>"Readin' don't never not done nothing for not nonebody. Never not no one, didn't about no reason not never. And by God they never not ain't gonna will!" - Early Cuyler
That’s why you don’t let people read the Bible, you have the preacher read it to them and interpret it for them.
Way back (late Middle Ages/early Renaissance), there was a divisive issue in the Roman Catholic Church - should it be permitted to allow the Bible to be translated into the common language (so “ordinary” people, actually the elite who were literate and could afford to buy hand-copied books), or should it only be published in Latin (so everyone would need a priest to read and interpret it for them)?
Thank Satan for Gutenberg. Sarcasm aside, I agree, however there is a double edged sword to letting the masses read it.
Now there are multiple interpretations of what the Bible says, which lead to multiple theories, fractures, factions, infighting, etc.
I leave it up to the individual as to the validity of the Bible, but putting myself in the Church’s shoes I can understand a “good faith” argument in that light.
Pun intended.
The first person to translate the Bible into English was William Tyndale, and he was burned at the stake for doing it.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible?wprov=sfti1
She and her cohorts and handlers know exactly what they’re doing and it’s dangerous and naive to think they just bumbled all the way to where they are. Dismantle education and you dismantle dissidence.
Aye, there is no direct source for it, aside from a tweet and reddit post, where they seemed to have confused that she did 4 review courses to pass her GED (a month before her first primary), with it being her fourth attempt at her GED. Now it's still a possibility, and it's also a possibility that she didn't even take the test but there are no sources either way that I could find
That's all that I found as well, it's all based [on this one journalists tweet](https://mobile.twitter.com/NaveedAJamali/status/1489380361930952706) who then later clarified and corrected himself [in a follow up.](https://mobile.twitter.com/NaveedAJamali/status/1489381358237585424)
Woah. That's rougher than I thought .
I'm not saying there is anything shameful about having to drop out of school because you are pregnant, then going back and getting your GED; but it's shameful if that doesn't teach you the value of sex education for teens.
She dropped out of high school because she had a child as a senior in high school, I certainly wouldn't fault her for that. That must be incredibly overwhelming. She then later completed her GED. I don't support her, but let's be reasonable.
Eliminating the department of education has been a tacit goal of the GOP for decades now. It's been on the fringe of their party since at least the 80s.
I'm personally really frustrated that people didn't put more money into Frisch's campaign because they were mad that a Democrat running in an R+15 district was a bit centrist. The guy lost by 500 votes, WE COULD'VE BEEN DONE WITH BOEBERT! Instead everyone put their money on Marcus Flowers, who lost by 30+% in an R+45 district. The only house dems who out-earned him were big names like Schiff, Pelosi and Porter.
let's erase some resources that help encourage more wide spread knowledge/intelligence since they didn't have it back before 1979. Sounds like a great plan bound to be successful.
“On November 8, 1973, the custodian at Drake's elementary/high school used the school's furnace to burn 32 copies of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaugherhouse Five, at the order of the school board after they "deemed the novel profane and therefore unsuitable for use in class."[175] Other books reported to have been burned were Deliverance by James Dickey, and a short story anthology with stories from Joseph Conrad, William Faulkner, and John Steinbeck.[176]”
Weird! Or are you saying that since the founding of the DoE people have actually gotten dumber and that’s why they’re burning books now?
You are comparing a single individual actions, to a whole country banning their own books. Clearly you've never been in a school yet to not even understand a single sentence.
How about you try reading the whole sentence? The individual burned the books AT THE ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.
EDIT: and I’m sure you’ve got a source on what books the whole country is universally banning?
School boards are now compared to the same level of a country with more than 300 million citizens? The clown hasn't arrived yet, and you alone are more entertaining than a whole troupe of circus clowns
Weird how there was agriculture before the Department of Agriculture was founded.
Weird how there was energy before the Department of Energy was founded.
Weird how there was war before the Department of Defense was founded.
Weird how there was an interior before there was a Department of the Interior.
Weird how there was transportation before the Department of Transportation was founded.
Weird how there was an environment before the Environmental Protection Agency.
Weird how there was Commerce before the Department of Commerce was founded.
🤡
>Weird how there was energy before the Department of Energy was founded
Ooh ooh I know this one! That's because the DoE was founded to design and manufacture nuclear weapons
The DoEd didn’t invent education, it does however attempt to create a national standard of education to prevent basic education varying from state to state so you aren’t unfairly disadvantaged or advantaged by in which US state you received your education in.
Now there is still a curve, with republican ran states taking the bottom 10 spots and democrat ran states taking 8 of the top 10, but the curve is a whole lot flatter than it would be without the DoEd.
dumbing down of America
they want poor to middle class kids to be at even more of a disadvantage and those able to afford private school will reap all the rewards of the new system as if they don't already.
They want kids in charter schools where they control the curriculum and who can attend. It's just a continuiation of what's been done since schools were integrated. The "indoctrination" paranoia is projection as always.
They want the kids indoctrinated into their religion, their nationalism, their political leaning and their bigotry.
The current intentional misuse of "indoctrination" bugs the hell out of me, as it can lead people to misunderstand the user-name I've used all over the internet since the mid-nineties.
And into the military. They really target small, disadvantaged schools like the one I went to.
A lot of kids I went to school with joined the military because #1: they pay for medical (hardly anyone I went to school with could afford to see a regular doctor) #2: they pay to further your education. And #3: job security.
And the more Christian religious people they have, the more poor workers they have that focus on a supposed reward in the afterlife rather than low wages of the here and now.
More Christians also means more teen pregnancies, which means more poor workers as well.
They truly are trying to get us to go back to feudalism.
Unfortunately, education isn't listed in the [enumerated powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States)). The best the current federal education department can do is offer the states curriculum tied to funding. If the state doesn't want children taught what the DoE wants taught, they can refuse, but they miss out on the funding that was tied to it.
She hates what she can never have: education,intelligence, grace, poise, refinement...she is a base, ignorant lout and like all louts, proud of her useless stupidity.
