Manufactured Structure Notice Of Sale Oregon: Fill & Download for Free

Weed Prices by WeightA great way to think about the size of each quantity is by how much use you can get from it – or how many joints you can roll. Reports that determine the average size of one joint vary greatly. One study concluded that the average weight of weed rolled into a single joint was only around 0.32 grams, while many avid cannabis users report using up to 1 gram at a time.The amount of pot actually used in a single joint varies by the smoker’s preference, but for the sake of an average estimate, we calculate that a medium-sized joint holds around 0.5 grams.How Much Does a Gram of Weed Cost?The price of a gram of weed at dispensaries usually ranges from $10-$15. The actual price varies depending on the state and quality of the flower.Prices are lower in cities like Oregon City and Seattle, where a gram costs about $6.75, and in Colorado, where a gram sells for around $7.15. In Washington D.C., a gram of cannabis can cost you over $18. In Canada, the average price of a gram is around $7 in 2020.How Much is a Gram of Weed?Visually, a gram of weed is between the size of a quarter and a half dollar. It is usually the smallest amount you can purchase at a dispensary.At half a gram per joint, you can roll two joints out of a single gram of marijuana.Grams are useful for trying new strains to test their effects but it is the most expensive way to purchase marijuana.How Much Does an Eighth of Weed Cost?The average price of an eighth is between $30 and $35. On the high end, an eighth will cost close to $40 in Alaska and $65 in Washington D.C. On the low end, customers pay around $23 in Oregon and Seattle. In Canada, consumers can expect to pay around $35-$37.How Much is an Eighth of Weed?An eighth is the next measurement after a gram and refers to an eighth of an ounce. An eighth of an ounce equals approximately 3.543 grams, but in the cannabis world, it is simplified to 3.5 grams.At the going average of 0.5 grams per joint, an eighth will roll 7 joints.How Much Does a Quarter of Weed Cost?The average going price for a quarter of weed is between $65-$75. The 2020 national average is at $74, up one dollar from 2019. The price varies greatly by location as there are several states with below-average prices for quarters. In Oregon, Washington, and Colorado the prices for a quarter are around $46, $48, and $50 respectively. Quarters cost as much as $82 in North Dakota and closer to $120 in Washington D.C. The average price for a quarter of weed in Canada is around $54-$60.How Much is Quarter of Weed?A quarter of weed stands for quarter of an ounce, which is 7 grams.At a half gram per joint, this will roll 14 joints.How Much Does a Half Ounce of Weed Cost?Typically, the price for a half ounce of marijuana falls somewhere between $90-$200. The most inexpensive states offer lower prices, like Oregon at $93, Washington at $95, and Colorado at $100. In Washington D.C. a quarter can cost over $250. In Canadian cities Toronto and Quebec customers pay around $105 for half an ounce of cannabis–with prices typically varying between $90-$100 across the country.How Much is Half Ounce of Weed?A half ounce is 14 grams, enough to roll 28 joints (using 0.5g per joint).How Much Does an Ounce of Weed Cost?The price of an ounce will usually fall somewhere between $200-$300 dollars but can cost much more in places like Alaska, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, where the price is much closer to $300. In Washington D.C., an ounce costs as much as $500. Some states have much cheaper options, like Oregon with ounces at $186, Washington at $190, and Colorado at $200. The average price for an ounce in Canada is only around $116-$169, depending on quality.How Much is an Ounce of Weed?An ounce of weed is equal to 28 grams of cannabis flower. It is one of the most popular quantities purchased at dispensaries. You might also hear it referred to as a “zip.”Buying an ounce at a time is the best way for consumers to cut costs. It is usually the maximum amount that can be legally obtained and possessed at one time. An ounce will roll 56 half gram joints.Why Is Weed Expensive?The price of cannabis products in your area depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to:government tax ratesstate tax rates and regulationsmunicipal tax rates and regulations (where applicable)geographic locationshipping costsquality of productcompetition in the area (legal and illicit market)payment processing (some U.S. retailers)marketing and branding costs (U.S.)manufacturing and operational costsSince most legislation is set at the local government level, cannabis prices vary from one state to another. There is no nationwide scale for pricing cannabis products.Federal, State, and City Imposed TaxesOne of the major reasons why legal cannabis prices are so high is due to taxes. In the United States, companies in the cannabis industry are subject to a federal tax rates between 30%-70%.A 70% income tax rate may seem outrageously high, but due to legislature passed in the 80’s, it is the reality for many cannabis brands. Section 280E of the federal tax code prohibits any company that is “trafficking in controlled substances” from tax breaks like employee-related expenses or rent. Since cannabis is still illegal federally, these tax rates make legitimate cannabis companies costly to operate.The high-income tax rate is determined based on the qualifications of each company, as well as their individual deductions and income rates. Initially, this law was set in place to prevent drug traffickers from getting unfair tax breaks. These prices are paid by the company, so they trickle down to the consumers and inflate the final cost of weed to cover the operating costs.State and city taxes on cannabis sales also impact local weed prices. These tax rates differ depending on state and city. Washington has one of the highest tax rates in the U.S., charging an additional 37% on the sale of cannabis product. This also includes excise taxes, which can vary by city or county.Alaska does not charge sales tax, but like many other states, they impose a cultivation tax. Growing cannabis costs manufacturers in Alaska around $50 per ounce purchased. Cultivation taxes generally are set rates paid per ounce or pound by the wholesaler or company.In addition to all marijuana-specific taxes, state sales taxes also apply, which adds additional cost to the final purchase. All in all, multiple taxes play into what the consumers pay at dispensaries.The taxing regulations in Canada are similar, but not exactly alike. In Canada, the market is controlled by the government and taxes are around $1 per gram or 10% of the total price.Location, Labor, and Shipping CostsAside from taxes, there are a few logistics factors that affect how much weed costs at dispensaries.First, marijuana grows best in climates that are relatively humid and warm. States with a climate that’s not ideal for growing cannabis have higher production costs since they have to build & operate indoor grows. Growing cannabis indoors is costly (more on this in the next section).Second, producers and distributors have to factor in the price of labor required to load / unload product and deliver them to their final destination. The shipping and labor prices are factored in when dispensaries price their product.There are also numerous legal hoops required in order to cultivate cannabis for wholesale distribution. This limits cannabis cultivation and prevents more manufacturers from entering the industry.Better Weed Quality Leads to Higher