The 2012 CNN/Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate

[Faramir]

I'd vote for Ron Paul...if I wanted nothing to be passed in Congress. If you look how republicans are bashing Obama, sabotoging his bills...this guy will be bashed by his own republicans and the democrats.

Here's partly what Ron Paul said on the matter:

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright—thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300, 0000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stoke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the non-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential theorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending

2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Please, point to another candidate that has presented his plan in such a candid and realistic light.

You can read the rest of the article here.

 

[dnno1]

Here's partly what Ron Paul said on the matter:



Please, point to another candidate that has presented his plan in such a candid and realistic light.

You can read the rest of the article here.

Prioritizing cuts in military spending (in the fashion Mr Paul wants) is not realistic. It will take several more years to wind up the activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a lot of pressure from the military industrial complex to keep defense pending at their current levels (haven't you heard what the GOP has been saying about that?). Furthermore, the responsibility for education already resides in the states. the Federal government has only made recommendations (see no child left behind). Finally, if you look back more 80 years ago we lived in a time where it was left up to the individual to save for his retirement and many did not nor could not do that. Even now, we have the opportunity to save for our own retirement and due to the ups and downs of the stock market, there is not guarantee that everyone can retire and survive on the savings. Getting rid of Social Security is a dumb idea and it is only being suggested in an effort to steal what is left in the trust fun to give to special interests. What we should be doing is working to strengthen it so that we can meet the commitments that we will have in the future.

 

[Faramir]

Prioritizing cuts in military spending (in the fashion Mr Paul wants) is not realistic. It will take several more years to wind up the activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a lot of pressure from the military industrial complex to keep defense pending at their current levels (haven't you heard what the GOP has been saying about that?).

I don't agree with your first statement. When you are the Commander-in-chief there is a clear authority to demand a troops withdrawal plan and approve it in the briefest manner. Securing the withdrawal of the last to return troops takes a little more time and money and, in the end, it can all be done in less than five months. Spain and the UK, obviously with less feet on the ground, did their withdrawal in less time. And the joint chiefs have already elaborated several withdrawal plans. So I don't agree with your first premise.

The second one, yes, of course there will be an almost insurmountable pressure from the military lobbies. But that doesn't deny the fact that Americans need an executive leader that can resist pressure from private companies. If you can point out a candidate other than Ron Paul from one of the two major parties, with a better, proved record of not being influenced by lobby pressure, I'll give you a thousand dollars.

Furthermore, the responsibility for education already resides in the states. the Federal government has only made recommendations (see no child left behind).

False, every failed education reformer out there has voiced frustration over the enormous, multi-sourced, conflicting, regulatory bureaucracy in place.

First, there are the laws passed by the Federal Government, with their respective appropriations budget. Secondly, there are the state education laws, with a state budget assigned under different, often conflicting criteria. Add to that over 14 thousand local autonomous school boards and all the district superintendents, each with their own agenda. It's a mess of conflicting standards that leads to idiotic compromises, like not allowing merit bonus payments in teachers contracts, giving them tenure (with optional relocation) with no regards for their performance, or not redesigning failing schools course programs without a waiting period of 7 years!

And don't even get me started on No Child Left Behind... recommendations? It was a cut-the-allowance act that not only didn't work (federal funding for education has increased by more than 15 billion dollars since they passed it) but also proved that standardized testing not only didn't solve the problem, but worsened it. Kids that could do terribly well in developing their skills and opting for college through alternative programs get thrown in a tracking system that allocates them based on flawed standards. Not only NCLB proved the education can't be solved randomly throwing money on the issue, but also wastes the talent and motivation of countless students.

Finally, if you look back more 80 years ago we lived in a time where it was left up to the individual to save for his retirement and many did not nor could not do that. Even now, we have the opportunity to save for our own retirement and due to the ups and downs of the stock market, there is not guarantee that everyone can retire and survive on the savings. Getting rid of Social Security is a dumb idea and it is only being suggested in an effort to steal what is left in the trust fun to give to special interests. What we should be doing is working to strengthen it so that we can meet the commitments that we will have in the future.

Come on, what did you expect? Save it, yes, but how? Most mainstream proposals are either raise retirement age or privatize it. And what did you expect with life expectancy sky-rocketing? Every generation is bigger than the last one and the is no money to fund their retirements. Now more than ever!

Ron Paul is talking about a third option which is not cut SS for seniors that already depend on it, while encouraging young people to opt out of the system if they want to. There's an opening, since the country is taking a turn to the right and more people are willing to tighten their belts, pay less taxes and run their own money. Plus, there are other ways to fix it. How many blue ribbon commissions have proposed plans?

He has an actual plan. He would propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare (like TARP), and unnecessary bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. A rerouting of spending that would allow payroll taxes to be slashed, which enables citizens to handle private savings accounts (which many seniors already do anyway). The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs.

I don't know what Paul would actually do once in the White House, but the guy is sincere enough to grab the third rail that is Social Security with both hand, by saying his personal belief on the matter, and still explain how different his policy would be: a policy of phase-outs... of transition.

