PDA

View Full Version : American Jobs Act


rockdawg21
09-09-2011, 12:51 AM
Not an Obama fan, but I enjoyed his speech about the American Jobs Act. Not sure how many credit cards it will take to cover the proposed $447 billion, but I fully support tax incentives for companies who hire, rebuilding our schools, rebuilding our bridges/roads, preventing teacher layoffs, add'l tax benefits for businesses, and increasing taxes on the super-rich (when a CEO makes 270:1 vs. their workers, somebody is making way too much money and underpaying hard-working people).

Also, nice to actually see him sporting a serious face instead of that ****-eating grin he normally sports. Good stuff Mr. President, good stuff.

The one fault I see is that companies hiring for tax incentives outweighs the cost of the tax incentive unless business can be generated.

Chris F
09-09-2011, 08:20 AM
The problem is 85% of it is unconstitutional. The federal government has no legal right to fund schools etc etc. Their job is to build interstates, national defense. So it is a bad bill and I would vote NO in a heart beat if I was an elected official.

Tyburn
09-09-2011, 01:40 PM
The problem is 85% of it is unconstitutional. The federal government has no legal right to fund schools etc etc. Their job is to build interstates, national defense. So it is a bad bill and I would vote NO in a heart beat if I was an elected official.

Its not unconstitutional for the Federal Government to award Commendations to Businesses who do something to promote their State. The Federal Government is sponcering something within the State to rebuild the state. Thats not the same as the Federal Government creating schools.

Its simply supplying a reward system to the locals to build their own, and presumably to then fund it long term on their own. At least thats how I understood it.

If your State Governments are not good enough to do this sort of thing themselves I'm afraid it falls to the Federal Government to sort it out. The State Governments need to be capable before they take back and excercise full consitutional freedoms...because from what I understand, they have brought this on themselves by becoming to politically subordinate and are now powerless and financially unable to do it themselves.

Schemes like this...or as close to this, should already have been considered and trialed at a State level, initiated by State representatives...if it hasnt, you cant blame Washington for doing it on a national level. At the end of the day whilst your state is in a Union, the Union will always come first, and always be in a position to over-ride...if you dont remain nigh on militant, then you...effectively, become nothing more then a local office of a national administration...and technically speaking...State Governments ARE NOT supposed to be mere extentions of Federal Government...they are supposed to be self regulating, and self governing, and self reliant to as much of a degree as membership of the Union will allow.

Or...they want to quit...and understand, from Washingtons point of view, what True Soverignty means...because Ultimately, its the Federal Government that bears the responsibility...a responsibility that any departing State would suddenly realize...along with all the citizens therein contained :)

Chris F
09-09-2011, 07:27 PM
Its not unconstitutional for the Federal Government to award Commendations to Businesses who do something to promote their State. The Federal Government is sponcering something within the State to rebuild the state. Thats not the same as the Federal Government creating schools.

Its simply supplying a reward system to the locals to build their own, and presumably to then fund it long term on their own. At least thats how I understood it.

If your State Governments are not good enough to do this sort of thing themselves I'm afraid it falls to the Federal Government to sort it out. The State Governments need to be capable before they take back and excercise full consitutional freedoms...because from what I understand, they have brought this on themselves by becoming to politically subordinate and are now powerless and financially unable to do it themselves.

Schemes like this...or as close to this, should already have been considered and trialed at a State level, initiated by State representatives...if it hasnt, you cant blame Washington for doing it on a national level. At the end of the day whilst your state is in a Union, the Union will always come first, and always be in a position to over-ride...if you dont remain nigh on militant, then you...effectively, become nothing more then a local office of a national administration...and technically speaking...State Governments ARE NOT supposed to be mere extentions of Federal Government...they are supposed to be self regulating, and self governing, and self reliant to as much of a degree as membership of the Union will allow.

Or...they want to quit...and understand, from Washingtons point of view, what True Soverignty means...because Ultimately, its the Federal Government that bears the responsibility...a responsibility that any departing State would suddenly realize...along with all the citizens therein contained :)
With all due respect Dave you aint got a clue on what you are talking about. The US Constitution is not anything like yours and the fact is the feds cannot do what they are doing. Even in Obama's speech he mentioned the fact what they were doing was unconstitutional. He went so far as to call it a "rigid idea about what government could or could not do". We are a republic and the 10th amend still says any law not specified in teh constitution is reserved for the states. Since the only thing specified in the constitution is national defense and trade and commerce with other nations and treaties and infrastructure (roads and such) than it is up to the states. I do not have the time nor the desire to educate you on basic high school American civics. They get away with what they are doing because most Americans are mindless zombies wanting to collect a check from the Uncle Sam and will be happy to sell their freedom for that check.

Tyburn
09-09-2011, 09:39 PM
the only thing specified in the constitution is national defense and trade and commerce with other nations and treaties and infrastructure (roads and such) than it is up to the states.

