Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: The Accountability Problem

Recommended Posts

Again, AOC needs to get her team and herself organized:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-forced-to-clarify-green-new-deal-details-after-rollout/ar-BBTnKF3?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR3dfH-uAQS_Sczg6ErOIZQ0_2bELvlp6w0QjmKiRZ4QRTwpAD02DmmSlIQ

 

Ocasio-Cortez's office sent a copy of the resolution this week as well as an embargoed FAQ sheet about the initiative to various media outlets, including The Hill. NPR published the FAQ sheet, which included provisions about eliminating air travel, guesswork surrounding cows' flatulence and economic security for those who are "unable or unwilling to work."

The document swiftly drew the ire of conservatives who said some of the policies in the FAQ document showed the GND was not a serious proposal.

"There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There's also draft versions floating out there," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Saturday, attaching the proposal she introduced in the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious about the earlier discussion about the amount of money the US spends on education. It did not surprise me that the US spends more money than anyone else does on education. After all, the US is the world's richest country, why wouldn't you? 

The article from Vox was interesting for the points it brought up, but there are other interesting points in the OECD report.

A number of countries spend more on elementary and secondary schools than the US, including Switzerland, Finland and Luxembourg, which spends $21,595 per student in 2014, versus $12,157 in the US. Luxembourg also spends more on university, $42k versus $30k in the US. But overall The US spends 51% more per student than the OECD average, a staggering amount. The Vox article pointed out US teachers are much better paid than any other teachers in the world, and laws requiring the education of special needs children has bumped up cost and dropped average class size from 20 to 12, also an astonishing figure.

Even so, the US spends less of it's GDP on education than other countries, 6.2%. Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Republic of South Korea and the UK all spend more.

Quote

Most of the money invested in education comes from public sources, both in the U.S. and globally. However, the U.S. invested fewer tax dollars on educating its young people than most countries in 2014, paying 70 cents of each dollar spent on education, down two cents from a decade earlier. The average country in the OECD contributed 84 cents to each student’s bill.

Public funding for higher education is even more disparate. In the U.S., taxpayers paid 36 cents of every dollar spent on post-secondary education, nearly 50% less than the average contributed by other OECD nations and far less than some. As a result, many students in the U.S. turn to private grants and endowments to help with the cost of college, while others enlist the help of parents and private student loans.

The above came from a brief, executive-summary type article on Investopedia.

I found it interesting that while the US spends more than anyone else, far less comes from taxpayers. And the Republicans seem determined to reduce even that amount, throwing more costs on the families of students.

This article has all kinds of historical charts about the amount of spending on US education. Current levels are at pre-2000 levels, and below the peaks of spending in the 60s and 70s. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Sounds like someone published an earlier draft that was supposed to be embargoed.  Kinda surprised it was NPR, but so fucking what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was curious about the earlier discussion about the amount of money the US spends on education. It did not surprise me that the US spends more money than anyone else does on education. After all, the US is the world's richest country, why wouldn't you? 

The article from Vox was interesting for the points it brought up, but there are other interesting points in the OECD report.

A number of countries spend more on elementary and secondary schools than the US, including Switzerland, Finland and Luxembourg, which spends $21,595 per student in 2014, versus $12,157 in the US. Luxembourg also spends more on university, $42k versus $30k in the US. But overall The US spends 51% more per student than the OECD average, a staggering amount. The Vox article pointed out US teachers are much better paid than any other teachers in the world, and laws requiring the education of special needs children has bumped up cost and dropped average class size from 20 to 12, also an astonishing figure.

Even so, the US spends less of it's GDP on education than other countries, 6.2%. Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Republic of South Korea and the UK all spend more.

The above came from a brief, executive-summary type article on Investopedia.

I found it interesting that while the US spends more than anyone else, far less comes from taxpayers. And the Republicans seem determined to reduce even that amount, throwing more costs on the families of students.

This article has all kinds of historical charts about the amount of spending on US education. Current levels are at pre-2000 levels, and below the peaks of spending in the 60s and 70s. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

 

These numbers seem so off (to me who is a teacher). I've never seen a class size of 12, and I visit schools all the time. Also, maybe teachers are paid better here, I don't know, but 10 years ago, I started at 29,000 a year, and ten years later, I'm at 39,000. If that's living, well fuck living. Vox is really swinging hard for neo-liberalism. Either way, a discussion about how much teachers make must be framed in the ridiculous cost of living, inflation, etc. that plagues the U.S.

