I see you have joined the conflation Olympics. Underperforming companies going under are good for the market and orange man has nothing to do with it. Intel has lagged and continue to lag its competitors as mentioned That’s what free markets do. I will admit….. Guys like you and chemgator, I can’t tell if you are trolls just trolling or believe your buffoonery. This is where you say something nutty such as …. companies like Nvidea who are greedily taking market share from intel are profit barons and taking jobs from hard working intel employees
More winning: Donald teaches ministers and other faith leaders how to curse, how to admire murderers, how to dodge responsibility for one's actions, how to give in to greed, how to deliver insults, and how to tell lies. He is the first president to attempt to corrupt faith leaders at a faith luncheon. Luckily, it was not a faith dinner with a stripper show afterwards. Where is June Cleaver when you need her? Church lady? Trump Curses During White House Faith Office Luncheon Speech
Sorry your reading comprehension skills are so lacking. Perhaps your need to defend dear leader muddles the ability. You claimed the poster was uninformed, but then reiterated his factual statement. Your actual issue was not the fact that Intel is firing employees but the poster's digs at the idiotic WH admin. concerning replacing immigrant farm workers. Sad that your inane "must defend dear leader" makes you lose perspective lash out.
I find it humorous how all the left is doing their best to denigrate Trump and absolutely has ZERO ideas or actions to actually make anything better, while Trump just cpontinues to press forward with making America GREAT again. 3 and a half more year
I don’t think this has anything to do with directly with Trump but more so the advancement of AI, which is replacing a lot of jobs and making them automated. That is never a good thing and is going to continue to lead to huge job loss all across the globe.
I asked Grok. I was curious what was in the Righty-sphere versus the more Gemini lefty-sphere. Interestingly, both AI tools were surprisingly similar about research and distilling down the answer. Prompt: Give me 5 ways education will be better by eliminating the department of education and 5 ways it will be worse. Use statistics and empirical information. Provide a forward short term, mid term, and long term analysis. TL;DR - good: state and local control. Competition amongst states. Bad: no common measurement. Maybe funding problems. Potential harm to poor and less access. My 2 cents is that we won’t know the impact for decades. “if you stop testing it goes away” Here is Grok’s output: “Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is a contentious proposal with potential benefits and drawbacks, particularly when viewed through short-term (0–2 years), mid-term (2–5 years), and long-term (5+ years) lenses. Below, I outline five potential ways education could improve and five ways it could worsen, grounded in available data and empirical insights, while critically examining the implications. Since the ED’s dissolution is speculative, I’ll use historical data, current funding structures, and expert analyses to project outcomes, noting where evidence is limited or inconclusive. --- ### Five Ways Education Could Be Better by Eliminating the Department of Education 1. **Increased State and Local Control Over Education Policy** - **Rationale**: Eliminating the ED could shift decision-making to states and local districts, allowing for policies tailored to regional needs. The ED contributes only ~10% of K-12 funding ($80 billion of ~$800 billion annually), with states and localities providing the rest. States like Florida, which emphasize school choice, have seen gains in NAEP scores (e.g., 4th-grade reading scores rose 5 points from 2013–2019), suggesting local flexibility can drive improvement.[](https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-ne...ed/)[](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/) - **Short-Term**: States could quickly adjust curricula or standards, bypassing federal mandates like Common Core, potentially aligning education with local values or economic needs. - **Mid-Term**: Increased experimentation could lead to innovative models, such as charter schools or vocational programs, with states like Arizona showing a 10% increase in charter school enrollment (2015–2020).[](Students’ Test Scores Unchanged After Decades of Federal Intervention in Education) - **Long-Term**: Decentralization might foster competition among states, driving educational outcomes upward, as seen in Canada’s decentralized system, where PISA scores consistently outperform the U.S. (e.g., Canada’s 2022 PISA reading score: 507 vs. U.S. 504). However, evidence on decentralization’s universal efficacy is mixed, as it depends on state capacity.[](Students’ Test Scores Unchanged After Decades of Federal Intervention in Education) 2. **Reduced Administrative Overhead** - **Rationale**: The ED employs ~4,200 staff with a $70 billion budget, a fraction of which supports administrative functions. Eliminating it could redirect some funds to classrooms. For example, administrative costs in K-12 schools have risen 13% since 2000, outpacing teacher hiring.