The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[stevew]

I always thought he looked a little bit like Curious George. They have similar skin tone contrasts.

[Flasch186]

So I don't know all the details but how should the administration not have to go to trial to defend this drone policy? I don't know if that's the trial before impeachment but this smacks of the same bs that pissed me off about w.

[JPhillips]

The first step would be to have a congress that gives a shit about war powers rather than abandoning their responsibility and ceding it to the executive. What Obama is doing is wrong, but congress has greenlighted the executive having unchecked national security powers.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So I don't know all the details but how should the administration not have to go to trial to defend this drone policy? I don't know if that's the trial before impeachment but this smacks of the same bs that pissed me off about w.

Sadly you are in the minority. Most hate the war when it isn't their party doing the warmongering, hate the debt limit when it isn't their party doing the spending, etc... I applaud you having a conscience that isn't tied to D/R alligance but the reason nothing ever happens is because most don't. (Or will claim to but make excuses for why "Well Obama shouldn't do it but it's okay because...")

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The first step would be to have a congress that gives a shit about war powers rather than abandoning their responsibility and ceding it to the executive. What Obama is doing is wrong, but congress has greenlighted the executive having unchecked national security powers.

LOL. See my post I made above before even reading your typical response.

[JPhillips]

What Obama is doing is wrong. I just think the problem is congress has ceded this power to the executive and doesn't have any interest in being a check on that authority. That started all the way back with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and gradually they've given more and more war making power to the executive.

The courts aren't going to fix this and not enough voters understand/give a shit to change things. In theory a congress that demanded the return of war powers could make a difference.

How is that a D/R thing?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What Obama is doing is wrong. I just think the problem is congress has ceded this power to the executive and doesn't have any interest in being a check on that authority. That started all the way back with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and gradually they've given more and more war making power to the executive.

The courts aren't going to fix this and not enough voters understand/give a shit to change things. In theory a congress that demanded the return of war powers could make a difference.

How is that a D/R thing?

Obama is wrong but... aka I will make an excuse why he shouldn't be stopped.

D/R was less aimed at you and more at CNN/Fox/facebook comments/Yahoo comments where Bush and Obama change places based on the voting record of the person writing the comment.

[JPhillips]

I'm not saying he shouldn't be stopped. The question is how are you going to stop him? It would be great if Obama or the next president changed things, but I can't see that happening. The only avenue I can see for that is congress. The courts and voters have already proven they don't care.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not saying he shouldn't be stopped. The question is how are you going to stop him? It would be great if Obama or the next president changed things, but I can't see that happening. The only avenue I can see for that is congress. The courts and voters have already proven they don't care.

Which brings me back to my point. The uninformed voters look at it as a D/R thing. They hated Bush's war but are now silent on Obama or they loved Bush getting us into the Middle East mess and want Obama impeached for war crimes. Which brings us to the informed voter of which I include you. You could do something but choose instead to speak in sentences that always go something along the lines of "Obama this BUT that". Show me how anything you have posted in the last 3-4 posts that differs from this analysis.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Obama is wrong but... aka I will make an excuse why he shouldn't be stopped.

D/R was less aimed at you and more at CNN/Fox/facebook comments/Yahoo comments where Bush and Obama change places based on the voting record of the person writing the comment.

Reminds me of your defense of Ron Paul earmarks.

[JPhillips]

The majority of voters didn't care about Bush's war and don't care about Obama's. Only high information voters pay attention to any of this.

What would you have me do, vote for Ron Paul? There are policies where I disagree with him, too. Can I only support a candidate that matches my preferences 100%. Should I just stay on the outside of the system and yell that I'm above it all while none of my preferred policy positions take effect?

I disagree with Obama on all of this executive authority to kill with robots crap. He should be better than this. The Dems in the Senate and House should scream about it. There's plenty of rank and file Dems that are screaming, but again, most people don't care. I'm not a single issue voter, though. The totality of his positions makes Obama a better choice for me than the GOP or Green or Libertarian candidates. That doesn't mean I like everything he does, but it does mean I look at more than one issue to make up my mind.

So how are you going to stop this? Voting for Ron/Rand Paul won't help a bit. Fussing at me won't either.

[molson]

Where Bush and Obama agree on stuff I tend to think there's some merit to it.

The different media reactions between similar actions and policies carried out by the two administration is amusing, but at the end of the day, I'm glad both have been so aggressive on this stuff. Some of the visions people have for how international conflict should be carried out and how prisoners of war should be dealt with just aren't practical.