How can that be true? that would leave Congress unable to pass any Acts of Law over any of the States.

Because the above says that the Federal Government is not really a Government, but a collective representation of Each State to the rest of the World.

...with the exception of public transport.

If that was True then how does the Supreme Court Govern? That list includes nothing on crime and punishment...therefore presumably thats entirely State Driven...therefore the Supreme Court would ONLY be an Appeals Court! Is it only an Appeals Court???

The above also does NOT say that States need to contribute financially on a Union level...nor does it give the Federal Government the right to demand anything.

If what your saying is wholly true then Each State should be completely Soverign...AS Soverign as Europe is now. Are you SURE your Federal Government was only supposed to be a looose association of soverign countries???

I thought it was pretty much created...I mean if you look at the history, Union Membership is aspired to the second a piece of land is "annexed" It would seem like the individual States formed specifically so they could become a Union...never conceiving long term self sufficiency...with the exception of Texas....and...Hawaii....and probably Alaska due to geography.

Sorry you dont feel it important to talk to me about this. I listened to some of his ramble about the Jobs Act...I didnt listen to it all, coz he went on, and on, and on, and on...and I got bored :unsure-1: So I just told you what I understood of it...it sounds like you might be polar extremes...I dont understand why if what you say is wholly true, the State Governments dont exercise their powers...citizens might be fooled...but politicians in State Governments shouldnt have that excuse...and I cant understand why they would wanted to denude themselves of their powers...unless never had what you make out they did.:unsure-1:

sorry for being dumb on the subject :sad: Sometimes I think maybe I should not bother to give my opinion or try and understand coz at the heart of it you Americans are actually quite insular. As per usual, I'm an outsider to be dumped when things get serious :cry:

Play The Man
09-09-2011, 10:07 PM
Tyburn, I think it is admirable that you have the intellectual curiosity to try to understand our form of government. I don't know why Chris F responded to you with that tone.

Hillsdale College is offering a free "Introduction to the Constitution" internet course. It starts in a few days. Here is a link with information and a registration page for this free course: http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/page.aspx?pid=474&utm_source=rushforhillsdale.com&utm_medium=redirect

rockdawg21
09-09-2011, 10:46 PM
Chris, some of the money that goes to schools is from state and local tax revenues, but the Federal government has been funding public education for decades. The NCLB Act of 2001 for example was another amendment of the Improving America's Schools act of 1994 which was another amendment of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 which was an amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The ESEA Act of 1965 created the following:

Title I—Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families
Title II—School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials
Title III—Supplementary Educational Centers and Services
Title IV—Educational Research And Training
Title V—Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education
Title VI—General Provisions

Since then, they have gone all the way up to Title X via the NCLB.

Federal education funds are distributed to the SEA (State Education Agency), then to the LEA (Local Education Agency - I.E. "School District"), then to the schools themselves. At least 90% of all funds are spent at the school level. The SEA and LEA can choose to hold back up to 5% of the funds distributed to them (depending on the specifics of the text within each provision). The NCLB is huge and crazy, but there's quite a bit of logic to it when you get into the nitty gritty of it.

Obama has already created a blueprint for the next act and the funding allocated for the programs is somewhat strange, but his requests for FY 2012 are much higher than they have been in the past with regards to education. Where he plans to get the money for this, I have no idea.

Without this Federal funding that has been supporting schools for years, it's likely we would have either been paying for private schools or had a lesser/no education because the entire purpose of the ESEA Act "bill aims to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing each child with fair and equal opportunities to achieve an exceptional education". Basically, equal education rights for all American citizens came directly as a result of this act. This of course is debatable, but it does provide free elementary and secondary education for all of us.

I keep a close eye on this stuff because I sell library books for a living, so education budgets, where they've been and where they're going are always of interest to me.

flo
09-09-2011, 10:48 PM
Tyburn, I think it is admirable that you have the intellectual curiosity to try to understand our form of government. I don't know why Chris F responded to you with that tone.



Yeah, what's up with that, Chris?

Hillsdale College is offering a free "Introduction to the Constitution" internet course. It starts in a few days. Here is a link with information and a registration page for this free course: http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/page.aspx?pid=474&utm_source=rushforhillsdale.com&utm_medium=redirect

I heard about that this morning when I was listening to Steyn *swoon* and thought it sounded very worthwhile.

flo
09-09-2011, 10:57 PM
BTW, here is a synopsis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sktAEh2Syfs) of his fabulous campaign speech, er...jobs plan for any who may have missed it.

Play The Man
09-09-2011, 11:03 PM
I heard about that this morning when I was listening to Steyn *swoon* and thought it sounded very worthwhile.