But no matter how much he repeats it, the constant spins, misleads and under-coverage from the media leads to people misinterpreting what he said. He's not looking to de-fund entitlement programs. Quite the opposite. He always talks about transition plans with clear step-by-step timetables. Add to that the only deflationary monetary policy brought up in the campaign so far, and you can bet that the most fundamental federal programs can be saved.

 

[StorminNorman]

Custer also stood by his principles and unchanging view of natives. Still, doesn't really strike me as someone I wish I could have followed.

 

[Faramir]

Ron Paul wins the California Republican Party Straw Poll with more votes than Rick Perry and Mitt Romney COMBINED!

 

[chaseter]

That doesn't matter because California will vote for Obama.

 

[Paradoxium]

Slap a D on a Hamster and it will get more votes than Ron Paul in California.

 

[dnno1]

I don't agree with your first statement. When you are the Commander-in-chief there is a clear authority to demand a troops withdrawal plan and approve it in the briefest manner. Securing the withdrawal of the last to return troops takes a little more time and money and, in the end, it can all be done in less than five months. Spain and the UK, obviously with less feet on the ground, did their withdrawal in less time. And the joint chiefs have already elaborated several withdrawal plans. So I don't agree with your first premise.

Sure, a president could end an on going war today, but it would still take months and even years to wind it down (the troop withdraw program is part of the timeline and is what I was referring to). Furthermore, he has to deal with the politics of his decision as well as the logistics. It's not going to happen overnight. You are only fooling yourself to think that.

The second one, yes, of course there will be an almost insurmountable pressure from the military lobbies. But that doesn't deny the fact that Americans need an executive leader that can resist pressure from private companies. If you can point out a candidate other than Ron Paul from one of the two major parties, with a better, proved record of not being influenced by lobby pressure, I'll give you a thousand dollars.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the ability to lobby is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. What I have a problem with is that the money factor can make some lobbies stronger than others, when it shouldn't have to be that way. In addition, I do not like when lobbies resort to misinformation and lies to achieve their goals. It doen't really matter if a president is beholden to lobbies while campaigning or not. They own the congress and will come to him when they need a piece of legislation passed.

False, every failed education reformer out there has voiced frustration over the enormous, multi-sourced, conflicting, regulatory bureaucracy in place.

First, there are the laws passed by the Federal Government, with their respective appropriations budget. Secondly, there are the state education laws, with a state budget assigned under different, often conflicting criteria. Add to that over 14 thousand local autonomous school boards and all the district superintendents, each with their own agenda. It's a mess of conflicting standards that leads to idiotic compromises, like not allowing merit bonus payments in teachers contracts, giving them tenure (with optional relocation) with no regards for their performance, or not redesigning failing schools course programs without a waiting period of 7 years!

And don't even get me started on No Child Left Behind... recommendations? It was a cut-the-allowance act that not only didn't work (federal funding for education has increased by more than 15 billion dollars since they passed it) but also proved that standardized testing not only didn't solve the problem, but worsened it. Kids that could do terribly well in developing their skills and opting for college through alternative programs get thrown in a tracking system that allocates them based on flawed standards. Not only NCLB proved the education can't be solved randomly throwing money on the issue, but also wastes the talent and motivation of countless students.

Who were these folks and what regulations were at issue? I think you need to clarify yourself here. Is it the regulation on equal opportunity, or safety in schools. Are you one of those who think that students shoudl bring guns to school or what? The Federal government doesn't run the school systems in the 50 state, the states run them (remember states rights?). That is why they are all different, and why NCLB was a set of recommendations. Oute side of that federal funds are then only way the government can influence the states into following their guidelines. Outside of something that affects interstate commerce

Come on, what did you expect? Save it, yes, but how? Most mainstream proposals are either raise retirement age or privatize it. And what did you expect with life expectancy sky-rocketing? Every generation is bigger than the last one and the is no money to fund their retirements. Now more than ever!

Ron Paul is talking about a third option which is not cut SS for seniors that already depend on it, while encouraging young people to opt out of the system if they want to. There's an opening, since the country is taking a turn to the right and more people are willing to tighten their belts, pay less taxes and run their own money. Plus, there are other ways to fix it. How many blue ribbon commissions have proposed plans?

Raising the retirement age or privatizing the system are not the only way to save it (if it even needs saving at all). There are plenty of other options that could easily make this issue go away. For one, you could raise or lift the cap on the FICA taxes. You also could work on job creations to increase the pool of folks paying into the system. If unemployment were 4%, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Social Security.

He has an actual plan. He would propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare (like TARP), and unnecessary bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. A rerouting of spending that would allow payroll taxes to be slashed, which enables citizens to handle private savings accounts (which many seniors already do anyway). The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs.

That is just his wish list. The has admitted on national TV that that is what he would like to do if Congress would agree with it, but he knows that they won't. He thinks that the programs will more than likely phase out when the dollar collapses. It truth, the dollar will only collapse if someone who it trully incompetent is running the Federal Reserve, and certainly, Wall Street and the U.S. government are not going to let that happen.