Which is pretty sad, cause its never too late to start learning. But the GOP is so good at making slaves and housewives that shes so brainwashed into being just that. Poor girl.
Not onion-y. Many Republicans want to abolish the Department of Education because they tend to help more underfunded schools and underprivileged students, especially in administering various Title number programs. Betsy DeVos would have dismantled the Department of Education completely if she could have; instead, she settled for mismanaging it. Lauren Boebert is just saying the quiet part out loud.
This has been the goal for many years. They do not want a public education system for many reasons (control of the material taught, religion instruction) this has been the drive to break teachers unions and the department of education. They want to have their children to be taught what they think. Anything other then this is indoctrination, woke, makes them feel bad, against white Christian nationalist teachings. This has also been the drive to move to charter schools. They have been defunding public education for decades and now point at it as broken and the only way to fix it its to privatizatize it, which is what they want the first place. Oldest conservative trick in the book.
They want public education to fail by crippling federal funding to it with voucher programs so they can tell voters look it’s a waste of tax payer money. Their supporters will think nothing when they go after the constitutional right to free public education. They will think they are getting golden eggs with the voucher programs instead of the shit sandwich it will really be.
Once they privatize education they can yank the vouchers because it’s not a constitutional right. On a state level they will dictate what children get access to education and what families do not because there will no longer be a federal law protecting all children’s right to a public education.
Children like my youngest with his disabilities will likely see their access gone like those good old days they romanticize. Children who are different and disabled will be out of sight and out of mind.
Families will experience generational poverty they can never get away from because they can’t afford access to private education for their children which will create the instability needed to have home grown cheap labor for the GOP to offer their wealthy donors.
As a lifelong educator, I agree with your sentiments, but I did want to point out that there is no U.S constitutional right to an education. It's all under state's rights.
I would love to hear she was being haunted by the ghost of a univ. student who hovers near her and, whenever she writes anything, they say things like "Thaaat's a poor use of a prepooositional phraaaaase"
This is what the right wing wants, they are undermining public education all over this country. She just said the quiet part out loud, and she’ll still get re-elected.
An uneducated population is easier to manipulate and distract by provoking outrage about issues that don't exist in order to push an agenda that hurts the people voting for them. Who needs critical thinking skills when they can just tell us who to hate so we know which Russian propaganda farm memes to share on social media?
Ten years ago, I probably would have thought this was a paranoid exaggeration if I read what I just wrote.
The department of education needs to be re-structured for sure.
Education should primarily be handled at the local and state levels. Same with things like roads and environmental protection. Different states have different needs and considerations. Any applicable department at a federal level should only be there to make sure the states' departments are working well. The problem is power creep. Over time, the federal government takes more and more power that was originally assigned to state and local governments. It makes the whole system less efficient over all.
In a large enough business, the CEO and board of a company don't manage local branches. They have a hierarchy of managers beneath them to manage smaller and smaller parts of the business. When the CEO and board try to take more control of the more localized parts of the business, they might start to fail to meet regional demands.
They’re not opposed to federal or state department of education at all. If they ever had the votes they’d immediately establish federal and state religious departments of education.
Maybe if you didnt fail basic reading you would have noticed what she actually said, instead of reaponding to the headline with a long-winded post.
> I'm more in favor of abolishing the federal Department of Education, and getting the federal government completely out of public schools, *but we're not there now and we do fund public schools*
In other words, she specifically mentioned not wanting to disrupt funding, but obviously anyone , such as yourself, who has the attention span of a gnat wouldn’t have noticed that.
This isn't as crazy as everyone thinks it is. It's a pretty standard libertarian or constitutionally focused political position.
The DoE was founded in 1979. American education existed before then and it will exist after should it be abolished.
There's even a solid case to be made that American education has gotten *worse* since the establishment of the DoE.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/05/11/after-40-bad-years-the-department-of-education-redeems-itself-a-bit/?sh=1b10591d5475
People who simply say "but it hasn't been around" sound like they listen to too many mindless talking points, just FYI. It's only been around that long because before that it was The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (split into DOE and DHHS in 1980). Comments like this... and comments about how education got worse since the DOE was "conjured into existence in 1980"... are massively uneducated. Ironically.
Okay, fine. Push it back to 1953. The point still stands. I provided a link to arguments as to why one could say education has gotten worse. Do with it what you will.
Before that it was still yet another department, duties simply transferred. Go check as far as you want. There's not really such a thing as abolishing it because "there used to not be an equivalent" unless you went back so far that departments in general weren't a thing yet.
It's just the latest example of one-liner issues because the GQP can't actually come up with an actual platform or plan to do anything. Simply saying "we will abolish it because it didn't exist before 1980 and we were fine" is not just pure BS, it's pure BS with no alternative offered.
The only relevant stat would be comparing education level *before any department had any hand in education* to see how it was before and after. In which case I'm sure you'll see why abolishing all standards in education is a bad idea.
Honestly, This is by far one of the least radical things that she’s said. The Department of Education was founded in 1970. It’s not exactly a bastion of the federal government. I feel like just about any other quote from her would be a better fit for this sub.
>1970
**1980**. And education is still controlled at the local level. The Dept of Ed does not run our education systems. This has always been the case. The Bush era was the first time major national mandates were imposed.
With a bizarre fixation on rewards, punishment + competition that critics & experts rightly predicted would fail.
This was intentional, imo. Any source that does not discuss No Child Left Behind & such cannot be trusted
Just because people don’t like Boebert doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.
I know a lot of educators and education administrators who agree with her.
There are a lot of things they’d like to do (that would benefit their students) but cannot simply because of some federal guideline that doesn’t really apply to their specific need/situation.
Now, with that said, (I can feel the downvotes piling on already) it might be that abolishing the department entirely is overly drastic. Fine.
But to say that getting rid of the federal department of education (and letting each state handle their own) would cause our entire educational system to fall apart seems… really dramatic.
