Well I hope the Dems are proud of themselves

[Psychstache]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

[NorCal]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

You keep brining up this idea that if a party controls the WH and both houses for 2 years and doesn't 'fix' a complex issue in that timeframe it's because they didn't want to.  This shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government actually works, and what it takes to pass legislation, particularly bills that add to our national deficit and/or have a funding mechanism attached.

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

The end result is that even with a slim majority one cannot run rough-shod over the other party, and for any bill to pass the administration must woo several votes from the other side.

Even when this occurs, the Senate and House almost always pass two slightly different bills because concessions made to acquire cross-aisle votes requires amendments.  This then requires the two different versions of the legislation to go through a process called reconciliation, where substantial alterations of either chamber's bill can force another series of debate, another vote, and another chance for it to be scuttled. This is where the strategy of using a "poisoned pill" is often employed effectively.  Minority members of one chamber will place an amendment on a piece of legislation in exchange for support, knowing that it will be anathema to certain, often more extreme members of the other chamber, virtually guaranteeing that support will wane for the final, reconciled bill.

This entire process can take multiple years to play out, by design. Large spending bills only make it through in under a year when there is broad bi-partisan support, and this is by design.

...and of course there's the fact that all House members must face re-election every 2 years, and there's always several dozen competitive races, which means these members are loathe to cast votes which will cost them support during the second half of their two year term.  This has a practical effect of limiting cross-aisle cooperation to a window of about 12-15 months.

tl;dr - blaming one party for not getting legislation passed in a single congressional term with a slim majority against unified opposition only demonstrates a lack of understanding of our legislative process and the power that the minority party holds in our democracy.

While I don’t dispute the fact of this, I still see a difference between those that are attempting to bring practical solutions to the table and those that are using simplistic talking points to pretend an issue doesn’t exist.

My general leftward shift over the last few years has partly stemmed from the Republicans refusal to even acknowledge (much less attempt to solve) any of the problems of our time.

As a few examples:
-I don’t particularly care for Biden’s student loan relief program. But show me any Republican proposal to reign in the cost of higher ed. It doesn’t exist.

-Climate change is a huge issue for me. Of the three ways to deal with it (regulatory, subsidies, or pricing), subsidies is my least preferred approach. But it’s impossible to find a Republican to support any action. Much less regulatory action or emissions pricing.

-Medical care is another massive issue, of which Obamacare is part. Republicans haven’t offered any compelling solutions. Meanwhile, Democrats made a huge unnoticed win for the taxpayer now that Medicare is negotiating drug pricing.

I could go on and on. The Republican Party of today sees no issue where there’s no problem worth making an effort to solve. It’s just more tax cuts and finding ways to handicap any regulatory agency.

[dividendman]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

They did get something done, they passed Obamacare.

[Ron Scott]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

You keep brining up this idea that if a party controls the WH and both houses for 2 years and doesn't 'fix' a complex issue in that timeframe it's because they didn't want to.  This shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government actually works………

Just stop gratuitously denigrating individuals and talk about issues. What do you hope to achieve with condescending comments directed at people on an Internet forum?

A compromise immigration bill from the Senate had reps from both parties applauding it and pleading with the House to pass it. The House was controlled by the GOP which answered to Trump and didn’t bring it to a vote. So it failed.

So it CAN work in a congress in which one party controls both houses…but it isn’t given a chance.

Harris herself actually claims she CAN do it and promised in the debate to bring the same bill back. But you would argue she’s wrong or she’s lying.

[MoseyingAlong]

While I don’t dispute the fact of this, I still see a difference between those that are attempting to bring practical solutions to the table and those that are using simplistic talking points to pretend an issue doesn’t exist.
.....
I could go on and on. The Republican Party of today sees no issue where there’s no problem worth making an effort to solve. It’s just more tax cuts and finding ways to handicap any regulatory agency.

Some of this may be a difference in perception/opinion on where the solutions will come from. What I read in your list is that you expect more government action to solve all these issues.
Many people believe/expect that the solutions will come from outside the government. What you call "ways to handicap any regulatory agency" they see as getting the government out of the way of the innovators.

Some truly fascinating and world-changing things have come from DARPA but I would guess that even more have come from non-governmental innovators.

[sixwings]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

Isnt that when they got the ACA through?

[PeteD01]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

You keep brining up this idea that if a party controls the WH and both houses for 2 years and doesn't 'fix' a complex issue in that timeframe it's because they didn't want to.  This shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government actually works………

Just stop gratuitously denigrating individuals and talk about issues. What do you hope to achieve with condescending comments directed at people on an Internet forum?

...

But you really do not know what you are talking about - as others have mentioned, the Senate filibuster is standing in the way.

Though there is discussion to do away with it in order to pass abortion rights legislation, and that would open the way to more legislation making it through the Senate.

[NorCal]

While I don’t dispute the fact of this, I still see a difference between those that are attempting to bring practical solutions to the table and those that are using simplistic talking points to pretend an issue doesn’t exist.
.....
I could go on and on. The Republican Party of today sees no issue where there’s no problem worth making an effort to solve. It’s just more tax cuts and finding ways to handicap any regulatory agency.

Some of this may be a difference in perception/opinion on where the solutions will come from. What I read in your list is that you expect more government action to solve all these issues.
Many people believe/expect that the solutions will come from outside the government. What you call "ways to handicap any regulatory agency" they see as getting the government out of the way of the innovators.

Some truly fascinating and world-changing things have come from DARPA but I would guess that even more have come from non-governmental innovators.

There are examples of this, but every single thing I brought up is squarely in the governments domain.

The price of higher education is directly tied to government funding for education.

Climate Change is broad enough that it requires efforts across the public sector, private sector and individuals. All solutions involve all of the above. The version of dealing with climate change that involve the least government intervention involve emissions pricing.

The structure of the health care market is entirely driven by government policy. The fact that we have insurance companies, employer provided insurance, Medicare, Medicaid. Patent law drives pharma pricing. Every aspect of health care is a direct result of public policy.

