Departments that Ron Paul wants to axe

[Cutlass]

There still has to be a budget item someplace for whoever does the work.

 

[carmen510]

I dont know about that, private companies already provide much of the actual services and the states would be getting the parks within their borders

Yeah, but the National Park Service (includes the National Monuments) has a federal budget. With the states, you have big budgetary issues, which means the first thing that gets axed is generally stuff like parks & recreation. We've already seen maintenance budgets cut for many monuments.

The Office of Surface Mining is the primary federal agency that helps reclaim abandoned mines and inspects state mining programs to ensure that regulations are being met. We've seen the deaths caused by lack of state mining regulation, and you can bet it will get worse when the federal agency responsible for oversight is gone.

 

[Skwink]

I meant they will no longer be maintained, or at least not to a satisfactory level.

And in a time when our nation debt is above $14 trillion, we MUST keep our monuments maintained.

 

[mrt144]

And in a time when our nation debt is above $14 trillion, we MUST keep our monuments maintained.

That adds more value to my life than yet another Joint Strike Fighter.

 

[Skwink]

That adds more value to my life than yet another Joint Strike Fighter.

Ron Paul plans to buy those?

 

[carmen510]

And in a time when our nation debt is above $14 trillion, we MUST keep our monuments maintained.

Except, y'know, such programs create jobs at a much cheaper price per job than stimulus, and they also boost the local economy.

http://thegeorgiatrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/save-americas-treasures-and-preserve.html

http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/REP/mgm2 summary report.pdf

 

[Skwink]

Except, y'know, such programs create jobs at a much cheaper price per job than stimulus, and they also boost the local economy.

That adds more value to my life than yet another Joint Strike Fighter.

Buying planes also increases jobs, while adding to America's ability to pwn anyone we want. It also takes people to fly and maintain our pwning planes.

Monuments have never won a war.

 

[carmen510]

Buying planes also increases jobs, while adding to America's ability to pwn anyone we want. It also takes people to fly and maintain our pwning planes.

Monuments have never won a war.

So you'd rather have another Joint Strike Fighter than maintaining the Statue of Liberty and Lincoln Memorial; repairing the Washington Monument; keeping Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite open to the public; and keeping Arlington National Cemetery open?

 

[Skwink]

So you'd rather have another Joint Strike Fighter than maintaining the Statue of Liberty and Lincoln Memorial; repairing the Washington Monument; keeping Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite open to the public; and keeping Arlington National Cemetery open?

I'd actually just sell the plane and use the cash to buy guns and then train soldiers.

 

[mrt144]

Ron Paul plans to buy those?

He hasnt said he wouldnt

 

[Skwink]

He hasnt said he wouldnt

I haven't said I won't buy any either, but I don't think that means I will.

 

[carmen510]

I'd actually just sell the plane and use the cash to buy guns and then train soldiers.

The question still stands. Are you willing to sacrifice our national and cultural heritage for weapons programs and military training?

 

[Skwink]

The question still stands. Are you willing to sacrifice our national and cultural heritage for weapons programs and military training?

I am for sacrificing everything for more gun.

 

[Luckymoose]

Ron Paul has never been much of a fan of Civil Rights legislation. If the main arm of enforcing Brown v Board is axed (the DoE), there will be even less of a reason for southern schools to remain (barely) integrated.

Are you saying southern schools aren't integrated? The local schools are about half and half for whites and blacks.

 

[Antilogic]

I doubt it, consolidate the stuff left over

but Paul cant cut anything as Prez, that aint his job.

That's largely true of all campaign promises. But he would have a lot of power to try to do it.

When it comes to cabinet positions, I think he can, with no input from Congress. When you have executive appointments over agencies that have been established via legislation, I think he can refuse to appoint people, but the rest of the agency will still exist unless a vote changes that.

Given that this doesn't happen every day, I'm not really clear on the rules.

Are you saying southern schools aren't integrated? The local schools are about half and half for whites and blacks.

Heh, depends on where you are, good sir. Depends on where you are.

Places I tutored at were roughly 85% African-descent, 15% Latin American. Cobb County was mostly white, although the Latin American population is increasing.

 

[downtown]

Are you saying southern schools aren't integrated? The local schools are about half and half for whites and blacks.

Yup. There are multiple school districts that either are actually not in compliance with Brown v Board, or only very recently came into full compliance. The district where I taught, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, still has federal caseworkers because the district has not fully desegregated in 2011! Baton Rouge came into full compliance in the 2000s. Multiple other districts in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina are also not fully compliant.

