Democrats hold struggling moms hostage in day care dilemma

[Ernie S.]

It's Illinois. Honest politicians are extinct there.

 

[hipeter924]

Wars are necessary. Defence is the responsibility of government. Your food, housing and cat are YOUR responsibility. I don't know about the baby next door, but a DNA test would tell you for sure.
LINK
Since 1964 when the so called "Great Society" started, we have spent 22 trillion dollars on our failed "War on Poverty". That's $22,000,000,000,000 or 3 times as much as we've spent on all wars from the Revolution to present.
We've got a deficit approaching 17 trillion and we've spent a total of 7 trillion on wars and 22 trillion on social programs.

Your argument defies logic.

You have forgotten to include the more than 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities social programs have caused. That alone dwarfs all of our military spending, but the left will never admit it.

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

 

[OKTexas]

You have forgotten to include the more than 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities social programs have caused. That alone dwarfs all of our military spending, but the left will never admit it.

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

More BS, funding for the DOE has increased every year and results have declined, all we have gotten for our money is another bloated federal bureaucracy who's only concern is maintaining and expanding itself. Imagine if the States had that 2 trillion dollars over the last 30+ years.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have forgotten to include the more than 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities social programs have caused. That alone dwarfs all of our military spending, but the left will never admit it.

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

 

[hipeter924]

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

 

[Two Thumbs]

Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly intentionally underfunded a program to help poor families pay for daycare so that it would run out of money in January and help them make the case for higher taxes. They don't care about poor people. They are merely pawns used to get them more power.

According to a memo from the current governor's office, the Quinn administration instructed the agency to operate as though it was fully funded, "despite knowing full well that doing so would create a funding shortfall in the second half of the fiscal year." The speculation is that Quinn expected to win re-election and pass a tax increase.

Democrats hold struggling moms hostage in day care dilemma - Chicago Tribune

That's the face of true evil.

Using misery and children like that.

 

[FA_Q2]

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

My idol Bush?

Are you for real?

 

[Jarhead]

Let me get this straight.... You want me to pay for your health care, your food, your housing, your utilities and now your health care? Am I your daddy?

But that's not what the thread is about. It's about a Democrat Governor who underfunded a give-away so he could intentionally run it out of funding in order to justify a tax increase.
Anywhere but government, that would be a crime, but it's OK with the Libs 'cause it's for the "chilluns".

Lets do a trade, I will pay for your healthcare, food, housing, cat, and even the baby next door - as long as you stop making me pay for perpetual wars, and never ending bailouts, that plunge America into trillions of debt. I don't think the 'left' is asking for much here.

two generations ago, you would have kissed the ground our troops walked on...and you most certainly would not have been willing to trade dollars for war for ANYTHING.
You guys just don't get it. All you have are talking points.

Not so long ago I would be in prison for protesting the first world war or Vietnam. But that America is long gone, thank goodness. And it is never coming back. I could kiss my grandfather, but I doubt he believed in war for wars sake - he fought to stop a war not create another, as warmongers in the weapons industry seek today.

You could learn a few things from Ron Paul, in your own party. Every day we go into the Middle East and meddle with things, it makes people hate America more, and creates more war.

Iraq was 'mission accomplished' as was Iran, after we couped the democratically elected govt and put the Shah in place - now we have an Iran that is a theocracy. What next, invade Iran, and create a shia version of ISIS?

Nope. The answer is to say "fuck them" over there, shore up our borders and stop them 10 miles off our shore. Let them fight thewir own war.
But the best way to do that is to NOT deplete our defense capabilities. We should build our military as the best defense is the optics of being impenetrable.
Bear in mind one thing....they don't hate us because of our meddling. They hate us for the way we live our lives.
Curious....what did Denmark do to them that put them on the "hated and must be killed" list?

 

[OKTexas]

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

Actually the article is dated Apr. 2006 and talks about proposed funding, not actual funding. Here's a little quote form that article.

In some corners, leaders like Steve Peha, president of Teaching That Makes Sense in Carrboro, N.C., an online curriculum publishing company, says he believes the battle lies in overhauling the Department of Education. "The main reason DOE is under-funded is that DOE cannot articulate a mission worth funding," he says flatly. "While any mission would be hard to get support for during a Republican administration, DOE won't succeed in the future with Democrats either if it can't show real results for its efforts."

