zlacker

>>nirmal+(OP)
If anyone wants to read his tech policy, here it is. This election is a battle for net neutrality.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

The education policy is also good, it basically comes down to "spend more money on education."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

>>rms+Y
Is there even a positive correlation between throwing more money at education and having better-educated kids? It looks like at some point over the last thirty years, we got to the point that the administrative cost of distributing the next dollar for education exceeds one dollar, so the extra money gets soaked up by bureaucratic inefficiencies.

But whatever! It's only billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent by a monopolist that buys its product from a cartel! Clearly, the important thing is to give more money to this completely deranged system, rather than fixing it.

>>_h4xr+F5
I've never understood this mindset. Don't conservative types like you believe in market influences? How could spending more money NOT improve education levels?

Just a couple of examples off the top of my head: 1) Spending more means higher teacher salaries. Higher salaries attract better talent, which means better education. 2) Spending more means better facilities and supplies. Decent materials and supplies lead to a better classroom experience.

I went to a dirt-poor high school in south Georgia. My chem teacher was senile, our textbooks were 14 years old and falling apart, and the sinks leaked chemicals onto the floor. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but more money would have helped my school a TON.

This whole "bureaucratic inefficiency" argument it a catch-all that greedy rich people like to use as an excuse to not help out the less-fortunate.