There are very few Republicans who would actually advocate getting rid of social security or the DoE. Those are radical fringe ideas, with no basis in reality. The DoE funds Title I schools immensely, and those serve the neediest areas. Without that education in poor neighborhoods goes to hell, and what little hope there is of climbing out of the poverty cycle goes out the window. Social Security if privatized would have wiped out a ton of retirees in the recent stock market crash, and caused floods of elderly to lose their primary if not their only source of income. There are fringe politicians who talk about these things, but the Republican party itself doesn't back this stuff.
Link? Do you have proof of this? For those states that want the funding you speak of they can vote for them and have them. Citizen's state taxes would go up but their federal tax would go down. Their is no difference between a state providing the funding and the federal government.
So poor children who's states don't vote for that funding will just miss out, and get screwed over? Sorry, that's not realistic. State politicians will run on lowering taxes too, and funding from Title I programs will be gone, and generations of kids will be cheated out of education they deserve. As far as proof of GOP not supporting the privatizing of Social SEcurity, and abolishment of DoE? Look at the Republican platform, and statements by any number of Republican Senators.
It's called democracy. If the residents of a state want more funding for education they can vote for it. If they don't then they can vote for that too. The state's education system would be representative of the people. So if your fellow state residents want little kids screwed over then thats what would happen. That's how democracy works.
Sounds like you and FranchiseBlade would prefer a monarchy? God forbid, states decide for themselves how much funding they want to give to their education. What if they make the decision wrong? We should clearly force our views on the states and take the decision out of their hands cause we know whats best for them.
All of you guys and gals should have said nevermind to this chump a long time ago. He's a typing fingernail against a blackboard, and as useless.
So when the majority wanted slavery that was OK because it was a democracy right? When the majority in some states wanted segregation of schools that was ok too, because it was a democracy and the state's right?
I would actually love a monarchy because it would be fun, but not for any civics rationale. Funding title I schools isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's funding for students that need that. You are proposing taking that away. Brown vs. Board of Ed decided in some educational matters States can't have the final say despite what the majority wishes. It sounds like you are against our nation's constitution. God forbid we try and give a better education to students.
No, it sounds like you prefer a corporate oligarchy, where the rich don't have to pay their fair share of taxes and where the rights of corporations are far more important than those of the people. I believe that We, the People are more important than corporations and I believe that protecting the middle class is far more important than protecting the rich.
Protection of individual rights is a federal issue as stated in the Constitution. Not a states issue.
It is forcing me and everyone else in my state to pay for public schooling. What if my state wants a privatized system with vouchers?
Then you will have children without an equal opportunity to get a quality education. The U.S. says they need to have equal opportunity.
Protection of individual rights is a federal constitutional issue. That's why the Feds have the DoE and pay for title I students. Because those students have the right to have the same minimal education guaranteed to everyone else. Since those rights are a Federal issue, then their shouldn't be a problem with the Federal govt. paying for it.
By your definition of "providing for the general welfare", Congress could do anything it wanted. Congress could make citizens buy everyone a microwave to "provide for the general welfare". What point is the rest of Article 1 Section 8 if you grant Congress this kind of power? This was not the founding fathers' intent “{James} Madison repeatedly argued that the powers to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Jefferson.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.93
Their is not right to an education mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It is written in many state constitution's though. This is because the founding father's viewed education as a state issue.
