MedicalStory2
No bio...
User ID: 2071
DINKs are already made to pay for children. They are just paying in an inefficient manner.
K-12 education costs about $11,800 per child in the USA (not per pupil, per child 0-17 that exists in the country, whether or not they are enrolled in public k-12 school). My Googling and back-of-the-envelope calculations get $19,000 per child for the same calculation in Sweden, but this surprises me because I thought we Americans were particularly pathological about overspending on education, so possibly I did something wrong.
Those numbers are cost per child in the population, not cost per student, so a per child payment (much bigger than the ones claimed downthread to have had little effect) could be tried and be revenue neutral.
(Edited to clarify per child rather than per enrolled pupil.)
MedicalStory2
1mo ago
Thanks for the link. I read the article and his anti-gerrymandering proposal too. For the House, I think he's got something close to the best thing that could be passed. (I still also want proportional representation, but don't currently see a realistic path to get there.)
For the Senate, I don't think the proposal (as summarized, I haven't read the full article) gets us to what you and the founders envision. We're too partisan.
MedicalStory2
1mo ago
We could certainly use more rational decision making in politics. We could certainly use less partisanship and more concern for the general welfare. I don't think your proposal gets us there.
First, we could look to the Federal Bureaucracy to see what happens to an arm of the government with stability against the forces of the whims of each election. Is the bureaucracy non-partisan? De jure yes, but de facto no. It has been basically captured and loyal to a specific party for decades. (And to the extent that's changed over the past year, it's only been by replacement with people loyal to the other party.) Does the bureaucracy make rational decisions? Lol, no.
Second, I don't think it helps to select for moderates. Smart people are more likely to have extreme beliefs and if, like me, you believe that our government is sliding backwards down a rut, what we need are "wild" ideas to get us out.
For what it's worth, I propose proportional representation using the "single transferrable vote" system. More diversity of beliefs and less toxic partisanship (like incentive to sabotage another party) in a multi-party system.
MedicalStory2
6mo ago
Would this have even been a crime in Israel? Quick Googling shows that the age of consent in Israel is 16, but I didn't find any information about the age of the person Alexandrovich was contacting.
I ask because I don't think it's too uncommon for any allied country to exert pressure on behalf of a citizen or even for local officials to allow flight from jurisdiction when the sex crime in the US isn't a crime in the home country. I can't find anything to confirm the pattern, but I do remember a local case a couple decades ago in Colorado involving a Swiss citizen.
MedicalStory2
10mo ago
Would Trump 47 be able to show his his true colors in a shutdown or is much of the unpopular stuff in a shutdown is actually required by law?
Trump will do his best to do the most enjoyable shutdown possible. For example, in previous shutdowns, the national parks closed, including spending money to ensure the closure of isolated trails. Maybe in a Trump 47 shutdown, they stay open to the public, but are free since no one is paid to collect money at the entrance.
If Trump 47 gets to show his true colors, then it would look completely different than the shutdowns of yore. If not, he can blame all the bad results on the Dems (and still enjoy the dismantle-whatever-he-wants superpowers the shutdown provides).
MedicalStory2
11mo ago
My suspicion is that the part you call a "shit-show" is mostly necessary opsec in an adversarial environment. The bureaucrats are fighting administration goals and if they were made privy to the administration's plans, they'd use that information to defeat the plan (or try to). So there's will-they/won't-they/when-they.
Clearly, I didn't phrase my comment well enough. I may edit. (I'm also the author of the linked post, BTW.)
Dividing the US k-12 budget by the number of US children 0-17 is $11,800. Dividing the Swedish k-12 budget by the number of Swedish children 0-17, I got about $19,000. (I'm still wondering if I'm missing something, particularly about Sweden.)
Unless I'm way off, I think the main I made still stands - DINKs are subsiding children already, but in an inefficient way.
More options
Context Copy link