Hmm, okay Lola, I'll take a stab at it even though it really is a borderline violation of my New Year's resolution:
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:But you see Nimh, these are not "new" ideas. These are part of the same old mantra of "vote for us and you'll be taken care of"
To which Nimh wrote
Quote:Oh. I thought "a plan to provide students free tuition for their first year at a state or community college in exchange for ten hours of work per week" was a way of making them work for their education, in a practical way that does still afford them access to education they direly lack right now. Dont seem like a government hand-out to me, rather a new innovative approach to navigate the Scylla of hand-outs and Charybdis of leaving those without family wealth out in the cold. But hey.
The last time a Republican suggested this, it was shot down by the Democrats who said students have enough to worry about without having a work schedule mandated. I'm not sure exactly when this was, but it was during the Reagan 2nd term or early in Bush I term. It isn't a new idea.
Nimh wrote
Quote:Same with "scholarships for prospective teachers who pledge to work in lower-income schools for five years". I believe the conservatives are into rewarding achievement? Making teachers' wages depend on how they improve educational performance? Wouldn't a reward for teachers who take on the hardest teaching jobs, and improve education right where it now is in its most direst straights, kind of fit in with that general philosophy?
This one has been around for a at least the last five decades. It crops up in campaign rhetoric and occasionally it is even implemented on the state level. Congress, however, has never seen fit to follow through on it and wouldn't have this time as such is a function of the state and the schools receive most of their funding at the state level.
Nimh wrote
Quote:It's just that, apparently, when it comes to improving education, the Republican government doesn't come up with such a particular focus on the poorest districts. They just set the national standards, respectless of how much harder they are to meet in ghetto schools, and punish the schools there when they don't.
It is true that Republicans for the most part think poor students are as smart and capable of achievement as are rich students and it is both insulting and counterproductive to expect less of a poor student than a rich one. Democrats had a chance to fix the system for 60+ years and education generally steadily declined on their watch. While nobody denies there are still many problems, you would have to show the NCLB is not producing some good results for me to believe it isn't a better plan than what we had.
Nimh wrote
Quote:In life, both conservatives and progressives want to see achievement rewarded. The difference in philosophy just boils down to the fact that whereas conservatives reason, in general, that individual achievement engenders its own reward on the free market, progressives additionally evaluate the desired achievement in terms of what is best for the common good as well. Teaching in the lowest-income districts will yield ef-all of a "reward" on the free market; yet is of exceeding benefit to the common good. Hence the liberal notion of rewarding it.
I suggest you read some of Thomas Sowell's observations on being a poor black kid in a segregated inner New York City school in the 1940's and early 50's, and how he believes the education he received was on a par with the white kids' inner city school and was good enough to allow him to compete anywhere. It was good enough to get him into Harvard and allow him to graduate with honors. That was no longer the case after the 'progressives' started tinkering with the system for the 'common good' and telling the kids how 'disadvantaged' they were a decade or two later. And it has gone from bad to worse ever since. Conservatives do not think government is the best vehicle to solve every problem.
Nimh wrote:
Quote:Anyway, I explicitly announced that it's little use to discuss the good or bad about the proposed ideas with you, since we're never going to achieve a semblance of agreement there; the point was merely that both Democrats and Republicans came up with "new ideas". You say NCLB, I note the Democratic education plans. Now you can of course call the latter all old hat by sweeping all the specifics into some sloganeering container logic; I can of course do the same with Social Security reform, saying it's all just "the same old mantra of" everyone-for-himself-and-God-for-us-all. By then, of course, the debate becomes meaningless, but then so does any that prefers to deal in slogans rather than specifics, and I'm not surprised to find myself with you in one of those again.
If you think it is useless to discuss something on which we disagree or if you thing 'we will never agree', why did you respond at all? If you think I'm dealing in the slogans like you just made up, why respond at all? If you think the social security reforms currently being debated are 'old hat', why are the Democrats in absolute apolexy about them?
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:You even forgot Edwards' promise that if we elect John Kerry, we'll have cures for Alzheimers and spinal cord injuries and a whole lot of other uncurable conditions. I'm going to concede that this was a 'new idea'
To which Nimh wrote
Quote:No, that one wasn't actually so new - it's the one that was proposed by the nation's scientists, when they highlighted the possible benefits of new stem cell research. It's just Democrats picked it up as an election issue. Cause was taken by a couple of prominent Republicans, too, I may add.
Could you show me EVER where a politician PROMISED a cure for a disease if his running mate was elected until the most recent national campaign?
Nimh wrote
Quote:But no, here I will admit: the new idea here was the conservatives', when they decided that all this newly developing research was against God's will and should be stopped and then found President Bush ready and willing to listen. A new idea, but of course an exemplary conservative one, literally out to stop progress on the grounds of principle and tradition. Good or bad I wont discuss with you, but definitely "conservative", yes. Can't really find a better example of what "conservative" is all about then that, actually. Thanks.
And here is where your comments become offensive. You again make up your perception of what conservatives are and presume to judge their motives and know their intent. You frankly, my friend, don't know squat.
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:All this is the same old mantra of 'you can't do it for yourself so government will do it for you'. And this is against the Republican focus on, here's how we can change the system so YOU can do it better.
To which Nimh wrote:
Quote:Rhetorics, Foxy, you're slipping into mere rhetorics again. Thats akin to me loosely waving away any and all government-sponsored proposal you may bring up as example with another rhetorical reference to how "all that is just the same old mantra of 'everyone for himself and who gives an ef about society'." Nothing new about that, too, I could then argue. Yeah, you ask for specifics, but answer in hackneyed slogans.
I refer you to my immediately preceding comment. You accuse ME of rhetoric?
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:It all is definitely diversity of thought. One side thinks government is the solution. The other thinks the role of government is to make it possible for the people to work out their own solutions.
To which Nimh responded
Quote:More hackneyed slogans. Hey, I can do that too. One side thinks that if we just leave the race to the rats and the survival to the fittest, all will be for the best. The other thinks mankind has progressed (!) a little beyond the law of the jungle, and believes we as society should make it possible for each citizen to enjoy the same opportunities to make something out of their life.
Ditto to my previous comment.
