Chump for President

[ajhostetter]

Ok, so you are against theft. :devil:

I am. Your point? What gets me is discussion around removing the income cap (full disclosure, I earn $$ beyond the cap), then talk about means testing, and everything will be honky-dory until...2037 I think? Then what? We'll be facing a whole new, and much larger gap. The whole thing makes me sick. I really get pissed when "conservative" white hairs bristle at any reform and talk about how "they paid into the system." Me too pal.

I don't count on SS when planning for retirement, but if I'm going to be taxed even further because of poor decisions made by a spendthrift government, you'd better believe I'm going to go off my rocker. I do believe that some hard pills need to be swallowed to fix it. Means testing is part of that in my mind. Eliminating the cap isn't. That's like having a reckless teen get speeding tickets in your fast car every weekend he borrows it. When you call him to account on it, he tells you that to avoid issues in the future you should just let him drive the car all the time. /rant

[estoguy]

OK, can someone explain the whole big deal about Conway and the pic of her on the couch???

Seriously, looks like very much ado about nothing. Who cares if she's on her knees on a couch? She's using her phone and looks comfy. Seriously. Who really cares? Is the media having to dig that low to create a controversy? I mean, she might have dirtied the furniture with her shoes... the horrors! Oh the humanity! ;)

[Cephas]

I made that statement before Farbin, that everyone here labels eachother immediately because of single issues. They don't care, they will continue to do it, IMO its the main tool politicians have.

This is the key. We are all sheep. It's hard to wake up and realize this, but the truth is that it doesn't matter what "side" you are on, it's not likely that either side is actually working for you. They thrive off of division. "A house divided" and all.

But hey, it's fun to have something to complain about and people feel good about taking sides so...carry on.

[marshallnoise]

I am. Your point? What gets me is discussion around removing the income cap (full disclosure, I earn $$ beyond the cap), then talk about means testing, and everything will be honky-dory until...2037 I think? Then what? We'll be facing a whole new, and much larger gap. The whole thing makes me sick. I really get pissed when "conservative" white hairs bristle at any reform and talk about how "they paid into the system." Me too pal.

I don't count on SS when planning for retirement, but if I'm going to be taxed even further because of poor decisions made by a spendthrift government, you'd better believe I'm going to go off my rocker. I do believe that some hard pills need to be swallowed to fix it. Means testing is part of that in my mind. Eliminating the cap isn't. That's like having a reckless teen get speeding tickets in your fast car every weekend he borrows it. When you call him to account on it, he tells you that to avoid issues in the future you should just let him drive the car all the time. /rant

I am 100% with you man. The argument boils down to theft or no theft. That's all what my point is.

[marshallnoise]

OK, can someone explain the whole big deal about Conway and the pic of her on the couch???

Seriously, looks like very much ado about nothing. Who cares if she's on her knees on a couch? She's using her phone and looks comfy. Seriously. Who really cares? Is the media having to dig that low to create a controversy? I mean, she might have dirtied the furniture with her shoes... the horrors! Oh the humanity! ;)

Yes.

She is not Rick James and it was not a Brazzers photo shoot.

[Wschnitz]

IDC about her looking dumb in professional pictures.

I do care that she is not qualified at all the hold her position, and she continues to fuck it up.

[gwb72tii]

Why does the DoED spend money on states? because states have historically underfunded many schools or school districts for ~reasons~.

DoED also spends money to help schools make sure they can serve the needs of special needs students.

Over half of the DoED budget is geared towards pell grants and college loans.

Educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Budget

Stop parroting republican talking points about all this shit if you're "not a republican"

stop being a knee jerk against what i say brave
the DoeD hasn't improved schools, spending is the highest its ever been, and if states don't fund their schools is should not be up to the state WA to fund Wyoming schools, or vice versa

other than caps, half the members on R3V couldn't spell to save their bacon

[roguetoaster]

Yes.

She is not Rick James and it was not a Brazzers photo shoot.

Funny, and for those that haven't seen it.