Trying to pretend that public policy can abdicate responsibility for education, climate change, or health care is a libertarian fever dream at its most absurd.

There’s absolutely room for figuring out where to draw the line between public versus private responsibilities. But there are things that are actually core public functions.

[reeshau]

I don't think fixing immigration = cutting immigration to 0. It means having an orderly legal process for people wanting to come into the country.

+1

Very few Americans can say they have no immigrant past.  So, why the hostility?  Someone was always the "scum" coming in.  Now they are established, and even celebrated.  Immigration has made up the ground that the US is losing in fertility rate, to keep the population growing.

An encouraging, sustainable immigration process would solve a lot of issues that aging demographics is presenting us.

[Psychstache]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

Isnt that when they got the ACA through?

Yes-ish. The House passed their version in November 2009 and the Senate passed it their version December 2009, pushing past the filibuster with the MA Gov appointed filler senator until the January special election. The House was essentially forced to pass the Senate version of the bill and craft a supplement that could get through the now filibuster-able Senate (When Scott Brown flipped the seat via special election) through reconciliation, leading to a far less progressive piece of legislation than one would expect from supermajority aligned House and Senate (honorable mention: Fuck Joe Liebermann for killing the public option).

[Ron Scott]

I don’t particularly care for Biden’s student loan relief program. But show me any Republican proposal to reign in the cost of higher ed. It doesn’t exist.

To me it seems both parties fail us on education. The Republicans can’t seem to even get it on their radar—unless it’s some wack gotcha-bill to undermine public education—while Biden’s student loan program essentially ensures the taxpayer foots the bill for the (expensive) status quo.

These are the best ideas the parties got?

[Ron Scott]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

Isnt that when they got the ACA through?

Yes-ish. The House passed their version in November 2009 and the Senate passed it their version December 2009, pushing past the filibuster with the MA Gov appointed filler senator until the January special election. The House was essentially forced to pass the Senate version of the bill and craft a supplement that could get through the now filibuster-able Senate (When Scott Brown flipped the seat via special election) through reconciliation, leading to a far less progressive piece of legislation than one would expect from supermajority aligned House and Senate (honorable mention: Fuck Joe Liebermann for killing the public option).

OMG…really?

The Dems can get Obamacare of all things through congress but not a bipartisan immigration bill? This story keeps getting weirder.

And while we’re on it, tell us how Harris is going to fulfill her promise to revive the bill and push it through?

[lhamo]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

Isnt that when they got the ACA through?

Yes-ish. The House passed their version in November 2009 and the Senate passed it their version December 2009, pushing past the filibuster with the MA Gov appointed filler senator until the January special election. The House was essentially forced to pass the Senate version of the bill and craft a supplement that could get through the now filibuster-able Senate (When Scott Brown flipped the seat via special election) through reconciliation, leading to a far less progressive piece of legislation than one would expect from supermajority aligned House and Senate (honorable mention: Fuck Joe Liebermann for killing the public option).

OMG…really?

The Dems can get Obamacare of all things through congress but not a bipartisan immigration bill? This story keeps getting weirder.

And while we’re on it, tell us how Harris is going to fulfill her promise to revive the bill and push it through?

If Harris/Walz are able to GOTV sufficiently in red and purple states and win the electoral college, most likely at least some of that momentum will spill down ballot and result in better Democratic numbers in the House and Senate.  It might also carry over to more moderate leaning republicans being elected this cycle, which will hopefully lead to a return to more bipartisan collaboration on important issues in the next 2-4 years.

Also, if the other guy is trounced in both the popular vote and electoral college, perhaps that will lessen his ability to continue to influence the Republican party.  It was apparently his influence that trounced the last immigration bill. 

[PeteD01]

At a very high level, any such bill must first be assigned to and then pass through the representative committee before being brought before the chamber for debate. In the House time is limited, but in the Senate there is no restrictions (hence, the filibuster).  Particularly relevant is that in the Senate you need 60 votes (3/5ths) to evoke cloture (end debate) before it can be called for a vote. Critically NO PARTY has controlled 60+ seats since the 1970s, and during the administrations Ron is referencing (Trump & Biden) the most either party held was 53 (the GOP in 2017-19).

Totally on board with everything you have said, but I did want to say that this point should sorta-maybe have an asterisk and note that the Democrats had a Pseudo-60 seat supermajority (58 D seats + the 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats) from April 2009 (when Arlen Specter switch back to the Democratic Party) to August 2009 (When Ted Kennedy died). This was only for 72 working days for the Senate which is not time enough to do much of anything, but it did happen.

Isnt that when they got the ACA through?

Yes-ish. The House passed their version in November 2009 and the Senate passed it their version December 2009, pushing past the filibuster with the MA Gov appointed filler senator until the January special election. The House was essentially forced to pass the Senate version of the bill and craft a supplement that could get through the now filibuster-able Senate (When Scott Brown flipped the seat via special election) through reconciliation, leading to a far less progressive piece of legislation than one would expect from supermajority aligned House and Senate (honorable mention: Fuck Joe Liebermann for killing the public option).

OMG…really?

The Dems can get Obamacare of all things through congress but not a bipartisan immigration bill? This story keeps getting weirder.

And while we’re on it, tell us how Harris is going to fulfill her promise to revive the bill and push it through?

OMG, LOL, that's fucking ridiculous!

The GOP stops the bipartisan immigration bill so that their Dear Leader can run on immigration issues, but it is the Democrats fault? Hahaha...

Even better, you think they should pull their hair out although the GOP circus effectively handed them a gift a few months before a presidential election? The logic is breathtaking!

The GOP is not a normal political party that can produce any complex legislation that is not written by lobbyists or some think tank.

The GOP is now a performance troupe that acts as the political arm of the Trump gang/organization, a grift machine and a Donald Trump voting club.

