Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[popper]

U.S. lost its comparative advantage in light manufacturing years ago. Don't know what this story tells us.

We are mildly competitive in high tech manufacturing, but only just. We are good at airplanes, software, financial advice, administrating far-flung international corporations, and inventing new stuff.

The folks who are researching ways to use genomic information to cure cancer are located here. Transgenic animal research is done here. Biologically engineered crops were invented here.

Not everything we invent is going to be manufactured here. Ipods are manufactured in China, and virtually all 3G cellphones are imported. We get the royalties and license fees -- not a lot, granted.

Yes, the U.S. is a lousy place to manufacture things. We have a set of policies that says if you are going to provide manufacturing jobs here, they have to be safe and clean and high paying. So we don't have that many manufacturing jobs here.



So all the really good jobs are in high tech industries requiring a fairly advanced degree. That means there are no particularly good jobs for high school grads, and precious few good jobs for bachelors.

So... you can go two ways with that. Try and win a race to the bottom with China, or invest more in education and create good, safe, clean, high paying high tech jobs that we have a competitive advantage in.

And that's a bipartisan issue. Both the Dems and the Republicans want this. Since it requires investment in soft, icky, bleeding heart liberal things like education rather than missiles, I kind of trust the Dems to do it right. But business folks have been lobbying for better higher education since I've been in the biz, which includes 8 years working with Republicans.

Zonk - Why do you trust the Dems to do education right? Didn't Dems produce "Waiting for Superman" which documented Dem's complicity in the failure of urban public education? Aren't almost all Dem controlled urban school districts in trouble (while spending more per pupil than everywhere else)? Don't the teacher's unions call the shots in these districts and aren't the needs of students subordinated to those of the unions and their political puppets. At least this is the case made by Dems in their documentary, "Waiting for Superman".

[Zonkerbl]

Popper -- correlation does not imply causality. Democrat controlled districts are largely urban, so I'm sure gasoline prices are higher in Democratically controlled areas -- is that somehow the Dems fault?

Urban areas are also where the poor performing schools are, where you have to spend more on subsidized school lunches and more teachers have to teach ESL. Republicans are the party for rich people, so it's meaningless that dollar for dollar education spending is more effective in Republican areas.

I'm not talking about grade school education -- that's a local issue. Feds can't do anything about that (except screw it up with idiot things like no child left behind). I'm talking about graduate level education, making grants and fellowships available for foreign students to come to the US and study, easing visa requirements to make it easier for us to poach high quality tech students from other countries.

[DCZards]

Zonk - Why do you trust the Dems to do education right? Didn't Dems produce "Waiting for Superman" which documented Dem's complicity in the failure of urban public education? Aren't almost all Dem controlled urban school districts in trouble (while spending more per pupil than everywhere else)? Don't the teacher's unions call the shots in these districts and aren't the needs of students subordinated to those of the unions and their political puppets. At least this is the case made by Dems in their documentary, "Waiting for Superman".

Pop, I don't know where you get the impression that "Dems" produced "Waiting for Superman." I believe it was produced by a single wealthy individual and/or a group of individuals. Some of them may have been Dems (and some of them may have been Repubs or Independents). It's a stretch to say it was produced by Dems.

It's a myth that urban schools spend more per pupil than school districts elsewhere. A comparison between what's spent per pupil in Wash., DC and what's spent in, say, Fairfax County would prove that. In fact, the real tragedy with our public school system, imo, is the outrageous inequity in facilities, programs, staffing, etc. between inner city schools and those schools in suburbia.

Where urban districts do spend more, it's usually because it cost a whole lot more to educate low-income, ill-prepared kids than it costs to educate kids from wealthy communities whose parents are able to contribute to their education---both in and out of school.

Teacher unions don't run school districts. Mayors, superintendents, school boards and other elected officials do.

If you look behind the curtain, you’ll see that “Waiting for Superman” was produced and supported by a bunch of folks who want to privatize ALL schools so that they can get their greedy hands on the money in public education. Very few of them really are concerned about the quality of education in urban schools.

