TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum

[Keilz]

I just don't understand why there is a bill to get rid of the entire department.....

[SybillAnnDorsett]

I hope 45 chokes on a hot dog. Survives - but suffers a lot for like, 20 seconds and doesn't get to enjoy the hot dog at all.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I'd imagine that anyone who was already receiving Stafford loans would be grandfathered in if any changes were made to loan policies, since that would be the logical thing to do for students part of the way through their educations. However, logic seems to be on shakier footing these days...

The bill language is "the department of education will not exist by December 31, 2018." They have nothing to try to do anything to smooth the process, so I'm not sure where I can be assured that Congress will do anything to make this process smooth

I don't think a bill without any provisions like that could make it to a vote, but my Washington predictions have been wrong a lot as of late.

That's the problem I'm having, I have to assume that the current congress will check themselves on their extremism/not nuke the filibuster/have some reason to go against Trump (which crazily enough right now they don't). That's too many variables for my to not be anxious

[RParadela]

I just don't understand why there is a bill to get rid of the entire department.....

Because we have a psychopath as president

[Keilz]

I just don't understand why there is a bill to get rid of the entire department.....

Because we have a psychopath as president

True. It makes me so sad.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I just don't understand why there is a bill to get rid of the entire department.....

I'll be honest, I don't know either.

I get that there are people who hate the government, but erraticating the department of education just seems so unnecessary and symbolic. It's like the nea or public broadcasting, it costs so little in the grand scheme of things it's literally just a senator using it so that he can go back to his Uber conservative district and talk about how he curbed over spending in Washington.

It's so blatantly lazy and condescending, and that's the part I don't get about these demos, how do they let their responses become so reliable and predictable.

[jstans]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

[govlife]

Yeah, concerns about IBR/PSLF are at the top of my list, but so are job options. Honors programs and fedgov hiring will probably be unpredictable for a while. On the bright side, the ACLU may be looking to hire, with their recent $$$.

[LawBuckeye12]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

[Stephylynette]

Yeah, concerns about IBR/PSLF are at the top of my list, but so are job options. Honors programs and fedgov hiring will probably be unpredictable for a while. On the bright side, the ACLU may be looking to hire, with their recent $$$.

Lol this is exactly what I was thinking!! ACLU is probably gonna need the extra help and now that their pockets are deeper this might be my chance to finesse my way into a fellowship

[chargers21]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

[laqueredup]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

With DeVos in charge it is probably safer to just let them eliminate the DoE

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

No, if you want that you should argue for 50 different countries. This prospects is actually why we have a federal government overseeing those 50 states to curb massive differences. This is the exact absurdity feared in the Federalist papers.

[Sarastro]

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

As someone who went to public schools, you have an extremely low opinion of yourself or an extremely inflated opinion of public schools if you think public schooling somehow single-handedly saved you from being an idiot.

I'll also just point out that there may be principled people out there who object to the existence of a federal education department on grounds other than being a hillbilly that believes the devil made fossils to trick us. Might be worth your time as an intellectually honest person to consider those ideas instead of throwing up strawmen- even if you decide in the end to disagree with them.

[S.Picquery]

Thanks! I am trying to plan our honeymoon right now. If anyone has any ideas let me know. It is going to be a surprise for her!

Give TLS the parameters!

I should crowd-plan my honeymoon here. A bunch of type-A people could knock this out in a day!

Budget - $5,000
Length - 2 weeks
When - Late June

I would rather not do Europe, we have both been there a fair amount. Her requirement is warm weather and atleast part of the time in a beachy resort. I want to spend a bit of time exploring and seeing some culture.

I just got back from SE Asia, on a considerably cheaper budget, and you can absolutely do both there. Phuket has tons of beaches (wasn't a huge fan of the one I was on, but that's a different story), and it was a short flight to all sorts of different areas for exploring/culture. Highly recommend in general.

I recently did San Juan, PR and another trip to Israel on a significantly cheaper budget as well. History AND beaches. Forts! Ruins! Architecture! Sand! Fruity drinks!