Add to that the America hating attitude and the cozying up to America's enemies and the willingness to sell anything to the highest bidder on the part of Donald Trump, and you still think it makes any sense to accuse the Democratic party of legislative  dysfunction?

[dividendman]

I don't think fixing immigration = cutting immigration to 0. It means having an orderly legal process for people wanting to come into the country.

+1

Very few Americans can say they have no immigrant past.  So, why the hostility?  Someone was always the "scum" coming in.  Now they are established, and even celebrated.  Immigration has made up the ground that the US is losing in fertility rate, to keep the population growing.

An encouraging, sustainable immigration process would solve a lot of issues that aging demographics is presenting us.

It's crazy because reducing immigration at all shouldn't be the goal, it's the opposite. The goal should be to let in a LOT more people who will be productive. We need lots and lots. Immigration is such a net positive to society it's crazy that the discussion is even centered around reducing immigration.

Declining populations in East Asia and Europe are going to be big problems. We're headed in the same direction without immigration. We should nab all of those people while we have the chance.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Because it isn't about productivity, it is about maintaining White Privilege that they swear doesn't even exist.  If the northern border was being stormed by white Canadians, there would be a rush to grant amnesty. 

[Glenstache]

Immigration, crime, and abortion have been driver issues for the GOP because it riles up votes. They don't particularly seem serious about wanting to want to solve them for that reason. Just look at abortion. They finally repealed Roe v Wade and it has backlash because their actual policies for those issues are deeply unpopular in the wider population. Like a dog who finally caught the car bumper. Do we really think the broader populace is going to be pleased about Trump's stated desire to round up millions of people and deport them? Both for the visceral sight of the videos of the raids on social media and that their produce would be more expensive due to the shift in labor force.

The most recent iterations of the GOP post Tea Party (which was astroturf more than grassroots) rewards poeple who make a scene rather than negotiated legislation. Get a critical mass of people who have a more strongly vested interest in saying "no" than "let's hash this out" and you get legislative dysfunction. Just look at the heat Mike Johnson, of all people, is taking for trying to negotiate a deal to keep the government running... literally the lowest bar for congress functionality.

I want my government to work. And I want it to work for all of us.

[Telecaster]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

Biden sent the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress on his first day in office.  It never gained enough Republican support in the Senate to pass a filibuster and it died.   

[RetiredAt63]

Because it isn't about productivity, it is about maintaining White Privilege that they swear doesn't even exist.  If the northern border was being stormed by white Canadians, there would be a rush to grant amnesty.

Would anyone even notice?   ;-)

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The U.S. asylum process rejects 80% of applications, each of whom has a huge motivation to lie.  I'm surprised Republicans haven't suggested means-tested approval, in the same way they suggested it for government benefits.

More than 800,000 applications
That is the number of people who applied for asylum in the past year, a 63 percent jump over the number of applications filed in the previous year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/us/politics/migrant-crisis-border-asylum.html

The U.S. accepts 125,000 asylum applications per year, which means rejecting 675,000 applications.  Another website claimed 4% of applicants are from Honduras, which would mean about 28,000 people sent back to Honduras.  My understanding is that asylum seekers claim they will be killed in their home country.  Honduras has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with 3,000 people killed annually out of its 10 million population.  But notice that's an order of magnitude smaller than the asylum seekers the U.S. rejects, suggesting the fear of death is likely exaggerated.

With 75-85% of applications being rejected, and a huge motivation to exaggerate threats to their life, the system is always going to be flawed.  For those who get approved, favoring work skills might mean a lower risk of unemployment, and hopefully better integration into the U.S.  It would also help blur the line between immigrants on work visas who are productive, and those accepted for asylum.

[LennStar]

My understanding is that asylum seekers claim they will be killed in their home country.

No. Putting aside what they claim, reasons for asylum are for example reasonable fear of being prosecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, political belief or social group.

Basically the definition of refugess by the UN declaration of human rights. At least that is for Germany, but I doubt it's that different for the US.
The question is of course the degree of those things. And please also note the "reasonable fear" bit. You don't have to have any proof that Putin wants you in prison for saying that there is a war in Ukraine. That a number of people have been put in jail for holding up a white sheet of paper is a pretty good reason to have fear. The fact would likely not be enough, but if your picture has been in the newspaper the anaylis might change.
It's complicated, like most things in the world.

[RetiredAt63]

Canada accepts about 40%, which means we reject about 60%.

[nereo]

The U.S. asylum process rejects 80% of applications, each of whom has a huge motivation to lie.  I'm surprised Republicans haven't suggested means-tested approval, in the same way they suggested it for government benefits.

To be clear, you are surprised that Republicans have not suggested means-tested approval - where affluent applicants are rejected while the poorest are admitted? 

[nereo]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

You keep brining up this idea that if a party controls the WH and both houses for 2 years and doesn't 'fix' a complex issue in that timeframe it's because they didn't want to.  This shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government actually works………

Just stop gratuitously denigrating individuals and talk about issues. What do you hope to achieve with condescending comments directed at people on an Internet forum?

A compromise immigration bill from the Senate had reps from both parties applauding it and pleading with the House to pass it. The House was controlled by the GOP which answered to Trump and didn’t bring it to a vote. So it failed.

So it CAN work in a congress in which one party controls both houses…but it isn’t given a chance.

Harris herself actually claims she CAN do it and promised in the debate to bring the same bill back. But you would argue she’s wrong or she’s lying.

No, I am no denigrating “individuals” here - I am specifically and exclusively addressing your posts @Ron Scott

Repeatedly and across threads you have made the same complaints, but then ignored subsequent posts which pointed out how much of what you say is simply not true or shows a lack of understanding. As with above, you complained earlier that Biden “did nothing to strengthen” the ACA during his first two years, which is blatantly wrong and would take about two minutes of googling to realize.  Ironically, you’ve also railed against needing to do even this precursorary “research” about the politicians you are complaining about.

