Put up or Shut-Up: It's Time for Tea Baggers to Name the Budget Cuts

[RandomGuy]

You're looking for efficiency in a macro perspective. From the local, it's possibly quite a bit more efficient.
Setting national standards is fine. Tying funding to it, not so much. When the DOE turns to enforcement is when I'm out on the concept.

One of the big things that the Dept. of Education does is provide a conduit for higher education funding.

Given the cost of college these days, elimination of that function would imply that graduating college would be next to impossible for all but the most landed aristocracy.

I know that my wife and I would not have been able to attend college, although the new GI Bill is far more generous now.

The military would be the *only* way for middle and lower class children to attend college.

Certainly not something that would tend to make the US more compe ive.

Not that I am wedded to the idea of a Department of Education, I just want some clear plan as to what is kept, what is tossed, and who pays for the stuff we keep at the state level.

If you gut the federal government, you can damned well bet that the services lost would be screamed for at the state level.

States without income taxes woudl therefore be forced to fund those services from property taxes.

Be careful what you wish for, Yoni.

[TeyshaBlue]

One of the big things that the Dept. of Education does is provide a conduit for higher education funding.

Given the cost of college these days, elimination of that function would imply that graduating college would be next to impossible for all but the most landed aristocracy.

I know that my wife and I would not have been able to attend college, although the new GI Bill is far more generous now.

IMHO, that should be the charter purpose of the DOE.

As far as how do you replace the funding the Fed sends? Why should the state have to? Usually, federal funds are appropriated for special programs or to provide services to a specific group of students. Because they are specifically earmarked for these programs, they cannot be used to replace state or local dollars to fund a program. In other words, if you kill the Fed requirements and the Fed dollars that go with them, it's almost nets to zero.

That being said, there will be an impact to local taxpayers, which is how our public education system was designed to begin with.

[z0sa]

OH most certainly. Its pretty obvious that the elites in Washington intentionally keep the populace in general in the dark about specifics.

Thats exactly why i have a ton of respect for Ron Paul. While I think a lot of his ideas are bat crazy, he is not afraid to discuss specifics. He seems to want to talk about the specifics.

I just wish that others would actively do that beyond a federal extremist.

There's a reason he's considered an extremist ..

[Winehole23]

Taft Republicanism (i.e., the GOP's mid-20th century liberalism) is far, far from the mainstream now, but in his time Bob Taft was Mr. Republican.

In the 1940s and 50s RP probably fit right in...

[Winehole23]

And it wasn't til the late 70s that a republican could even get elected to statewide office in Texas.

[Supergirl]

BRILLIANT video. THanks for posting it

[Wild Cobra]

I guess we need 50 different states, each with 50 different agencies duplicating many of these functions.

That would be so much more efficient?

It's called States Rights. Let the states do it or not as they please. Many of the things they do are just overlapping polices from other agencies anyway. To get rid of the department of education noes not mean you lose all that oversight.

[RandomGuy]

It's called States Rights. Let the states do it or not as they please. Many of the things they do are just overlapping polices from other agencies anyway. To get rid of the department of education noes not mean you lose all that oversight.

No just any ability to address problems that affect the nation as a national en y.

You also do that oversight much less efficiently, as I pointed out.

[Yonivore]

I settle for cutting the $1.8 Trillion Obama and the Democrats have added to the budget just since inauguration.

Notice how the deficit was steadily coming back down until 2006? What happened in 2006?

Let me think...

Oh yeah, the Democrats took control of Congress...

[boutons_deux]

In 2006, what spending crimes did the Dems "commit", that the obstructionist Repugs and the Repug WH simply were powerless to stop?

As always, Yoni, you're a ING LIAR.

The Repugs' Reign of Error doubled the deficit from $5T to $10T ___while GDP was growing___ and your beloved "Repug tax cuts" were "paying for themselves". Where was your whining about (Repug) deficits then?

The lying chart labels the Repug/conservative Great Banksters' Depression as "Obama's deficits", as if the economy didn't exist before 20 Jan 2009.

Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years

Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers



http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

According to YOUR LIES, Yoni, when the Repugs take control on 20 Jan 2011, they will immediately swing the "Obama deficits" into "Repug surpluses", right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is there more money to be taken out for the stimulus package next year or is it just all tacked onto this years bill?

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess we need 50 different states, each with 50 different agencies duplicating many of these functions.

That would be so much more efficient?

I suppose it would be more efficient to have a federal fire fighting agency. After all, many functions might be duplicated in this country.

Further, the last fifty years of federal involvement in primary and secondary education speaks well to its necessity. Considerations of efficiency obscure the reality of the results.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I suppose it would be more efficient to have a federal fire fighting agency. After all, many functions might be duplicated in this country.

Further, the last fifty years of federal involvement in primary and secondary education speaks well to its necessity. Considerations of efficiency obscure the reality of the results.

My biggest issue with the federal government is how they use money for one type of policy to try and influence social policy on the state level. The whole minimum drinking age requirement for highway funding requirement is an example of that. No child left behind is another example. If you want to make funding available to states then make it available but quit making it an end around the cons ution.

The main issue is that the courts have left so much grey area. Set guidelines and follow them not this ambiguous bull that prevents consistent policy.

[Wild Cobra]

No just any ability to address problems that affect the nation as a national en y.

You also do that oversight much less efficiently, as I pointed out.

So you favor the police state?

[Wild Cobra]

I settle for cutting the $1.8 Trillion Obama and the Democrats have added to the budget just since inauguration.

Notice how the deficit was steadily coming back down until 2006? What happened in 2006?

Let me think...

Oh yeah, the Democrats took control of Congress...

They just refuse to comprehend the cause and effect. Happens every time.

[boutons_deux]

WC and Yoni lie, it happens every time.

Paint us the deficit picture with unstable, senile McLiar and pitbull in the WH and the Repugs controlling both Houses.

[Wild Cobra]

WC and Yoni lie, it happens every time.

Paint us the deficit picture with unstable, senile McLiar and pitbull in the WH and the Repugs controlling both Houses.

See what I mean...

[boutons_deux]

Still waiting for the picture of the today's economy had McLiar and pitbull been elected, and Repugs the majority in both chambers.

[scott]

Sample ballot that Tea Party Candidate Linda McMahon is passing out...



LOL

Source: Chris Moody Chris_Moody
WOW. RT @KateNocera: The sample ballot McMahon is passing out: pic.twitter.com/W3vYgd55

[Wild Cobra]

Still waiting for the picture of the today's economy had McLiar and pitbull been elected, and Repugs the majority in both chambers.

Obamacare would not be law. Employers would be more apt to hiring people as needed instead of working their people overtime. With the added costs of employing people, on a per person basis... why employ more people when you can work the people you have more hours?

[RandomGuy]

So you favor the police state?

Get that strawman. Let me know when you win.