Do We Have a Right to Education?

Politics 2011/03/04 15:00:00
Related Topics: IRS, POLITICO, MSNBC, Wealth
Add Photos & Videos
Clearly not content with letting his politico-talk-show-staple son, Rand, hog all the spotlight, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stepped up recently with some controversial statements about education in America.

MSNBC's Cenk Uygur posed a hypothetical situation to Paul about a poor student with good grades but no money for college. Uygur asked: "Do you think the government should give him a helping hand, give him an opportunity ... or that's it? Tough luck - you're poor, you don't get an education?"

Paul said if someone wants an education - or medical care - then they've got to earn it themselves. It's not the role of the government to facilitate anyone's educational opportunities:

"Well, no. You're the government; it's your money. I don't have a right to come to you and say 'My poor kid in Texas needs an education.' I come to you and knock on the door and say 'Give me $500.' But we send the IRS agent and then it's OK.

"So I have no right to take money from you - nobody has a right to somebody else's wealth. You have a right to your life, and you have a right to your property, but you don't have a - education isn't a right. Medical care is not a right. Education - these are things that you have to earn."

Read More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/rep-ron...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Diane 2011/03/05 00:18:46 (edited)
    We are not a third world nation, where kids grow up without learning to read and write. But if we don't invest in education, we will be a third world nation.


    Laws for the liberal education of the youth, especially of the lower class of the people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.

    John Adams


Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Tink123 lurx: t... 2011/03/05 02:19:19 (edited)
    I gave you two links to in depth studies, you overlooked or ignored them.

    And it was you that presented the letter of Jefferson's, not I. I merely gave you a link where you could read the letter, which included the quote you erroneously referenced, in full. There was no explanation of his words needed, his words are self-explanatory. That is, to those willing to take the time necessary to read them.

    I see you've opted out of that.

    Which proves my point quite well. The citizenry's lack of education in America is not for lack of access to education, it's largely for lack of desire to learn. So good luck with that.
  • lurx: t... Tink123 2011/03/05 07:06:40 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    ...still no link to the source on the "consensus"?

    Don't bother with the BS, I knew you were just making it up as you went along.

    What you did actually provide me with was merely a tortured rationalization coming from a fellow ideologue who couldn't possibly cope with the fact that someone like Jefferson could have possibly supported something as heretical to their religion as progressive taxation.


    "The citizenry's lack of education in America is not for lack of access to education, it's largely for lack of desire to learn."

    Apparently this is what you call "education" down there in Texas...

  • Tink123 lurx: t... 2011/03/05 07:45:28
    Whatever you say man. If you want to cherry pick a Jefferson quote in which he referenced FRANCE -- of all countries, the Socialist utopia hub -- while ignoring the entire context of the letter, it is you with the tortured rationalization.

    I gave to two links on 2 separate progressives that both argued the progressive tax code was failing due to not being progressive enough -- you refuse to go and read the studies.

    You've made it quite clear that the only facts of significance to you are the ones that fit your preferred conclusion. I recognized that when you quoted Jefferson's letter, yet reject the complete context of that letter.

    Even Researchers at Berkeley, a Liberal Bastion by all accounts, have argued that the tax code is failing to generate as a result of not being progressive enough.


    Although, in order to comprehend that, one would have to recognize that there is more than one, or even two, arguments to be made as to the failures of the Progressive Tax Code in America.

    Being as how you are predisposed to acknowledging only the facts that fit YOUR preferred position, I doubt your capacity to comprehend such basic information.

    So, good luck with all that.
  • lurx: t... Tink123 2011/03/05 07:55:35
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "Being as how you are predisposed to acknowledging only the facts that fit YOUR preferred position, I doubt your capacity to comprehend such basic information."

    ...actually it sounds like that it's you that's following the "Texas model" for education.

  • $$*gat*... Tink123 2011/03/04 22:51:53
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    your wasting your time on this comrade, facts mean nothing to him, his a talking point for the hufpo.,,,, they have been taught to take Jefferson's words out of the context of the letter t mess with truth,, I say progressives pay 90% tax conservatives pay 10% tax and lets get on with life,,,,
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 22:52:30
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    how about this solution comrade,,,,I say progressives pay 90% tax conservatives pay 10% tax and lets get on with life,,,,
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 23:05:42
    lurx: the soda jerk
    ...I'd rather go with the form of taxation that Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt supported.
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 23:37:32
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    why???? we need a line drawn in the sand, you are progressive you want high taxes, than stand by your words comrade, be a man,
    I stand by my words, and I do believe if this crap keeps up with the high taxes and bloated gov the dems want,that is where we are going, every-man pays what he believes.,,,,watch how fast the dem party devolves, cause your all talk, use others money for your games
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 23:51:57
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Mount Rushmore