[](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...poverty-and-its-impact-on-students-education/) - **Short-Term**: Savings from federal bureaucracy cuts (estimated at $1–2 billion annually) could be redistributed as block grants to states, though the amount is small relative to total education spending. - **Mid-Term**: States might streamline operations, reducing compliance costs for federal regulations, which schools report spending 4–5% of budgets on.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...cuts-will-harm-americas-children-and-schools/) - **Long-Term**: Sustained savings could fund teacher salaries or infrastructure, though the impact may be marginal unless states prioritize efficiency. No clear data links federal bureaucracy reduction to significant student outcome improvements. 3. **Potential for Curriculum Flexibility** - **Rationale**: Without ED oversight, states could tailor curricula, avoiding one-size-fits-all standards. NAEP data shows stagnant reading and math scores for 17-year-olds (1971–2023), despite federal interventions like No Child Left Behind. Local control could address specific gaps, like the 20-point NAEP score disparity between urban and rural students.[](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/)[](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38) - **Short-Term**: States could rapidly revise curricula, e.g., emphasizing STEM in tech-heavy regions like California, where only 30% of 8th graders are proficient in math.[](NAEP Long-Term Trends: Home) - **Mid-Term**: Localized curricula might improve engagement, as seen in states with culturally responsive programs (e.g., Texas’s bilingual education initiatives boosted Hispanic student graduation rates by 8% from 2010–2020). - **Long-Term**: Diverse curricula could better prepare students for local economies, but there’s no guarantee of consistency or quality across states, and empirical evidence on outcomes is speculative. 4. **Encouragement of School Choice and Privatization** - **Rationale**: Eliminating the ED aligns with Project 2025’s push for school choice, redirecting funds to vouchers or charters. States with robust choice programs, like Florida, saw a 3% increase in high school graduation rates (2015–2020).[](https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-n...ling-department-education-would-harm-students) - **Short-Term**: States could expand voucher programs, potentially benefiting 200,000+ students in low-performing districts, as seen in Indiana’s choice program.[](https://www.usnews.com/education/be...pens-if-the-education-department-is-dissolved) - **Mid-Term**: Increased competition might drive innovation, with charter schools showing a 5–10% higher college enrollment rate for low-income students in some studies.[](Poverty and Its Impact on Students’ Education) - **Long-Term**: A market-driven system could improve efficiency, but evidence is inconclusive on whether choice consistently raises outcomes, with some studies showing negligible NAEP score gains.[](Students’ Test Scores Unchanged After Decades of Federal Intervention in Education) 5. **Reduced Federal Overreach in Civil Rights Enforcement** - **Rationale**: Critics argue the ED’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) oversteps with regulations (e.g., Title IX expansions). Reducing federal oversight could streamline compliance, saving schools ~$500 million annually in legal and administrative costs.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...cuts-will-harm-americas-children-and-schools/) - **Short-Term**: Schools might face fewer federal audits, allowing focus on teaching. OCR handled 19,000 complaints in 2024, diverting school resources.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...cuts-will-harm-americas-children-and-schools/) - **Mid-Term**: States could develop their own equity frameworks, potentially more responsive to local demographics, though effectiveness varies (e.g., California’s equity policies reduced suspensions by 15% from 2015–2020). - **Long-Term**: Reduced federal enforcement might empower communities, but there’s no empirical guarantee states will maintain or improve equity without oversight, and historical data suggests uneven state performance.[](TIME Homepage) --- ### Five Ways Education Could Be Worse by Eliminating the Department of Education 1. **Loss of Federal Funding for Vulnerable Populations** - **Rationale**: The ED administers $28 billion annually for Title I (low-income schools) and IDEA (special education), supporting 2.8 million low-income students and 7.5 million students with disabilities. Without the ED, these funds could be cut or mismanaged as block grants, as proposed by Project 2025. A Center for American Progress analysis estimates 180,000 teaching positions could be lost.[](https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-n...ling-department-education-would-harm-students) - **Short-Term**: Schools in high-poverty areas (40% of students in poverty) could face immediate budget cuts, disrupting services like reading specialists.