PricesQuality of weed is one of the biggest factors affecting costs on a consumer level. “Quality” refers to several factors, like the density, amount of trichomes, color, and the smell of the flower product. The most important factor that determines quality for most consumers is the potency, meaning it’s THC or CBD content.Quality is determined by multiple factors, including the growing methodology, manufacturer’s expertise, growing conditions, and strain types. Like different types of apples, each strain has its own unique characteristics. These characteristics, including cannabinoid and terpene levels, result in different effects that may be appealing to a particular consumer. Strains that are in high demand due to their quality often cost more than less popular strains.For marijuana that is grown outdoors, quality is also impacted by the environment. To reduce the risks posed by unpredictable weather, many growers are taking their operations indoors, to better control the quality of their harvests.Growing indoors is more costly than growing outdoors. Indoor growing requires extra equipment (like artificial lighting and nutrients) and incurs additional utility costs (water and electricity) to grow quality plants. Indoor growing also requires more human labor, since large machinery cannot easily be utilized to harvest the product and the facility needs to be maintained. This price increase is passed down the line to the consumer.Impact of Seasonality on PricesJust like produce in the market, marijuana prices are heavily impacted by the season. During harvesting seasons (which vary by the plant) supply increases. With a supply increase comes lower prices for the wholesaler, which are eventually passed down to the consumer.In the Northern hemisphere, marijuana that is grown outdoors is typically harvested between September and November, which means cannabis prices tend to drop during the months following harvesting.Indoor growing eliminates seasonality as a factor, but as mentioned above, it is more costly to operate. There are also cannabis connoisseurs who prefer the small, taste, and effects of weed grown outdoors.Local Competition Drives Pricing FluctuationsCompetition in your area directly affects cannabis prices. This is the same rule that applies to competition between every type of business and their leading competitors.Grocery store A may advertise a twenty cent price drop on a particular type of apples in order to pull customers away from the competitor (grocery store B) and into their store. In response, grocery store B may lower the price of the same type of apple in order to convince customers to continue to choose their store. Then, grocery store B may also lower the price of a different type of apple as well, which may help them pull customers from grocery store A.Each store usually has to raise prices in other areas to compensate for the discounts. In dispensaries, this may apply to particular strains or products, but where one product’s price drops, another will generally increase.This means that you may be able to get better deals if you are more flexible with the strain you choose. Looking for sales and discounts on particular strains may help you cut costs.Alternatively, businesses may run promotions in order to acquire new customers. These generally apply to online stores, but may also be used in brick and mortar businesses as well. Either way, the price you pay for product is directly impacted by market competition.Cost of Weed By QuantityAfter all of the above factors have been considered, cost of weed comes down to how much dispensaries pay the manufacturers. The more product a dispensary orders, the more of a discount they receive, which makes it easier for them to decrease their retail prices.This is what makes it difficult for smaller dispensaries to compete with larger competitors. Inability to stock more product in larger quantities means they have a harder time offering more affordable prices.Weed Prices: United States vs CanadaWhile legal marijuana use is equally heavy on both sides of the border, the markets are wholly different, especially considering Canada’s national legalization of the plant for both recreational and medicinal use. One report shows that Canada’s weed prices are around 30% lower than in the United States.There are both simple and complex reasons for this. The easiest explanation is the illegal status of marijuana a federal level in the U.S. prevents it from being manufactured and sold at an efficient cost. One primary concern is that many producers and dispensaries do not have adequate bank access. In Canada, national banks have federal security when dealing with the cannabis market.Canada also has a small population compared to the U.S. Therefore, there is a smaller market for marijuana that is incredibly competitive. Prices for marijuana are low in order to interest medical consumers. Because health care in Canada is often free or set at a very low price, many medicinal consumers refuse to pay high prices for the medicinal herb.Because Canada’s government is on board, the market is more structured. Canada exports far more marijuana than they import, so there are very few added fees associated with the price of importing product. Government-controlled shops will offer a more flat-rate price, which is set to be somewhere around $8-10 per gram. The Canadian government hopes to rival black market prices and reduce the amount of marijuana bought on the street, therefore they regulate the prices on legal marijuana that is sold in order to keep prices low.Dispensary Prices VS Street PricesStreet prices for marijuana can vary wildly making it is impossible to accurately determine them. In some areas in the southern United States, a quarter ounce can be bought for around 65 dollars. In northern areas, street prices are lower. Black market prices include no taxes or regulations, which can significantly decrease the price compared to pot purchased in dispensaries.However, there is a reason that “street weed” costs so little. Most marijuana bought on the black market is home-grown by someone with a “green thumb” or imported from other countries, such as Mexico. Because the product is not produced commercially, tested for potency, or produced under important safety regulation, the quality varies significantly. Black market products are notoriously unreliable, and generally, have lower amounts of THC and other cannabinoids than legal marijuana.There are also safety concerns for black market marijuana. Street pot may contain dangerous pesticides, additives, and harsh chemicals. Some reports over time have shown a trend in lacing marijuana in order to make it seem more potent, which is only a scheme that illicit dealers use in order to charge more for a poor quality product. The chemicals used to lace street weed vary from synthetic THC products to embalming fluid, laundry detergent, cocaine, and even PCP.Buying weed in a dispensary is the only way to ensure that you know what you’re getting. Dispensaries have to follow guidelines for labeling and testing products, so you can easily look at the packaging to determine the THC content and other defining factors.How to Determine the Average Weed Prices in Your LocationBecause of all of the impending price factors, there is no one and done figure to help you determine pot prices in your locations. However, there are a few things you can do to help determine the going rate near you in order to decide if the prices you pay are fair. Try out the following tips to find information on weed prices in your area:Call your local