...is the reason that this program will never work. Private schools are designed for people who want to keep their kids in a certain social status. By definition, they don't want to take more than a few kids from failing schools. The only way to make it fair would be through a lottery, and they'd never allow that in a million years. Once we start making sure that any child can afford to go to the nice private schools, they will suddenly be viciously attacking the voucher systems. And rightly so, because their patrons will pull their private funding and then it will be just as bad as any other school.
Private schools are not the solutions to our problems, private schools ARE the problem. I went to a public school in a fairly high-income area, and we did really well because we had parents who donated money to fund the school. The key is MONEY. And when private schools stop getting it from the parents, they'll either shut down or get really crappy, really fast.
How are you NOT concerned with the fact that these things are getting doled out to students already in private schools?! That's the whole point of why school vouchers are a dumb idea!
Look, private schools don't want these kids from failing schools. If they did, they'd offer more scholarships. They will start NEW "separate but equal" private schools before they allow the riff-raff into their own institutions. If this weren't the case, they'd be lowering tuition costs and trying to get more scholarships out there as it is. But the whole point for most people who use private schools is that they keep their kids away from the poor and/or less motivated students. They'll move and take their funding if that starts to change.
Oh, he's much more than a salesman. Obama has either heavily studied or simply absorbed some of the most skillful tactics in the art of persuasion. More specifically, the act of getting someone to agree with you when their natural inclination is to disagree.
BUT... If Andrew Sullivan is any indicator, Republicans wowed by the talk of fiscal responsibility in his speech may be extremely turned off by his ideas for the budget. As Ben Smith said, the most remarkable thing about it was that it was precisely almost everything Obama promised he would do, but it still had a very limited amount of actual spending cuts. So we may see that number go back down.
Look, here's the thing. During an election year, their polls are not only easily verifiable, but they are measured up against numerous other competing polling companies. The most accurate one wins, and so it's a mad scramble to win the title of "best pollster".
Once election season is over, though, there are no metrics to measure, no proof to be found. They can skew their numbers as much as they (or their sponsors) want to and nobody can really prove that they're wrong. Rasmussen did a hell of a job at polling the election, and now they're able to just put out crazy shit whenever they want and be taken seriously.
And truth be told, a lot of government IS inefficient, never moreso in my (admittedly somewhat brief) lifetime than in the last eight years.
That being said, Reagan's end to that statement was, "So we need to stop all government programs". I think most people would end it with, "So we need to make government programs work better." Here's hoping Obama follows through on it. It's not exactly rocket science. Anyone who tells you that a health insurance executive is one of the preeminent experts on the industry and better at engineering a program than anyone else is laughably stupid.
Nope. But Krugman's words are why I still hold out some hope that they'll do more soon. Obama remains dedicated to doing good things. Right now, I think he feels he can't undermine Tim Geithner, and perhaps that's warranted. But Obama has enough practical voices around that the pressure keeps getting stronger and stronger.
Tell ya this much, the fact that Krugman has no role in this administration, officially or unofficially, is fucking ridiculous.
See, what makes you an asshole is that you can't respond to "personal style" without mentioning "African-American". That's not racist, but it implies a certain lack of comfort. Who gives a shit that he's black? He's just motherfucking cool!! Sarkozy WISHES he was as fucking cool as Obama.
Which makes them a judgmental asshole. Nobody on here thinks that. It's just the same people over and over who have asserted that other people think that way. And they're all dicks who, if they had any voice in the party, would be the ruination of us all.
I completely agree with your character assessment of Geithner, but I still say he's the one driving this. Why? Because that's what the reports have said. Everything from the fact that he feels he doesn't have enough staff to that there were reports of him clashing with other staff members. Obama is giving him room to operate currently, but I suspect Geithner only has so long before the administration starts telling him that his plan isn't going to be the one they're going with.
Good. Writing diaries to mock fellow posters is SOOO 2008. Grow up, please.
You are writing to absolutely nobody. There is nobody that likes what is being done right now and thinks it is correct. Swern is right, this is Obama following Geithner off a cliff. Or at least giving him enough rope to hang himself. At some point, I gotta think Obama will step in and tell him what's what. But he's not doing it quickly enough, no.
Exactly. It's all public opinion. Back then, there was outrage over spending from the government and the national debt. And people still had fairly warm memories of Ronald Reagan. Not only that, the military/foreign relations achievements were fairly substantial, even if questionable in hindsight.
Exactly what could anyone POSSIBLY remember fondly about Bush's presidency? All the principles that ed to the rise of the Republicans back then (family values, lowering the debt, smaller government) have been exhausted by now. Like it or not, the public's appetite has shifted away from such principles, likely for good.