A Question For Liberals
Name one good thing that the federal Department of Education has ever done.
From the government's own website here are some relevant numbers on Department of Education budgets:
2007- $67.9 billion ($10.4 billion mandatory, $57.5 billion discretionary)
2008- $68.6 billion ($9.4 billion mandatory, $59.2 billion discretionary)
2009 (as requested by the president)- $64.9 billion ($5.7 billion mandatory, $59.2 billion discretionary)
In the grand scheme of things, it is just a drop in the bucket, but hell, it's still a lot of money. So again I ask, what good does the Department of Education actually do?
From the government's own website here are some relevant numbers on Department of Education budgets:
2007- $67.9 billion ($10.4 billion mandatory, $57.5 billion discretionary)
2008- $68.6 billion ($9.4 billion mandatory, $59.2 billion discretionary)
2009 (as requested by the president)- $64.9 billion ($5.7 billion mandatory, $59.2 billion discretionary)
In the grand scheme of things, it is just a drop in the bucket, but hell, it's still a lot of money. So again I ask, what good does the Department of Education actually do?
posted by lonely libertarian at 4:15 PM
4 Comments:
Question for ya LL:
Have you noticed/does it bother you that Obama has successfully avoided talking about the nuances of his solutions throughout his presidency? He's been allowed to stand there and talk in broad terms about everything from energy to national security and any time people start to question details he watches his words unbelievably carefully, making sure not to really get into specifics ever.
Him ditching McCain's town hall meeting request is a perfect example.
Are we certain that he could have a coherent coversation about economics, national security, energy or even history for that matter if he weren't briefed on the topic 30 minutes before? It really bothers me, because I feel like he offers subtle clues all the time that really, his own knowledge base is severely limited.
I'll answer your question briefly- Obama has thus far avoided making many strong policy statements or taking many specific stands on controversial issues. At this point it's not a huge problem. But come debate time, it sure will be.
Truthfully, what he personally knows isn't much of an issue, but the positions he'll need to stake out will be a big issue. If he gets the debate and sounds like a douchebag the same way Kerry did, he's going to be screwed.
What he personally knows isn't an issue? I hope you mean in terms of campaigning, not leading. Compound lack of experience with lack of knowledge and judgment is a tough thing to have.
You look around the world right now and you see experienced, sometimes hardened leaders. The idea of Obama in the midst of Putin, Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad is pretty scary. Look at his intial comments on Russia, "I urge restrain on both sides and condemn violence". The guy didn't know what to say until he went to get briefed and then found out that Georgia isn't that state above Florida.
BTW, France did great for themselves going from Chirac to Sarkozy. How much more respectable do they seem now? A lot more to me.
I don't think in this day and age we can ever really know what politicians actually know and what's just being fed to them.
Truth be told though, I'm not sure McCain's jumping to defense of Georgia is any better than Obama's unwillingness to take a position, given that Georgia actually started the hostilities. That's not to say Georgia wasn't justified (I'm really not sure), but the circumstances certainly demand caution.
Post a Comment
<< Home