Edit: Not exactly pertaining to drones and U.S. citizens, but I know a guy who has been a part of KSM's defense team. He acknowledges in public speaking engagements that KSM is not your ordinary prisoner - he can not ever be set free, period. But if the constitution applies to him, he must be set free immediately, and he can not be charged with any crime. Unless you want to do a show trial and apply only part of the constitution to him (it still amazes me that so many people think that's the way to go - I'm glad Bush and Obama aren't among them).

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Obama boosted the economy by mandating that every single last gun not privately owned be purchased immediately.

He should just keep threatening to outlaw things to boost spending. Let out rumors that some business is going to go bankrupt, Hostess style. The economy will be booming!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Where Bush and Obama agree on stuff I tend to think there's some merit to it.

The different media reactions between similar actions and policies carried out by the two administration is amusing, but at the end of the day, I'm glad both have been so aggressive on this stuff. Some of the visions people have for how international conflict should be carried out and how prisoners of war should be dealt with just aren't practical.

Edit: Not exactly pertaining to drones and U.S. citizens, but I know a guy who has been a part of KSM's defense team. He acknowledges in public speaking engagements that KSM is not your ordinary prisoner - he can not ever be set free, period. But if the constitution applies to him, he must be set free immediately, and he can not be charged with any crime. Unless you want to do a show trial and apply only part of the constitution to him (it still amazes me that so many people think that's the way to go - I'm glad Bush and Obama aren't among them).

I'm fine with a military tribunal. There just should be some process involved other than the President says so.

[larrymcg421]

I absolutely detest many of the things Obama has done in foreign policy (Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, etc.), but as JPhillips said, what can I do? I live in the United States, which is a right leaning country on a global scale. Since we have a First Past the Post electoral system, that will limit us two a two party system (see: Duverger's law). I proudly supported Obama for re-election in 2012, knowing he would continue to do many things I didn't support, because I truly believe the country is much better off with him in charge than it would be with Romney.

Furthermore, war is not some singular issue that you are either pro or con on. If I go back through history, there are wars I've supported and wars I haven't. It's absurd to suggest that you have to support all wars or oppose all wars and someone isn't necessarily a hypocrite just because they supported one war and didn't support another.

One of my biggest pet peeves around here is when someone says, "I believe X because of Y" and the responses have nothing to do with Y, but instead criticizing the person for reasons other than Y (i.e. You didn't believe X before when so and so was President!") Sure, maybe the person is being a hypocrite, but what it often comes across as is either not wanting to or being unable to discuss Y. If you don't believe that Y is my real reason for believing something, then why are you even responding to me? Nothing I say will be a satisfactory response to you, so there's no point in even having or continuing a discussion under those circumstances.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: Not exactly pertaining to drones and U.S. citizens, but I know a guy who has been a part of KSM's defense team. He acknowledges in public speaking engagements that KSM is not your ordinary prisoner - he can not ever be set free, period. But if the constitution applies to him, he must be set free immediately, and he can not be charged with any crime. Unless you want to do a show trial and apply only part of the constitution to him (it still amazes me that so many people think that's the way to go - I'm glad Bush and Obama aren't among them).

Why can't he be charged with a crime? Should the constitution not apply to anyone who "can not ever be set free, period"? If so, should only one person get to make that decision with no possibility for judicial review?

[molson]

I get that nobody can agree with any politician 100%, but this stuff was one of the top 2 or 3 issues/criticisms surrounding the Bush presidency, and when Obama carries on the same stuff, it just doesn't seem like as a big an issue anymore. Maybe that's an incorrect perception, or maybe people are still really pissed off and the media just isn't reporting on it the way they did during the Bush years. It does seem though that Obama has largely validated Bush's policies and much of the general public that was so filled with anger towards the policies when the Bush administration carried them out has been appeased. That's not a totally irrational reaction. If one trusts Obama more than Bush, it makes sense that those policies would easier to swallow when they continue post-Bush.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why can't he be charged with a crime? Should the constitution not apply to anyone who "can not ever be set free, period"? If so, should only one person get to make that decision with no possibility for judicial review?

If the U.S. government or the state of New York suspected someone of murder, they wouldn't be able to arrest him, detain him for a decade without charges, limit his access to his defense counsel, prevent him from developing a defense case, torture the shit out him, and then try to charge him with murder. There would be a lot of constitutional roadblocks to that including violation of his speedy trial rights, the irreparable prejudicing of his defense, police conduct that "shocks the conscious" - it would result in a dismissal with prejudice of any and all charges. We really don't want the states and the federal government to be able to do these things without fear of compromising their criminal cases, so they don't get multiple bites at the apple after violating the constitution in those ways - unless you want to make different rules for terrorists. In which case, you're not applying the constitution anymore anyway.

