Rand Paul Exposes the Real Tea Party

Big government is not the answer.

Nor is slavery to a corporate oligarchy, which is what the Tea Party is pushing for. Much like the Bolsheviks using the idealism of Marxism to impose their oligarchy, the Tea Party is using the libertarian idealists to achieve theirs.

And the sheep go willingly to the slaughter, as they have so many times before.

Big Government may not be the answer, but no Government is the same as corporate dictatorship, this is what he and his followers are truly advocating. Let the laws govern, but we are going to throw out the laws that protect the people and make sure that the states are there to enforce contracts and mediate contract disputes.

He and his corporate elitists need to be sent back to whence they came, under some rock.

Big government is not the answer.

republicans say it is. the only difference is that republican big government is of by and for corporations and run by them to their benefit. corporatists always say that government should be run like a business and it not only is but it's run by business. That makes you one of two things - employee or menu item.

employees do not have rights. there's no freedom of speech in the workplace nor any rights at all, but this is still the best case scenario.

unless you like being served with a side of ranch dressing.

So, he's a coward and not to intelligent..You convinced me..he's got my vote.

Rand Paul has no trouble finding his words. He is quite loud and clear and since he refused to go on Meet the Press, then he intends to continue to appeal to those who only want to listen to what he is saying.

I personally listen to ALL news and voices to make a well-informed choice when I vote, But when I hear of people who want to be in position to influence how we are governed, I am skeptical when they avoid non-biased referendums and say that their very words will be distorted beforehand.

Rand Paul and all who support him should know better and those who listen to him should wonder why he appears not to. The only thing Meet the Press does is allow politicians to air their views in a give and take forum.

Why is Rand Paul so firghtened of this?

ditto.. The sad fact is they are already there, And they don't want to lose any ground. So they lie, cheat, steal, and con to continue calling the shots and demonize Obama and the dems.

the Tea Party’s core mission is to stop the federal government from limiting the power of corporations.

In essence, Big Corporations are pulling a Big Con on the common folks attracted to the Tea Party movement, getting them to focus their anger at Big Government as a threat to their "liberties" when the federal government is all that stands in the way of total corporate dominance of the United States.

Oh how ridiculous!

Both big corporations and the federal government are potentially corrupt because people seduced by power and control push the buttons and pull the levers in both situations.

The Bush administration was run by businessmen/ self-seeking politicians; there was Rumsfeld's J.D. Serle scandal, Chaney's Haliburton scandal, Bush's Arbusto failure and Texas Rangers failure.

Oh...wasn't the director of FEMA trading horses before the horse @!$%# job he did to the poor people slammed by Katrina

Big Business is in government and government is in big business.

Give corporations an inch, and they'll take everything in sight. Too much of anything weakens us: too much corporate power, too much government.

But the balance is not on the tea party's agenda.

Sounds like U.S. Bank or Union Mortgage/Banking. Take their customers to the chopping block and chop off their heads. I wonder about some other banks that had previous Mafia ties oh guess it was decided the mafia doesn't exist, bud many dead people would object to that conclusion.

Holler "Amen" somebody!

AMEN Max, AMEN!!!!

Property rights would also dictate that slavery should have never been abolished, that businesses could do what ever they choose, say like, child labor or the abolition of unions and labor organizations, or the repeal of all regulations that govern business practice. Too many people look at Libertarianism and like the personal rights part of the philosophy but never dig deeper into the true Libertarian ideals, the abolition of a central government, the return to strict market principles, without regulation or protection for workers. It would abolish all social programs, if they can't take care of themselves, screw um. This is just a bunch of self centered capitalists that are hiding their contempt for their fellow man behind a rhetoric of personal freedom.

property rights is the same as human rights - ?

your way off base there

That is what they want you to believe, it is not what they are talking about. Read what libertarianism is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

or try this one:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

or this one:

Libertarians favor the abolition of all States everywhere, and the provision of legitimate functions now supplied poorly by governments (police, courts, etc.) by means of the free market. Libertarians favor liberty as a natural human right, and advocate it not only for Americans but for all peoples. Murray Rothbard, The Libertarian Manifesto

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=libertarianism

As you can read, there is much more to the movement than "human rights" which are only manifest, by their standard, in a free market society without government to interfere with their personal rights.

I don't see anything about ownership of humans-?