Plus, I don't care how much U.S. spends on education--you don't see it in the schools. Some of the schools I visit are so old and dirty, how could kids think education is valuable? And, when you look at our discretionary spending--60 percent of it is military, and ed gets a small sliver on that pie chart. We don't spend enough on education. We don't value it. Education, as is, serves as a training ground to groom "good" employees who know how to follow rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

These numbers seem so off (to me who is a teacher). I've never seen a class size of 12, and I visit schools all the time. Also, maybe teachers are paid better here, I don't know, but 10 years ago, I started at 29,000 a year, and ten years later, I'm at 39,000. If that's living, well fuck living. Vox is really swinging hard for neo-liberalism. Either way, a discussion about how much teachers make must be framed in the ridiculous cost of living, inflation, etc. that plagues the U.S.

Plus, I don't care how much U.S. spends on education--you don't see it in the schools. Some of the schools I visit are so old and dirty, how could kids think education is valuable? And, when you look at our discretionary spending--60 percent of it is military, and ed gets a small sliver on that pie chart. We don't spend enough on education. We don't value it. Education, as is, serves as a training ground to groom "good" employees who know how to follow rules.

Education is probably seen by many in power as a pernicious luxury driving people away from Jesus (science!) and promoting radical ideas like equality.

While the plebs need some basia reading and arithmatic skills, do they really need to know about literature and logarithms to ask f you want fries with that, or clean toilets?

Also gives them dangerous idea about further education and opportunity.

Edited by Derfel Cadarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Education is probably seen by many in power as a pernicious luxury driving people away from Jesus (science!) and promoting radical ideas like equality.

While the plebs need some basia reading and arithmatic skills, do they really need to know about literature and logarithms to ask f you want fries with that, or clean toilets?

Also gives them dangerous idea about further education and opportunity.

Our university system is very good...if you can afford it.

IMO part of the lack of investment in education is the hatred and fear of globalism. We still act as though our kids are competing with the kid in the next desk for a job in a steel mill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Education is probably seen by many in power as a pernicious luxury driving people away from Jesus (science!) and promoting radical ideas like equality.

While the plebs need some basia reading and arithmatic skills, do they really need to know about literature and logarithms to ask f you want fries with that, or clean toilets?

Also gives them dangerous idea about further education and opportunity.

Well, it seems the "libertarian" overlords are in a bit of a pickle. You need the education system to be good enough to close the "skills gap", but if it's too good, then the peasants might start getting their own ideas about stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the biggest problem with education in the US is the inequality (how American!), namely the funding of public schools. Which is down to the counties (iirc, if I am wrong, somebody please correct me on that). The result is, richer counties (also higher rent (well property value)) unsurprisingly have a higher tax revenue, which is linked to the school funding. You got poor parents, tough luck, you lost out on the life lottery, your public school is very likely underfunded and in desperate need for repairs. On the other hand, you are born into an (upper) middle class family, which lives in a wealthier county, way to go, chances are you attend a very well funded school. I think Bourdieu's transformation of economic capital into cultural capital comes to mind (well, cultural capital into economic capital into cultural capital and so on and so forth). Anyway, the result is a pretty unfair education system. In a way you inherit a sub-par education from your parents, which your children will (probably) inherit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DMC said:

Sounds like someone published an earlier draft that was supposed to be embargoed.  Kinda surprised it was NPR, but so fucking what?

I thought the issue is that she and her team attempted to gaslight the public by claiming that the 'unwilling to work' version was not something they created but was a fake, although maybe I'm wrong.  Also, pretty sure we're not talking about some version given to the media only under embargo, but the FAQ that was published on her own web site, then taken down.

Edited by Cas Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: Just what is the conservative plan for the issue of Climate Change? Throwing around some libertarian fairy dust and hoping for the best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think it is rather interesting that we got Sgt. Shultz reasonable centrist guy running around the country telling everyone that the deficit is our biggest issue. 

I don't think so. Climate change is a bigger one. The effects of climate change are likely to last a lot longer, than a sovereign debt default. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I thought the issue is that she and her team attempted to gaslight the public by claiming that the 'unwilling to work' version was not something they created but was a fake,



That's not what gaslighting means. It might be lying, although it might also just be different people on different pages, but gaslighting would be making out that 'unwilling to work' was never out there and what are you talking about you fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

laws requiring the education of special needs children has bumped up cost and dropped average class size from 20 to 12, also an astonishing figure.

