LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Department of Government Efficiency (aka DOGE)

She was a classic.

Camp cult

culture


4Cs (inside joke along with my Injun name, three-posts-peat)
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
If they lack policy authority and budget control it’s a nothing burger. I’m skeptical about this producing any meaningful change. Maybe my skepticism will fade as more details come out.
Click to expand...
Skepticism can be a valuable approach as it encourages critical thinking. While serving as an effective oversight manager may not always be glamorous, it's essential to make thoughtful decisions about budget cuts. These cuts should aim to minimize harm and impact the smallest number of individuals possible. Prioritizing human welfare in our programs is crucial for fostering a positive environment. By focusing on constructive solutions, we can work to avoid creating despair, which ultimately helps maintain public trust and support.
 
Trump intends to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), a cornerstone of federal educational policy since its establishment in 1980. Its formation was meant to centralize and coordinate federal assistance, address disparities, and promote equal access to quality education across the nation. While the idea of eliminating the DOE may sound appealing to those seeking reduced federal influence, the economic ramifications for states will be profound. Killing the department without a well-thought-out plan to maintain support of its underlying principles is folly.

The federal government’s involvement in education has deep roots. Initial steps, like the Morrill Act of 1862, helped establish land-grant colleges, while the original Office of Education in 1867 collected basic data on schools. However, true federal oversight only gained traction in the mid-20th century.

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 sparked fears of American students lagging in science and math, prompting the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 to bolster these crucial areas. The 1960s civil rights movement expanded this role further with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, aimed at leveling the playing field for low-income students.

Under President Jimmy Carter, the DOE was officially established in 1980 to unify federal education programs and ensure a coordinated effort to improve educational outcomes nationwide. The department’s initial mandate included managing federal funding, promoting equal access, and conducting research to inform policy.

One of the most significant consequences of dismantling the DOE would be the economic strain on states.

For instance, the loss of Federal Funding. The DOE channels billions of dollars annually to support state and local education. Programs targeting underfunded schools, special education, and low-income student assistance would be at risk. States would need to replace these funds or risk cutting essential services. This could lead to a heavier reliance on state and local taxes, exacerbating disparities between affluent and economically challenged regions.

The DOE plays a critical role in redistributing resources to ensure that even the most economically disadvantaged states and districts receive support. Without this federal safety net, states with lower tax bases or struggling economies would face significant challenges in funding their educational systems. For example, states like Mississippi and West Virginia, which already struggle to meet educational standards due to limited state revenues, would be especially vulnerable. These states heavily depend on federal support to bridge funding gaps and maintain basic educational services.

Take the challenges for Special Education and Compliance. Federal oversight helps ensure that states meet the requirements of key laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, if the financial burden of supporting special education were to shift entirely to states, it would pose a substantial challenge to those already under fiscal strain.

President-Elect Donald Trump advocates for reducing or dismantling the DOE as part of his broader agenda to minimize federal government involvement in local matters. While this fallacy aligns with the push for greater state autonomy, a significant issue lies in the lack of a developed plan to mitigate the economic and logistical challenges states would face in the absence of federal oversight.

One fundamental fallacy is the underestimation of funding loss. The Trump administration’s stance did not adequately address how states, especially those already underfunded, would replace the billions in federal aid that currently support their schools. For example, Mississippi and West Virginia—states that already face financial struggles in meeting educational standards—would be hit hard without clear replacement strategies for federal support.

The idea that all states could independently maintain or improve their education systems overlooks significant disparities in tax bases and economic health across the country. Wealthier states might adapt more readily, but poorer states risk falling further behind without coordinated federal assistance.

The claim is that eliminating the DOE would reduce federal red tape, potentially saving money, streamlining processes, and returning authority to states. The noted lack of controls for equity in education was the purpose of creating the DOE. States, even after the 1980s, have not managed to demonstrate the ability to fund and educate our nation equitably across economic and health-related matters.

Without a comprehensive strategy to handle these potential pitfalls, the idea of dismantling the DOE risks worsening educational inequalities. Special education programs, Title I funding for low-income schools, and federal mandates that promote equal opportunities would be compromised, leaving vulnerable students at an even greater disadvantage.

While greater state control might enable localized approaches, the economic trade-offs are substantial. States would need to fill the funding gap left by the federal government. Wealthier states might successfully adapt, using robust tax revenues to sustain or improve their education systems. However, poorer states could be economically disadvantaged, unable to match the previous levels of funding and support provided by the DOE. This could deepen educational inequalities, leading to long-term negative impacts on workforce readiness and economic growth.

Dismantling the Department of Education would mean shifting responsibilities and significant economic burdens to the states. While Trump-minded minions may argue for the benefits of local control and reduced federal oversight, the potential fallout—particularly for economically disadvantaged states—cannot be ignored. Without the DOE's financial support and regulatory role, states like Mississippi and West Virginia could face greater economic disparities, threatening the principles of equal educational opportunity and national competitiveness. Moreover, without a detailed plan, as demonstrated during the Trump administration's rhetoric, states may find themselves ill-prepared to shoulder the full financial and logistical weight of educational administration.
 
Sounded like the Festivus reading of your grievances...,

Sorry you took all that time to get that off your chest because I promise that in this place of purported writers and readers, nobody went past sentence two.
 
dmallord said:
Trump intends to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), a cornerstone of federal educational policy since its establishment in 1980. Its formation was meant to centralize and coordinate federal assistance, address disparities, and promote equal access to quality education across the nation. While the idea of eliminating the DOE may sound appealing to those seeking reduced federal influence, the economic ramifications for states will be profound. Killing the department without a well-thought-out plan to maintain support of its underlying principles is folly.

The federal government’s involvement in education has deep roots. Initial steps, like the Morrill Act of 1862, helped establish land-grant colleges, while the original Office of Education in 1867 collected basic data on schools. However, true federal oversight only gained traction in the mid-20th century.

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 sparked fears of American students lagging in science and math, prompting the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 to bolster these crucial areas. The 1960s civil rights movement expanded this role further with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, aimed at leveling the playing field for low-income students.

Under President Jimmy Carter, the DOE was officially established in 1980 to unify federal education programs and ensure a coordinated effort to improve educational outcomes nationwide. The department’s initial mandate included managing federal funding, promoting equal access, and conducting research to inform policy.

One of the most significant consequences of dismantling the DOE would be the economic strain on states.

For instance, the loss of Federal Funding. The DOE channels billions of dollars annually to support state and local education. Programs targeting underfunded schools, special education, and low-income student assistance would be at risk. States would need to replace these funds or risk cutting essential services. This could lead to a heavier reliance on state and local taxes, exacerbating disparities between affluent and economically challenged regions.

The DOE plays a critical role in redistributing resources to ensure that even the most economically disadvantaged states and districts receive support. Without this federal safety net, states with lower tax bases or struggling economies would face significant challenges in funding their educational systems. For example, states like Mississippi and West Virginia, which already struggle to meet educational standards due to limited state revenues, would be especially vulnerable. These states heavily depend on federal support to bridge funding gaps and maintain basic educational services.

Take the challenges for Special Education and Compliance. Federal oversight helps ensure that states meet the requirements of key laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, if the financial burden of supporting special education were to shift entirely to states, it would pose a substantial challenge to those already under fiscal strain.

President-Elect Donald Trump advocates for reducing or dismantling the DOE as part of his broader agenda to minimize federal government involvement in local matters. While this fallacy aligns with the push for greater state autonomy, a significant issue lies in the lack of a developed plan to mitigate the economic and logistical challenges states would face in the absence of federal oversight.

One fundamental fallacy is the underestimation of funding loss. The Trump administration’s stance did not adequately address how states, especially those already underfunded, would replace the billions in federal aid that currently support their schools. For example, Mississippi and West Virginia—states that already face financial struggles in meeting educational standards—would be hit hard without clear replacement strategies for federal support.

