|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 10, 2011 8:55:47 GMT -5
Perry essentially wants to eliminate 3 (even though he could only remember 2) federal agencies that are not only essential to the governance of the nation, but also in the Dept of Commerce, constitutionally required. But that's not the main stick here.
The Dept of Education, which does an obvious job in the nation, only employs about 5000 people, but the Commerce Dept has 45,000 employees and the Energy Dept has slightly more than 100,000. So Perry wants to "create an atmosphere for job creation" by firing more than 150,000 middle class employees and all the support staff that goes along with it. He would then pass on the immense jobs of the Ed and Energy departments on to the individual states, crippling further their already crippled budgets.
As far as the Commerce dept? We tried decentralized commerce regulation in the late 1700s. It (along with a lot of other factors) damn near destroyed the nation. If we hadn't gotten back in the meeting rooms and hammered out the US Constitution the chaos of decentralization would have certainly been the death knell for the new country. And when the wrote the Constitution, they made damn certain to put the power to regulate commerce in the only place that makes sense.
Perry's campaign slogan should be: "Rick Perry! Because Anyone can Repeat The Mistakes Of Three Decade Ago, But Only Perry Has The Courage To Repeat The Mistakes Of Three Centuries Ago!"
Perry is a class-A moron. He does not understand history, economics, the US Federal system, basic political science, basic science in general, public speaking, organizational and study skills, medical technology, educational theory and practice, or what happens to the little light when you close the refrigerator door. Seriously, this guy is like the satanic love-child of an unholy threeway between George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Azathoth the Blind Idiot God. If we elect this asshole we deserve everything we get.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 10, 2011 9:43:58 GMT -5
Someone seriously answer this. Why in the blue hells does he want to get rid of the Department of Education? Ironbite-I mean...what does it do that offends him? The conservative right's attitude towards the Dept of Ed is.... complicated. It has much more to do with political ideology than it does with any real sense of education or educational theory. The right bristles at any federal control or regulation, and they see the DofE as "interfering with parents in the education of their children." This ignores the fact that the average parent is in no way qualified or capable of providing their child with the necessary 21st century education. (And this is not meant as an insult: as the world has grown more and more complicated and more and more specialized, providing an effective, broad-spectrum education requires some fairly extensive training and experience. The average parent just doesn't have the necessary skillset to be an effective educator. No shame in that, the average parent doesn't have the necessary skillset to be, oh, say, a dentist, either. It's a specialized world we live in. And as for the time? In this economy, very few parents have the sheer time resources to be the primary educator in their house, either.) But the right has never valued educators. They see educators as "interfering." Parents should be able to control all aspects of their child's education, even if what the parents want to teach their child is blatantly, provably wrong. Anti-science is fine if that's what the parents want. So is massively revisionist history and alarmingly twisted theory. The DofE tries to tell parents what they can and can't teach their children by (Oh the HORROR!) requiring that a child's education be based in facts and reality. And that, my friends, is regulation, and ALL regulation is evil according to the far right. You can see the disrespect to educators all over our nation. From the fact that the USA is one of the only nations in the world where teaching is perceived as a "low-status" career, to the concerted efforts by conservative lawmakers to break teacher's unions and demonize teachers (as well as other public employees) as greedy and opportunistic. (Ignoring the fact that when compared to other professionals of similar education and experience, teachers are MASSIVELY underpaid.) Eliminating the DofE would be the first step towards getting "government interference" out of education, and allowing for the wholesale privatization of education in America. Which is the system the southern colonies used before the Civil War, and which resulted in the restriction of education to the wealthy and influential. Under such a private system, the only way the working classes could afford to educate their children would be with privately-subsidized schools...and in America that means religious schools. With no DofE to run quality control, these parochial schools would quickly submerge the curriculum under an inevitable flood of doctrine, dogma, and anti-science, conclusion-precedes-data presented as "fact." Which is exactly what the religious right, who have hijacked the Republican Party, desires. They look at the unregulated Madrasses of the Middle East and drool with envy. Getting rid of the DofE is the first step towards that goal. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 10, 2011 9:48:50 GMT -5
In the United States, the states do have certain rights, the most important of which is that they have the right to not be sued without their consent ("sovereign immunity"). Another right they maintain is the right to equal suffrage in the United States Senate (in fact this right is better protected than any constitutional right of the people -- it is the only constitutional right that can never, ever be amended out of the Constitution). They also have the right to pass and enforce laws over certain domains, which as explained by the Constitution is over all powers not granted to the federal government.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 10, 2011 9:56:43 GMT -5
In the United States, the states do have certain rights, the most important of which is that they have the right to not be sued without their consent ("sovereign immunity"). They also have the right to pass and enforce laws over certain domains, which as explained by the Constitution is over all powers not granted to the federal government. I believe he meant that States have "rights" only by the consent of the citizens. Since State's rights derive from the consent of the governed, those rights actually reside in the citizenry, not the state, and are merely accorded to the States. They are not inherent in the States. But that's just a whole lotta abstract political theory. In practical reality you are also correct. Ain't life weird? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 10, 2011 10:02:56 GMT -5
You're right: in the United States the sovereignty rests in the People, who have vested some of this sovereignty in the state governments. The state governments in turn vest some, but not all, of their sovereignty in the federal government.
