What do YOU think a liberal is?

[MushyMushy]

Not to denigrate your job, because I'm sure you're great at it, but why in the hell is it the responsibility of the federal government to fund internet service for schools? To me, that's $2.5 billion that should be spent elsewhere.

Why should the federal government have its hand in the school system anyway?

I wish I still had the book to back it up, but I read a good argument as to why schools should only be controlled locally, and that's something I agree with.

 

[BuckNaked]

I used to work for DOD funding "anti-personnell devices". I like this better.

I'm sure you do. Where you and I differ is that national defense (the anti-personnel device) is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. I don't believe the same could be said for internet access.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Then the people in those states would need to do something to fix the problem, if they think it is important. I don't agree that school internet access is a federal issue. Not to mention the fact that there is no Constitutional guarantee that citizens in different states will have access to the same services and educational opportunities.

Unless of course, internet access is now a Constitutional right...

Yes, but part of the public schools responsibility is to prepare students for the real world and internet usage is part of that world. I've taught in a rural school with little tax base and it depended on federal funding. Those students deserve just as much right to access and opportunity.

 

[BuckNaked]

Why should the federal government have its hand in the school system anyway?

I don't believe they should.

I wish I still had the book to back it up, but I read a good argument as to why schools should only be controlled locally, and that's something I agree with.

Same here.

 

[BuckNaked]

Yes, but part of the public schools responsibility is to prepare students for the real world and internet usage is part of that world. I've taught in a rural school with little tax base and it depended on federal funding. Those students deserve just as much right to access and opportunity.

IMO, all students deserve what their state and local governments can afford to give them. Nothing more, nothing less. I see no basis whatsoever for the federal government becoming involved in the public school system. I don't believe that there is anyone in the federal government, at any level, that knows more about what local public schools need than the people that live in the communities where those public schools are located.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

IMO, all students deserve what their state and local governments can afford to give them. Nothing more, nothing less. I see no basis whatsoever for the federal government becoming involved in the public school system. I don't believe that there is anyone in the federal government, at any level, that knows more about what local public schools need than the people that live in the communities where those public schools are located.

They will not always have the means to provide those needs. The system you describe would not offer students the same opportunities at a chance for success regardless of how bright they are or how hard they work. That is not reasonable in my opinion.

 

[Charade]

The elderly, the young, the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill....I put a high value on helping these people. My life WILL NOT be better if I have a couple hundred more dollars in my pocket, but the cost is I have to watch people begging on street corners.

That's very kind of you. Give all you're heart desires if that makes you feel better than having that extra couple of hundred dollars in your pocket. But don't assume that everyone feels the same way or to the same degree as you. Don't force people to give more than what they believe is "their fair share". And lastly, don't lay a guilt trip on them because they see things differently than you. Liberals LOVE to do that.

 

[BuckNaked]

They will not always have the means to provide those needs. The system you describe would not offer students the same opportunities at a chance for success regardless of how bright they are or how hard they work. That is not reasonable in my opinion.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that the federal government should have anything to do with local public schools, other than in the capacity of enforcing Constitutional rights (i.e., integration).

And I'm sorry, but I don't see internet access as a "need" for education.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Yes, but part of the public schools responsibility is to prepare students for the real world and internet usage is part of that world. I've taught in a rural school with little tax base and it depended on federal funding. Those students deserve just as much right to access and opportunity.

Especially since it costs less this way. Pooling the Universal Service money from the phone companies is cheaper to the individual than adding those costs into our local property or school taxes. The schools get more money this way and it has less impact on the local residents. The rural schools benefit the most from this program. Distance learning is a BIG part of why this program was set up. Kids in Alaska and North Dakota can take courses that nobody in their area is qualified to teach.

 

[crcormier]

And lastly, don't lay a guilt trip on them because they see things differently than you. Liberals LOVE to do that.

As opposed to calling someone a traitor if they don't support a war?

 

[alldiz]

I wish I could properly cite the original source of this, but I think it speaks volumes and sums up the debate in this thread pefectly....

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our
lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Sad but true...

I'm up to page 3....I see this one's a doozy
Kerri

 

[BuckNaked]

Especially since it costs less this way.

In the micro sense, but not in the macro sense.

Pooling the Universal Service money from the phone companies is cheaper to the individual than adding those costs into our local property or school taxes.

That's only because people from other parts of the country are footing part of the bill for the local schools. If people in the local community want advanced servcies, they should be willing to pay for them.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that the federal government should have anything to do with local public schools, other than in the capacity of enforcing Constitutional rights (i.e., integration).

And I'm sorry, but I don't see internet access as a "need" for education.

Yes, well obviously as an educator this is very near to my heart. I just believe that all of our children deserve a fair shot at becoming productive and contributing members of society, and I really don't see that realistically occuring if you remove all federal funding. I agree with Fitswimmer that there are more effective methods to achieving that goal. I just don't think you can yank it all away and then expect to move more away from a welfare state.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that the federal government should have anything to do with local public schools, other than in the capacity of enforcing Constitutional rights (i.e., integration).

And I'm sorry, but I don't see internet access as a "need" for education.

I want the students we educate to be capable of finding work that will support them so they are contributors to the tax base, not drawing from it. In today's economy computers are a BIG part of that.

Also, by reducing the amount of money that schools spend on phone bills and internet access, they can do more with the money that they get from the local and state taxes. Maybe they can buy more updated textbooks, hire more teachers-you can't believe what a large district like NY Public Schools, LA County or Miami-Dade pays just for basic phone service! Since their poverty base is pretty high, we're discounting their phone service nearly 90%. Now they can take that money that they were spending on phone service on something else. Hopefully something to help the kids learn more, not buy the Superintendent a car....

 

[Charade]

Here's an even better idea - cut the $2.5 billion completely OUT of the budget and don't spend it all. How does that sound?

 

[BuckNaked]

I want the students we educate to be capable of finding work that will support them so they are contributors to the tax base, not drawing from it. In today's economy computers are a BIG part of that.

Again, why is education a federal responsibility?

 

[alldiz]

It would be nice to see what happens if
Gov't took away federal funding for schools...

Why I think some of those Red states...might turn Blue....
Kerri

 

[MushyMushy]

Yes, well obviously as an educator this is very near to my heart. I just believe that all of our children deserve a fair shot at becoming productive and contributing members of society, and I really don't see that realistically occuring if you remove all federal funding. I agree with Fitswimmer that there are more effective methods to achieving that goal. I just don't think you can yank it all away and then expect to move more away from a welfare state.

But isn't it true that federal money only contributes 5% of any school district's funds? I learned that in an education class -- may or may not be true. There are some schools in the nation thumbing their noses at NCLB because it's no real loss with that 5%.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Again, why is education a federal responsibility?

I suppose an argument could be made using the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of the Constitution, but I don't think you'd buy into it.

 

[BuckNaked]

I suppose an argument could be made using the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of the Constitution, but I don't think you'd buy into it.

You're right, I wouldn't.

The Constitution says that powers not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states fall to the states. I may well have missed it, but I've never seen anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government a mandate to pay for or be responsible for public education. Therefore, the power and the responsibility for public schools should fall to the states.