BTW Reagan was elected on a promise to eliminate the DOE but the Dem congress refused to do it. In fact William Bennett, his education secretary, was given the mission of shutting its doors. It's a damned shame Reagan wasn't successful, it would have saved us a butt load of money.

 

[hipeter924]

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

Actually the article is dated Apr. 2006 and talks about proposed funding, not actual funding. Here's a little quote form that article.

In some corners, leaders like Steve Peha, president of Teaching That Makes Sense in Carrboro, N.C., an online curriculum publishing company, says he believes the battle lies in overhauling the Department of Education. "The main reason DOE is under-funded is that DOE cannot articulate a mission worth funding," he says flatly. "While any mission would be hard to get support for during a Republican administration, DOE won't succeed in the future with Democrats either if it can't show real results for its efforts."

BTW Reagan was elected on a promise to eliminate the DOE but the Dem congress refused to do it. In fact William Bennett, his education secretary, was given the mission of shutting its doors. It's a damned shame Reagan wasn't successful, it would have saved us a butt load of money.

Reagan got ill, and Bush Sr had to take over. Understand what you are getting at with the DOE now.

 

[OKTexas]

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

Actually the article is dated Apr. 2006 and talks about proposed funding, not actual funding. Here's a little quote form that article.

In some corners, leaders like Steve Peha, president of Teaching That Makes Sense in Carrboro, N.C., an online curriculum publishing company, says he believes the battle lies in overhauling the Department of Education. "The main reason DOE is under-funded is that DOE cannot articulate a mission worth funding," he says flatly. "While any mission would be hard to get support for during a Republican administration, DOE won't succeed in the future with Democrats either if it can't show real results for its efforts."

BTW Reagan was elected on a promise to eliminate the DOE but the Dem congress refused to do it. In fact William Bennett, his education secretary, was given the mission of shutting its doors. It's a damned shame Reagan wasn't successful, it would have saved us a butt load of money.

Reagan got ill, and Bush Sr had to take over. Understand what you are getting at with the DOE now.

Yep, screwed!

 

[Ernie S.]

You have forgotten to include the more than 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities social programs have caused. That alone dwarfs all of our military spending, but the left will never admit it.

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Bad scores have very little to do with funding.

The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year. 63% graduated High School.

Alabama spent $8,813 and has a 75% HS graduation rate

 

[Ernie S.]

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Cronic underfunding where?

The DOE does not have a real purpose - education is fully funded at the local level. All the federal government is doing at this juncture is adding more red tape to make the process more expensive and inefficient. I don't see a real purpose behind federal involvement in local school districts.


When talking about education and the DoE, the conversation centers around federal and states involvements. if you ignore that you are ignoring the entire process and the end result is meaningless.

The DOE facillates student loans and a wide range of programs, here is an article back in 2007, pointing out all the lovely gutting of the education system by your idol Bush (and Reagan) that make bad grades a reality: Underfunded District Administration Magazine

Propaganda from NEA. District Administration Magazine exists to ensure teachers and school admins earn ever larger salaries.

 

[hipeter924]

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Bad scores have very little to do with funding.

The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year. 63% graduated High School.

Alabama spent $8,813 and has a 75% HS graduation rate

Depends how the money is spent that is given, of course some states are going to spend more efficiently than others, but some states spend more and also get better results.

 

[Ernie S.]

Some have better paid teachers, more security and fancier campuses, but money does not equal good education. Parents involved in the process is far more important than money. Cultural differences also determine in part a student's success.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some have better paid teachers, more security and fancier campuses, but money does not equal good education. Parents involved in the process is far more important than money. Cultural differences also determine in part a student's success.

Bingo.

Money is not the answer. It is more cultural than anything. If there is an importance placed on education within the family then the student will do fine. If that is lacking then the student will not do well no matter how much money is thrown at the problem.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Wars are necessary. Defence is the responsibility of government. Your food, housing and cat are YOUR responsibility. I don't know about the baby next door, but a DNA test would tell you for sure.
LINK
Since 1964 when the so called "Great Society" started, we have spent 22 trillion dollars on our failed "War on Poverty". That's $22,000,000,000,000 or 3 times as much as we've spent on all wars from the Revolution to present.
We've got a deficit approaching 17 trillion and we've spent a total of 7 trillion on wars and 22 trillion on social programs.

