Conservatives Want To Get Rid Of DOE

[MikeyK]

Michelle Bachmann is leading he fight to get rid of the Department of Education. Another fine idea from the retard republicans. Their argument is that it isn't listed in the Constitution. Many want education to be privatized.

I wonder how happy these voters will be when they have to pay 10k/year to send each child to private school?

 

[meesterperfect]

Michelle Bachmann is leading he fight to get rid of the Department of Education. Another fine idea from the retard republicans. Their argument is that it isn't listed in the Constitution. Many want education to be privatized.

I wonder how happy these voters will be when they have to pay 10k/year to send each child to private school?

There should be some kind of law where if you decide to send your kid/s to private school you get a good tax break especially on property tax or are allowed to deduct that money from your income before taxes.
Of course if that happened the system would probably collapse, after all most of the people who actually pay federal, state, and property taxes would jump on the chance of getting their kids out of the public school system if they had the chance.
Then who would pay for all those poor folks having kids and getting paid for it?

 

[No_Man]

I agree with Bachmann. The Federal government has no business involving itself in education. It is a state issue pure and simple. Eliminate the DOE and all education grants, and then lower the Federal income tax across the board accordingly. If states need more money to pay for education afterwards, they can increase their own taxes to make up the difference.

 

[Mayhem]

Why am I the only one who wants to eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security??

 

[wingman00]

what does she intend to put in its place?

brainpower is a very important factor in the success of western civilization.

 

[Hot Mega]

I agree with Bachmann. The Federal government has no business involving itself in education. It is a state issue pure and simple. Eliminate the DOE and all education grants, and then lower the Federal income tax across the board accordingly. If states need more money to pay for education afterwards, they can increase their own taxes to make up the difference.

Re: Bachmann and the constitution, the constitution doesn't call for an Air Force or Coast Guard either.

'No man' I don't disagree with your point but aside from the purely ideological position of it being a state issue...the fact that we have a cabinet level DOE should bear reflection on where education stands as a priority for our country.

In other words, it should almost be considered and embarrassment for a country of the stature of the US to not have a federal agency for education.

I know there are the ideologues who see the very notion of this as some wicked g'ment evil but I would say it should bear reflection on our commitment to education as a country.

 

[ban-one]

I wonder how happy these voters will be when they have to pay 10k/year to send each child to private school?

Ever heard of home schooled? That's very cheep and how most people used to be educated. And as No_Man said, it would become a state matter, so there would still be public schools funded by state taxes.

 

[ban-one]

Why am I the only one who wants to eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security??

No, I think it should go too. There's plenty of other departments and agencies that already did what they do.

 

[MikeyK]

I agree with Bachmann. The Federal government has no business involving itself in education. It is a state issue pure and simple. Eliminate the DOE and all education grants, and then lower the Federal income tax across the board accordingly. If states need more money to pay for education afterwards, they can increase their own taxes to make up the difference.

These redneck conservatives wouldn't be able to afford the fees private schools charge. Are you not familiar with what a typical private school charges per student per year?

 

[ban-one]

what does she intend to put in its place?

brainpower is a very important factor in the success of western civilization.

To put in it's place, that would be nothing. Make it a state matter.

While yes brainpower is very important, we don't seem to be doing so well with the system of just throw more and more money at it with no accountability (which making it a state and local matter would provide) we have now, are we?

 

[MikeyK]

Ever heard of home schooled? That's very cheep and how most people used to be educated. And as No_Man said, it would become a state matter, so there would still be public schools funded by state taxes.

I have heard of it and I think it should be illegal. Most home schooled kids receive terrible educations. Maybe home schooling is ok for the elementary level but not for high school. How many parents can properly teach English, History, Math and Science at the high school level? Practically none.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I wonder how happy these voters will be when they have to pay 10k/year to send each child to private school?

They'll probably find time to be upset between being unemployed and having to pay 20k cause they had a heart attack.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Michelle Bachmann is leading he fight to get rid of the Department of Education. Another fine idea from the retard republicans. Their argument is that it isn't listed in the Constitution. Many want education to be privatized.

I wonder how happy these voters will be when they have to pay 10k/year to send each child to private school?

These redneck conservatives wouldn't be able to afford the fees private schools charge. Are you not familiar with what a typical private school charges per student per year?

The Republicans have been pushing this for decades. It's nothing new.

There are plenty of private schools in the south that continue to be successful, even with the lower incomes traditionally seen there.


School vouchers might defray some of the cost. The success of many charter schools seems to make the idea more attractive.


In the end, I think it's more red meat for the base than anything. Teachers Unions are some of the loudest, most involved backers of the Democratic party. With teachers currently in the collective doghouse of the American people, these red meat attacks are getting more coverage.

There is a sort of "education racket" that makes a lot of money off of a cozy relationship with the DoE but I don't think it'll just go away if the department is dissolved.

 

[Hot Mega]

Ever heard of home schooled? That's very cheep and how most people used to be educated. And as No_Man said, it would become a state matter, so there would still be public schools funded by state taxes.

No, I think it should go too. There's plenty of other departments and agencies that already did what they do.

I think it's funny when people want to come along and undo something that was implemented before they were around.

Again the ideological aside, generally speaking there are likely reasons for the policy or changes like this to begin with.

Not changing the subject but offering an example;

After Hurricane Andrew (I think) Clinton saw a need for a change and elevated FEMA to a cabinet level agency. Things ticked along with the agency for years over the course of several other disasters.

Along comes Bush on the strength of ideologues urging him to do away with the agency altogether (ala Bachmann here). He placates them by rolling the agency up into DHS....then Katrina.

Now Katrina could have been the disaster it became one way or the other...but we know FEMA failed it's function.

