More Promises backed up by bullshit.

[Adventureless_Hero]

So the GOP is promising that it will cut the deficit, but it appears the candidates are full of shit. Surprised? Why? Another presidential election, another set of BS.

Back-up-tough-talk (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147272092/budget-watchdog-to-candidates-back-up-tough-talk)

There seems to be more shit talking going on this election that ever. I don't dig any of these candidates, even Ron Paul. "Away with the department of education?" Wtf?!

[nikvoodoo]

There seems to be more shit talking going on this election that ever. I don't dig any of these candidates, even Ron Paul. "Away with the department of education?" Wtf?!

See this is the thing that drives me crazy about the ardent (and quite possibly under-educated on his actual positions) Ron Paul supporters: A lot of what he says sounds so awesome and refreshing from what we're used to hearing from the beltway, until you get to any and all social/education/transportation etc programs. If elected, Ron Paul would try to shrink federal government back to a point not seen since like......The Articles of Confederation.

Yes, you will get a lot of your personal freedoms back under President Paul that have been given up over the years, but you'll also get stuck footing a lot of bills you've never directly had to foot before because of government intervention.

As for the "all full of shit" sentiment.....that's politics in general. Does not matter what party you support. Your guys and gals are just as full of it as the people you disagree with. You just accept their bullshit because you believe they are trying to do things more in line with your own politics.

[reaper239]

has anyone else noticed that since the department of education was established our school systems have gone way down hill? education is not a federal issue. welfare is not a federal issue. immigration is a federal issue, and they seem to be doing such a fantastic job with that, that i would like to trust my childrens future to them as well. that was sarcasm. the fed is bloated way beyond the point that it ever was supposed to be. let me ask you something: what is wrong with having a small government? the US is a republic founded on the principles of state sovereignty. originally there wer never "citizens of the United States", the term "Citizens of the United States" (note the big C) was a shorthand for "Citizens of the States of the Union". the original application of the constitution was a bottom up design: first solve problems at the personal level, then at the city level, then at the county level, then at the state level, and finally at the federal level. we've made that completely topsy turvy. the fed should be responsible for interstate commerce, and national defense, and that's about it. look at cities around the country: many are on the verge of declareing bankruptcy. now while much of that stems from piss poor budgeting on the cities part (modeled after the fed) their having a lot of trouble actually balancing their books because of federal mandated positions that they have to have. this results in what is called "unfunded obligations" which soak up a lot of money. postions like, cities of a certain size are federally mandated to have a city planner. they could save a lot of money by not having one and splitting the work, but the fed says no. the fed has no constitutional ground to mandate that cities do anything, or even to mandate that states mandate that cities do anything. this causes problems. i mean, what the hell is a constitution for if no one's going to follow the damn thing. what's more, if the fed didn't have all htese federal welfare programs, or micro management programs (DOE), then we wouldn't be reliant on deficit spending and could, potentially, be fiscally solvent. i just don't see how people can justify programs that don't work, on money we don't have. it would like if i borrowed $1,000,000 a year on a salary that only paid $40,000. that would be considered criminal, and i would be jailed. so, now the question is, is it any less criminal when it's your government?

btw, not a ron paul supporter either (his foreign policiy disturbs me)

one more thing: as far as government sheilding goes, what bills is the fed sheilding me from exactly?

interesting little fact: the term "citizens of the United States" (little c) wasn't used until after the civil war when the southern states refused to grant citizenship to slaves and their descendants, so the fed granted them citienship during the post war occupation before the southern states were readmitted to the union. after they were readmitted, the fed couldn't force the states to grant citizenship, and so descendants of southern slaves who still reside in the south aren't technically "Citizens of the United States" but rather "citizens of the United States"

[Raven]

The problem I have with that is as a (hopefully) future educator is we than have students coming into the colligate level with many differing levels of ability based on state programs. Not even getting into biology and health programs in urban vs rural areas. Having taugh undergraduates who have never taken chemisty or physics it then falls onto the colleges to provide those courses to the students and guess who then gets to foot the bill in federal aid/grants not the property owners who are paying for their kids education.