[popper]

Popper -- correlation does not imply causality. Democrat controlled districts are largely urban, so I'm sure gasoline prices are higher in Democratically controlled areas -- is that somehow the Dems fault?

Urban areas are also where the poor performing schools are, where you have to spend more on subsidized school lunches and more teachers have to teach ESL. Republicans are the party for rich people, so it's meaningless that dollar for dollar education spending is more effective in Republican areas.

I'm not talking about grade school education -- that's a local issue. Feds can't do anything about that (except screw it up with idiot things like no child left behind). I'm talking about graduate level education, making grants and fellowships available for foreign students to come to the US and study, easing visa requirements to make it easier for us to poach high quality tech students from other countries.

Good points that I agree with Zonk except the comment that R's are the party of the rich. It's true that some R's and most conservatives support the notion that we should live within our means. They/we also support the notion that children benefit from two parent households. There are many other common sense things I could mention but bottom line - I sincerely believe that our country would be much better off if conservative policies were implemented. I understand that you and many others disagree with those policies but their potential efficacy has nothing to do with being rich and poor.

What irks the hell out of me is that in the latest cliff agreement those damn hedge fund managers and people like Buffet, Romney and Soros got off scott free in regard to tax increases. Both parties colluded to ensure that their major donors felt no pain. Disgusting bit of self-serving political machinations.



d

[popper]

Zonk - Why do you trust the Dems to do education right? Didn't Dems produce "Waiting for Superman" which documented Dem's complicity in the failure of urban public education? Aren't almost all Dem controlled urban school districts in trouble (while spending more per pupil than everywhere else)? Don't the teacher's unions call the shots in these districts and aren't the needs of students subordinated to those of the unions and their political puppets. At least this is the case made by Dems in their documentary, "Waiting for Superman".

Pop, I don't know where you get the impression that "Dems" produced "Waiting for Superman." I believe it was produced by a single wealthy individual and/or a group of individuals. Some of them may have been Dems (and some of them may have been Repubs or Independents). It's a stretch to say it was produced by Dems.

It's a myth that urban schools spend more per pupil than school districts elsewhere. A comparison between what's spent per pupil in Wash., DC and what's spent in, say, Fairfax County would prove that. In fact, the real tragedy with our public school system, imo, is the outrageous inequity in facilities, programs, staffing, etc. between inner city schools and those schools in suburbia.

Where urban districts do spend more, it's usually because it cost a whole lot more to educate low-income, ill-prepared kids than it costs to educate kids from wealthy communities whose parents are able to contribute to their education---both in and out of school.

Teacher unions don't run school districts. Mayors, superintendents, school boards and other elected officials do.

If you look behind the curtain, you’ll see that “Waiting for Superman” was produced and supported by a bunch of folks who want to privatize ALL schools so that they can get their greedy hands on the money in public education. Very few of them really are concerned about the quality of education in urban schools.

DCZ - I thought I read that it was a handful of liberals that produced the documentary and were surprised with their findings. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll try to do some more research to find out for sure.

Your point about lousy facilities in urban schools is well taken as is your point about greater student needs compared to suburban districts.

Following data from the Census Bureau (as reported by CNN) on 2010 per pupil spending.

Highest per-pupil spending
Washington, D.C. - $18,667
New York - $18,618
New Jersey - $16,841
Alaska - $15,783
Vermont - $15,274
Wyoming - $15,169
Connecticut - $14,906
Massachusetts - $14,350
Maryland - $13,738
Rhode Island - $13,699

Lowest per-pupil spending
Utah - $6,064
Idaho - $7,106
Arizona - $7,848
Oklahoma - $7,896
Tennessee - $8,065
Mississippi - $8,119
North Carolina - $8,409
Nevada - $8,483
Florida –$8,741
Texas - $8,746

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2 ... education/

Your point that teacher unions don't run school districts but that Superintendents and Mayors and Councils do is correct except that teacher unions in urban districts run Superintendents, Mayors and Councils.

[DCZards]

Pop, the DC per pupil cost is eschewed by the high cost of a lawsuit requiring DCPS to send special ed students to private schools for the services they need. The DC public schools has lived under this suit for more than a decade. Here's an excerpt from an article about the situation.

