Posted on 04/23/2014 11:28:17 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Well what I would do is I would have its spent on the state and local level. I wouldn't take it up there at all, I'd leave it at leave it at home. So you'd spend the money. You might still spend the money in your state government, but education even now, 90, 95-percent of your education dollars are state and local. That $100 billion gets rolled around in a big bureaucracy. They sent rules down that don't help education, they hinder innovation. I would cut them out of the loop. I don't think you'd notice if the whole department was gone tomorrow.
Actually I think many teachers would notice a big change - for the better - niece who’s a teacher complains constantly about the needless and time-consuming paper work she has to submit all the time - individualized goals and standards for kids in her class which she and everyone else in school knows are unrealistic and impossible to measure and quantify - get rid of the bureaucrats with their make-work regulations, and education would take a great leap forward.....
I get that, but most people don’t understand why the federal government needs to be limited and their eyes will glaze over if you try to explain it to them.
If you want them to understand, you have to explain it from where they are so they do understand.
It is April, 2014, why are YOU pushing the too liberal for conservatives candidate, on freerepublic, this early?
Well at least one 2016 candidate inching toward naming a govtg agency he could bear to shutter. Baby steps. :-)
thank a public schoolteacher
I agree. And if you've seen Mark Dice's interviews of ordinary people concerning the Constitution versus government policy, getting people up to speed with the Constitution's simple rules may take a little while.
I do, however, think it is tragic that people need to be subjected to the horrors of tyranny in order to understand why it is so important to not let it get even a foothold in one’s life.
“It is April, 2014, why are YOU pushing the too liberal for conservatives candidate, on freerepublic, this early?”
As usual, what the hell are you talking about?? I’m not “pushing” anybody. He’s one of the prospective candidates and I made a comment on a post about him. Paul is certainly more conservative than Bush or Huckabee or Christie or whatever other worthless moderate they’ll push to the top. He’s far more trustworthy than Rubio.
Who do YOU prefer. Cruz is the only candidate that I can think of that’s to the right of Paul.
Unfortunately, citizens, including patriots, have shown themselves to be "fire fighters" instead of "fire preventers" imo.
Paul is too liberal to be a conservative, he shares a lot of the liberalism of Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney, and like them is a gay marriage social liberal, he also appears weak on national defense and is weakening on even abortion.
Paul read my book!
Like I said, this is a conservative position, we don’t need an anti-conservative/social liberal/ gay marriage libertarian to fight the department, we can just seek conservatives.
Republicans Love to Hate the Department of Education
Yahoo Contributor Network By Simon Nguyen September 27, 2011
“Every time Republicans talk about spending cuts, the Department of Education always seems to be part of the discussion. In the last GOP presidential debate, most of the nine Republican candidates on stage named the department as an area that needs to be downsized or abolished. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the only candidate who did not criticize the department, though he did advocate leaving key decisions on education to states.
Since its inception, the Department of Education has been a sore point with Republicans.
(snip)
Through the years, several notable Republicans, including former president Ronald Reagan and retired U.S. senator Bob Dole, had used the elimination of the department as a key campaign platform.
Republicans also oppose the Department of Education on ideological grounds.
(snip)
Also, any legislation to eliminate the federal institution will be fiercely opposed by Senate Democrats. Reagan pushed hard to remove the department during his tenure, only to see his efforts stumped by congressional Democrats.
“and is weakening on even abortion”. Oh, its you again. Only in a strange parallel universe is having a 100% rating from the National Right To Life Committee called “weakening on abortion”.
I absolutely agree with you. Paul did not go far enough (I admit I did not click the link yet either) - whatever monies might be spent locally on education should be up to each locality. Far, far too much money is spent and now it’s either just pouring down a rat hole or positively destroying children, and thus the future.
Show me another “liberal” who would shutter the Dept of Ed.
“Paul is too liberal to be a conservative, he shares a lot of the liberalism of Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney, and like them is a gay marriage social liberal, he also appears weak on national defense and is weakening on even abortion.”
Well, I disagree somewhat with that. Being from MA I know Romney. Romney is a moderate/liberal. Paul is not, politically in the same vein as that. He’s more of a libertarian and sees social issues through that prism, where Romney would see social issues through the liberal prism. So while they may arrive at the same place (which happens in politics), I think they’re coming from totally different directions, Romney from the Rockefellerism of his dad in the 60’s and Paul from the libertarianism/Reaganism of his dad in the 80’s.
I haven’t seen what he’s been saying lately on gay marriage or abortion but I will say that I enjoy listening to him speak because I think he actually thinks about the issues and answers questions honestly, which may get him into trouble with types like us. But I don’t think he’s the type that will (a la Romney) say what he needs to say to get elected. He’d probably rather go back to being an eye surgeon.
I think he knows he has to play some politics with the establishment, so that comment of mine is in that spirit. Comparing him again to Romney, Romney said what conservative things he needed to say to get conservative support. I think Paul is the opposite, saying a liberal think here and there to get some establishment support, like McConnell’s support to get that law changed in Kentucky.
Bottom line, the establishment knew they could trust a type like Romney to be with them, because he WAS one of them. The establishment are wary of Paul as they were wary of Reagan. They liked that he might give them power and he did give them power, but they long regretted that they gave HIM power. Paul would certainly tear the executive establishment asunder.
I blame spell check.
Only someone who isn’t very informed on politics, or who is just plain dishonest, would not keep up with the political positions of his candidate as that candidate’s true politics start emerging as he runs for president.
Rand Paul on abortion: “We’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise” this is how he first started making his move for gay marriage.
Rand Paul’s true colors are emerging on issue after issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3147758/posts
Paul isn’t a perfect liberal, he is a libertarian, he is only liberal on a lot of issues, not all of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.