I don't know what Paul would actually do once in the White House, but the guy is sincere enough to grab the third rail that is Social Security with both hand, by saying his personal belief on the matter, and still explain how different his policy would be: a policy of phase-outs... of transition.

He would tow the party line just like he has always done for the most part. The same think he has been saying is kind of the same thing the Republicans have been saying all along.

But no matter how much he repeats it, the constant spins, misleads and under-coverage from the media leads to people misinterpreting what he said. He's not looking to de-fund entitlement programs. Quite the opposite. He always talks about transition plans with clear step-by-step timetables. Add to that the only deflationary monetary policy brought up in the campaign so far, and you can bet that the most fundamental federal programs can be saved.

I don't care who he is and how much he claims that he is not owned by lobbyists, he will get in line if he wants to be President.

 

[Faramir]

Sure, a president could end an on going war today, but it would still take months and even years to wind it down (the troop withdraw program is part of the timeline and is what I was referring to). Furthermore, he has to deal with the politics of his decision as well as the logistics. It's not going to happen overnight. You are only fooling yourself to think that.

It is worth the political cost. More than 70% and it would reduce the deficit a great deal. Right now, the war cost is over 1.5 trillion dollars. The new record defense budget proposed by Robert Gates for 2011 will amp that up a great deal. So a major cut like just retreating from Middle East (not counting other useless bases overseas) would be a drastically positive thing for the deficit.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the ability to lobby is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. What I have a problem with is that the money factor can make some lobbies stronger than others, when it shouldn't have to be that way. In addition, I do not like when lobbies resort to misinformation and lies to achieve their goals. It doen't really matter if a president is beholden to lobbies while campaigning or not. They own the congress and will come to him when they need a piece of legislation passed.

I don't a problem with lobbies themselves... just with their pervasive influence. Even lame duck representatives and senators do their biding just to get a good job in the private sector. Liberals can push for gun control cuz' of the NRA lobby. Conservatives can't push reform because of public workers unions. Big oil, big pharma, Wall Street...
I would like to get elected one president with a proved record of not making policy deals with lobbies. That wouldn't solve the problem overnight, but it would a big start. With the whole executive branch immune to special interests, they can have the whole Congress. We've had worse.

Who were these folks and what regulations were at issue? I think you need to clarify yourself here. Is it the regulation on equal opportunity, or safety in schools. Are you one of those who think that students shoudl bring guns to school or what? The Federal government doesn't run the school systems in the 50 state, the states run them (remember states rights?). That is why they are all different, and why NCLB was a set of recommendations. Oute side of that federal funds are then only way the government can influence the states into following their guidelines. Outside of something that affects interstate commerce.

Well, for one, unions have driven up their membership and compensation has been lobbying in state and federal legislatures and packing school boards with their supporters. Government makes excessive concessions to big unions like the NEA, which oppose merit pay, school vouchers, charter schools, "scholarship donation" tax credits and other forms of school competition. Most importantly, teachers unions are aggressive in pricing their own workers out of the workforce, while heavily restricting lay-off procedures. Tenure process at the k-12 level has been ridiculous for too long. And this is all achieved through lobbying. Their efforts have been focused on state legislatures, but not limited to them. The public school employee unions have been the single biggest political contributors at the federal level over the past 20 years. The $56 million they've spent is roughly equal to the combined contributions of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, the NRA, and Lockheed Martin. And the NEA does not spend that kind of money if things aren't affected by federal control.

For example, you are wrong on NCLB. Standardized tests, for example, were not a recommendation, but a mandatory measure. Not only it hasn't worked, but it has led schools to impoverish and homogenize education, while many have kept the tracking system to ensure the scores needed to secure federal funds, marginalizing students. It has led schools to adapt curricula to "teach to the test", and kids graduate with mechanical skills and without deep understanding of the subjects. Evaluation standards have been really low, since federal funds have been tossed into public education since NCLB passed, with no visible results in over a decade. Too many schools have also engaged in maintenance deference, which increases the costs of it... but managements have done so with impunity because public schools have a monopoly on k-12 funding. Make no mistake... No Child Left Behind has been detrimental to national education.

And of course there is more federal regulation, and not just the necessary type, like school security. There is regulation on school vouchers (Federal courts have shut down non-governmental voucher programs while federal ones), distance education (even on the college level), teachers qualification standards, reading instruction standards, courts opposition to tax credits for donations to private school tuition aid... and, of course, the money.

Federal K-12 funding is no little thing. Last year, up to 47 states were integrated to national mathematics and language arts standards. Yes, national standards, with all its flaws. They did this because adopting standards created by the Common Core State Standards Initiative wass crucial for states to compete in the "Race to the Top," a federal competition program that awards $4.35 billion in federal funds. Race to the Top pretended to be rectification to traditionally lousy standards set by NCLB. Yet, there were trying to implement multi-state standards. More troubling is the fact that, when announcing the program, president Obama proposed letting school districts completely bypass state governments and apply directly to the feds for funding.