[reaper239]

well here's the thing: without the DOE we could have real education reform on a basic level. does a size 5 shoe fit you? what about a size 15? not all places are made up of the same demographics. areas that are heavily latino will have one work ethic with regards to education, while areas that are largely white will have a different ethic. same goes for religions, blue collar vs white collar, the list goes on. the fed tries to make a program to fit those, and all areas in between and beyond. instead of having nation wide suck, why don't we have some that are great and some that are poor. in todays high mobility environment, the suck will either get better or go away because parents in general won't want to subject their kids to crappy education. i could come up with other examples in society where government meddling has been to the detriment of the citizenry.

[reaper239]

check this out, during one of grover clevlands terms as president there was a drought in texas and congress wanted to give money to the farmers. grover (hello everybody) declined. here is his response (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cleveland%27s_Veto_of_the_Texas_Seed_Bill). he was right by the way as the people in the surrounding areas donated almost $100,000, well beyond congress's proposed $10,000.

[HaveCrowBarWillTravel]

The real problem with federal programs like the DOE is that the policies come from administrators. They flow down to the BOG (boots on ground). The actual people who know what to teach. The teachers and principles have the vehicle to create a national plan.
State run education won't work. To many, it's Socialism. To others, it's equality. White, Black or Hispanic kids in Mississippi won't stand a chance in hell getting into a good college compared to the same kids from Montana. What will happen is the counties within the state will want to invoke their rights and teach to a curriculum better suited for/to them.

Separate But Equal was tried and it didn't work.

My opinion.. and mine only is that college is overrated. It's all about making money these days. Business/Financial stuff.
America was built off Trade Schools and free thinkers. That's what College used to be for; teaching you independent thought

Learn a trade and you're your own boss. WTF tells a plumber when and where to show up? A couple guys with mechanical, carpentry or electrical skills can write their own tickets.

Anyway, the bigwigs on the hill think they know it all and they don't. They listen to whomever has the deepest pockets. Education shouldn't be anywhere near any politics, but it's the first program that get's cut when a GOP steps in and the first to gain more pencil pushers when a Dem shows up.
Leave the money alone, fire 80% of the top managers/admininsters. Let the teachers come up with a national plan

Today we just got briefed that HQ USSOUTHCOM's budget is being cut by 13%. Yay! says the "evil big government" people. "Boooo!!" says the civilian/contractor who's out of work now and the NCO who just separated.

I have a friend from HS who's a really big Ron Paul supporter and having heard him say he wouldn't have supported Civil Rights, and that business owners have the right to say who can come in their place... um, nope. Too far off into right field.

I'll say this, Ron Paul and the Prez (was) both dreamers. However, Political Idiology meets Political Reality when you get to Washington. Them fat ass lobby bed bugs are too entrenched. They run everything. Once we get back to being a nation that builds/creates stuff, then we'll see them go all Wicked Witch in water.

[yarri]

Who would you all chose?

[nikvoodoo]

check this out, during one of grover clevlands terms as president there was a drought in texas and congress wanted to give money to the farmers. grover (hello everybody) declined. here is his response (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cleveland%27s_Veto_of_the_Texas_Seed_Bill). he was right by the way as the people in the surrounding areas donated almost $100,000, well beyond congress's proposed $10,000.

This was also in that response to Congress:


It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of senators, representatives, and delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

So just because he denied the Texas farmers their money this time, he did request that federal funds be used for basically the exact same thing through the normal budgetary ways of ear marks/pork/whatever analogy one feels like calling it this year. All he did was put a check on the entitlement program for seed distribution that was already in place.

[reaper239]

i agree with you, and disagree with you. the college system today is shameful. you want a real education, there are sites on the internet where you can learn for free (legit sites, not black helicopter sites). when the government started giving garunteed loans to students, it was like giving colleges a blank check. kids these days are graduating with a mortgage but no house and no job and no way out. i got my entire associates working a full time job and paying out of pocket (granted, it took me six years, but at least i don't owe 40k on it) where i don't agree is th seperate but equal thing. carter signed in the DOE in 79 and it didn't kick in till the 80's. the quality of education has taken a nose dive since. before the DOE, we took to the skies, built the atom bomb, and put a man on the moon. kids today don't even know when the moon program was enacted, they think WWII was something from a fucking video game, and can't calculate my change on a $17.63 tab when i hand them a $20 because the computer is down. i think i would prefer a world without the DOE, thank.

pardon my excitability.

[reaper239]

This was also in that response to Congress:



So just because he denied the Texas farmers their money this time, he did request that federal funds be used for basically the exact same thing through the normal budgetary ways of ear marks/pork/whatever analogy one feels like calling it this year. All he did was put a check on the entitlement program for seed distribution that was already in place.

he was talking avbout the bill. he ended his letter with:

"If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity."

[yarri]

Damn it Reaper, you do this when I can't rep you

[Adventureless_Hero]

i agree with you, and disagree with you. the college system today is shameful. you want a real education, there are sites on the internet where you can learn for free (legit sites, not black helicopter sites). when the government started giving garunteed loans to students, it was like giving colleges a blank check. kids these days are graduating with a mortgage but no house and no job and no way out. i got my entire associates working a full time job and paying out of pocket (granted, it took me six years, but at least i don't owe 40k on it) where i don't agree is th seperate but equal thing. carter signed in the DOE in 79 and it didn't kick in till the 80's. the quality of education has taken a nose dive since. before the DOE, we took to the skies, built the atom bomb, and put a man on the moon. kids today don't even know when the moon program was enacted, they think WWII was something from a fucking video game, and can't calculate my change on a $17.63 tab when i hand them a $20 because the computer is down. i think i would prefer a world without the DOE, thank.

pardon my excitability.

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

First, your tab was $17.67 and B, you handed me two $10 bills, not a $20. Asshat.

[yarri]

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

How is it a generalization? I'm curious and interested in your point of view.

it still would have resulted in 3 pennys 1 quarter a nickle and 2 dollars for change no matter if it had been 2 10s or a 20.. :o

[reaper239]

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

First, your tab was $17.67 and B, you handed me two $10 bills, not a $20. Asshat.

whatever, you get the idea. ;)

in seriousness, i have witnessed all of those events. many, many times. and it's a shame because it's people who are my age and a little younger. although i will say this, there are some kids who are starting to self educate. i've noticed that some kids in high school seem a little more knowledgeable in some areas.

i've said it before, but can i just say again how much i love these little debates? nothing gets the blood pumping to the brain and your synapses firing, quite like a spirited debate. it's invigorating.

[nikvoodoo]

he was talking avbout the bill. he ended his letter with:

"If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity."

Again, you're still acknowledging that he's talking about Government hand outs/aid. In the section you just quoted he didn't give them money, but he said if there should be seeds left over give them to Texas so you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And in my quote he is directing that in the future large sums of money be spent on these seed programs by the department of Agriculture. So while he's not handing out cash, he's again providing aid in other ways.

So shouldn't we be talking about how the agriculture department bleeds the culture dry and has been ruining America for the past 150+ years? After all, there has been a dramatic drop in the farming culture in America since 1862 when the Department of Agriculture came into existence.

[reaper239]

Again, you're still acknowledging that he's talking about Government hand outs/aid. In the section you just quoted he didn't give them money, but he said if there should be seeds left over give them to Texas so you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And in my quote he is directing that in the future large sums of money be spent on these seed programs by the department of Agriculture. So while he's not handing out cash, he's again providing aid in other ways.

So shouldn't we be talking about how the agriculture department bleeds the culture dry and has been ruining America for the past 150+ years? After all, there has been a dramatic drop in the farming culture in America since 1862 when the Department of Agriculture came into existence.

the bill was about giving the commissioner of agriculture $100,000 with 10gs earmarked for texas. he vetoed the bill because he said that the government was not supposed to distribute the peoples money, to other people. the warm and fuzzies go to we the people who dug deep and donated to the texas farmers out of pocket. and the department of agriculture deals with interstate commerce regulations. although if there are farmers who do not ship their product out of state, then constitutionally they would be exempt, and you would be right on that front.

[nikvoodoo]

the bill was about giving the commissioner of agriculture $100,000 with 10gs earmarked for texas. he vetoed the bill because he said that the government was not supposed to distribute the peoples money, to other people. the warm and fuzzies go to we the people who dug deep and donated to the texas farmers out of pocket. and the department of agriculture deals with interstate commerce regulations. although if there are farmers who do not ship their product out of state, then constitutionally they would be exempt, and you would be right on that front.

Sorry but you're wrong. The Bill was for 10k. $100,000 was the amount already earmarked in the fisical budget for the Department of Agriculture. And the bill was to purchase seeds not hand out money as you're suggesting. If you're looking for a direct hand out of the people's money out to other people, see George W. Bush/2008 Congress (Democratic controlled before we start saying I think it was all Bush's doing) and the tax rebate. That was money directly from the coffers to the American people's pocket.

Regardless, DOE's focus is wrong. What they have successfully done is create a nation of test takers. It does not mean they need to be abolished. They need to focus on actually educating kids so they effectively LEARN what the hell is being told to them in class. The most glaring example of test taking vs. education was "No Child Left Behind" because it truly made teachers teach to the test, or they'd lose their government funding.

And why are they funded by the government? Because we refuse to raise taxes to pay for the shit we need.

[reaper239]

i can't find where i read the bill, but i'm looking. i'll post it tomorrow. and i wasn't trying to say that it was directly handing out money, though i realize it came across that way. yes it was to purchase seed, but it was still redistribution. yes, many of bush's policies were fubar, i'm not arguing that. cleveland was the last of the classic liberals and since then, the country has been in a downward spiral. maybe if all levels of government would balance their budgets we'd have no need to have the fed involved where it doesn't belong. the DOE isn't necessary, it's just another way for the government to step in and take control from the citizens. it should be called the Department of Indoctrination. hell, i didn't actually start really learning anything until i was out of highschool (thank you DOE and NCLB) but then i realized that a lot of what i had been taught had been little twists on the truth. placing the education of our children in the hands of politicians just sounds band from the get go. think about it, if a politician really wanted to, and had enough backing, what's to stop them from forcing a curriculum that teaches whatever they want? on both sides of the scale, what if ron paul was calling the shots and tweaking it little by little? what about a hitler? suddenly we've got a generation of youths that think the holocaust was a myth or something. and the worst is the lies of omission. there were things historically that i simply wasn't taught that i learned later. it's not just the teaching to the test, it's that people are politicizing our children's education.

[reaper239]

i believe i stand corrected. i can't find what i read, but the more i look at opinions surrounding the decision, the more i think that what i actually read was some BS. that said, it seems that the 100k for the department of agriculture was an already existing program at the time. grovers (hello everybody) opinion, as it appears, was to continue to utilize this already existing program and avoid special dispensation of funds and redistribution of wealth. cleveland once said that his job was not about convincing congress to pass what he thought were good laws, but stopping them from passing unconstitutional ones (paraphrase).

[daredevil]

This is amazing to read if your not an American.... or maybe it's just that way for me.

[reaper239]

This is amazing to read if your not an American.... or maybe it's just that way for me.

what is it that makes it seem amazing? you're from australia right? is there anything historical in australia that you could compare this thread to?

[Adventureless_Hero]

I just now got the joke as to why you say Hello Everybody after President Grover... :S


the DOE isn't necessary, it's just another way for the government to step in and take control from the citizens. it should be called the Department of Indoctrination. hell, i didn't actually start really learning anything until i was out of highschool (thank you DOE and NCLB) but then i realized that a lot of what i had been taught had been little twists on the truth. placing the education of our children in the hands of politicians just sounds band from the get go. think about it, if a politician really wanted to, and had enough backing, what's to stop them from forcing a curriculum that teaches whatever they want? on both sides of the scale, what if ron paul was calling the shots and tweaking it little by little? what about a hitler? suddenly we've got a generation of youths that think the holocaust was a myth or something. and the worst is the lies of omission. there were things historically that i simply wasn't taught that i learned later. it's not just the teaching to the test, it's that people are politicizing our children's education.