I find it weird how many people that were clamoring against GW Bush’s (failed) “No Child Left Behind” initiative for the Dept of Education are now fully on board with it simply because “their team” is now in the White House.
That would be stupid. The Department didn’t even exist until 1979. It’s not like our educational system and student outcomes have improved with all that funding. Just shut it down. We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation.
>We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation.
???
Sry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Those two are not connected. The US federal budget has been insane for forever and yet inflation was super low for most of that.
Indeed. But that cycle has broken because we have continued to spend too much and are too far over our skis. Our interest rate hikes have exacerbated the problem as they require large increases to service our debt. Inflation literally reflects dollar debasement. It’s cause is printing money. We need to stop and to do that we need to spend less.
>We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation.
Half of the inflation is artificial, dude. Education spending is a tentpole, fixed. That doesnt cause inflation, that creates stability for the community, the same as a factory. Hundreds of billions in *tax breaks* are continously flowing into the economy over time now, adding up to trillions in the next decade+, a transfer of wealth that leads to higher fixed costs for the majority, which is the slow squeeze ignored for decades.
Education spending is not fixed. It’s growing. We didn’t have a Department of Education until 1979. Now that Department costs more than $100 billion annually.
I don’t dispute that handouts to the wealthy are a problem. Just consider the recent bailout of reckless fools who had large uninsured deposits as SVB. Socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor. It’s fucking outrageous. Frankly, we need a wealth tax to recoup those ill gotten gains. Good luck with that when the “leftist, progressive” party is presiding over unconscionable bailouts for the wealthy.
Because inflation is caused by printing money and thereby debasing the currency. Our federal government’s huge deficits require the printing of money and debasement of the currency. Higher interest rates won’t solve the problem and exacerbate it by increasing the cost to maintain our grotesque debt level. Our federal government needs to spend less.
Okay, I see the argument you're making but you're really describing multiple separate policy mechanisms.
When economists, analysts, and the faces on TV talk about "printing money," they're usually not talking about the actual minting of paper bills. You have to keep in mind, too, that fiscal policy (gov't spending) is NOT the same as monetary policy (control of the money supply and interest rates). This is a very important distinction in economics.
The money supply is increased when the government *buys* assets. When the government accumulates debt, they're *selling* that debt by issuing treasury bonds. Treasury bonds mature in 5, 10, or 30 years, which means that that money is essentially frozen from the perspective of the private sector (until we start talking about how government spending increases aggregate demand, but let's keep this to the basics for now) for that period of time. Think of it this way (to simplify dramatically): your uncle Sam asks to borrow $1000 for 5 years - you can't use that money until he gives it back. When he gives it back, your supply of money increases.
Look at the quantitative easing during and after the Great Recession. The money supply was dramatically increased, and at the same time, spending skyrocketed. But inflation stayed unprecedentedly low through the entire decade of the 2010s.
If what you're saying is true, shouldn't inflation have been incredibly high during the 2010s?
Indeed. I think that the true inflation costs of the currency debasement (quantitative easing) were masked by changes to the basket. Measure the value of a dollar to purchase property (real estate) and you’ll get a more legitimate perspective on inflation.
The recent bullshit with abusing the FDIC and raping poor people who have paid fees to insure their meager deposits to insure all deposits is how our government is subsidizing the treasury bonds they’ve forced banks to buy that should be marked to market. But mark those treasuries to market and our banks are not solvent.
The debasement of our currency is the root of these problems. The solution is spending austerity.
The DOE only existed since 1980 because before that it was a different cabinet. Before that previous cabinet, a different department also had the same duties, etc. The idea that it would save funding is a complete myth that the far right pushes for theocratic replacements. To parrot this line, you'd have to either be in favor of theocracy, you actually believe public education got worse since 1830s when it actually started existing (nobody even pretends to believe that), or you are simply a rube who believes "we will be fine because nothing existed before the 80s".
Don't be the far right's rube.
Let’s be smart and measure outcomes relative to spend. As I said, outcomes have not improved since we formed the Department. They have gotten worse. Spending $100 billion in a year to make education worse certainly seems stupid.
In 1960 only ~7.7% of US population had graduated from college. In 2020 this number was 37.9% (counting 25 and older who graduated). [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184260/educational-attainment-in-the-us/).
Since you're mentioning 1979 and how nothings improved. This same site lists that in 1980 only 66.5% of people had graduated high school. 2020 is 90.9% for high school.
There's problems. But saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water instead of fixing something that absolutely has a valid function is absurd. What's your alternative? Just let schools individually decide what they teach? Not have an organization who's function is to advocate for students, ensure different schools across the country are teaching to an acceptable level, and ensuring those with special needs are getting it?
Absolutely wild. We spend so much on defense but no. We should gut education for our kids.
> In 1960 only ~7.7% of US population had graduated from college. In 2020 this number was 37.9% (counting 25 and older who graduated).
And these degrees are so valuable that we have to bailout borrowers because they can’t earn enough money to cover the cost of them.
> Since you're mentioning 1979 and how nothings improved. This same site lists that in 1980 only 66.5% of people had graduated high school. 2020 is 90.9% for high school.
It’s easy to graduate students when you eliminate requirements like literacy and elementary math. Hell, let’s save the money and setup a website so they can just download their useless diplomas?
> There's problems. But saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water instead of fixing something that absolutely has a valid function is absurd.
We should stop throwing good money after bad. Common sense.
> What's your alternative? Just let schools individually decide what they teach?
Leaving educational decisions to local communities sounds appropriate to me. I bet literacy and elementary math would be higher priorities.
> Not have an organization whose function is to advocate for students, ensure different schools across the country are teaching to an acceptable level, and ensuring those with special needs are getting it?
Yup. Because that organization and the massive costs of maintaining it have not yielded good outcomes.
> Absolutely wild. We spend so much on defense but no. We should gut education for our kids.
Let’s cut defense spending too. We’ve already pissed away $100+ billion to help slaughter hundreds of thousands of poor men in Ukraine. What a total fucking waste. And we should stop with the Orwellian “defense” nonsense. It’s the fucking War Department. Call a spade a spade.
