View Full Version : Dr. Paul, **Please** Stop Leading With "Abolish the Dept of Ed"
ronpaulfan
11-28-2007, 09:21 PM
Here are other options:
"Government is too bloated, even the Department of Education"
"We're handling our country's education like we handled Katrina"
"<Insert ANY explanation here>, so abolish the Department of Education"
PLEASE DR. PAUL!!! YOU'RE KILLING ME ON THIS ONE!!! :(
Brad Zink
11-28-2007, 09:23 PM
Lead with "Abolish the IRS" like he did in the first debate!
Tdcci
11-28-2007, 09:23 PM
Why do you support the department of education? Surely there must be some logic behind that strong emotion.
RM918
11-28-2007, 09:24 PM
Why do you support the department of education? Surely there must be some logic behind that strong emotion.
I think he's just pointing out that most people are going to hear this and assume, because most folks don't really know anything about it, that he wants to get rid of public schooling entirely.
murrayrothbard
11-28-2007, 09:25 PM
I think he's just pointing out that most people are going to hear this and assume, because most folks don't really know anything about it, that he wants to get rid of public schooling entirely.
Abolishing the Dept of Education was a MAJOR part of the Repubs platform back in the day
He needs a one-liner to explain how public education in general would be different/improved without the dept. of education
just saying "abolish the dept. of ed" is a poor statement without anything to back it up
Ryphal
11-28-2007, 09:27 PM
Lead with "Abolish the IRS" like he did in the first debate!
Or how Huckabee stole it tonight, when Ron didn't mention it in his segment... :-(
awitelin
11-28-2007, 09:29 PM
Or how Huckabee stole it tonight, when Ron didn't mention it in his segment... :-(
Well, I suppose it's good in some ways - Ron's ideas are popular...
thuja
11-28-2007, 09:30 PM
do not worry so much that he sounds wrong to want these dpts gone, they ARE going anyway. it will be easy to make them gone
and so many do or want to do home schooling
FluffyUnbound
11-28-2007, 09:32 PM
I think it's kind of shocking that in less than a generation, EVEN AMONG REPUBLICANS, people have forgotten that the function of the federal Department of Education is to interfere with the prerogative of the states to control local education.
SlapItHigh
11-28-2007, 09:34 PM
My dad is a hardcore republican for the last 50+ years and he has vowed to never vote for a presidential candidate UNLESS they state they want to get rid of the department of Ed. He agrees with RP about everything except the war yet his talk about the getting rid of the dept of Ed has convinced him to make a donation yesterday.
partypooper
11-28-2007, 09:36 PM
he needs to find a specific example of what the dept is actually doing. getting rid of "scientific research" sounds terrible. "we are not gonna fund the study of montana bear nails" sounds much better.
kmoon
11-28-2007, 09:40 PM
I think he's just pointing out that most people are going to hear this and assume, because most folks don't really know anything about it, that he wants to get rid of public schooling entirely.
Um, doesn't he?
janeuner
11-28-2007, 09:44 PM
Strange... the kill the DoEd line converted my mother (lifelong teacher) instantly.
Knightskye
11-28-2007, 09:44 PM
He backed it up saying Reagan also wanted to get rid of it. He used that as a justification for one of the Departments he'd get rid of.
ronpaulfan
11-28-2007, 09:46 PM
He backed it up saying Reagan also wanted to get rid of it. He used that as a justification for one of the Departments he'd get rid of.
He *backed* it up
That is exactly my point. With this issue, you must *LEAD* with the explanation!!
Example: "Reagan was for abolishing the Department of Education and so am I"
Liberty Star
11-28-2007, 09:47 PM
Lead with "Abolish the IRS" like he did in the first debate!
Exactly.
Kingfisher
11-29-2007, 07:18 AM
You have to realize you are talking to a bunch of brainwashed sheeple. Some of them might think the department of education is why our schools are so "good" and without it our kids would be dummys
awigo50
11-29-2007, 07:22 AM
Um, doesn't he?
I doubt it. I think he wants to leave it to the states, and mostly the towns.
just saying "abolish the dept. of ed" is a poor statement without anything to back it up
Yeah. Some people I've talked to thought abolishing it would be crazy, but as soon as I informed them that it's only been around since 1980 and that the education system has gone down the toilet since then, they changed their minds pretty quickly.
Nothing's more maddening than when people hold opinions about things that they don't even know the basics about.
When the question was asked, I thought of "the IRS" as an answer but I realized it didn't make much sense. The question was about waste, not taxation. I think this is why RP didn't use it and the Huckster did. RP answers questions honestly, the others answer for political gain.