Special-Ed Tuition a Growing Drain on D.C.
By Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 5, 2006

The District spent $118 million last year on the tuition of special education students attending private schools, an expense that has increased 65 percent since 2000, and officials have covered the rising costs by transferring tens of millions of dollars a year from public school programs, records show.

The huge expenditures have become a major financial drain on a troubled school system that has cut programs and struggled to keep classrooms supplied. Although the 2,283 students sent to private facilities represent 4 percent of the system's enrollment, they are consuming 15 percent of its budget.

[popper]

Pop, the DC per pupil cost is eschewed by the high cost of a lawsuit requiring DCPS to send special ed students to private schools for the services they need. The DC public schools has lived under this suit for more than a decade. Here's an excerpt from an article about the situation.

Special-Ed Tuition a Growing Drain on D.C.
By Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 5, 2006

The District spent $118 million last year on the tuition of special education students attending private schools, an expense that has increased 65 percent since 2000, and officials have covered the rising costs by transferring tens of millions of dollars a year from public school programs, records show.

The huge expenditures have become a major financial drain on a troubled school system that has cut programs and struggled to keep classrooms supplied. Although the 2,283 students sent to private facilities represent 4 percent of the system's enrollment, they are consuming 15 percent of its budget.

Didn't know that DCZ. I guess it's another example of why we have to commission expensive studies by universities and thinktanks to ascertain the truth. There are far too many variables and weighting factors for the typical laymen (me for instance) to understand in order to render an educated judgement. I guess I'll go back to the "trade thread" where it's much easier to pretend to know something.

[LyricalRico]

Looks like the Obama administration is dropping the ball again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/inn ... _blog.html

[penbeast0]

Zonk - Why do you trust the Dems to do education right? Didn't Dems produce "Waiting for Superman" which documented Dem's complicity in the failure of urban public education? Aren't almost all Dem controlled urban school districts in trouble (while spending more per pupil than everywhere else)? Don't the teacher's unions call the shots in these districts and aren't the needs of students subordinated to those of the unions and their political puppets. At least this is the case made by Dems in their documentary, "Waiting for Superman".

Pop, I don't know where you get the impression that "Dems" produced "Waiting for Superman." I believe it was produced by a single wealthy individual and/or a group of individuals. Some of them may have been Dems (and some of them may have been Repubs or Independents). It's a stretch to say it was produced by Dems.

It's a myth that urban schools spend more per pupil than school districts elsewhere. A comparison between what's spent per pupil in Wash., DC and what's spent in, say, Fairfax County would prove that. In fact, the real tragedy with our public school system, imo, is the outrageous inequity in facilities, programs, staffing, etc. between inner city schools and those schools in suburbia.

Where urban districts do spend more, it's usually because it cost a whole lot more to educate low-income, ill-prepared kids than it costs to educate kids from wealthy communities whose parents are able to contribute to their education---both in and out of school.

Teacher unions don't run school districts. Mayors, superintendents, school boards and other elected officials do.

If you look behind the curtain, you’ll see that “Waiting for Superman” was produced and supported by a bunch of folks who want to privatize ALL schools so that they can get their greedy hands on the money in public education. Very few of them really are concerned about the quality of education in urban schools.

DCZ - I thought I read that it was a handful of liberals that produced the documentary and were surprised with their findings. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll try to do some more research to find out for sure.

Your point about lousy facilities in urban schools is well taken as is your point about greater student needs compared to suburban districts.

Following data from the Census Bureau (as reported by CNN) on 2010 per pupil spending.

Highest per-pupil spending
Washington, D.C. - $18,667
New York - $18,618
New Jersey - $16,841
Alaska - $15,783
Vermont - $15,274
Wyoming - $15,169
Connecticut - $14,906
Massachusetts - $14,350
Maryland - $13,738
Rhode Island - $13,699

Lowest per-pupil spending
Utah - $6,064
Idaho - $7,106
Arizona - $7,848
Oklahoma - $7,896
Tennessee - $8,065
Mississippi - $8,119
North Carolina - $8,409
Nevada - $8,483
Florida –$8,741
Texas - $8,746

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2 ... education/

Your point that teacher unions don't run school districts but that Superintendents and Mayors and Councils do is correct except that teacher unions in urban districts run Superintendents, Mayors and Councils.

