• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did De Voss Lie to the Senate Hearing?

Mac77 said:
I thought she was only going to be education secretary in the US

How will she influence education policy in your country?
Click to expand...

Oh he's got education debates in Britain he can concentrate on--the somewhat related problem (though quite distinct from the U.S.) of reinforcing class structures via grammar schools.
 
Fiddytree said:
The fun thing about disagreements is that I can still assert that data can show you're wrong on the absolutes. ;)
Click to expand...

not really. I can make a credible argument that is not affected by "data" that the Department of Education is not a proper function of the federal government. and I have yet to see any data that federal interference with primary and secondary education has been improved by the federal government
 
TurtleDude said:
and I have yet to see any data that federal interference with primary and secondary education has been improved by the federal government
Click to expand...

As I am much more familiar with this, we have data for substantially decreased drop-out rates among SPED populations, greatly increased identification of children, better access to content curriculum over a 30 year period, meaningfully increased college attendance rates for SPED populations in 20 years (when you consider the minuscule numbers receiving higher education of any form in 1990, it's impressive), yadda yadda. Where the data goes flat for this population is in regard to employment, pockets of student populations becoming independent with housing in early adulthood, and some other related criteria. Then there's the requirements OSEP puts on states to continually collect data on well over a dozen areas and pushes improvement on those points, such as: time in school, graduation, drop-out, performing assessments and adhering to protocols, ensuring their's an end goal for the adolescent student, and tracking where they go after they leave school.

The trouble was, at first, data for my population was nearly non-existent circa 1979-1980. Then after that, it's like the general education realm started to fall behind in introducing concepts hinted at by conservatives during the time. There was much less, and I think remains, much less emphasis on longitudinal data and multi-variant data analysis for the majority of the student body. SPED has really turned into that model of seeking outcomes and data-driven decisions.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
more massive taxation?
Click to expand...

mostly reprioritization. for example, less of an emphasis on the global superpower BS, and more of an emphasis on actually doing the things that make a nation a global superpower in the first place, like a highly educated population. but if it takes higher taxes as well, i'm fine with that.
 
Anthony60 said:
It's too critical for the federal government to be so involved in it.
Click to expand...

it is critical for the federal government to be involved in it, because some states, if left unchecked, are likely to screw up education as much as they routinely screw up their elections, and probably for the same politically motivated reasons.
 
Helix said:
mostly reprioritization. for example, less of an emphasis on the global superpower BS, and more of an emphasis on actually doing the things that make a nation a global superpower in the first place, like a highly educated population. but if it takes higher taxes as well, i'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that-but the top one percent is over taxed so I won't support any more taxes on the top 1 or even top 4% after them
 
Fishking said:
How about this. How are we doing in education? Are things going well or not so well, when compared to other developed nations? To me it seems not so well so, at best, the benefits from this huge federal agency is negligible.
Click to expand...

sure, i can see a lot of room for improvement. improvement #1 : stop diverting more and more funds away from public schools specifically to benefit private, for-profit schools, and then turn around and whine that public schools are failing.
 
Harshaw said:
What specific benefits does the federal government bring to education?
Click to expand...

oversight. we don't need a hodgepodge of potentially questionable standards unique to every local area.
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree with most of that-but the top one percent is over taxed so I won't support any more taxes on the top 1 or even top 4% after them
Click to expand...

income tax rates are historically low, especially for those who can afford to skirt them. i wouldn't get a bee in your bonnet about it, though. we're almost certain to give trickle down another try very soon.
 
Helix said:
income tax rates are historically low, especially for those who can afford to skirt them. i wouldn't get a bee in your bonnet about it, though. we're almost certain to give trickle down another try very soon.
Click to expand...

what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that the top one percent is Paying more of the federal income tax than at ANY time in the nation's history since the income tax was applicable to everyone. we also need to get rid of the federal estate tax as well
 
Helix said:
oversight. we don't need a hodgepodge of potentially questionable standards unique to every local area.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that this sort of thing is usually set at the STATE level, why not?
 
TurtleDude said:
what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that the top one percent is Paying more of the federal income tax than at ANY time in the nation's history since the income tax was applicable to everyone.
Click to expand...

they control a significant portion of the wealth in the wealthiest nation on earth, so of course the absolute numbers will by definition be higher. however, the rates that many of them pay are much lower.

i also won't argue that we should soak the rich and give everyone else a tax cut. i don't think that we should soak anyone, and it's my opinion that income taxes should go up for everyone. i'd settle for 1990s marginal rates and taxing all income as income above a cap.

TurtleDude said:
we also need to get rid of the federal estate tax as well
Click to expand...

i would agree to that as part of a compromise, as well as a significant cut to the corporate rate in order to make it competitive with Europe. this assumes that these rates would be collected from large corporations, too; not just those without means to set up complex, multi-national tax dodges.
 
Harshaw said:
Aside from the fact that this sort of thing is usually set at the STATE level, why not?
Click to expand...

and who makes sure that state standards meet a national standard?
 
