Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

Wow, the federal government is giving educational welfare to students in order to deter them from being criminals. That is bizarre view.

Wake up, federal student aid is designed to be welfare for universities, which educate students in mostly worthless degrees not useful in the private sector. This is probabl where bureaucrats come from.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

If the DoE is eliminated, I'm sure it will happen in an orderly fashion, it won't just be a plug that is pulled. This will ultimately be a good thing because it will allow the states and the private sector step in to fill any voids.

We need to get the federal government to get out of the loan business. Students loans need to be underwritten based on the borrower's worthiness. If they are a poor student and unlikely to repay the obligation then they should be denied the loan or charged a much higher interest rate than a good student. Right now, the incentive is for banks to make loans to even the worst students because the payments are backstopped by the fed. If the student washes out and can't repay the loan, the bank isn't harmed. However, the student now has outstanding debt that can't even be discharged through bankruptcy.

Also, let's assume that the DoE is dissolved overnight. Do you really think those students (who are supposedly intelligent enough to attend college) won't have any alternatives and that they will just sit around doing nothing and eventually turn to a life of crime? If they are intelligent people and they are hustlers, they can either find private financing or they can find a job (there are plenty of industries looking for skilled tradesmen). If they really believe that education is worth it, after they've accumulated a little nest egg, they can always go back to school without the need for student loans.

PacoPicoPiedra said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

College rolls have become bloated since the Obama admin strongly encouraged so many kids enroll and get an education. So many have opted to attend school that we are now short on people working in skilled trades. There is plenty of opportunity and job availability to quickly remedy any short term spike in unemployment. Going to college is not for everyone and it's an even larger burden on those who borrow yet never complete their degree. They still have to pay their debt with nothing to show for it. Long term positive change and gains will always come with some short term pain.

---

That wasn't Obama. That started in the late 80's. Everyone in HS was encouraged to attend college, regardless if they belonged there or not.

FASFA was created in the 60's, then congress pushed a standardized form for all students in 1992 to create 'equal opportunities' for all students. That's when the student loan thing really picked up pace.

Here is a good summary.
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/topics/higher-education-funding-and-financial-aid/federal-student-aid/federal-student-loans/federal-student-loan-history/
As usual, congress made things worse than it needed to be. But the guaranteed' loans to banks is really what kicked it off. Banks could loan money to anyone for any degree and be assured they'd get their loans paid back + interest. Who would not take that deal?

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

Federal student aid and federally backed loans has been the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in tuition costs which has led to millions of student being perpetually in debt and the development of useless degree programs with no real world applications and the virtual indentured servitude of millions of Americans.

Getting rid of it would create short term pain but long term would fix alot of the problems we are seeing.

---

I have been publicly advocating for student loan reform on this board for close to 20 years, in large part due to the reasons you point out. To be clear - I haven't said it cannot or should not be eliminated, just that if it is, it should be done in a way the minimizes the negative impacts. That's all I'm saying, but I know some on this board will naturally decide that my remarks mean I'm the biggest DoEd cheerleader who ever existed.

---

First, I appreciate the response, you have put some thought into this.

I would personally like to see some kind of trades based education where people are steered back towards skills that are needed. This is a really big ship that would take years to turn around, but if the department of education is salvageable it would need to stop conditioning kids into thinking college is the only successful path and everything else is "failure".

We need shop class back in education. We need people learning how to frame houses, how to plumb, how to build infrastructure. Kids can be making 6 figures as an electrician or plumber with a few years of apprenticeship. I called 4 companies to try and get a quote on a subterranean plumbing repair, it was ridiculous trying to find a plumber with availability.

If we spent 4 years turning this ship and teaching kids alternative paths to great livelihoods, we could start building a new way. It will take a generation to fully turn the ship and truly develop our own skilled labor talent, but we could truly stop importing skilled labor and churning out college diplomas that mean squat.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.

I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.

With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.

---

The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.

---

But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.

"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.

---

The US was the number one in the world in education the year before the department of education was created. ever since then we declined in our world standing at education. Every year has been a decline.

agracer said:

---

It would be nice if the acronym FWA was defined from the get go....

---

Fraud, Waste, Abuse

agracer said:

---

It would be nice if the acronym FWA was defined from the get go....

---

Friends With ummmm idk

BigRobSA said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.

I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.

With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.

---

The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.

---

Certainly not in the constitution but they can have one.

It's been such a colossal failure in so many ways. I am all for abolishing that department.

You can't slow-walk reform in D.C. The corruption is too entrenched, and the lifers have too much at stake (and too much unauthorized power).

Trump and Musk understand this.

Quote:

---

I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.

---

I still dont understand the reasoning behind this.

Outside of Government, businesses dont get to stick around, just because they were started. They can only survive if they provide worth. I'd argue many of these agencies dont provide any worth, other than to employ gov't employees.

Is the argument that they should stick around, just to employ people? That's Goodwill...not Government.