As they were personal property at one time, and they believe that government does not have the right to dictate what someone does with their property, it is implied. All you have to do is listen to Paul to understand that they do not want the civial rights law retained.

it is only implied to those who wish to hear it. the Tea Party has no desire to own anyone, and Libertarianism is about self, the individual.

And the individual right to ownership. Although the left libertarians believe that there should be no ownership of land or resources, but that is not what this group advocates. The abolition of the state etc. The Libertarian party is somewhat different from the libertarian ideals but in the end they both champion the same thing, no government as we know it.

All you have to do is listen to Paul to understand that they do not want the civial rights law retained

Slavery and child labor laws where not enacted by the civil right's laws of the 50's and 60's.

Your trying to say the Tea Party advocates ownership of humans and that is just hilarious and way out there.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A take-off on John Locke, who developed the idea of property ownership based on the liberty of mixing your labor with something (that then gets owned). Liberty has, by and large, translated into property rights as much as individual freedom.

The only way these property rights will be ensured so these blessings of liberrty may be passed on to succeeding generations is through a government strong enough to protect you from predation by corporations. This is done through law over the past 120 years. We know the routine and I think anyone knows the story of property rights v. eminent domain, but the Dover case tells you how much republicans and so-called libertarians care about them - you are not in the party, you're on the menu.

Yes, it is quite selfish, like most adolescent fantasies.

Libertarianism is obviously and fatally flawed. Wealth has gravity. Without a government strong enough to regulate commerce it all winds up in the same place.

that's been happening here since Reagan, and it happened through three republican administrations ending with hoover.

you may claim libertarianism creates stasis, but the real world examples are like Somalia.

Adipic that is your interpretation...another interpretation....it is about taking care of oneself and their family so they are not a burden on others and society.

That is noble, unless you do not have the means, for whatever reason. Then Libertarianism becomes selfish and self serving.

And oddly incapable of self-criticism, which is always a flaw in any political system.

i believe taking care of your family is not selfish.

Not of it's self, however when you exclude everyone else it is. Sorry, that is the problem with this political philosophy, it is anti-society and all about me. Screw the poor if they can't take care of themselves, screw minorities, they should just take what they get or go elsewhere, that is the libertarian way. Screw the old, if they aren't my family let them eat cat food and sleep in the streets. No thanks.

nohandouts

"Are there no workhouses, no prisons?"....Scrooge in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol'.

Ebenezer Scrooge also spoke of 'reducing the surplus population'.

When is it humane to not care about the welfare of others? We know about survival of the fittest and how that ensured mankind would survive to this day, but how can anyone allow no government regulations and no civil address, especially when facing the unknown consequences of a starving, uneducated, hopeless population.

If the only concern for the welfare of the members of a society has to be placed in the hand of government regulation to ensure a measure of fair play and peace, then it is a far wiser and more legal address than for such matters to be left to chance or a ruling class whose main interest is concern with self.

When we hear words tossed around such as 'social programs', then what is actually being talked about is education, environment protection, veteran affairs, health care, social security, medicare, student loans for college, and etc. The Republican Party/Tea Party talks of a too-controlling and intefering government, and runaway spending. Then the fearmongering becomes a cry for a so-called smaller government and less government-involvment into the private lives and finances of its citizens.

Yet, when there is evidence that for over 40 of the last 60 years those voices were silent and were spending us into the mess that we are dealing with today, yet for them it is fine to continue to give breaks to the ones who are not negatively affected, then something is seriously skewed about this way of thinking.

Those who have posted here speaking out against what Rand Paul and his party's agenda represents are giving facts and recorded history to support their arguments.

The very way in which they rise to the occasion with the indisputable evidence, shows that they have a care and a concern for America as a whole. This does not necessarily make them Liberals or Democrats. Of course, this may be their choice of party, but they continue to present factual support on the side of their arguments.

If they/we chose to call ourselves by any name other than Democrats, our concern for our fellow Americans is still democratic. In reality the party does reflect the nature of its message.

nobody wants anyone to sleep in the streets

Of course not, that would look too 3rd world, the libertarians and republicans want them under the over pass or bridge where they can't be seen.

Or in prison.

Everyone who took the time to enter this topic and post in it.

Brian; Here's the word I think you are searching for:

plutocracy (pluːˈtɒkrəsɪ)

— n , pl -cies

1.
the rule or control of society by the wealthy

2.
a state or government characterized by the rule of the wealthy

3.
a class that exercises power by virtue of its wealth

[C17: from Greek ploutokratia government by the rich, from ploutos wealth + -kratia rule, power]

Funded almost entirely by big corporate

same way Obama got elected. same way he runs his office..influenced by corporate lobbyist.

