SmashMouth

Definitely a mistake in its current form...

In my opinion, it's more of a ploy to show the ineffectiveness of Biden which led to horrible policies and the decline of the country. It's merely smear PR, which is what most of politics is these days. I don't blame Trump for pointing it out, but I really don't think it will have any material affect other than to keep poking the left about what a puppet Biden was and to keep the Trump base telling him what a good job he is doing.

Yep. Totally agree. My point was that since it doesn't seem illegal, and Biden will cover for whomever has been making the decisions for the last 4 years, it seems a moot point.

No, it shouldn't. Using an auto pen has actually been used throughout history. In 2005, George W. Bush asked for and received a favorable opinion from the Department of Justice regarding the constitutionality of using the autopen (he still did not use it), although its constitutionality has not been tested in court yet. It's possibly a dangerous tool, but it's not illegal...not yet. See an interesting excerpt from an article from Shapell.org I found: "Presidential Use of the Autopen Signature Since Jefferson, various US presidents have made use of the autopen; some were guarded about it while others were more open about its use. Whereas once the official White House position was to deny the existence or usage of the autopen, today its existence is more of an open secret. Harry Truman was rumored to make use of the device; Gerald Ford was open about his utilization of the autopen, but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who blew the doors off the entire affair by allowing the device to be photographed in the White House, appearing on the cover of The National Enquirer with the article “The Robot That Sits in for the President.” John F. Kennedy was so dependent on the autopen, that he became the subject of a book entitled The Robot That Helped to Make a President. In 1965, at the time of its writing, the author claimed that Kennedy’s reliance on the autopen rendered his authentic signature the rarest of all presidential autographs. Though this claim has not held up over time, and Kennedy actually used the autopen less as president, it would seem that Kennedy’s extensive reliance on the device ushered in a new era of technology in the White House, resulting in his successor sharing this open secret with the public. Autopen vs Real Signature The ramifications of the growing acceptance of an autopen signature have ripple effects that impact not only the collecting world, but also has been the subject of controversy regarding the very constitutionality of the use of the autopen in signing a bill into law. In 2005, George W. Bush was the first president to enquire with the Department of Justice if it was constitutional for the president to sign a bill using the autopen. Though he received the dispensation, he didn’t actually use the autopen, nor did he have the bill flown to him by courier, preferring instead, in one notable case, to rush from Texas to Washington to sign the controversial Terri Schiavo bill. The Palm Sunday Compromise, as it was colloquially known, allowed the federal court to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, on life support, who was caught in a tug of war between her husband, who wished to remove the feeding tube, and her parents who contested the decision. Likely, because of the life-and-death nature of the bill, Bush opted to forgo the dispensation."

Sorry, it brought me to AAW’s post to reply. Weird.

No, it was a question. Among many options, it is a viable one. I’m not 100% against school vouchers…just its current form.

Send them to a quality open campus public school?

Yep. You’re right. I was just referring to the crazy length these nutty parents will go to. All the dad coaches like I used to be. We’ll do whatever it takes to win the game. Including fake id’s. Lol.

I don't think anyone was defending her. She's a nutcase. I'd take her over Nancy Pelosi or any of the Squad members though.

Bet.

The whole process of censuring a member of Congress is really freaking stupid. What does it really accomplish?

Saw this today: An exact quote from Texas Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act: Details of Senate Bill 2: 1. Eligibility ○ Universal Access: Every Texas student may apply and, if accepted, participate in the ESA program—whether they are entering school for the first time, currently enrolled in public school, or currently enrolled in private school or homeschool. 2. Prioritization ○ If applications do not exceed the program’s capacity, all eligible students are accepted. ○ If applications exceed capacity, 80% of available positions will be filled by lottery among students who previously attended public school and are either from low-income households or have a disability. The remaining slots will be filled by lottery among all other eligible applicants. 3. Allocation per Student ○ Base Funding: Each participating student will receive at least $2,000 per year in their ESA. ○ Private School Funding: If a family elects to enroll their child in an accredited private school, that student will receive $10,000 per year—or $11,500 per year if the student has a disability.

As of last year, no threshold of income. Of course, it may have changed since then...

