Michelle Bachmann: "Why do we have a Department of Education?" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GoodStuff;32151387]Yes, Ron Paul has been saying it for years. In fact, talk of ending the Department of Education has been going on since the 80s. It's just really hard to shut down the DOE, because then it would look like the federal government doesn't give a shit about education, when in fact that's the truth. Bachmann is just copying Ron Paul's ideas just to make herself look smarter, yet she doesn't completely understand the idea behind eliminating the DOE. No, you got this completely wrong. Do you even know what the Department of Education does? They don't determine the curriculum at all and they are not really organized at all. Schools can teach whatever they want. Teachers and staff determine the curricula. Even parents have more of a say in the schools than the federal government. (Haven't you heard of the PTA - Parent-Teacher's Association?) States determine the academic guidelines. Hence the requirements for what needs to be taught in say for example, a Geometry class, differ from state to state. The DOE don't control the quality of schools and don't even do the accreditation. That's all done at the state level. All the DOE did was just give loans and grants to college students, make sure they paid it back and collect data. It was understandable back then, that you didn't need a separate department to do this simple crap. But ironically, it wasn't until George W. Bush a Republican, that when he passed the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush made the DOE larger and gave them the power to punish schools by giving less federal funding to schools who didn't do well on tests. Now, most people are saying the No Child Left Behind Act isn't really improving education, evidence being that there has been a huge number of cheating for the No Child Left Behind exams: [URL="http://www.google.com/search?q=cheating no child left behind"]http://www.google.com/search?q=cheating no child left behind[/URL] Read what the DOE does: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Functions"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Functions[/URL] Ron Paul doesn't want to completely eliminate federal aid for education, he just doesn't see the point of a separate department for education and why we're paying over billions for a department that doesn't really do anything complex that requires a separate federal department. According to Ron Paul, we should just give the money directly to the states and let them continue doing what they're doing. No more of the federal testing bs. It's not helping at all. But most teacher unions are against Ron Paul, because he also wants people to have [I][B]the choice and freedom[/B][/I] of using federal aid to pay for private schooling and the chance for [I][B]a better education[/B][/I], the same way it's currently done for college students. This pisses off the teachers union because they fear that most parents and students will choose this, meaning teachers in public schools will get paid less. Grants and financial aid for education have been issued for decades before the DoE existed. Why do we need a separate department and pay them billions to do simple shit like this? Ah, it's the same way schools want to cheat on federal exams set by the DoE. It's all about getting more money. Except, there's been a sharp increase in schools cheating across the country since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed and made the DoE more powerful and expensive. How can you stop the federal government, when the federal government doesn't even control education in the first place? Curriculum is determined by state and local governments. If the DoE is shut down, nothing in the curriculum or what schools are teaching currently will change.[/QUOTE] No Child Left Behind broke the DoE. Get rid of it and solve some problems. Give the DoE power to take over dysfunctional school boards until a new set can be elected into office as quickly as possible and to toss board members out for ethical and other violations that would usually get you fired from any other normal job. When that is done then we got a DoE that has enough power to keep things in line while not stepping into the states way too much because the OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE. By the way I was in CCPS when SACS was there waning to revoke their accreditation. The state fully gave up and everything failed the students. I managed to graduate before they revoked the accreditation so I dodged a bullet but just barely as I had to push through summer school to finish up before everything hit the fan because by that time, it was going to hit the fan and nothing could stop it.

Part of me really wants her or Perry to win, just so they can fuck things up so badly that no one will ever want to elect anyone like them again.

[QUOTE=coilgunner;32151847]The second that oil prices here hit a high price, just wait for and even bigger clusterfuck of Republicans promising to get more oil for the American dream. I'm telling you, we've seen it coming for years but after 9/11 and recently Donald Trump trying to run, its just sealed the deal. In a few more years our government is going to be run by some of the most psychotic ambitious Conservative Republicans we will ever see. All with the goal of magically finding some solution to expensive gas without actually solving the problems of our sprawl. The only really short solution will obviously be finding ways to start more wars to get what we want quickly. Actually I just feel like spitting this out right now. If there was going to be a time for party relocation it would probably be sometime during of after the above. If you think about it, on a really low level Republicans sort of have a good idea, at least the parts about how business's should be pretty free to do as they wish, and maybe the main government should be a little weaker than the state's government. However, when gas prices get way high and people wont be able to afford to drive, the most important thing will be lots and lots of small business in small areas within walking distance. Major corporations will be completely crippled and will lose employees to small local business's where they don't need to commute, and the major business's wont be able to pay for hauling goods all over the country. The whole structure of big business will crumble. The idea of lots of business competing is very republican, e.g. doctors who live a few houses down from you, corner grocery stores etc but not on a small scale. Funnily enough, these are currently things which Democrats are usually big supporters of. So I can see how when problems arise the mega rich republicans will continue to fight to keep their massive business alive wheras Democrats will probably want to have more state control over things in small scales. Anyone else following this? :P[/QUOTE] Once Americans pay European prices for oil and a Repub gets elected, there will be all out war with Russia and the middle east over oil. Calling it right now.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;32145258]We don't directly elect the president. This is how I recall it being done: We elect people who say they'll vote for x candidate, then they vote. Take my state, Minnesota, which has 10 electors and let's say six want Bachmann, four do not. Well, those four don't count because Bachmann had a majority in Minnesota, so Bachmann gets ten votes. This continues in every state until she's got 270 votes total, then she's president. She could get ALL the votes (however that is unlikely) but she needs a minimum of 270 to win. This is why candidates tour those really huge states, with lots of votes, and basically say "fuck you" to places like North Dakota. [editline] [/editline] Oh and I forgot to mention that not all states decide who they elect equally. The process varies state to state, but most (to my knowledge) operate in a majority win type thing, where the majority of votes for whoever decides where all the votes go.[/QUOTE] Technically, this would be true even if we had direct elections, as they would only do high population areas. There's no real way to deal with it, to be honest.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;32150404]To the people badmouthing Bachmann as usual, while I don't know the feasibility of dissolving our DoE, you have to admit it's a pretty shady concept to have a government-sponsored viewpoint. I don't like it either way. And frankly, neither should any of you.[/QUOTE]Look. I'm all for state's rights, I believe deregulation, less government intervention in lives and generally "smaller" government is good. I'm all for people being left to their own devices in a variety of things, I'm very libertarian in my outlook. However, I'm also a [i]realist[/i] and I don't think that dropping the Department of Education is a good idea at all. There are times when the government SHOULD set a standard, because in a normally small government those standards would be scrutinized and under the watchful eye of the people. The same people who follow cops around with cameras should, in fact, be following the government around with a clipboard scrutinizing everything and documenting any malpractice. Things like infrastructure, education and even healthcare are what the government should be setting standards for, NOT the individual states or the private sector. What's the point of having a United States if there's no unity at all?[QUOTE=Treybuchet;32152454]Technically, this would be true even if we had direct elections, as they would only do high population areas. There's no real way to deal with it, to be honest.[/QUOTE]In theory, in practice it's also possible for a president to gain the support of the popular vote and still lose in the electoral college. I don't like the idea of not directly electing my president, and I don't like the idea of having to elect some asshole who may or may not elect who he/she says they're going to elect. At least in Minnesota, that vote's invalidated, in other states it still counts.

These Republican candidates make McCain look like a great candidate by comparison. At least I don't dislike him on a personal level.

This is nothing, you should open up your eyes to some things Obama says.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32154329]This is nothing, you should open up your eyes to some things Obama says.[/QUOTE] Like - ?

A question for all you liberal losers: What reason do you have to reelect Barack Hussein Obama? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick account" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32154329]This is nothing, you should open up your eyes to some things Obama says.[/QUOTE] Marxist Kenyan conspiracy I'm guessing? [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=USA #1;32154495]A question for all you liberal losers: What reason do you have to reelect Barack Hussein Obama?[/QUOTE] Too obvious gimmick, bro.

I'm not really too worried by this considering there is no way in hell she would ever be elected.

Why are all the candidates buttfuck retarded in most respects?

