Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... dualing Congressional members should be on PPV!

We'd balance the budget in no time.

I'd be throwing money at the TV for that. Imagine the bookie action....talk about stimulating the economy.

Don't forget the executive branch, you never know when we'll elect another Aaron Burr.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RivenSkull wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.

Fun fact: Almost all civilian branches of the military, such as research and development, are all "non essential". It's only about 10% that are labeled essential.

If fact we could do that. Completely cut out most of the R&D defense budget, inject a few hundred billion dollars that would be used for things like schools, infrastructure, etc. It would balance the budget easily.

You've done it: You've solved the economy problems. We need to get you to Washington so you can tell them right away!

If the federal govt is going to paying for the schools then my state better stop collecting property taxes. They already misallocate millions of dollars in the education budget which to me, makes giving them more money to burn a bad idea.

I'm fine with cutting non essential military R&D employees as long as we also get rid of the department of education, FTC, EPA, DOA, and most every other department whose existence is just a textbook example of Pournelle's Iron Law.

New leadership in congress? Surely things will be different this time!

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.

Even during the shut down our debts were paid. The most essential services continue, such as: (1) providing for national security, (2) conducting foreign affairs, (3) providing for the continuity of mandatory benefit payments, and (4) protecting life and property. These services include military, law enforcement, veterans care, and others. Social Security checks are still mailed and self-funded agencies like the Postal Service would continue operating. Permanent entitlement programs like medicare also kept running because they aren't dependent on annual funding by Congress.

ITT, people demonstrate a startling lack of understanding how their government actually works.

Prestor Jon wrote:


I'm fine with cutting non essential military R&D employees as long as we also get rid of the department of education, FTC, EPA, DOA, and most every other department whose existence is just a textbook example of Pournelle's Iron Law.

If science fiction writers are now the epitome of political discourse, I suppose we need to all go read some L. Ron Hubbard and get on the crazy train with Travolta. Besides, I don't think I would hold up Jerry as a golden example of what works for everyone when he self-described, on multiple occasions, his political ideology as "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan." I don't want to Godwin the thread but I think you might see where this sort of thinking leads.

Getting rid of the alphabet agencies would result in "freedom" and by freedom I mean anarchy because without the FTC you've got unregulated airwaves with AT&T blowing up or blocking every other carrier. No EPA? I hope you don't breath air or drink water. I am always in awe of people who think that unregulated industry results in companies doing good things for people and the environment. You want to witness that, move to Seoul. I lived there for 4 years and I'm still blowing black crap out of my nose due to all of the pollution.

I view the agencies as bumbling do-gooders; the Don Quixotes of the nation with the windmills being the various fires that crop up and threaten to burn the union to a cinder. I know some people hate being told what to do but try letting your kids do anything you want in your house and see how that works out for you...and please don't think that most adults are any more responsible than 3 year olds; less so, I'd say especially when their second billion dollars might be on the line.

And getting rid of education is the opposite of more freedom, an uneducated populous is a complacent populous.

 agnosto wrote:

I view the agencies as bumbling do-gooders; the Don Quixotes of the nation with the windmills being the various fires that crop up and threaten to burn the union to a cinder. I know some people hate being told what to do but try letting your kids do anything you want in your house and see how that works out for you...and please don't think that most adults are any more responsible than 3 year olds; less so, I'd say especially when their second billion dollars might be on the line.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And getting rid of education is the opposite of more freedom, an uneducated populous is a complacent populous.

The US Department of Education has only been operating since May of 1980. For the first 204 years of our country's existence we managed to grow from 13 colonies to a continent spanning superpower, educate hundreds of millions of people, assimilate millions of immigrants, and develop the largest economy in the world without the Dept of Ed existing. Our parents, grandparents, etc. all those previous generations managed to get educated without any help from a federal Dept of Ed. The current annual budget for the Dept of Ed is $69,000,000,000 and they don't operate a single school or educate anyone. The primary focus of the dept is redistributing tax money.