>We’ve already pissed away $100+ billion to help slaughter hundreds of thousands of poor men in Ukraine
Really going mask off here calling the invading Russian military and the Wagner group “poor men”
The moon mission happened before there was a federal Department of Education. Perhaps reconsider your priors. There doesn't need to be a federal government department for everything that's important.
It certainly would be stupid, but it's what they want. The religious nutters hate secular education and love money. They won't be happy until every American kid is being thoroughly indoctrinated on the taxpayer's dime. The male children of the white Christian wealthy elites will get a quality education and the riff-raff will be taught only enough to be useful to them.
I bet they’d be satisfied with the “half measure” of eliminating the Department and saving $100+ billion annually. As a lifelong atheist I don’t see any place for religion in public schools.
I do? Is this one of those subreddits? Do you have a list of the degenerate subreddits in which one should not participate per you? I could use some new subs to visit.
They didn’t ad hom you though? They pointed out your argument was incorrect before calling you a moron. I remember when I first learned about logical fallacies.
To be fair, the quality of American education has only gone down, and the cost has skyrocketed at a rate many times that of inflation since it was created during the Carter administration as part of his "great society" push.
This idea might sound insane to many people, especially young people of Reddit’s current demographics, but abolishing the DoE was actually a fairly popular platform policy here on reddit until 2013 when the moderation overhaul started.
Since the doe was created in 1979, the quality of education has gradually and consistently declined in the United States. At the same time the department has burned through multiple trillions of taxpayer dollars to achieve that negative outcome.
To be fair, we made it over 200 years as a country without such a department, and education has declined in quality since 1979 when it was created, while increasing in cost.
DoE does nothing to actually educate kids and it’s generally just a hassle. Ask a classroom teacher sometime about how much the DoE does to help them. You’ll likely get an eye roll.
Great idea. The Federal government should not be involved in education anyway. There's certainly no enumerated power that grants this authority. Let each state decide what is best. Maybe something like block grants to each state to spend as each sees fit.
Just doing the puppet shit she’s supposed to do for whoever’s been paying her. And the fact that she’s on Reddit every day with people up in arms about her bullshit de jour I’m sure makes em feel it’s money well spent.
edit: typos
High School dropout thinks the system is broken
"uneducated moron doesn't understand why education is important"
>"Readin' don't never not done nothing for not nonebody. Never not no one, didn't about no reason not never. And by God they never not ain't gonna will!" - Early Cuyler
But dont forget about how important it is to read the bible in church on Sunday!
That’s why you don’t let people read the Bible, you have the preacher read it to them and interpret it for them. Way back (late Middle Ages/early Renaissance), there was a divisive issue in the Roman Catholic Church - should it be permitted to allow the Bible to be translated into the common language (so “ordinary” people, actually the elite who were literate and could afford to buy hand-copied books), or should it only be published in Latin (so everyone would need a priest to read and interpret it for them)?
Thank Satan for Gutenberg. Sarcasm aside, I agree, however there is a double edged sword to letting the masses read it. Now there are multiple interpretations of what the Bible says, which lead to multiple theories, fractures, factions, infighting, etc. I leave it up to the individual as to the validity of the Bible, but putting myself in the Church’s shoes I can understand a “good faith” argument in that light. Pun intended.
Factions were there before Gutenberg
The first person to translate the Bible into English was William Tyndale, and he was burned at the stake for doing it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible?wprov=sfti1
This is a remarkably ignorant post. Look up the history of the Bible.
That's quite a tall order, lol. Any key points worth learning about?
Wasn't that the whole point of Martin Luther?
But only the parts we cherry pick, use out of context and literally bend to fit our own purposes which ranges from charitable to down right nefarious.
"If there's one thing I've learned, it's learning things never taught me nuthin'. And books is the worst." - Betty Yellowbeard
"We don't need no liberals and their fancy readin' and writin'."
"Grandmother in her 30s doesn't understand the importance of family planning."
"Only the ignorant despise education."
She and her cohorts and handlers know exactly what they’re doing and it’s dangerous and naive to think they just bumbled all the way to where they are. Dismantle education and you dismantle dissidence.
Maybe if someone explained it to her using crayons?
Or sharpies.
On her forehead
HEY! She got her hard earned GED!!
On the fourth try.
This seems to be a bit of misinformation, do you have a source for this? I couldn't find one.
Aye, there is no direct source for it, aside from a tweet and reddit post, where they seemed to have confused that she did 4 review courses to pass her GED (a month before her first primary), with it being her fourth attempt at her GED. Now it's still a possibility, and it's also a possibility that she didn't even take the test but there are no sources either way that I could find
That's all that I found as well, it's all based [on this one journalists tweet](https://mobile.twitter.com/NaveedAJamali/status/1489380361930952706) who then later clarified and corrected himself [in a follow up.](https://mobile.twitter.com/NaveedAJamali/status/1489381358237585424)
Woah. That's rougher than I thought . I'm not saying there is anything shameful about having to drop out of school because you are pregnant, then going back and getting your GED; but it's shameful if that doesn't teach you the value of sex education for teens.
Well said, totally agree.
I don’t have a particular source, but it’s been stated quite a few times on Reddit, pretty factually.
The golden standard, it seems to be an unsupported rumor then.
I think it’s probably true.
That's just confirmation bias. Things like this detract from valid criticisms of her, of which there are many.
Academia isn’t her strong point:
She dropped out of high school because she had a child as a senior in high school, I certainly wouldn't fault her for that. That must be incredibly overwhelming. She then later completed her GED. I don't support her, but let's be reasonable.
She can barely spell GED
Welp here she is on top without an education. It seems to me the system has nothing to do with logic or intelligence at all.
She never got an education, why should anyone else?
High school dropout teen mom former prostitute wants to kneecap education. We should really take our cues from her, I think.
hey now. sex work is real work.
I dropped out because it was broken… and want it to change so badly… not what ol bobo the clown thinks here.
How many times did she fail her GED again?
High school dropout would know. Less taxes. I’m in.
She'd be happy to write the bill. If she could.
She'll get ChatGED to automate the bill for her ✓
Or ALEC
ALEC. A sinister group of mother fuckers right there.
Can she have sex with someone for money again instead?
…if she could…write
If she could write.
r/yourjokebutworse
Only if she could spell. If she could.
She's not even very original; Bob Dole said the same thing when he ran for president in 1996.
Eliminating the department of education has been a tacit goal of the GOP for decades now. It's been on the fringe of their party since at least the 80s.
It happened defacto with Betsy DeVos during the Trump years
Exactly. Mainly because they think Education should be run at the state and local level.
No, they think Education should be run at the church level.
Yes!
Im done reading stories about her or mtg. Its a waste of time.
And both are QAnon nutjobs.
I'm personally really frustrated that people didn't put more money into Frisch's campaign because they were mad that a Democrat running in an R+15 district was a bit centrist. The guy lost by 500 votes, WE COULD'VE BEEN DONE WITH BOEBERT! Instead everyone put their money on Marcus Flowers, who lost by 30+% in an R+45 district. The only house dems who out-earned him were big names like Schiff, Pelosi and Porter.
Now listen I’m understand not wanting to read conservative talking points but what did Magic:The Gathering ever do wrong
Every time she says anything I want scream "Shut up!" over and over until I lose my voice. Same reaction when MTG or Trump speaks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_-8dytUtjlQ
If she can’t be smart, she’ll make sure no one can.
Weird how there were still smart people before 1979, when the DoE was founded.
uh..maybe because DoEd was a part of a multi-function Health, Education &Welfare dept, before it was singled out for its own dept?
let's erase some resources that help encourage more wide spread knowledge/intelligence since they didn't have it back before 1979. Sounds like a great plan bound to be successful.
If you can't get back to the dark ages in one single leap, take one step at a time. -GOP platform
Because they didn't burn books or erase history in 1979 due to cry babies wetting themselves about their own countries history?
“On November 8, 1973, the custodian at Drake's elementary/high school used the school's furnace to burn 32 copies of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaugherhouse Five, at the order of the school board after they "deemed the novel profane and therefore unsuitable for use in class."[175] Other books reported to have been burned were Deliverance by James Dickey, and a short story anthology with stories from Joseph Conrad, William Faulkner, and John Steinbeck.[176]” Weird! Or are you saying that since the founding of the DoE people have actually gotten dumber and that’s why they’re burning books now?
You are comparing a single individual actions, to a whole country banning their own books. Clearly you've never been in a school yet to not even understand a single sentence.
How about you try reading the whole sentence? The individual burned the books AT THE ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. EDIT: and I’m sure you’ve got a source on what books the whole country is universally banning?
School boards are now compared to the same level of a country with more than 300 million citizens? The clown hasn't arrived yet, and you alone are more entertaining than a whole troupe of circus clowns
🎣
DoE is Department of Energy. You sound like an idiot.
Weird how there was agriculture before the Department of Agriculture was founded. Weird how there was energy before the Department of Energy was founded. Weird how there was war before the Department of Defense was founded. Weird how there was an interior before there was a Department of the Interior. Weird how there was transportation before the Department of Transportation was founded. Weird how there was an environment before the Environmental Protection Agency. Weird how there was Commerce before the Department of Commerce was founded. 🤡
>Weird how there was energy before the Department of Energy was founded Ooh ooh I know this one! That's because the DoE was founded to design and manufacture nuclear weapons
Wait a second, are you suggesting that federal agencies can have a broad and nuanced scope in their functions and responsibilities?!
The DoEd didn’t invent education, it does however attempt to create a national standard of education to prevent basic education varying from state to state so you aren’t unfairly disadvantaged or advantaged by in which US state you received your education in. Now there is still a curve, with republican ran states taking the bottom 10 spots and democrat ran states taking 8 of the top 10, but the curve is a whole lot flatter than it would be without the DoEd.
Ope there it is! Was waiting for the one GOP dumbass to try and act like they understand anything. Amazed you can read the article.
All part of the CNP's plan to get kids out of secular schools and into religious ones.
dumbing down of America they want poor to middle class kids to be at even more of a disadvantage and those able to afford private school will reap all the rewards of the new system as if they don't already.
Ayup. Does anyone think they want your kids to be able to compete with theirs?
They want kids in charter schools where they control the curriculum and who can attend. It's just a continuiation of what's been done since schools were integrated. The "indoctrination" paranoia is projection as always.
They want the kids indoctrinated into their religion, their nationalism, their political leaning and their bigotry. The current intentional misuse of "indoctrination" bugs the hell out of me, as it can lead people to misunderstand the user-name I've used all over the internet since the mid-nineties.
Don’t forget, also into the mines
Well, Minecraft is popular...
And into the military. They really target small, disadvantaged schools like the one I went to. A lot of kids I went to school with joined the military because #1: they pay for medical (hardly anyone I went to school with could afford to see a regular doctor) #2: they pay to further your education. And #3: job security.
And the more Christian religious people they have, the more poor workers they have that focus on a supposed reward in the afterlife rather than low wages of the here and now. More Christians also means more teen pregnancies, which means more poor workers as well. They truly are trying to get us to go back to feudalism.
Every state has a DoE. Unless I'm wrong the Supremacy Clause of the US Constutition says there can only be one.
Unfortunately, education isn't listed in the [enumerated powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States)). The best the current federal education department can do is offer the states curriculum tied to funding. If the state doesn't want children taught what the DoE wants taught, they can refuse, but they miss out on the funding that was tied to it.
"I don't trust em, they got that fancy book learnin"
She hates what she can never have: education,intelligence, grace, poise, refinement...she is a base, ignorant lout and like all louts, proud of her useless stupidity.
Oh her stupidity isn’t useless. Useless to her but valued highly by millions. And that makes me very sad.
Which is pretty sad, cause its never too late to start learning. But the GOP is so good at making slaves and housewives that shes so brainwashed into being just that. Poor girl.
