Latest
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Welcome!

    We're a UK based community of cult entertainment fans - so whether you're into WWE, Marvel, DC, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek and more - join us!

    It's free to register, so why not sign up and discuss whatever you're into...

November 7, 2017 amendments up for a vote!

Messages
44
Points
6
I was sent this by my friend on FB and I'm going to pass it on. If we don't want our country to collapse, never to be the same again, we had better vote these things down. The list is:
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE BY 11/07!!!
>>Attention everyone, my friends please copy and share....the following bills HAVE been introduced:
1. HR 861 Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
2. HR 610 Vouchers for Public Education
3. HR 899 Terminate the Department of Education
4. HJR 69 Repeal Rule Protecting Wildlife
5. HR 370 Repeal Affordable Care Act
6. HR 354 Defund Planned Parenthood
7. HR 785 National Right to Work (this one ends unions)
8. HR 83 Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Bill
9. HR 147 Criminalizing Abortion (“Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act”)
10. HR 808 Sanctions against Iran
 
Messages
31
Points
6
There are a few there that need to be repealed. Like terminating the Department of Education. Get government out of the schools and let the states handle their own educational system. You wouldn't believe the red tape involved with education these days. Unions have also outlived their usefulness. So HR 785 can go too. I'll have to look into some of these others.
 

LKC

Member
Messages
46
Points
6
I can agree on voting to repeal most of these, but I'm not opposed to some on this list. "Criminalizing Abortion" is a sensational title. It's not criminalizing all abortions, just those that are done because the mother doesn't want a child of that particular gender or race. I think those are exceptionally poor reasons to get an abortion. Secondly, why should sanctuary cities get federal money if they aren't following federal rules? Logically, it makes sense for them not to get funding from the federal government. Just my opinion.
 
Messages
35
Ratings
1
Points
6
Vouchers for public education is an interesting point. What exactly is being discussed in the amendment? It's a good thing to handle to the parents and support the education, yes. It just can't be issued without a plan, even for public schools, or it will disrupt the balance of the system.
 

LKC

Member
Messages
46
Points
6
Vouchers for public education is an interesting point. What exactly is being discussed in the amendment? It's a good thing to handle to the parents and support the education, yes. It just can't be issued without a plan, even for public schools, or it will disrupt the balance of the system.
In short, it's limiting the authority of the Department of Education by allowing them only to give block grants to states using the voucher system. But, it's also got more in there than just the voucher system. They threw in repealing the No Hungry Kids Act as well. They have an official summary here if you want to check it out.
 
Messages
36
Ratings
1
Points
6
I didn't even know it was possible to just get rid of something as big as the Department of Education. I have to agree with Bishop though - I'm all for getting the federal government out of things. I don't know enough to be fully aware of all the cons though. Would that mean no federal funding for public schools?
 
Messages
31
Points
6
I didn't even know it was possible to just get rid of something as big as the Department of Education. I have to agree with Bishop though - I'm all for getting the federal government out of things. I don't know enough to be fully aware of all the cons though. Would that mean no federal funding for public schools?
I'm not sure about the funding Weasley. However, at the present time, the Federal Government has very tight and sometimes ridiculous stipulations on how to spend "their" money. I could tell you stories.......... If it meant loosing funding, then so be it. Sometimes, less government is better.
 
Messages
36
Ratings
1
Points
6
I usually agree with the idea that less government is better, but sometimes I don't feel like I know enough of the facts to be sure of that. I'm sure there are all kinds of stipulations. Would the states be able to handle funding on their own, do you think?
 
Messages
31
Points
6
Yes I do Weasley. There are some competent people at the state level. I do, however, think they need to be required to spend time in some of the rural LEA's and see what is going on and where the needs are. They can't sit in their office and decide what "little Johnny or Susie" should learn in an ideal world.
 
Messages
31
Points
6
I'm just shocked at the number of things that I find reprehensible in that list. This is trying to change our country at the most basic level if you ask me. I will be studying these things as they go through committee. Surely, we won't see them all......