Inexplicably, you blame the party for trying to pass reform but blocked by minority opposition, rather than the party which actively blocked it. Most everyone else will recognize the degree to which a party stands up for (either thru trying to pass legislation or by standing against proposed legislation and blocking its passage).

As I’ve said before, it’s completely fine to be on a low information diet with little understanding of what has occurred at the federal level and why/when/how it happened. There’s a very large cohort of people just like this. But if you are going to repeatedly claim that “nothing was done” when something most definitely was, or fail to recognize who was in support and who was in opposition, forum members will continue to point out the errors and flawed logic in your posts.

[partgypsy]

Seems like most people agree here that the Democratic party (which is really, more of a centrist party at this point) aligns with their beliefs. The only way to change the current stalemate is to get more democrats in office. If you want to change things, vote blue. Tell your friends, your family to vote blue. Up AND down the ticket. It is true that if there are GOP majorities in senate and esp congress, we will be spending our tax dollars on either a group of people who will deliberately do nothing and in fact block progress, or people who have legislation they cannot get passed because of the first group.

I want to hammer again, that the US does economically better when a democratic president is in the office than when a republican is. Because taxing rich people (who can afford it, and just save their money) higher, and taxing working and middle class (who typically return their earnings back into the market) helps the economy. It helps 99% of the people living in the US. Quality of life is better because people are not bankrupted by medical crises or sick family members (not to mention the peace of mind of HAVING access to medical care). I could go on. But there are reasons to vote democratic, but also for selfish reasons. It makes the US a more pleasant and healthier place to live.

[wenchsenior]

Immigration has traditionally been an issue neither party wanted to solve because they were both raising so much money on it. The GOP had their last shot to solve it during Trump’s first two years when they controlled both houses. And Biden had Dem control for his first 2 years too. So either party could certainly have had their way.

You keep brining up this idea that if a party controls the WH and both houses for 2 years and doesn't 'fix' a complex issue in that timeframe it's because they didn't want to.  This shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government actually works………

Just stop gratuitously denigrating individuals and talk about issues. What do you hope to achieve with condescending comments directed at people on an Internet forum?

A compromise immigration bill from the Senate had reps from both parties applauding it and pleading with the House to pass it. The House was controlled by the GOP which answered to Trump and didn’t bring it to a vote. So it failed.

So it CAN work in a congress in which one party controls both houses…but it isn’t given a chance.

Harris herself actually claims she CAN do it and promised in the debate to bring the same bill back. But you would argue she’s wrong or she’s lying.

No, I am no denigrating “individuals” here - I am specifically and exclusively addressing your posts @Ron Scott

Repeatedly and across threads you have made the same complaints, but then ignored subsequent posts which pointed out how much of what you say is simply not true or shows a lack of understanding. As with above, you complained earlier that Biden “did nothing to strengthen” the ACA during his first two years, which is blatantly wrong and would take about two minutes of googling to realize.  Ironically, you’ve also railed against needing to do even this precursorary “research” about the politicians you are complaining about.

Inexplicably, you blame the party for trying to pass reform but blocked by minority opposition, rather than the party which actively blocked it. Most everyone else will recognize the degree to which a party stands up for (either thru trying to pass legislation or by standing against proposed legislation and blocking its passage).

As I’ve said before, it’s completely fine to be on a low information diet with little understanding of what has occurred at the federal level and why/when/how it happened. There’s a very large cohort of people just like this. But if you are going to repeatedly claim that “nothing was done” when something most definitely was, or fail to recognize who was in support and who was in opposition, forum members will continue to point out the errors and flawed logic in your posts.

Ron does this so egregiously across multiple threads over time, that I assume he's deliberately trolling.

[PeteD01]

...
Ron does this so egregiously across multiple threads over time, that I assume he's deliberately trolling.

Definitely so.

Here is the general structure of his, arguably unimaginative, trolling effort:

Starts out with a disclaimer like this:

Disclaimer followed by an attack/flawed reasoning/propaganda (No offense but ... which is typically used in order to say something offensive)

Best known are:

I'm not racist but ..., then there is I got nothing against (fill in the blank) but ..., and many more.

Here we have I'm not voting for Trump but ..., I'm voting for Harris but ...

This is all in service of making the subsequent argument appear balanced and reasoned, or it may be so offensive that further distancing is necessary, usually in the form of Disclaimer but people are saying/seen on TV, internet etc. followed by the offensive statement(s).

The argument advanced in this case suffers from the false equivalence fallacy (extremely common in uneducated circles and a source of amusement in others) that the GOP and the Democratic party are the same beyond some minor differences.
The objective is to normalize what's going on with the GOP by ignoring differences and actively avoiding discussion of differences by repeating various versions of the false equivalence fallacy.

That quickly becomes an argument ad nauseam (argument by repetition) - extremely common on the right.

And we are now at the stage of point refuted a thousand times (PRATT), an acronym which, interestingly, bears some resemblance to:

prat
noun
1.derogatory•informal
an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot.
2.informal
a person's buttocks. (Prat)

Coincidentally, PRATTs can usually be found coming from prats (British English for "idiots"):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

The poster also has used Gish gallop techniques to hide like a squid behind its ink.
He has also called Harris "articulate", which is a rather peculiar "compliment" directed at a former prosecutor, DA, AG, US senator, and current VP until one takes into account that Harris is a black woman ...

[achvfi]

...
Ron does this so egregiously across multiple threads over time, that I assume he's deliberately trolling.

Definitely so.

Here is the general structure of his, arguably unimaginative, trolling effort:

Starts out with a disclaimer like this:

Disclaimer followed by an attack/flawed reasoning/propaganda (No offense but ... which is typically used in order to say something offensive)

Best known are:

I'm not racist but ..., then there is I got nothing against (fill in the blank) but ..., and many more.

Here we have I'm not voting for Trump but ..., I'm voting for Harris but ...

This is all in service of making the subsequent argument appear balanced and reasoned, or it may be so offensive that further distancing is necessary, usually in the form of Disclaimer but people are saying/seen on TV, internet etc. followed by the offensive statement(s).

The argument advanced in this case suffers from the false equivalence fallacy (extremely common in uneducated circles and a source of amusement in others) that the GOP and the Democratic party are the same beyond some minor differences.
The objective is to normalize what's going on with the GOP by ignoring differences and actively avoiding discussion of differences by repeating various versions of the false equivalence fallacy.

That quickly becomes an argument ad nauseam (argument by repetition) - extremely common on the right.

And we are now at the stage of point refuted a thousand times (PRATT), an acronym which, interestingly, bears some resemblance to:

prat
noun
1.derogatory•informal
an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot.
2.informal
a person's buttocks. (Prat)

Coincidentally, PRATTs can usually be found coming from prats (British English for "idiots"):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

The poster also has used Gish gallop techniques to hide like a squid behind its ink.
He has also called Harris "articulate", which is a rather peculiar "compliment" directed at a former prosecutor, DA, AG, US senator, and current VP until one takes into account that Harris is a black woman ...

I was thinking the same, well articulated.. Definitely a troll.

[PeteD01]

I was thinking the same, well articulated.. Definitely a troll.

Thanks, I made an effort to make it so.

[Taran Wanderer]

It sure seems like Ron Scott is a troll.  That said, I see some of the same thought processes in friends and family who are stuck in the Fox News echo chamber and Trump orbit, but they’re so stuck they can’t get out of it.  They’re committed to some fundamental values (some of them good) that can conflict with parts of the Democrats’ platform.  They may also be harboring unconscious biases that get in the way of accepting Harris or the party.  They’ve been so committed against the opposite party (the Democrats) that they can’t accept them as an option even when any objective evaluation of Trump or the Republican (lack of) platform or Project 2025 would lead them to abandon today’s right.

[twinstudy]

It sure seems like Ron Scott is a troll.  That said, I see some of the same thought processes in friends and family who are stuck in the Fox News echo chamber and Trump orbit, but they’re so stuck they can’t get out of it.  They’re committed to some fundamental values (some of them good) that can conflict with parts of the Democrats’ platform.  They may also be harboring unconscious biases that get in the way of accepting Harris or the party.  They’ve been so committed against the opposite party (the Democrats) that they can’t accept them as an option even when any objective evaluation of Trump or the Republican (lack of) platform or Project 2025 would lead them to abandon today’s right.

Everyone has biases, and it's not limited to the conservative side of politics.

I'll give you an example. My state here in Australia (Victoria) just massively increased land tax on landlords. All the lefties have come out of the woodwork predictably saying 'Great! Haha! Suck it up landlords. Investments shouldn't have guaranteed returns, and if you can't handle a bit of land tax, sell the investment.' Now that is actually a fair call, so I have no issue with that. The thing is, when we landlords then do something to try to mitigate it - like raising rent - then the anti-landlord crowd complains that we have the temerity to 'pass on expenses' to tenants. So they want to have it both ways. Likewise, when they say that people should deal with the consequences of regulatory action, they don't seem to save the same kind of scorn for tenants who find themselves with a legitimate rent increase, or workers who find themselves made legitimately redundant. They only like the rules when it suits them.

Everyone has blind spots. Not just Trump supporters. There are a million inconsistencies in the standard left-wing position. In a recent discussion about inequalities in education, all the progressives were united in wanting less government funding for private schools and for that funding to be redirected to public schools. (A very good proposal I must say.) But I suggested a simpler and far more powerful change, which is that university entry should depend largely on your intra-school rank. So a kid going to a shitty school has a better and objectively easier route to Harvard than a kid going to an elite school. Suddenly no one wanted this change, even though it would create the kind of radical equality that was supposedly being asked for. I suspect because they didn't want *actual* equality of opportunity. They still wanted to be able to cheat their own kids' way into a good university.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The U.S. asylum process rejects 80% of applications, each of whom has a huge motivation to lie.  I'm surprised Republicans haven't suggested means-tested approval, in the same way they suggested it for government benefits.

To be clear, you are surprised that Republicans have not suggested means-tested approval - where affluent applicants are rejected while the poorest are admitted?

Your interpretation was accurate, but I misspoke.  I believe Republicans have proposed some government benefits require people to work.  And here, I was thinking of the means to support themselves, but that isn't what "means-tested" means, as you pointed out.

My understanding is that asylum seekers claim they will be killed in their home country.

No. Putting aside what they claim, reasons for asylum are for example reasonable fear of being prosecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, political belief or social group.

Basically the definition of refugess by the UN declaration of human rights. At least that is for Germany, but I doubt it's that different for the US.
The question is of course the degree of those things. And please also note the "reasonable fear" bit. You don't have to have any proof that Putin wants you in prison for saying that there is a war in Ukraine. That a number of people have been put in jail for holding up a white sheet of paper is a pretty good reason to have fear. The fact would likely not be enough, but if your picture has been in the newspaper the anaylis might change.
It's complicated, like most things in the world.

You mention "being prosecuted", "wants you in prison" and "put in jail", so let me address that.  Honduras has 21,000 prison inmates, which is again too few to hold the rejected asylum seekers - and that assumes they use their prisons for nothing else.

China's "White Paper protests" were the largest in decades.  It's unclear if millions or hundreds of thousands protested, but despite clashes with police, few were arrested.  Months later, "scores" were arrested (BBC), which likely means less than 0.1% of those protesting.  To me, a 99.9% chance of nothing happening is not reasonable grounds for fear.

[Kris]

It sure seems like Ron Scott is a troll.  That said, I see some of the same thought processes in friends and family who are stuck in the Fox News echo chamber and Trump orbit, but they’re so stuck they can’t get out of it.  They’re committed to some fundamental values (some of them good) that can conflict with parts of the Democrats’ platform.  They may also be harboring unconscious biases that get in the way of accepting Harris or the party.  They’ve been so committed against the opposite party (the Democrats) that they can’t accept them as an option even when any objective evaluation of Trump or the Republican (lack of) platform or Project 2025 would lead them to abandon today’s right.

