Role of government in Education

[NEUROSPORT]

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL

option 1:

government is all knowing, it is always right, it never lies, it has no hidden agendas, sociopaths have no interest in running for office. we are nothing but sinners, we know nothing, our government wouldn't just murder us if we asked it to go away. we must all hand the minds of our children over to the government and let the government form their world view. it worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao so it can't be wrong.

option 2:

an average adult is either not willing or not able to provide his children with the best possible education. the government should use its massive resources to ASSIST in educating children. this assistance should come in the form of vouchers and the government should be prohibited from running any schools of its own. allowing the government to run its own schools is allowing the state to control the minds of young people and since everybody was once young to effectively control the minds of all of its subjects.

option 3:

education is a good, it is not a right. the government has no responsibility to provide or assist anybody with education. strip dancing is a good way for a young woman to pay for college. we don't need every retard to study astrophysics. somebody has to clean the toilets. let the market sort the suckers out.

-----------------------------

by the way option 1 is what we have today. option 3 is what Ron Paul wants. option 2 is what i want.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

education is a servie, not a "good".

Also, and more importantly for the United States, the federal government isn't authorized by the Constitution to spend money on education.

 

[Cilogy]

Where I live is a great example of failing education. The state govt often cuts funding to provide funds for other stuff, even when they know education is suffering.

I can easily sum op the attitude of many people here in Texas with just three words: they don't care. The teachers feel they don't get paid enough, the dropout rate is skyrocketing, and something's gotta give. I feel like there needs to be some government intervention despite the general Texan attitude of "Lions, Tigers, Bears, Government! Oh my!" I'm not saying a complete govt takeover, but assistance is needed, definitely.

Education is not a good, it is an investment in the future of the country, so why not provide even a little government assistance.

 

[Donkey1499]

I believe that the local and state governments should assist in education, and that the federal side stays out, mostly. However, it's more so of an organization/planning problem than a funding problem. Throwing money at education doesn't solve a damn thing.

 

[OxymoronP]

None of the above.

 

[marduc]

Education is a national resource, vital to our prosperity, growth, and future, and as such government has a vested interest in assuring is not squandered and denied to its citizens for it is integral for our nation as a whole.

Unfortunately our government does way too much meddling with this resource instead of simply enabling.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Education is a national resource, vital to our prosperity, growth, and future, and as such government has a vested interest in assuring is not squandered and denied to its citizens for it is integral for our nation as a whole.

Unfortunately our government does way too much meddling with this resource instead of simply enabling.

No.

Lead is a natural resource.

Education is a service parents should be willing to pay their own money to provide for their kids.

Needless to say, the Constitution does not authorize federal spending on education.

 

[marduc]

No.

Lead is a natural resource.

Education is a service parents should be willing to pay their own money to provide for their kids.

Needless to say, the Constitution does not authorize federal spending on education.

So people are not a national resource? I would dare say we are its most vital resource.. and yes we are resources, we do the labor, we pay the budget, we provide the military.. without people there would be no nation.. I would call that a fairly vital resource.

I did not realize that the constitution was supposed to dictate any and all government expenditures for the entire future of our nation, especially ones that are integral for its own well being. Self preservation is most certainly an applicable expense. But yeah you are right, we don't need fire stations or roads either I suppose <shrug>

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So people are not a national resource? I would dare say we are its most vital resource.. and yes we are resources, we do the labor, we pay the budget, we provide the military.. without people there would be no nation.. I would call that a fairly vital resource.

I did not realize that the constitution was supposed to dictate any and all government expenditures for the entire future of our nation, especially ones that are integral for its own well being. Self preservation is most certainly an applicable expense. But yeah you are right, we don't need fire stations or roads either I suppose <shrug>

No.

I am not anyone's resource. I can't be tapped at someone's else's whim like a gold mine or oil field. That I pay taxes to fund illegal programs is a direct result of the machine guns I'm threatened with.


Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution sets specific limits on the areas Congress is authorized to interfere in.

Amendment 10 to the same Constitution makes it perfectly clear that if it's not specifically allowed in the Constitution, the Congress does not have the authority, the individual states do.

So, no, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to spend money on education.

 

[marduc]

No.

I am not anyone's resource. I can't be tapped at someone's else's whim like a gold mine or oil field. That I pay taxes to fund illegal programs is a direct result of the machine guns I'm threatened with.

You are threatened by machine guns to pay your taxes???

Those taxes you are paying is you being tapped at someone elses whim, you ARE a resource.

Resource:
–noun
1. a source of supply, support, or aid, esp. one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.
2. resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.

You are a portion of the collective wealth of the country, and you are a means of producing wealth, both through taxes, and your contributions to the GDP and our economy. Our populace is our most vital asset, and our most vital resource.

Sorry I know it hurts your pride to be considered a resource, but truth of the matter is.. you are.