    I stand by my words, I support the same form of taxation that Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt believed in. Do you think that these people were "communists"?
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/05 04:12:29
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    no, but you are a self proclaimed progressive, who runs along Dem lines, that is now a neo-marixst, and has nothing at all to do with classical liberalism which is a conservative, dem= BIG GOV, HIGH TAXES, so walk the walk
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/05 07:23:58
    lurx: the soda jerk
    ...so if Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt support the same form of taxation that you call "neo-marxism" shouldn't they take a walk as well?
  • lurx: t... Tink123 2011/03/04 23:14:54
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "Progressivism itself is the antithesis to Natural Rights and Self Governance. Progressivism itself it the implementation of every policy the Constitution was designed to PREVENT."

    ...and you clearly can't differentiate between "FACTS" and your own opinions.
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/05 19:28:47
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    you muddle words and facts very well and parrot well, do you read the NYtimes often and the hufpo? that said you still muddle and have no understanding of the republic, you want to vote neo-marxist aka dems, yet you do not want to walk the walk, but just talk the talk
  • Chris -... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 22:53:51
  • lurx: t... Chris -... 2011/03/04 23:38:48 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    If you disagree with Jefferson, then your views on what constitutes "constitutionality" is.
  • Chris -... lurx: t... 2011/03/05 16:32:35
  • lurx: t... Chris -... 2011/03/05 16:47:46 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "I know that Adams was against a standing Army for sure. "

    ...for sure?

    "During the strained relations between France and the United States in the closing years of the eighteenth century (Administration of John Adams) the party in power (Federalist) advocated a vigorous military and naval policy for the defense of the country."

  • Chris -... lurx: t... 2011/03/05 16:53:23
  • $$*gat*... Chris -... 2011/03/04 16:58:07
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    Paul is not a constitutionalist, he is a plant for the dems, he votes dem most of the time, and than he says things like this to give the uneducated libs something more to hate on that is not real nor conservative, Conservative are calling for more education with vouchers, not less
  • Chris -... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 22:54:57
  • $$*gat*... Chris -... 2011/03/07 00:56:54
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    from the free republic,,,,
    Ron Paul is not just anti-war, but he has adopted some of the more obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric from the Left about the war that is extremely grating. Hell, according to Paul, Iraq is a war for oil and empire, engineered by neocons, and in Paul’s book, we deserved to be attacked on 9/11. That is not Conservative at all, and quite frankly disgusting. I do not want the President of the United States with that mindset. Additionally, Paul’s inconsiderate, “we must leave immediately, regardless of the consequences,” position on Iraq comes across as poorly thought out. Even though Paul is opposed to the war, the disengaging of the United States from the war immediately and without consequences is very thoughtless. It’s something you might hear from a Liberal college student at an anti-war rally. Even President Obama and Secretary Clinton, all whom have spent months trying to convince America that they’re the most anti-war of all, have said we may be in Iraq for years to come, though Obama has set a date for withdraw
  • toni Chris -... 2011/03/04 17:22:01
    The 14th, 16th and 17th amendments coupled with a court decision which gave Congress extradinary powers under the commerce clause pretty much did away with states rights. Whatever you or I think of any of those things they all took place prior to the US entry into WWI. That said what part of the constitution as it exists today is being violated? Please be specific.
  • ProudPr... toni 2011/03/05 14:02:49
    I'm curious how you believe the 16th Amendment (income taxes) or the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) helped to "do away with States' rights"? Federal Taxes of some sort have been part of our country since its founding. Income tax is a different form of taxation than was used before, but conceptually it's no different than a gas tax or a tax on your electric bill, etc. As for Senate elections, the 17th Amendment actually STRENGTHENED the rights of The People. It may have eroded States' rights vis a vis their own population, but that's not what "states' rights" generally means - it has to do with State power vis a vis Federal power.
  • toni ProudPr... 2011/03/05 15:22:49 (edited)
    Originally there were 13 autonomous states who joined together for purposes of trade and defense. The Federal Government derived its power, not from the people, but from the states. Money= power. When the federal government was able to bypass the states and obtain all of its income directly from the people the federal government increased its power over the states.. When US Senators were appointed by the state legislatures, the Senate was reluctant to pass laws that would erode states rights. The federal government was intended to derive its power from the states. The states derived there power from the people. You are right that the 17th amendment strengthened the rights of the people. It did so at the expense of the autonomy of the states. Power is like an addictive drug. Once you get a taste, you want more and more and more. The 14th, 16th and 17th amendments were all well intentioned, and I'm not saying any of them were bad. I'm just saying that each of these amendments increased the power of the federal government and weakened the power of individual states..
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 16:55:40
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    Paul is so far form a conservative, he votes along Dems lines 90%,,,,,, conservatives do not believe this, never did, in fact conservatives want to expand education by allowing the federal government to issue vouchers so more schools of better quality will open. If anyone if for poor education it is the dems, our kids are graduating without reading skills
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 17:05:20 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "...in fact conservatives want to expand education"

