Comments on: Clinton talks return on investment

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 26 May 2007 14:48:03 +0000

Gee, I wonder how I ever did without state run pre-Kindergarden education.

By: carlos

carlos — Fri, 25 May 2007 06:18:42 +0000

i worked as a researcher studying pre-k programs for a year. from what i learned in the study hillary’s conclusion is correct, it is much more efficient to invest in high quality pre-k education than to pay for countless problems down the road. of course, i’m against taxation and all uses of taxed money. the formative years are very important and any investment made in the child at that time will undoubtedly pay dividends.

By: constant reader

constant reader — Thu, 24 May 2007 07:04:20 +0000

Let’s make children then! Or import them! That should make the economy just right…

By: Nat

Nat — Thu, 24 May 2007 04:10:33 +0000

No. Hillary is onto something here. I think her estimate of a seven fold return on investment is too low.

You see, she is going to teach these kids how to trade cattle futures.

By: George Gaskell

George Gaskell — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:35:23 +0000

Of course, you only get the seven-fold ROI if the government handles the education dollars. We selfish, unwashed, greedy plebeians don't know anything about investing. Not like those scary-smart government experts do. (BTW, I litigate investor loss cases for a living. If private investment companies or brokers promised a seven-fold return to a prospective customer, they would end up in jail. Or at least they'd soon find themselves on the receiving end of a civil suit that I would be glad to handle, to put it mildly. But when Hillary commits fraud for a living, well, that's just politics, right?)

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:24:39 +0000

Am I right in assuming the “rewards reaped” are simply the kind where there will be less dollars taken by force later for things the government shouldn’t be paying for in the first place? THAT kind of return?

And of course that never happens as what they are trying to prevent never truly comes to be, or they simply find something else to spend the money on.

This is really just one small example of people thinking that the world can made to be “just so”, when there is absolutely no evidence that anyone has ever succeeded.

For me it still stands that anyone who wants to implement a set of programs that will truly alter the landscape must involve a level coercion perhaps even greater than Nazi Germany. And all the negatives that occur while implementing the plan will simply be swept off the history books. THAT is perhaps better than the long, slow strangle of socialism-lite that takes trillions and accomplishes next to nothing. It’s easier to resist the former.

By: Niels van der Linden

Niels van der Linden — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:19:56 +0000

The involvement of government with education is simply revolting.

The cannot produce anything themselves; they can only rob, steal and destroy things. And then *they* are the ones who are going to educate everyone!?!?

By: Nick Bradley

Nick Bradley — Thu, 24 May 2007 01:49:32 +0000

I think she’s citing that bogus RAND study conducted for California and the teachers unions a few years back.

The reality is that there is little to no return on these pre-K programs. Millions were exposed to the absurdity of the Head Start Program in the book “Freakonomics”, where the authors used regression analysis to show that the program had absolutely zero impact.

To tell you the truth, I question whether Kindergarten is even necessary. Honestly, do we need to spend $30B+ a year to teach children how to play, interactm and socialize within government standards. If you want to socialize your 5 year-old, there are plenty of other ways to do it.

By: Brent

Brent — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:50:49 +0000

Just think of what the return could be on pre-natal-garten!

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Wed, 23 May 2007 18:23:42 +0000

By the time today’s toddlers get out into the workforce, most Americans will be millionaires.

What will a loaf of bread cost in 2021?