As for the president's power, he is the commander-in-chief, it is ultimately his call what to blow up, who to take prisoner, what to do with prisoners, etc. You don't need judicial review of military operations. Sure, the military v. civilian line used to be way broader and easier to define before the war on terror, but IMO, the edges of the debate are all way, way, in the "military" side.

[Edward64]

More non-news news. Where is the tea party when you need them?

Senate Democrats Sequester Offer A 10-Month Replacement With $120 Billion In Savings

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats will produce a bill next week to stave off the sequester-related spending cuts until the end of December, multiple Senate sources tell The Huffington Post.

The bill would cut the deficit by $120 billion over 10 years to help replace roughly 10 months' worth of sequestration cuts. Approximately $55 billion would come from revenue hikes and a slightly larger amount than that would come from spending cuts. The rest would be made up of interest savings.

The goal, said one aide, is to introduce the bill by Thursday so that it can be presented to the full caucus, who will be able to discuss it back home in their districts during the congressional recess. That date, however, is "flexible."

The contours of the bill are still fluid but two sources agreed to detail the current state of discussions on condition of anonymity.

The revenue raisers would be derived from the implementation of the so-called Buffett rule, which sets a minimum tax threshold on millionaire income. That would raise an estimated $47 billion over 10 years.

Revenue would also come from instituting new rules ensuring that IRA accounts remain retirement funds for middle class earners and not defacto tax havens for the wealthy. The details of that provision are still being hammered out, but one aide said the idea was to discourage wealthy Americans from using loopholes to balloon their IRA accounts so that they can park funds and avoid taxation. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was accused of doing just that during the 2012 presidential campaign.

Notably absent from the revenue component of the bill is a hike in the tax rate on carried interest, the income stream for financial managers. Democrats have long targeted a change in that rate but top officials in the party have been wary of tackling it in the context of sequestration negotiations. That said, an aide did not rule out the possibility of it being brought up in future discussions.

On the spending side, Democrats will split the cuts evenly between defense and domestic spending. The details of these cuts are still vague, but an aide said that the non-defense component would revolve primarily around "agriculture savings."

"Everything is still fluid," said an aide, cautioning that the details of the Senate Democratic offer could change. "But the idea is to go into the recess at the end of next week with our position staked out and our caucus behind it."

The senators putting together the Democratic offer include Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).

Absent action from Congress, sequestration would begin on March 1, 2013. According to the Obama administration, over the next year, the triggered cuts would result in a roughly 9 percent reduction in spending on domestic programs and 13 percent reduction in defense spending.

[Flasch186]

Im not saying he should go on trial for a crime but that one branch of govt cannot have such powers as are described in the white paper without oversight. I used the word Trial broadly to say that others should be able to determine the constitutionality of the acts, their legal standing and if a crime has or is being committed. I think I argued the same thing against W and now this President, whom I voted for, has admitted to the program so.... The admin should have to defend it and if its deemed by the counterbalances in government to have been 'wrong' then it should go down the prescribed path whatever that is.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I absolutely detest many of the things Obama has done in foreign policy (Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, etc.), but as JPhillips said, what can I do? I live in the United States, which is a right leaning country on a global scale. Since we have a First Past the Post electoral system, that will limit us two a two party system (see: Duverger's law). I proudly supported Obama for re-election in 2012, knowing he would continue to do many things I didn't support, because I truly believe the country is much better off with him in charge than it would be with Romney.

Furthermore, war is not some singular issue that you are either pro or con on. If I go back through history, there are wars I've supported and wars I haven't. It's absurd to suggest that you have to support all wars or oppose all wars and someone isn't necessarily a hypocrite just because they supported one war and didn't support another.

One of my biggest pet peeves around here is when someone says, "I believe X because of Y" and the responses have nothing to do with Y, but instead criticizing the person for reasons other than Y (i.e. You didn't believe X before when so and so was President!") Sure, maybe the person is being a hypocrite, but what it often comes across as is either not wanting to or being unable to discuss Y. If you don't believe that Y is my real reason for believing something, then why are you even responding to me? Nothing I say will be a satisfactory response to you, so there's no point in even having or continuing a discussion under those circumstances.

Ha - I voted for Obama too, although Romney was certainly going to be better for my wallet. I felt the larger historical implications overrode my complete disagreement on nearly every position he takes!

