Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Redistributionomics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redistributionomics

    President Obama's Redistributionomics

    That's the narrative that Obama and Ezra Klein want you to believe. Problem is, there are a few factual errors in their story.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncar...omics-n1956653


    An interesting read. Lots of links to other articles confirming the facts stated. Obama believes that bigger government is the answer to every problem in the world and he should be allowed to redistribute money as he sees fit.

  • #2
    Quote from the OP linked article:
    And there's always been this notion that for a country to thrive there are some things, as Lincoln says, that we can do better together than we can do for ourselves. And whether that's building roads, or setting up effective power grids, or making sure that we've got high-quality public education — that teachers are paid enough — the market will not cover those things. And we've got to do them together.
    That is quoted from Prez Obama.
    Here's the critique, from the author of the article:
    But the vast majority of the financing, construction, and management of those services has always been coordinated by state and local governments and there simply is no evidence that federal government interference has helped improve the provision of those services at all.
    So his complaint is not that government has taken care of these issues. It complains about federal gov't. being involved. The complaint that lefties like myself have, is that state governments have often neglected their duties to properly administrate these issues. For instance, education. It is fine for a state gov't. to administrate public education. When the local/state gov't. issues vouchers and fails to control the quality of education, it requires control from higher up. Education falls under "general welfare" (go to debates on public education during/after Lincoln's era), so the federal gummint is obligated.

    They'll probably need to step in and fix Kansas' experiment with "low-ball" education policies, for instance. The libertarian solution, such as waiting for the victims (children) to grow up and throw a French Revolution party to cull the families responsible, is way too violent and messy. Sometimes I don't understand why conservatives act like such way out radicals. Only Bolsheviks go in for that sort of thing.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Quote from the OP linked article:

      That is quoted from Prez Obama.
      Here's the critique, from the author of the article:


      So his complaint is not that government has taken care of these issues. It complains about federal gov't. being involved. The complaint that lefties like myself have, is that state governments have often neglected their duties to properly administrate these issues. For instance, education. It is fine for a state gov't. to administrate public education. When the local/state gov't. issues vouchers and fails to control the quality of education, it requires control from higher up. Education falls under "general welfare" (go to debates on public education during/after Lincoln's era), so the federal gummint is obligated.

      They'll probably need to step in and fix Kansas' experiment with "low-ball" education policies, for instance. The libertarian solution, such as waiting for the victims (children) to grow up and throw a French Revolution party to cull the families responsible, is way too violent and messy. Sometimes I don't understand why conservatives act like such way out radicals. Only Bolsheviks go in for that sort of thing.
      The author of the article was arguing one point as you pointed out. Why is the federal government doling out money to build a local road? Because they want control of the project. It's all about control and votes. Vote for me and I will make sure you get money for that road.


      Education is much better managed at the local level. The decline in SAT scored began with the creation of the Department of Education. The farther you are removed from a situation, the less you know about it and the poorer the decisions regarding that situation. There are very few things the framers of the Constitution put on the Federal Government. Most of it was supposed to be left to the States.

      Read this:

      http://freebeacon.com/culture/farewe...good-riddance/
      Last edited by OldmanDan; 02-16-2015, 06:16 AM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        So what to do when a state fails to efficiently educate it's students? Kansas' state supreme court determined that the state was failing on one or more education standards, yet the executive and legislative responded by cutting funding for education, with no reforms to correct the situation. If basic education is critical to the survival of the nation, who corrects the state when it fails its' students?

        Education, BTW, is not mentioned at all in the constitution, including whether it should be left to the states.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          So what to do when a state fails to efficiently educate it's students? Kansas' state supreme court determined that the state was failing on one or more education standards, yet the executive and legislative responded by cutting funding for education, with no reforms to correct the situation. If basic education is critical to the survival of the nation, who corrects the state when it fails its' students?

          Education, BTW, is not mentioned at all in the constitution, including whether it should be left to the states.

          Anything not delineated to be the responsibility of the Federal Government is left to the states.

          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

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            ...Unless a state constitution expressly mentions public education, it too would not be obligated to deal with the issue at all. ....Until that state failed, which it surely would.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              ...Unless a state constitution expressly mentions public education, it too would not be obligated to deal with the issue at all. ....Until that state failed, which it surely would.
              Don't know about your area but every state I have lived in, the lions share of education funds came from local property taxes. The rest comes with lots of strings attached. The Federal Government should not be involved with education funding at all. It is just another area where they take our tax money and give it back to us with their control strings attached.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                I would agree to the federal gov't. getting out of 'most' funding for education, with the following two exceptions:
                -Baseline standards for all 50 states All states are free to add standards, but none are free to low ball the children's education by cutting out basic standards: readin', writin, 'rithmatic for instance.
                -All states are subject to yearly audits by an independent auditor, to ensure they comply with baseline standards.