 

I knew there was something wrong with that figure. The Vox article does NOT say "average class size" dropped from 20 to 12. It says there are now 12 students for every teacher employed, which is NOT the same thing. Here are a couple of paragraphs from an NEA report about 2014 statistics pointing this out:

Quote

 

Changes in the number of staff employed in education institutions as well as their levels of compensation reflect trends in enrollment; changes in the economy; and specific state, local, and national program priorities. There were 3,121,926 teachers in 2013-14 (Table C-5). The average number of students per teacher increased from 15.8 in 2012-13 to 15.9 in 2013-14.

This ratio of students to teachers must not be confused with “Average Class Size,” which is the number of students assigned to a classroom for instructional purposes. Class size and student-teacher ratios are very different concepts and cannot be used interchangeably. According to recent studies, the difference between student-teacher ratio and average class size in K-3 is 9 or 10 students (Sharp 2002). Therefore, an elementary school with a schoolwide student-teacher ratio of 16:1 in kindergarten through third grade would typically have an average class size of 25 or 26 students in those same grades.

 

http://www.nea.org/home/rankings-and-estimates-2014-2015.html

The above doesn't explain why this is so, but the main factor I am sure is simply that there are many teachers employed in American schools who are not "classroom" teachers.  Back when I was a child in elementary school 50 years ago, there were teachers of physical education, art, and music that covered those subjects for all the students in the school and moved from classroom to classroom. I would suppose that the idea that laws relating to "special needs" kids have helped push the ratio down must mean that many schools also have teachers who focus on helping students with learning disabilities or other problems and who do not have charge of individual classrooms.

The NEA stats above are for K-3. If you had a small elementary school with 2 classrooms per grade at that level, with an average of 26 students per class, you'd have a total of 208 students. If you added four more teachers for physical education, art, music, and "special education", that would be 12 total teachers and you'd have 17 students per teacher in the school, not far off from the 16:1 figure in the NEA article. 

It may very well be that there are other employees of schools these days who are designated as "teachers" who are not the main teacher assigned to the classroom. People who work in elementary education would know more about that than I do.

But in any event, the student teacher ratio is not the same thing as "average class size."

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



That's not what gaslighting means. It might be lying, although it might also just be different people on different pages, but gaslighting would be making out that 'unwilling to work' was never out there and what are you talking about you fool.

“We never would, right, and AOC has never said anything like that,” Hockett responded. “I think you’re referring to some sort of document that some – I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating.”

Later in the interview, Carlson returned to this issue and said, “The ‘unwilling to work’ thing was in her backgrounder. That has been absolutely confirmed.”

“No, definitely not. Definitely not,” Hockett said.

Carlson clarified, “So NBC and lots of other news outlets are saying that that was in the backgrounder and you’re saying it’s fraudulent.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

“We never would, right, and AOC has never said anything like that,” Hockett responded. “I think you’re referring to some sort of document that some – I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating.”

Later in the interview, Carlson returned to this issue and said, “The ‘unwilling to work’ thing was in her backgrounder. That has been absolutely confirmed.”

“No, definitely not. Definitely not,” Hockett said.

Carlson clarified, “So NBC and lots of other news outlets are saying that that was in the backgrounder and you’re saying it’s fraudulent.”


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Like I said. He might be lying. Or he might be mistaken. But he's not gaslighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Like I said. He might be lying. Or he might be mistaken. But he's not gaslighting.

Lying is kind of baked into gaslighting.  But, I frankly fail to see how he could go on a national news show and be 'mistaken' about the facts of what happened, so lying seems a given here.  The first line of defense was to claim that the document was doctored, a fake.  When it turned out the 'fake' had actually been sent out to the media and there were tons of screen captures from her web site, they changed the story to the idea that a draft FAQ was sent out to media and put on the web site.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Lying is kind of baked into gaslighting.


Lying is baked into gaslighting but gaslighting isn't baked into lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it really looks like AOC pisses conservatives off more than any politician since Obama. I wonder why that is? We did not see this level of vitriol over Sanders, who is also a Democratic-Socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But, I frankly fail to see how he could go on a national news show and be 'mistaken' about the facts of what happened, so lying seems a given here.

It's more likely a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. As the MSN article ThinkerX posted above points out, the New Green Deal people have not done a great job of explaining what is and what is not part of their platform (perhaps because there is no coherent platform but rather several distinct groups fighting over what it should be). I suspect this guy simply wasn't told that they said whatever it was he said they didn't say. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Wow, it really looks like AOC pisses conservatives off more than any politician since Obama. I wonder why that is? We did not see this level of vitriol over Sanders, who is also a Democratic-Socialist.

I still want to know from conservative sorts of people what they are going to do about climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×