Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The states and cities should continue with these programs with their own program if they want. Not rely on more federal debt to bail them out.
The states and cities have always had the authority to continue these programs if they want, The Republicans are for more state and local control of their own fiscal issues.
"If they want"
And for the states that either can't afford it or do not wish to fund it, the program goes away. For states that cannot afford to absorb the cost, the impact is greater - as these are states whose citizens tend to be more poor.
For instance, Mississippi is facing a pretty substantial budget problem right now. According to Head Start's financial report, the state received $182 million from the feds to subsidize almost 27,000 children. With their $6.4 billion budget, absorbing a cost that is about 2.85% their budget would be very difficult.
Oklahoma receives an amount that is approximately 1.46% of their state's budget and is already running on a massive deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
Disabled children should be covered by Medicaid of course. No one has ever talked about cutting Medicaid for children with disabilities.
I was not referring specifically to Medicaid. Head Start, for instance, has regulations requiring a minimum of 10% enrollment for children with disabilities. For states that cannot afford to fund programs like Head Start, do you think federal funds should be available specifically to assist the parents of children with disabilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
The thing is that money that could be helping children with physical disabilities is going to welfare families who have 5+ children as a business.
Well, physical and mental disabilities. But I get the point you were making.
Based on the 2014 numbers, the federal contributions to states (and DC) for Head Start was $6.9 billion. Financially, that's less than was spent on the next batch of F-35 jets.
What if we spent less money on fancy jets and more on disabled children, elderly, and veterans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
It literally is a business as many inner-city welfare families have balance between those massive housing subsidies, huge amounts of TANF, huge amounts of energy assistance, huge amounts of WIC, huge amounts non-profits that are just a phone call away that have accountability and have huge handouts of hard-working tax payers money.
This sounds like parroted talking points rather than based on actual numbers.
Housing Subsidies - These "massive" subsidies for families with no disabled children would only be based on areas with higher COL's. Aside from target programs with exceptions, a family with 5 children would still need to pay approximately 30% of their income.
TANF - TANF isn't just cash money. Usage and amounts have gone down. TANF requires parents to work a minimum number of hours with only a few exceptions. This program has gone through massive reform since the 90's.
Energy Assistance? You mean the series of block grants given to the states that each have various target demographics including ones specifically for elderly and disabled?
What is "huge amounts of WIC"? WIC's are vouchers for very specific items that equate to about $45/month per person for a limited period of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
Usually it was the families with disabled children who fall through the cracks under Obama and Democats as these cities are so overhwelmed with welfare kings and queens with multiple-children that they usually have huge waiting lists for families with children with disabilities.
Families with disabled children have fallen through the cracks way before Obama. Every single cut and restriction to social welfare programs have the unintended consequence of causing detriment to those families.
But funny you are claiming that Democrats are allowing disabled children to fall through the cracks when you support the idea of shutting down Head Start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
Head Start is nothing more then a free-baby sitting service. It makes a mockery out of middle-class and rich families who have to pay massive amounts of their own pockets for their own child's child care.
A minimum of 10% of children enrolled have disabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
I think Donald Trump's plan is fantastic to make childcare tax deductable. I don't have kids myself, but it sounds like a great plan for those who have parents who make America run.
Childcare expenses are currently a refundable tax credit. Making it tax deductible means that it reduces taxable income.
Depending upon one's tax bracket and amount spent on childcare, making it a deduction could actually mean less tax benefit. Once there is a more concrete implementation plan, it wouldn't be too hard to run the numbers. (I work in the tax industry)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
These schools are cash-strapped because the school districts do what ever the union requests. The students sit in crowded, filthy classrooms while the administrators retire with six-figure pensions.
This I can agree on. There needs to be better oversight into how education funds are being spent.
The Department of Education didn't exist until The Carter administration. Before it's existence the US was doing just fine educating its kids.
The US is currently not in the Top 10 in Reading, Math or Science when you compare countries.
Here's the mission statement of the US Department of Education. How are they doing?
"ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
it is up to the states to fund things like this, not the federal government. why do people constantly look to the feds for money? this is the reason we have out of control debt and deficits.
local issues are NOT the purview of the federal government, but rather the state and local governments. the department of education should not exist, especially at the cabinet level, it needs to go away. and if it does, that will allow the states to reallocate money to programs that actually work as opposed to having to do the bidding of the feds.
much of the local and state monies are being used on federally required programs that are a big waste of time and money because they just dont work. we need to bring control of the school systems back under local control. and if we can do that, many of the funding issues for the local governments will in fact go away.
1. We used to have a system where education was solely controlled by local interests. Quality of schooling was WIDELY varied, and illiteracy was common. Lots of kids didn't even go to school past the early grades because their parents needed them to work. It's a big part of the reason we ended up with federal control in the first place.
2. To me, there is a difference between a bad or ineffective policy that needs to be changed, and the case for NO policy at all. Does every regulation or program imposed by the Department of Education make sense? No. Are we wasting money on things that don't work? Yep, in some cases. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything at all? No, because our society will not work as well if you have a lot of undereducated adults who can barely read. There needs to be bare minimum educational standard that have to be reached just so we have a chance to function. Turning it completely back to localities is not in our national interest IMO.
Now what the Dept of Ed should look like is up for debate, I'm down for reform. But this "leave it to each state" thing is foolish to me, personally.
it is up to the states to fund things like this, not the federal government. why do people constantly look to the feds for money? this is the reason we have out of control debt and deficits.
local issues are NOT the purview of the federal government, but rather the state and local governments. the department of education should not exist, especially at the cabinet level, it needs to go away. and if it does, that will allow the states to reallocate money to programs that actually work as opposed to having to do the bidding of the feds.
much of the local and state monies are being used on federally required programs that are a big waste of time and money because they just dont work. we need to bring control of the school systems back under local control. and if we can do that, many of the funding issues for the local governments will in fact go away.
Again, I reference Mississippi in how they are looking to slash money from their education budget and how detrimental it would be to the state if all federal educational funding was cut.
Arkansas and Mississippi have almost the same population, but the amount of money that their state has is immensely different. Mississippi has a $6.4 billion budget while Arkansas has $28.6 billion. That's over 4x the amount of money to spend on the same amount of people.
While I live in a relatively affluent area, I don't think a child's physical location in this country should not detrimentally affect the level of education they receive. I support the idea that a child living in a high poverty area (or state) should have the ability to receive the same level of public education and educational resources that my daughter receives locally.
Again, I reference Mississippi in how they are looking to slash money from their education budget and how detrimental it would be to the state if all federal educational funding was cut.
Arkansas and Mississippi have almost the same population, but the amount of money that their state has is immensely different. Mississippi has a $6.4 billion budget while Arkansas has $28.6 billion. That's over 4x the amount of money to spend on the same amount of people.
While I live in a relatively affluent area, I don't think a child's physical location in this country should not detrimentally affect the level of education they receive. I support the idea that a child living in a high poverty area (or state) should have the ability to receive the same level of public education and educational resources that my daughter receives locally.
Unfortunately this is the case everyone. Here in NJ probably the worst where majority of the money go to Abbott districts to produce failing kids.
The Department of Education didn't exist until The Carter administration. Before it's existence the US was doing just fine educating its kids.
The US is currently not in the Top 10 in Reading, Math or Science when you compare countries.
Here's the mission statement of the US Department of Education. How are they doing?
"ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
That's why they should get big budget cuts. Personally, I think they should be demoted from Department status.
If you don't want more foreigners in the country (and I'm betting from this post, you don't), that's the last thing you want to do. Already 40% of doctors and 70% of Silicon Valley engineers are from overseas.
You know the bolded is an opinion not a fact, right? Yikes.
Besides, it's not always as simple as "they should raise their taxes". What if you don't have the tax base to do that? What if your state has more needs than revenue? And since when do we run a country on the every state for themselves premise? What's the point of being a country if we're going to have an "Oh well, sucks to be you" approach when states are struggling in areas where we'd all benefit from seeing stability?
That makes no sense.
"You know the bolded is an opinion not a fact, right?"
Show us where in the Constitution it says the fed is responsible for LOCALLY owned schools, or any other social program.
Yikes, you might want to read it sometime!
"James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
"In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)"
"
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
"“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
"“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson"
You might have heard of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