                Your other point, that all states fund education, doesn't answer my point: Just because a state constitution fails to mention education, doesn't mean they don't engage in that very thing. "Strict constitutionalism" would dictate that they don't fund it. Yet, they all do, which universally contradicts your goal of strict adherence to the social contract.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Seems to me that the problems arise when the fed gov't funds something, that they then attach all these strings to the funding. And of course that is about the men in DC gaining CONTROL over something, for what good is being in a position of power, if you cannot stomp your foot down on someone? Of course that is what is wrong when it comes to the feds funding anything. But this control is a human nature problem, and it isn't inevitable that the control automatically comes with funding. Take education for example. There are poor states and rich states. But education should have standards that are not controlled by the ability of a poor state to implement them. So, using Lincoln's idea, which is a good idea, that the larger group can better finance something beneficial to the American society as a whole, this doesn't HAVE to give any control to the feds, who are just distributing tax dollars. All the feds have to do is to distribute tax money to the states who then the local level manages the educational standards. We do not need the feds managing that. It is much better done at the local level. And all that it takes to change this, to limit the feds to distributing tax dollars for education, with no strings attached is for this to be made an issue, and then the American people put in men who will change the system. Of course, it sounds simple, but in practice it is far from simple. And you can blame that on the politicians who want power, and the MSM who's job these days is to not upset the status quo by actual serving the interest of the public. The media isn't serving any sort of public interest at all. It is serving the Corporate State, the Oligarchy. That is so clear, but hardly anyone pays any attention. Which comes back to education. We are not educating americans to be thinking beings, but only to fit as a cog in the gears of the status quo. Education is giving the corporate state exactly what it demands. This explains why so many high school grads, have not clue about civics nor their civic duty to be well informed voters, with the cognitive capability of being able to spot propaganda very quickly. I guarantee you that most educated americans do not even realize that MSM, all of it, is nothing more than mostly propaganda, and of course entertainment.

                  So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the feds distributing tax dollars to various beneficial projects, for that is the intelligent way to do it, and the problem is created by the control demanded by the burocrats and politicians. That control should be stripped away completely. This would get rid of such megaliths as the dept of education, which we absolutely do not need, for it is a grand waste of tax dollars, and these institutions become so large and inefficient as to be cosmic jokes. Totally unnecessary.

                  Personally I want to see big gov't trimmed down, to the bone, but in some areas like prisons, they need to reverse the current trend of giving the incarceration of law breakers to the private sector, so that criminal behavior is profitable for corporations. This is the most stupid thing ever, and of course comes to us compliments of these nutty conservatives who want to turn everything possible over to the private sector. I fully expect eventually even our military will be corporate supplied mercanaries, for if you look at the private sector's involvement in wars today, it is at an all time high. This is part of what Ike tried to warn the American people about, for he must have seen it coming in the 50s.
                  Last edited by Blue Doggy; 02-21-2015, 12:20 PM.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Let the 50 states define "basic education" thru their university schools of education, then put that in a final, summary definition for the federal auditor. States that comply with the definition get the block grant for education. States that don't, get an audit and a black eye.

                    That helps kids, first. It also corrects state gov't's that behave badly in a critical function (like education), which should be one of the main functions of the federal gov't.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Let the 50 states define "basic education" thru their university schools of education, then put that in a final, summary definition for the federal auditor. States that comply with the definition get the block grant for education. States that don't, get an audit and a black eye.

                      That helps kids, first. It also corrects state gov't's that behave badly in a critical function (like education), which should be one of the main functions of the federal gov't.

