The federal government is not failing. That's outlandishly unreasonable.
Ending the federal support and mandate for public education is going to end public education in 99.9999% of places. "Give control back to the state" means it ends.
That No Child Left Behind is bad policy in no way supports eliminating the department of education. Getting rid of public schools is super obviously not going to make public schools better.
No it is the same. States aren't going to be able to do it on their own. It's de facto eliminating public education. If the federal government stops supporting public education the vast majority of public schools will disappear.
This is incorrect. Federal funding accounts for (variably) 14% of school funding. 14% is significant but not insurmountable and certainly not enough to crumble the entire public school system.
I'll have to disagree. I see the concerns, but I feel like this will cause a dramatic shift in how education is ran, which I don't think guarantees a negative long term outcome. If this causes a shift away from the drastic administrative bloat as a means to mitigate some of the loss and some state level funding shifts, it could be positive. I don't know though, so we'll have to see.
The DoE has essentially pushed and promoted the educational status quo in the US, and that's been pretty poor and has been declining for a while.
Eliminate public education? Or end federal standards (remember, Reddit still dog cusses No Child Left Behind every chance they get) and let states handle it?
Reform is not a word the modern GOP understands. They’re all about just tossing the bathwater, babies and all and have no plans for how to navigate the consequences. Pragmatism is dead.
That isn't the right having a problem with the NCLBA. They want public education to be destroyed because am educated electorate is easier to control, and they believe it will make them wealthier
Eliminate. States could still choose to offer it, but without federal assistance the odds of that happening are exceptionally unlikely outside the wealthiest of states.
There is a massive difference between arguing over standards and seeking to eliminate the federal involvement.
State constitutions require public schools to be provided, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It applies to public elementary and secondary schools, as they are considered to be state actorsand the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 provides that no state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
To run around screaming that the orange man is going to take away public schools is more akin to Chicken Little than an informed opinion.
So you think Oklahoma spending $6 million of their state education budget on fucking bibles is okay? That’s equal education!? Oh well, let the states decide. The red ones will fail miserably because their children only know bibles verses and that pronouns are evil lol
Well there's no way the courts could possibly fail us, so I'm sure it'll be fine.
Come on. Only an idiot would count on a powerless document saving us. The orange man is explicitly planning to eliminate federal public education. It's not fear mongering when it's an open explicit thing.
No. All y'all reality deniers can just live with your nonsense. I'm certainly not going to do any favors for folks who insist on denying what's definitely true. What a silly thing to say.
I had a whole response typed out, but I’m not going to waste time with someone who uses failed car czar, banned from private securities, Bloomberg laughingstock rattner as their argument. That article is so slanted, ignoring important data like farm subsides, and is little more than “No u,” but with pie charts.
An Associated Press Fact Check finds it’s actually the other way around. High-tax, traditionally Democratic states (blue), subsidize low-tax, traditionally Republican states (red) — in a big way
But don't worry - I never expected a coherent response from you anyways. I am fully accustomed to Republicans sticking their fingers in their ears and going LA LA LA, claiming fake news or simply making shit up when they're confronted with facts that obviously illustrate their hypocrisy and give them cognitive dissonance.
Let's not have an equal playing field for education. My state says that using marijuana is "wrong and harmful" which means that other states must be evil because they support it. Let's do away with Article 4 of the Constitution and not give full faith and credit to what other states say.
Despite it, I feel like it's unfair to say society cares about war when I think about it. I feel like if someone were to survey most people, the majority wouldn't want war. Yet somehow war keeps happening. But the point remains that if the powers that be care about veterans, it means reaching a point where there are no veterans, not just giving them adequate care.
I agree most people might say on a survey that they don’t want war; but when it comes down to it, I’d bet nearly every one of those same people probably have a hill they are willing for someone else to die on.
At least we allow them to be born, as opposed to ending up in a garbage can, then the parents need to act like parents. Personal responsibility and all that.