Highly unlikely to be able to keep that motivation going if Hillary runs unless the republicans continue to roll out mediocrity.

[miked]

Yay for sequestration.

-- 1,000 fewer research grants would be awarded, cutting research and laboratories for some 12,000 scientists and students.

That's what we need when we are falling behind in STEM fields, less research. It should be noted that federal funding is already at all-time lows, so this is like a kick in the nuts when you're already knocked out. As it is I already can't find good American postdocs, so I train foreign ones here and they go back. Awesome.

[Galaxy]

While this is from last April, the stat of new recipients that are on Social Security disability seems very high.

http://news.investors.com/business/0...ama.htm?p=full

[Galaxy]

Reducing $120 billion over 10 years on $16.5 trillion of debt?

[JPhillips]

Too bad there isn't any work that could be done and borrowing costs aren't historically low. If only...

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I absolutely detest many of the things Obama has done in foreign policy (Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, etc.), but as JPhillips said, what can I do? I live in the United States, which is a right leaning country on a global scale. Since we have a First Past the Post electoral system, that will limit us two a two party system (see: Duverger's law). I proudly supported Obama for re-election in 2012, knowing he would continue to do many things I didn't support, because I truly believe the country is much better off with him in charge than it would be with Romney.

Furthermore, war is not some singular issue that you are either pro or con on. If I go back through history, there are wars I've supported and wars I haven't. It's absurd to suggest that you have to support all wars or oppose all wars and someone isn't necessarily a hypocrite just because they supported one war and didn't support another.

One of my biggest pet peeves around here is when someone says, "I believe X because of Y" and the responses have nothing to do with Y, but instead criticizing the person for reasons other than Y (i.e. You didn't believe X before when so and so was President!") Sure, maybe the person is being a hypocrite, but what it often comes across as is either not wanting to or being unable to discuss Y. If you don't believe that Y is my real reason for believing something, then why are you even responding to me? Nothing I say will be a satisfactory response to you, so there's no point in even having or continuing a discussion under those circumstances.

I absolutely detest many of the things Obama has done in domestic policy (Obamacare, Gun Control, etc.), but as JPhillips said, what can I do? I live in the United States, which is a left leaning country on a global scale. Since we have a First Past the Post electoral system, that will limit us two a two party system (see: Duverger's law). I proudly did not support Obama for re-election in 2012, knowing he would continue to do many things I didn't support, because I truly believe the country is a little worse off with him in charge than it would be with Romney.

Furthermore, Obama's initiatives are not some singular issue that you are either pro or con on. If I go back through history, there are initiatives I've supported and initiatives I haven't. It's absurd to suggest that you have to support all initiatives or oppose all initiatives and someone isn't necessarily a hypocrite just because they supported one initiative and didn't support another.

One of my biggest pet peeves around here is when someone says, "I believe Y because of X" and the responses have nothing to do with X, but instead criticizing the person for reasons other than X (i.e. You didn't believe Y before when so and so was President!") Sure, maybe the person is being a hypocrite, but what it often comes across as is either not wanting to or being unable to discuss X. If you don't believe that X is my real reason for believing something, then why are you even responding to me? Nothing I say will be a satisfactory response to you, so there's no point in even having or continuing a discussion under those circumstances.

I agree with you. It truly goes both ways.

[RainMaker]

What has Obama done on gun control?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What has Obama done on gun control?

He's too busy performing abortions and pulling life support on grandmas to stop and take the guns....yet

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I live in the United States, which is a left leaning country on a global scale.

I have to argue with this point. Barack Obama is further to the right than most European leaders.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I have to argue with this point. Barack Obama is further to the right than most European leaders.

But compared to China, Russia, India?

[Edward64]

I like what he is saying. With Obamacare done, my next big issue is positioning US for the future - this is primarily done with education and immigration (of talent) and reducing debt.

The economic recovery is well underway. Immigration is being addressed. Reducing debt is hosed.

Education is an important one. Its not just a government setting rules, mandates, performance baselines etc. (which I do believe is important), its also changing the culture of learning, increasing the importance of it for alot of Americans. Maybe a government and grassroots private sector campaign?

In State of the Union, Obama to return to jobs and the economy - The Washington Post

President Obama will concentrate his State of the Union speech Tuesday on the economy, shifting the emphasis away from the broad social agenda of his second inaugural address to refocus attention on a set of problems that vexed his first term.