Your argument defies logic.

You have forgotten to include the more than 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities social programs have caused. That alone dwarfs all of our military spending, but the left will never admit it.

What programs?

Unless you are seriously suggesting food stamps and public education funding should be removed, and we should have let millions of Americans just starve to death under bridges - so we can join the third world.

My dad and his 3 brothers sold apples on Man Street during the depression. One brother had polio. His father worked a full time job and worked a farm, My grandmother took in laundry. There were no food stamps or government subsidized health care. Minimum wage? Hell people worked for whatever they could and as hard as they could because there was a line outside the door waiting to take a low paying job
Johnson's "Great society has taken our former, truly great society and has turned it into a nation of people looking for hand outs.
22 trillion on the war on poverty and there's twice as many living in poverty as there were 50 years ago.

I had to work hard for everything, as did my parents, and their parents before them. But that doesn't mean I want other people to go through hardship, if it can be eased by government programs.

I could see ways to reform it, probably the best way is through education grants and housing for the homeless and struggling poor. I can agree with you that the programs are mis-managed, but solely on that basis it isn't enough justification to remove a life line.

Assuming that such cuts are carried out are equivalent to what happened under Pinochet's government, poverty would skyrocket from 'shock therapy' and the debt would still be there.

Cuts if they are to occur would have to take place slowly over decades, not all at once as proposed by the GOP. Otherwise there would be little time for the economy and people to adjust, and it would plunge America back into recession - as it has to some nations in Europe.

I see nothing wrong with life lines, though I have a Constitutional problem with funding charity with taxes. I'm a pretty generous guy, but I prefer to have a say in who gets my time and money.

The problem is that our social programs are not a life line. For too many they are a life style.

That's why charity through your own church is the most effective. You have control over who you help.

 

[Ernie S.]

I prefer the direct route. For the last 5 years, I have found people with no place to stay, but a desire to be self sufficient and allowed them to stay in my guest cottage for a nominal rent. I don't really expect to get my $50 every week, but what I do receive partially pays for electricity, heat, water and a meal here and there.
In 60 months, the cottage has been occupied 55 months by 6 different people. All but one are on their own. One has bought their own place and now has her own "projects".
The last is my only failure. He never once paid a dime towards rent, electric, DSL or food. He never had money so I had to feed a 22 year old boy that weighed in over 300 pounds.
All he contributed was about 1/2 hour labor helping to open up the bar at 1:00PM 5 days a week. In return he got 6-8 cups of coffee and a couple cocktails every day and thought I was taking advantage of him if I asked him to put on a pot of coffee.
Saturday night was the end of it. The sponge called me a liar in my own damned bar, told my wife she lacked the authority to ask him to leave and then had the balls to tell me I wasn't "security". I glanced at the bulge at my waistband and he suddenly decided I was security enough.
I put him out of the bar and then my life.

I don't want to be charitable to ungrateful turds. I want to be able to chose who I share my time and money with.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What a fucking drama queen. The Department of Education has been nothing but a very expensive white elephant, it's cost almost 2 trillion dollars since its inception and given us nothing in return, unless you think lower test scores, lower graduation rates and dumber students are good things. We no longer have enough people employed to cover the cost of social security and we're dipping into the trust fund which is increasing government debt and between SS, medicare and medicade there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. They won't crush the country today but the day of reckoning will come.

Given nothing? Doubt that. Millions were educated that otherwise couldn't afford to go to school or get any kind of formal education. If there is a 'day of reckoning' it will be when every public school is shut down, and only rich kids can go to school.

Bullshit, states had public schools long before the DOE and would have continued had it never been invented.

Eh? When I say 'public school', I don't make distinctions between the state and federal government, they are both funded and supported by public money (whether it is state or federal taxes paying for it).

I don't see the issue with the DOE, as they have to work with chronic underfunding in many areas - which would explain bad scores and performance (with or without common core).

Bad scores have very little to do with funding.

The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year. 63% graduated High School.

Alabama spent $8,813 and has a 75% HS graduation rate

Depends how the money is spent that is given, of course some states are going to spend more efficiently than others, but some states spend more and also get better results.

That and a thousand more years and we might catch up to the level of education in China.