I stayed up until 12:30 A.M. last night reading After America. I almost finished (page 332, less than 20 pages left) but fell asleep. It is quite depressing. Should I get a prescription for Zoloft or Prozac?:scratchchin:

flo
09-09-2011, 11:12 PM
I stayed up until 12:30 A.M. last night reading After America. I almost finished (page 332, less than 20 pages left) but fell asleep. It is quite depressing. Should I get a prescription for Zoloft or Prozac?:scratchchin:

I haven't started it yet, PTM, but I knew it was fairly gloomy.

Tyburn
09-09-2011, 11:56 PM
Tyburn, I think it is admirable that you have the intellectual curiosity to try to understand our form of government. I don't know why Chris F responded to you with that tone.

Hillsdale College is offering a free "Introduction to the Constitution" internet course. It starts in a few days. Here is a link with information and a registration page for this free course: http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/page.aspx?pid=474&utm_source=rushforhillsdale.com&utm_medium=redirect

If its free I am going to do it! :w00t: Thanks :ashamed:

Tyburn
09-10-2011, 12:00 AM
I stayed up until 12:30 A.M. last night reading After America. I almost finished (page 332, less than 20 pages left) but fell asleep. It is quite depressing. Should I get a prescription for Zoloft or Prozac?:scratchchin:

The negative side effects are less for some drugs in the prozac family.

I know WAY too much about Zoloft...most people who try that drug cant stick the side effects...you have about 6 weeks to 2 months of chronic side effects BEFORE you see any mood enhancement.

However...the added bonus of Zoloft is that its eqaully anti anxiety...

soooo...if your just depressed about America...Prozac...if you are depressed AND now Skeeeeered...Zoloft

I first started on Sertraline December 5th 2003....:unsure-1:

Chris F
09-10-2011, 08:20 AM
How can that be true? that would leave Congress unable to pass any Acts of Law over any of the States.

Because the above says that the Federal Government is not really a Government, but a collective representation of Each State to the rest of the World.

...with the exception of public transport.

If that was True then how does the Supreme Court Govern? That list includes nothing on crime and punishment...therefore presumably thats entirely State Driven...therefore the Supreme Court would ONLY be an Appeals Court! Is it only an Appeals Court???

The above also does NOT say that States need to contribute financially on a Union level...nor does it give the Federal Government the right to demand anything.

If what your saying is wholly true then Each State should be completely Soverign...AS Soverign as Europe is now. Are you SURE your Federal Government was only supposed to be a looose association of soverign countries???

I thought it was pretty much created...I mean if you look at the history, Union Membership is aspired to the second a piece of land is "annexed" It would seem like the individual States formed specifically so they could become a Union...never conceiving long term self sufficiency...with the exception of Texas....and...Hawaii....and probably Alaska due to geography.

Sorry you dont feel it important to talk to me about this. I listened to some of his ramble about the Jobs Act...I didnt listen to it all, coz he went on, and on, and on, and on...and I got bored :unsure-1: So I just told you what I understood of it...it sounds like you might be polar extremes...I dont understand why if what you say is wholly true, the State Governments dont exercise their powers...citizens might be fooled...but politicians in State Governments shouldnt have that excuse...and I cant understand why they would wanted to denude themselves of their powers...unless never had what you make out they did.:unsure-1:

sorry for being dumb on the subject :sad: Sometimes I think maybe I should not bother to give my opinion or try and understand coz at the heart of it you Americans are actually quite insular. As per usual, I'm an outsider to be dumped when things get serious :cry:

That is Okay Dave. For years we as a country have ignored our own form of government. :laugh: The feds as intended by the constitution were not suppose to make laws that force a state to d something nationally. Each state is suppose to be a sovereign body. Sadly we are a mere shell of that. The real reason behind the "Civil War" was the power of the feds ve the power of the states. So since 1861 we have stppoed being the USA and have instead became a nanny state

Chris F
09-10-2011, 08:23 AM
Chris, some of the money that goes to schools is from state and local tax revenues, but the Federal government has been funding public education for decades. The NCLB Act of 2001 for example was another amendment of the Improving America's Schools act of 1994 which was another amendment of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 which was an amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The ESEA Act of 1965 created the following:

Title I—Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families
Title II—School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials
Title III—Supplementary Educational Centers and Services
Title IV—Educational Research And Training
Title V—Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education
Title VI—General Provisions

Since then, they have gone all the way up to Title X via the NCLB.

Federal education funds are distributed to the SEA (State Education Agency), then to the LEA (Local Education Agency - I.E. "School District"), then to the schools themselves. At least 90% of all funds are spent at the school level. The SEA and LEA can choose to hold back up to 5% of the funds distributed to them (depending on the specifics of the text within each provision). The NCLB is huge and crazy, but there's quite a bit of logic to it when you get into the nitty gritty of it.

Obama has already created a blueprint for the next act and the funding allocated for the programs is somewhat strange, but his requests for FY 2012 are much higher than they have been in the past with regards to education. Where he plans to get the money for this, I have no idea.