Nice talking point, nohandouts. Can you show me where he started a war in another country just so his Vice President's company could rake in billions of tax dollars in no-bid contracts? Oh wait - that was the last GOP administration...

on that Bush thing again? how long are you going to do this? what on earth does Bush have to do with the current admins policy on lobbyist?

Who funded Obama's campaign?

Obama's big campaingn promise, no more lobbyist...he fell flat on that one.

Nohandouts, if you were following the race the people that voted for him funded his campaign....where do you guys get your information??? I just don't understand the blind sided opinions of those the policies hurt not help.

Kelly..dont be so gullible..you sound smart until you make a post like #13.4

Who funded Obama's campaign?

The same people who have now shifted their support to the right in an effort to stave off financial risk in the wake of the financial crisis they precipitated.

The fact that:

Republican candidates had as of June received 68 per cent of all federal contributions by the financial, insurance and real estate sector.

should give anyone pause who doesn't want the extreme financial mess of the last few years to be intensified, repeated and deepened.

I think you have the gullible card Nohandouts....I read multiple sources not just what's put in front of me. I make it make business to be informed especially before I open my opinion to everyone.

yes Kelly the "little people" paid for a campaign that cost almost a billion dollars. lol

on that Bush thing again? how long are you going to do this? what on earth does Bush have to do with the current admins policy on lobbyist?

you all are planning to go right back to 'that bush thing again' so we're there too to remind you about doing the same thing expecting different results. Repeat after me - d'oh.

If you have to ask what the corporarte party has to do with lobbying policy, you wouldn't permit yourself to understand the answer. it would be like telling exxon that america isn't santa claus.

all this crap about corporate money electing obama is just that. if you think corporations elected obama, are you for big government intervening?

if you all could complete a train of thought just once, you might not have to wear the harness and brain bucket when being taken for a walk.

Funded almost entirely by big corporate money the tea bagger party should be more accuratly called the plutocratic party. Under the guise of a grass roots movement to lower taxes their agenda is really to create a corporate controled and unregulated anarchy. That is the antithesis of democracy.

they've done what Edmund Burke famously said no free man would do - they've bargained themselves into slavery.

how stupid did we get for that to have happened? I mean when an entire political movement prides itself on stupidity so much that they name themselves 'dittoheads', they've branded themselves as nothing more than mindless followers who need someone else to make their decisions for them.

fearless, try and follow a conversation correctly that will keep you from saying something stupid.

fearless, try and follow a conversation correctly that will keep you from saying something stupid.

I'll take that as a challenge. show me something stupid that i said and i'll use it to make a fool of you.

wanna try me?

If you have to ask what the corporarte party has to do with lobbying policy, you wouldn't permit yourself to understand the answer. it would be like telling exxon that america isn't santa claus.

I said what does Bush have to do with Obama's lobbying policy, which he campaigned to stop.

If you could get your head out from under, perhaps you could follow a conversation.

I said what does Bush have to do with Obama's lobbying policy, which he campaigned to stop.

If you could get your head out from under, perhaps you could follow a conversation.

read 13.9 again, then google Citizen's United Decision. That's lobbying policy and it came from bush scotus appointees. You probably didn't watch Obama's state of the union address, but he called out the supreme court and CJ roberts directly and famously, and roberts flinched.

that was a bush appointee, and if you take government back in any significant way you will continue to perpetrate what history shows wrecked our nation.

yes, we still blame bush. Why didn't he addresss Buckley v. Valejo when he could? that shows me you won't touch citizen's united if common sense didn't.

the reason is obvious. your party exists to support the corporate person and the economic royalist. you all endorse fascist government where corporations actually control commerce and have no accountability to government.

You use the term no handouts as a name here, but you support billions in handouts including one hundred fifty million to Exxon every year despite their taking in the most profit in the history of the planet. I assume you support regressive taxation in defiance of Teddy Roosevelt and american history? it would follow.

and what do you call unlimited campaign contributions by corporations to candidates of both parties to ensure their will be done?

I'd say handouts to corporate puppet candidates, especially if they get term limits in so they can farm them out every couple years, get senators appointed and run in a new crop of corporate sociopaths. then they vote handouts to the filthy rich they serve.

