BREAKING NEWS: House Democrats Physically Blocked From Entering Department Of Education Building

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
33,296
62,397
113
So Canada does not have a Federal Ministry of Education. Any funds needing dispersion happen through other departments.

Everything I read about the US dept of education seems to indicate it's main purpose is also to disperse funds for the states and to add funding to poorer rural areas(not idea if it's direct funding if via the state),

So the question is if it's only dispersing funds and not setting policy in state and local school boards, is an entire dept with all of it's costs needed? Or could it be rolled into other depts.

The only other thing is it seems to handle the student loans. But realistically that could be administered via another dept or pared down one as well.
It used to be part of another department. (If I remember correctly, it was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before those were split into two agencies.)
It can be dropped from being a Cabinet-level agency by Congress.
Symbolically, it is viewed as evil by the GOP because education is vilified in general by the conservative movement right now.
But under the hood, how this stuff is organized can always be re-thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaquille Oatmeal

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,049
5,167
113
It used to be part of another department. (If I remember correctly, it was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before those were split into two agencies.)
It can be dropped from being a Cabinet-level agency by Congress.
Symbolically, it is viewed as evil by the GOP because education is vilified in general by the conservative movement right now.
But under the hood, how this stuff is organized can always be re-thought.
This dates back to it's inception. Reagan wanted it gone as well.

I think there is a lack of information to the population of its present function. And so the name will immediately invoke a reaction. If it is essentially a cash dispersment entity then realistically it's just an added layer. It doesn't seem to have much in the way of an actual effect on curriculum.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
33,296
62,397
113
This dates back to it's inception. Reagan wanted it gone as well.
He did.
It has ebbed and flowed as a particular bugaboo or just an administrative discussion.

I think there is a lack of information to the population of its present function. And so the name will immediately invoke a reaction. If it is essentially a cash dispersment entity then realistically it's just an added layer. It doesn't seem to have much in the way of an actual effect on curriculum.
Which is why the argument that dismantling it because it is woke and evil is a give away.
But yes, a lot of the fights about it when it becomes a culture-war flashpoint have to do with the name.
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
3,995
3,607
113
The US used to be ranked #1 in education in the world in the 1950s and 1960s. After the creation of the US Department of Education, we’ve sunk to the bottom of the heap for developed countries.
I dont think there was ever a time where education systems were internationally ranked and the US proclaimed #1 in the 50s and 60s.
I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said.
It seems that American students were lagging behind several countries in the 60s where the majority of colleges were dominated by heterosexual, caucasian males.
So this appears to be a lie spread by MAGA.
Screen Shot 2025-02-08 at 2.07.53 PM.png
Screen Shot 2025-02-08 at 2.06.32 PM.png
 

PeterParker1000

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2024
379
433
63
I dont think there was ever a time where education systems were internationally ranked and the US proclaimed #1 in the 50s and 60s.
I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said.
It seems that American students were lagging behind several countries in the 60s where the majority of colleges were dominated by heterosexual, caucasian males.
So this appears to be a lie spread by MAGA.
View attachment 404955
View attachment 404954
Laziness by my part to quote that. While not one I believe we have dropped significantly over the years. How can we spending this much on education and doing so poorly.
 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
24,346
10,786
113

NEW: Bill Maher concedes that Trump is probably RIGHT about scrapping the Department of Education. “It’s not like the kids are getting smarter.” “Now, I don’t know that much about it, but I’ve never read good things. Rahm Emanuel, who I agree with on almost everything here, had a quote. He said: ‘A third of eighth graders can’t read, and now he wants to close the department?’ And I thought, that’s probably why they can’t read, or at least partly.” “I mean, the numbers keep getting worse and worse and worse. And I don’t know if the Department of Education… I don’t know what it does except take money. It’s sort of a middleman.”
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
3,995
3,607
113
Laziness by my part to quote that. While not one I believe we have dropped significantly over the years. How can we spending this much on education and doing so poorly.
Its complicated.
Several factors affect performance.
Poverty, income inequality, unstable home environments can result in poor performance.
How performance is measured is also something to think about.
Standardized testing (usually how it is measured) usually does not show you true measure of success.
Rote learning usually does well in such tests but they may not actually be successful students.
Then there is the decentralized nature of education in the US.
Local laws, property taxes etc.,
Then where funding goes is another issue.
The majority of funds may not make it to many inner city neighbourhoods where they are desperately needed.
But because they are underfunded they may pull down performance of the whole....
 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
24,346
10,786
113

New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!! Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue. The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England. This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department. It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent. It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does. Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get. For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it. Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.
 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
24,346
10,786
113

Turns out, Democrats have been trying to do what
@ElonMusk
's doing with
@DOGE
since the 90's... but after 65 thousand bureaucrats took a buyout from
@realDonaldTrump
, Democrats are losing it. Today, members of congress tried to storm
@USedgov
which Trump wants to shut down. The more money we spend on education— the more the test scores drop. Musk and his team of nerds, including "Big Balls," are working overtime to cut the pork in our budget, so no department is safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anothawon

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
24,346
10,786
113

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anothawon
Toronto Escorts