Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End of the Summer already? it is only Sept.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    i disagree, it IS capable of doing something as good, it's just NOT DOING IT. different things.
    LOL...which is why people do not like bigger Government. Too hands in the pot, and everything gets bogged down, so not much gets done.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      ...the difference between our two views is that you believe the government, at best, to be a barely-tolerated, necessary evil-- it's either ineffective/incompetent, or it's to be shunned as a threat to freedom. it takes a miracle for you to acknowledge there are times when it can or has been effective, for the betterment of all.
      No, there have been places where the gov't has sort of worked, and I have talked about that before. The BPA (Columbia Basin Hydro) is an example. Interstate highways is another.

      Problem is, that all took place 50 years ago when gov't was a lot smaller and a lot more capable of getting something done. During WW2 The USN BUSHIPS had 1000 procurement people and we were building 1000 ships a year.

      That has all gone by the wayside.

      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      meanwhile as a third-wayist i can fully acknowledge when the government has been ridiculously bloated and inefficient, and that the private sector is generally superior to the public. but i can also fully believe that there's a promise of efficient government, and roles where having the government involved isn't just a necessary evil, it's a -good- thing.
      The private sector is ALWAYS superior to the public sector, with only a very few exceptions. The public sector caters to the lowest common denominator every time. The private sector simply can't afford that. The public sector is incapable of innovation, the private sector can't exist without it.

      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      that didn't -cause- the effect, it merely had no particular effect on it. "a nation at risk" was published in 1983.
      IOW, money wasted on ineffective federal bureaucracy. Lots of it.

      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      speaking on an absolute scale, we have more of that than ever (simply compare the number of people graduating from college now than people whom graduated from HIGH SCHOOL in 1950).
      You're trying to compare absolute numbers from a time when the US population was half what it is today? That's meaningless.

      In 1950 roughly half the adult population were HS grads, today roughly 1/4 have a bachelors or more.

      This graph shows how educational attainment flatlined with the creation of the Dept. of Education.

      File:Educational attainment.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      it's the average high-schooler whose education hasn't really moved beyond the average high schooler of the 1950s. that's a problem in 2010.
      The average HS grad in 1950 was a hell of a lot more literate than today's average grad. A study a few years back by the NAS showed that the average college grad today has about the same level of general knowledge as the HS grad from the 50's.

      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      however, the last 10 years has seen quite a bit of improvement over the last period. still has a long way to go, though. arne duncan's department of education and the race to the top has been done great work recently.
      For a nominal fee of $150 Billion or so. Like I said, a black hole. That money should be left local, not used to fund more federal bureaucracy.

      You're in D.C.- they had a private school voucher system there. The applicants always outnumbered the available vouchers. So what did Obama do? Did he increase the number of vouchers? No. He eliminated them all. He killed the program. He doesn't want poor students from D.C. attending the same private school his girls attend.
      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        back from china, and saw this.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #34
          julie,

          LOL...which is why people do not like bigger Government. Too hands in the pot, and everything gets bogged down, so not much gets done.
          i agree (in most cases). the point isn't bigger government, it's more efficient government. ie the Third Way.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #35
            highsea,

            No, there have been places where the gov't has sort of worked, and I have talked about that before. The BPA (Columbia Basin Hydro) is an example. Interstate highways is another.

            Problem is, that all took place 50 years ago when gov't was a lot smaller and a lot more capable of getting something done. During WW2 The USN BUSHIPS had 1000 procurement people and we were building 1000 ships a year.

            That has all gone by the wayside.
            that was also an era where people were taxed far more heavily, and much more was expected out of them (forced conscription). the military alone was far larger. it's true that society has become more complex and government too has become much more complex, but that's no reason to condemn the idea of government out of hand-- what's needed first and foremost isn't a debate on the SIZE of government, but on the efficiency.

            ie if there's a sector too bloated to work well (true in a lot of cases)- fine, cut people where needed to make it work well.

            if there's too FEW people for a sector to work well (true in a few cases)- then hire people as needed.

            i'm speaking about an effective government that knows its limits re: what it can and cannot do, and DO the things that it can do very well. i personally think there's hope that we can reform government to do this, as opposed to the "cut it all out" theory. david brooks had an article on that a while back-- that while our bureaucracy is more competent and meritocratic than ever, it's also handicapped by an increasingly broken political sector that promotes bloat and people feeling more distant from them than ever.

            The private sector is ALWAYS superior to the public sector, with only a very few exceptions.
            that's also the premise of the third way, although i suspect the list of exceptions on my part is somewhat larger.

            i can think of two examples, for instance-- had singapore and japan gone completely free market/free trade in the 1950s and 1960s, respectively, today they'd be agricultural nations. instead, a highly meritocratic/technocratic leadership managed to put a combination of tax breaks, tariffs, and favored industries in place, where they modernized more in one generation's time than they did in the previous three.

            also, note that it took the resources of states to save collapsed economies, both in the 30s-40s and today. how many credible, non-keynesian economists out there say the bank bailout hurt the economy, for instance?

            ou're trying to compare absolute numbers from a time when the US population was half what it is today? That's meaningless.
            i'm saying if nothing else, we have a sizable base of well educated kids. obviously our best and brightest are not only better and brighter than the kids back then, but outnumber them (i'd say both absolutely and relatively).

            This graph shows how educational attainment flatlined with the creation of the Dept. of Education.

            File:Educational attainment.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            actually, i see high school graduate or more increasingly roughly from 63-64% to 80-85%, which is in line with other industrial nations. same with bachelor degree's. i'd attribute it to law of diminishing returns, not the creation of the DoE.

            You're in D.C.- they had a private school voucher system there. The applicants always outnumbered the available vouchers. So what did Obama do? Did he increase the number of vouchers? No. He eliminated them all. He killed the program. He doesn't want poor students from D.C. attending the same private school his girls attend.
            if so, that's something i oppose. i've never been a fan of the teacher's unions.
            Last edited by astralis; 05 Oct 10,, 23:02.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              if so, that's something i oppose. i've never been a fan of the teacher's unions.
              The funding was killed in the $410 Billion Omnibus spending spree of 2009. Republicans tried to extend the program, but the dems in the senate voted it down 50-39. Obama promised to extend it at the time, but buckled to the teacher's union after the fact, and no more vouchers are being issued.

              The program provided 1900 vouchers a year at a cost of $6,600 per pupil. There were about 7000 applicants each year. D.C. public schools spend over $28,000 per student and have just about the worst results in the country. 12% of 9th graders are proficient readers and 8% are proficient in math. The students who were in the voucher program from the start were on average 19 months ahead of their public school counterparts in reading proficiency.

              All this at a cost of about 1/4 of what is spent per-pupil in D.C.'s public schools.
              Attached Files
              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment

              Working...
              X