TED Conversations

Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Debate: Federal grants... blessing or curse?

Maricopia County Educational Services Agency (AZ) just recieved a Teacher Incentive Fund Grant for 7 schools in the amount of 57.8 million dollars. That is $8,257,142 per school.

If we were one of the seven schools that would be 275,238 per staff member.

The plan in place is to provide a class on how to be more effective teachers and administrators. No further plans for the money have been made public. That better be some class.

Government is the most inefficient means of addressing any problem. David Hamilton once stated that California gave the feds 3 dollars for every dollar returned (I may not have got that right). His point is well taken. Why not keep your money and put it to work for you. Most federal money is absorbed in administrative costs inherient in big government.

$57.8 for a class .... could this money have been spent more wisely. A better teacher helps the kids .... so would updating all of the teaching tools .... computer systems ... check out lap tops ... curriculum developers .... facility improvements ..... science labs ... manual trades shop tools and supplies ... etc .....

Is this a good use of money? How would you have made better use of $57.8M? Or are you OK with this class?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +2
    Oct 31 2012: I believe that the Constitution of the U. S. is like a football goal post. It should be securely set in the ground so that everyone knows where it is and how to make a goal. When the Supreme Court threw out the constitution as the law of the land, it did a lot of damage to "We, the people".

    Before the loss of the constitution, if the Federal government wanted to give grants - be it to educators or inventors - it was required to get a constitutional amendment ratified via the Article V process. Because of the Supreme court, the Article V amendment process is now considered a political matter, and congress has the right to accept it or not.

    The result is that government assumes the right to spend your and my tax dollars on anything that it wants, whether or not the Constitution authorizes it. Today, it's up to the Supreme Court as opposed to the people.

    Still, people seem to prefer this strange method of forcing us into slavery that is called freedom. That's why they vote Democrat or Republican even though the one thing that both of these parties have in common is that they each stand for violating the Constitution in the areas that each wants. (Standing armies, military debt of more than two years, abortion, homosexuality, interstate highway system, grants of all kinds, to name only a few areas)

    If anyone is offended by this spending, they should not be voting for either the Dems or the Reps. If they do, they are not seeing (or not caring about) their own hypocrisy. The Constitution was supposed to be our protection, and those who stand against it stand in favor of the spending that you explained.

    If you want to end run-away spending, you need to stand in defense of the Constitution.
    • thumb
      Oct 31 2012: Can you link a concise reference on the supreme court allowing grants by bypassing congress?
      • thumb
        Oct 31 2012: That isn't what I intended to say. I hoped that I said that thanks to the Supreme Court throwing out the Constitution as the law of the land, power was transferred to the courts (allowing corrupt politicians to hide behind them) and when the courts assumed unconstitutional powers, those powers were taken away from the people. (see McCulloch v. Maryland).

        Were it not for McCulloch v. Maryland, the federal government would not have the power to spend tax money the way it does.
        • thumb
          Oct 31 2012: I don't think I understand this. Why would congress be involved in banking at all? It would seem that this is handled by the treasury department.

          On a similar note it seems that executive orders do the same thing?
      • thumb
        Oct 31 2012: Why was congress involved? That's exactly the problem. The idea of the Fed being able to establish a charter for a national bank was discussed and abandoned by the Continental Congress that came up with the constitution. Because of fears on the part of the Anti-Federalists, the proposed Constitution failed the ratification process. That's when Madison came up with an idea where the States would ratify the proposed constitution under the condition that a Bill of Rights would put an end to the unlimited and all-powerful central government. The dissenting states (VA, NY, MA, CH, RI, & NH) wanted to retain their sovereignty. That's why the Bill of Rights were so important.

        When the Supreme Court GAVE ITSELF the power to overthrow the Constitution and replace Constitutional Law with (British) Common Law, there was great uproar. Jefferson said that it would lead to tyranny by Oligarchy, and it has. The problem was that at the time, the poor couldn't vote and SOTUS sided with the wealthy who profited from the bank.

        Jefferson railed about the unconstitutional bank, as did others, and all predictions have come true, as the state of our economy and unending (profitable) wars clearly prove.

        Executive orders are also unconstitutional - unless an executive is ordering that his staff follow his work schedules - or something of a similar note.

        The Constitution doesn't authorize a Federal Reserve either. Congress may print money (called fiat money), and the times that it has were prosperous for all. But banksters bought congress and the unworkable system replaced the workable one.

        Meanwhile, the fact that you don't know about these things is just evidence of how many lies you were told in your public education, err, indoctrination. How often have you heard the Anti-Federalist papers mentioned? They are the reason that the proposed constitution was blocked from ratification. They, not the Federalist Papers, should be included in our founding documents.
        • thumb
          Oct 31 2012: Thanks

          Where was Hamilton in this argument?

          The Fed is constitutional under the 16th amendment.

          You say the poor could not vote, that is not true. You had to own land. This is not a bad thing as it counters the tyranny of the majority.

          Wars are not profitable for the country but I guess they are for the cronies the military industrial complex), but at the same time we have to defend the country. They also always cause inflation so it is a double tax.

          The part about the banksters is probably more conjecture than reality. Save the recent bailout to big to fail and all. But if Bush had not done this the economy would have started from scratch at least that is what my congressman said. But I tend to say let it fail. Spare me the Glass Stegal trope.

          Where would recommend reading about the anti federalist papers?

          The prosperity of the country is related to the influence of government, when the government size and cost has been reduced the economy prospered. True Story.

          The only reason for government is a rule of law and national defense and some from the Austrian camp would argue not even that is required from the government.
      • thumb
        Nov 1 2012: Hamilton was a staunch Federalist and wealthy banker (Bank of NY). He was furious that the Anti-Federalists had successfully blocked the all-powerful government by limiting it with the Bill of Rights. He's credited w/ establishing the 1st unconstitutional national bank. He was out of office by the time the coup d'etat occurred.

        The 16th Amendment authorizes direct income taxes. It does not authorize spending that is not constitutional.

        http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/ Lets you either read or listen to these anti-federalist papers. I found listening easier.

        As to the bankster problem being largely conjecture - that's simply not true. As you learn about the "real" American history, you will find the documentary evidence and it will sicken you.

        I find it rather curious that the Republicans fiercely defend the Federalist Papers while at the same time calling for States' rights that the Anti-Federalists fought so hard for. Jefferson, their staunchest ally, is a dirty word in some of their circles. That's why I get so angry at our educational system that indoctrinates and tells overt lies about our own history. How can we fix what is so seriously broken when we are either lied to or not told about how & when government broke so that we can work backwards.

        For an example of how State's Rights were demanded in exchange for ratification of the constitution, see Virginia's ratification at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp. You can also see the similar ratifications of the other dissenting states that were successful in blocking ratification.

        The USA was re-established in 1791 as a treaty organization - thanks to the Bill of Rights.

        Because of the Bill of Rights' 9th & 10th Amendment, government was limited to spending on very few things (Article I, Section 8) and the court was denied ANY legislative power. (Article I, Section 1).

        • thumb
          Nov 1 2012: I stand corrected regarding the FED.

          Very interesting point regarding the anti federalist papers. It will take me a while to read them. It is interesting that in the first tape they start right in with the bill of rights. Great link, thanks.

          Do you have any references regarding banking.

          I believe you are right in that the real problem is ignorance.
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2012: As to your question about bankster docs, this LONG video offers many sources. I encourage you to view it in at least 3 sessions: 1 through Andy Jackson, 2 Lincoln through Wilson, and then as desired.

        Some things to consider as you watch it – and VERY important things – are that we have John Adams to thank for the implementation of “implied powers” that the constitution denies, and Alexander Hamilton for the unconstitutional national bank AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED. (Banks are necessary, but not in the form in which they were established.) It was essential that these two unconstitutional mandates be institutionalized BEFORE the Bill of Rights made it through the ratification process, as it was known that they would - unanimously. After ratification, Federalists would have a much harder time with its planned coup d’etat, which was finalized with McCulloch v. Maryland.

        Also, the video did not do a very good job in dealing with explaining the start of WWI, though it did address it accurately, it could have given greater understanding. It also seems to completely avoid how Hitler became such a revered figure in Germany, by taking a destroyed economy, throwing out the national banks owned by a small group of Jews, issuing Germany’s own fiat money, and in only 2.5 years became the strongest economy on earth. It then began to reclaim the lands that were taken from it via the corrupt Versailles Treaty, which started the English boycott that began WWII. (I’m not a Hitler apologist, but neither do I deny known facts)

        The video ends with offering solutions given us by Milton Friedman, the economist’s view that any student of economics should be aware of.

        • thumb
          Nov 2 2012: I don't have time to listen to much of this right now. I just want to note a couple things now before I forget.

          In the video they infer(although not stated) that the FED profits from loans it makes. They do not.

          I think that the bigger problem is that the FED controls the interest rate that does not conform to the market. E.G. right now interest rates being kept artificial low creating a false boom in real estate and buying bad debt from Freddy and Fannie. The interest rate should be controlled by the market according to the Austrian school and would reduce the boom and bust cycle.

          I find it interesting that the fall of Rome and Caesar (the apparent hero) coining money and creating too much money were time coincident.

          Another problem I have with this video is that narrator is the same guy who narrates the secret of OZ which imo is bazaar.

          Fractional banking is a 2 way street in that the banks can be forced out of business by not having the 10% reserve required.

          The Rothschilds did create war for their own benefit. But according to Nail Ferguson they learned that creating war cost them assets as well. But the point about war being cause by someone other than the 2 waring countries is well taken and a very important point. E.G. imo the military industrial complex and wars we have now.

          This is after 30 minutes into the video
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2012: pat, there is a reason why this movie looks like the secret of oz. because the same guys made it. the secret of oz can be thought of as an extended, revised version of this original.

        they will go ahead, and claim that we need to nationalize money creation, so people can have enough money. how many things are wrong with that reasoning?
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2012: As illustrated in the video it worked out so well in Rome, through their hero Caesar that is until Rome fell...