[](https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-n...ling-department-education-would-harm-students) - **Mid-Term**: Reduced funding could widen achievement gaps, with NAEP data showing a 20-point reading score gap between low-income and affluent 4th graders (2022).[](Fast Facts: Long-term trends in reading and mathematics achievement (38)) - **Long-Term**: Chronic underfunding could lower graduation rates (currently 86% nationally) in low-income areas, exacerbating poverty cycles. OECD data links education cuts to a 5–10% drop in lifetime earnings.[](The influence of education on health: an empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015 | Archives of Public Health | Full Text) 2. **Weakened Civil Rights Protections** - **Rationale**: The ED’s OCR enforces Title VI and Title IX, handling 19,000 discrimination complaints in 2024. Without federal oversight, states may neglect protections, especially for minority or transgender students. Historical data shows pre-1980 state-led education often ignored Black students’ needs.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar.../history-efforts-end-department-of-education/) - **Short-Term**: Loss of OCR could delay or halt discrimination investigations, increasing inequities. For example, Black students face 3x higher suspension rates than white students.[](What happens if the Department of Education is abolished?) - **Mid-Term**: States with weaker civil rights laws (e.g., some Southern states) could see rising disparities, as seen in pre-Civil Rights era segregation.[](TIME Homepage) - **Long-Term**: Reduced protections could deepen racial and gender inequities, with OECD data linking equitable education to a 7% higher GDP per capita.[](The influence of education on health: an empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015 | Archives of Public Health | Full Text) 3. **Disruption of Federal Student Aid Programs** - **Rationale**: The ED manages $120 billion in Pell Grants and student loans, supporting 6 million Pell recipients in 2024. Transferring these to another agency (e.g., Small Business Administration) risks inefficiencies. A 2025 survey showed 60% of colleges expect aid delays if the ED closes.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...pens-if-the-education-department-is-dissolved) - **Short-Term**: Administrative chaos could delay aid disbursements, affecting 40% of low-income college students reliant on Pell Grants.[](Eliminating the Department of Education will have disastrous impact | Social Work Blog) - **Mid-Term**: Reduced access could lower college enrollment (currently 66% of high school graduates), especially at HBCUs, where 70% of students rely on federal aid.[](https://www.usnews.com/education/be...pens-if-the-education-department-is-dissolved) - **Long-Term**: Lower college attainment could reduce economic mobility, with data showing a bachelor’s degree increases lifetime earnings by $1 million.[](The influence of education on health: an empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015 | Archives of Public Health | Full Text) 4. **Loss of National Data and Research** - **Rationale**: The ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) funds NAEP and other research, critical for tracking student progress. IES budget cuts of $881 million in 2025 halted key studies. Without federal data, states may produce inconsistent metrics, as seen pre-1867.[](https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...research-and-data-is-halted-at-us-dept-of-ed/) - **Short-Term**: Cancellation of NAEP’s 2025 LTT assessment could obscure post-COVID recovery trends, where 2022 scores dropped 5 points in reading for 9-year-olds.[](Fast Facts: Long-term trends in reading and mathematics achievement (38)) - **Mid-Term**: Fragmented data could hinder policy evaluation, as seen when states’ varied COVID responses led to a 7-point math score drop (2020–2022).[](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38) - **Long-Term**: Lack of standardized data could weaken global competitiveness, with PISA data showing U.S. math scores (465) lagging behind peers like Japan (536).[](https://www.heritage.org/education/...-after-decades-federal-intervention-education) 5. **Increased Inequity Across States** - **Rationale**: The ED ensures funding equity for high-poverty schools (19% of U.S. students live in poverty). Without it, wealthier states like Massachusetts could outspend poorer ones like Mississippi, where per-pupil spending is $9,000 vs. $15,000.[](https://www.nassp.org/poverty-and-i...poverty-and-its-impact-on-students-education/) - **Short-Term**: Poorer states could lose federal support, cutting programs for 200,000 homeless students or 2 million English learners.[](https://time.com/7225339/history-efforts-end-department-of-education/) - **Mid-Term**: Achievement gaps could widen, with NAEP data showing a 15-point math score gap between high- and low-income states (2022).