Okay, so I feel this is very opinion based on your part. Certainly you feel that the education system, as well as the status of the country, has been in decline since Grover Cleveland left office. But much of the accomplishments you stated in this post:
"took to the skies, built the atom bomb, and put a man on the moon" (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/showthread.php?2928-More-Promises-backed-up-by-bullshit&p=34935&viewfull=1#post34935) took place after his second term as president. Granted it was before the Department of Education was enacted, but if you want to start listing accomplishments after the ED was established then I'm certain you will find people get very opinionated that some of civilizations greatest achievements have taken place in the last 30 or even 20 years. It's all perspective buddy, and it seems to me that your perspective is very government paranoid.

The ED is not a way for the politicians to control education, in fact the school curriculum is determined at the state and local school level. The only major influence the ED enforced was the No Child Left Behind Act, which reading previous posts, we know to be a major fuck up. I am not sure if I posted it here or on Facebook a few days ago, but I love it that some states have been freed from the No Child Left Behind (the CNN article (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-09/politics/politics_states-education_1_waivers-flexibility-standards?_s=PM:POLITICS)).

I have 3 teachers in my family, and was studying to be an educator myself (by the gods, can you imagine?!) and we were all in accord that the problem did not lay in the existence of the Department of Education but rather the way information is obtained and compared to prior years. What politicians in the DOE, as you would call them Reaper, aren't seeing is that the times have indeed changed. More money than ever is being spent per pupil because of inflation and the cost of education resources (30 years ago it wasn't imaginable that every student would have a computer to work on, but that's progress, or is it?) So the way funds are distributed becomes a big problem. Attendance is a bullshit. There simply isn't enough money being channeled to the schools. I am at work so have to go mostly off of what I can recall from memory, but if you can back me up on where the DE is spending the cash and how, that would aid your point.

But before you say charter schools are a way of shifting power back to the schools and parents, then you must intend to make me laugh, at least when considering the charter schools in my area. The charter schools here are horrible and I feel bad not only for the students who suffer to go there but also for the teachers who are practically volunteering their hours to be there.
A major revision of how the ED handles the data it collects from schools and how it appropriates funds needs to occur. The way things stand now is that you will have one to two good schools that are producing great levels of achievement and success while the rest of the schools in weaker districts suffer. In order to balance the results, or better yet, raise the results across the districts is to provide equal learning resources, raise the standards by which teachers are employed (seriously, I almost got a job in the best district here in town, me, a fucking idiot, fortunately I was smart enough to see that I was not meant to be entrusted with the responsibilities of teaching), and make programs available to low income families that supplement, not replace current methods of teaching. Students who are doing poor in one arena of education should not be pulled out of class to focus on that particular subject but rather should have after school, weekend, and summer courses. Some programs like this but again the problem becomes funding. (seriously, someone help me find the numbers, I bet the one major flaw with the ED is how the money is being spent [and the NCLB Act]).

Title 1 could have potentially worked to bring the less fortunate schools up to par but every district got greedy and wanted a piece of that pie. Most of the data collected by the ED leans towards where the students education and progress is at, but that data is quite corrupted now because of the NCLB Act forcing teachers to focus on getting the kids to pass these standardized tests rather than education in a "free" manner.

Shit, I think I'm going in circles here. I apologize. I'm trying to work and flesh out all these passionate thoughts in my head (I imagine that's how you feel Reaper; your thoughts and your hands get ahead of you in these discussions). Anyway, the gist of what I'm saying, reform in the ED, better appropriation of funds (Title 1), professional competitiveness among teachers (unions kind fuck this one up), watchdogs to see that funds are being spent on educational resources rather than "beautifying" campuses, and the reestablishment of corporal punishment. heh heh

[nikvoodoo]

i believe i stand corrected. i can't find what i read, but the more i look at opinions surrounding the decision, the more i think that what i actually read was some BS. that said, it seems that the 100k for the department of agriculture was an already existing program at the time. grovers (hello everybody) opinion, as it appears, was to continue to utilize this already existing program and avoid special dispensation of funds and redistribution of wealth. cleveland once said that his job was not about convincing congress to pass what he thought were good laws, but stopping them from passing unconstitutional ones (paraphrase).

Ultimately, the point you were trying to make re: Cleveland's POV of Constitutionality is accurate and there's most certainly no denying President Veto's track record. Just so happens in this case he was saying "I've already given you X to do Y so don't ask me for Z. It's not my fault you spent all of X on other things."

[reaper239]

I just now got the joke as to why you say Hello Everybody after President Grover... :S



Okay, so I feel this is very opinion based on your part. Certainly you feel that the education system, as well as the status of the country, has been in decline since Grover Cleveland left office. But much of the accomplishments you stated in this post:
"took to the skies, built the atom bomb, and put a man on the moon" (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/showthread.php?2928-More-Promises-backed-up-by-bullshit&p=34935&viewfull=1#post34935) took place after his second term as president. Granted it was before the Department of Education was enacted, but if you want to start listing accomplishments after the ED was established then I'm certain you will find people get very opinionated that some of civilizations greatest achievements have taken place in the last 30 or even 20 years. It's all perspective buddy, and it seems to me that your perspective is very government paranoid.

The ED is not a way for the politicians to control education, in fact the school curriculum is determined at the state and local school level. The only major influence the ED enforced was the No Child Left Behind Act, which reading previous posts, we know to be a major fuck up. I am not sure if I posted it here or on Facebook a few days ago, but I love it that some states have been freed from the No Child Left Behind (the CNN article (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-09/politics/politics_states-education_1_waivers-flexibility-standards?_s=PM:POLITICS)).

I have 3 teachers in my family, and was studying to be an educator myself (by the gods, can you imagine?!) and we were all in accord that the problem did not lay in the existence of the Department of Education but rather the way information is obtained and compared to prior years. What politicians in the DOE, as you would call them Reaper, aren't seeing is that the times have indeed changed. More money than ever is being spent per pupil because of inflation and the cost of education resources (30 years ago it wasn't imaginable that every student would have a computer to work on, but that's progress, or is it?) So the way funds are distributed becomes a big problem. Attendance is a bullshit. There simply isn't enough money being channeled to the schools. I am at work so have to go mostly off of what I can recall from memory, but if you can back me up on where the DE is spending the cash and how, that would aid your point.

But before you say charter schools are a way of shifting power back to the schools and parents, then you must intend to make me laugh, at least when considering the charter schools in my area. The charter schools here are horrible and I feel bad not only for the students who suffer to go there but also for the teachers who are practically volunteering their hours to be there.
A major revision of how the ED handles the data it collects from schools and how it appropriates funds needs to occur. The way things stand now is that you will have one to two good schools that are producing great levels of achievement and success while the rest of the schools in weaker districts suffer. In order to balance the results, or better yet, raise the results across the districts is to provide equal learning resources, raise the standards by which teachers are employed (seriously, I almost got a job in the best district here in town, me, a fucking idiot, fortunately I was smart enough to see that I was not meant to be entrusted with the responsibilities of teaching), and make programs available to low income families that supplement, not replace current methods of teaching. Students who are doing poor in one arena of education should not be pulled out of class to focus on that particular subject but rather should have after school, weekend, and summer courses. Some programs like this but again the problem becomes funding. (seriously, someone help me find the numbers, I bet the one major flaw with the ED is how the money is being spent [and the NCLB Act]).

Title 1 could have potentially worked to bring the less fortunate schools up to par but every district got greedy and wanted a piece of that pie. Most of the data collected by the ED leans towards where the students education and progress is at, but that data is quite corrupted now because of the NCLB Act forcing teachers to focus on getting the kids to pass these standardized tests rather than education in a "free" manner.