                      I'm afraid we disagree again. The Federal Government should not have a main function of correcting state's behavior. The Constitution clearly delineates the mandate of the Federal Government and leaves the rest to the States. The Federal Government has absolutely no role in education/indoctrination.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                        I'm afraid we disagree again. The Federal Government should not have a main function of correcting state's behavior. The Constitution clearly delineates the mandate of the Federal Government and leaves the rest to the States. The Federal Government has absolutely no role in education/indoctrination.
                        I think our kids were better educated before the feds imposed themselves into education. I know the federal involvement exponentially increased administrative costs here in my own neck of the woods. For example. my father in law was superintendent of education for the county here, and was the top dog over I think 5 public schools. He worked out of a small office in the court house, and had one secretary, which was his wife, my mother in law. Both have passed on. We still have 5 county schools here, but in replacing that small office we now have a complex, simply huge, with a workforce that looks like a small factory. This sucks up quite a bit of the money aimed at education. This happened because the feds got involved. It crazy, and top heavy.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                          I'm afraid we disagree again. The Federal Government should not have a main function of correcting state's behavior. The Constitution clearly delineates the mandate of the Federal Government and leaves the rest to the States. The Federal Government has absolutely no role in education/indoctrination.
                          Since state constitutions don't necessarily specify education either, the smaller gov't. unit (the state) can also ignore education. A point you repeatedly ignore, ironically. If the federal gov't. is constitutionally out of the picture on education, so is the state level.

                          At least you give some recognition for the federal role in correcting bad behavior at the state level, even if that is not it's "main function". Think about that one again, OMD. If the federal gov't. were scaled back to a minimal level as you might want, one of it's most important roles would be correcting wayward state governments. Unless you propose an independent layer of state auditor/prosecutors that is authorized to investigate, arrest and prosecute wayward state officials? That would be the only way to avoid federal involvement, and since that option would be ignored by states with a history of corruption, it would leave a patchwork of utterly inept states dragging down the union.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                            I think our kids were better educated before the feds imposed themselves into education. I know the federal involvement exponentially increased administrative costs here in my own neck of the woods. For example. my father in law was superintendent of education for the county here, and was the top dog over I think 5 public schools. He worked out of a small office in the court house, and had one secretary, which was his wife, my mother in law. Both have passed on. We still have 5 county schools here, but in replacing that small office we now have a complex, simply huge, with a workforce that looks like a small factory. This sucks up quite a bit of the money aimed at education. This happened because the feds got involved. It crazy, and top heavy.
                            This is more to the point, although "pre-federal" in education was also around the time civil rights were just being enforced and integrating schools was barely a practice after SCOTUS forced the issue. Good schools for students in prosperous districts, bad schools for the unfortunates who grow up in poor districts. Way too many states were willing to go with that model, which will always be a recipe for disaster.

                            However, it was up to the states to band together on this issue and force the federals to get their act together. If it was obvious 10 years after the Dept. of Education was invented, and the states started a nationwide movement at that point, we would have a much smaller and efficient federal agency, with states running reasonably good educational systems across the board. But the states need guidelines, even if they come up with those guidelines themselves. For example, I'm confident that they would have seen the folly of forced integration, but would have handled the issue of "equal opportunity for a good education" in a more direct and honest fashion. Lump the total state property tax portion for education, divide by number of students, and that is the budget for each school district. Simple and straight solution. Magnet schools (which was a concept invented at the state level if I remember correctly), distributed between prosperous and not so wealthy neighborhoods. Integration occurs because it makes sense for expanded education and/or athletic programs, rather than forcing everyone to "get along".

                            We would have had a small federal agency in charge of auditing the states for compliance with The List, which the states themselves developed. The Dept of Education would have been phased out long ago.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              This is more to the point, although "pre-federal" in education was also around the time civil rights were just being enforced and integrating schools was barely a practice after SCOTUS forced the issue. Good schools for students in prosperous districts, bad schools for the unfortunates who grow up in poor districts. Way too many states were willing to go with that model, which will always be a recipe for disaster.

                              However, it was up to the states to band together on this issue and force the federals to get their act together. If it was obvious 10 years after the Dept. of Education was invented, and the states started a nationwide movement at that point, we would have a much smaller and efficient federal agency, with states running reasonably good educational systems across the board. But the states need guidelines, even if they come up with those guidelines themselves. For example, I'm confident that they would have seen the folly of forced integration, but would have handled the issue of "equal opportunity for a good education" in a more direct and honest fashion. Lump the total state property tax portion for education, divide by number of students, and that is the budget for each school district. Simple and straight solution. Magnet schools (which was a concept invented at the state level if I remember correctly), distributed between prosperous and not so wealthy neighborhoods. Integration occurs because it makes sense for expanded education and/or athletic programs, rather than forcing everyone to "get along".

                              We would have had a small federal agency in charge of auditing the states for compliance with The List, which the states themselves developed. The Dept of Education would have been phased out long ago.



                              Nothing in the Federal Government ever gets phased out. It only grows bigger and more powerful.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X