[QUOTE=jordguitar;32150755]Go ahead and look up the cheating scandal in Atlanta Public School's and [url=http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/clayton/stories/2008/08/28/clayton_sacs_schools_timeline.html?cxntlid=inform_sr]Clayton County Public School's[/url] problems.[/QUOTE] Actually, one could argue that the DOE sponsored "No Child Left Behind Act" is directly responsible for incentivising (albeit bad) schools to cheat. Yeah they took steps to take their accreditation away, they were cheating, but the problem wasn't the inability to act on the accreditation agency's reaction to the problem, it was the incentives that "No Child Left Behind" offered. Why, under any other circumstances, would it be [i]good[/i] to cheat? What possible benefit could it offer? Especially when we're talking about a steady stream of public money or, say, a voucher system. [QUOTE=jordguitar;32152233]No Child Left Behind broke the DoE. Get rid of it and solve some problems. Give the DoE power to take over dysfunctional school boards until a new set can be elected into office as quickly as possible and to toss board members out for ethical and other violations that would usually get you fired from any other normal job. When that is done then we got a DoE that has enough power to keep things in line while not stepping into the states way too much because the OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE.[/quote] Well [b]much[/b] can be said about the state of education, but do you [i]really[/i] think doing what you proposed would work? There would be even more corruption, by people attempting to save their jobs. Granted it might be more invisible because sacking the school board probably produces less corruption than sacking an entire school via NCLB. [QUOTE=jordguitar;32152233]By the way I was in CCPS when SACS was there waning to revoke their accreditation. The state fully gave up and everything failed the students. I managed to graduate before they revoked the accreditation so I dodged a bullet but just barely as I had to push through summer school to finish up before everything hit the fan because by that time, it was going to hit the fan and nothing could stop it.[/QUOTE] If nothing could stop it what could the state possibly do?

I swear, if she get's elected I'm starting a revolutionary militia with a mandatory minimum I.Q.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32154507]Marxist Kenyan conspiracy I'm guessing?[/QUOTE] Nope, just some things he has said in general including: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - trying to convince us that government-run programs are good. He also thinks 'Austrian' is a language. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." Now keep in mind, everything and anything a republican says that was a slip-up, such as Sarah Palin saying "North Korean" instead of south is posted here. I have never seen any Obama quote that would make him look bad posted here.

[QUOTE=USA #1;32154495]A question for all you liberal losers: What reason do you have to reelect Barack Hussein Obama? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick account" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Because he will do absolutely anything to secure his second term.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32156104]Because he will do absolutely anything to secure his second term.[/QUOTE] Wait What? [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156069]Nope, just some things he has said in general including: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - trying to convince us that government-run programs are good. He also thinks 'Austrian' is a language. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." Now keep in mind, everything and anything a republican says that was a slip-up, such as Sarah Palin saying "North Korean" instead of south is posted here. I have never seen any Obama quote that would make him look bad posted here.[/QUOTE] I'm sure everyone hukhuk's when any political figure makes the occasional mistake, but if you base your entire opinion of a person on those mistakes then you are basing it on the wrong things.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156069]Nope, just some things he has said in general including: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - trying to convince us that government-run programs are good. He also thinks 'Austrian' is a language. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."[/quote] Gonna need sources, as I've only heard of the 3rd and 4th, and those aren't even gaffes. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156069]Now keep in mind, everything and anything a republican says that was a slip-up, such as Sarah Palin saying "North Korean" instead of south is posted here. I have never seen any Obama quote that would make him look bad posted here.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and if he said something like like "57 states" or "Austrian is a language", then that is certainly worth noting, just as it would be with Bachmann or Palin. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ewitwins;32156115]I'm sure everyone hukhuk's when any political figure makes the occasional mistake, but if you base your entire opinion of a person on those mistakes then you are basing it on the wrong things.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't dislike Palin/Bachmann because they make gaffes, if that were the case I'd really hate Biden.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32156135]Gonna need sources, as I've only heard of the 3rd and 4th, and those aren't even gaffes.[/QUOTE] It doesn't surprise me that you have never heard of them. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/url] - 57 states. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hclBAahivk0[/url] - Austrian language, 1:30 [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUmuZnmf7A[/url] - Post Office Now, I don't believe him saying something like '57 states' is news-worthy - it's a simple slip-up. The reason I bring it up is because it happens to the republicans, and people think they are the only ones who do that.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156356]It doesn't surprise me that you have never heard of them.[/quote] Yeah, thanks for the condescending tone. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156356][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/url] - 57 states.[/quote] Indeed a slip-up. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156356][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hclBAahivk0[/url] - Austrian language, 1:30[/quote] While most likely a slip-up, it's fair to note that Austrians have slightly different form of German that they speak, as far as I know. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156356][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUmuZnmf7A[/url] - Post Office[/quote] Okay? I think the Post Office doesn't get enough funding, and that's why it's doing poorly. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32156356]Now, I don't believe him saying something like '57 states' is news-worthy - it's a simple slip-up. The reason I bring it up is because it happens to the republicans, and people think they are the only ones who do that.[/QUOTE] I agree, and never once have I implied that GOP candidates are worse because they have slip-up moments. I think that they are worse because I think that their ideas are worse. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] If you're hoping to peg me as some die-hard Obama supporter, it's just not going to happen. All I'd say is that he's the best current choice, given the field.

