RandPaul2010.com: Senator Paul Introduces $500B in Spending Cuts

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would wager my ES membership that a nationwide 9 percent cut in education would have 0 impact on the actual learning of children in America

So you're willing to wager your ES membership against the education of our nation's children? Gee that seems fair. I mean if you're right, you get to keep your membership and the status quo remains, but if you're wrong you get banned and our children get hosed, but you won't be around to take the blame. Yep sounds fair to me.

[SnyderShrugged]

So you're willing to wager your ES membership against the education of our nation's children? Gee that seems fair. I mean if you're right, you get to keep your membership and the status quo remains, but if you're wrong you get banned and our children get hosed, but you won't be around to take the blame. Yep sounds fair to me.

ASF, you are sounding a lil unhinged man. SHF was using a figure of speech and I dont believe anyone thought he was actually wagering, more emphasising his point that spending doesnt equal education.

[Larry]

How are you politically going to justify budget cuts in schools.

You'll get painted as anti teacher and anti education.

Its very obvious in the other tailgate thread that many urban schools get the resources they need AND even more on top of that.

It is very obvious in many tailgate threads that many people who want very much to cut funding to education make this claim a lot.

Just look at how much is spent per capita in the DC public schools system (the Washington Post did an EXCELLENT series a few years ago on the rampant corruption in the DC school system)

And every one of them points at DC and attempts to claim that DC represents the nation.

I would wager my ES membership that a nationwide 9 percent cut in education would have 0 impact on the actual learning of children in America

And I assert (based, I'll freely admit, strictly on my own, massively uninformed opinion) that anybody who makes that claim is a loon.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, you are sounding a lil unhinged man. SHF was using a figure of speech and I dont believe anyone thought he was actually wagering, more emphasising his point that spending doesnt equal education.

But that's the suggestion from Rand Paul, a massive wager, and you're right spending doesn't equal education, and yet without spending you don't get education, unless we're all gonna home school. We need national standards, we need student loans, we need a way to bring the best of the nation together an to be able to develop policy that will guide schools to better educational methods. That's the job of the Dept. of Ed, but the rub is that it's not the effectiveness of the DoE that Rand objects to which is what you want the debate to be about, but instead it's constitutionality. If the DoE was perfect in every manner Rand would still want to de-fund it.

[Larry]

Well, my sarcasm was showing because the administrative side could be pared back dramatically, it's where a majority of the money disappears, but it's also intractable. California devotes an almost insane amount of money to education with seemingly no improvement and schools that are consistenty ranked at the very bottom of the Union.

Really? I was under the impression that California was considered one of the best states in the nation for education. But I'll admit that I'm probably thinking of their state university system.

(I'm wondering how much of an effect the state's huge population of illegals (and the state's high cost of living) affects those spending statistics.)

More money is not the answer.

Not one person has claimed that it is.

Lots of people, however, seem to be of the opinion that less money is the answer.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think we should triple the budget for education, and have national standards for all public schools for at least 80% of what they teach. The other 20% can be about the state/region you live in. Make school 11 months a year also. I'm tired of seeing how this country is falling behind in education.

Cutting money from the education of future generations only helps make sure we don't catch up with these other countries.

All these cuts, seems like we want the dumbest, sickest, and most poorly trained big boy nation around.

[SnyderShrugged]

But that's the suggestion from Rand Paul, a massive wager, and you're right spending doesn't equal education, and yet without spending you don't get education, unless we're all gonna home school. We need national standards, we need student loans, we need a way to bring the best of the nation together an to be able to develop policy that will guide schools to better educational methods. That's the job of the Dept. of Ed, but the rub is that it's not the effectiveness of the DoE that Rand objects to which is what you want the debate to be about, but instead it's constitutionality. If the DoE was perfect in every manner Rand would still want to de-fund it.

if you can do all that in the dept of education and not increase the debt, I'd support it. Otherwise, its obvious from historical facts that the current approach is neither effective (see international education statisics) nor sustainable (see national debt crisis)

For some reason all of what you outline did occur prior to 1980. How could that be if there were no cabinet level dept of ed?

Something has to give.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 12:58 PM ----------

I think we should triple the budget for education, and have national standards for all public schools for at least 80% of what they teach. The other 20% can be about the state/region you live in. Make school 11 months a year also. I'm tired of seeing how this country is falling behind in education.

Cutting money from the education of future generations only helps make sure we don't catch up with these other countries.

All these cuts, seems like we want the dumbest, sickest, and most poorly trained big boy nation around.

How could we have reached this pathetic condition with the expenditures already allocated to the dept of ed?

[deejaydana]

Really? I was under the impression that California was considered one of the best states in the nation for education. But I'll admit that I'm probably thinking of their state university system.

(I'm wondering how much of an effect the state's huge population of illegals (and the state's high cost of living) affects those spending statistics.)

Not one person has claimed that it is.

Lots of people, however, seem to be of the opinion that less money is the answer.

College education is different, and it's better. K-12 in California is one of the nation's worst rated. The answer is always "just solve it with more money" nobody questions this as a fallacy. The waste in public education here is rampant. I spent a year in the system teaching and it was terrible. The only real answers are a private alternative (which sounds great in theory but in practice presents real challenges, scaling down the current system and re-thinking what we have in place). I saw how incredibly intractable the unions are in this regard and have zero faith it will ever change. I don't think the answers are easily found but cutting money away from education, if done correctly and in the right places, is not some end of the world scenario. It wouldn't degrade the system either imho.