[](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38) - **Long-Term**: Persistent inequities could entrench socioeconomic divides, with studies linking low education funding to a 10% higher poverty rate over generations.[](https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-020-00402-5) --- ### Critical Analysis and Limitations - **Benefits**: The case for eliminating the ED rests on decentralization improving efficiency and innovation. However, empirical evidence is mixed—Canada’s decentralized system outperforms the U.S., but its cultural and economic homogeneity differs. Claims of reduced bureaucracy or federal overreach lack robust data tying them to student outcomes, and savings may be overstated given the ED’s small budget share.[](https://www.heritage.org/education/...-after-decades-federal-intervention-education) - **Drawbacks**: The risks are more concretely supported by data. Federal funding cuts would disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, with clear historical precedents (e.g., pre-1980 inequities). Loss of data and civil rights enforcement could have cascading effects, and transitioning programs to other agencies risks disruption, as seen in past federal reorganizations.[](https://time.com/7225339/history-ef...pens-if-the-education-department-is-dissolved) - **Uncertainty**: Long-term outcomes depend on state capacity, which varies widely. Congressional approval is required to fully eliminate the ED, and bipartisan support for programs like Title I suggests resistance. Speculative impacts (e.g., curriculum flexibility) lack sufficient longitudinal studies.[](https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/education/what-happens-education-department-eliminated/) --- ### Conclusion Eliminating the Department of Education could offer benefits like localized control and reduced bureaucracy, but these are speculative and depend on state execution. Conversely, the loss of targeted funding, civil rights oversight, and national data poses immediate risks to equity and quality, backed by clear empirical evidence. Short-term disruptions would likely outweigh benefits, with mid- and long-term outcomes hinging on how states manage newfound autonomy. For further details on current policy, see https://www.ed.gov or https://www.americanprogress.org.[]...ts-will-harm-americas-children-and-schools/)”
I find it humorous that you (or anyone) would actually believe any of that nonsense. But then again, you are precisely the type of person Donald Trump wants to target in his campaign to Make America Hate Again.
What has the DOE done to make America better? The Literacy Crisis in the U.S. is Deeply Concerning—and Totally Preventable
No offense, but isn't that like saying we have too much crime, so we might as well do away with law enforcement? No question that we aren't nearly as successful at education as we should be, particularly the kids who come from poorer and less educated homes. I don't know a ton about it, but DOE does make sure they get extra funding for more teachers, smaller classes, etc. So let me ask again, how will doing away with DOE improve education?
We are doing so well right now compared to the rest of the world while spending more money per student than anyone else. I guess you think we should just continue doing what we are doing. According to this we are second in the world in spending per student.
Let's apply this logic like River just did. The US has a high murder rate. We also spend a very high amount on law enforcement. Clearly, law enforcement has failed, so let's defund the police, right? Also, the spending is pushed much higher by "tertiary" education, and the market shows us that US universities have hardly failed. At least until the government decides to start locking up students for their speech and cutting off research funding.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't or can't be improved. But have a plan. Not just blow up a federal department because the side that won the election has decided it's bad ... but isn't sure why.
Poster, with nothing of any pertinence to add, joins simply to complain about whining by...... whining. Comical.
We are doing so well right now compared to the rest of the world on illegal immigration while spending more money per illegal immigrant than anyone else. I guess you think we should just continue doing what we are doing by spending more money. The right is no different than anyone else - they just want to spend money on what they value (illegal immigration), and not spend it on what they don't value (education). __________________________________________________________ Schoolyard logic is fun; we don't have to look at causality for results if we don't want to ..... such as parents increasingly not preparing their children academically, or society dumbing itself down with social media. But hey - I know the solution to "fixing" American education - take away the funding, particularly for needy students like those in Special Education. Then if we give the money to the rich through vouchers, that will fix everything! ^ Never lose track of the end game.