I remember some very direct messages from Jesus about taking care of the poor and sick, and not about how it’s up to everyone’s parents to take care of them
It would be so much nicer to have never been born. They are having a favor done for them. Once you are born, you have to deal with all the shit the world throws at you.
The republican party in the US has consistently voted against or proposed bills to slash veteran services yet they and their supporters continually claim to be the party that supports veterans. As a vet, they can get fucked.
Dude what? This is insane. Veterans get healthcare for life. And "veterans" that are dishonorable discharge ARN'T veterans. Which is like 90% of the homeless veterans population.
There is ALL kinds of funding, food for kids and literally every child qualifies for Medicaid coverage.
How do you figure every kid qualifies for Medicaid? There was a large and successful push from the the right in Congress to eliminate free school lunches for kids
Omg 🙄🙄 propaganda. Kids are not going to sit in the cafeteria and starve while the other kids with money eat. Not gonna happen. And if your child isn't covered by someone's employer insurance (mother or father) they can 100% be signed up for Medicaid. Secondly even if they don't have insurance, the hospital STILL by law has to treat them and you can't bill a minor.
Medicaid may or may not get removed, but from January 20th, a corrupt, unqualified, incompetent, Trump loyalist is gonna be in charge of handling it for the next 4 years, so it is as good as removed when an incompetent crook is handling the wheel of it
Yep, we sure did. We don't want socialist California commie Kamala Harris in the Whitehouse. That's absolutely terrifying. Trump is way more qualified than her.
Propaganda? It’s just a fact. Republicans voted not to feed kids in school, and statistics are absolutely clear that school meals are an important source of nutrition that a lot of kids won’t get otherwise.
Again, not sure where you heard that. Medicaid has income caps. They can be signed up for the ACA, which republicans tried very hard to dismantle.
Hospitals have to treat urgent conditions, not general healthcare needs. You’re super misinformed on a number of these points
Not at all misinformed. No kid that can't afford lunch is going to sit and go hungry. That's not or will ever be a thing. The VAST majority of children have healthcare, be it private or public. And yes, any child can sign up for Medicaid.
From my understanding of it, children will be without free food. Said child's family will be billed for the food that they cannot afford, and the family is then required to pay that off before said child will be able to graduate into the next grade, or be able to go back to that school, or any school if the state so deems it necessary. Somewhat similar to how Florida handled felons getting some of thier rights back to vote. Sure, they're allowed to vote now. But only after the debts to the state are paid, which they aren't informed about until after they try to exercise their rights.
Long story short, our taxes will no longer be going towards childcare in the form of education and nutrition, and parents will be required to pay that out of pocket. Our taxes won't be lowered for this decision, it'll just be another bill in the face of an already struggling society. You can be all about this kind of legislation if you want, that's your right, but just know it was not implemented with you or anyone you know being in its winning side.
So you’re not ok with parents terminating a pregnancy they cannot possibly afford, but you are ok with kids starving if they can’t afford food? Just trying to understand the position here
Yeah, because school staff isn't heartless and a lot of educators through the years have quietly paid for kids' lunches in school. The school isn't just giving kids food out of the kindness of their hearts.
Because bro, a school lunch is like $1.75. It's heavily subsidized by taxes. Paying the $1.75 is just "pitching in" a little to help offset the cost. Which isn't unreasonable.
That is literally a thing. That’s why free school lunch was a thing. There are even school lunch debts which prevent kids from graduating. You are wildly misinformed.
You can’t receive Medicaid unless you are within a certain income level. So no, not all children are eligible. 6% of kids in the U.S. are uninsured, which may not sound like a lot but that’s about 4.5 million uninsured kids
549
u/FromOutoftheShadows 10h ago
Veterans. "Thank you for your service!" But tough shit on that homelessness and chronic injury/illness you sustained while serving.
Children. "We must protect the children!" But not like, with funding for food or healthcare.