More importantly, both state and federal government have taken direct action against Education Freedom this year. Florida's private school choice program received only one Democratic vote upon its enactment in 2002. Fortunately enough, it passed, becoming the largest of its kind in the country; a scholarship donation tax credit serving 33,000 students, set to grow by 25 percent annually in the coming years. Now, it has full support from the Florida Democrats.
Also this year, democratic lawmakers from Indiana and Wisconsin fled their states this spring, in an effort to block legislation that was expected to curb teachers union power. And President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and congressional Democrats killed a small private school choice program in Washington, D.C. (which was subsequently reinstated by Republicans in April as part of the budget agreement).

You still believe there is unnecessary federal intervention in Education?

Raising the retirement age or privatizing the system are not the only way to save it (if it even needs saving at all). There are plenty of other options that could easily make this issue go away. For one, you could raise or lift the cap on the FICA taxes. You also could work on job creations to increase the pool of folks paying into the system. If unemployment were 4%, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Social Security.

It does need saving, everybody agrees. But how do you do that? I happen support the notion that says employment rats cannot be raised without huge spending cuts and tax cuts. So, we're back on the same problem.

He would tow the party line just like he has always done for the most part. The same think he has been saying is kind of the same thing the Republicans have been saying all along.

You surely don't think that. The GOP is very adept at talking the talk on fiscal responsibility, but not walking the walk. The last four Republican presidents were not keen on balancing the budget. Paul is also unique in the GOP field in his insistence of ending the war. And he is most insistent on respecting the enumerated powers, not abusing executive orders, not interfering in the economy, respecting civil liberties (with a heavy opposition to the war on drugs and the Patriot Act) and with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

If you think he has, for the most part, "towed" the party line, you have surely not paid any attention to him.

I don't care who he is and how much he claims that he is not owned by lobbyists, he will get in line if he wants to be President.

Nice argumentation. Let me retaliate with equal effort: His record proves otherwise. He hasn't even signed pork bills for his own district. So you're wrong. Any more unfounded cynicism?

 

[dnno1]

It is worth the political cost. More than 70% and it would reduce the deficit a great deal. Right now, the war cost is over 1.5 trillion dollars. The new record defense budget proposed by Robert Gates for 2011 will amp that up a great deal. So a major cut like just retreating from Middle East (not counting other useless bases overseas) would be a drastically positive thing for the deficit.

Ending a war too soon such that the enemy could regain ground, reclaim victory, allow your rivals to call you weak, and/or endanger Americans (home side or abroad) is never worth the cost. Don't try to fool yourself thinking that is is. The thing that is missing here is that in the past, we raised revenue to fight our wars (something that a lot of governments do). We didn't do that this time, and look at what it has gotten us? You and not going to win a war by cutting spending. That's kind of dumb.

I don't [have] a problem with lobbies themselves... just with their pervasive influence. Even lame duck representatives and senators do their biding just to get a good job in the private sector. Liberals can['t] push for gun control cuz' of the NRA lobby. Conservatives can't push reform because of public workers unions. Big oil, big pharma, Wall Street...
I would like to get elected one president with a proved record of not making policy deals with lobbies. That wouldn't solve the problem overnight, but it would a big start. With the whole executive branch immune to special interests, they can have the whole Congress. We've had worse.

It's not going to work because one person (in this case a President) can't do it alone and the others are bought and paid for. What really needs to happen is to take the private financing out of political campaigns. It only serves to either produce candidates who are either already privately wealthy or beholden to their benefactors. Political races (especially the national presidential race) should be publicly financed and limited in campaign time so that each candidate has an equal shot at getting elected.

Well, for one, unions have driven up their membership and compensation has been lobbying in state and federal legislatures and packing school boards with their supporters. Government makes excessive concessions to big unions like the NEA, which oppose merit pay, school vouchers, charter schools, "scholarship donation" tax credits and other forms of school competition. Most importantly, teachers unions are aggressive in pricing their own workers out of the workforce, while heavily restricting lay-off procedures. Tenure process at the k-12 level has been ridiculous for too long. And this is all achieved through lobbying. Their efforts have been focused on state legislatures, but not limited to them. The public school employee unions have been the single biggest political contributors at the federal level over the past 20 years. The $56 million they've spent is roughly equal to the combined contributions of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, the NRA, and Lockheed Martin. And the NEA does not spend that kind of money if things aren't affected by federal control.

What are you talking about? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Union membership went down by 11.9% from a year prior, and it was down by 12.3% a year prior to that. Now your trying to say that it was the increase in union membership that is the cause of our problems? As far as the NEA and merit pay goes, I don't believe that they are necessarily opposed to it, but rather concerned about how it will be funded, administered, what type of transparency it will have, administrative costs are being considered, and the size of the incentives. People say that teachers should be paid based on merit, but what does that mean? The NEA has stated publicly that their organization supports systems that create career paths and include teachers as partners in any compensation reform effort. I think a merit pay system, if it is clearly defined and truly objective would be amenable to them.

For example, you are wrong on NCLB. Standardized tests, for example, were not a recommendation, but a mandatory measure. Not only it hasn't worked, but it has led schools to impoverish and homogenize education, while many have kept the tracking system to ensure the scores needed to secure federal funds, marginalizing students. It has led schools to adapt curricula to "teach to the test", and kids graduate with mechanical skills and without deep understanding of the subjects. Evaluation standards have been really low, since federal funds have been tossed into public education since NCLB passed, with no visible results in over a decade. Too many schools have also engaged in maintenance deference, which increases the costs of it... but managements have done so with impunity because public schools have a monopoly on k-12 funding. Make no mistake... No Child Left Behind has been detrimental to national education.