 

[marduc]

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution sets specific limits on the areas Congress is authorized to interfere in.

Amendment 10 to the same Constitution makes it perfectly clear that if it's not specifically allowed in the Constitution, the Congress does not have the authority, the individual states do.

So, no, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to spend money on education.

Ahh you added this to your post after my reply.

Article 1 section 8 does not implicitly state that education is permitted; howver it does state

ection 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Education is a matter of providing for both defense, and the general welfare of the U.S.

Furthermore.. section 9 which sets limits to the powers of congress does not mention any limitations regarding education either.

If you have further problems with the interpretation of the constitution, I suggest you take it up with the supreme court, since they are the ones with the vested power to do so.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ahh you added this to your post after my reply.

Article 1 section 8 does not implicitly state that education is permitted; howver it does state



Education is a matter of providing for both defense, and the general welfare of the U.S.

Furthermore.. section 9 which sets limits to the powers of congress does not mention any limitations regarding education either.

If you have further problems with the interpretation of the constitution, I suggest you take it up with the supreme court, since they are the ones with the vested power to do so.

Ah, the Retarded General Welfare Defense Robot Response.

No, the Constitution does not grant Congress a blank check by its use of the words "general welfare". Good robotic cookie cutter one size fits all liberals try, and kudos to you and all that jazz, but...

...you failed.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You are threatened by machine guns to pay your taxes???

Those taxes you are paying is you being tapped at someone elses whim, you ARE a resource.

Resource:
–noun
1. a source of supply, support, or aid, esp. one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.
2. resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.

You are a portion of the collective wealth of the country, and you are a means of producing wealth, both through taxes, and your contributions to the GDP and our economy. Our populace is our most vital asset, and our most vital resource.

Sorry I know it hurts your pride to be considered a resource, but truth of the matter is.. you are.

People are not property, and hence not part of the wealth.

The feudalism that socialism tries to create certainly creates serfs as a by-product, and those could be "wealth" in a socialist loser sense, I suppose.

 

[marduc]

Ah, the Retarded General Welfare Defense Robot Response.

No, the Constitution does not grant Congress a blank check by its use of the words "general welfare". Good robotic cookie cutter one size fits all liberals try, and kudos to you and all that jazz, but...

...you failed.

If you have a problem with how the constitution has been interpreted, and think it is robotic and retarded and you have a viable case, take it up with the SCOTUS.

Unfortunately you have a few issues such as the elastic clause

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

and any and all supreme court rulings that have enabled it. if you want you can blame it all on McCulloch V Maryland, and the uncontested opinion which stated:

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

While you are throwing blame around try the National Defense Education Act as well.

 

[marduc]

People are not property, and hence not part of the wealth.

The feudalism that socialism tries to create certainly creates serfs as a by-product, and those could be "wealth" in a socialist loser sense, I suppose.

Ahh so you have no value?


guess you are not a means of producing wealth either.

 

[Sanitas]

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL

option 1:

government is all knowing, it is always right, it never lies, it has no hidden agendas, sociopaths have no interest in running for office. we are nothing but sinners, we know nothing, our government wouldn't just murder us if we asked it to go away. we must all hand the minds of our children over to the government and let the government form their world view. it worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao so it can't be wrong.

option 2:

an average adult is either not willing or not able to provide his children with the best possible education. the government should use its massive resources to ASSIST in educating children. this assistance should come in the form of vouchers and the government should be prohibited from running any schools of its own. allowing the government to run its own schools is allowing the state to control the minds of young people and since everybody was once young to effectively control the minds of all of its subjects.

option 3:

education is a good, it is not a right. the government has no responsibility to provide or assist anybody with education. strip dancing is a good way for a young woman to pay for college. we don't need every retard to study astrophysics. somebody has to clean the toilets. let the market sort the suckers out.

-----------------------------

by the way option 1 is what we have today. option 3 is what Ron Paul wants. option 2 is what i want.

Assuming you made this a public poll to promote honesty in the results, why did you write each of the three options as from your perspective? I'm not voting on poll with swayed or inaccurate results. If you wanted to spout your opinion you could have just made a thread in the Education section.

 

[Black Dog]

The Federal Government has no role in education afforded by the Constitution, States and lower depends on the states own Constitution.

I have not personally seen anything in any states Constitution that says education is some kind of right, it's not.

 

[Oftencold]

I have become a firm believer in separation of Education and State.

Basically, I do not trust the Government to avoid political indoctrination of Children with an agenda determined by shadowy or completely hidden persons.

The tipping point for me was the debate over how the Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools.

Theologically, I can accept Evolution, although I believe it to be an aspect, or element in the development of life and not an unmodified force. Further, I can accept that it could be taught to children as something regarded as an ironclad truth to most researchers, but that many laymen disagreed.