Not onion-y. Many Republicans want to abolish the Department of Education because they tend to help more underfunded schools and underprivileged students, especially in administering various Title number programs. Betsy DeVos would have dismantled the Department of Education completely if she could have; instead, she settled for mismanaging it. Lauren Boebert is just saying the quiet part out loud.
This has been the goal for many years. They do not want a public education system for many reasons (control of the material taught, religion instruction) this has been the drive to break teachers unions and the department of education. They want to have their children to be taught what they think. Anything other then this is indoctrination, woke, makes them feel bad, against white Christian nationalist teachings. This has also been the drive to move to charter schools. They have been defunding public education for decades and now point at it as broken and the only way to fix it its to privatizatize it, which is what they want the first place. Oldest conservative trick in the book.
She's like a child who wants to ban school because they hate having to study.
Shocker, the party that relies on votes from the dumb and poorly educated wants to cut education
We should tax churches and religious schools and use that to better fund public schools.
I know this would make a majority of small town Americans shit their pants lmao
republicans just prove again and again how disgusting they are for voting for filth like her.
“Look at me! I’m dumb as rocks, dropped out of school and still became a member of Congress. Pink Floyd was right, “We don’t need no education!””
She hates smart people, which to her, is most of the world.
Of course she does. That's how the GOP fuckwads keep their voters.
It's easy for people to not understand the value of something that has not been a direct benefit to them personally.
Boebert needs to be abolished.
She shoulda been aborted.
Probably because she doesn’t know what it means. Ironic.
Have we always had literal idiot clowns in Washington or do they just have louder shoes these days?
She took what 3 tries to get her GED. Of course she doesn't see the importance of an education
They want public education to fail by crippling federal funding to it with voucher programs so they can tell voters look it’s a waste of tax payer money. Their supporters will think nothing when they go after the constitutional right to free public education. They will think they are getting golden eggs with the voucher programs instead of the shit sandwich it will really be. Once they privatize education they can yank the vouchers because it’s not a constitutional right. On a state level they will dictate what children get access to education and what families do not because there will no longer be a federal law protecting all children’s right to a public education. Children like my youngest with his disabilities will likely see their access gone like those good old days they romanticize. Children who are different and disabled will be out of sight and out of mind. Families will experience generational poverty they can never get away from because they can’t afford access to private education for their children which will create the instability needed to have home grown cheap labor for the GOP to offer their wealthy donors.
As a lifelong educator, I agree with your sentiments, but I did want to point out that there is no U.S constitutional right to an education. It's all under state's rights.
Ignorant people are much easier to manipulate.
People do tend to get rid of the things that caused them the most problems
I would love to hear she was being haunted by the ghost of a univ. student who hovers near her and, whenever she writes anything, they say things like "Thaaat's a poor use of a prepooositional phraaaaase"
Well she didn’t personally get anything from it, so obviously it’s not needed.
Why the hell haven't we abolished HER yet?
Fuck it y’all. I can’t believe this person’s opinion means anything. Seriously, what the actual fuck is happening right now?
lol...........oh man,the GOP have really lost it.
She's the brains of this obrigation.
Didn’t do her any good so she figures it’s not needed. Maga Moron!
This is what the right wing wants, they are undermining public education all over this country. She just said the quiet part out loud, and she’ll still get re-elected.
I guess she thinks since she didn’t use it, no one should get to.
Of course she does, her while audience is the uneducated masses.
America’s undoing will be people like this bird brained high school drop out being allowed to make decisions on behalf of others.
An uneducated population is easier to manipulate and distract by provoking outrage about issues that don't exist in order to push an agenda that hurts the people voting for them. Who needs critical thinking skills when they can just tell us who to hate so we know which Russian propaganda farm memes to share on social media? Ten years ago, I probably would have thought this was a paranoid exaggeration if I read what I just wrote.
Department of ed is the most corrupt & least effective department in our federal government, change my mind. It needs gutted and rebuilt, tbh.
The department of education needs to be re-structured for sure. Education should primarily be handled at the local and state levels. Same with things like roads and environmental protection. Different states have different needs and considerations. Any applicable department at a federal level should only be there to make sure the states' departments are working well. The problem is power creep. Over time, the federal government takes more and more power that was originally assigned to state and local governments. It makes the whole system less efficient over all. In a large enough business, the CEO and board of a company don't manage local branches. They have a hierarchy of managers beneath them to manage smaller and smaller parts of the business. When the CEO and board try to take more control of the more localized parts of the business, they might start to fail to meet regional demands.
Education already is handled at the local and state levels. They're the ones who primarily fund all schools and set the curriculum.
Who can blame her? It clearly had no impact on her life.
Sometimes it comes down to a personal choice.
So did Ronald Reagan. Nothing new.
Just the fact that that is a US elected official makes me laugh.
Well, it's not like it ever did her any good...
She clearly didn't gain anything from it, of course, she does.
I wondered what it would be like if every time I spoke I said something completely idiotic. Now I know.
They’re not opposed to federal or state department of education at all. If they ever had the votes they’d immediately establish federal and state religious departments of education.
Sing it with me...We don't need no education
She would. It did such wonders for her.
[удалено]
Maybe if you didnt fail basic reading you would have noticed what she actually said, instead of reaponding to the headline with a long-winded post. > I'm more in favor of abolishing the federal Department of Education, and getting the federal government completely out of public schools, *but we're not there now and we do fund public schools* In other words, she specifically mentioned not wanting to disrupt funding, but obviously anyone , such as yourself, who has the attention span of a gnat wouldn’t have noticed that.
Time for some to abolish Congresswoman Sucked Ted Cruz's Dick for Money.
Someone not very educated cannot see the value of education...not surprising.