And of course there is more federal regulation, and not just the necessary type, like school security. There is regulation on school vouchers (Federal courts have shut down non-governmental voucher programs while federal ones), distance education (even on the college level), teachers qualification standards, reading instruction standards, courts opposition to tax credits for donations to private school tuition aid... and, of course, the money.

Federal K-12 funding is no little thing. Last year, up to 47 states were integrated to national mathematics and language arts standards. Yes, national standards, with all its flaws. They did this because adopting standards created by the Common Core State Standards Initiative wass crucial for states to compete in the "Race to the Top," a federal competition program that awards $4.35 billion in federal funds. Race to the Top pretended to be rectification to traditionally lousy standards set by NCLB. Yet, there were trying to implement multi-state standards. More troubling is the fact that, when announcing the program, president Obama proposed letting school districts completely bypass state governments and apply directly to the feds for funding.

More importantly, both state and federal government have taken direct action against Education Freedom this year. Florida's private school choice program received only one Democratic vote upon its enactment in 2002. Fortunately enough, it passed, becoming the largest of its kind in the country; a scholarship donation tax credit serving 33,000 students, set to grow by 25 percent annually in the coming years. Now, it has full support from the Florida Democrats.
Also this year, democratic lawmakers from Indiana and Wisconsin fled their states this spring, in an effort to block legislation that was expected to curb teachers union power. And President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and congressional Democrats killed a small private school choice program in Washington, D.C. (which was subsequently reinstated by Republicans in April as part of the budget agreement).

You still believe there is unnecessary federal intervention in Education?



It does need saving, everybody agrees. But how do you do that? I happen support the notion that says employment rats cannot be raised without huge spending cuts and tax cuts. So, we're back on the same problem.




You surely don't think that. The GOP is very adept at talking the talk on fiscal responsibility, but not walking the walk. The last four Republican presidents were not keen on balancing the budget. Paul is also unique in the GOP field in his insistence of ending the war. And he is most insistent on respecting the enumerated powers, not abusing executive orders, not interfering in the economy, respecting civil liberties (with a heavy opposition to the war on drugs and the Patriot Act) and with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

If you think he has, for the most part, "towed" the party line, you have surely not paid any attention to him.



Nice argumentation. Let me retaliate with equal effort: His record proves otherwise. He hasn't even signed pork bills for his own district. So you're wrong. Any more unfounded cynicism?

A lot of these regulations or mandates as you call them only come into play if a State takes federal education funds. They are not obligated to do so (of course they do not get the funds if they don't). I don't see any problem with taking money with strings attached (especially when it serves a good purpose).

 

[Faramir]

Ending a war too soon such that the enemy could regain ground, reclaim victory, allow your rivals to call you weak, and/or endanger Americans (home side or abroad) is never worth the cost.

I'm sorry to say this: You could not be more wrong. Since the beginning of the war Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups and militias have over-recruited, expanded to 80 countries, created many more cells and hatched more attack plans (successful and unsuccessful) than ever before. They don't have the capability to attack american soil, so they attack those american soldiers that have gone to their region only to become targets. That has made every rival call the USA weak, as well as imperialist, murderous, incompetent and arrogant.

A drastic shift in policies would change the latter, the prestige thing. The former can only be achieved on the long run, when US actions no longer justify terrorists anti-american propaganda and their recruitment diminishes. This is actually what many former top intelligence experts say on that matter. In a nutshell, having troops overseas simply makes America less safe. US troops are more useful here. Also, free trade without confrontation brings democracy to those countries WAY faster.

Do you think American presence there made Iraq safer? The killing riots between *****es and Sunnis did not begin until the Iraq war. Muqtada al-Sadr was no one before the war, with no militias. There was no Al-Qaida in Lybia before the US and NATO bombings. Sadly, now there's Al-Qaida presence. And the Israeli embassy in Tripoli was ravaged.

So, American military presence in those countries have made the enemy regain territory... and even gain some it never had before.

And the US has bought this delightful situation in a bargaining price! Only 1.5 trillion tax dollars. Only in wars.

But don't go yet! Let's take a look at the NEW figures!...

Baseline request for the Department of Defense (DOD): $558 billion.
Supplemental request to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: $118 billion. Request for the Department of Energy’s development and housing of nuclear weapons: $19.3 billion.
DOD's request for “Miscellaneous”: $7.8 billion.
State Department request for counterterrorism programs: $8.7 billion.

An additional $71.6 billion for Homeland Security counterterrorism, including $18.1 billion for DOD and $53.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. National Intelligence Programs are budgeted for $53.1 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs requests $129.3 billion to treat wounded veterans, a climbing figure, since soldiers still return from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional traumas.

The foreign affairs budget, including both its military and counterterrorism components, is $18 billion. Payments to military and DOD civilian retirees are budgeted at $68.5 billion. Interest on the national debt attributed to past borrowing to fund the Pentagon is $185 billion.