50-50 school districts, nationwide, are very rare. If you're a black kid, chances are you go to a school with at least 75% blacks.

 

[downtown]

I come from Cincinnati, Ohio, and I was educated here. The Cincinnati Public School system is atrociously broken and underfunded - most public schools here are not in great shape, and continuously get their funding slashed because of this.


I could go into detail about why they have analyzed that a lack of funding is one of the principle problems, but suffice it to say that public schools in rich, predominately white neighborhoods are more likely to "foot the bill" (literally and metaphorically) in times of need than inner-city public schools.

This is only kind of true. Cincinnati Public Schools actually spends a few thousand dollars MORE per pupil than many of the neighboring suburbs. Their problem stems more from a lack of social capital than a lack of raw funds. We could cut CPS a 5 million dollar check and their achievement levels will still be poor.

Research has been done to study 'oppositional culture theory,' that is the idea that black children value education less than their white peers. Angel Harris for instance found that they tend to value education more. If you're speaking in a general sense then yes, in my mind, American culture at large may treat education poorly.

Yes, this is true.

[quoteEither way, I find it morally bankrupt to write off inner-city children and say 'more funding won't help.' Public schools in suburbs are immensely better funded than those in the central city, primarily because of the incomes of their respective residents. Give each public school the same per pupil funding, regardless if its in the city or the suburbs, and then we can talk about whether its students' attitudes that give us these test scores.[/QUOTE]

It is completely morally bankrupt to write off inner city kids (or just blame it on the kids), I agree. However, the problems that ail these districts go far and beyond just raw money....or at least, money specifically allocated to the districts.

Also, we would want inner city kids to get a lot MORE money, per student, than suburban kids, since inner city education is more expensive.

(I've taught in the inner city before)

 

[Tani Coyote]

I have worked with evaluation services at universities in the past, as a private contractor, and have spoken with dozens of evaluators who have PhDs in everything from education to law to engineering. Every single one of them has told me that 99% (exaggeration intended for effect) of the problems that plague under-performing and inner-city schools is due to lack of sufficient funding.

Did I ever say funding wasn't important?

No, merely that any amount of funding will be worthless if students themselves don't care.

I could go into detail about why they have analyzed that a lack of funding is one of the principle problems, but suffice it to say that public schools in rich, predominately white neighborhoods are more likely to "foot the bill" (literally and metaphorically) in times of need than inner-city public schools.

I see no problem with taxation being used to put everyone on an equal footing via education... what exactly is the quarrel here?

And blaming/accrediting the parents is hilarious because throughout my life I cannot say with authority that anyone I know who has failed or succeeded did so mainly on account of the interest of their parents. It's true that having interested parents does help, but it is by no means the only factor.

I merely feel that parents showing an interest in a child's progress will naturally increase their perfromance. I don't really think it's the only factor, but parents having more interest in their children is always good - a strong family unit tends to have no negative side effects and can bring only good.

Of course, I probably just suffer from anecdotal bias - I do good in school primarily because to do bad in it is to be punished. I have everything provided for me, and my only "rent" is in the form of good grades and a few chores. Pretty sweet deal!

If you're speaking in a general sense then yes, in my mind, American culture at large may treat education poorly.

Either way, I find it morally bankrupt to write off inner-city children and say 'more funding won't help.'

Strawman. I never talked of cutting funding or eliminating it to inner city children. I merely stated funding shouldn't be the sole thing looked into when discussing education. More parental and personal discipline would do much more good than any dollar value.

Give each public school the same per pupil funding,

I see no issue with this.

It does matter from a motivational perspective because the current funding cuts are to classes where extra material will motivate students. Lab experiments or demonstrations are being cut back or simply not offered (this is especially true in inner city schools), and subjects like foreign languages are being reduced or eliminated entirely.

I could see the costs of cutting the sciences, but don't see much value in foreign language courses, unless you intend to work in a position where a foreign language would be of value(business, diplomacy, etc.).

Long story short: if you cut classes or programs students enjoy, they will be less motivated to do the rest of the work.

Seems logical.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that it's all the kids' fault they aren't interested in a pile of old textbooks.

...Umm. It kind of is. You, you, and ONLY you, decide if you do your homework and study for exams.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can't improve the quality of examination. Getting an A on a math test doesn't mean anything if it's just arithmetic.