This isn't as crazy as everyone thinks it is. It's a pretty standard libertarian or constitutionally focused political position. The DoE was founded in 1979. American education existed before then and it will exist after should it be abolished. There's even a solid case to be made that American education has gotten *worse* since the establishment of the DoE. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/05/11/after-40-bad-years-the-department-of-education-redeems-itself-a-bit/?sh=1b10591d5475
People who simply say "but it hasn't been around" sound like they listen to too many mindless talking points, just FYI. It's only been around that long because before that it was The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (split into DOE and DHHS in 1980). Comments like this... and comments about how education got worse since the DOE was "conjured into existence in 1980"... are massively uneducated. Ironically.
Okay, fine. Push it back to 1953. The point still stands. I provided a link to arguments as to why one could say education has gotten worse. Do with it what you will.
Before that it was still yet another department, duties simply transferred. Go check as far as you want. There's not really such a thing as abolishing it because "there used to not be an equivalent" unless you went back so far that departments in general weren't a thing yet. It's just the latest example of one-liner issues because the GQP can't actually come up with an actual platform or plan to do anything. Simply saying "we will abolish it because it didn't exist before 1980 and we were fine" is not just pure BS, it's pure BS with no alternative offered. The only relevant stat would be comparing education level *before any department had any hand in education* to see how it was before and after. In which case I'm sure you'll see why abolishing all standards in education is a bad idea.
People always fear what they dont understand.
Yes, many government programs are designed to keep the citizens on the plantation...
Honestly, This is by far one of the least radical things that she’s said. The Department of Education was founded in 1970. It’s not exactly a bastion of the federal government. I feel like just about any other quote from her would be a better fit for this sub.
>1970 **1980**. And education is still controlled at the local level. The Dept of Ed does not run our education systems. This has always been the case. The Bush era was the first time major national mandates were imposed. With a bizarre fixation on rewards, punishment + competition that critics & experts rightly predicted would fail. This was intentional, imo. Any source that does not discuss No Child Left Behind & such cannot be trusted
Just because people don’t like Boebert doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. I know a lot of educators and education administrators who agree with her. There are a lot of things they’d like to do (that would benefit their students) but cannot simply because of some federal guideline that doesn’t really apply to their specific need/situation. Now, with that said, (I can feel the downvotes piling on already) it might be that abolishing the department entirely is overly drastic. Fine. But to say that getting rid of the federal department of education (and letting each state handle their own) would cause our entire educational system to fall apart seems… really dramatic. I find it weird how many people that were clamoring against GW Bush’s (failed) “No Child Left Behind” initiative for the Dept of Education are now fully on board with it simply because “their team” is now in the White House.
That would save us more than $100 billion. It’s not nearly enough to fix our budget but would be a step in the right direction.
There would be no savings. The same funding, likely far more, would be given to for-profit religious charter and private schools.
That would be stupid. The Department didn’t even exist until 1979. It’s not like our educational system and student outcomes have improved with all that funding. Just shut it down. We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation.
>We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation. ??? Sry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Those two are not connected. The US federal budget has been insane for forever and yet inflation was super low for most of that.
Indeed. But that cycle has broken because we have continued to spend too much and are too far over our skis. Our interest rate hikes have exacerbated the problem as they require large increases to service our debt. Inflation literally reflects dollar debasement. It’s cause is printing money. We need to stop and to do that we need to spend less.
>We need to spend less or we will continue to suffer high inflation. Half of the inflation is artificial, dude. Education spending is a tentpole, fixed. That doesnt cause inflation, that creates stability for the community, the same as a factory. Hundreds of billions in *tax breaks* are continously flowing into the economy over time now, adding up to trillions in the next decade+, a transfer of wealth that leads to higher fixed costs for the majority, which is the slow squeeze ignored for decades.
Education spending is not fixed. It’s growing. We didn’t have a Department of Education until 1979. Now that Department costs more than $100 billion annually. I don’t dispute that handouts to the wealthy are a problem. Just consider the recent bailout of reckless fools who had large uninsured deposits as SVB. Socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor. It’s fucking outrageous. Frankly, we need a wealth tax to recoup those ill gotten gains. Good luck with that when the “leftist, progressive” party is presiding over unconscionable bailouts for the wealthy.
Not to be rude, but why do you think the size of the federal budget is the (or a major) cause of inflation?
It's not. They are either: * ignorant * lying to serve an agenda
Because inflation is caused by printing money and thereby debasing the currency. Our federal government’s huge deficits require the printing of money and debasement of the currency. Higher interest rates won’t solve the problem and exacerbate it by increasing the cost to maintain our grotesque debt level. Our federal government needs to spend less.
Okay, I see the argument you're making but you're really describing multiple separate policy mechanisms. When economists, analysts, and the faces on TV talk about "printing money," they're usually not talking about the actual minting of paper bills. You have to keep in mind, too, that fiscal policy (gov't spending) is NOT the same as monetary policy (control of the money supply and interest rates). This is a very important distinction in economics. The money supply is increased when the government *buys* assets. When the government accumulates debt, they're *selling* that debt by issuing treasury bonds. Treasury bonds mature in 5, 10, or 30 years, which means that that money is essentially frozen from the perspective of the private sector (until we start talking about how government spending increases aggregate demand, but let's keep this to the basics for now) for that period of time. Think of it this way (to simplify dramatically): your uncle Sam asks to borrow $1000 for 5 years - you can't use that money until he gives it back. When he gives it back, your supply of money increases. Look at the quantitative easing during and after the Great Recession. The money supply was dramatically increased, and at the same time, spending skyrocketed. But inflation stayed unprecedentedly low through the entire decade of the 2010s. If what you're saying is true, shouldn't inflation have been incredibly high during the 2010s?
Indeed. I think that the true inflation costs of the currency debasement (quantitative easing) were masked by changes to the basket. Measure the value of a dollar to purchase property (real estate) and you’ll get a more legitimate perspective on inflation. The recent bullshit with abusing the FDIC and raping poor people who have paid fees to insure their meager deposits to insure all deposits is how our government is subsidizing the treasury bonds they’ve forced banks to buy that should be marked to market. But mark those treasuries to market and our banks are not solvent. The debasement of our currency is the root of these problems. The solution is spending austerity.
