Posted by Kromey at 1:31pm Jan 6 '12"False. Downright strawman, in fact."
It may be false for you, but I believe it is true for many people advocating this position.
Irrelevant -- you still straw-manned an argument about local control when you brought creationism and opposition to sex ed into the picture.
What's the problem with letting the states decide what is and is not taught in their schools?
"The national power grid is already privately owned."
But also closely regulated, as a matter of national security.
Right, but certainly the budget for that could be slashed heavily. For example, contracting out the inspection work to private companies, as OSHA does (and, in fact, as the DoE does to supplement their own inspectors in some areas -- why not expand that?).
"Has he at any point stated that publicly-funded labs should lose their public funding?"
I don't know if he has, specifically. But to end such funding and let private interests fund (or not) such research seems in line with what Paul routinely talks about.
True, perhaps. However, it's also true that the US was a technological leader when privately-funded labs were pretty much our sole source of advancement. Given that, it seems a rather hollow and wholly ideological argument to state that we'd fall behind (well, further behind, as our publicly-funded labs haven't been keeping up with much of the rest of the world) without gobs and gobs of federal funds.
A Ron Paul type would certainly oppose a federal department with a mission of combating homelessness and ghettoization of neighborhoods, and addressing the needs of poorer Americans.
Clearly phrased as if the only options are to continue liberal welfare policies, or let the poor suffer wholly unaided.
Which is both an attack on the morals of everyone who would dare disagree ("Anyone who opposes these programs hates the poor and wants to see them suffer!"), as well as being a false dichotomy to boot.
It may be false for you, but I believe it is true for many people advocating this position.
Irrelevant -- you still straw-manned an argument about local control when you brought creationism and opposition to sex ed into the picture.
What's the problem with letting the states decide what is and is not taught in their schools?
"The national power grid is already privately owned."
But also closely regulated, as a matter of national security.
Right, but certainly the budget for that could be slashed heavily. For example, contracting out the inspection work to private companies, as OSHA does (and, in fact, as the DoE does to supplement their own inspectors in some areas -- why not expand that?).
"Has he at any point stated that publicly-funded labs should lose their public funding?"
I don't know if he has, specifically. But to end such funding and let private interests fund (or not) such research seems in line with what Paul routinely talks about.
True, perhaps. However, it's also true that the US was a technological leader when privately-funded labs were pretty much our sole source of advancement. Given that, it seems a rather hollow and wholly ideological argument to state that we'd fall behind (well, further behind, as our publicly-funded labs haven't been keeping up with much of the rest of the world) without gobs and gobs of federal funds.
A Ron Paul type would certainly oppose a federal department with a mission of combating homelessness and ghettoization of neighborhoods, and addressing the needs of poorer Americans.
Clearly phrased as if the only options are to continue liberal welfare policies, or let the poor suffer wholly unaided.
Which is both an attack on the morals of everyone who would dare disagree ("Anyone who opposes these programs hates the poor and wants to see them suffer!"), as well as being a false dichotomy to boot.
Re: Ron Paul says he wants to end five departments - Kromey