More Promises backed up by bullshit.

[reaper239]

This was also in that response to Congress:



So just because he denied the Texas farmers their money this time, he did request that federal funds be used for basically the exact same thing through the normal budgetary ways of ear marks/pork/whatever analogy one feels like calling it this year. All he did was put a check on the entitlement program for seed distribution that was already in place.

he was talking avbout the bill. he ended his letter with:

"If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity."

[yarri]

Damn it Reaper, you do this when I can't rep you

[Adventureless_Hero]

i agree with you, and disagree with you. the college system today is shameful. you want a real education, there are sites on the internet where you can learn for free (legit sites, not black helicopter sites). when the government started giving garunteed loans to students, it was like giving colleges a blank check. kids these days are graduating with a mortgage but no house and no job and no way out. i got my entire associates working a full time job and paying out of pocket (granted, it took me six years, but at least i don't owe 40k on it) where i don't agree is th seperate but equal thing. carter signed in the DOE in 79 and it didn't kick in till the 80's. the quality of education has taken a nose dive since. before the DOE, we took to the skies, built the atom bomb, and put a man on the moon. kids today don't even know when the moon program was enacted, they think WWII was something from a fucking video game, and can't calculate my change on a $17.63 tab when i hand them a $20 because the computer is down. i think i would prefer a world without the DOE, thank.

pardon my excitability.

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

First, your tab was $17.67 and B, you handed me two $10 bills, not a $20. Asshat.

[yarri]

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

How is it a generalization? I'm curious and interested in your point of view.

it still would have resulted in 3 pennys 1 quarter a nickle and 2 dollars for change no matter if it had been 2 10s or a 20..

[reaper239]

I resent a shit fuck ton of those generalizations.

First, your tab was $17.67 and B, you handed me two $10 bills, not a $20. Asshat.

whatever, you get the idea.

in seriousness, i have witnessed all of those events. many, many times. and it's a shame because it's people who are my age and a little younger. although i will say this, there are some kids who are starting to self educate. i've noticed that some kids in high school seem a little more knowledgeable in some areas.

i've said it before, but can i just say again how much i love these little debates? nothing gets the blood pumping to the brain and your synapses firing, quite like a spirited debate. it's invigorating.

[nikvoodoo]

he was talking avbout the bill. he ended his letter with:

"If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity."

Again, you're still acknowledging that he's talking about Government hand outs/aid. In the section you just quoted he didn't give them money, but he said if there should be seeds left over give them to Texas so you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And in my quote he is directing that in the future large sums of money be spent on these seed programs by the department of Agriculture. So while he's not handing out cash, he's again providing aid in other ways.

So shouldn't we be talking about how the agriculture department bleeds the culture dry and has been ruining America for the past 150+ years? After all, there has been a dramatic drop in the farming culture in America since 1862 when the Department of Agriculture came into existence.

[reaper239]

Again, you're still acknowledging that he's talking about Government hand outs/aid. In the section you just quoted he didn't give them money, but he said if there should be seeds left over give them to Texas so you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And in my quote he is directing that in the future large sums of money be spent on these seed programs by the department of Agriculture. So while he's not handing out cash, he's again providing aid in other ways.

So shouldn't we be talking about how the agriculture department bleeds the culture dry and has been ruining America for the past 150+ years? After all, there has been a dramatic drop in the farming culture in America since 1862 when the Department of Agriculture came into existence.

the bill was about giving the commissioner of agriculture $100,000 with 10gs earmarked for texas. he vetoed the bill because he said that the government was not supposed to distribute the peoples money, to other people. the warm and fuzzies go to we the people who dug deep and donated to the texas farmers out of pocket. and the department of agriculture deals with interstate commerce regulations. although if there are farmers who do not ship their product out of state, then constitutionally they would be exempt, and you would be right on that front.

[nikvoodoo]

the bill was about giving the commissioner of agriculture $100,000 with 10gs earmarked for texas. he vetoed the bill because he said that the government was not supposed to distribute the peoples money, to other people. the warm and fuzzies go to we the people who dug deep and donated to the texas farmers out of pocket. and the department of agriculture deals with interstate commerce regulations. although if there are farmers who do not ship their product out of state, then constitutionally they would be exempt, and you would be right on that front.

Sorry but you're wrong. The Bill was for 10k. $100,000 was the amount already earmarked in the fisical budget for the Department of Agriculture. And the bill was to purchase seeds not hand out money as you're suggesting. If you're looking for a direct hand out of the people's money out to other people, see George W. Bush/2008 Congress (Democratic controlled before we start saying I think it was all Bush's doing) and the tax rebate. That was money directly from the coffers to the American people's pocket.

Regardless, DOE's focus is wrong. What they have successfully done is create a nation of test takers. It does not mean they need to be abolished. They need to focus on actually educating kids so they effectively LEARN what the hell is being told to them in class. The most glaring example of test taking vs. education was "No Child Left Behind" because it truly made teachers teach to the test, or they'd lose their government funding.

And why are they funded by the government? Because we refuse to raise taxes to pay for the shit we need.

[reaper239]

i can't find where i read the bill, but i'm looking. i'll post it tomorrow. and i wasn't trying to say that it was directly handing out money, though i realize it came across that way. yes it was to purchase seed, but it was still redistribution. yes, many of bush's policies were fubar, i'm not arguing that. cleveland was the last of the classic liberals and since then, the country has been in a downward spiral. maybe if all levels of government would balance their budgets we'd have no need to have the fed involved where it doesn't belong. the DOE isn't necessary, it's just another way for the government to step in and take control from the citizens. it should be called the Department of Indoctrination. hell, i didn't actually start really learning anything until i was out of highschool (thank you DOE and NCLB) but then i realized that a lot of what i had been taught had been little twists on the truth. placing the education of our children in the hands of politicians just sounds band from the get go. think about it, if a politician really wanted to, and had enough backing, what's to stop them from forcing a curriculum that teaches whatever they want? on both sides of the scale, what if ron paul was calling the shots and tweaking it little by little? what about a hitler? suddenly we've got a generation of youths that think the holocaust was a myth or something. and the worst is the lies of omission. there were things historically that i simply wasn't taught that i learned later. it's not just the teaching to the test, it's that people are politicizing our children's education.

[reaper239]

i believe i stand corrected. i can't find what i read, but the more i look at opinions surrounding the decision, the more i think that what i actually read was some BS. that said, it seems that the 100k for the department of agriculture was an already existing program at the time. grovers (hello everybody) opinion, as it appears, was to continue to utilize this already existing program and avoid special dispensation of funds and redistribution of wealth. cleveland once said that his job was not about convincing congress to pass what he thought were good laws, but stopping them from passing unconstitutional ones (paraphrase).