dispensaries: You can call the dispensaries in your area and ask about prices for different quantities of bud. These dispensaries will only be able to offer you an average price since the price of each strain varies greatly. You should call more than one dispensary in order to accurately compare the prices. After calling 3-5 shops, you’ll be able to see a trend in prices that will help you determine what a fair rate is in your location. If you notice that one shop has rates much higher than all of the rest, that is a good indication that they are charging rates above the local average.Look online. In areas where marijuana use is legalized, there are some markets that ship or hand deliver marijuana products online. Usually, online shopping is recommended for products like oils and edibles since it is more desirable to see the bud in person before purchasing. However, the internet can be a great resource for collecting average price information for your area. Even flower listings on websites are getting more and more detailed with high-quality photos, lab results, and in-depth descriptions.Look into weed based tax regulations in your area. Understand the tax rate in your area may help you get a better understanding of what goes into pricing the marijuana that you purchase. In some places, taxes are included in the list price. In other areas, it is an extra fee, so pay close attention when doing your research. Remember that there will not only be a state tax, but also a local city tax on your purchase.Ask around. If you aren’t trying to remain discreet about your cannabis use, your friends and family can be a valuable resource in determining the going rate where you live. If you have friends or family that buy marijuana, ask them the prices they usually pay and where they purchase it and compare it to the other data you collect.No matter the approach you take, identifying marijuana price marks in your area is a great first step to taking educated steps into the cannabis market. There are many different reasons that your local weed prices could vary greatly from what’s listed, but this guideline, along with your own research should help you decide if the price you’re paying is fair.

BennetBidenBloombergBookerBullockButtigiegCastroDelaneyGabbardHarrisKlobucharPatrickSandersSestakSteyerWarrenWilliamsonYangWalshWeldDropped Outde BlasioGillibrandHickenlooperInsleeMessamMoultonOjedaO’RourkeRyanSwalwellSanfordNot RunningAbramsBrownCaseyClintonGarcettiHolderMcAuliffeMerkleyMurphySchultzWinfreyHoganRepublicanThe field of Democratic presidential candidates remains historically large.There are currently 18 people running for the 2020 Democratic nomination. President Trump has picked up a couple of Republican challengers, too. Below, an accounting of who’s in and who’s out.RunningMichael Bennet, 54Senator from ColoradoDemocrat“We cannot be the first generation to leave less to our kids, not more. That's why I'm running for president. Let's build opportunity for every American and restore integrity to our government.”A moderate Democrat known for seeking compromise.Is best known for being a part of the so-called Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group that crafted a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013.Announced in early April that he had prostate cancer, but has since had surgery that his staff called “completely successful.”SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has called for modernizing the economy in fields like artificial intelligence and for increasing infrastructure spending.Joseph R. Biden Jr., 77Former vice president; former senator from DelawareDemocrat“If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”Has run for president twice before.Is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters.Regards 2020 as his last chance to run for president.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Restoring America’s standing on the global stage; strengthening economic protections for low-income workers in industries like manufacturing and fast food.Check out Joe Biden’s candidate profile page »Michael R. Bloomberg, 77Billionaire media executive; former mayor of New York CityDemocrat“Defeating Donald Trump — and rebuilding America — is the most urgent and important fight of our lives. And I’m going all in.”Recently reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy that he pursued for a decade while he was mayor.Has flirted with mounting a bid for president for more than a decade.Re-registered as a Democrat in October, nearly two decades after he left the party to run for mayor as a Republican.Has voiced stark disagreementswith progressives on issues including bank regulation, stop-and-frisk police tactics and the #MeToo movement.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has been an outspoken voice on gun control and climate change, but his views on taxes would put him on the conservative end of the Democratic field.Cory Booker, 50Senator from New Jersey; former mayor of NewarkDemocrat“I believe that we can build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind … where we see the faces of our leaders on television and feel pride, not shame.”One of the most gifted orators in the field, is campaigning on the lofty ideals of love, unity and equality.Has pitched himself as a healerin a political climate dominated by divisiveness.Central to his campaign is combating inequality.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has called for reversing mass incarceration with a sweeping clemency initiative, expanding affordable housing through tax credits and closing the racial wealth gap with his “baby bonds” proposal.Check out Cory Booker’s candidate profile page »Steve Bullock, 53Governor of Montana; former state attorney generalDemocrat“We need to defeat Donald Trump in 2020 and defeat the corrupt system that lets campaign money drown out the people’s voice, so we can finally make good on the promise of fair shot for everyone.”Democratic governor of a state that Mr. Trump easily won in 2016.Known as a pragmatist who was able to win Republican support for liberal priorities.Came out in favor of an assault weapons ban, despite overseeing a state that prizes hunting.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Emphasizes campaign finance reform, while also pushing early childhood education and other policies aimed at reducing economic inequality.Pete Buttigieg, 37Mayor of South Bend, Ind.; military veteranDemocrat“Running for office is an act of hope. You don’t do it unless you think the pulleys and levers of our government can be used and if necessary redesigned to make the life of this nation better for us all.”Youngest candidate in the presidential field, says he would be a bridge to a new era of American politics.Was the first candidate to push the idea of increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court.Has proven to be one of the most formidable fund-raisers in the race, collecting more money in the campaign’s second quarter than anyone else.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has stressed his generational identity and focused on issues like climate change and economic opportunity.Check out Pete Buttigieg’s candidate profile page »Julián Castro, 45Former housing secretary; former mayor of San AntonioDemocrat“I’m running for president because it’s time for new leadership. Because it’s time for new energy.”Was a rising political star during the Obama administration but struggled to find a role afterward.Opted out of challenging Senator Ted Cruz for the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections.Delivered a standout performance in the first debate in June, declaring that the nation would soon say “adiós” to Mr. Trump.