And I'd also say hand in.......hand in the working man's pocket like always...other people's money.

And that is why we still blame bush. We also still blame hitler and osama bin laden for the things they did, and in bush's case for the things he should have done and didn't.

Nohandouts where is the proof???? I've looked for the proof and still have found none. I've found articles on righties suggesting so but no evidence to back it up. I do have evidence that the policy, which we still reside under Bush Policy, is the policy that has ruined this country. So again I ask you what sole policy(s) has Obama made in the past 19 months has put our ecomony in such a crisis mode???

Nohandouts, if you were following the race the people that voted for him funded his campaign....where do you guys get your information??? I just don't understand the blind sided opinions of those the policies hurt not help.

"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

yes the little people put Obama in office.....too funny. What elected Obama was a good marketing campaign funded by a boat load of special interest money.

fearless, can you tell me why Obama is listening to lobbyist and special interest groups when he campaigned and now breaking his word relates to Bush? This is Bush's doing again?

then maybe you can understand my comment, because you are rattling on about nothing related to my remark.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in_a_shift_obama_rejects_public_funding/

An article about a year later from your same source, no evidence that Obama used lobbyists funds for Presidential Campaign....

And in your 13.17 rant to Fearless, what are you talking about? Break what word to the lobbyists and special interests group?

http://powerisknowledge.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/27/5186644-rand-paul-exposes-the-real-tea-party?last=1285617756&threadId=1086855&sp=0&pc=25#last_2

I said corporations not lobbyist.

next time you need some proof to satisfy yourself...do it yourself.

now you show me where he didn't receive a boat load of money from corporate groups.

And in your 13.17 rant to Fearless, what are you talking about? Break what word to the lobbyists and special interests group?

try reading it again, if you don't understand then I suggest you give up.

When you make statements you need to back them up with truthful facts, I shouldn't have to prove you wrong, as I have. And either way you still have not answered my question. If you can not support your thoughts with truth what are you doing here. Oh wait, its just your opinion with no facts to support you. I get it.....conversation over.....

I gave you references Kelly.

I tell you what from now on everytime you make a statement I will expect documentation in your post to "BACK UP" your opinion with fact. I am sure you will follow what you dictate.

fearless, can you tell me why Obama is listening to lobbyist and special interest groups when he campaigned and now breaking his word relates to Bush? This is Bush's doing again?

that claim requires proof, not just fake indignation. Lobbying is constitutionally guaranteed, but the degree we experience today is not. Bush's doing was appointing a judicial activist who promotes fascism as a chief justice.

Good luck from Washington State.

We've had our fill of Bunning-good ridance!

network-gal,

bunning and paul have perfection in common. bunning had a perfect game while paul is a perfect a@#hole!

I hope you're right. As a native Kentuckian, I'm appalled that Rand Paul has any following here. The quote from him that shines like a beacon is that he believes some things should be crimes but things that aren't violent should not be crimes......................I bet he has a driver because he probably can't find his way home at night.

Then Texas is a good place for you to solve :the real problem" from.

What are the democrats 'all about'? What are the repubicans 'all about'? What is the Tea Party 'all about'?

As the CEO of my company says: corporations are not democracies.

You can at least elect your government. You can only serve your corporate masters.

Who should I be more afraid of...corporations running everything or government running everything?

Be afraid when they are one in the same.

The jobs are in Bangladesh, Mexico, Chiner, etc

That keyboard you're typing on to vent your rage and the monitor you're looking into were once "Made in America"!

We gave Snoop Dogg and Bill Gates huge tax breaks for 8 years - Dogg bought more weed and pimped out his ride, Bill built himself a 300 room mansion!

More tax cuts for the rich is what we need! What's your problem?

I would rather see Gates build a mansion and pay your union electricians than see his money go to the cesspool called Washington DC and end up in some freezer for a Senator.

But hey if you folks want to support the biggest corrupt entity of all time, knock yourselves out.

Boy a false dilemma and a straw man in the same argument. Why didn't you for the logical fallacy trifecta?

Ha, that was funny. You can run, but reality will always catch up to you.

We'll see come November.

Really, is your political philosophy any deeper than a kiddie pool? Do any of your policies run longer than a bumper sticker? The Founding Fathers you seem to worship so fervently feared handing government over to the uneducated mob, you know. Your braggart know-nothingism would appall them.