Everyone has biases, and it's not limited to the conservative side of politics.

I'll give you an example. My state here in Australia (Victoria) just massively increased land tax on landlords. All the lefties have come out of the woodwork predictably saying 'Great! Haha! Suck it up landlords. Investments shouldn't have guaranteed returns, and if you can't handle a bit of land tax, sell the investment.' Now that is actually a fair call, so I have no issue with that. The thing is, when we landlords then do something to try to mitigate it - like raising rent - then the anti-landlord crowd complains that we have the temerity to 'pass on expenses' to tenants. So they want to have it both ways. Likewise, when they say that people should deal with the consequences of regulatory action, they don't seem to save the same kind of scorn for tenants who find themselves with a legitimate rent increase, or workers who find themselves made legitimately redundant. They only like the rules when it suits them.

Everyone has blind spots. Not just Trump supporters. There are a million inconsistencies in the standard left-wing position. In a recent discussion about inequalities in education, all the progressives were united in wanting less government funding for private schools and for that funding to be redirected to public schools. (A very good proposal I must say.) But I suggested a simpler and far more powerful change, which is that university entry should depend largely on your intra-school rank. So a kid going to a shitty school has a better and objectively easier route to Harvard than a kid going to an elite school. Suddenly no one wanted this change, even though it would create the kind of radical equality that was supposedly being asked for. I suspect because they didn't want *actual* equality of opportunity. They still wanted to be able to cheat their own kids' way into a good university.

Just on your point about suggesting intra-school rank should be the change for university entry: I don’t see how that’s a great solution, though. Isn’t the issue that people want the public schools to be better for everyone attending them? Your solution wouldn’t do that, would it? Your solution doesn’t improve the education at those schools. It only gives a helping hand if and when a student eventually decides to go to college. And as a former university professor, I don’t even think that’s necessarily a helping hand. Giving a student who received a shit education a leg up to a college that they probably aren’t prepared for is setting them up to fail.

However, I am from the US, so maybe your shit public schools aren’t as shit as our public schools.

[twinstudy]

My solution uses market principles to forcibly make student cohorts equal.

If you have a bunch of 'bad' schools (i.e. schools with weak performance - most probably due to underfunding) where someone with an equivalent 1300 SAT gets into Harvard, as opposed to a good school where someone might need a 1580 to get into Harvard, parents will notice. They'll start sending their kids to the bad school. And very quickly, by osmosis, all schools would equalise.

[nereo]

My solution uses market principles to forcibly make student cohorts equal.

If you have a bunch of 'bad' schools (i.e. schools with weak performance - most probably due to underfunding) where someone with an equivalent 1300 SAT gets into Harvard, as opposed to a good school where someone might need a 1580 to get into Harvard, parents will notice. They'll start sending their kids to the bad school. And very quickly, by osmosis, all schools would equalise.

I’m with Kris on this one, and disagree about how it would play out.

Frist, I’m an adjunct professor at a medium-sized University. When I sit in on the selection committee for my department, I have a very clear mandate: find and recruit the top applicants - those that we feel have the best chance of success. It shares a lot of similarities to how one builds a professional sports team or how a private company might recruit new employees. I would not be doing my job if I gave equal consideration to the 10th best student/player/employee to come out of the premier school/league/firm as the 10th best which came from a poorly performing institution. We do notice when a candidate has risen to the top and absolutely killed at their less-than-competitive school, but that’s inevitably followed by a discussion about whether they will thrive when the demands are higher. And it’s quite often that these star candidates from substandard schools struggle relative to their peers, as suddenly they are no longer the best prepared in their class, but come into every Gen Ed at a deficit.

Then there’s the matter of viewing this from a parents perspective of a young child. (Disclosure, I also have an elementary school child). Clearly I want the best for my kid, but also for all the kids in my community. I need a steady supply of well educated youth in my area to make this a nice place to live, and the fewest number of drop-outs and others who never got the resources they needed early on.

I don’t agree that parents would ever flock to poorer performing schools just to gain an advantage at entry to elect colleges for a couple reasons. First, the whole point of primary and secondary school is to be well prepared, and that is the opposite of giving them the tools to succeed. Second, schools underperform because they lack support at all levels, from funding to recruiting educators to PTA involvement. Pushing more students to these schools makes that worse overall. Finally, there’s the issue of geography. You get the school(s) which are near where you choose to live. For many, there’s only one option in their entire town where they have a home and job and roots. Legally I canny send my daughter to a public school 20 miles away, and even if we could it’s logistically impractical without physically moving.

[jeninco]

Following on here (and we should probably start another thread if we want to continue this): our older kid went to our local elementary school K-2nd grade. The school has wound up being an unofficial focus school for the children of latino immigrants, most of whom didn't themselves get a lot of education. The teachers were ... OK.

Unsurprisingly, our kid was rarely-to-never challenged in class (and the school had added on a "spanish for english speaking kids" class, but it was a joke. I volunteered with several other neighbors to run a supplemental math class for 3rd - 5th graders (for kids who could use more challenge) and we volunteered in just about every way engaged parents could. (I'm saying this to point out that it's not just that we were expecting services to come to us.)  Finally, in a public meeting, one of the staff told me that they didn't see it as their job to provide a challenging education for our kid, so we arranged and administrative transfer. (And yes, we rode 3.4 miles each way to and from school for the next 6 years with our kids -- our town at least has great bike infrastructure!).

I get that "market forces"/"this problem will solve itself" grand solutions look fine from the outside, but our older kid was the kind of smart, engaged boy who would find ways to entertain himself if the class material wasn't using his brain, and through my volunteering I got to see how that looked for other kids like him -- and the answer is "not good": truancy, gang involvement (yes, in 6th grade), "behavior issues" etc.  Getting him to a school that had a cohort of kids like him AND teachers who viewed it as part of their jobs to engage those kids was a huge, huge improvement.  And as I've continued to volunteer with our local school system, I got to tutor some of the kids who would've been in his classes -- by the time they got to high school, they were failing math because they never learned arithmetic in elementary school.

Also, dumping kids who are fundamentally unprepared for advanced classes into those classes without a LOT of support is condemning them to failure. Imagine being asked to read something hard (when you'd barely read 5 thin books/year in high school, and that is not a made-up example) and writing an essay about it (when the longest thing you had to write in high school was a couple of paragraphs, and no one cared if you made a coherent argument <-- also not a made-up example).  We taught our kids to read critically and write coherently because the (rather well-rated schools) weren't getting the job done.

So, TLDR, you're proposing screwing the unprepared kids AND the prepared and engaged kids. Interesting proposal!

[cpa cat]

Because it isn't about productivity, it is about maintaining White Privilege that they swear doesn't even exist.  If the northern border was being stormed by white Canadians, there would be a rush to grant amnesty.

As a white Canadian immigrant, I second this. Sometimes I’ll call people out for their anti-immigrant stance by telling them I’m an immigrant, and I always get some variation of:

“Not your type of immigrant…” Which clearly means “white” because I’m not sure what else there is. Maybe white and English speaking.


“Yes, but you did it right!” They generally have no idea how I immigrated and just assume that since I’m white, I did it the “white way.” Most people have no idea how the immigration system works and seem to assume there’s a special path to citizenship where they just let you in if you’re white enough.

[RetiredAt63]

Because it isn't about productivity, it is about maintaining White Privilege that they swear doesn't even exist.  If the northern border was being stormed by white Canadians, there would be a rush to grant amnesty.

As a white Canadian immigrant, I second this. Sometimes I’ll call people out for their anti-immigrant stance by telling them I’m an immigrant, and I always get some variation of:

“Not your type of immigrant…” Which clearly means “white” because I’m not sure what else there is. Maybe white and English speaking.


“Yes, but you did it right!” They generally have no idea how I immigrated and just assume that since I’m white, I did it the “white way.” Most people have no idea how the immigration system works and seem to assume there’s a special path to citizenship where they just let you in if you’re white enough.

A bit off topic, but a lot of people think that if you are the "right kind of immigrant" immigrating is easy, to and from the US and Canada.  The US makes even "perfect" immigrants jump through hoops, I have had friends go through this.  I know recent "ideal" American immigrants to Canada and it took them over 2 years. 

So any American thinking that if they get fed up with the US they will just go to Canada is dreaming in Technicolour.  We do maintain our borders, we reject 60% of asylum seekers (we do screen them, we don't believe every story we are told) and have a heavy duty points system for immigrants.  Is this the place to point out that Canadian "nice" = polite and socially considerate, not pushover?

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.     ;-)

[twinstudy]

Because it isn't about productivity, it is about maintaining White Privilege that they swear doesn't even exist.  If the northern border was being stormed by white Canadians, there would be a rush to grant amnesty.

As a white Canadian immigrant, I second this. Sometimes I’ll call people out for their anti-immigrant stance by telling them I’m an immigrant, and I always get some variation of:

“Not your type of immigrant…” Which clearly means “white” because I’m not sure what else there is. Maybe white and English speaking.


“Yes, but you did it right!” They generally have no idea how I immigrated and just assume that since I’m white, I did it the “white way.” Most people have no idea how the immigration system works and seem to assume there’s a special path to citizenship where they just let you in if you’re white enough.

A bit off topic, but a lot of people think that if you are the "right kind of immigrant" immigrating is easy, to and from the US and Canada.  The US makes even "perfect" immigrants jump through hoops, I have had friends go through this.  I know recent "ideal" American immigrants to Canada and it took them over 2 years. 

So any American thinking that if they get fed up with the US they will just go to Canada is dreaming in Technicolour.  We do maintain our borders, we reject 60% of asylum seekers (we do screen them, we don't believe every story we are told) and have a heavy duty points system for immigrants.  Is this the place to point out that Canadian "nice" = polite and socially considerate, not pushover?

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.     ;-)

Migrants should be prioritised for skills. The more skills you have, the easier it should be to get in. Asylum seekers would be another stream altogether.

As for the education debate - I should have noted there should be special schools (accelerated/gifted and talented schools) that are an exception; it stunts the development of the smartest kids if you don't stream them. Putting that aside, the arguments advanced for not integrating schools generally via intra-school rank presuppose that weaker-performing students in the ghetto schools are in fact weaker students overall when they might have the same potential as stronger performing spoon-fed rich kids. There needs to be a better way to even up the unfair advantage rich students get - and I'm not talking about any developmental advantage due to better nourishment - I'm talking about plain spoon-feeding and better facilities. Maybe an alternative way to do it is to have university testing be done in a different format every year in a way that deliberately subverts cultural expectations and relies on fluid intelligence. But ultimately, the equivalent of NIMBYism in schools only privileges rich students, which I find to be incredibly unfair.

[nereo]

[
As for the education debate - I should have noted there should be special schools (accelerated/gifted and talented schools) that are an exception; it stunts the development of the smartest kids if you don't stream them. Putting that aside, the arguments advanced for not integrating schools generally via intra-school rank presuppose that weaker-performing students in the ghetto schools are in fact weaker students overall when they might have the same potential as stronger performing spoon-fed rich kids. There needs to be a better way to even up the unfair advantage rich students get - and I'm not talking about any developmental advantage due to better nourishment - I'm talking about plain spoon-feeding and better facilities. Maybe an alternative way to do it is to have university testing be done in a different format every year in a way that deliberately subverts cultural expectations and relies on fluid intelligence. But ultimately, the equivalent of NIMBYism in schools only privileges rich students, which I find to be incredibly unfair.

Well, I would offer this: we know that early stage education is incredibly important, including pre-k and pre-school, and that a huge barrier for low income and single parents is cost and availability of these programs, as well as general child support during normal working hours.