This brings the national security budget of the United States for FY 2012 to a staggering total exceeding.......... drum roll..... $1.2 trillion.
A.K.A. ---> One-third of the entire budget and almost 100% of the projected budget deficit.

But let's keep these wars. They're good for us and for the entire world. At least they won't be calling us "weak".

Don't try to fool yourself thinking that is is. The thing that is missing here is that in the past, we raised revenue to fight our wars (something that a lot of governments do). We didn't do that this time, and look at what it has gotten us? You and not going to win a war by cutting spending. That's kind of dumb.

Of course not. You can't fight a war without money. How else would you pay all the military contracts.

But, then again, you can't raise taxes on a recession. Obama himself said so.

So, how do we stop this? Oh, wait, gee, I don't know... maybe end the war?
You know who used to agree with me.

It's not going to work because one person (in this case a President) can't do it alone and the others are bought and paid for. What really needs to happen is to take the private financing out of political campaigns. It only serves to either produce candidates who are either already privately wealthy or beholden to their benefactors. Political races (especially the national presidential race) should be publicly financed and limited in campaign time so that each candidate has an equal shot at getting elected.

What are you talking about? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Union membership went down by 11.9% from a year prior, and it was down by 12.3% a year prior to that. Now your trying to say that it was the increase in union membership that is the cause of our problems?

Read well. I never mentioned union membership. I mentioned unionized labour regulations, with major unions doing heavy-lifting governmental lobbying at both state and federal levels.

As far as the NEA and merit pay goes, I don't believe that they are necessarily opposed to it, but rather concerned about how it will be funded, administered, what type of transparency it will have, administrative costs are being considered, and the size of the incentives. People say that teachers should be paid based on merit, but what does that mean? The NEA has stated publicly that their organization supports systems that create career paths and include teachers as partners in any compensation reform effort. I think a merit pay system, if it is clearly defined and truly objective would be amenable to them.

LOL, sure, listen to what they say.

Now, for a reality punch: NEA's resolutions F-8, F-9 and F-10, among other things.

A lot of these regulations or mandates as you call them only come into play if a State takes federal education funds. They are not obligated to do so (of course they do not get the funds if they don't). I don't see any problem with taking money with strings attached (especially when it serves a good purpose).

It does not serve a good purpose.

I can't even begin to talk down that absurdity. Here and here are very eloquent cases for keeping k-12 education independent and safe from federal mandates.

 

[dnno1]

I'm sorry to say this: You could not be more wrong. Since the beginning of the war Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups and militias have over-recruited, expanded to 80 countries, created many more cells and hatched more attack plans (successful and unsuccessful) than ever before. They don't have the capability to attack american soil, so they attack those american soldiers that have gone to their region only to become targets. That has made every rival call the USA weak, as well as imperialist, murderous, incompetent and arrogant.

A drastic shift in policies would change the latter, the prestige thing. The former can only be achieved on the long run, when US actions no longer justify terrorists anti-american propaganda and their recruitment diminishes. This is actually what many former top intelligence experts say on that matter. In a nutshell, having troops overseas simply makes America less safe. US troops are more useful here. Also, free trade without confrontation brings democracy to those countries WAY faster.

Do you think American presence there made Iraq safer? The killing riots between *****es and Sunnis did not begin until the Iraq war. Muqtada al-Sadr was no one before the war, with no militias. There was no Al-Qaida in Lybia before the US and NATO bombings. Sadly, now there's Al-Qaida presence. And the Israeli embassy in Tripoli was ravaged.

So, American military presence in those countries have made the enemy regain territory... and even gain some it never had before.

And the US has bought this delightful situation in a bargaining price! Only 1.5 trillion tax dollars. Only in wars.

But don't go yet! Let's take a look at the NEW figures!...

Baseline request for the Department of Defense (DOD): $558 billion.
Supplemental request to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: $118 billion. Request for the Department of Energy’s development and housing of nuclear weapons: $19.3 billion.
DOD's request for “Miscellaneous”: $7.8 billion.
State Department request for counterterrorism programs: $8.7 billion.

An additional $71.6 billion for Homeland Security counterterrorism, including $18.1 billion for DOD and $53.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. National Intelligence Programs are budgeted for $53.1 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs requests $129.3 billion to treat wounded veterans, a climbing figure, since soldiers still return from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional traumas.

The foreign affairs budget, including both its military and counterterrorism components, is $18 billion. Payments to military and DOD civilian retirees are budgeted at $68.5 billion. Interest on the national debt attributed to past borrowing to fund the Pentagon is $185 billion.

This brings the national security budget of the United States for FY 2012 to a staggering total exceeding.......... drum roll..... $1.2 trillion.
A.K.A. ---> One-third of the entire budget and almost 100% of the projected budget deficit.

But let's keep these wars. They're good for us and for the entire world. At least they won't be calling us "weak".