Guys, the DoE is the Department of Energy; the Department of Education is abbreviated ED. And it's pretty clear the ED needs reform, but I don't understand this conservative crusade against the concept of of a ED and its goals, a Department encompassing about 2% of the Federal Budget. While I don't support NCLB or the Race to the Top I also don't understand the problem of attempting to establish higher standards in education on a national level.

[QUOTE=s0beit;32155636]Actually, one could argue that the DOE sponsored "No Child Left Behind Act" is directly responsible for incentivising (albeit bad) schools to cheat. Yeah they took steps to take their accreditation away, they were cheating, but the problem wasn't the inability to act on the accreditation agency's reaction to the problem, it was the incentives that "No Child Left Behind" offered. Why, under any other circumstances, would it be [i]good[/i] to cheat? What possible benefit could it offer? Especially when we're talking about a steady stream of public money or, say, a voucher system. Well [b]much[/b] can be said about the state of education, but do you [i]really[/i] think doing what you proposed would work? There would be even more corruption, by people attempting to save their jobs. Granted it might be more invisible because sacking the school board probably produces less corruption than sacking an entire school via NCLB. If nothing could stop it what could the state possibly do?[/QUOTE] When the school board are too full of themselves that they refuse to step down while they continue to say that everything around them is blowing up is extremely stupid. All the board had to do in Clayton County's case was step down. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. None of them did that and SACS pulled the accreditation. They could care less about the students in the system. If some body that would regulate things on what a board can and cant do and step in and toss them all out when needed then yes there would have been a COMPLETELY different outcome. The DoE needs different powers. Not this bullshit No Child Left Behind Act that will OBVIOUSLY be defunct soon with schools systems having to cheat on exams to get federal funding that they would have got in the first place anyways without that damn act.

But Miss Bachmann, wouldn't that make more people jobless and america %90 times retarder, like you? :v:

Obligatory [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN-drEG7wms[/media]

I feel sorry for you in the US.

Welp, time to stop calling myself a republican ..... Because even I'm not that dumb.

I like how all the people that are trying to do something good like Kennedy, Lincoln and King gets murdered. If you're stupid and want to do retarded things, go ahead.

Wow. Holy fuck, if she gets elected the USA are fucked.

[QUOTE=Domokun;32140803]She has no chance of winning anyways, so I'm not worried about her becoming president.[/QUOTE] Just think of it like this: We elected George Bush [b][i]twice[/i][/b] even after the bullshit he had done in his first 4 years. I'm sure that people would vote for Bachmann still.

To be fair, the DoE does need a lot of work. Obama's still trying to mop up after the No Child Left Behind fiasco. I swear, at the Kumon where I work, we wouldn't have half of the kids there if they had simply stuck to the old curriculum. Instead of actually teaching you everything you need to know, they'd teach you whatever you need for state testing, and the rest is an afterthought. And let's not even mention all the shit they ended up cutting out of schools. The "New math," where you end up with more "Real Life Examples" rather than straight math problems like in old textbooks, was the other thing that came out of this. Furthermore, it created a system in which each state creates its own standardized testing and even the scale for it, rather than forcing all states to abide by a national standard. For example, an article my dad often gives to parents of prospective students deals with the fact that Kentucky state standards are somewhere within the 80th percentile on state testing. However, on a national level, it was (and is) much, much worse. This is because in addition to how it's scored, the questions aren't always as difficult as they're supposed to be. In short, NCLB made it so that each state could determine exactly what they think is good, even if it means that the entire state is possibly lagging behind. This is more or less why recently a bunch of states had to take the Iowa test last year. Even Obama can't totally fix it, because by now you have so many people behind, that any attempts to try and bring everyone up will only leave some people in the dust. This year, even, my brother's elementary school announced that because students aren't prepared enough for college, the math and science content will be introduced a year earlier. So 4th graders might be doing 5th grade stuff, 5th graders will be doing basic fractions, and 6th graders will be doing pre-algebra. That's fine, but what about the students that can barely multiply and divide? Sorry for the ramble, but DoE needs heavy reform. Bachmann's retarded, but I really think Obama needs to get a move on. Tl;Dr Nice job wrecking the education system, Bush.