MN Patriot
11-29-2007, 07:58 AM
You have to realize you are talking to a bunch of brainwashed sheeple. Some of them might think the department of education is why our schools are so "good" and without it our kids would be dummys
Exactly. We need to realize most of the world looks at these issues differently.
People have been brainwashed to think that government is the solution to any problem. If kids drop out of school, then obviously the solution is to raise taxes and put more money into schools, right? The same could be applied to any problem, from housing to health care, more taxes plus more government equals problem solved in most people's minds.
Then when some anti-government heretic comes along and says he wants to get rid of the Department of Education, obviously he HATES children and wants them to be ignorant!
The late great Harry Browne would anwer questions like these with the qualifier that government does a poor job at most things, and using a federal agency is a waste of time and money to educate children.
Harry96
11-29-2007, 08:05 AM
Personally I think that's a pretty trivial issue, considering everything else that's going on. But I think he emphasizes it because it's one of the things that regular people who are Republicans love hearing; and most Republican candidates don't say it any more, so it's another way to distinguish himself.
Elwar
11-29-2007, 08:11 AM
Republicans won the house and senate back in 1994 by promising to get rid of the Department of Education.
kylejack
11-29-2007, 08:15 AM
Here are other options:
"Government is too bloated, even the Department of Education"
"We're handling our country's education like we handled Katrina"
"<Insert ANY explanation here>, so abolish the Department of Education"
PLEASE DR. PAUL!!! YOU'RE KILLING ME ON THIS ONE!!! :(
Disagree. Its somewhat radical these days, but its reminding a lot of older people that none of the people on stage are more Reaganesque than Ron Paul. No federal politician has proposed eliminating the DoE that I'm aware of since Reagan.
kylejack
11-29-2007, 08:15 AM
Republicans won the house and senate back in 1994 by promising to get rid of the Department of Education.
Hm, wasn't aware of this. It was part of the contract with America thing or...?
margomaps
11-29-2007, 08:35 AM
When the question was asked, I thought of "the IRS" as an answer but I realized it didn't make much sense. The question was about waste, not taxation. I think this is why RP didn't use it and the Huckster did. RP answers questions honestly, the others answer for political gain.
The Department of Education currently has around 4,500 employees and a budget between $13 billion (mandatory) and $50 billion (discretionary)...see: http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu. The budgetary information was gleaned from this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education).
Compare that to the IRS, which has somewhere around 110,000 employees (source: answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-internal-revenue-service?cat=biz-fin)) and a budget of around $10 Billion. I also know the IRS subcontracts out a significant amount of work. I don't believe that is reflected in the 110,000 employee figure.
So interestingly, even though the IRS employs around 25 times as many people as the DoED, its budget is somewhere between equal, and 1/5 that of the DoED. I'm guessing part of DoED's budget is to pay for interest on subsidized student loans, but that's just speculation. As Dr. Paul asked: why should poorer people who don't go to college have to pay taxes to subsidize the student loans of those who do? At any rate, it sure does look like the DoED is low-hanging fruit that could be done away with to cut a lot of waste.
Coincidentally, the demographic information for DOEd employees is fascinating! Check it out at the bottom fo this page: Dept. of Ed Info (http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=ED00&q=scores_large)
JAYCEE
11-29-2007, 08:36 AM
Lead with "Abolish the IRS" like he did in the first debate!
I agree 100% with Brad.
Huckleberry Hound knocked one out of the park last night with his "abolish the IRS" lie. Our candidate means what he says and we need to hear it from him.
.
JosephTheLibertarian
11-29-2007, 10:50 AM
Hucklefuck stole that IRS answer.
awitelin
11-29-2007, 10:56 AM
/agreed
Even though I know what he means when he says "Cut the Dept of Education" I still internally cringe a bit. It may be the truth but it will not win him any votes without a full explanation.
someguy200
11-29-2007, 11:46 AM
Just imagine 30 years from now when people think of the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security like they do when they hear Dept. of Education now. "Oh they have good names so they must be good, who would be against patriots or security ?" We're absolutely f*cked if the trend continues.:(
Just imagine 30 years from now when people think of the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security like they do when they hear Dept. of Education now. "Oh they have good names so they must be good, who would be against patriots or security ?" We're absolutely f*cked if the trend continues.:(
We'll know in less than a year, who needs to wait 30...
eliminating the dept of ed is a good idea... highlighting this fact is poison in the liberal media.