So: the fastest way to even out the playing field is to have universal pre-k and kindergarten with available before and after care programs. IMO it’s an absolute travesty that the US has somehow not made this happen, and areas with pre-k consistently have students who score lower throughout their elementary school years, and even beyond. 

[Metalcat]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

[LennStar]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

Why can't you just think nuanced? ;)

Isn't that the main problem in politics? A huge amount of people do not want to see or think complicated.

High fuel prices, high grocery prices, housing crises, lack of medical personel, the music the new neighbor listens to - all is easy solved if we just get rid of people that are different.

[nereo]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

I’m often stunned by the hubris of people who think they can enter a discussion about something they have very little knowledge about and propose a very simple solution they claim will fix everything and will be easy to implement.

There are always people who have spent years studying and working towards a solution. Some have vested interests while others are independent observers. Start there. If those people are all saying it’s an incredibly complex issue to fix, maybe don’t assume you will come up with the idea they’ve just never thought of. Assume it’s already been thought of but for (reasons) hasn’t been implemented.

[twinstudy]

[
As for the education debate - I should have noted there should be special schools (accelerated/gifted and talented schools) that are an exception; it stunts the development of the smartest kids if you don't stream them. Putting that aside, the arguments advanced for not integrating schools generally via intra-school rank presuppose that weaker-performing students in the ghetto schools are in fact weaker students overall when they might have the same potential as stronger performing spoon-fed rich kids. There needs to be a better way to even up the unfair advantage rich students get - and I'm not talking about any developmental advantage due to better nourishment - I'm talking about plain spoon-feeding and better facilities. Maybe an alternative way to do it is to have university testing be done in a different format every year in a way that deliberately subverts cultural expectations and relies on fluid intelligence. But ultimately, the equivalent of NIMBYism in schools only privileges rich students, which I find to be incredibly unfair.

Well, I would offer this: we know that early stage education is incredibly important, including pre-k and pre-school, and that a huge barrier for low income and single parents is cost and availability of these programs, as well as general child support during normal working hours.

So: the fastest way to even out the playing field is to have universal pre-k and kindergarten with available before and after care programs. IMO it’s an absolute travesty that the US has somehow not made this happen, and areas with pre-k consistently have students who score lower throughout their elementary school years, and even beyond.

This is the basic stuff. Then throw in some government funded tuition programs and free, universal screening for gifted and talented students. Then de-fund private schools and institute a luxury tax on them - there should be a stigma against private schools; a stench. Then start basing affirmative action not solely on race but also on parental income.

[Metalcat]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

I’m often stunned by the hubris of people who think they can enter a discussion about something they have very little knowledge about and propose a very simple solution they claim will fix everything and will be easy to implement.

There are always people who have spent years studying and working towards a solution. Some have vested interests while others are independent observers. Start there. If those people are all saying it’s an incredibly complex issue to fix, maybe don’t assume you will come up with the idea they’ve just never thought of. Assume it’s already been thought of but for (reasons) hasn’t been implemented.

It's also important to understand that even when the reasons are bad, they're still complicated.

A lot of what is bad, universally, within systems is very, very good for those in positions of power. So even when a solution is obvious, it can be unfathomably hard to change the systems of incentives already in place.

The simplest metaphor for this being keyboards, how QWERTY keyboards are specifically designed to slow typists down, but knowing that and having the simple-seeming solution of replacing keyboards with more efficient design isn't actually simple.

Complex, interdependent systems may have obvious-looking solutions, but even when the solution really is quite simple, implementation is a a whole other beast.

One needs to have an exquisite understanding of how and why things get to where they are in the first place to grasp the systems that prevent change.

In my work, for example, I work at the cross section of mental health and serious illness. One of the key things I have to do is help people grasp how much of their reality is determined by history, especially in terms of diagnostic categories and treatment.

There's so, so much me know academically about health that does not port well into the practice of healthcare because new information doesn't just magically reorganize systems that have existed for years. It doesn't magically reorganize how everyone has been educated, funded, interconnected.

Systems are organic things that don't just evolve rapidly with new information, and by definition, all large systems function based on outdated information, because how the systems were formed is based on realities of the past, and the bigger they get, the less nimble they are.

Knowing an option is better isn't even remotely enough to change a system.

The curiosity about why obvious solutions aren't being used is where the most intelligent discourse arises.

[Psychstache]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

-H.L. Mencken

[rosarugosa]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

-H.L. Mencken

Great quote!

[ChpBstrd]

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, complicated problems have complicated solutions. Any proposal that amounts to "If they would just do this one simple thing, everything would be fixed!" is probably oversimplifying.

I call this "why can't they just...?" thinking.

The second I find myself engaging in "why can't they just...?" thinking, I know I'm ignorant on the nuanced of a topic.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

-H.L. Mencken

Great quote!

"The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling."
-Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[MustacheAndaHalf]

My solution uses market principles to forcibly make student cohorts equal.

If you have a bunch of 'bad' schools (i.e. schools with weak performance - most probably due to underfunding) where someone with an equivalent 1300 SAT gets into Harvard, as opposed to a good school where someone might need a 1580 to get into Harvard, parents will notice. They'll start sending their kids to the bad school. And very quickly, by osmosis, all schools would equalise.

That proposed law would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  The Supreme Court would strike it down, just like they ended affirmative action at Harvard (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

In that case, Asians argued they can't be denied entry for the same score that would get an African American admitted to Harvard.  If you look at SAT scores by race, there is a 309 point gap between the Asian and African American averages.
https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2023-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report%20ADA.pdf#page=4

[partgypsy]

I'm not going to read all that. But I think people are multidimensional. And a student body is better if it is diverse, so you meet and interact with people of different backgrounds, talents, interests. My youngest has learning disorders. Though she gets as in classes(bc she is tenacious and doesn't give up) she bombs academic achievement tests. I also believe no one is "owed" a spot. It's basically a random crap shoot and it's up to the college or university to make choices. If they already have too much of one type they won't accepted the 101th straight as white male engineering student, etc.