Without this Federal funding that has been supporting schools for years, it's likely we would have either been paying for private schools or had a lesser/no education because the entire purpose of the ESEA Act "bill aims to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing each child with fair and equal opportunities to achieve an exceptional education". Basically, equal education rights for all American citizens came directly as a result of this act. This of course is debatable, but it does provide free elementary and secondary education for all of us.

I keep a close eye on this stuff because I sell library books for a living, so education budgets, where they've been and where they're going are always of interest to me.

Exactly the fed have put their nose in it since Jimmy Carter started the dept of ed in the 60's and ever since then our nations test scores and status in the world has went down the crapper. The feds have no constitutional right doing anything outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I am open to see where in the Constitution you think they do have the right. I am curious.

Chris F
09-10-2011, 08:26 AM
Yeah, what's up with that, Chris?



I heard about that this morning when I was listening to Steyn *swoon* and thought it sounded very worthwhile.

I said "with all due respect" I did not know it was a bad tone. Typically I respond with a lot more venom than that. I knew Dave was making sincere inquires this is why I tried to be nicer. I teach Government in college once and in while and 90% or more do not even know we are a republic. It is sad.

flo
09-10-2011, 05:27 PM
I teach Government in college once and in while and 90% or more do not even know we are a republic. It is sad.

Yes, it is. I knew we were a republic but I hadn't read the declaration and constitution until a couple years ago (I have a little pocket edition).

I didn't know you were a teacher, that's super.

Tyburn
09-10-2011, 06:14 PM
: The feds as intended by the constitution were not suppose to make laws that force a state to d something nationally.

I had no idea about that

I assumed that each state was a soverign body within its own boarders...but that because each State is Unionized, the Union where possible would obviously create nationwide laws which would supercede States...hence why Congress have any power...all the States decide on a national, cross states acts. But I thought the power lies with those Representatives of each State.

Now in Europe, the Minister of The European Parliament, has about as much clout as an Ambassidor...because his Role there is to specifically represent his version of the British view...the European Parliament is seen as a battle of the Soverignties...and whatever rules they make, the State within reason can tell them to bog off!

Therefore the power brokers are in the Governments of each country NOT in the European Parliament. I had no idea that The United States was supposed to be THAT looose. I mean...We dont think of Europe as a Federal State...but your founding Fathers would recognise it as exactly that...because it sounds to me that your telling me each State is an independant Country, and that those Representatives are supposed to be bartering on behalf of their State...NOT working as a Collective, which is what they seem to be doing.

We dont see ourselves as an extention of Brussels...but I suspect a lot of your State Governments see themselves as the local office of the Federal Government...and THATS the unconstitutional bit...if I understand you correctly.

I still dont understand what stops them from taking power back and asserting authority. Do they not realize they have power in their own right?? I suppose if they assumed they were representating the Federal Government, rather then Representing TO the Federal Government...they would see no difference between their own Governing, and the Federal. Making them...basically Glorified Councils rather then Governments. In essence they are making themselves "local Government" and considering themselves collectively as "national Government" when they should consider themselves as "National Government" and the Federal Government should honnestly be thought of as international...because if each State is completely Soverign. (minus the roads and defence) then America shouldnt be thought of as a Country, but an International Conglomeration of American Independants.

I tell you...if this ideal of America ever reasserted...the President, Congress, and Senate would suddenly be mightly powerLESS :laugh:

Chris F
09-10-2011, 07:36 PM
I had no idea about that

I assumed that each state was a soverign body within its own boarders...but that because each State is Unionized, the Union where possible would obviously create nationwide laws which would supercede States...hence why Congress have any power...all the States decide on a national, cross states acts. But I thought the power lies with those Representatives of each State.

Now in Europe, the Minister of The European Parliament, has about as much clout as an Ambassidor...because his Role there is to specifically represent his version of the British view...the European Parliament is seen as a battle of the Soverignties...and whatever rules they make, the State within reason can tell them to bog off!

Therefore the power brokers are in the Governments of each country NOT in the European Parliament. I had no idea that The United States was supposed to be THAT looose. I mean...We dont think of Europe as a Federal State...but your founding Fathers would recognise it as exactly that...because it sounds to me that your telling me each State is an independant Country, and that those Representatives are supposed to be bartering on behalf of their State...NOT working as a Collective, which is what they seem to be doing.

We dont see ourselves as an extention of Brussels...but I suspect a lot of your State Governments see themselves as the local office of the Federal Government...and THATS the unconstitutional bit...if I understand you correctly.

I still dont understand what stops them from taking power back and asserting authority. Do they not realize they have power in their own right?? I suppose if they assumed they were representating the Federal Government, rather then Representing TO the Federal Government...they would see no difference between their own Governing, and the Federal. Making them...basically Glorified Councils rather then Governments. In essence they are making themselves "local Government" and considering themselves collectively as "national Government" when they should consider themselves as "National Government" and the Federal Government should honnestly be thought of as international...because if each State is completely Soverign. (minus the roads and defence) then America shouldnt be thought of as a Country, but an International Conglomeration of American Independants.

I tell you...if this ideal of America ever reasserted...the President, Congress, and Senate would suddenly be mightly powerLESS :laugh:

The way it was intended was each state made laws and as you said they were to be for the states border. Federal laws which do supercede states would have to be in line wiht the powers it is deleagted by the US COnstitution or the people (amendment change or by US senator who used to be elected by state legislatures not popular vote) Those laws typicall were for interstate commerce, interstate trade (this is why one state DL can work if you are driving in another state) But what is not suppose to happen is things like Education laws, drug laws, abortion laws. Crime is national thus the reason search and seizure laws are in their. Speech and religion etc are national so thus the reason the 1 st is there. But anything not mentioned in the constitution specifically is reserved for the states (10th amendment) So education laws are not there, drugs use is not in there, abortion is not in there, up until FDR federal taxation was not in there. If the feds could make laws that force every state to act one way there would have been no need to pass an amendment for Prohibition in the 20's all they would have had to do is pass a law like they did for pot and crack etc etc. But they did because the fed could not legislate states. Even at that time several states already had prohibition laws. In fact even today some counties have prohibition laws in their counties or in some cases one day a week etc etc.

Hope this helps a little. There is a lot to absorb. But what you see in America today is not how the country was founded. The founding fathers feared a large central government. Sadly we have devolved to being that.

Tyburn
09-10-2011, 07:48 PM
The way it was intended was each state made laws and as you said they were to be for the states border. Federal laws which do supercede states would have to be in line wiht the powers it is deleagted by the US COnstitution or the people (amendment change or by US senator who used to be elected by state legislatures not popular vote) Those laws typicall were for interstate commerce, interstate trade (this is why one state DL can work if you are driving in another state) But what is not suppose to happen is things like Education laws, drug laws, abortion laws. Crime is national thus the reason search and seizure laws are in their. Speech and religion etc are national so thus the reason the 1 st is there. But anything not mentioned in the constitution specifically is reserved for the states (10th amendment) So education laws are not there, drugs use is not in there, abortion is not in there, up until FDR federal taxation was not in there. If the feds could make laws that force every state to act one way there would have been no need to pass an amendment for Prohibition in the 20's all they would have had to do is pass a law like they did for pot and crack etc etc. But they did because the fed could not legislate states. Even at that time several states already had prohibition laws. In fact even today some counties have prohibition laws in their counties or in some cases one day a week etc etc.

Hope this helps a little. There is a lot to absorb. But what you see in America today is not how the country was founded. The founding fathers feared a large central government. Sadly we have devolved to being that.

Tell me...if the constitution was perfect...why would it need ammendments...and...can they still ammend it today?

I mean...what body can ammend it? surely only the Federal Government...but they should not be touching it...because the whole idea of it, is to keep the Federal Government small and confined...as soon as the Federal Government can change the constitution...well...it defeats the object.

So...I am not certain about these "ammendments" not certain of their legitamacy, not in favour of anyone having the ability to do that....I mean look at the House of Lords

Originally the House of Lords was a completely independant body of citizens who were important historcially, unchanging, unellected. They had to approve anything passed by the Commons for law.

What did the Commons do? it decided to "reform" the House of Lords...kicked out most of the oldies...and allowed successive Governments to appoint members to the House...so what did each Government do?? well appoint people who they knew would approve their policies...thus...what the •••• is the point of having an independant house to stop an ellected dictatorship from doing whatever it wants?

So now they dont usually have to worry, because at the start of each new Government, the House begins to fill with the appropriate political peers, and bobs ya bumcheek! all their laws, approved by their own hand selected Lords.

Checks and Ballences...Commons and Lords...have become Commons, and Commons mark Two.

You dont want your Federal Government to be allowed to touch the constitution or they will change it in their favour....What? Not allowed to make State Policy on Education...I know, Mr President...why not write a new ammendment, saying Federal Government allowed to make State policy on Education....and suddenly...the consitution is not what it was :unsure-1:

To have stuck by an unshifting constitution for nearly three and a half centuries has never truely been done before...do you realize that?

Chris F
09-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Tell me...if the constitution was perfect...why would it need ammendments...and...can they still ammend it today?

I mean...what body can ammend it? surely only the Federal Government...but they should not be touching it...because the whole idea of it, is to keep the Federal Government small and confined...as soon as the Federal Government can change the constitution...well...it defeats the object.

So...I am not certain about these "ammendments" not certain of their legitamacy, not in favour of anyone having the ability to do that....I mean look at the House of Lords

Originally the House of Lords was a completely independant body of citizens who were important historcially, unchanging, unellected. They had to approve anything passed by the Commons for law.