Boy a false dilemma and a straw man in the same argument. Why didn't you for the logical fallacy trifecta?

no true conservative would do that...I know, no credit for assists.

At Becks rally, he told folks to leave the signs at home. Why would that be? He didn't say why. He just said don't bring signs. He said that to keep the racism hidden.

Actually he did say why on his program. He said he didn't want any of the signs to be a hatchet job for the liberal left.

I don't agree, but that shoots your reason of racism in the foot.

You mean the Bush dynasty didn't scare you enough?

His policies worked so well for the country. Just look at the state of the nation.

Oh, it's too early to blame the new guy. It takes years to see the results.The results we're all seeing right now are from the Bush dynasty. I can't imagine anyone wanting the job after Bush. It's a no win situation. He screwed up the country so bad, that it's going to take years(decades) to recover from. And yet, some folks want them back. Gluttons for punishment I guess.

Be afraid liberals and socialists. Be very afraid.

and acorns. don't forget black panthers and mice with fully functioning brains. And gay marriage. and anything with the word fair included. and those dreadful brown people. and yellow dogs and violence from the left, and being five minutes without Big Baby and the blackboard, and revolution and worst of all, rational thought. be vewy, vewy afwaid...

that is bias against the mentally handicapp, you should be ashamed, are you a Tea Party Member-? lol

the statement is... the inmates running the prison.

Still will be better then the socialists running our government.

No, it won't. And when you suddenly find yourself a loser under that system you will finally understand, but it will be too late. You will have forged the chains of your own slavery.

I know the saying but was attempting to be clever. As many of the fringe candidates seem to be one step away from prosecution, and Washington is not a prison but an insane asylum, I mixed by metaphors. Oh well.

As to Bill, you really are a one trick pony. You really should understand what you are saying, not just regurgitating what you have heard. Many aspects of our government are based in socialism and have been for years, you know, things like SS, Medicare, Military Service, equal pay for equal work, accountability. Nothing important. What a putz.

Here's something that will probably get your skirt up around your waste:

Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.^[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.

Maybe we all should have a little socialism in us.

Ron socialism takes control from one place the individual and places it on regulations and laws controlled by another place...the government. you trust the government to have the concentration of power? you trust the government to be fair with your life?

No thanks, I will control my life, my destiny.

how are you going to regulate wages?

things like SS, Medicare,

SS is paid into and then paid back with inflation, just like a loan. We give the US our money to use for awhile but it is their obligation to pay us back with interest for using our money.

Medicare premiums are paid every month just like any other insurance company. Do you think all insurance companies are social programs?

Are you really that dense? Do you think that you have ever controlled your life, or anything else for that matter? At best all we can ever do is control our actions and words.

The types of socialism are as varied as the stars. There are types that dictate the vesting of all property, however that is not what we see in this administration or any other in our history. We do however have certain socialist ideals and have had since before you were a drunken twinkle in your daddy's eyes. The idea that the people as a whole are to be protected from those that would abuse or exploit them, I know republicans hate that one, or that we as a people should look out for those less fortunate, another one they hate. Or that you should be fairly compensated for your endeavors, that your intellect does not belong to the corporate masters ect.

As to regulating wages, are you daft, they aready do, the minimum wage.

SS and Medicare do not pay for themselves, never have. SS relies on people paying today so that the people who paid at a low rate can collect today at this economies rate. It is a good system and works well for many Americans, but it is a form of socialism. As is Medicare, or any cooperative. In reality, a credit union is a form of socialism, in the strictest terms. Anything that allows a group to pool assets to be used for the good of the group is, by definition socialism.

It would behoove you to actually read a little about something before you rant.

As to regulating wages, are you daft, they aready do, the minimum wage

I asked how are you going to regulate wages.

SS and Medicare do not pay for themselves, never have.

Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/

where do you get your info? you really make up a lot of crap. why don't you do so some reading. all your post are a big collection of bs.

you take up too much time just debunking your gibberish.

Still will be better then the socialists running our government.

Dear Lord next they'll force us to have public education. OH THE HUMANITY!

and look how well public education is ran, once again lower my tax and I will be responsible for my child's education and won't make you (the government) do it.

In fact more and more are choosing to home school their children.

and look how well public education is ran

And if you are one person choosing to home school your children, I weep for their chances.

