Trump

[DUShock]

Th village is important and plays a crucial role, but it is no substitute for positive role models and love in a supportive home.

[wufan]

Look at google scholar, it is there.

Didn't find anything from the last 25 years. The IHDP study is more recent and disagrees with your assertion...that said, there are several media reports that do agree with you. I just haven't seen any research articles, including the one you listed as evidence.

[MoValley John]

They are there, I currently don't have the time to find them bit they are there. One thing we can agree on is most kiddos in preschool have a better academic success and better academic success means less crime. I dont know why providing preschool is a bad thing.

Nobody said providing preschool is a bad thing. Nobody. The correlation of preschool to preventing murder, however, is a huge leap and very tough to buy.

[wufan]

They are there, I currently don't have the time to find them bit they are there. One thing we can agree on is most kiddos in preschool have a better academic success and better academic success means less crime. I dont know why providing preschool is a bad thing.

I don't agree that greater academic success due to preschool leads to less crime. In fact, that is exactly what I am challenging. I presented you with a study that says EXACTLY what I am proposing. I read the survey of articles you presented, and it also agrees with my line of thinking.

I don't think preschool is a bad thing at all and neither I nor anyone else has stated that in this thread. Someone has to pay for it. We will almost certainly disagree on who that should be. Should I provide pre-k for someone else's kid? Why? The research I've seen says that the benefits are almost none by puberty. I think it would be great if all of those that believe pre-k is a great thing would sponsor those programs via tax free donations! Perhaps, take an interest in a child you've never met before and sponsor them in that endeavor. That would be seriously rewarding I would think!

[MoValley John]

Also, research does show that comparing children of similar economic and family types, those that attend preschool do have better academic success, but only in the short term. Long term, the results are mixed at best. Children not attending preschool generally catch up.

When they lump all children together, regardless of socioeconomic position, single or married family, parental involvement, the children that received preschool are leaps and bounds ahead of the pack K-12. Unfortunately, the children that receive preschool, especially the economically disadvantaged, have involved and caring parents. Ergo, family involvement and stability has a much larger impact then starting the child in school sooner.

[MoValley John]

If we are arguing about funding for preschool shouldn't we argue about the cost pf trumps trips to maralago? That is a ton of waste tax dollars, most of which trump just lines his own pocket with since he never built a blind trust.

I'm not arguing about funding preschool, I've never said we should our shouldn't. I am simply questioning your assertion that preschool would drop the murder rate. I find that specific claim out of left field.

[wufan]

If we are arguing about funding for preschool shouldn't we argue about the cost pf trumps trips to maralago? That is a ton of waste tax dollars, most of which trump just lines his own pocket with since he never built a blind trust.

So your proposal to fund preschool is to cut the budget for presidential trips. I'm down with that! How much funding is that? How much does Pre-K funding cost?

[jdshock]

If we are arguing about funding for preschool shouldn't we argue about the cost pf trumps trips to maralago? That is a ton of waste tax dollars, most of which trump just lines his own pocket with since he never built a blind trust.

No, we shouldn't be.

I am sympathetic to your viewpoints. I agree with the conclusions you reach, most of the time.

That said, each argument should succeed in a vacuum. If better pre-k is a critical component to reducing crime in this country, then we don't need to distract from the issue by talking about Trump's vacations. Just like if we want to say how much Trump wastes on vacations, we shouldn't bring up how bad pre-k is.

[wufan]

4000000 babies born in the US every year. Average cost of pre-k is just over $12K per child. That's $50 billion per year. Two years of funding (3 and 4 year olds) is $100 billion annually. Some pretty radical estimates project that the POTUS will spend $1 billion annually on travel and protection for his family. Currently, the gov spends $25 billion annually funding pre-k for disadvantaged children. So the bottom 25% get free pre-k currently. If only we took away the secret service, Air Force one, and helicopters, then the 1% of kids committing murder (the 74th percentile) would fly right!

[wufan]

Yes we should. When trump is taking OUR money to profit from it instead of using it to better america that is an issue. So lets say no prek. He wouldn't have to cut any of the epa etc if he didnt waste OUR money.

Holy cow! We are going to fund the EPA too! Their budget is $8 billion annually. I guess we could fund it for about a billion a year, but that won't make the liberals very happy. Of course the murder rate won't come down the the nasty 74th percentile not learning how to share at 4 and killing people at 19.

[jdshock]

Yes we should. When trump is taking OUR money to profit from it instead of using it to better america that is an issue. So lets say no prek. He wouldn't have to cut any of the epa etc if he didnt waste OUR money.

This logic is susceptible to the argument @wufan: posted. You have to deal with actual numbers. And you get into weeds about silly issues.

If pre-k actually reduces crime rates, and your suggestion is that academic research supports that point, then it shouldn't matter what the dollar figure is to support it. Similarly, when we criticize Trump's vacations, we shouldn't say "the money could be better spent on the EPA" because then it allows them to say "yeah, well the EPA sucks for A, B, and C." Just say "Trump shouldn't spend so much on vacations."

They're two separate arguments. They're both good arguments. Keep them separate, and don't distract from the debate about pre-k by saying "look over here at Trump's vacations" and distract from the Trump vacation debate by saying "look over here at pre-k funding."

[wufan]

@seskridge:, yes Trump is spending too much money on travel/security. He should spend less. A LOT less! We now have that out of the way.

Tell us again how $25 billion in annual pre-K expenses has decreased the murder rate, and what cost needs to be to get it to zero. Your starting budget is $25.1 billion since we agree we should remove the cost of POTUS travel (about $100M annually). Thanks!

[WstateU]

[wufan]

So you can't fund it all but that money would be a start yes? Or fund other projects that could help the american people in other ways?

Yes I agree. How much should we fund? What ROI will we receive? Another option is to not spend it at all. What's the ROI of an extra $100M in the private sector?

[MoValley John]

The problem with the whole discussion regarding reappropriating travel expenses is this, why should we spend that money at all? If the spending is wasteful, we need to cut the expense, not find another way to spend the money. Also, if pre-k is that essential, we need to fund the program regardless of travel costs.