Point...sometimes it's better to just leave things as they are (ideology aside) when a change is made to get some policy where it is. (It was probably for a reason that you have forgotten or aren't considering.)

 

[antanotherthing]

Education needs to be a priority at the federal level. I don't think anyone has come up with the way to measure teachers and their progress in a way that they aren't simply passing kids along or focusing completely on standardized tests.

The DOE is not only not in the US Constitution, Education is not in there. So, the implied power would go to the sates. The DOE does not control Education. Education remains very decentralized in the US, unlike most other countries.

I guess there are some good reasons that people have to eliminate the DOE.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf

Eliminating the DOE as a Republican plank is not new. Reagan wanted to do it in 1980 and I think it was specifically in there in 1996 as well.

I think Education, like many things in the US, is not working as well as it could be. Perhaps the DOE as it is isn't the right solution.

Education is very important for our civilization and development as a country (call me crazy, but I do take pride in the accomplishments of the US as an independent nation). So, shouldn't it have a focus at the national/federal level?

I would rather see a plan, with funding, be developed to replace the DOE or improve the DOE than see it abolished because it doesn't fit squarely into a Constitutional mold or because it is an expense that can be cut.

 

[ban-one]

Re: Bachmann and the constitution, the constitution doesn't call for an Air Force or Coast Guard either.

'No man' I don't disagree with your point but aside from the purely ideological position of it being a state issue...the fact that we have a cabinet level DOE should bear reflection on where education stands as a priority for our country.

In other words, it should almost be considered and embarrassment for a country of the stature of the US to not have a federal agency for education.

I know there are the ideologues who see the very notion of this as some wicked g'ment evil but I would say it should bear reflection on our commitment to education as a country.

As for the Air Force and Coast Guard, the Coast Guard's the little sibling of the Navy and operates (or at least did, I'm not sure about now) as a part of the Navy during war time, and as they didn't have airplanes when the wrote the Constitution, of course no mention of an Air Force. Just Army and Navy. Land and Sea. But the Air Force can be seen as part of the military the US is supposed to have to protect us, and since they covered land and sea, why can't we expand a little further into air since that opened up? Or even space one day? And if you wanna be a real stickler, just roll the AF back into the Army where it started, or amend the Constitution to include the Air Force and Coast Guard. We can do that.

As for the Cabinet level position of education in the federal government, I kinda think that if the Founders wanted the federal gov involved in education, they would've said so. They were pretty specific about what the federal gov could do, and that everything else was left to the states to do for themselves. And I wouldn't see it as an embarrassment to not have a DOE or equivalent, because it's not working now. I say let the results speak for themselves and to whether we should be embarrassed, not how we go about getting the results. And right now, with the way things are, we should be embarrassed.

You know, we did just fine without the DOE for many, many years, and did more to advance technology and science in our short existence, than any of the long-lived countries.

 

[No_Man]

I think it's funny when people want to come along and undo something that was implemented before they were around.

Again the ideological aside, generally speaking there are likely reasons for the policy or changes like this to begin with.

Not changing the subject but offering an example;

After Hurricane Andrew (I think) Clinton saw a need for a change and elevated FEMA to a cabinet level agency. Things ticked along with the agency for years over the course of several other disasters.

Along comes Bush on the strength of ideologues urging him to do away with the agency altogether (ala Bachmann here). He placates them by rolling the agency up into DHS....then Katrina.

Now Katrina could have been the disaster it became one way or the other...but we know FEMA failed it's function.

Point...sometimes it's better to just leave things as they are (ideology aside) when a change is made to get some policy where it is. (It was probably for a reason that you have forgotten or aren't considering.)

Except that it's not working. Education in the U.S. continues to decline in quality compared to the rest of the world, giving corporations more and more incentive to take jobs overseas. You say we should have a Department of Education because we'll look bad if we don't. But we already look bad. Horrible, in fact. So what do we have to lose by ditching it?

From my perspective, we need to do one of two things. We either need to do a complete overhaul of our Constitution and centralize away from the states far more functions of the government than it currently specifies. Or we need to stick to the very limited scope for Federal government that it currently specifies and trust that the states will do their jobs when given the freedom to do so. Trying to do both at the same time like we're currently doing - and doing a piss poor job at both - just isn't working.

 

[antanotherthing]

Another fine idea from the retard republicans.

Are you saying all republicans are retarded or just the ones that want to get rid of the DOE?

 

[antanotherthing]

the Coast Guard's the little sibling of the Navy and operates (or at least did, I'm not sure about now) as a part of the Navy during war time,

Yes, but right now it is under the Department of Homeland Security.

I think it was part of the Department of Transportation in the past.

[ir]Regardless, your point is valid. It is part of the US Armed Services.

 

[antanotherthing]

Except that it's not working. Education in the U.S. continues to decline in quality compared to the rest of the world, giving corporations more and more incentive to take jobs overseas. You say we should have a Department of Education because we'll look bad if we don't. But we already look bad. Horrible, in fact. So what do we have to lose by ditching it?

From my perspective, we need to do one of two things. We either need to do a complete overhaul of our Constitution and centralize away from the states far more functions of the government than it currently specifies. Or we need to stick to the very limited scope for Federal government that it currently specifies and trust that the states will do their jobs when given the freedom to do so. Trying to do both at the same time like we're currently doing - and doing a piss poor job at both - just isn't working.

I'm not arguing with your point of what might work. I just like to:

PDCA - Plan, Do, Check, Act

Measure twice, cut once

Look before I leap

...basically have a plan for how I'm going to improve education before taking away funding that many schools count on today (...and yes, I agree...it is less than ideal)