[marshallnoise]

Funny, and for those that haven't seen it.

There is another one where she is just on the couch like normal. Looks better.

[mbonder]

let me name only one thing

The Department of Education

why do states (taxes paid by you and me) send Washing DC money to be redistributed back to the states?

ignore the lack of results education wise

The Dept of Ed is a glaring example of what the founding fathers were trying to avoid, the federal government usurping states rights. How can an unelected bureaucrat in DC know better than me and my neighbors what works for my children in my local school?

further, this is also an argument for charter schools where i'd have the choice of schools to send my children to. If my local school is crap, i'd send them somewhere else. DC has no business being involved in any way.

I don't think the federal government is trying to tell you what is better for your children. Most school funding is actually done at the local level, which is exactly what you are claiming you want to happen. One of the largest chunks of your property taxes goes to your local school district and funding education for all of the children within that district. The decisions that are made at the district level are made by local politicians and the people who live in the district by either voting for or against the school district budget.

The reality is that most federal funding goes to these places:

-Pell Grants for tuition assistance to low income students
-Title I grant programs for school with majority low income students
-Special Education Grants
-Early Childhood Education

Far as I can see, there's really nothing there that shows the federal government telling individual states how to teach their children. The reality is that before these programs were created the states ignored these at-risk demographics, which essentially provided unequal education across the country. The idea is that all children should be provided with the same quality education regardless of their socio-economic background.

People are usually most interested in their own interests and the interests of their children, which means they are more apt to vote for spending money only on their district, which means that some districts suffer and others don't. I think you're fooling yourself if you think that leaving the creation of an equal education to individuals is going to actually turn out equal education.

On your point about the founding fathers I'd have to disagree as well. The power of the newly created federal government was a hotly debated topic during and after the ratification of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers (the arguments that eventually won the day and got the Constitution ratified by the states), you'll see that the argument was for Federal authority to be used in situations that benefitted the common good, education ends up being one of them. An example of this is Brown v. Board of Ed, in that case, the locals (Topeka, Kansas) decided that whites should be able to be schooled separately from blacks because the schools were supposedly equal. Of course the black schools were in fact not equal and the Federal government stepped in to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling that Separate but Equal was definitely not equal.

It seems people like to tote men like the Founding Fathers as states' rights advocates instead of federal advocates. Men like Madison and Jefferson, Washington and Adams. The reality is that each of these men voted for the Constitution and the Federal Government, not states rights. Even Jefferson, who appeared to make statements for states' rights, when president expanded the powers of the executive, and you only have to look as far as the Louisiana Purchase to see that even he recognized the federal government as having supremacy over the states and that could be a powerful force for good.

[BraveUlysses]

stop being a knee jerk against what i say brave
the DoeD hasn't improved schools, spending is the highest its ever been, and if states don't fund their schools is should not be up to the state WA to fund Wyoming schools, or vice versa

other than caps, half the members on R3V couldn't spell to save their bacon

good job moving those goal posts

if you're upset about about "DC telling schools how to be run" you should be aware the worst case of that is NCLB which was replaced in late 2015 with Every Student Succeeds Act which restores more control back to the states and didn't seem to get a lot of coverage in the press (imo).

[gwb72tii]

I don't think the federal government is trying to tell you what is better for your children. Most school funding is actually done at the local level, which is exactly what you are claiming you want to happen. One of the largest chunks of your property taxes goes to your local school district and funding education for all of the children within that district. The decisions that are made at the district level are made by local politicians and the people who live in the district by either voting for or against the school district budget.

The reality is that most federal funding goes to these places:

-Pell Grants for tuition assistance to low income students
-Title I grant programs for school with majority low income students
-Special Education Grants
-Early Childhood Education

Far as I can see, there's really nothing there that shows the federal government telling individual states how to teach their children. The reality is that before these programs were created the states ignored these at-risk demographics, which essentially provided unequal education across the country. The idea is that all children should be provided with the same quality education regardless of their socio-economic background.