Global warming hurts him too.
yoAdrian
11-30-2007, 06:05 AM
He is correct most people out there are stupid or to dependent on our government so they see this as an attack on schools and teachers and unions. That you see the truth is one thing what the idiots out there see is something else.
rodent
11-30-2007, 06:30 AM
He is correct most people out there are stupid or to dependent on our government so they see this as an attack on schools and teachers and unions. That you see the truth is one thing what the idiots out there see is something else.
Yep. It's hard to top the stupidity of the average[1] public school teacher in a teacher's union.
[1] I said average. Odds are, if you're a teacher and following RP, you probably aren't average. I have a very low opinion of public education from K-12 and 90% of state universities.
...which is exactly why its not wise to use when he doesn't have time to explain fully. ignorance
Yep. It's hard to top the stupidity of the average[1] public school teacher in a teacher's union.
[1] I said average. Odds are, if you're a teacher and following RP, you probably aren't average. I have a very low opinion of public education from K-12 and 90% of state universities.
Replace "90%" with "100%" and I agree with you.
noztnac
11-30-2007, 06:50 AM
I agree. He needs to explain it. I'm a teacher and even I don't understand exactly what the department of education does.
Most people hear that as "Ron Paul is against education".
That is certainly not the impression he intends to give.
Dr. Paul is extremely bright. But sometimes I think he gives the average American a little too much credit for being able to figure these things out.
Broadlighter
11-30-2007, 03:41 PM
For me the argument about abolishing the Fed boils down to this --
Do you want George W. Bush in charge of educating your kids?
That should get the liberals' attention.
If you're talking to a conservative, swap out George W. Bush and replace him with Hillary Clinton.
The other argument is that public education gets its main funding and administration from the states. Giving the Federal government jurisdiction and funding for education adds another layer of bureaucracy, budget wars, special interest lobbying and politicking.
It's really not that hard.
JohnnyWrath
11-30-2007, 04:20 PM
Ron believes that the masses understand these issues at a much higher level than they actually do...I can only imagine how many people think he is trying to close public schools when he says it like that. I would also ask that he offer a way better explanation when he says this....I do agree with him 100%. It's just that most people don't understand and think he is against education.
Broadlighter
11-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Hearing about abolishing the Dept. of Ed in a soundbyte belies the wisdom inherent in the idea.
Kuldebar
11-30-2007, 05:31 PM
Some people tend to forget that the Department of Education has only been around only since 1980.
Now, has the quality of education for Americans improved since that time?
Case closed.
MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
11-30-2007, 05:55 PM
Why do you support the department of education? Surely there must be some logic behind that strong emotion.
No, it's just too much for most people to stomach without understanding the history there. Most people don't. They think that the "department of education" means public education as a whole.
I happen to know several school teachers. When i explain to them that there was no department of education 30 years ago, they look at me in shock.
malibu
11-30-2007, 06:27 PM
Very common Republican Party platform that "No child left behind" is not a good application of the federal government and education properly belongs in the perview of the individual states.
It is very good to for Ron Paul to recognize that the federal Dept. of Education is largely superfluous.
GayRPFan
11-30-2007, 10:50 PM
RP could respond to something like this:
If we conservatives agree that socialized medicine is wrong for our health, then why would we think socialized education is good for our children?
The Dept of Education is doing exactly what it was created for, dumbing down America. That would be one reason to deep six it. Also if I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure education was given to the states and not the federal government. Therefore we have no need for the Department of Education.
If you're talking to people who have been involved in K-12 public education since NCLB came into effect, mention about how it would get rid of the kind of crap we have to deal with from that. The standardized tests, etc. cropping up to meet its standards are looked down upon even by the majority of teachers, and I think it's a vast majority. The biggest accomplishment of it is to make people less well prepared for the world after school, because they have to learn the test- in Ohio, we've even had to add special classes for it. And you know what the best part is? The only way they get enough people to pass is by lowering the bar for a 10th grade graduation test to a 6th grade level.
SlapItHigh
11-30-2007, 11:44 PM
eliminating the dept of ed is a good idea... highlighting this fact is poison in the liberal media.
Right now Ron needs to focus on getting the GOP to vote for him. Isn't it too late to change your party affiliation in many states for the primary now? Only 19 states have open primaries and even those have some stipulations. We need liberals to win the general election but we really need long time republicans on board to win the primary. Anyone who has been a republican for a long time knows that the dept of education is not a good idea or at the very least, they remember when that was the common view of the GOP.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.