- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:19 pm to I20goon
And if he was forced to maintain the department, Congress could not stop him from minimally staffing it and basically making it ineffective.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:20 pm to bigjoe1
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:24 pm to minister of truth
quote:indeed. I'm with you on that one too. Unless Congress acts that is the only option left for him. Unfortunately he can't turn it into spending cuts, but he can damn sure neuter them.
And if he was forced to maintain the department, Congress could not stop him from minimally staffing it and basically making it ineffective.
The goal was to turn that money around to the states and let them administer it so that goal would not be achieved (unless he doubles DoEd spending).
But I'd do like I said earlier in the thread: put them to picking strawberries and deport the illegals picking strawberries. The strawberry growers can then reimburse the gov't for the labor.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:29 pm to I20goon
Yes sir! There’s more than one way to skin a cat
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:30 pm to minister of truth
quote:
Congress could not stop him from minimally staffing it and basically making it ineffective.
But this judge thinks he can.
That’s almost exactly the judge’s argument.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:33 pm to the808bass
Exactly! That’s what I’ve been arguing with the other poster about. There may be a certain number of high-level positions demanded by Congress, but they are in no position to demand staffing at a level they determine
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:38 pm to bigjoe1
Get bent!
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:51 pm to minister of truth
quote:Remember the ultimate goal of getting rid of the DoEd was to push the money to the states and out of the Fed Gov't.
Exactly! That’s what I’ve been arguing with the other poster about. There may be a certain number of high-level positions demanded by Congress, but they are in no position to demand staffing at a level they determine
You can jury rig the staffing all you want, but the money stays put unless Congress acts.
I say he should go vindictive to cause a ruckus and force Johnson to respond, but unless Johnson passes a bill clawing back and re-authorizing the moving of that money, the real goal is not achieved.
ETA: this is one of DOGE's recommendations regarding waste, fraud, and efficiency. So while everyone is throwing a fit about the new budget bill, here we are with cosmetic changes regarding staffing but not achieving the real goal of being able to cut $ via improved efficiency by transferring down to the states. It is because Congress sat on their hands.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:53 pm to bigjoe1
quote:
I mean the damn thing is a 45 year failure.
Nah, the judicial branch has been around longer than that.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:56 pm to bigjoe1
I thought they were going to do away with DOE? There’s no where to go back to…
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:57 pm to I20goon
Speaking of which, did this current budget proposal passed by the House of Representatives include funding for the department of education?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:03 pm to minister of truth
quote:apologies, I just did an ETA that referenced this very same thing.
Speaking of which, did this current budget proposal passed by the House of Representatives include funding for the department of education?
Best I can tell Dept of Ed funding went up 19.1 billion (1.06%).
Here's the ETA I sprung on you:
quote:
this is one of DOGE's recommendations regarding waste, fraud, and efficiency. So while everyone is throwing a fit about the new budget bill, here we are with cosmetic changes regarding staffing but not achieving the real goal of being able to cut $ via improved efficiency by transferring down to the states. It is because Congress sat on their hands.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:06 pm to I20goon
Disappointing!
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:07 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
Move what's left of the Dept of Ed to Minot, ND then.
Move all of the offices to inner cities. The most Democrat run areas. Detroit, Chicago, NO.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:11 pm to bigjoe1
quote:
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:46 pm to minister of truth
quote:yes.
Disappointing!
They could have easily just defunded the Dept of Ed and thus cut the lawyers/judges out of the picture altogether for staffing and then turned right around directing the executive to send the exact same money to the states.
It would have reached the objective and next year when the efficiency kicks in, cut that amount.
The goal is better service for less money by increasing efficiency (losing the federal bloat to start with).
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:48 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
quote:
Why cant some conservative judges over rule or rule differently on these issues? We need to use the conservative judges to fight back against yhis shite, somehow, someway.
Go back to school
Eat shite and die
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:49 pm to bigjoe1
So judiciary runs the executive now huh?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:53 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The court here is fundamentally settling a dispute between the Executive and Congress, which is one of the purposes of the judiciary.
LOL. Except it isn't and the judiciary has a doctrine of justicisbility specifically avoiding doing so.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 5:54 pm
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News