    Oh really?

    Actually it was a Republican President, I think Ronald Reagan was his name, that pledged to eliminate the department of education altogether...

    "The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education"


    ...how would eliminating the Department of Education "expand" the educational opportunities for all Americans?
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 17:23:56 (edited)
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    Yes, that would help to GROW OUR EDUCATION,, the dept of education is a bloated mob like organization that runs like any mega corrupt corporation, where the children are being screwed out of an education and the heads of the mobs make obscene salaries and bonuses while giving our education $$$$$$ in the tune of hundreds of millions to the Democratic party.
    Carter started the Bd of ED, and before carter our children had much better educations, so much so that anyone graduating with a 6th grade education in the 40 or early 50's had the same skills as a harvard grad does now. than the hippies arrived, and the dems gained more power and education has declined since.
    learn your history man, you are a product of our education system, you are repeating talking points not researching for truth.
    So do you care about the kids or the dems?
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 17:31:00 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "Yes, that would help to GROW OUR EDUCATION..."

    Oh really,

    ...by eliminating the public education system and transferring it's control to the "mega corporations", that's going to expand the education opportunities for all Americans?

    ...why do I think that it's you that's spouting the talking points?
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 17:37:04
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    yes, eliminating the Feds control of the educations system and giving it back to the states in one wise thing to do,,,, they did a dam fine job before carter got the feds involved, now we have dumb-asses all over this country.
    coming from a foreign country myself, I am in shock at the poor level of education here now and how indoctrinated so many are here, you did not even know the states ran their education flawlessly before carter. so you are living proof the bd of ed is an epic failure.
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 17:48:17 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "...you did not even know the states ran their education flawlessly before carter"

    education flawlessly carter yeah rights crowd job providing education

    Oh yeah, the "states rights" crowd did such a wonderful
    job in providing education for everybody.

    ran education flawlessly carter
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 19:46:57
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    that was the DEMOCRATS in the south doing that to BLACKS,,, if you want to start that argument you LOSE,, as the Republicans fought for civil rights and against jim Cow until 1968, than the Dems saw they would lose the country if they did not change their strategy, as LBJ said, we will have those n**gers voting for Dems for the next 200 years...

    don't you wish you never went there with me?
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 19:50:30 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk

    You mean "State's Rights" Dixiecrats like George Wallace?

    rights dixiecrats george wallace
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 19:54:31
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    there are no dixiecrats the dems coined that term, MARX 101, wallace was a hard core Dem his whole life, as he became old and frail he started to change his ass backwards ways.
    cute comrade, do you teach kindergarden?
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 19:59:20 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "there are no dixiecrats the dems coined that term"

    Actually it was Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat turned-Republicans like Strom Thurmond that used that term.

    dixiecrats dems coined term democrat-turned-dixiecrat turned-republicans strom thurmond term
  • lurx: t... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 20:04:13
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Don't forget, Strom Thurmond still a legend in the Republican party...

  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 20:31:01 (edited)
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    yes they did,, like I said marx 101
    and the lame pictures mean nothing,
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 20:32:51 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Where did you learn about Marx 101?

    ...from your hotel room in communist China, comrade?


    learn marx 101 hotel room communist china comrade

    That guy sitting next to Ronald Reagan looks a lot like George Wallace.
  • $$*gat*... lurx: t... 2011/03/04 20:35:08 (edited)
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    no from the dem run university I went to for 4 long ass years of communist indoctrination comrade
  • lurx: t... $$*gat*... 2011/03/04 20:36:58
    lurx: the soda jerk
    I knew you were a commie.
  • aneed2know lurx: t... 2011/03/08 11:07:46
    please stop i am laughing my behind off while you make this idiot look more ignorant.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/14 01:48:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals