Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rdean, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,097
    Thanks Received:
    6,893
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,951
    The candidates were on Morning Joe this morning and boy, did they have an earful.

    Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional.

    Head Start, U.S. educational program for disadvantaged preschool children, established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Aimed initially only at poor children, its purpose was to organize programs that would prepare preschool children for elementary school. Money was appropriated through the Office of Economic Opportunity, which made individual grants to cities and other localities to set up Head Start centers. In 1969 the program was transferred to the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services). It was later extended to children above the poverty level, whose parents, however, had to pay according to their income.

    Head Start definition of Head Start in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

    Ron said we need to get rid of social programs so we can begin to help people.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U]Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube[/ame]

    So is it "anti education" or "every man for himself".

    Then there's Mitt, who won't release his tax returns saying the middle class and poor envy the rich. Let's see. If he has 200 million and paid what I pay, would that mean he really earned 270 or 280 million and he paid 70 million or more in taxes?

    Oh yea. And you thought Hawaii refusing to release Obama's birth certificate was bad. And Obama had to follow state law. Will the Mitt hit the fan? Because he has a "choice", something he wants to deny others.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,748
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    Ron Paul is a character and a bit of a curmudgeon. He is a complete ideologue and seems not to have a pragmatic bone in his head.
     
  3. LibertyForAll
    Offline

    LibertyForAll Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,155
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St. Louis, Mo
    Ratings:
    +140
    well in my wifes home town they have headstart and it is one of the only preschools in town because the town is rather small. They give priority to underpriviledged kids and only have a few slots for those above the povertly level. So if we moved there my kids would not be allowed to go to preschool because of government interference. How is that equal?
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    i think that makes him an extremist toon.... but he isn't a "complete ideologue"... his idea of persona freedom doesn't exist for women.

    not to mention his total and complete hypocrisy.
     
  5. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

    Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    funny... the supreme court disagrees. *shrug*

    ever hear of the 'general welfare' clause.

    seriously, dd...
     
  7. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    And it is not specifically laid out in the general welfare clause, nor under the specific enumerated powers.... and amendment 10 says exactly what happens when a power is not specifically granted to the fed...

    again... general welfare of the United States has an entirely different meaning than when leaving off "of the United States" like many expanded government power people like to state...

    And the SC is also not immune to power grabs (like the rest of our power hungry govt).... as evidenced by 'decisions' such as this
     
  8. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,677
    Why did he say it was unconsitutional? Perhaps because it was discriminatory? Well, then he's right, but then, all welfare is. Paul is in his own little world.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    the point of the general welfare clause was to let government do things that were NOT spelled out.

    the "constitutionalists" (/sarcasm) should really read a case or two.

    ... or ten.

    it's kind of silly already.

    if the power was supposed to be in the states like righties who hate desegretation and hate roe v wade and hate federal standards for education which prevent them from pretending creationism is science wish, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

    this battle ended with the civil war. trying to relitigate it by electing pretend constitutionalists evetually will fail totally.

    most justices love the constitution more than they love their party.

    well, except for scalia and thomas... but that's for another thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  10. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,410
    Thanks Received:
    2,248
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,734
    It's unconstitutional because it helps people. His social Darwinism would be worse than any tyranny any of the others or Obama could inflict on us.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

ron paul head start