What did the Commons do? it decided to "reform" the House of Lords...kicked out most of the oldies...and allowed successive Governments to appoint members to the House...so what did each Government do?? well appoint people who they knew would approve their policies...thus...what the •••• is the point of having an independant house to stop an ellected dictatorship from doing whatever it wants?

So now they dont usually have to worry, because at the start of each new Government, the House begins to fill with the appropriate political peers, and bobs ya bumcheek! all their laws, approved by their own hand selected Lords.

Checks and Ballences...Commons and Lords...have become Commons, and Commons mark Two.

You dont want your Federal Government to be allowed to touch the constitution or they will change it in their favour....What? Not allowed to make State Policy on Education...I know, Mr President...why not write a new ammendment, saying Federal Government allowed to make State policy on Education....and suddenly...the consitution is not what it was :unsure-1:

To have stuck by an unshifting constitution for nearly three and a half centuries has never truely been done before...do you realize that?

Because nothing is perfect. They new society would change and new issues would arrise. This is why they put into the constitution the ability to ammend. People like Madison and Jefferson thought it was perfect as is and if the the Federalist would stop trying to make a central gov it would be great. The federalist like (Adams, John Jay, Hamilton) thought one day they might need to adapt it. There plan was to later introduce the federal reserve and some other things. This is why Adams and Jefferson never got along very well. They were on 2 ends of the spectrum. That split is alive even today. The North wants the GOV to run everyones lives, the South wants people to mind their own business and come together when someone threatens us.

So is it perfect? As it is today no way. We should not have federal taxes. We should not let the popular vote decide senators that way lobbyist cannot buy them off. Should we go back to states running their own gov YES!!!

Tyburn
09-10-2011, 09:11 PM
they put into the constitution the ability to ammend. !

:scared0015: Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined :huh:

rockdawg21
09-11-2011, 12:24 AM
Exactly the fed have put their nose in it since Jimmy Carter started the dept of ed in the 60's and ever since then our nations test scores and status in the world has went down the crapper. The feds have no constitutional right doing anything outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I am open to see where in the Constitution you think they do have the right. I am curious.
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.

NateR
09-11-2011, 02:29 AM
:scared0015: Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined :huh:

I don't think the President is even directly involved in the Constitutional amendment process. Which is a good thing no matter which side of the political fence we sit on.

From http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm

How to Amend the Constitution

Article V of the Constitution outlines how to amend (modify) the document. It consists of two steps: proposal and ratification.

1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.

• Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Is there a timeline for ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Chris F
09-11-2011, 07:47 AM
:scared0015: Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined :huh:

no it would have to pass a majority of both house and senate and be a majority of states

Chris F
09-11-2011, 07:56 AM
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?No they do not have to take and in fact some states even refuse. Alsaka has refused GOV money and Florida reject some GOV money when Obama did his last stimulus. What makes it wrong is it is unconstitutional and it is called socialism. If you want to live in a welfare state and have your pay check pillaged than by all means enjoy the status quo

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.Nol the fed do not have the constitutional auhority to give money to anyone. This is a new idea that was birthed in 1865 during hte reconstruction and then really got out of hand with the New Deal. But if we were to act as the republic we were founded the answer is no way

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.

answers above in red

NateR
09-11-2011, 02:23 PM
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.

The biggest problem is that if the states refuse to accept the money, it's not like it gets refunded back to the taxpayers. That money gets funneled into some other project.

The federal government has no business funding public schools. The best evidence is the Department of Education's track record since its founding in 1979. Have public schools across the country improved in the last 32 years? No, in fact, things have gotten dramatically worse in our schools and they continue to get worse every year.

Our federal government is clearly incompetent when it comes to handling our public schools, thus they need to be permanently relieved of the responsibility.

It's just common sense. Let's say you hire a private tutor for your child because he is B-/C average student and you would like to get his GPA raised up some so he can get into a good college. After the first semester with this new tutor, your son's grades are now in the C- and D range. By the end of the first year, he's failing every course and has to repeat that grade. So, what would your conclusion be? Well, if you're the average American taxpayer, then I guess your conclusion would be to just sit back and do nothing, hoping that the situation improves by itself. If you are a Liberal then your conclusion would be that you're not paying your son's tutor enough money. So you need to give her a raise in order for her to start actually teaching your son.

Of course, common sense would tell any parent that the tutor is incompetent and she's actually making things worse; so they would fire the tutor and work to undo the damage. So, why would the situation with our federal government be any different?

Tyburn
09-11-2011, 03:15 PM
I don't think the President is even directly involved in the Constitutional amendment process. Which is a good thing no matter which side of the political fence we sit on.

