpwill · Aug 26, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

James972 said:
WHAT FEDERAL TAX RATES DO LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAY?

Generally a negative one.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Lafayette · Aug 27, 2016

cpwill said:
Either A) you are deliberately choosing to argue against a strawman
B) you lack reading comprehension

I've done the research from data available and presented it.

You fail to recognize the statistics supporting my POV regarding the question. Your arguments are entirely personal in nature and irrelevant.

I'm done with you. Moving right along ...
______________________________________

cpwill · Aug 27, 2016

Lafayette said:
I've done the research from data available and presented it.

You fail to recognize the statistics supporting my POV regarding the question. Your arguments are entirely personal in nature and irrelevant.

I'm done with you. Moving right along ...
______________________________________

[emoji38] you are arguing against a strawman, and losing to it. I responded to you in detail, and you cut it all out. It seems you've just never actually thought much about education policy before.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Lafayette · Aug 27, 2016

cpwill said:
[emoji38] you are arguing against a strawman, and losing to it. I responded to you in detail, and you cut it all out. It seems you've just never actually thought much about education policy before.

Some people must have the last word.

You've had yours. Feel better now ... ?
______________________

James972 · Aug 28, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
Generally a negative one.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

yes so your idea of cutting their taxes to improve family life is goofy

James972 · Aug 28, 2016

Re: From the Economist "Poverty in America: No money no love"

cpwill said:
Virulent racism, a blind eye towards spousal abuse, alcoholism as a way of life, there was plenty that was wrong with the 50s, just as there is plenty that is wrong now.

if so why are the jails full now but not in the 1950's?????????????? if so why was the black family intact in the 50's but not now?????????????