On the contrary, since we started the war on terror, we have killed tens of thousands of terrorists (tens of thousands). Al Qaida is supposedly a lot weaker than before (no training camps in Afganistan). It is just that we are not reporting each and every kill, but we have killed them. As far as Hamas and Hezbollah, there has only been two Palatinian terrorist attack since 2008 (all in that year) and only one person died. Correct me if I am wrong but Hamas is now a legitimate political party.

Nothing you said here would change the fact that we got into a war and that pulling out now would only make things worse. The transition takes time and more than likely you will see that it may take another administration or two before we eventually get out.

Of course not. You can't fight a war without money. How else would you pay all the military contracts.

But, then again, you can't raise taxes on a recession. Obama himself said so.

So, how do we stop this? Oh, wait, gee, I don't know... maybe end the war?
You know who used to agree with me.

It's not going to work because one person (in this case a President) can't do it alone and the others are bought and paid for. What really needs to happen is to take the private financing out of political campaigns. It only serves to either produce candidates who are either already privately wealthy or beholden to their benefactors. Political races (especially the national presidential race) should be publicly financed and limited in campaign time so that each candidate has an equal shot at getting elected.

I thought as much. Yes, ending the war is the endgame, but you just can't do it in one day or one year.

Read well. I never mentioned union membership. I mentioned unionized labour regulations, with major unions doing heavy-lifting governmental lobbying at both state and federal levels.

I read your post and you said:

Well, for one, unions have driven up their membership and compensation has been lobbying in state and federal legislatures and packing school boards with their supporters.

I know we speak the same English and what you said is not true. You said "unions have driven up their membership and compensation has been lobbying in state and federal legislatures and packing school boards with their supporters." Don't tell me you didn't say that. The truth of the matter is that, although they still lobby state and federal legislatures, unions have been shrinking in size, thanks to efforts to destroy their representation by the right wing.

LOL, sure, listen to what they say.

Now, for a reality punch: NEA's resolutions F-8, F-9 and F-10, among other things.



It does not serve a good purpose.

I can't even begin to talk down that absurdity. Here and here are very eloquent cases for keeping k-12 education independent and safe from federal mandates.

You've got to be careful where you cite your information from. The NEA resolutions basically support collective bargaining. For non bargaining areas, or in units where it has been negotiated through collective bargaining, they have no problem with merit raises. You can see the actual resolutions here. Furthermore, you are using the CATO institute (a conservative think tank) as your source for some of your citations. I would be leery about them as well. As far as private schools go in Sweeden, there are doubts about the success that is advertised (see this article in the UK Guardian).

 

[Faramir]

On the contrary, since we started the war on terror, we have killed tens of thousands of terrorists (tens of thousands). Al Qaida is supposedly a lot weaker than before (no training camps in Afganistan). It is just that we are not reporting each and every kill, but we have killed them.

I thought Obama had dropped the term "war on terror". Yes, many terrorists groups were imprisoned and killed, their groups obliterated. BUT TO WHAT COST? Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and many of their surviving relatives and loved ones became militia fighters or terrorists themselves, engrossing the lines of an enemy that could not be easily defined already!

Iraqbodycount.org puts the estimate of documented civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in 112,160! And they say 15 thousand more may have to be added after a thorough analysis of the Wikileaks releases.
Violent deaths of civilians per day since Obama took over have been around, 12.6 in 2009, 11.2 in 2010 and 11.1 in 2011 (so far).
Were those killed civilian somehow excusable? Would a terrorist attack count, without the recruitment machine we built for them, be higher than that?

And what about American deaths? Every one of those deaths is reported.

As of August 2 of this year, 4,683 soldiers had died in Afghanistan. Of those, 3,708 were killed by hostile fire. Since Obama's inauguration, 247 soldiers have died. The last fatality was this last Sunday. And the total of wounded soldiers among Iraq and Afghanistan now is up to 32,799.

So, tell me, do you think it was worth it? Are you absolutely sure our presence there has not strengthened the terrorist groups in Middle East? Are you sure it has rendered us safer?

The two biggest Al-Qaida engineered atacks after 9/11 took place in London and Madrid, after their military support of the Iraq War. Canada also has sustained several military casualties in Afghanistan since their involvement. Not France, not China. Just the ones that got in the region. And they were safe before.

America accomplished more during the First Gulf War, with only 147 deaths by hostile fire. Do you know why? Because troops got in and got out.

No nation building, thank you.

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah, there has only been two Palatinian terrorist attack since 2008 (all in that year) and only one person died. Correct me if I am wrong but Hamas is now a legitimate political party.

Hezbollah is not Palestinian, but a multinational organization based on Lebanon. They single-handedly (although with Syrian support) manufactured the crisis that led to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and has remained in power in the country ever since. They seem not not to have been involved in any suicide bombing since Israel left Lebanon, but have been engaged in several violent military operations and threats. But since 'state terrorism' does not get into "terrorist attacks lists", sure, you won't see them as much.

On the other hand, I don't know why you refer only to Palestinian terrorist attacks, but since you're at it, but since you're at it, there were four Palestinian terror attacks in Israel 2008, the first two leaving only 1 dead each but 4 and 9 injured. The other two combined left around 20 injured.