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has called for overhauling the immigration system, including decriminalizing border crossings, and education policies like universal pre-kindergarten.Check out Julián Castro’s candidate profile page »John Delaney, 56Former congressman from Maryland; former businessmanDemocrat“I think I’m the right person for the job, but not enough people knew who I was or still know who I am.”Was elected to the House in 2012 as a “pragmatic idealist,” in his telling.Has been running aggressively since 2017.Has visited every county in Iowa, but that hasn’t done much to improve his long-shot prospects.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has pitched himself as a bipartisan problem-solver, but has also endorsed liberal causes like universal health care.Tulsi Gabbard, 38Congresswoman from Hawaii; Army National Guard veteranDemocrat“There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I’m concerned about and that I want to help solve.”Supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries.Has drawn condemnation for meeting with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has been accused of using chemical weapons against civilians.Has apologized for her historyof anti-gay statements and her past work for an anti-gay advocacy group.SIGNATURE ISSUE: Opposition to American military intervention overseas, including in countries like Syria.Check out Tulsi Gabbard’s candidate profile page »Kamala Harris, 55Senator from California; former attorney general of California; former San Francisco district attorneyDemocrat“I believe our country wants and needs some leadership that provides a vision of the country in which everyone could see themselves.”Brings star power and history-making potential to the race that few other Democrats can match.One of the few new Democrats to join the Senate after 2016.Quickly drew notice for her tough questioning of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees — and later, his Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Unveiled middle-class tax cut legislation last fall, and has championed a liberal civil rights agenda in the Senate.Check out Kamala Harris’s candidate profile page »Amy Klobuchar, 59Senator from Minnesota; former Hennepin County, Minn., attorneyDemocrat“It is time to organize, time to galvanize, time to take back our democracy.”Became a hero to many Democrats for her stern, cool questioning of Brett M. Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings.Has called for Democrats to focus on reclaiming the swing states in the middle of the country, pitching herself as a pragmatist who can win there.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has championed legislation to combat the opioid crisis and drug addiction, and to address the cost of prescription drugs.Check out Amy Klobuchar’s candidate profile page »Deval Patrick, 63Former governor of Massachusetts; executive at Bain Capital, the private equity firmDemocrat“This time is about more than removing an unpopular and divisive leader, as important as that is, but about delivering instead for you.”In 2006, became the second elected black governor in United States history.A close friend of former President Barack Obama, has told advisers that he envisions a campaign focused more on bringing people together and healing the country than making a particular ideological case.SIGNATURE ISSUE: As governor, focused on economic development and innovation, and made Massachusetts a hub for life science jobs.Bernie Sanders, 78Senator from Vermont; former congressmanDemocrat“The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that work for all is with a grassroots movement — the likes of which has never been seen in American history.”A self-described democratic socialist, has brought progressive proposals like Medicare for All and tuition-free public college to the forefront of the race.Was the runner-up in the 2016 Democratic primary.SIGNATURE ISSUES: “Medicare for all,” free college tuition and curtailing the influence of “the billionaires.”Check out Bernie Sanders’s candidate profile page »Joe Sestak, 67Former congressman from Pennsylvania; former Navy admiralDemocrat“Our country desperately needs a president with a depth of global experience and an understanding of all the elements of our nation’s power.”Was the highest-ranking military officer ever elected to Congress in 2006.Won a long-shot victory in the 2010 Democratic primary for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania.Delayed his presidential campaign announcement to help his daughter fight brain cancer.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Combating climate change and restoring America’s place in the world.Tom Steyer, 62Billionaire former hedge fund executive; climate change and impeachment activistDemocrat“Americans are deeply disappointed and hurt by the way they’re treated by what they think is the power elite in Washington, D.C.”Reversed a previous decisionnot to enter the race.Started out as an environmental activist before airing millions of dollars in television ads demanding Mr. Trump's impeachment.Has flirted repeatedly with running for statewide office in California.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Fighting climate change, promoting renewable energy and impeaching Mr. Trump.Check out Tom Steyer’s candidate profile page »Elizabeth Warren, 70Senator from Massachusetts; former Harvard professorDemocrat“It’s time for women to go to Washington and fix our broken government, and that includes a woman at the top.”Speaks frequently about the need for “big, structural change.”Has released a wide range of detailed plans that together have the potential to reshape the economy.“I have a plan for that” has become her rallying cry and a T-shirt slogan.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Income inequality and what she sees as a middle class under attack from big corporations and political corruption.Check out Elizabeth Warren’s candidate profile page »Marianne Williamson, 67Self-help author, new age lecturerDemocrat“We need a moral and spiritual awakening in the country. … Nothing short of that is adequate to fundamentally change the patterns of our political dysfunction.”The author of more than a dozen self-help and spirituality books.Ran for Congress as an independent in 2014, and lost.Championed the rights of gay men with AIDS, founding a charity that now supplies meals to people with serious illnesses.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Has proposed $100 billion in reparations for slavery, with $10 billion to be distributed annually over a decade for economic and education projects.Andrew Yang, 44Former tech executive who founded an economic development nonprofitDemocrat“Universal basic income is an old idea, but it’s an old idea that right now is uniquely relevant because of what we’re experiencing in society.”Has based his campaign on a proposal to establish a universal basic income funded by the government.Has drawn media attention for highlighting tech issues like robotics and artificial intelligence.SIGNATURE ISSUE: Establishing a universal basic income of $1,000 per month for all Americans.Check out Andrew Yang’s candidate profile page »Donald J. Trump, 73U.S. president; real estate developer; reality television starRepublican“Considering that we have done more than any administration in the first two years, this should be easy. More great things now in the works!”Main legislative accomplishment as president: a sweeping tax cut that chiefly benefited corporations and wealthy investors.Has focused on undoing the policies of the Obama administration, including on health care, environmental regulation and immigration.Faces multiple serious legal investigations, though the recent report by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, found no evidence he coordinated with Russia’s 2016 election interference.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Restricting immigration and building a wall at the Mexican border; renegotiating or canceling international deals on trade, arms control and climate change; withdrawing American troops from overseas.Joe Walsh, 57Conservative radio show host; former congressman from IllinoisRepublican“We’ve got a guy in the White House who is unfit, completely unfit, to be president and it stuns me that nobody stepped up.”Rode the Tea Party wave to Congress in 2010 and served one term in the House.Staunchly supported Mr. Trump in 2016 “because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” but has since broken with the president.Has called Mr. Obama a “Muslim” and a “traitor,” though he later said he regretted some of those comments.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Reducing the national debt; restraining executive power; securing the border; defeating Mr. Trump, who he says “can’t be trusted.”William F. Weld, 74Former governor of Massachusetts; former federal prosecutorRepublican“I hope to see the Republican Party assume once again the mantle of being the party of Lincoln.”Ran for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2016.Is exploring a primary challenge to Mr. Trump, presenting himself as a voice for alienated moderates and mainstream conservatives.Emerged as a vocal critic of Mr. Trump during the 2016 election, saying his call to deport immigrants evoked Kristallnacht.SIGNATURE ISSUES: Favors fiscal restraint, free trade and moderate immigration reform; has endorsed steps to legalize marijuana.Dropped OutDemocratBill de Blasio, 58Mayor of New York CityAnnounced he was ending his presidential campaign in September after it became clear that he was unlikely to to qualify for the October debate.DemocratKirsten Gillibrand, 52Senator from New York; former congresswomanWithdrew from the presidential race in August, saying that failing to qualify for the September debate was fatal to her candidacy. She said she would continue to champion issues of women’s equality and support women running for Congress.DemocratJohn Hickenlooper, 67Former governor of Colorado; former mayor of DenverAnnounced in August that he was ending his presidential campaignafter months of failing to gain significant traction. He will instead run for the Republican-held Senate seat in Colorado that is up for election in 2020.DemocratJay Inslee, 68Governor of Washington State; former congressmanDropped out of the 2020 race in August, after struggling to earn a place in the September debates. He plans to run for a third term for governor and wants to advise the Democratic field on climate policy.DemocratWayne Messam, 45Mayor of Miramar, Fla.; former college football championDropped out of the race in November after failing to qualify for any of the Democratic debates.DemocratSeth Moulton, 41Congressman from Massachusetts; Iraq War veteranWithdrew from the presidential race in August and said he would run for re-election to the House. He also said he would relaunch his political action committee, Serve America, to promote issues related to veterans and the military.DemocratRichard Ojeda, 49Former West Virginia state senator; military veteranSuspended his short-lived campaign in late January, acknowledging that he did “not have the ability to compete.” At that time, only a handful of candidates had officially entered the race.DemocratBeto O’Rourke, 47Former congressman from Texas; 2018 Senate candidateEnded his campaign in November after struggling for months to recapture the energy of his 2018 Senate candidacy on national stage. He is not expected to run for any other office in 2020.DemocratTim Ryan, 46Congressman from Ohio; former congressional staff memberEnded his campaign in October and said he would run for re-election to his House seat.DemocratEric Swalwell, 39Congressman from CaliforniaAnnounced in July that he was ending his campaign and would seek a fifth term in the House, where he represents Northern California’s East Bay.RepublicanMark Sanford, 59Former congressman from South Carolina, former governor of the stateEnded his long-shot primary challenge to President Trump in November, saying that the impeachment inquiry had made it impossible for his message of fiscal conservatism to break through.Not RunningStacey Abrams, 452018 Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia; former state legislatorDemocrat“I’ve just come to the decision that my best value add, the strongest contribution I can give to this primary, would be to make sure our nominee is coming into an environment where there’s strong voter protections in place.”Sherrod Brown, 67Senator from Ohio; former congressmanDemocrat“I will keep fighting for all workers across the country. And I will do everything I can to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate in 2020. The best place for me to make that fight is in the United States Senate.”Bob Casey, 59Senator from PennsylvaniaDemocrat“I have concluded that the best way for me to fight for America ... is to stay in the U.S. Senate and not run for the presidency in 2020.”Hillary Clinton, 72Former secretary of state; former senator from New York; former first lady; 2016 Democratic presidential nomineeDemocrat“I’m not running. But I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”Eric Garcetti, 48Mayor of Los Angeles; former City Council presidentDemocrat“I am so excited to finish the work that we have begun here in Los Angeles. So I have decided not to throw my hat into the race for president in 2020.”Eric H. Holder Jr., 68Former attorney general; anti-gerrymandering activistDemocrat“Though I will not run for president in 2020, I will continue to fight for the future of our country through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates.”Terry McAuliffe, 62Former governor of Virginia; former chairman of the Democratic National CommitteeDemocrat“I have decided that I can do the most good and affect the most change here at home — working my heart out to elect Democrats in the Commonwealth of Virginia.”Jeff Merkley, 63Senator from Oregon; former speaker of the Oregon House of RepresentativesDemocrat“I’m going to work to fix our broken and dysfunctional Senate so it isn’t just a graveyard for good ideas. To fix America we must fix the Senate.”Christopher S. Murphy, 46Senator from Connecticut; former congressmanDemocrat“Am I ruling it out? Here we go, I’ll rule it out for you.”Howard Schultz, 66Former chief executive of Starbucks; had considered running as an independent“Not enough people today are willing to consider backing an independent candidate because they fear doing so might lead to re-electing a uniquely dangerous incumbent president.”Oprah Winfrey, 65Media mogul; former talk show host; philanthropistDemocrat“I would not be able to do it. It’s not a clean business. It would kill me.”Larry Hogan, 63Governor of MarylandRepublican“I truly appreciate all of the encouragement I received from people around the nation urging me to consider making a run for President in 2020. However, I will not be a candidate.”Additional reporting by Isabella Grullón Paz and Matt Stevens. Additional work by Allison McCann.Site Information Navigation© 2019 The New York Times CompanyContact UsWork with usAdvertiseYour Ad ChoicesPrivacyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapHelpSubscriptionsSubscribe for $1 a week

I just read through some of the answers here and I think that even though many of them don’t directly answer your question (“There are people in the United States who seriously want to abolish public schools. How did this ideology come about?”), they do give a good idea for how the ideology came about: a not-insignificant number of people have been convinced that public schools in general are a failing system that will continue to fail. They point to abysmal statistics, union overreach, and a basic ideological belief that government-supported programs are inherently inefficient as reason to simply scrap the whole thing.So while I think that that answers your question, I feel a need to also respond to those beliefs. Now, based on what I just said, people are probably going to think I’m going to go super-liberal here…but I think it’s way more complex than that and that there are both traditionally liberal and traditionally conservative ideas that would be extremely beneficial.So, first thing: are all public schools in the US so abysmal? If you read some of the other answers, you’d think that they’re all crumbling heaps of rubble with constantly on-strike teachers that just teach from Marx whenever they’re actually in the classroom. So…the simple answer is no. There are many public schools that are doing exactly what the government “tells” them to do and their outcomes are excellent. There are many that are instead doing innovative, different, and experimental things and their outcomes are also excellent. And then there are those that are barely scraping by. But since the results are mixed, scrapping the system seems like quite an overreaction. Based on that, here are a few points to consider with regards to public education:Propaganda: oh wow does this get talked about a lot. These liberal schools are indoctrinating our kids to be socialists! Or something. In actuality, a surprisingly large number of our nation’s textbooks are approved by the conservative-leaning Texas State Board of Education. There are some odd things that get glossed over, ignored, or exaggerated in our books. So maybe it’s the teachers that are liberal? I’d imagine that it’s more common to have sort-of liberal teachers in liberal areas and sort-of conservative teachers in conservative areas. So are our schools actually super liberal? Honestly I’m not entirely sure but I doubt it…that being said, things like basic science knowledge, expertise, and critical thinking skills have recently been portrayed as “liberal” for some reason, in which case you could say that public schools have a liberal bias…but if so, I think that says more negative things about what conservatism has become. It seems to me that anti-public education people that take the propaganda angle seem to think that the federal government provides an extensive list of approved topics and socially and politically acceptable subjects and, I don’t know, somehow monitors this to make sure that schools are complying with their supposedly-liberal agenda? Do people really think that the Department of Education has the resources to do that? And that such policy would survive through administrations that have been conservative or moderately liberal over the past few decades?Funding: public schools in the US are horribly underfunded. I’ve heard that this may be something of a conservative tactic: get elected, reduce funding for a government service, then point to that service’s inability to keep up and declare that it’s proof of government inefficiency. Time to shut it down and privatize! That makes it really hard to tell which government services would actually be better in private hands (and hopefully no one says “all of them”…that’s ideological drivel that has no place in a reasonable discussion at this stage of civilization). Our public school teachers get paid embarrassingly low salaries for the importance of what they do. Talented teachers either have to suck it up for the love of what they do, go into administration, get extra jobs, or teach at private schools for more money (gee, you might even think the system was intentionally off-balance to funnel more talent and resources into private schools…surely no one would have a political motivation to do that).Benchmarking: as I alluded to above, something to ask ourselves is: do all public schools in the world suck? Do all of them in the US suck? Can a kid in an underfunded public school still succeed? The answer to that last one is an emphatic yes…the answer to the other two are emphatic nos. Ideologically driven people tend to point to any failures, exaggerate and magnify them, and use that as evidence that an opposing ideology is false. Spin from there and you’ve got yourself a somewhat convincing- sounding argument. But that’s foolish…I’m sorry (not sorry), but ideologically-driven arguments frustrate the heck out of me because they start with an answer and then build a case for it, usually through cherry-picking. The result is completely unscientific and intellectually dishonest. The far better thing to do is start from outcomes and work backwards. Which schools in the US are doing well? Why? Then follow that up with another why?…and another and another and another. We have fifty different states, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, experimental programs, charter schools, religious schools, homeschooling, private schools…and there are plenty of examples of good outcomes and bad outcomes in all of them. So we should look at the outcomes and figure out what they’re doing right and examine what circumstances may contribute to it. Class size, funding, prevalence of arts, teacher salary, teacher experience, union presence, student socioeconomics, physical status of the building, and so on and so on. And there’s tons of research out there into pedagogy that examines these questions. If people can get out of their ideological holes and listen and ask open-ended questions, they could analyze this stuff with more objectivity. There’s a lot that can be done with our current system, by learning from it and others, that doesn’t require us to go through the massive hurdle of tossing it. This is where I agree with the high-level conservative view: there needs to be freedom for schools to try things out and to have more flexibility on state and local levels…it makes sense to adapt the way schools work to the needs of their individual communities. One community may need a more robust art program to improve…another may need a renovated building…yet another may just need more teachers. But, at the same time, there does need to be expert guidance and suggestions (and some restrictions) from on-high. It’s a balance.Standardized tests: just kill them…get rid of them. There’s too many of them, their usefulness has declined, and at this point it’s just a racketeering operation for the companies that produce them. These tests don’t measure outcomes well enough for the amount of time and effort they suck out of our learning environments. Just use grades. Sure, someone’s B+ in rural Oklahoma might mean something different than someone’s B+ in urban Chicago…but just set out some loose guidelines for general subjects that kids need to learn (according to input from schools, teachers, students, universities, researchers, and industry) and let the schools, teachers, and