From http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm

Yes...thats a good thing...infact the way its written...its a completely A-Political process...you'd either have to have one of the Parties so dominant as to have a single party Government...or you wouldnt get the changes aggreed by like three quarters of the entire Legal and Judicial politicians of Fifty one different Soverignties in less then a decade.

I am pleased with this...because...it basically means that although you can change it...in this day and age...you realistically dont stand a chance :laugh:

Tyburn
09-11-2011, 03:19 PM
Our federal government is clearly incompetent when it comes to handling our public schools, thus they need to be permanently relieved of the responsibility.



Of course, common sense would tell any parent that the tutor is incompetent and she's actually making things worse; so they would fire the tutor and work to undo the damage.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

if the stats are right I aggree with you...its just a very Military Minded way of dealing with incompetance :laugh::laugh: I hope you apply that to every single person and structure and institution, regardless of political set up though.. Infact its something that ought maybe applied to all situations, even non political ones like in your generic example :)

Supposing its got nothing to do with the government...supposing its a matter of entropy and the younger people are actually more dumb then before? I'm not saying thats true...but a project failing isnt always the fault of the administration running it.

NateR
09-11-2011, 05:53 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

if the stats are right I aggree with you...its just a very Military Minded way of dealing with incompetance :laugh::laugh: I hope you apply that to every single person and structure and institution, regardless of political set up though.. Infact its something that ought maybe applied to all situations, even non political ones like in your generic example :)

Supposing its got nothing to do with the government...supposing its a matter of entropy and the younger people are actually more dumb then before? I'm not saying thats true...but a project failing isnt always the fault of the administration running it.

Well, I do agree that each successive generation of humanity is getting stupider and more intellectually incompetent, but that should be able to be measured as a slow, steady decline. Not the downhill rocket-slide that it's been in this country for the last 3 decades.

I know people will also complain that we're just not putting enough money into public schools and (the favorite mantra) if we dedicated as much money to education that we do to national defense, then all of our education problems would be solved. Well, first of all, we now spend 4 times more on education in this country than we did in the 200 years prior to 1979 and our country's education system is failing faster than ever. So, money is not the problem.

Secondly, the national defense comparison is ridiculous because we NEED to spend money on national defense. Today of all days should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Here are some stats showing just how poor the US public education system really is:
Source: http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp#educationstatistics

44 million adults in the U.S. can't read well enough to read a simple story to a child.

Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.

21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas.

46% of American adults cannot understand the label on their prescription medicine.

Forty-four percent of American 4th grade students cannot read fluently, even when they read grade-level stories aloud under supportive testing conditions.

50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.

According to the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37 percent of fourth graders and 26 percent of eighth graders cannot read at the basic level; and on the 2002 NAEP 26 percent of twelfth graders cannot read at the basic level. That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read.

Tyburn
09-11-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, I do agree that each successive generation of humanity is getting stupider and more intellectually incompetent, but that should be able to be measured as a slow, steady decline. Not the downhill rocket-slide that it's been in this country for the last 3 decades.

I know people will also complain that we're just not putting enough money into public schools and (the favorite mantra) if we dedicated as much money to education that we do to national defense, then all of our education problems would be solved. Well, first of all, we now spend 4 times more on education in this country than we did in the 200 years prior to 1979 and our country's education system is failing faster than ever. So, money is not the problem.

Secondly, the national defense comparison is ridiculous because we NEED to spend money on national defense. Today of all days should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

.

Oh I aggree with you about spending priorities...infact...constitutionally speaking, that probably about all besides the roads, the Federal Government SHOULD be spending on :blink:

I just think that sometimes its easy to blame an administration for a decline...whatever that administration maybe...and however circumstances may have undermined them to cause the decline, in whatever...education...Health...attendance.

There is always work to be done on promotion...but sometimes its easy to blame the few in charge for the state of play...and sometimes they are only a contributing factor.

No...the thing that made me laugh was how easily and quickly you felt it reasonable to write someone off and get rid of them. If they do a poor job, sack them. I dont aggree with instantenously writing people off...you modify what you have a try to make it work before you wipe a slate clean...and above all, you make sure you actually know who is to blame before you make for an obvious scape goat.

IF the State Governments should be funding this and doing it properly...then rather Complain about the Federal Imput...educate the State Governments into doing their job properly so the Federal forces dont have to do it.

If all you and Chris say is accurate...the Fault ISNT with the Federal Government. All the Federal Government have done is tried to breech a hole that should be consitutionally filled by the State Governments. You want to get your State Governments up to scratch...and THEN you can come down on the Federal Union if they interfere...but the State Government MUST pull their weight.

There is a saying in England..."Use it of looose it" If it is the States Right to manage education...they had better be managing education...if they fail to do so...well...Someone has to do it...

Then you need to barter with whatever department was set up...and you need to form a pressure group with your local...erm...whatever you call your State Ministers...to close that insitution down. If its unconstituional...take it to a place which can close it down for such a reason.