Public education is exactly where the Republicans want it. They have cut education spending at every opportunity since Reagan at the same time pushing the notion of private institutions being funded with federal money. It is no small wonder that so many of Bushes staff were home schooled or sent to Christian schools for their education, it plays right into the republican idea of education, less learning, more rhetoric.

To say that the public school system is failing in this country is a horrible truth, it is also a horrible truth to say that the republicans have purposefully and methodically pushed it to this point.

President Ronald Reagan promised during the 1980 presidential election to eliminate the Department of Education as a cabinet post,^[3] but he was not able to do so with a Democratic House of Representatives. In the 1982 State of the Union Address, he pledged:

“
The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education.^[4]
”

Throughout the 1980s, the abolition of the Department of Education was a part of the Republican Party platform, but the administration of President George H. W. Bush declined to implement this idea.

In 1996, the Republican Party made abolition of the Department a cornerstone of their campaign promises, calling it an inappropriate federal intrusion into local, state, and family affairs.^[4] The GOP platform read:

“
The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.^[4][5]
”

During his 1996 presidential run, Senator Bob Dole promised, "We're going to cut out the Department of Education."^[5]

In 2000, the Republican Liberty Caucus passed a resolution to abolish the Department of Education.^[6]

PowerisKnowledge & Ron: Both of you are soooooooo right(meaning correct, not the other way) and until the masses understand what is happening to them and right to their face, we as a Nation will continue down this precipitous slide to the ultimate doom of the American way of life.

I don't dis-agree with some on this thread or other threads that at times both parties have been and continue to be both guilty and complacent in the approach to political governing, taking phantom bribes in other forms so as not to call attention to their crime. And, as we know by the ones who do get caught, some even do it openly without any apparent concern of being outed.

We have a system that has been allowed to fester, to be manipulated by those of wealth solely for the continuation of that wealth and the elimination of any that want or aspire to join that club... The recent allowance in the decision of the Supreme Court to allow Corporations to give toward causes, strips from all of us the only item that separated us as individuals in a corporate society. And, since those of wealth can and do continue to send their off-spring to private educational facilities, they have no feeling for the worth of a public education... and would rather as both of you stated to keep the masses "dumb and dumber"!

I know I have not been the only one to see what I have called for years, "The Dumbing of America", we have fallen in aptitude in math and science. We have kids who can't without a calculator do simple math, we have kids who can't read conventional clocks, we have kids behind cash registers who can't give change without the register telling them what to give back.... We have kids today that are so ignorant about our history that when asked: "What did the Asian people do as jobs when they first came to America some 100 years ago, and the answer overwhelmingly was to open up "nail salons".... think about that! Not cook, do laundry, or work on railroads, but nail salons! And these are the children of our current adults, the ones who pay so much attention to them, to the families....

We have a problem, and continued cutting of educational funding will not do anthing except continue the decline of the system in disrepair!

Too many administrators telling the teachers what to do, so many tests, so little time to instruct... and the instruction is being done to skew the tests, not teach what is necessary to be a functioning person in our society. Political friendships which keep worthless Principals in place who are languishing at their jobs, the ultimate level of the "Peter Principle".

Yes, we need a new system that does in fact replace those teachers who don't have the aptitude or ability to teach the subject they are supposed to be teaching... but not a system which automatically replaces those at a higher scale of pay because of years of work, to only continue to bring in new hires who are inexperienced but at a lower scale.

We have a problem, and we need teachers, not the ones who only spent a few years and are now administrators, but the ones who have been in the trenches for many, many years to work in a state as a group to help define what is needed to help our schools succeed! We need families to step up to the plate and be responsible, we need parents who take away their children's cell phones and allow them to have them only when they return from school or rules banning them on campuses all-together.

But we really need to work to bring our level of education back to where it was, and we cannot do it with the elimination of the Department of Education!

Thank you Powerisknowledge & Ron for your comments!

and look how well public education is ran

And if you are one person choosing to home school your children, I weep for their chances.

don't cry for them, they are doing very well.

I did homeschool my daughters for two years, but I had to return back to work to support them and work longer and longer hours in the year to pay my taxes that are wasted in our bloated government programs. In Michigan, a person has to work 98 days to pay their taxes.

People spend more on taxes than their food, shelter, and clothing combined.

The planet has no libertarian state. There just might be a reason for that.

I'd say Somalia qualifies, but you could argue that it's anarchic instead. in fact libertarianism requires faith to separate it from anarchy, I think. your main point is it doesn't work, I think, and I agree.