You have no control over how much content there is, but you DO have control over how good your scores are on the content covered.

 

[Crezth]

This is only kind of true. Cincinnati Public Schools actually spends a few thousand dollars MORE per pupil than many of the neighboring suburbs. Their problem stems more from a lack of social capital than a lack of raw funds. We could cut CPS a 5 million dollar check and their achievement levels will still be poor.

I'll bite. What do you mean by "social capital?" Do you mean the will to educate the students simply isn't there? I'd tend to agree, but I want to hear exactly what you mean. I also speak more generally on the topic of how the suburban schools receive a lot of attention and support whereas the inner city schools do not.

The subtleties of the case are beyond my realm of knowledge, of course; however, I still consider it a heinous crime of Cincinnati's to do this to its city-borne population. I might go on about how suburbanization is a fundamentally racist process, but that might even be belaboring the point.

I am for sacrificing everything for more gun.

Why? [/feedingthetroll]

EDIT

Did I ever say funding wasn't important?

No, merely that any amount of funding will be worthless if students themselves don't care.

The implication was the old-and-tried angry-white-guy complaint: "I don't see how money is gonna help dem black folk as dey ain't occasioned to learnin' like us whites!"

Whether you meant it or not does not affect the historical context of the debate.

I see no problem with taxation being used to put everyone on an equal footing via education... what exactly is the quarrel here?

So we're agreed. This is the central tenet of my entire political philosophy, personally.

I merely feel that parents showing an interest in a child's progress will naturally increase their perfromance. I don't really think it's the only factor, but parents having more interest in their children is always good - a strong family unit tends to have no negative side effects and can bring only good.

This is a massive can of worms you've opened up here, but I'm glad you've done it because it really helps us strike the nerve of the issue: if the "strong family unit" is fundamental to the success of the child, then a.) what qualifies as a strong family unit, b.) how can we ensure the development of a strong family unit goes untried, and c.) if there is a lack of strong family units presently, what can be done to reverse the trend?

I agree that a strong family unit can be very important to success, even though it is by no means the be-all end-all. But there are many theories about why these strong family units don't exist. My argument is that the economically and socially disenfranchised do not have the wherewithal to handle the intense workloads forced on them by the ruling class and play the role of intense custodian to their child's future. One of the ideals of public schooling is to take some of the weight off of the parents' shoulders and still provide a decent education for the child. God forbid you should happen to be a single African-American mother living in the city; you will struggle, no matter how hard you work, to give your child what they need to succeed. And when your child lacks the education, his/her children will also struggle to succeed in school. It's a vicious cycle.

Of course, I probably just suffer from anecdotal bias - I do good in school primarily because to do bad in it is to be punished. I have everything provided for me, and my only "rent" is in the form of good grades and a few chores. Pretty sweet deal!

Yeah. I'm a white male and I have absolutely nothing to complain about in that respect - except the socioeconomic ruination of my countrymen.

Strawman. I never talked of cutting funding or eliminating it to inner city children. I merely stated funding shouldn't be the sole thing looked into when discussing education. More parental and personal discipline would do much more good than any dollar value.

Not a strawman; it's directly relevant. The fact is that funding to underperforming schools (read: inner-city schools) is slashed as a matter of routine, whether you want it to or not. Furthermore, by suggesting that the primary conduit of education be the homestead, you are implicitly suggesting that the public schools could do with a little less focus on the part of the State.

I could see the costs of cutting the sciences, but don't see much value in foreign language courses, unless you intend to work in a position where a foreign language would be of value(business, diplomacy, etc.).

I'd normally be inclined to agree with you but as I think all forms of knowledge are necessary to the creation of an educated populace capable of critical thinking I must stress that cutting classes is not an acceptable alternative to giving public schooling more funding altogether.

...Umm. It kind of is. You, you, and ONLY you, decide if you do your homework and study for exams.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can't improve the quality of examination. Getting an A on a math test doesn't mean anything if it's just arithmetic.

You have no control over how much content there is, but you DO have control over how good your scores are on the content covered.

The typical white middle-class exhortation of the lower-class to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is something of an empty call when the lower-class has no bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

I get so sick and tired of privileged folk saying that the only reason these people are failing and sinking into a spiral of poverty and depression is because they're lazy. . Hedge-fund managers are lazy, not impoverished African-American inner-city school kids.

 

[Skwink]

Why? [/feedingthetroll]

How else will we keep dominating the world?