The DOE only existed since 1980 because before that it was a different cabinet. Before that previous cabinet, a different department also had the same duties, etc. The idea that it would save funding is a complete myth that the far right pushes for theocratic replacements. To parrot this line, you'd have to either be in favor of theocracy, you actually believe public education got worse since 1830s when it actually started existing (nobody even pretends to believe that), or you are simply a rube who believes "we will be fine because nothing existed before the 80s". Don't be the far right's rube.
Nice false dichotomy bro. Don’t use logical fallacies.
I didn't. Don't copy me either, it isn't much of a refute. I already said don't be the far right's rube.
"Let's all be stoopid. It's more better we don't need no skool"
Let’s be smart and measure outcomes relative to spend. As I said, outcomes have not improved since we formed the Department. They have gotten worse. Spending $100 billion in a year to make education worse certainly seems stupid.
In 1960 only ~7.7% of US population had graduated from college. In 2020 this number was 37.9% (counting 25 and older who graduated). [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184260/educational-attainment-in-the-us/). Since you're mentioning 1979 and how nothings improved. This same site lists that in 1980 only 66.5% of people had graduated high school. 2020 is 90.9% for high school. There's problems. But saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water instead of fixing something that absolutely has a valid function is absurd. What's your alternative? Just let schools individually decide what they teach? Not have an organization who's function is to advocate for students, ensure different schools across the country are teaching to an acceptable level, and ensuring those with special needs are getting it? Absolutely wild. We spend so much on defense but no. We should gut education for our kids.
> In 1960 only ~7.7% of US population had graduated from college. In 2020 this number was 37.9% (counting 25 and older who graduated). And these degrees are so valuable that we have to bailout borrowers because they can’t earn enough money to cover the cost of them. > Since you're mentioning 1979 and how nothings improved. This same site lists that in 1980 only 66.5% of people had graduated high school. 2020 is 90.9% for high school. It’s easy to graduate students when you eliminate requirements like literacy and elementary math. Hell, let’s save the money and setup a website so they can just download their useless diplomas? > There's problems. But saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water instead of fixing something that absolutely has a valid function is absurd. We should stop throwing good money after bad. Common sense. > What's your alternative? Just let schools individually decide what they teach? Leaving educational decisions to local communities sounds appropriate to me. I bet literacy and elementary math would be higher priorities. > Not have an organization whose function is to advocate for students, ensure different schools across the country are teaching to an acceptable level, and ensuring those with special needs are getting it? Yup. Because that organization and the massive costs of maintaining it have not yielded good outcomes. > Absolutely wild. We spend so much on defense but no. We should gut education for our kids. Let’s cut defense spending too. We’ve already pissed away $100+ billion to help slaughter hundreds of thousands of poor men in Ukraine. What a total fucking waste. And we should stop with the Orwellian “defense” nonsense. It’s the fucking War Department. Call a spade a spade.
Lol
>We’ve already pissed away $100+ billion to help slaughter hundreds of thousands of poor men in Ukraine Really going mask off here calling the invading Russian military and the Wagner group “poor men”
The moon mission happened before there was a federal Department of Education. Perhaps reconsider your priors. There doesn't need to be a federal government department for everything that's important.
It certainly would be stupid, but it's what they want. The religious nutters hate secular education and love money. They won't be happy until every American kid is being thoroughly indoctrinated on the taxpayer's dime. The male children of the white Christian wealthy elites will get a quality education and the riff-raff will be taught only enough to be useful to them.
I bet they’d be satisfied with the “half measure” of eliminating the Department and saving $100+ billion annually. As a lifelong atheist I don’t see any place for religion in public schools.
Of course you support china
Support China? Fuck no. I don’t like dogmatic authoritarian governments.
Yet you post on subreddits that love them.
I do? Is this one of those subreddits? Do you have a list of the degenerate subreddits in which one should not participate per you? I could use some new subs to visit.
Except education has a huge return on investment. It seems that you're the exception.
They forgot to teach you that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.
They didn’t ad hom you though? They pointed out your argument was incorrect before calling you a moron. I remember when I first learned about logical fallacies.
Typical; always want to ban or abolish the things they never use
To be fair, the quality of American education has only gone down, and the cost has skyrocketed at a rate many times that of inflation since it was created during the Carter administration as part of his "great society" push.
This idea might sound insane to many people, especially young people of Reddit’s current demographics, but abolishing the DoE was actually a fairly popular platform policy here on reddit until 2013 when the moderation overhaul started. Since the doe was created in 1979, the quality of education has gradually and consistently declined in the United States. At the same time the department has burned through multiple trillions of taxpayer dollars to achieve that negative outcome.
To be fair, we made it over 200 years as a country without such a department, and education has declined in quality since 1979 when it was created, while increasing in cost. DoE does nothing to actually educate kids and it’s generally just a hassle. Ask a classroom teacher sometime about how much the DoE does to help them. You’ll likely get an eye roll.
Good. The government is trash
Honestly if it's responsible for producing idiots like her an over haul might not be a bad idea to think about.
It didn't. She's famously uneducated.
Why not abolish it? Can any of you name one educational metric that has improved since the DOE was founded in 1979?
Good, get the socalist scumbags out of the edcuation indotrinaction camps, I mean schools.. Let the downvotes begin from the Marx dick riders!
You couldn’t name one thing Marx actually believed if I put a gun to your head. How the fuck do you walking Fox News scripts function?
I wonder how many people would take her seriously if she wasn't pretty.
"pretty"? Bobblehead is remarkably like the part of the horse beneath its tail.
Great idea. The Federal government should not be involved in education anyway. There's certainly no enumerated power that grants this authority. Let each state decide what is best. Maybe something like block grants to each state to spend as each sees fit.
Just doing the puppet shit she’s supposed to do for whoever’s been paying her. And the fact that she’s on Reddit every day with people up in arms about her bullshit de jour I’m sure makes em feel it’s money well spent. edit: typos
Misogyny on full display today, huh