@tvc184 This is some of the discussion I posted about a year ago. I will admit, there may have been changes to the proposed legislation since I made these statements. Also, the comments jump around a bit, because it is a combination of previous posts.: "I am a pretty conservative guy, but I am against school vouchers. Who pays for the public schools (several of which were just built in my town of Lumberton)? I have yet to hear a comprehensive argument that pushes me to the school voucher system, and I've read quite a few. And I really have issues with taxpayer money being given to private "for profit" schools. With all the schools that have an open campus nowadays, there are other options for a quality education other than school vouchers. There's not usually a school bus to service private schools at this point, so the child already has to get picked up / dropped off. Folks do it all the time. Regardless, there are plenty of reasons against it. A voucher program that allows any Texas student to use public money (I like to think of it as "my (our) money") to offset the cost of private-school tuition would divert dollars from public schools, tightening already tight public-school budgets, without a proportionate reduction in public school costs - possibly to the point of raising taxes to keep them afloat. I also think it will incentivize the private schools to raise price of tuition (to put in their own back pockets) because they are getting subsidized by, that's right, my (our) money. I'm not saying school vouchers don't have some merit. Just not enough in my opinion. The average annual tuition for a private-school lands between $11,000 and $14,000. The proposed voucher would give a kid approx. $8,000 dollars toward that tuition (2024 numbers). The family still has to come up with the balance. Let's say you have a kid that goes to a private. Dad's a lawyer, banker, businessman, etc. and pays the full tuition to send his kid to the private school. With the voucher system in place, the dad will now get $8,000 towards the kid's tuition. A net savings of let's say $3,000 on the low side. No problem, right? Meanwhile, another family who is not so fortunate who sends their kid to public school has the same opportunity to send their child to private school and pay the $3,000 difference. Awesome, right? Only problem is they can't afford it, so that kid stays in public school that is now getting less funding. Net sum, the better off family gets a break on sending their kid to a private school for a helluva lot less, and the lesser off family is stuck in the same place they were to begin with. All to pay a privatized for-profit institution and have the quality of the public-school fall even further behind. That struggling single mom still won’t be able to send her kids anywhere. A voucher won’t cover rides to school (wherever that may be), uniforms, the entirety of tuition, they don’t have to have free lunch programs, etc., etc. A voucher won’t help a mom in a rough place get her genius into a private school that doesn’t exist in that area. But it will help that guy in River Oaks with the tuition bill on his three kids that he’s already paying. If the schools lose a percentage of their students to private schools, they’re going to have their funding cut, right? But much of their expenses won’t go down. The only way for this to work is if we raise local taxes to subsidize them for the funds that the state is redirecting to the voucher program… that’s what no one wants to explain. As an example, Lumberton is not failing to provide a proper education. Neither are the majority of the schools in our area where I live. This is a political move with the ruse of being used to keep liberal indoctrination away from our kids. While I agree with keeping our kids from being led down the happy blue path, I don't agree with the way they are trying to do it. Texas Conservatives (of which I am) are simply doing this to garner support from the right. If you think they really give two craps about your kids, my kids, any kids, then remember we are talking about politicians. We are being given a poor solution which will raise taxes in the end and could possibly be harmful to a lot of middle-class families on down to the lower class. There can be other ways to do it than school vouchers. From a guy that doesn't like paying any more taxes than I have to, I am definitely against it. I am also against fixing one problem by causing many more problems."

Look up what?

When I was coaching in STJFL, Lone Star was not the same. We would scrimmage Lone Star teams occasionally, but there was no affiliation between the two. I’ve been out of it for a long time, so I may not know what the hell I’m talking about. Lol.

Beaumont, HF, HJ, Jasper, LCM, Silsbee, WOS? Not sure if all those are still charter organizations anymore though.

1. I don't believe you only paid a total of $1,000 in principal in 20 years unless you were skipping payments. 2. You sound like a poor money manager. No offense, most people are. 3. There are thieves that take money from others and celebrate their gains at others' expense too.

I agree, the poor should not be punished for being poor. Honest question though, how are the poor punished with taxes? And I have been on that side of the street too.

Well, several thousand have so far, so....

Agreed. I'm on the fence on the topic. But it should be put to public vote, in my opinion. I can definitely see some harm done to the public school system with vouchers.

No you didn't. You paid some of the principle and probably even more of the interest. That's how a loan works. The entirety of the loan includes principle, interest, and possibly processing or origination fees. Let me ask you this: If I have a credit card, and all I pay is the minimum payment, and it takes forever to pay it off, should the government pay it off for me? How about my house? My car? My furniture? Anything else I pay for on credit?... or Should I be smarter about my finances and pay off more principal each month instead of paying just the minimum requirement? Look, you know better. Don't make excuses. And at the same time, quit throwing rocks in glass houses.

With all due respect, that is a pat response of the radical left. What about the contracts the Biden administration "gave" him?

If you're so concerned about someone giving money back, why don't you give back the money you were given for your school loans?

US laws do not prevent illegal aliens from purchasing or owning property. Unlike many other rights, homeownership does not depend on a person's immigration status. Anyone, including illegal aliens, can buy a house if they have the necessary funds. Whether they should be here or not, those houses are still either their property or the mortgage companies' property (or a little of both). Doubt we will being seeing any bulldozing going on.