If we keep these agencies, the next President can simply expand them again. If we eliminate them, it makes that task much much harder...especially if we find the States do a better job on their own.

Get rid of the waste. Whether that's 100% or 10% of an agency.

Eliminating them creates a void that can be filled with Private Industry....which works much more efficiently and provides many more options for us. A single entity, through the government, is just a bloated inefficient mess.

It's math:
Every Trillion dollars of tax money saved is about $3,300 of savings per person.
Even if you're a family of 4, That's $13,200.
If you're sucking $100,000 a year from the government teeter, you are working very hard to make sure everyone you know votes to keep your gravy train flowing.
If you don't pay taxes, and receive a bunch of government subsidies, you support high taxes for people that aren't you.

agnerd said:

---

It's math:
Every Trillion dollars of tax money saved is about $3,300 of savings per person.
Even if you're a family of 4, That's $13,200.
If you're sucking $100,000 a year from the government teeter, you are working very hard to make sure everyone you know votes to keep your gravy train flowing.
If you don't pay taxes, and receive a bunch of government subsidies, you support high taxes for people that aren't you.

---

However, we need to eliminate $2 trillion first to just get to break even - ie balanced budget.

CoachtobeNamed$$$ said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

And you don't think States will have a student aid program?

---

No, I don't.

But let's assume placing the burden on states is the solution - DoEd goes away in the next few months and what - states have to have a fully-functioning student aid program by the start of Fall classes? That would be an enormous disaster. And what about out-of state students? Which state administers their aid, their home state or the state where their school is? How does it get funded?

These are the sorts of things that take time and deliberate planning to get done. If there is a solid path forward that answers these questions and resolves the negative consequences, then great, make it happen. Even if the goal is to ultimately phase out student aid entirely (which I would personally disagree with), I think it has to be done with great care and consideration for managing the effects of a phase out.

The Dept. of Education is a complete waste of taxpayer $$, every penny. Overall public education has just gotten worse every day, every year, ever decade since the Dept. of Education was founded and got involved. As well, it is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that every public school has a school lunch program and for taxpayers to make sure every kid in a public school gets a school lunch.

The Dept. of Education should be eliminated entirely today, completely shuttered.

Every state has their own dept. of education. It should be handled at the local and state level, period.

Quote:

---

"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.

---

Why was it ok when Biden did it with energy?

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

Federal student aid and federally backed loans has been the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in tuition costs which has led to millions of student being perpetually in debt and the development of useless degree programs with no real world applications and the virtual indentured servitude of millions of Americans.

Getting rid of it would create short term pain but long term would fix alot of the problems we are seeing.

---

I have been publicly advocating for student loan reform on this board for close to 20 years, in large part due to the reasons you point out. To be clear - I haven't said it cannot or should not be eliminated, just that if it is, it should be done in a way the minimizes the negative impacts. That's all I'm saying, but I know some on this board will naturally decide that my remarks mean I'm the biggest DoEd cheerleader who ever existed.

---

First, I appreciate the response, you have put some thought into this.

I would personally like to see some kind of trades based education where people are steered back towards skills that are needed. This is a really big ship that would take years to turn around, but if the department of education is salvageable it would need to stop conditioning kids into thinking college is the only successful path and everything else is "failure".

We need shop class back in education. We need people learning how to frame houses, how to plumb, how to build infrastructure. Kids can be making 6 figures as an electrician or plumber with a few years of apprenticeship. I called 4 companies to try and get a quote on a subterranean plumbing repair, it was ridiculous trying to find a plumber with availability.

If we spent 4 years turning this ship and teaching kids alternative paths to great livelihoods, we could start building a new way. It will take a generation to fully turn the ship and truly develop our own skilled labor talent, but we could truly stop importing skilled labor and churning out college diplomas that mean squat.

---

I've been saying this for years. Hell, I was pouring concrete when I was 14. I work with students, and I've seen a fair number who realistically had no business being enrolled in college, and most of them either failed out or didn't come back. Even considering trade schools, they aren't free and a lot of people use financial aid to pay for trade school.

I'm all for reforming student aid and getting back to a place where we have wood shop, metal shop, and auto shop in high schools (like we did when I was a kid) and promoting trade schools as an equal alternative to college.

There is a lot for all of us on this thread to agree on.

It is not the duty or responsibility of the government at any level to provide student aid at taxpayer expense. Just funding public schools and subsidizing universities is enough. You think the government should also provide taxpayer $$ to students to attend a school that is already being publicly subsidized....? Should we also have taxpayers pay for all the food, clothing, video games, rent, beer $$, etc., etc. for students. When does it end.

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.

---

Why was it ok when Biden did it with energy?

---

I was completely unaware Biden had eliminated the Department of Energy. When did that happen?

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.

---

Why was it ok when Biden did it with energy?

---

It doesn't have to be pragmatic, it just has to be done.

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

Once student loans shifted to the government, it was like the universities suddenly became sidewalk vendors offering all kinds of useless goodies. The shoppers lapped it up and the money poured in. We the taxpayers funded all of this of course and got double-screwed by FJB & the Democrats by forgiving the loans that we were backing with borrowed money to begin with. Amazing if you step back and look at it.

Schools immediately started adding more and more useless layers of administrators and paying profs ridiculous salaries, the perfect scheme which matches our Fed government - bloated, far left and arrogant. Trade schools were for losers and here we are, with college-educated baristas, 35 year olds living with mom and dad, and oh yeah, no skilled workers.

---

All by design. Just a kickback to a loyal voting base from Hussein. Plus, it allowed the feds to use education as a carrot and stick and ensured more indoctrination from that loyal base..

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

It is not the duty or responsibility of the government at any level to provide student aid at taxpayer expense. Just funding public schools and subsidizing universities is enough. You think the government should also provide taxpayer $$ to students to attend a school that is already being publicly subsidized....? Should we also have taxpayers pay for all the food, clothing, video games, rent, beer $$, etc., etc. for students. When does it end.

---

Read my posts. I think you're making some inaccurate assumptions.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.

---

Except there a millions of open jobs. They could you know get a job.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

The Dept. of Education is a complete waste of taxpayer $$, every penny.

---

It is a jobs program for leftists. 99% of our federal government is.

The plan is called Federalism. Return education to the states where it belongs. The federal government has no business being in education. 50 laboratories vastly superior to the huge nest of marxists and their useful idiots that we have now. Kill it and move on.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.

---

Why was it ok when Biden did it with energy?

---

I was completely unaware Biden had eliminated the Department of Energy. When did that happen?

---

XL pipeline
Drilling leases
EV mandates

Just off the top of my head.


You can play silly word games all that you want. The truth is that Biden's handlers tried to destroy O&G no matter how much damage it caused and the left was completely ok with it.

Brutal Puffin said:

---

The plan is called Federalism. Return education to the states where it belongs. The federal government has no business being in education. 50 laboratories vastly superior to the huge nest of marxists and their useful idiots that we have now. Kill it and move on.

---

Great. We just have to sort out how that happens effectively and efficiently.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Brutal Puffin said:

---

The plan is called Federalism. Return education to the states where it belongs. The federal government has no business being in education. 50 laboratories vastly superior to the huge nest of marxists and their useful idiots that we have now. Kill it and move on.

---

Great. We just have to sort out how that happens effectively and efficiently.

---

Why? Nothing about the DOE is currently effective or efficient.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Brutal Puffin said:

---

The plan is called Federalism. Return education to the states where it belongs. The federal government has no business being in education. 50 laboratories vastly superior to the huge nest of marxists and their useful idiots that we have now. Kill it and move on.

---

Great. We just have to sort out how that happens effectively and efficiently.

---

Why? Nothing about the DOE is currently effective or efficient.

---

So you're saying that because DOE is not effective or efficient we should not return education to the states? I think you may have misunderstood my response.

Very little of what the Department of Education does impacts student learning in the classroom.

It quite literally is the ivory tower. A huge monolithic enterprise designed to enrich and protect teacher unions and education consultants and write regulations that local districts have to implement.

SirDippinDots said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.

I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.

With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.

---

The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.

---

Certainly not in the constitution but they can have one.

It's been such a colossal failure in so many ways. I am all for abolishing that department.

---

Please point to the enumerated power that allows for a federal Dept of Education.

Thanks in advance

What Ellis said. Nothing to sort out. Just tell states to get ready. Thousands of educrats in the states that spend all their time on paperwork can immediately be eliminated. Make the teachers teach again and stop going to seminars where they are indoctrinated on how to then indoctrinate children.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Student Loans - aka federal financial aid - will be returned to the banks or Universities themselves. Doing so will help eliminate useless degrees and cut back on the diploma mills.

---

This right here! It wasn't until Obama that these loans were taken over by government.

Quote:

---

My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people

---

They do nothing and the only ppl that could be negatively affected are the ones who work for the agency. They reap what they sow.

Harry Stone said:

---

If that ultimately allows your paychecks to be bigger,

---

You can't talk with democrats like this. It means nothing to most of them. 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Poor and lazy depend on big government to give them free stuff. They will keep voting for the system that keeps them lazy and "free" which is the socialist/communist party. They're not going to care that people who work give 40% of their earnings to the government to waste. It serves them to vote against the anti-communist party that wants smaller government and lower taxes and they will listen to the pravda media arm telling them that cutting government waste, fraud, and abuse is a "constitutional crisis" and a "threat to our democracy".

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.

---

The problem with the approach you're advocating is that there's just WAY too much bloat, corruption, and waste to make small cuts. Argentina's Javier Milei puts it perfectly. He needed a chainsaw rather than a scalpel. We're in the same situation. My guess is that you don't quite understand the massive scale of the problem. We could eliminate 95% of the govt and what it does and we'd be much better off. The only way to make a dent in this monster is with broad stroke cuts and outright elimination.