People are usually most interested in their own interests and the interests of their children, which means they are more apt to vote for spending money only on their district, which means that some districts suffer and others don't. I think you're fooling yourself if you think that leaving the creation of an equal education to individuals is going to actually turn out equal education.

On your point about the founding fathers I'd have to disagree as well. The power of the newly created federal government was a hotly debated topic during and after the ratification of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers (the arguments that eventually won the day and got the Constitution ratified by the states), you'll see that the argument was for Federal authority to be used in situations that benefitted the common good, education ends up being one of them. An example of this is Brown v. Board of Ed, in that case, the locals (Topeka, Kansas) decided that whites should be able to be schooled separately from blacks because the schools were supposedly equal. Of course the black schools were in fact not equal and the Federal government stepped in to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling that Separate but Equal was definitely not equal.

It seems people like to tote men like the Founding Fathers as states' rights advocates instead of federal advocates. Men like Madison and Jefferson, Washington and Adams. The reality is that each of these men voted for the Constitution and the Federal Government, not states rights. Even Jefferson, who appeared to make statements for states' rights, when president expanded the powers of the executive, and you only have to look as far as the Louisiana Purchase to see that even he recognized the federal government as having supremacy over the states and that could be a powerful force for good.

the constitution is specifically about limiting the power of the federal government.

[mbonder]

the constitution is specifically about limiting the power of the federal government.

The founders recognized that the states couldn't run themselves independently. A strong federal government was necessary to create American longevity. An attempt to have the states run themselves was the Articles of Confederation, and guess how that ended up...

Maybe be a bit more specific with your comments because it doesn't seem as though you've got much knowledge about what guys like Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson actually were attempting to do.

[gwb72tii]

ouch

then you're familiar with article X?

the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

this clause is specific to limiting the federal government's power, that the powers of the federal government are only those specifically delegated to it.

key word

specifically

[gwb72tii]

I don't think the federal government is trying to tell you what is better for your children. Most school funding is actually done at the local level, which is exactly what you are claiming you want to happen. One of the largest chunks of your property taxes goes to your local school district and funding education for all of the children within that district. The decisions that are made at the district level are made by local politicians and the people who live in the district by either voting for or against the school district budget.

The reality is that most federal funding goes to these places:

-Pell Grants for tuition assistance to low income students
-Title I grant programs for school with majority low income students
-Special Education Grants
-Early Childhood Education

Far as I can see, there's really nothing there that shows the federal government telling individual states how to teach their children. The reality is that before these programs were created the states ignored these at-risk demographics, which essentially provided unequal education across the country. The idea is that all children should be provided with the same quality education regardless of their socio-economic background.

People are usually most interested in their own interests and the interests of their children, which means they are more apt to vote for spending money only on their district, which means that some districts suffer and others don't. I think you're fooling yourself if you think that leaving the creation of an equal education to individuals is going to actually turn out equal education.

On your point about the founding fathers I'd have to disagree as well. The power of the newly created federal government was a hotly debated topic during and after the ratification of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers (the arguments that eventually won the day and got the Constitution ratified by the states), you'll see that the argument was for Federal authority to be used in situations that benefitted the common good, education ends up being one of them. An example of this is Brown v. Board of Ed, in that case, the locals (Topeka, Kansas) decided that whites should be able to be schooled separately from blacks because the schools were supposedly equal. Of course the black schools were in fact not equal and the Federal government stepped in to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling that Separate but Equal was definitely not equal.

It seems people like to tote men like the Founding Fathers as states' rights advocates instead of federal advocates. Men like Madison and Jefferson, Washington and Adams. The reality is that each of these men voted for the Constitution and the Federal Government, not states rights. Even Jefferson, who appeared to make statements for states' rights, when president expanded the powers of the executive, and you only have to look as far as the Louisiana Purchase to see that even he recognized the federal government as having supremacy over the states and that could be a powerful force for good.

you still have not given one reason why there is a DoEd