students fill in the rest.Unions: I’ll be honest: I have mixed feelings about unions that I don’t really need to talk about here. But overall I think that teachers unions are one of the few things keeping teachers from being crushed and ground out by education policies that continually drain their resources in favor of other things. Like most unions, many teachers’ unions probably need some common sense reforms to make sure that they’re both fighting for the rights of their members while also encouraging merit. But I’m not well-read in this area so take this with a substantial grain of salt…I’d recommend looking into this further, making sure to use a variety of sources.Practicality: a lot of our education is based on old-school techniques…and this is true from elementary school up through graduate programs. In these models, students sit in a room and a teacher lectures at them…the students take notes, memorize stuff, barf it back up on a test, and promptly forget most of it. Is it surprising that students aren’t super engaged by that? I’d wager that this could be one of the biggest drivers of low outcomes…if you’re not interested and engaged, why put time and effort into it? And memorization? Seriously? In an age of information where you can look stuff up on your phone at a moment’s notice? It’s far better to learn principles, practice them, and know where to look things up…not to memorize those things. Now, there are plenty of people who will defend these traditional rote memorization methods…but that just doesn’t acknowledge where we are as a society. We need more hands-on, project-based learning. Working as teams, learning by doing, and allowing students to have decision-making power with their projects. It’s closer to what they’ll be doing as adults and prepares them better for life. In addition, we desperately need more practical courses: civics courses that teach kids the importance of civic engagement, their rights, and how to participate in democracy…financial courses on how to save money and create budgets…sex ed courses that teach about actual relationships…digital literacy courses that teach kids how to do research, fact-check, and source-check. These are things that would give them more and better tools to make responsible, well-informed choices.Importance: I’m a huge proponent of education (if you couldn’t tell from this stupidly long answer). If a candidate for political office shows that they’re big on education and will put more resources into smart solutions (and just more resources in general), they frequently get my vote (usually…I’m not a single-issue voter). Education is vitally important. Educated people are healthier, engage in less crime, get better jobs, and the list goes on. It is a huge social benefit to have an educated population…it’s far cheaper to support such a population and such a population is far more productive, making for a richer nation. Tossing our public education system means putting everything into the hands of a smattering of private institutions, religious institutions (and remember, social conservatives, that doesn’t mean just your religion), and individuals. And those individual parents might not have the time or resources to determine the best educational possibilities for their kids. And what if their town only has a triple-voucher School of Fanciful Fancies and a single-voucher Scientology Institute of Learning? A family might not have enough vouchers to send their kids to the former and as for the latter, the family might be Catholic…or Baptist…or Jewish…and don’t want to send their kids to a Scientology school. But they’re out of luck because there are no longer public schools…and since the schools they do have are private, they have essentially no say in what gets taught there unless there are a sufficient number of competing schools. “Just home school them,” you might say…but what if both parents have full time jobs? “Well, just get them a tutor,” you might say…but what if they don’t make enough money for that? Surely they can hire a carpool to drive their kids and others to another school? What if the nearest outside school is an hour away and it’s one of the big network of Socialist Schools of America, where they do actually teach socialist propaganda? Maybe you’ll just have to move to the suburbs to find a school that matches your ideology…it’s too bad there isn’t a structure that enforces some kind of reasonable standards for schools anymore…Profitability: the other factor here is that private schools can be profitable in urban settings…but not so much in rural areas. Any widely-dispersed population is either going to have to drive their kids over very long distances to get to a regional school…or a private school is going to have to subsidize rural schools (not likely, unless they’re forced to) or get government subsidies (seems to violate conservative principles)…or kids in sparsely populated areas just won’t have school…and, again, not all of those rural folks will be able to take time to home school their kids…and might not have the money to hire tutors. One of the functions of government is to handle things that are socially important but not profitable…and education, in many cases, falls into that bucket.Quality: an interesting anecdote: my wife went to a public school that didn’t have a ton of funding and had poor outcomes in general. However, she felt that she had an excellent education from teachers that cared a great deal and were very good at their jobs. She got into an excellent engineering school and has an great job. So what happened? The answer is that she was a self-starter that pursued the opportunities offered and soldiered through traditional education and asked for more. There are many factors that go into getting a good education. Based on this, I think that the biggest challenge is engagement. Engagement requires some level of personal attention, which my wife was able to acquire by performing well and seeking it out. She was also living in an area where education just wasn’t a cultural priority, which suppressed engagement further. Another anecdote: I was part of a program that interviewed minor juvenile crimes; we were given authority to assign courses, community service, etc. to divert kids out of the criminal justice system. What we saw was that many of the kids were bored. Several of them were artistic and creative but didn’t have outlets for it and so they turned to mischief. Many schools have diverted scarce funds away from arts, music, technology, and academics. Some sports get a break because they’re popular and give a few students a chance at getting into college on scholarships. I could talk at length about how I think sports culture in schools has become unhealthy…but that’s not really the issue here…there need to be more opportunities and avenues to get kids interested in school. And that means arts, music, technology, and hands-on academic projects. And those things take money and careful consideration (which also costs money).The Knowledge Economy: ask people what the biggest threat to jobs in the US is and you’ll get a smattering of answers. Is it illegal immigrants? China? Free trade? No, it’s robots. R2-D2 is taking our jobs. Anything that can be automated is being automated. You know the recent tax cut, which mostly benefits corporations and the very rich? Some people think that businesses are going to invest that money by hiring more line workers and assemblers. Definitely not. They’ll invest in automation because corporations aren’t charities. Automation is cheaper. Robots don’t require benefits or vacation time or sick time or unions. What robots don’t have is creativity, critical thinking, and advanced skills. And all of the things that robots don’t have require more education for humans. And even with robots, there are opportunities: people have to design the robots, program them, maintain them, decide on aesthetics for them, come up with sales language for them, direct product strategy with them, and so on. We’re getting to the point where getting anything even close to a decent job straight out of high school will be impossible. You’ll need an Associate’s degree, an apprenticeship, or a Bachelor’s degree to get anywhere…and that’s because we’re transitioning to a knowledge economy instead of an industrial one (as far as people are concerned). It’s not a liberal plot or a shadow government conspiracy…it’s the free market that’s forcing it. And that means that it’s more important than ever to have kids interested in education while also giving them a firm foundation of knowledge and critical thinking. Scatter them out across myriad unregulated shacks, houses, and white-robe compounds of learning and the results will be mixed: businesses will have an even harder time ascertaining whether or not they’re getting qualified people and they may turn towards places that do have well-structured and flexible education systems, encouraging immigration of well-educated foreigners or simply packing up and moving to Canada, Europe, East Asia, India, or somewhere else.Government vs Private Sector: this is a far more general thing but…as I mentioned before, government is good at doing the things that are socially necessary but unprofitable. Having government do something vs having the private sector do it is a trade-off. Conservative orthodoxy would have us believe that it is always always always better to put things in the hands of the private sector (interestingly enough, liberal orthodoxy, such as it is, does not say the opposite). But, generally speaking, if you want things relatively standardized to a high standard, easily available for all, and affordable, have the government do it. It usually happens more slowly and you can’t influence it as directly…and it can be politically influenced (typically through the aforementioned budgetary shenanigans)…but you can use civic engagement to influence changes at almost every level. Now, I think that it’s critical to have education available, affordable, and with high standards across the board. That’s how you ensure equal opportunities and a more merit-based society, which we claim to desire. Now, if you want an abundance of choices and options, a scale of affordability, and quick influence, have the private sector do it. The problem with education in that setting is that we’d be farming it out to a variety of different parties with very limited oversight. And parents, particularly in low income and/or rural areas, would have fewer, lower quality choices and might not have the time or resources to pick properly. They’re also going to be paying extra to cover profits, something that you don’t do when paying taxes (you might pay extra for corruption, but the US has very very good ratings for corruption prevention). Leaving schools entirely to the private sector could widen income and achievement gaps, something that would strip away a big chunk of meritocracy from our society. Simply put, education and the economy would become pay to play since education is only going to become more important as time goes on. What’s to stop sham schools from taking advantage of low-income or low-attention families, taking vouchers and providing little in the way of quality education…while elite schools accept vouchers and require additional tuition and attract the best and brightest teachers with high pay and benefits? You can imagine what that divide would look like. And to try to make it more fair and balanced? The regulatory burden of handling all of those myriad private institutions could be much higher than what we do now with public schools…you might end up paying more in taxes than before to cover more bureaucracy in addition to corporate profits!So, put as briefly as I can: most of the problems with public schools come from a combination of under-funding and lack of flexibility.My solutions are:Increase education funding on the federal and state levels. Just do it. With this alone, I think we’d start seeing benefits within a few years, which would then accelerate further as more and more kids go through a well-funded system. As with any funding increase, it has to be a smart funding increase:Pay teachers more: more talented people will become teachers, stay in teaching, and stay at public schools.Provide individual schools with more money: they can update their technology, their infrastructure, and keep their supplies fresh (in many schools, parents and teachers have to purchase supplies). Not only that, but they’ll be able to get supplies for project-based academic work and more art, music, theater, science, and sport supplies (other than just football…). They will have to account for what they spend their money on and, as mentioned below, communicate results.Benchmark the heck out of every single school we can look at…from Oregon to Kansas to Germany to Korea…look at outcomes, interview students, talk to teachers, talk to parents…get as much information as possible streaming into the Department of Education and share all of it with the states and their schools. Get the smart people in the Department to come up with generalized guidelines and suggestions based on what they’re learning. Monitor our schools carefully as these things get experimented with. It’ll be expensive, but we can afford it…we almost can’t afford not to make these kinds of improvements.Provide individual schools with more flexibility and independence to implement suggestions they get from above as well as ideas that they come up with locally. Require them to report what they do and how it’s going so that, if it’s successful, it can be shared. And if a school’s in trouble, aid it, don’t punish it.Empower students and teachers. Kids are smart…and they aren’t burdened with as many preconceptions and cultural baggage as adults. They have good ideas and can effectively evaluate their teachers and schools; we should listen to them. And with teachers, we should involve them at all levels of these decisions…they’re the ones who have to implement this stuff so their input is crucial.Make community college and trade schools free or super cheap; our taxes would go up a bit (well, I know mine would) but this could provide a much wider avenue for talented people to get the education they need to get good jobs…and then they make more money…so they buy more stuff…which increases economic activity. We could even flirt with the idea of making public universities free (or subsidizing the cost further).The only reason to kill the public school system rather than do some or all of the above is if we didn’t want educated, engaged citizens with critical thinking skills (hmm)…or if we really wanted to decentralize schools to the extent that each little corner of society could indoctrinate their kids in their chosen ideology (remember that when dealing with the commune kids who go to the Hippie School trying to “educate” your kids in philosophies of free love…and the kids from the Atheist Academy putting Flying Spaghetti Monster flyers all over the neighborhood…and the kids from the Free Work School asking your kids if they met their t-shirt or shoe manufacturing quotas in school for the day (explaining that one would be uncomfortable)).