Not quite fair to DC to be compared with real states since urban districts are typically considerably more expensive than rural ones (and perform worse) . . .

And I was surprised to see Florida out of the bottom two since we have had multiple articles/campaign ads pointing out that Florida had the lowest or second lowest per pupil spending in the nation. . . with Mississippi being the other usual suspect. Not sure what factors the local number quotes take into account that this survey doesn't (or visa versa) but that number for Utah is pretty dominant.

Signed . . . a Florida teacher.

[hands11]

Wow. I didn't consider this when Boner got reelected as House Chair.

Dems now almost control all three branches.

Boner is bringing bills to the floor that have a house majority but not a R majority.

They passed the fiscal curve that way.
Now they just pass hurricane relief that way.

Will they pass the debt limit the same way ? Looks like the TPs may have just gotten axed.

Boner is trying to save his party by not leaving them hang themselves by actually getting things done. As time goes on, more Rs will realize they are voting on the wrong side of issues and even more will get passed with larger R support.

Almost like having a Dem majority in the house if he keeps this up.

[doclinkin]

Pop, the DC per pupil cost is eschewed by the high cost of a lawsuit requiring DCPS to send special ed students to private schools for the services they need. The DC public schools has lived under this suit for more than a decade. Here's an excerpt from an article about the situation.

Special-Ed Tuition a Growing Drain on D.C.
By Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 5, 2006

The District spent $118 million last year on the tuition of special education students attending private schools, an expense that has increased 65 percent since 2000, and officials have covered the rising costs by transferring tens of millions of dollars a year from public school programs, records show.

The huge expenditures have become a major financial drain on a troubled school system that has cut programs and struggled to keep classrooms supplied. Although the 2,283 students sent to private facilities represent 4 percent of the system's enrollment, they are consuming 15 percent of its budget.

Didn't know that DCZ. I guess it's another example of why we have to commission expensive studies by universities and thinktanks to ascertain the truth. There are far too many variables and weighting factors for the typical laymen (me for instance) to understand in order to render an educated judgement. I guess I'll go back to the "trade thread" where it's much easier to pretend to know something.

Actually pop I've been appreciating your contribution to this thread. You're one of the few people (on here, elsewhere) who actually wants to actively engage in dialogue and learn something, change your viewpoint. Most of the rest of us simply want to score points for our 'team' in these debates. Helps me remember to keep an open mind when I see an actual open mind. So props, pops, 'preciate it.

[popper]

Thanks for the kind words Doc. These threads are a healthy outlet for me to try and stay engaged in both political discourse and in the Wizards (how pathetic is that .... though we have been looking good lately). I have learned a ton from all who post on this site and enjoy the dialectic that is essential in understanding and appreciating the views and positions of others. My greatest frustration with our politics and our media today is the absence of thoughtful discourse between political opponents. When done in good faith, it should lead to better and more effective solutions to our myriad problems. Our leaders could set a better example for the country if they would first seek to understand before they push to be understood.

[Induveca]

Thanks for the kind words Doc. These threads are a healthy outlet for me to try and stay engaged in both political discourse and in the Wizards (how pathetic is that .... though we have been looking good lately). I have learned a ton from all who post on this site and enjoy the dialectic that is essential in understanding and appreciating the views and positions of others. My greatest frustration with our politics and our media today is the absence of thoughtful discourse between political opponents. When done in good faith, it should lead to better and more effective solutions to our myriad problems. Our leaders could set a better example for the country if they would first seek to understand before they push to be understood.

Very well said. Frustrates me to no end that there can be only "two" viewpoints in US politics. Frustrates me more that most interested in politics have bought into this approach.

[dobrojim]

a while back we briefly brought up the topic of climate change

I recommended some small paperbacks from Nat Acad of Science.