You might think I just offer these suggestions and am not aware of the work it takes to get things changed...work that this forum is absolutely notorious for commenting on...and at the same time failing to put in any effort to change things...but I aply the same ethos to myself and my society. Why just this week I ensured the enshrining of something in my Councils new policy. :happydancing:

That..is the same as influencing Policy on a State level for you guys...as our National Government is made up of Representatives from all the local councils.


If you feel "they need to be permanently relieved of the responsibility." then shouldnt it be your duty as a citizen to try and make that happen (not just by shouting about it on this forum...though that IS a vital part...its about where the patrons on this forum stop...)


If you feel strongly...dont just speak smack...do work :)

Tyburn
09-11-2011, 06:16 PM
:laugh: I can be militant to :laugh:

Chris F
09-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Well, I do agree that each successive generation of humanity is getting stupider and more intellectually incompetent, but that should be able to be measured as a slow, steady decline. Not the downhill rocket-slide that it's been in this country for the last 3 decades.

I know people will also complain that we're just not putting enough money into public schools and (the favorite mantra) if we dedicated as much money to education that we do to national defense, then all of our education problems would be solved. Well, first of all, we now spend 4 times more on education in this country than we did in the 200 years prior to 1979 and our country's education system is failing faster than ever. So, money is not the problem.

Secondly, the national defense comparison is ridiculous because we NEED to spend money on national defense. Today of all days should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Here are some stats showing just how poor the US public education system really is:
Source: http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp#educationstatistics

44 million adults in the U.S. can't read well enough to read a simple story to a child.

Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.

21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas.

46% of American adults cannot understand the label on their prescription medicine.

Forty-four percent of American 4th grade students cannot read fluently, even when they read grade-level stories aloud under supportive testing conditions.

50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.

According to the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37 percent of fourth graders and 26 percent of eighth graders cannot read at the basic level; and on the 2002 NAEP 26 percent of twelfth graders cannot read at the basic level. That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read.

Exactly NateR whereas my Homes schooled kids are doing great. my 16 year old reads at college level and my youngest who has a learning disability reads just above grade level. (7th grade) So you are right the gov needs to get out of education

CAVEMAN
09-12-2011, 05:49 PM
I have believed for a long time now that the solution to a better education is getting rid of the Dept. of Education. Put that money back into the hands at state and local levels. They will make sure their kids receive a good education.

However, we will never see the Fed loosen their grip on the education system......how else will they indoctrinate our children?

I believe it was Hitler who said, "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

Tyburn
09-12-2011, 05:59 PM
I believe it was Hitler who said, "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

:laugh: Hitler also personally took control and issued commands to non existant portions of the German Army during the Liberation of Berlin...he refused to believe they had been overcome already...sooo I wouldnt put too much stock in anything he says...:laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2fl-sHUwrc :laugh:

...oh...and he's not as paranoid as he sounds...the German Army did not like him, and the most serious threats to his power came from the highest ranking officials...He ignored them generally speaking, which is kinda what cost him the war on a number of levels. He wasnt a Military Strategist...and some of the bizzare choices he made (like going after Russia in winter instead of a completely obliterated England, like expanding across Europe too fast, when with patience he could have got far further before war...all things the German Army without Adolf would have done, and been successful in doing)

NateR
09-12-2011, 06:12 PM
I have believed for a long time now that the solution to a better education is getting rid of the Dept. of Education. Put that money back into the hands at state and local levels. They will make sure their kids receive a good education.

However, we will never see the Fed loosen their grip on the education system......how else will they indoctrinate our children?

I believe it was Hitler who said, "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

Very true. The government has already brainwashed entire generations of American children with lies, including: Evolution is a scientifically supported fact, global warming is real, homosexuality is normal, democracy and capitalism are evil, and the US was founded as a secular nation - among many others.

Tyburn
09-12-2011, 06:18 PM
Very true. The government has already brainwashed entire generations of American children with lies, including: Evolution is a scientifically supported fact, global warming is real, homosexuality is normal, democracy and capitalism are evil, and the US was founded as a secular nation - among many others.

...and what, pray tell, are you, personally, doing about that? apart from moaning like a broken record on the forum?

NateR
09-12-2011, 06:28 PM
...and what, pray tell, are you, personally, doing about that? apart from moaning like a broken record on the forum?

It's called freedom of speech. We're allowed to talk about what wrong with our nation as much as we want. Plus, you're making assumptions by implying that I'm doing nothing but complaining. I donate when I can to organizations that legally fight for the rights of evangelical Christians in America. I vote and, most importantly, I pray about it. Prayer is the best tool we have in any situation.

I guess, I could also post useless bits of irrelevant, historical trivia that nobody reads nor cares about; but you've already got that covered.

Tyburn
09-12-2011, 10:45 PM
Sorry for being such a meanie Nathan :unsure-1: