supermike80

No I'm seriously not. Show me one. Post some kind of link. I don't know how their searches work..at all

Why should it not be done? How is their search crude? Can you explain the parameters of the search to me? Cause I don't know how it works, what it looks for etc. Since you seem to, tell me how it functions. Then I might be able to better answer this

And tell me how none of that cannot be done at the state level

It's fair you don't Trust the Trump administration. That point is clear.

I mean in a way...Wouldn't it be better? Say the DOE gets $50,000,000 in funding. So $1,000,000 per state if they don't exist. Instead of that $50,000,000 getting distributed after paying millions in overhead? Now if you are assuming the feds will just keep the money, and send none of it to the states, ok then yeah it will be reduced. I don't know if that will happen and I have no evidence to say it will. But I can't argue with how you feel

Yes...the states will. That's the entire point. No more money running to the feds, to get reduced due to more salaries, buildings, whatever else. Send it to the states to do with it as they wish

Not necessarily. Why can't the feds have that $$ go directly to the states and bypass the feds and the salaries and bureaucracy that comes with another department?

So I understand. Are you saying of the 15% being currently sent to the feds---none of it will go to the states? The feds will just keep it all and cut funding to schools by 15%?

Yeah I could see Newsome positioning for a run for POTUS. Is the gubbernor of California term limited?

I don't know if it's true, but I did say liberals believe it. I think that's been proven

One thing I can't do and won't do, is act like I know what something can and cannot do in these situations. You say it can't be done with a basic computer program--why not? What roadblocks would pop up doing it that way?

I dont think taking down pictures has any relevance whatsoever on the other part. You do and that's fine, I just don't agree.

Appears he struggles with google searches since he couldn't find the NBC article.

I didnt say it wouldn't squish

squish is on the prowl today!

See Honcho? So I appear to be right when I said the libs believe it will reduce funding. Win for me

I dont have the first idea what the DOE does. And if you think I am wrong for saying libs believe it will end funding, or reduce it, read earlier when Ron Artest said that exact thing

Not that when there was no link provided and the three authors names were omitted. So explain what you meant by this. I said most people could figure it out, you said that wasn't true. What am I missing?

I am very willing to hear what you were saying. Please.

You all realize that the libs believe that eliminating the department of education means that there will be no more funding for schools right? Or somehow less? What they are basing this n I don't know...But again....feelings and off the cuff reactions

What are you saying then? You said since the OP left out the link and the authors names, if it wasn't for you, no one would have been able to analyze the article as you. If not that then what?

Here's the bio on the three authors. Who are what? Not credible? Not believable? I don't understand Squishes position here Natasha Korecki Natasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News. Carol E. Lee Carol E. Lee is the Washington managing editor. Jonathan Allen Jonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News

So you're saying only YOU could provide the deep analysis of the article and the rest of us are all dumb. Ok..Gotcha

LOLOL

Not sure his point here. But let him carry on. Give him his wins I guess?