The idea that all states could independently maintain or improve their education systems overlooks significant disparities in tax bases and economic health across the country. Wealthier states might adapt more readily, but poorer states risk falling further behind without coordinated federal assistance.

The claim is that eliminating the DOE would reduce federal red tape, potentially saving money, streamlining processes, and returning authority to states. The noted lack of controls for equity in education was the purpose of creating the DOE. States, even after the 1980s, have not managed to demonstrate the ability to fund and educate our nation equitably across economic and health-related matters.

Without a comprehensive strategy to handle these potential pitfalls, the idea of dismantling the DOE risks worsening educational inequalities. Special education programs, Title I funding for low-income schools, and federal mandates that promote equal opportunities would be compromised, leaving vulnerable students at an even greater disadvantage.

While greater state control might enable localized approaches, the economic trade-offs are substantial. States would need to fill the funding gap left by the federal government. Wealthier states might successfully adapt, using robust tax revenues to sustain or improve their education systems. However, poorer states could be economically disadvantaged, unable to match the previous levels of funding and support provided by the DOE. This could deepen educational inequalities, leading to long-term negative impacts on workforce readiness and economic growth.

Dismantling the Department of Education would mean shifting responsibilities and significant economic burdens to the states. While Trump-minded minions may argue for the benefits of local control and reduced federal oversight, the potential fallout—particularly for economically disadvantaged states—cannot be ignored. Without the DOE's financial support and regulatory role, states like Mississippi and West Virginia could face greater economic disparities, threatening the principles of equal educational opportunity and national competitiveness. Moreover, without a detailed plan, as demonstrated during the Trump administration's rhetoric, states may find themselves ill-prepared to shoulder the full financial and logistical weight of educational administration.
Click to expand...

Dismantling the DOE will significantly reduce the number of child abductions and abuse.

I can't wait to see it happen.
 
glamorilla said:
Dismantling the DOE will significantly reduce the number of child abductions and abuse.

I can't wait to see it happen.
Click to expand...
How so? I don't connect child abductions and abuse with the DOE. Are you talking about the old Indian school type of stuff?
 
dmallord said:
How so? I don't connect child abductions and abuse with the DOE. Are you talking about the old Indian school type of stuff?
Click to expand...

No. I'm talking about board administrators and people in charge of special services actively seeking out "weak links" to exploit.

Happens in New York all the time.

Hopefully this will start to get worked out.
 
Major, I think glam plays on your team (politically) and your behavior/rhetoric might have depressed your team ('s turnout).

It certainly did not retard turnout for the Big ORANGE One...

I'd implore you to rethink but
that would require think.
 
AceDesSpades said:
Sounded like the Festivus reading of your grievances...,

Sorry you took all that time to get that off your chest because I promise that in this place of purported writers and readers, nobody went past sentence two.
Click to expand...
I can assure you it is not a Festivus reading. You took the time to express this, so I count that as a consolation prize. It matters. You matter.

Why do you need to say 'sorry?' No need to; it wasn't time ill-spent, I assure you.

I'm inclined to think at least one person will read it. [Edit: did read it.] Then I see a silver lining in the clouds, too.

Being old and nearing the end, I have some time on my hands and can still write a few coherent thoughts, although I am not able to do much else. So here I am, trying to salve some wounds where and as much as I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RoryN
Who are the violent ones, again? Deplorable government officials drag social security worker from desk
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
nowisthetime
nowisthetime
P
Trump hints that Musk and DOGE may be coming to the end of the road
Replies
9
Views
321
LLCox
LLCox
P
Whistleblower claims DOGE gave Russia access to US data via Starlink
Replies
1
Views
149
RoryN
RoryN
butters
DOGE insider surprised to find gov't was actually kinda working fine, just minor glitches
2
Replies
27
Views
394
MajorRewrite
M
icanhelp1
DOGE uncovers $56m FEMA funds illegal transfer
Replies
14
Views
468
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Back
Top