Here are the (vastly higher) numbers for terrorist attacks in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Please, do a quick search to notice how many originated in Iraqi, Afghan, Palestinian and, especially, Pakistani soil.

Hamas is a political party as much as the Sinn Feinn is one. Northern Ireland's Sinn Feinn proved to maintain mant links to the IRA, as well as several Spanish political organizations support the terrorist ETA. The only difference is that Hamas has the political power of its region.

Hamas control of the Palestinian Authority meant that subsequent aggressions would be military in nature and not considered terrorist acts. It must be noted, however, that violent acts have diminished, especially since this year's alliance with Fatah, but after the US prepares to veto Palestinian statehood in the UN, we will see if that stituation remains permanent.

Nothing you said here would change the fact that we got into a war and that pulling out now would only make things worse.

Nothing you said proved or suggested that fact. I can at least guarantee two things: 1. there would be no more American soldiers in their region to be easily targeted... and 2. the primary engine behind radical recruitment would be over. And that can't be argued against.

The transition takes time and more than likely you will see that it may take another administration or two before we eventually get out.

Then why Obama said otherwise? Why did he say he would get Americans out of the Middle East wars during his administration? Besides attracting the anti-war vote, of course.

I thought as much. Yes, ending the war is the endgame, but you just can't do it in one day or one year.

The bold part is false. Try again. The largest troops withdrawal from Iraq was carried out by the British, who had 54,500 forces in Iraq (more than half of American forces currently there) and decided to do a phase-out instead of a full, fast withdrawal. It had several delays, the biggest one starting on April 1, 2008 that lasted over a year. Even in that fashion, the British managed to withdraw an average of 1,600-strong forces per month. In a continued, non-interrupted manner, the British could've withdrawn over 19 thousand soldiers and other military personnel in a year. And they have way less military infrastructure than the USA.

The big fallacy here is that it would take multiple American administrations to pull it off. Not one, but several. Sure.

I know we speak the same English and what you said is not true. You said "unions have driven up their membership and compensation has been lobbying in state and federal legislatures and packing school boards with their supporters." Don't tell me you didn't say that.

I apologize. It seems I misrepresented what I wanted to say. I meant "membership in federal legislatures and school boards". How many people they have is inconsequential, since all that matter is that they keep their campaign contributions and lobbying to pro-union state candidates. But I apologize for implying I meant actual union membership.

We don't speak the same English. Spanish is my native language.

But, do you want to talk about NEA membership losses? Really?

It is obviously in the unions’ interest to magnify their numbers as much as possible. That is particularly true in right-to-work states. But there is no direct correlation between total national membership and k-12 influence. When the NEA and the AFT disclose their figures, they break down "k-12 membership" in

"...teachers, instructional aides, instructional coordinators and supervisors, guidance counselors, librarians, student support staff, and other education support personnel"

That excludes school administrators, district administrators, and their support staff, on the supposition that the vast majority of these employees are ineligible for membership. This is, of course, not true.

Besides, it doesn't matter when non-member teachers are forced by state laws to pay union dues anyway! In 2007, it was revealed that up to 4 thousand Washington State teachers who were not NEA members were nonetheless being forced to pay NEA dues. It even got to the Supreme Court! (look up "Davenport v. Washington Education Association")

The truth of the matter is that, although they still lobby state and federal legislatures, unions have been shrinking in size, thanks to efforts to destroy their representation by the right wing.

Come on. Destroy representation. Nice phrasing.
But you must know this does not come from the right wing only. Here:

Liberals and teacher unions end long romance (2011)

And this isn't new:

Democrats, teachers unions now divided on many issues (2008)

And NONE of those links comes from the CATO Institute, thank you very much. Do you want a liberal, left-wing leading intellectual against unionized education? Google Dr. Rich Gibson.

Don't come with that "right wing efforts" BS.

You've got to be careful where you cite your information from. The NEA resolutions basically support collective bargaining. For non bargaining areas, or in units where it has been negotiated through collective bargaining, they have no problem with merit raises. You can see the actual resolutions here.

Don't be mistaken. The first article I provided to you came from eiaonline.org, a site dedicated only to "monitoring public education and teachers’ unions". That article only lacked the update on the F-10 resolution, which just changed the statement from negative to positive, explaining why they oppose it. Clauses F-8 and F-9 remain the same. You can check your own link.

You're suspicious of CATO's conservative-leaning credentials? Well, even The Huffington Post admits the NEA's shift in rhetoric is most probably for political survival.

More to the poin, the NEA President Dennis Van Roekel maintained that the shift was merely a linguistic one!

"Before it started with what we were opposed to. We believed the resolution statement should be stated in the positive and not the negative," Van Roekel told The Huffington Post. He added it does not represent a change in policy, he said.

Everybody knows this change means too little! They still oppose 'merit pay'.

"Teachers' unions are under tremendous pressure," Colvin sajd. "They're trying to maintain relevance and influence. They're in a tough spot and I think, while this precise move might not be that significant, it shows a general increasing awareness that their public positions of hostility to a lot of the current reform ideas are hurting them more than helping them."

I just hope this sheds some light on the matter and leaves you happy with my sources this time around.