We already have municipal and state oversight of public schools and universities and municipal and state revenue streams to fund them. All the Dept of Ed does is redistribute tax money in a counterproductive manner that isn't cost effective. Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.

While I agree the DoE is really really bad at what it does, destroying it will not solve any of this country's struggles with education. If anything a massive reform of the department and its practices is what we really need.

Also, the DoE started in the 1860's. It didn't become a Department (and thus a Cabinet member) until 1980. In 1953, its job was managed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (deactivated in 1980 when Carter pushed for a full blown Education Department). All the agencies that make up the DoE existed in some form prior to 1980, but they were spread across other agencies and departments. The DoE was formed to centralize all those functions, most of them dating back to the 19th century. So yeah. DoE didn't exist until 1980, but it's not like it popped out of thin air. Someone just took all the education cards and put them in the same deck.

we managed to grow from 13 colonies

The above is why you need a department of education. There were only 12 colonies that rebelled against the crown. Delaware didn't count

Apologies for being pedantic

How does Delaware not count?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And getting rid of education is the opposite of more freedom, an uneducated populous is a complacent populous.

Getting rid of the Dept. of Education however has no impact on education, just bureaucracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.

Michelle's really awesome lunch menus!

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.

While I agree the DoE is really really bad at what it does, destroying it will not solve any of this country's struggles with education. If anything a massive reform of the department and its practices is what we really need.

Also, the DoE started in the 1860's. It didn't become a Department (and thus a Cabinet member) until 1980. In 1953, its job was managed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (deactivated in 1980 when Carter pushed for a full blown Education Department). All the agencies that make up the DoE existed in some form prior to 1980, but they were spread across other agencies and departments. The DoE was formed to centralize all those functions, most of them dating back to the 19th century. So yeah. DoE didn't exist until 1980, but it's not like it popped out of thin air. Someone just took all the education cards and put them in the same deck.

Which of the agencies in the DoE that existed before 1980 actually ran any schools or educated people? What does the DoE do with it's $69,000,000,000 annual budget that makes any difference on the quality and efficiency of the public education system in the US?

 LordofHats wrote:
How does Delaware not count?

I may be wrong, but it didn't join until after the war started.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Which of the agencies in the DoE that existed before 1980 actually ran any schools or educated people? What does the DoE do with it's $69,000,000,000 annual budget that makes any difference on the quality and efficiency of the public education system in the US?

A lot of that money is tied up in our student loans, which the department manages. A fair bit probably also is in the federal aid to state education system. I know it sounds bizarre, but money doesn't move itself. Someone has to move it. I imagine that lacking that money, fewer people could go to college, and public schools would have less money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
How does Delaware not count?

I may be wrong, but it didn't join until after the war started.

They were the most reluctant to join, but Delaware reps did sign the Declaration of Independence (George Reed, Caesar Rodney, and Thomas McKean), and people from the colony served in the Continental Army. By all rights Delaware was rebelling. Though this probably leads into the morality of the Founding Fathers to declare independence in the first place, which is a messy debate.

I may be going massively OT here, but if the DoE was created in 1980, then it was created UNDER REAGAN'S WATCH (apologies for the capitals )

What happened to Reagan taking on big government, what happened to Reagan being the scourge of red tape and bureaucracy, what happened to Reagan cutting back the deficit? Now it seems the guy was creating departments left right and centre and throwing money on the fire!

Damn this thread for destroying the Ronald Reagan myth!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I may be going massively OT here, but if the DoE was created in 1980, then it was created UNDER REAGAN'S WATCH (apologies for the capitals )

What happened to Reagan taking on big government, what happened to Reagan being the scourge of red tape and bureaucracy, what happened to Reagan cutting back the deficit? Now it seems the guy was creating departments left right and centre and throwing money on the fire!

Damn this thread for destroying the Ronald Reagan myth!

The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.

Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.

I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.

Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.

I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!

Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.

Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.

And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.

Prestor Jon wrote:


The US Department of Education has only been operating since May of 1980. For the first 204 years of our country's existence we managed to grow from 13 colonies to a continent spanning superpower, educate hundreds of millions of people, assimilate millions of immigrants, and develop the largest economy in the world without the Dept of Ed existing. Our parents, grandparents, etc. all those previous generations managed to get educated without any help from a federal Dept of Ed. The current annual budget for the Dept of Ed is $69,000,000,000 and they don't operate a single school or educate anyone. The primary focus of the dept is redistributing tax money.

We already have municipal and state oversight of public schools and universities and municipal and state revenue streams to fund them. All the Dept of Ed does is redistribute tax money in a counterproductive manner that isn't cost effective. Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.

Yep. Less than 4% of the national budget, let's just shut it down, that'll solve all kinds of problems....not really. I'll leave aside that a large part of this spending is for Veteran's Education Programs and federal student loan support (which helps poor students who would otherwise not be able to attend college, you know, attend college). The amount of Title I, II, III, V, VII and X funds that gets allocated to states (and ultimately schools) amounts to about 1% of the national budget. The benefits of all of that money are far-reaching. USDE may not have been around very long in its current form but it did exist previous, as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and federal involvement in Education goes all the way back to 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance Act; there were educational land grants in the 1800s and the original Department of Education was founded in 1867..I can't remember when but this agency was also in charge of all of the land grant schools (yes, the federal government ran schools) until the nation became too populous for one small agency to do the work. You can look on Wikipedia for the rest but there has been a federal education agency since 1867.

yadda yadda yadda.

Look, I know nothing I can type here will make you think that the tax payer's money is being put to good use; you've already made up your mind that every federal agency is the devil. Let me put it to you this way. Education is currently massively underfunded by states across the country. Some states like Kansas and Oklahoma think it's a better idea to give rich people tax breaks than fund the education of their children which is why Oklahoma has cut education spending 23% since 2008 and teachers in the state are the lowest paid in the region. So, yeah, leave it all up to states, I'm sure they'll make great decisions on education. Meanwhile, US students continue to perform poorly compared to their peers in other countries with national education systems and proper supportive educational mechanisms. I've taught in the US, Japan and S. Korea and I bet you can guess which two countries had the better educational systems and adequate funding for schools....a hint is that neither begins with a "U". You can compare education to the US of 200 years ago or even 50 years ago all you like but every other country has progressed since then, why shouldn't we? Oh, conservative values, yeah, those will really make our work force more competitive in a global market... Federal education funding has been around since the ESEA was first founded under Johnson's War on Poverty in 1965.

The states seem to be really good at funding education, huh?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.

Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.

I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!

Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.

To be fair, that's a result of No Child Left Behind, that concept didn't exist under previous iterations of the ESEA.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.

And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.

Public education and the Department of Education are the opposite of the same.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.

And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.

Public education and the Department of Education are the opposite of the same.

That's why I said "And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general." but the confusion is understandable.

Delaware isn't always considered a colony as it didn't have it's own Government until 1776; it was essentially an outcropping of Pennsylvania and under their rule.

Meh. My yard is bigger than Delaware.

 whembly wrote:

Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.

I think setting standards is good, but the way we're trying to do it is really brain dead. The way we test for it is even more brain dead. As someone taking a test, multiple choice rocks because it's easy. We need more written exams, especially in English and History. And yes. No Child Left Behind is moronic. How anyone ever expected that to work is beyond incomprehensible.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Delaware isn't always considered a colony as it didn't have it's own Government until 1776; it was essentially an outcropping of Pennsylvania and under their rule.

That makes sense.

 d-usa wrote:
The 60 person filibuster vote could end up being an interesting political play.

On one hand I would imagine that the republicans would like to have the same option that the democrats gave themselves, although it would be of very limited benefit during the next two years. It would be nice to have during a republican administration, but there is no guarantee that the GOP will keep the senate in 2016 if they win it now.

So do they get rid of it now, while it is useless to them, to make a show of restoring the old traditions of the senate and to get rid of shenanigans started by Democrats? It would make for nice "we gave a voice back to the minority because we love the principles of the Republic" sound bites in the next elections.

But if they end up with a GOP senate and WH they would probably like to change it back to what the democrats had. That would open them up to democrats telling everyone "they complained, but look at them snatching power now".

But if it gets rolled back and the Democrats end up with the Senate and White House in 2016 they would have to change the rules again, which would give Republicans the opportunity to say "they took the power once and we graciously gave it back. Now they want that power again to silence the minority!"

It's all politics, and I wouldn't fault a GOP senate for using the same tools that the democrats gave themselves. But it will be interesting how it plays out in the talking points.

Well... crap.

Looks like Reid's nuked option is here to stay:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/orrin-g-hatch-and-c-boyden-gray-after-harry-reid-the-gop-shouldnt-unilaterally-disarm-1415232867

...
Specifically, the new Senate must begin by restoring the twin pillars of the institution’s deliberative character: full debate and an open amendment process. Sen. Robert C. Byrd described those two institutional safeguards—open debate and amendment—as bulwarks that ensure “the liberties of the people will remain secure.” In the end, the Senate’s procedural safeguards exist not to protect individual senators, but to preserve Americans’ liberty.

But that fundamental goal—protecting liberty—counsels against blindly returning to the prior status quo. Some bells cannot be unrung. Chief among these is Sen. Reid’s decision to invoke the “nuclear option” to strip minority senators of their ability to filibuster judicial nominees.

The nuclear option allowed President Obama and his allies to reshape the judicial branch dramatically to suit their far-left agenda. And the Democrats were not shy in boasting of their achievement. This summer, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the administration’s efforts to extend subsidies to the federal ObamaCare exchange—in clear violation of the plain words of the Affordable Care Act and the stated intent of its architects—the newly minted majority of Democratic appointees on that court voted to rehear the case “en banc.” Sen. Reid announced that the “simple math” of the D.C. Circuit’s new majority of Democratic-appointed judges would serve to “vindicate” Democrats’ use of the nuclear option, presumably by preserving the administration’s signature legislative achievement. …

It will fall to the next Republican president to counteract President Obama’s aggressive efforts to stack the federal courts in favor of his party’s ideological agenda. But achieving such balance would be made all the more difficult—if not impossible—if Republicans choose to reinstate the previous filibuster rule now that the damage to the nation’s judiciary has already been done.
...

Ugh... they do need to make Democrats pay some price for abusing their majority power over the past several years, and especially since last November.

The thing is... Republicans won’t always be in the majority, after all, one way to prevent further abuses is to make sure that those who conduct them have to endure the same abuses themselves, at least for a while, or pay some otherwise significant penalty for them. (besides the electoral spanking they just received).

However... it’s in the nation’s best interest to restore effectiveness and professionalism to the Senate, and in the best interest of the GOP, imo, to provide the obvious contrast between governance and Reid’s antic of the upper chamber.

Restore it to pre-Reid environment... because, it's the long game that's worthwhile.

Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.

1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?

2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?

3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?

4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.

1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?

2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?

3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?

4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?

Poor people rely on low paying jobs. In the past we were able to get low-paying but full time jobs. But now, thanks to the ACA, we can't get full time jobs and only multiple part time jobs because businesses don't want to have to pay health insurance for all their full time employees. This creates a larger burden on the poorer people and makes it harder to find enough work.
So, yes. There are still a lot of economic issues that the "recovery" hasn't recovered.

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.

1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?

2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?

3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?

4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?

1) Economy, ACA and Obama

2) Not really... except for the uber rich and big companies

3) Current policies foisted by Democrats

4) Because, they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to run the country

What are the Dems current economic polices, I honestly have no idea because nothing ever gets done.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What are the Dems current economic polices, I honestly have no idea because nothing ever gets done.

Have you not paid attention to me?