That said:
I sympathize with the reasons that teachers’ unions are against pay-for-student-performance. Can you imagine your livelihood being determined by this myth that what you do in a classroom for one academic year will have highly quantifiable effects on all your students? I mean, it would take some serious suspension of disbelief to believe that you can undo the bad effects of all the students’ previous schooling/lack thereof, of their parents’ indifference, of their observations that hard work doesn’t pay off, etc. Children aren’t manufactured products.

I would link “performance pay” with actual teaching practices rather than with how well students do on a couple of state tests (which inevitably mean that teachers teach for the test, rather than the content they believe is important). But as teachers’ unions must recognize, this would also be difficult. I’m not sure if your remark about “getting what one pays for” means you agree or not, but I still think it would be effective to try to recruit better teachers by paying them better wages, and by spending more money to recruit teachers with higher degrees.

I have been an ardent supporter of merit-based pay in public schools for years. Im sure you are unaware of this, but the only group of people that are NOT for that are the teachers unions. What does that tell you?

Parents
(the people who pay the taxes that pay the teachers) want it, so why don’t they get it for their children? The democratic party has been an unbelievable firewall for merit-based pay in the schools for decades due to their partial control by the teachers unions. Of course, you and others with similar mindsets will continue to blame the wrong people and nothing will be done, because it is easier to continue on in ignorance than see things for what they are. But the truth is that the blame for the terrible system in public schools lies soley at the feet of the democratic party and, more directly with the teachers unions.

Speaking of ignorance, where is “tallytowngal” and her “windfall profits” wisdom now that oil tapped $119 per barrel today?

You say that as if you’re contradicting something I actually said, but you seem in fact to be responding to a strawman you’ve made up. I’m not sure what “guaranteed success” would even look like. Also, do you mean the best model existing or the best model possible? Because I’d say we’re a far cry from the best model possible. It seems to me that real patriotism would be trying to improve the model, rather than embracing complacency. Do you really think that a bright child growing up in an impoverished, bad neighborhood has a realistic shot at success in this society? Or that he/she can afford college with the “help” of our underfunded Pell Grant programs? Victim blaming on this thread is starting to sound eerily like Social Darwinism.

And my characterization of capitalism is neither uninformed nor emotionally based. It was actually very off the cuff. Nevertheless, it’s kind of an empirical reality of capitalism that not everyone can be in the top 1%, or even middle class, and that some sort of underclass exists. That’s called an observation, not an emotional response. And you actually confirm this in your own post, that “bottom 10%” you allude to. So it seems to me, that it’s a problem of both trying to have the lowest percentage possible in that bottom bracket, and trying to help those who want out, to get out. (The middle class could be healthier as well: considering that some scholars see our middle class as far less financially stable than the middle class of say 40/50 years ago).

And as for chemistrydave’s comment: I hope you never plan on running for office, because with that attitude toward a notoriously overworked, and underpaid, group of professionals, I don’t think you’d get very far. I really do think that we get what we pay for: if public high schools paid better, then very likely the competition for those jobs would go up, and better educated, more enthusiastic teachers would be the result. And if being a teacher meant having the respect and support of one’s community. (Rather than being scorned as barely able to earn their BA.) But yeah, it’s far easier to blame teachers rather than cultural attitudes toward education, or lack of preschool, or parents who don’t care, or a myriad of other causes.

“I believe in safety nets. Everyone has the possibility to hit hard times. But that safety net should not be a lifestyle, but rather a helping hand to something better.”

I agree with this comment 100%.

Every civilization, society, state, country, empire, etc. has had to deal with their bottom 10%. Those who can’t, and those who won’t help themselves.

You and other liberals are advocating helping the poor by punishing achievement. Why don’t you just give a drunk a drink. Enabling bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. Punishing good behavior will definitely encourage less good behavior. That is morally reprehensible, but we have to be “fair”.

I believe in safety nets. Everyone has the possibility to hit hard times. But that safety net should not be a lifestyle, but rather a helping hand to something better.

If only we could find a way to assuage liberal guilt.

That comment is making my head spin. Does someone need a room at Bellvue?

Most school teachers can barely get through a BA in education, hardly a difficult task. Further, they are doing a terrible job of teaching our students, just consult any single person in this country trying to hire.
Hedgies make money only based on their performance. I think it would be great to have a teaching system like that. Of course, the teachers unions would drop dead because that might involve some real teaching going on. When is the last time a teacher was told “Hey, your students failed this basic exam, so you are fired”?

“Langley, we all know why they do it. They think that most people are not capable of providing for themselves and creating their own prosperity. It is the fundamental tenant of liberalism to look down on others as inferior. Hell, look at the comments on this site by the libs….its always “you should” or “you need”. Just constantly informing others of our “shortcomings” and giving instructions. Its really why nothing is ever achieved in this country.”

I think you’re hanging out with the wrong liberals. Or, considering that your example is the comments made on this site, maybe you don’t know many in person. We all know that not everyone can succeed in capitalist systems — that’s kind of the point of capitalism — but instead of shrugging and saying it’s “personal responsibility” when someone doesn’t have a house/health insurance/money for college, liberals want social programs in place to help those individuals.

“Joe, are you saying that people that work for hedge funds don’t work for what they’ve earned? I bet they’d be surprised to hear that.”

Really? You don’t see anything problematic about valuing a hedge funder at billions of dollars a year, and, say, a school teacher at 25,000? This is also a problem of what as a society we attach value to — and we’re widely off the mark, as far as I can tell. [And yes, I realize we're supposed to suspend disbelief and imagine that this is all the result of a free market -- but considering that most teachers are working for the government, and that our values/beliefs determine how much we value different things, I still say: the time is out of joint.]

Second of all, let’s say that you were actually paying 28%. You, a liberal, would argue that in the name of “fairness” and to punish some wealthy people who work in hedge funds, we should raise the capital gains tax to 28% even if it doesn’t make economic sense to do so.

On the other hand, as a conservative, I’d argue for, say, a 15% flat tax rate (preferably lower, about 10%, but going along with your argument here).

You clearly demonstrate the difference between conservatives and liberals: liberals always seek to raise tax rates on the “rich” because they should pay their “fair share,” not to mention to fund endless entitlement programs. Conservatives seek low taxes across the board.