Posting again now to recommend (even though I'm skeptical that cons
will listen to a show by Bill Moyers about anything)

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-ending-the-silence-on-climate-change/

I think it's worth pointing out that it's a lot more likely to have reasonable
discussions when there is a framework which includes agreed upon realities ie facts.
I blame the media (to some extent) here in their attempt to be balanced thereby creating
false equivalencies. I also blame everyone, myself included, for being too captive
to our closely held beliefs.

A pretty long time ago I remember reading/hearing about a seminar based approach
to discussions between/among people of differing political philosophies regarding the budget.
The story was interesting due to the cooperation that resulted when accurate information
was at the foundation of the discussion. People actually came to pretty reasonable
policy positions in this scenario.

[Induveca]

Jim, interesting would be a better approach for all...bringing in essentially a *foreign* mediator/expert to present all factual information in a more informal setting. Almost like a classroom environment.

It makes sense in that representatives are not subject matter experts, they must educate themselves on topics and take a position for each vote.

Seems like, today, most simply go with their gut or take the lead from the most vocal opponent/champion of the cause in their party (due to lobbying, past grudges etc). Lazy/sloppy approach.

This year will be frightening to watch, with the executive orders on guy control (which I agree with 150%) and the debt issue, a political battle the likes we have never seen in our lifetime is brewing.

The only way out of this is for both sides to get out of their party trenches and actually educate themselves on the topic. Maybe even broadcast the "classrooms" to the American people. It's a format everyone in America understands and could truly participate in.....

[dobrojim]

Jim, interesting would be a better approach for all...bringing in essentially a *foreign* mediator/expert to present all factual information in a more informal setting. Almost like a classroom environment.

It makes sense in that representatives are not subject matter experts, they must educate themselves on topics and take a position for each vote.

Seems like, today, most simply go with their gut or take the lead from the most vocal opponent/champion of the cause in their party (due to lobbying, past grudges etc). Lazy/sloppy approach.

This year will be frightening to watch, with the executive orders on guy control (which I agree with 150%) and the debt issue, a political battle the likes we have never seen in our lifetime is brewing.

The only way out of this is for both sides to get out of their party trenches and actually educate themselves on the topic. Maybe even broadcast the "classrooms" to the American people. It's a format everyone in America understands and could truly participate in.....

I think you're right that they (pols) either go with their gut, in many cases deeply
held ignorance, or they act in response to money, either to receive the most
or to insure that they do not become the target of big bucks in a negative way.
Not that different from the people they represent in a certain sense.
People often 'vote their pocketbooks' or emotionally in response to what
they 'know' however inaccurate that may be.

[popper]

a while back we briefly brought up the topic of climate change

I recommended some small paperbacks from Nat Acad of Science.

Posting again now to recommend (even though I'm skeptical that cons
will listen to a show by Bill Moyers about anything)

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-ending-the-silence-on-climate-change/

I think it's worth pointing out that it's a lot more likely to have reasonable
discussions when there is a framework which includes agreed upon realities ie facts.
I blame the media (to some extent) here in their attempt to be balanced thereby creating
false equivalencies. I also blame everyone, myself included, for being too captive
to our closely held beliefs.

A pretty long time ago I remember reading/hearing about a seminar based approach
to discussions between/among people of differing political philosophies regarding the budget.
The story was interesting due to the cooperation that resulted when accurate information
was at the foundation of the discussion. People actually came to pretty reasonable
policy positions in this scenario.

I watched the video dobrojim (and I'm a con) and found it informative. It starts with the premise that global warming and its detrimental effects on the globe are real and proceeds from there. I think there needs to be more effort invested in gaining a scientific consensus on the foregoing. I know most believers will respond that scientific consensus has already been achieved and now it's just a matter of translating that consensus into policy.

I would disagree to the extent that even the professor's own description of the six publics that may or may not need additional convincing prove there is more work to be done. Perhaps your observation on a seminar based approach to reaching a consensus would be helpful in this instance.

Bottom line to me - I want to see more scientific debate on the issue in a public forum before I'm comfortable moving forward with potential solutions. If I'm convinced by the scientist that global warming is real and detrimental then I would want to go through the same debate process as our political leaders propose solutions.

I know this reluctance to move forward now must frustrate those who have already made up their minds but people like me, according to the professor, are the reason that consensus has not been achieved yet. Because of that there's insufficient political will at the moment to move forward.

If our leaders were in fact "leaders," they would schedule a nationally televised debate where the best scientist would argue the pro and con merits of the issue so the public would have more confidence in their own respective decision either in support of, or opposition to the issue.

[dobrojim]

I watched the video dobrojim (and I'm a con) and found it informative. It starts with the premise that global warming and its detrimental effects on the globe are real and proceeds from there. I think there needs to be more effort invested in gaining a scientific consensus on the foregoing. I know most believers will respond that scientific consensus has already been achieved and now it's just a matter of translating that consensus into policy.

I would disagree to the extent that even the professor's own description of the six publics that may or may not need additional convincing prove there is more work to be done. Perhaps your observation on a seminar based approach to reaching a consensus would be helpful in this instance.

Bottom line to me - I want to see more scientific debate on the issue in a public forum before I'm comfortable moving forward with potential solutions. If I'm convinced by the scientist that global warming is real and detrimental then I would want to go through the same debate process as our political leaders propose solutions.

I know this reluctance to move forward now must frustrate those who have already made up their minds but people like me, according to the professor, are the reason that consensus has not been achieved yet. Because of that there's insufficient political will at the moment to move forward.

If our leaders were in fact "leaders," they would schedule a nationally televised debate where the best scientist would argue the pro and con merits of the issue so the public would have more confidence in their own respective decision either in support of, or opposition to the issue.

Good for you for watching the vid

I guess you can put me firmly in the camp that does indeed believe that a scientific
consensus HAS been reached, at least as far as published research in peer reviewed
journals. My own bias leads me to conclude that the likelihood that this is some
kind of conspiracy on the part of scientists to make themselves more important
and therefore better funded is exceedingly low compared to the likelihood that
those who's ox's are likely to be gored, big coal/big oil, are doing everything they
can to create a scientific controversy where none actually exists.

but as the professor pointed out, < 10% of people actually fall into that category
of outright deniers, but they get an inordinate amount of media attention for
some strange reason (false equivalency/laziness on the part of the media).

[dobrojim]

re an agreed upon set of facts...I hear pro-gun folks trying to claim
that more people are killed with baseball bats. Hard to talk to people
that believe this kind of nonsense.

[Zonkerbl]

Jim, interesting would be a better approach for all...bringing in essentially a *foreign* mediator/expert to present all factual information in a more informal setting. Almost like a classroom environment.

It makes sense in that representatives are not subject matter experts, they must educate themselves on topics and take a position for each vote.

Seems like, today, most simply go with their gut or take the lead from the most vocal opponent/champion of the cause in their party (due to lobbying, past grudges etc). Lazy/sloppy approach.

This year will be frightening to watch, with the executive orders on guy control (which I agree with 150%) and the debt issue, a political battle the likes we have never seen in our lifetime is brewing.

The only way out of this is for both sides to get out of their party trenches and actually educate themselves on the topic. Maybe even broadcast the "classrooms" to the American people. It's a format everyone in America understands and could truly participate in.....

Well, I've talked to and worked with a lot of politicians. They spend a lot of time (a LOT of time) talking with their constituents and learning directly from the people they represent the impact of various issues on their lives. Very little of a politician's job is (or should be) doing independent research of an issue (except in cases where the issue is just too damn complicated and the constituents instructions are to go in there and represent them, darnit). Politician's job is to advocate for their constituents, full stop. It's mostly the constituents' responsibility to be well informed about what affects them.

In certain cases you have to get into the weeds and negotiate over things, like the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation. That was a very complicated agreement and there are a few key congressfolks who specialize in that sort of stuff who are tasked by their party to hammer out an agreement. Most of the long standing congressfolks have become a subject matter specialist in something or other just because they got assigned something their constituents care about and over the years they've learned a lot about it. But it would be ridiculous to expect every politician to be a subject matter specialist in everything. That's impossible.