I am not necessarily against vouchers. However, I think it should be limited to students at failing schools, and not available for students at good schools whose parents simply want the taxpayer to foot the bill for a private school.

I am also not concerned about who she contributed to.

What I am concerned about though is that she seems to be completely ignorant of the Department of Education's role for disabled students. That's kind of a big deal considering its much of what the federal government actually does in regards to public education.
 
Helix said:
they control a significant portion of the wealth in the wealthiest nation on earth, so of course the absolute numbers will by definition be higher. however, the rates that many of them pay are much lower.

i also won't argue that we should soak the rich and give everyone else a tax cut. i don't think that we should soak anyone, and it's my opinion that income taxes should go up for everyone. i'd settle for 1990s marginal rates and taxing all income as income above a cap.



i would agree to that as part of a compromise, as well as a significant cut to the corporate rate in order to make it competitive with Europe. this assumes that these rates would be collected from large corporations, too; not just those without means to set up complex, multi-national tax dodges.
Click to expand...

Many people in the top one percent are paying close to 50 cents on the dollar if they live in high income tax states that is idiotic

no one should pay more than 25C on a dollar for all taxes
 
Helix said:
sure, i can see a lot of room for improvement. improvement #1 : stop diverting more and more funds away from public schools specifically to benefit private, for-profit schools, and then turn around and whine that public schools are failing.
Click to expand...

Funding is based off of number of students. If there are less students then there is less of a need for funding. A public school that is being funded for 500 students, that has 500 students, should have no more funding issues than a school that is receiving funding for 1000 students and has 1000 students.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. Why would you fund a school for 1000 students when they only have 500? Further, for those who have kids going to school, why should they have to pay money to put their kids in a charger or private school and also pay for their seat in the public school that's not being used?

Finally, our problem with education isn't with funding. We in the top tier in the world for $/student. If schools are running out of money they need to look at where and how that money is being allocated.
 
TurtleDude said:
Many people in the top one percent are paying close to 50 cents on the dollar if they live in high income tax states that is idiotic

no one should pay more than 25C on a dollar for all taxes
Click to expand...

i'm fine with the marginal rate system of taxation. i also don't really believe horror stories about the abused and overtaxed rich, though i also don't support taxing them at confiscatory rates. my opinion is that those at the top of the ladder holding a pretty heavy bag are better off when the base of that ladder is damned strong, though. like i said, i support a return to the marginal rates of the 1990s, with all income taxed as income above a cap.
 
Fishking said:
Funding is based off of number of students. If there are less students then there is less of a need for funding. A public school that is being funded for 500 students, that has 500 students, should have no more funding issues than a school that is receiving funding for 1000 students and has 1000 students.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. Why would you fund a school for 1000 students when they only have 500? Further, for those who have kids going to school, why should they have to pay money to put their kids in a charger or private school and also pay for their seat in the public school that's not being used?

Finally, our problem with education isn't with funding. We in the top tier in the world for $/student. If schools are running out of money they need to look at where and how that money is being allocated.
Click to expand...

let's face it : it doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense. meanwhile, in reality, funding matters a lot when it comes to class sizes, technology, and pretty much everything else. so when you divert money away from public schools in order to give private schools an advantage for whatever reason, it has a pretty serious effect. and yeah, that's what's happening in a lot of places.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not necessarily against vouchers. However, I think it should be limited to students at failing schools, and not available for students at good schools whose parents simply want the taxpayer to foot the bill for a private school.

I am also not concerned about who she contributed to.

What I am concerned about though is that she seems to be completely ignorant of the Department of Education's role for disabled students. That's kind of a big deal considering its much of what the federal government actually does in regards to public education.
Click to expand...
Well hell, if you give it to the states to selectively enforce (like DeVos was saying before pleading ignorance about IDEA), none of them would follow their own damn state laws which barely preceeded the EHA, let alone anything that came after 1975.

Anyone who thinks states are the laboratories of democracy smokes crack.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
she sounds like someone who wants to gut public schools just like they've been trying to do in my state for years. i don't support her nomination.
Click to expand...

We know, you want Government controlling everything in our lives, education, healthcare, food, home size, car size...

I for one hope she gets in, she'll wreck the Dept of Education and that's a VERY good thing.
 
TurtleDude said:
what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that the top one percent is Paying more of the federal income tax than at ANY time in the nation's history since the income tax was applicable to everyone.
Click to expand...

Record shares of income and wealth will do that. It's true even AFTER tax, so for you're whining you get the world's smallest violin.

we also need to get rid of the federal estate tax as well
Click to expand...

Of course, because you're supposedly subject to it.

What's amazing to me is the success of the decades now PR campaign to get regular people to fight for the cause of trust fund babies. The estate tax is a tax break for anyone in the bottom roughly 99.9% of those who don't pay the tax but inherit any appreciated property. Plus it eliminates a ton of paperwork and record keeping.

It's really a great deal for most estates - get a step up in basis on 100% of the estate, but pay tax only only the taxable amount above $11 million, so an estate above maybe $15 million. For a lot of estates, that's a lot better than paying tax on the appreciated property when sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom