this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
1539 points (97.2% liked)
Memes
45649 readers
1476 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is weird since conservative politics is all about cutting funds for schools, gutting the department of education completely, no pre k or free lunches for kids, and getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement. Just doesn't make sense why any one who cares about education or safety would be conservative
I'm pretty certain neither party supports this. After 2020, every state and city, including dem-run ones increased police funding.
If you're talking about republicans complaining about the FBI because it went after Trump, they're just as likely to abolish prisons because some jan 6ers got convicted. These people like those institutions too much when they're doing their primary purpose of neutralizing leftist political movements.
Also you're not private property nor do you own significant capital. It's not your law enforcement.
You should look past the Cato Institute’s analysis of the KC schools situation. For example, the summary and conclusion sections of this article from the University of Michigan law school show that the conservative criticisms are based on myth.
You may revise your opinion after reading the summary and conclusion, but maybe you just figure the liberals at Michigan Law can’t possibly understand all the nuances vs someone watching their local news.
Also, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Your skimmed analysis of silly twists of numbers belies the full picture, and in my opinion, total desegregation without changing the major obstacles of the systemic segregation of the city’s real estate, was doomed from the start.
BTW, I agree with you that merely throwing money at an issue without cause isn’t correct. One might argue against the ridiculous and constant over-budgeting of the military, for example. In KC, I believe it had many successes, though obviously not a complete realization of the goals (that shouldn’t have needed to be implemented in the first place).
The Pentagon asked for less. It most certainly IS over-budget. When I say “the military” I mean the Military Industrial Complex, of course. I’m a supporter of our military, of the people actually in it. With a budget greater than the next ten countries combined, the M-I-C is outlandishly frivolous.
Regarding this, but more to the KC schools topic, it seems like your philosophy of budgeting is that only 100% = success, and anything less = failure.
1)Zero issue with what was spent. Why does it cost so much?
Cognitive dissonance much?
—
2)Almost zero success.
I disagree, but it’s way too complicated for you and I to hash out here, especially coming at the issue from opposite ends, you as a perhaps general citizen and me as a teacher. Maybe a long hangout at the corner coffee shop would be in order some day.
How would they prove to you that the funding for schools is necessary? What studies do you require? How is the state going to conduct these studies (in your view), in a timely manner that will positively impact this generation?
There is plenty of research showing, e.g., that fewer kids per teacher provides for better education. Studies that show the benefit of school nurses, counselors, and other wellness experts. All of this costs $$$, often way more money than any given community is willing or even able to put up. This is why strong state funding is so important, rather than relying on levies and bonds. Requiring your specific state to prove the value of teachers, special education, etc is quite an ask. Why isn't the existing research good enough for you?
That's an exaggeration. The median price for new construction in 1980 was $64,600. [1] As for existing housing stock, the median home value in 1980 was $47,200. [2] As housing prices are heavily right skewed, the prices of cheap housing is far closer to the median than the price of expensive housing. Based on a cursory overview of some charts, it seems like the bottom 20% of houses are no more that 30% cheaper than the median, putting them in the $30k range.
1975 =/= 1980. Looks like housing went up 64% in those 5 years from the data I already linked.
Data instead of anecdotes?
Curious, as the person who you were originally responding to deleted their comment. Is that per year or a one time expenditure?
Also, 36k is still literally 44-80% higher than your initial claim.
I'm disengaging.