Shit, I think I'm going in circles here. I apologize. I'm trying to work and flesh out all these passionate thoughts in my head (I imagine that's how you feel Reaper; your thoughts and your hands get ahead of you in these discussions). Anyway, the gist of what I'm saying, reform in the ED, better appropriation of funds (Title 1), professional competitiveness among teachers (unions kind fuck this one up), watchdogs to see that funds are being spent on educational resources rather than "beautifying" campuses, and the reestablishment of corporal punishment. heh heh

i was waiting for someone to catch that joke.

you make some really good points, but if the curriculum is indeed determined at the state and local level, then what is the point of the department of education in the first place? and i have a hard time beleiving that the DOE doesn't control curriculum. i grew up as an army brat so we moved a lot. i was in schools in colorado, texas, germany, and maryland. in colorado i was in grade school, so we won't count that, but from the time i started my middle school career through high school i was in a total of four seperate schools. two in texas, but in different counties. even so they taught the same thing, which is to be expected. in germany i was in a DOD (Department of Defense) School. DODS is pretty much the epitome of federal education, it's completely owned and operated by the DOD. i learned pretty much the same thing there. finally i was in a public school in maryland. throught all of it my "education" flowed relatively uninterupted. what was taught in one school was picked up on in almost the same place in the next school. the only major difference was texas history (we texans are a proud lot) other than that, the classes taught the same things from the same texts in the same order.

i disagree sort of on funds. throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer. the problem is quality. i agree that we need to incentivise good teachers and discipline bad ones, and i also agree that unions hinder that as unions promote mediocrity. there needs to be serious reform and i don't beleive that that will happen under the DOE. take a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk60sYrU2RU). sugata demonstrates that kids can teach themselves if given the right resources and environment, and in a foreign language. he then sets up similar experiments in the UK (where the kids speak english... presumably) and gets amazing results. he demonstrates that education needs to be evolving as technology advances, and without the DOE i think that there could be true inovation at the district level.

next point: true, those advances came after cleveland, but the education system didn't genuinely start hitting the crapper until about the late 80s. of course no child left behind exacerbated the problem, but even in the 90s the quality of education was in decline. grover (hello everybody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkd5dJIVjgM)) was not necessarily my favorite president, but as i stated earlier, he can be considered the last of the classic liberals. after that, we got presidents like the roosevelts, carter, nixon, clinton, and even bush who were all social liberals. the fed expanded severely in girth, and now we are in a very sorry predicament.

[reaper239]

Ultimately, the point you were trying to make re: Cleveland's POV of Constitutionality is accurate and there's most certainly no denying President Veto's track record. Just so happens in this case he was saying "I've already given you X to do Y so don't ask me for Z. It's not my fault you spent all of X on other things."

very true.

[Adventureless_Hero]

you make some really good points, but if the curriculum is indeed determined at the state and local level, then what is the point of the department of education in the first place? and i have a hard time beleiving that the DOE doesn't control curriculum.

Man, that question really got me good. I took a step back and began to wonder. I did what research I could (again, I am at work and therefore supposed to be working) but couldn't find any real solid reason that a Fed office would be required to oversee the arena of Education in the United States. I suppose, it could serve a function to see that there is a core curriculum among all the states. BUT because you stated how similar the curriculum was between the various schools you went to, I tried to find a reason why, and ♫Ta-Da!♫ I found this: Common Core State Standards (http://www.corestandards.org/)
It is a core curriculum that the states can adopt and expand upon. Brilliant! Although not every state has adopted it.

Anyway, i just wanted to pop in real quick and say that I have no solid reason for keeping the DE. So, pending my sudden stumbling across a good reason, I say you are right. We could do away with the Department of Education and potentially save a shit-ton of cash.

[daredevil]

what is it that makes it seem amazing? you're from australia right? is there anything historical in australia that you could compare this thread to?

Just listening to Americans and such talking about Politics and changing the world.
Yeah, I'm Aussie.

Anything historical that I could compare a thread about false promises...... Every single elected PM ever.

This thread and a few other things have inspired me, I'm gonna run for PM!

[Hellbringer]

Cheese and aged rice, my head hurts.

Every party, every governmental system, every ruling party or faction... they all have faults; they're human. Almost every political affiliation has run on good intentions. How they execute their intentions is what the public focuses on.

Just accept that we have a bunch of people with different agendas that clash with each other and that the result will be slow government reform. Every president says they'll change laws and regulation, but they don't take into account the 535 other people who ran on the same promise to change things.