[S.Picquery]

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

As someone who went to public schools, you have an extremely low opinion of yourself or an extremely inflated opinion of public schools if you think public schooling somehow single-handedly saved you from being an idiot.

I'll also just point out that there may be principled people out there who object to the existence of a federal education department on grounds other than being a hillbilly that believes the devil made fossils to trick us. Might be worth your time as an intellectually honest person to consider those ideas instead of throwing up strawmen- even if you decide in the end to disagree with them.

I would like to know what you think some of those reasons are, if you don't mind sharing.

[canafsa]

.

[Rigo]

I picture conservative posters with good numbers as Ted Cruz with his weird smile and shrill voice and I shudder.

[canafsa]

.

[Sarastro]

Things

I would like to know what you think some of those reasons are, if you don't mind sharing.

Much of the criticism levied against many federal programs is that they encroach on the powers delegated to the states. I don't know if anyone here is qualified to argue the legalities of that argument, but it's an argument that can be made on principle as well: That things like education or healthcare are not things that the federal government needs to be doing and that it therefore should be handled by more local powers or by the private sector. As someone stated above, that's the purpose of being a federal government instead of a national government. The states are meant to experiment and compete and copy each other, but this process doesn't work very well if someone 3000 miles away makes decisions for you and your state about personal things like the education of your children. Reasonable people can disagree about the relative merits of individual choice vs. ensuring a baseline of care (and whether the federal government has a good track record of being successful at ensuring that baseline) but I think it's a little childish to assume that people that don't agree with you are being duplicitous or stupid. They may just have different priorities or different perspectives while still wanting the best for everyone involved.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

No, if you want that you should argue for 50 different countries. This prospects is actually why we have a federal government overseeing those 50 states to curb massive differences. This is the exact absurdity feared in the Federalist papers.

Right! The Federalist Papers themselves feared independent state education systems, which is why the founding fathers established common core in the Constitution.

It's called fact application, and it's a pretty important of the law.

The founding fathers obviously did not speak directly to a public school system, but the fear of absurd, almost comical, variances in how states governed themselves, and the problems that would arise from free movement between the two vastly different states are what they feared.

Having one state that taught only creationism or that the civil war was OK would pretty clearly meet the definition of vastly, almost comically different, and the repercussions feared in the Federalist papers would almost certainly arise from that.

We can argue wether or not you think the differences in education would be that severe, but that wasnt the defense buckeye choose

[LawBuckeye12]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

So do you think the federal government becoming more involved in education has been a success so far? The numbers seem to indicate the opposite. Your opinion of "a child being screwed" is much different from other people's opinion.

[Rigo]

So do you think the federal government becoming more involved in education has been a success so far? The numbers seem to indicate the opposite. Your opinion of "a child being screwed" is much different from other people's opinion.

What numbers? Show me the receipts.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Abolishing the Dept of Ed so the federal government could have no say in educational standards in states could have bad, almost comical, implications. Southern states could teach creationism and that slavery wasn't all that bad, or even downplay the Civil War as some legislators from my home state want to do. Meanwhile we well-to-do law students could be drowning in the payments associated with obtaining our degrees. This could go in so many possible directions it's almost mesmerizing to think about.

That's exactly the point of having 50 different states.

A child being completely screwed based solely on where they are born within a country should not be something to strive for. I'm more into small government than most, and the one thing that needs to be overseen is education. I would be a complete moron if I had not had federal education standards forced upon my local public school. As Jstas alluded to, eliminating the DoE is solely based on some states wanting to teach anti-science. DeVos is taking a different approach, in that she wants the federal government to fund the teaching of anti-science and eliminate places that are constitutionally guarenteed to not be allowed to do that (public schools).

So do you think the federal government becoming more involved in education has been a success so far? The numbers seem to indicate the opposite. Your opinion of "a child being screwed" is much different from other people's opinion.

Yeah, I'd also like to see these "numbers"

[LawBuckeye12]

So do you think the federal government becoming more involved in education has been a success so far? The numbers seem to indicate the opposite. Your opinion of "a child being screwed" is much different from other people's opinion.

What numbers? Show me the receipts.

Left leaning politifact agrees: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... 30-years-/