What are your views/beliefs politics-wise?

i come out of a marxist background. but it's not possible to be a marxist in 2011--the analytic side is hopelessly outmoded and so the critical dimension has come apart. the way in which i am still influenced by that background are: capitalism is a stupid system...it's predicated on stupid, dehumanizing divisions of intellectual labor...but it's fundamentally important to understand the system as it is and, from there, to think in terms of alternatives. so that's my basic orientation. within the conditions that exist now, i think the state has an obligation to act in ways that create a more equitable and sustainable range of ways of life than capitalism is able to do when left unchecked. the goals that orient what that means should be democratically established..the result of wide-ranging, informed debate. the preconditions for such a debate simply do not exist in the united states. the system is manifestly not self-correcting---but it is possible that it can become amenable to correction. but things have to change. this is one of the reasons i support what the occupation movement is doing.

my general viewpoint is conceptually oriented--it sets up a kind of dynamic between data about the world and thinking about possibilities that point toward an alternate, maybe better future. despite what it may seem like from how roachboy comes across (roachboy is a function of sentences, a kind of fictional character) this is a continuously evolving process. the world i know about changes, which affects other aspects of the dynamic, which affects the outcomes.

politics is, for me back here behind roachboy, a philosophical matter, a way of analyzing and thinking. when debates swing into more conventional political terrain, positions get simpler and the discursive frames more dense and rigid. so thinking get more restricted and often involves specific constructions that basically entail positions that folk adopt. so it makes sense to go after those constructions, because they shape/limit information in ways that make specific positions appear to be reasonable--because within those frameworks, they are.

this isn't as abstract in practice as it sounds. it's just a matter of having levels of thinking available and moving around within them, even as they change over time based on changes in understanding of the world we happen to find ourselves in. and every understanding is particular to the extent that everyone has limited amounts of time and makes choices about what's interesting and not so much and follows those inclinations--but with every such choice, you refigure what this category you call the world is by changing for yourself what it means---so by changing the associations that get bundled around the name "the world"...so understanding is a process. it doesn't end, seemingly. the world is always distant from where you are, so it's always to some extent a fiction (because no collection of information, no set of statements about the world is ever complete).

 

So you think that the rich should keep going to "rich" schools and inner city kids whose parents can't afford to live in a "rich" school district should be punished and receive a "poorer" education? That is exactly what has been happening the past hmmmmm 40+ years. It drives a wedge between the classes. Trust me I grew up in a "richer" school district and have seen many from that school district move either upward or stay relatively the same (buying mommy and daddy's house when they moved south).

I have also seen people who went to inner city schools not achieve because their education was far less.

It's not an even playing field and while one can argue "life" isn't an even playing field, the way things are we are punishing the youth before they even get a start. And that is wrong as a supposedly world class society. It's 3rd world thinking, it's aristocratic bullshit.

Good for you, again, you had the income to make that choice, some people don't, so we punish their kids and give the rich kids breaks and a better chance to succeed? That's America???? It's BULLSHIT.

Yes I did and I wouldn't have an issue if the funding was more fair to inner cities. I just think basing it on appraised value of the homes is BS. And again, if it all went into a county fund that each district was able to pull what they needed based on number of students it would equal the playing field a little bit more. As it is it is bullshit and keeps the poor down and gives the rich a false sense of entitlement.

It's like welfare, you want welfare and social programs to end but BETTER EDUCATING the youth in the families getting it allows them more opportunities to move out of that environment and up in society.

That was one reason for the housing crisis, the rates were low so people were buying homes in better areas and couldn't afford the taxes and interest rates when they went up. Now you can argue that those people shouldn't have been given the loans but they were and they wanted their children to have a better chance in a better school district. Is that so wrong of the parents? NO. BUT it IS society's fault for making that chasm so great. With attitudes like, "So what I work hard for my money, fuck the poor and those kids, their parents don't work so fuck them" which in essence is what we have right now in the way we fund our school districts. It's pathetic.

There was a time when certain cities in Ohio like Cleveland, Mansfield, Canton, Akron, Massilon, Toledo, Youngstown had great inner city schools because they had the manufacturing base to pay for the schools. Now there is no manufacturing base and the schools can't adapt the way the suburbs and white collar workers can. And sadly, the only way these cities can get any type of business or keep what little they have is to offer tax abatements that pretty much do nothing to help the inner cities, let alone the schools.

So again, the poor get fucked because the "rich" expect they are entitled to better education.

 

State aid is the largest source of revenue for public education (K-12), not local property taxes, but not by much. The federal contribution is minimal (less than 10 percent?) and would be zeroed out if most Republicans had their way.

I dont have a problem with my property taxes contributing to public education; I would like to see it equalized across a state. I also agree that a larger federal share, particularly committed to enhancing math and sciences, is in the country's long term interest.

 

I think there is a balance between "the rich get all the good stuff" and "everyone gets the exact same thing". While I'm a pretty left-leaning guy, I don't believe in true socialism, where everyone has all the same things regardless of income.....what would be the point of working hard? There should be some reward for success

 

mea culpa

I think they should, but it sounds like pan is asking for the communism

 

The main problem now is that parents are completely uninvolved in the children's education. Both parents are up early, mom stuffs a lunchable in Johnny's backpack and ships him off to school. When Johnny gets home, mom isn't there so Johnny nukes a microwave dinner and plays xbox.

The home isn't an atmosphere of learning anymore, it's an atmosphere of laziness and neglect where mom and dad drag their sorry asses through the door each evening and barely have enough energy to say "hello" to their kids. And that carries over into the public schools. Parents need to instill in their children a desire for knowledge and learning. They need to teach their children how to learn.

In my home both of my parents taught me all the basic and advanced subjects kids learn in school, allowing my teachers to supplement that. My parents didn't depend on my teachers to give me what I need as far as education, that was their job. It's every parents job to make sure their child is taught properly and they shouldn't pass the buck to the school system. It's sad to see parents so uninvolved in their children's education. There's a lot of really stupid kids out there right now.

 

While I agree that parents need to involve themselves in their children's education (and I did), I don't see that as an argument for neglecting the education system, or for failing to provide equal opportunity for all.

An investment in the education of our children is an investment in everyone's future. It is everyone's responsibility to contribute.

 

I think 40% of my income going to the government is enough, thank you very much.

 

You make it sound as if some parents have a choice about being a one wager earner family. I suppose if they really bit the bullet, they could live on your $400 a month plan, but in this day and age $400/wk doesn't even cover the bare necessities for a family of four or more. The economic necessity of the two-wage earner household is a reality in most cases, not a choice.

Where this country stands today in its ability to educate its citizenry is the result of decades of public school neglect. Parents who have been let down by the very same system are ill-equipped to assist their children in their educational endeavors. Which is not to say they don't try to the best of their ability.

There aren't a lot of stupid children out there, but there are a lot who aren't receiving the education they need and a lot of parents with the same problem.

So how many lazy and neglectful parents do you know who are "so uninvolved?" How many households are you in when they get home from work? You seem to possess some omniscience about this subject.

In response to the OP, I believe the same portion of everyone's taxes (how ever they are assessed) should go towards public education (I believe some are proposing lower taxes for those without children, but I'm not sure). I'm in agreement that schools and school districts residing in areas with higher property tax rates should not receive more funding based only on this criteria. Funding should be allocated equally and as needed within a county, city or preferably statewide.

 

So, you are contributing. Good. What's your point?

 

Every human being has a choice.

 

conservatives have a Problem with public education in fact because the national conservative opinion management system has a Problem with unionized teachers. they've been willing to wreck public education in the hopes of weakening the union. that's the level at which the right makes sense logically in their otherwise idiotic attitudes toward public education.

 

Once again, Eddie paints with a broad brush. My wife and I are very involved in our childrens' education, despite us both having jobs. Homework must be completed right after school before playing with friends, and that's not negotiable. We read to/with our kids every day.

Maybe my family is an anecdotal exception, but it seems that most of my kids' friends are also quite bright and have actively involved parents (despite just about all of them having two incomes)

 

No one is paying anywhere near 40%; the effective federal income tax rate on the wealthiest is less than 20 percent.

 

For a rational thinker such as yourself, Eddie, surely you realize that, on a personal level, education looks like a luxury when you're struggling to provide food and shelter.