          Is it just me or do you see a resemblance between Obama and Caesar?
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2012: I would more closely relate obama with nero ... he is fiddling as the US burns (falls).
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2012: That video would not have been my first choice. But I knew of no other way to get you a lot of information that I discovered through my research into American history - not finance. I only found that video this morning and saw it for the first time. There are mistakes but not major ones. It is also an incomplete history.

        I started seeing the pattern described here by learning about Andrew Jackson's presidency, and then Abe Lincoln's. Then as I began to learn about what brought about WWI and WWII, the pattern became so clear that I started learning about money and economic models (not just our current one).

        I could not give you concise documentary evidence because that would take volumes and this format does not allow it. I offered the video so that you could extract Google queries so that you could find the documentary evidence that you asked for.

        The Fed DOES profit from its loans to the govn't. It pays its officers whatever it wants, and THEN retains 6% profit. The rest is returned to the government, but profit is profit and 6% of trilllions begins to add up, and if you first subtract officer's salaries and bonuses, that 2 billion a year is rather substantial, don't you think?

        I've never seen the OZ video.
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2012: I have given you the benefit of the doubt (because of your great incite into Lincoln) and am listening when I have time. But that is a lot of points in only 30 minutes.

          Any profit that is made by the FED is turned over to the treasury. True Story, easily verified.

          I hope you don't think I'm going to listen to you references with out weighing the information?

          For example at about 12 minutes into the video they talk about Caesar being a hero to the common people because of plentiful money but after Caesars death they reduced the money supply by 90%. Here is the deal they FAIL to mention that the problem started with Caesar and inflation.

          It appears that the producers of this movie have an agenda which deviates from the scientific method or logic. I will watch the rest but this is not nearly as interesting as the anti-federalist papers.
      • thumb
        Nov 3 2012: I don't know that you should go into the history of the economics yet. The Anti-Federalist Papers are far more relevant to understanding American history and how to fix our great problems than an understanding of economics. The two are far too complex a study to be taken up at the same time. Economic history can only be understood in its proper context after the basic context is understood.

        I suggest taking the movie (as much as you want to see, but I think that the period from the foundation of the USA through Andrew Jackson is helpful knowledge) and simply be aware of it. It is not fair to use it as a text book because it doesn't lay out the documents that it refers to. It is not meant to be a text book. It is too incomplete as it does not look at money in a broader historical context. It does begin to sound like a conspiracy theory. I understand your hesitation.

        Remember, the only reason we arrived here in our conversation is that you did not think that the banksters were a problem before our most recent crash, and my study of early American History had already proven to me that the problem was the cause of what I call the America coup d'etat, where all that is wrong with America began.

        But enjoy your studies. The anti-federalist papers (that eventually won ratification of the Constitution through a guarantee of a Bill of Rights) tell us a lot about how what is so broken today became broken, and it allows you to actually see the two sides in greater clarity. It shows the divide between the rich (patrician aristocracy who wanted to be kings among kings) and the common people who wanted freedom.
        • thumb
          Nov 3 2012: I appreciate the links on history.

          I believe the ignorance that causes people the most trouble is in, the area of exactly what you state, the area of their rights. One of the rights is not having ones liberty taken away by the insidious fettering away of our economic freedom.

          Just to be clear you do not understand economics. You have bought the meme that the Oz boys are espousing. It just isn't true. I know you don't agree so I won't waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

          But one thing to keep mind for anyone else who happens to read this. Bankers or any other crony corporations are only a problem when they commit their transgressions through government. They can have the worse case of avarice in the history of the world and it won't make any difference if they cannot finance their avarice. The reason for the current housing meltdown was not the big banks. It was the CRA but more importantly it was the financing of the insanity by Alan Greenspan at the FED.

          Even though he believed in Ayn Rand, in fact because he believed in Ayn Rand, this makes his transgression the ultimate transgression in his personal integrity, in other words he was not ignorant about what he did, he stabbed America in the back, he is the ultimate traitor.

        • thumb
          Nov 4 2012: I do apologize. I have nothing to add to this discussion but I am learning so much I want it to appear in my conversations. So please disregard this post and I will continue to follow. This is fascinating.
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2012: Pat, I'm as well studied in economic theory as I am in American history. Your telling me that I do not understand is untrue, unfair and unkind. If you will recall from my many posts on TED, I do not agree with the movie's conclusion about how to fix the problem. I prefer the economic/social model that does not include money (including barter) at all.

        I call it an economic/social model because economics really ARE part of a social model. The two cannot be separated. Economics are an artificial invention when it is applied to money.

        There is no need to get too hooked on the movie if you are not going to use it in the way that I intended - as a way to probe American history for documentary evidence of facts. As I said, I had never seen the movie before yesterday. Because I am so well studied in certain matters, I can see the movie and extract that which I know is right, make notes of that which I do not know is right so that I can research it and learn new facts, and I can discard that which I know is not right.

        But I will end my involvement in this thread that is turning bitter. You are taking my offerings, twisting them to make it appears as if I am saying something that I did not say, and then arguing against what you wish I said as opposed to what I said. And you use insults to cover your tracks.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.