My problem though, was the vehemence with which is has been asserted that it must be taught to children as truth, because “they can’t have heads full of pseudo-science or bad science.” And there was the fatal flaw for me.


Most people’s heads are positively stuffed with bad science, myths, and pseudo-science. (This includes a number of supposedly scientific professions such as psychology and economics, by the way.)


I noted nothing like the fervor to teach kids for instance “good science” about electricity, which might keep them from getting electrocuted while using an aluminum latter to fix a roof, or basic medical science, that might save their life by helping them to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis.

I have never heard a demand that our children must be compelled to read a little pediatric research to understand that their own future children must be properly nourished and cared for. No insistence on basic Chemistry to keep them from being poisoned, or poisoning others.

Never did I encounter a vociferous call for rudimentary physics to be taught so that the traffic accident rates could be lowered.

On the other hand, while I might not agree with their opinion, I doubt anyone has ever suffered so much as a blister from a belief that Humanity appeared ready-made a few thousand years ago.

No. The only demand for required “Scientific Education” I have ever heard proclaimed with force is for the one type which could be used to challenge the children’s’ senses of identity and worth, to challenge the wisdom and authority of their elders, and create doubts in a traditional value system.

In short I became convinced the Education reform was being used to manipulate and indoctrinate future voters in preparation for subjugation.

With that realization, I became convinced that separating Education from government was at least as important, perhaps more so, than separation of Church and State.

A Government that has demonstrated a zeal to edit the sense of self of near helpless children might eventually justify almost any act of indoctrination at all.

 

[The Mark]

People are not property, and hence not part of the wealth.

The feudalism that socialism tries to create certainly creates serfs as a by-product, and those could be "wealth" in a socialist loser sense, I suppose.

As I see it, your logic is flawed.

Yes, people are not property.

Yes, they are not part of the "wealth" of a country.

However, the work they do, the products they produce, the ideas they create, everything which makes people what they are....

THAT is part of a nation’s wealth. Not actual monetary wealth, in many cases... But in others, indeed so.

Thus, IMO, it is perfectly reasonable for a country to foster, enable, assist, etc. that most important of resources.

It's people.

Without people, a country would cease to exist.

Edit: However, I think that parts of our current education systems are not doing this.

From that alone stems many, if not ALL of our problems.

 

[American]

So people are not a national resource? I would dare say we are its most vital resource.. and yes we are resources, we do the labor, we pay the budget, we provide the military.. without people there would be no nation.. I would call that a fairly vital resource.

I did not realize that the constitution was supposed to dictate any and all government expenditures for the entire future of our nation, especially ones that are integral for its own well being. Self preservation is most certainly an applicable expense. But yeah you are right, we don't need fire stations or roads either I suppose <shrug>

You can certainly bend any statement into any meaning. I don't believe the federal govt is in charge of our fire stations.

 

[Layla_Z]

Where I live is a great example of failing education. The state govt often cuts funding to provide funds for other stuff, even when they know education is suffering.

I can easily sum op the attitude of many people here in Texas with just three words: they don't care. The teachers feel they don't get paid enough, the dropout rate is skyrocketing, and something's gotta give. I feel like there needs to be some government intervention despite the general Texan attitude of "Lions, Tigers, Bears, Government! Oh my!" I'm not saying a complete govt takeover, but assistance is needed, definitely.

Education is not a good, it is an investment in the future of the country, so why not provide even a little government assistance.

I thought when Bush was running for president that he held up Texas as an example of a great educational system and what he wanted to do for the country.

 

[Layla_Z]

No.

Lead is a natural resource.

Education is a service parents should be willing to pay their own money to provide for their kids.

Needless to say, the Constitution does not authorize federal spending on education.

There are lots of things that parents should do but some(many) don't. If we don't spend the tax dollars on education they we will spend tax dollars supporting the uneducated in prison or on welfare.

 

[marduc]

You can certainly bend any statement into any meaning. I don't believe the federal govt is in charge of our fire stations.

No they are not in charge of our fire stations, but they do spend monies to fund and enable them., there are numerous grants, loans, reimbursements ect. provided by the federal government that enable our fire departments.

Same thing with our schools, the federal government is not in charge (in theory); however they do spend monies to fund them.

I do not think politicians are capable of deciding what is in the best interest for educational operations, methodologies or curriculum, and need to stay out of trying to legislate it. Which is why I stated in my first post here "less meddling, more enabling"

Edit: and I am not quite sure which statement you are referring to with the bending it to any meaning bit, unless you are denying that you are a resource as well

 

[Oftencold]

There are lots of things that parents should do but some(many) don't. If we don't spend the tax dollars on education they we will spend tax dollars supporting the uneducated in prison or on welfare.

We typically spend many thousands of dollars on each student in the country every year. What's the limit?

 

[Dav]

There is nothing wrong with providing free government-sponsored education AS AN OPTION. This thread is beyond stupid.