Rookie Rand Paul Tackles Budget Head-On - $500 Billion Cut In One Year

• CenterBHSFan

  

  Well I guess it would depend on if you want a general knowledge education or technical school for K-12.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  mella;646750 wrote:What do you want only local goverment in 50 self-serving states or 1 strong country made up of 50 organized states under the umbrella of an efficient government.

  You just blew your own argument. There's no such thing as efficient government anymore, if there ever was.
• majorspark

  

  The federal department of education began operating in 1980. Thirty one years later this huge gap has formed. Hmmmm?
  
  Those old cold warriors would have been educated prior to the department of education's creation. There was some federal involvement prior to the DOE, but education was primarily a state and local issue. But we all know these states and locals are just unable to provide competent education in math and science for its children. The elite in Washington will do a much better job.
• mella

  CenterBHSFan;646752 wrote:Well I guess it would depend on if you want a general knowledge education or technical school for K-12.

  
  I think you can have both. Not all kids are college material and not all kids have the mechanical skill for a trade. I think if kids had more options at an earlier age we could have a more efficient educational system that allows people to streamline their education to fit their desires and strengths. I am not talking about manditory tracking into college or trades but offering choices to students so they can decide for themselves. (Yes, more options and streamlined doesn't make sense.)
  
  I understand this is more uptopian than realistic but I don't think it has to be an either/ or situation.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Mella,
  
  I agree with your ideas in alot of ways. However, when our education is ran by an entity where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, too many chiefs and not enough indians, etc.... it makes it an impossible idea.
• mella

  majorspark;646761 wrote:The federal department of education began operating in 1980. Thirty one years later this huge gap has formed. Hmmmm?
  
  Those old cold warriors would have been educated prior to the department of education's creation. There was some federal involvement prior to the DOE, but education was primarily a state and local issue. But we all know these states and locals are just unable to provide competent education in math and science for its children. The elite in Washington will do a much better job.

  I don't totally disagree with this, but the real down turn in education began when the concept of nobody can fail and education can never be uncomfortable for students. I think you can trace this to the flower child mentality that came to power in the late 1970's and early 80's.
  
  All I am saying is we need one or the other. A federal standardized curriculum or 50 state level curriculums but not both. Money can be saved somewhere.
• BGFalcons82

  

  mella;646750 wrote:Are you saying that having an educated population isn't important for a strong country?
  
  I am simply saying that having a single, streamlined, efficient Department of Education is better and more cost effective than 50 different state run department of educations. This thread is about saving money through Rand Paul's budget, not another tired and old discussion about the evils of unions. Why are federal standards and worse than state standards? Why not eliminate all schools then you can exercise your personal freedoms and educate your children in any manner that you feel is fit and proper? There is nothing Socialist about having a single national curriculum. We have a single vision about interstate highways to make travel more efficient. Just because something is organized at the Federal level does not make it bad.
  
  So anything outside of national defense is not a priority? What else is a national priority?
  
  What do you want only local goverment in 50 self-serving states or 1 strong country made up of 50 organized states under the umbrella of an efficient government. Efficient does not mean socialism.

  
  Yep...I'm for stupidity. I'm a Tea Partier, so you see the connection? :rolleyes:
  
  The question is: why do we need a Dept of Education? What do they do that is so needed because the states and local boards of education are so totally inept that only the wondrous, efficient, streamlined federal government is necessary to save our children. Only THEY have ALL the answers and need as much money as possible to GUARANTEE our kids aren't stupid redeck hillbillies clinging to God and guns. By the way, this wonderful streamlined highly efficient Department has been around for 31 years now...are scores going up or down? Are schools rising or falling? Are we grading out higher or lower than other countries? What are the results? We know the answers and yet, this bloated corrupt federaly bureaucracy is needed even MORE in your opinion. Where is their accountability? Where are their results? What are we getting for the current system?
  
  It's broken, just like our budgets, and the answer is more money, eh? It's no wonder we are $14,000,000,000,000 in debt.
• mella

  BGFalcons82;646847 wrote:Yep...I'm for stupidity. I'm a Tea Partier, so you see the connection? :rolleyes:
  
  The question is: why do we need a Dept of Education? What do they do that is so needed because the states and local boards of education are so totally inept that only the wondrous, efficient, streamlined federal government is necessary to save our children. Only THEY have ALL the answers and need as much money as possible to GUARANTEE our kids aren't stupid redeck hillbillies clinging to God and guns. By the way, this wonderful streamlined highly efficient Department has been around for 31 years now...are scores going up or down? Are schools rising or falling? Are we grading out higher or lower than other countries? What are the results? We know the answers and yet, this bloated corrupt federaly bureaucracy is needed even MORE in your opinion. Where is their accountability? Where are their results? What are we getting for the current system?
  
  It's broken, just like our budgets, and the answer is more money, eh? It's no wonder we are $14,000,000,000,000 in debt.

  It is broken and I never said it is streamlined and efficient but if it is fixed it can be. I never asked if you where a Tea partier, Dem, Socialist or anything else because I don't care. My question was an honest one. An educated population is important and if it can be done at the state level.... great. If it can be done at the Federal level... great. I think having one efficient system is better than having 51 that are not, Federal + 50 states.
  
  Our Federal government is far from having all the answers, but we should be able to discuss possible solutions without getting bent out of shape.
  
  As long as all of children are given a "free education", then our scores will be lower than other countries where they weed out segments of their populations with standardized tests or only educate the children of those who can afford it.
  
  Why do some many people from other countries come here to get an education if our system is so bad?
  
  Again, the question is off topic. So what would save more money. Eliminate the Federal Department of Education or the State level department of educations?
  
  If we really want to save money, do away with aid to other countries, cut defense spending, and reduce most welfare programs.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  The federal government has never and will never do anything efficiently.
• Bigdogg

  Cleveland Buck;646966 wrote:The federal government has never and will never do anything efficiently.

  
  Well I don't think that any state ever made us the most power nation in the world.
• derek bomar

  

  Cleveland Buck;646966 wrote:The federal government has never and will never do anything efficiently.

  
  hmmmmmmm
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Bigdogg;646982 wrote:Well I don't think that any state ever made us the most power nation in the world.

  
  No, the cooperation of 50 sovereign states did. And taking away their sovereignty to make one central state is quickly causing us to lose that title.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  derek bomar;647071 wrote:hmmmmmmm

  
  I'm sure you have lots of examples of the efficiency of the federal government, right?
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;646966 wrote:The federal government has never and will never do anything efficiently.

  
  I dunno...they're pretty damn efficient at pissing away my money.
• dwccrew

  

  Cleveland Buck;646966 wrote:The federal government has never and will never do anything efficiently.

  Fish already said what I was going to say, they can piss our money away efficiently.
  

  Bigdogg;646982 wrote:Well I don't think that any state ever made us the most power nation in the world.

  Cleveland Buck said waht I was going to say, the collection of 50 states united together (hence our country's name, United States) is what made the US the most powerful country in the world. As the federal government becomes more powerful, the country becomes weaker because it is only a power over the states, not in the world stage. When the EU was formed, they became more powerful in the world stage while maintaining their independent national sovereignty. The EU is kind of a similar concept of the US, but instead of states, it is individual countries.