Chump for President

[marshallnoise]

All the sudden Wiki is a valid evidence source? For the last eight years I recall people getting creamed for claiming a user-edited resource is factual.

I think nonpolitical stuff, it can be OK. Anything that is highly charged, Wikipedia probably should be avoided.

[gwb72tii]

Certainly did, right in the middle:

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.

The department of education is there to help provide an equal education to all, this usually manifests itself in providing help to those that are disadvantaged.

Here's another point relating to the Department of Education and the Constitution:

I'm also aware of what the Constitution says, however, the nature of many of the other Articles within the Constitution were constructed in a purposely vague way so that the government could adapt them to meet contemporary issues.

Take Section 8 of Article 1:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

It's up to the current government to decide exactly what taxes there should be as well as what import and export duties there should be. Furthermore, what exactly constitutes common defense as well as general welfare. The Constitution was vague on these points because the framers realized that taxation would be an ever-changing environment as well as common defense and general welfare. The government could very well interpret a component of providing for the general welfare of the people as providing education to all children in an equal manner. Creating the Department of Education would be a natural extension of the belief that the government has the right to tax people to provide funding for the Department of Education so that they can provide for the welfare of all American citizens.

It is not and should not be the responsibility of the federal government to do anything you suggest regarding education

[gwb72tii]

All the sudden Wiki is a valid evidence source? For the last eight years I recall people getting creamed for claiming a user-edited resource is factual.

Neither wiki or snopes are reliable sources of anything

[LBJefferies]

Neither wiki or snopes are reliable sources of anything

From the guy who regularly quotes Zerohedge...

[Wschnitz]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-wire-tapped-trump-tower-no-evidence-a7610951.html

Can we self appoint a Mental Health adviser to trumps cabinet?

[mbonder]

It is not and should not be the responsibility of the federal government to do anything you suggest regarding education

Why not? Elaborate, I want to understand why you feel this way?

I mean if you feel that way then Eisenhower should have never sent the national guard south to integrate the schools in the mid 50's. There's a clear example of how local interests would have provided an unequal education for the citizens of the south (well the African American citizens, the whites would have been just fine).

[mrsleeve]

^

Apples to sex toys anolgy, if you don't understand why then your govt/history teachers have failed you

[mbonder]

Look I'm just looking for anyone here to explain in more detail than just insulting the other person. I'm interested in a discussion. If you feel that someone is wrong, explain why they are wrong rather than providing absolutely nothing of substance while offending other people.

I've attempted to have a discussion, I haven't attempted to push a political agenda or prove that I'm better than anyone else here, why can't anyone else do the same.

To gwb72tii:

I just want to understand why you feel that the federal government should stay out of education entirely. I'm not insulting your point of view, I'm asking for clarification that's more in-depth than a one sentence vague rejoinder.

To mrsleeve:

Why isn't that a good analogy? I recognize that I skewed from the department of education funding, but in the case I mentioned there was a clear desire by the local governments and school boards to keep schools segregated (Which was part of the original crux of gwb72tii's argument, that locals know better). The federal government recognized that this created an inequality in the quality of education for a portion of the populous of that area and exerted their influence to remedy that situation. The Department of Education performs a similar task, helping to redistribute funds from wealthier areas to poorer areas so that students who are less fortunate have access to the same education that their wealthier peers have.

I think people get angered by the Department of Education for two reasons:

-People don't want their money going to help others outside of their immediate vicinity (especially if the benefits aren't always readily visible)

-Evaluation of the success or failure of these programs is extremely difficult. What exactly constitutes success or failure is a heated topic within education as a whole. Assessments? Graduation rates? Who knows...which is why many people are unhappy.

[gwb72tii]

Imho the federal government is not here to make things fair. It's not here to ensure you have equal schools. School segregation is a completely different subject and not even the responsibility of the DoED. It was a legal issue.
sleeve is right. Your school failed you. Read the constitution. It is very specific what powers the federal government is supposed to have, which are limited.

[Wschnitz]

I still can't believe you guys are arguing about the DoED and not talking about how our President has no idea what hes doing.

Accuses Obama of wiretapping his shit.

Accuses Dems of not accepting is cabinet when his admin hasn't submitted the paperwork for them to be voted on.

Goes on daily twitter rants about TV shows.

Like what the hell, how is this guy in any way acting presidential.

[mbonder]

I understand school segregation isn't part of the Department of Education. No school failed me, as stated above, I'm trying to have a discussion without insults, plain and simple.

I was keeping to a broader topic of the interaction between the states (or local governments if you want to go even smaller scale) and the federal government, that's why I mentioned school segregation.

I actually did read the entire Constitution before posting Article 1 Section 8 above. No one here has actually commented on what I said about it or how it is applied by the government (Because everyone is instead interested in throwing insults). If the government is given the power to tax people to maintain the general welfare then it comes to reason that the government would also have to define what the term "general welfare" means.

So why is it ok for the government to spend tax dollars on the interstate highway system but not on education? Or on social security instead of education? Or on farm subsidies instead of education? Or on big business bail outs instead of education? Or a multitude of other things. Why is the government allowed to spend tax dollars on anything?

I guess at this rate I'd be interested (Could be another discussion entirely from this) to know why are you guys picking on the Department of Education? Why not Department of Defense or Department of Agriculture? Shouldn't the states all know how to better defend themselves than the federal government? Or how to better stabilize crop prices?

None of the cabinet departments are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so should they all be eliminated? I mean hell, pretty much the entire bureaucracy wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution so do away with it all!

That's to the extreme, but I'm trying to highlight my point that much of what happens today at the federal level is because of interpretation of the Constitution, not because any of it was specifically mentioned in the document. So why is it ok to interpret that the federal government should fund the Department of Defense but shouldn't fund the Department of Education, because the same "the states could and should do it better" argument could be made for all of them.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I still can't believe you guys are arguing about the DoED and not talking about how our President has no idea what hes doing.

Accuses Obama of wiretapping his shit.

Accuses Dems of not accepting is cabinet when his admin hasn't submitted the paperwork for them to be voted on.

Goes on daily twitter rants about TV shows.

Like what the hell, how is this guy in any way acting presidential.

So what is your opinion of things like Valarie Jarrett moving into the Obama Family home in Kalorama and Eric Holder saying Obama is "Ready To Roll" in getting back into the political spotlight, and the actions of Organizing For Action?

[Wschnitz]

Honestly its not any different from previous politicians using their previous titles to buy influence. Plenty have done similar/same things. However I think its stupid and he should just hang the coat up, or if he wants to get involved at least just work on fixing the democratic party.

But our president is spending his time ranting on twitter about things that don't make any sense.

[gwb72tii]

Obama should shut the fuck up like presidents before him and come to grips with the fact that he's a footnote in history

Just for you farb

[gwb72tii]

And mbonder
You are giving reasons why the federal government can justify what it does. Lol no surprise as the gov grows in size there are always justifications.
I'm telling you the DoED is not justified in any form if you read the constitution