I understand your concerns about abolishing the Department of Education, and I shudder to think what Texas would do with its curriculum without any federal oversight (not that that's stopped them much anyway) but I do not see it as the federal government's place to abrograte the states' powers regarding education.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Nov 10, 2011 12:56:29 GMT -5
Go Cain!* * Disclaimer, I think he's the only Republican that could actually make next year's election entertaining. I'm still rooting for Bachmann. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 10, 2011 16:42:29 GMT -5
You're right: in the United States the sovereignty rests in the People, who have vested some of this sovereignty in the state governments. The state governments in turn vest some, but not all, of their sovereignty in the federal government. I understand your concerns about abolishing the Department of Education, and I shudder to think what Texas would do with its curriculum without any federal oversight (not that that's stopped them much anyway) but I do not see it as the federal government's place to abrograte the states' powers regarding education. Initially the Constitution did not grant the Federal government the power to abolish slavery at a state level. Sometimes powers need expanded beyond what the original writers intended. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 10, 2011 16:51:49 GMT -5
It seems the more of a drooling moron a republican candidate is the more likely they are to get a shot at the presidency.
As long as they're a right-wing 'murrican drooling moron who's against aborshuns and big gubbamint that is!
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 10, 2011 16:54:01 GMT -5
Seriously, this guy is like the satanic love-child of an unholy threeway between George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Azathoth the Blind Idiot God. Best. Description. Ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Nov 10, 2011 16:54:10 GMT -5
What sandman says.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 10, 2011 17:12:50 GMT -5
Second. But just because someone has to say it (required by law, I believe); "But those lazy, elitist teachers want all that money when they only "work" 5 hours a day, tops (thats IFyou can call playing with kids all day "work"), AND they get all those holidays no one else gets! They should get REAL jobs!" [/rentacrowd] |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 10, 2011 17:18:02 GMT -5
You're right: in the United States the sovereignty rests in the People, who have vested some of this sovereignty in the state governments. The state governments in turn vest some, but not all, of their sovereignty in the federal government. I understand your concerns about abolishing the Department of Education, and I shudder to think what Texas would do with its curriculum without any federal oversight (not that that's stopped them much anyway) but I do not see it as the federal government's place to abrograte the states' powers regarding education. Initially the Constitution did not grant the Federal government the power to abolish slavery at a state level. Sometimes powers need expanded beyond what the original writers intended. But when the government’s power is expanded, it should be done officially, according to whatever process is laid out for that expansion. Ultimately, we had the 13th Amendment to answer the slavery issue. I do agree that there should be federal oversight of Education. But if the federal government doesn’t have the power to do so, it should be oficially granted that power before it starts applying that sort of oversight. To allow the government to expand its own power is to invite tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 10, 2011 17:18:45 GMT -5
, I do not find it an unreasonable position to say that the federal government should play no role in education, which, as the Constitution does not grant Congress this power, is a domain of the states. This isn't quite true. The federal government has extremely broad powers under the 'general welfare' and 'necessary and proper' clauses of the constitution, as per McCulloch v Maryland. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 10, 2011 17:55:10 GMT -5
... And by doing this, Perry has guaranteed the Teabagger vote. I hate my country so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 10, 2011 18:25:44 GMT -5
Which might be the only vote he gets. The Tea Party isn't as big as people make it out to be.
Ironbite-it's just loud.
|
|