Several senior administration officials involved in the speech say he will use his fourth State of the Union address to talk about jobs after the national unemployment rate ticked up last month. He will propose ways to make college more affordable to more people. And, the officials said, he will argue for the need to spend public money — on research, on roads, on education — to prepare Americans for a world where a warming climate, a nomadic labor force and new technology are shutting doors and opening new ones across the national economy.

“Our single biggest remaining challenge is to get our economy in a place where the middle class is feeling less squeezed, where incomes sustain families,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the address based on drafts, marked up with highlighters, that were circulating among senior staff members late last week.

“This project is not complete, by any means,” the official added.

With Obama’s popularity up in recent polls, he made the back-to-basics approach clear last week in a meeting with House Democrats, whose inconsistent support will need firming up if his full domestic agenda has any hope of succeeding.

He told lawmakers at a Thursday policy retreat in Virginia that his second-term priority “starts with an economy that works for everybody,” adding that “our economy succeeds and our economy grows when everybody is getting a fair shot.”

“That is a growth agenda — not just an equity agenda, not just a fairness agenda,” Obama said, adding that on Tuesday “I’m going to be talking about job creation right here in the United States of America.”

A president’s first State of the Union speech following reelection has historically been his most ambitious — other than, perhaps, his first. Since it follows an inaugural address, it also gives a president a rare pair of opportunities, just weeks apart, to present the essence of a second-term program.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But compared to China, Russia, India?

I don't think you can really compare democracies and totalitarian states, but Obama surely isn't to the left of a communist state like China.

[Edward64]

This thread started with what I hoped Obama would accomplish when first elected.

I think #1, #3 were accomplished by Obama and he should get credit.

For #2, the situation has improved but don't think it was directly because of his policies but instead private sector with shale gas/oil in the North America's.

I think #4 has improved (other than in few select countries) but again, not directly because of Obama, but because GWB was no longer around.

Originally Posted by Edward64

My hopes are

1. Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
2. Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
3. Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
4. Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill and accomplish this!

[Edward64]

So here are my hopes for the 2nd Obama term in domestic policy (in addition to continuing 1st term)

1. Reduce the debt, make a signficant impact. I am hoping this will occur some naturally with growth of the economy but feel there needs to be signficant reduction in entitlements in addition to increased taxes.
2. Immigration reform. I'm not sure about the illegals/undocumented but certainly open up the US to well educated immigrants.
3. Education reform. Not sure the solution but its not just making getting into college easier or measuring performance. Its transforming US education.

[Dutch]

I'm good with those three, although anyway you shake it, reducing the debt will ask us all to make sacrifices that I know we can't make. So a strong econmy is it.

Locking down the borders will add jobs. Amnesty to all who are here will add tax dollars. I'm down with that.

US Education is turning into a joke. Not sure how to handle this, but I don't think the Feds are better at this than the States.

[Edward64]

Here are my Machiavellian hopes in foreign policy for Obama's 2nd term.

1. Take care of Pakistan. I don't honestly know how but this frenemy relationship doesn't seem to be working
2. Blunt or slow China's growth. I mean economically. Best thing for US to happen is a Japan-like lost decade (or 2?) for China. I think we all know China has been cooking the books so make the house of cards crash.
3. Get out of Afghanistan. Kill more Taliban but get out.
4. Continue building relationships with Arab countries in ME (even if this causes friction with Israel)
5. Normalize relations with Cuba and Venezuela. There will be an opportunity when their leaders pass. Cuba because its the right thing to do. Venezuela because of short term oil needs.
6. Help Mexico in drug cartel problem. I'm sure easier said then done but I think they need some of our drones.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I absolutely detest many of the things Obama has done in domestic policy (Obamacare, Gun Control, etc.), but as JPhillips said, what can I do? I live in the United States, which is a left leaning country on a global scale. Since we have a First Past the Post electoral system, that will limit us two a two party system (see: Duverger's law). I proudly did not support Obama for re-election in 2012, knowing he would continue to do many things I didn't support, because I truly believe the country is a little worse off with him in charge than it would be with Romney.

Furthermore, Obama's initiatives are not some singular issue that you are either pro or con on. If I go back through history, there are initiatives I've supported and initiatives I haven't. It's absurd to suggest that you have to support all initiatives or oppose all initiatives and someone isn't necessarily a hypocrite just because they supported one initiative and didn't support another.

One of my biggest pet peeves around here is when someone says, "I believe Y because of X" and the responses have nothing to do with X, but instead criticizing the person for reasons other than X (i.e. You didn't believe Y before when so and so was President!") Sure, maybe the person is being a hypocrite, but what it often comes across as is either not wanting to or being unable to discuss X. If you don't believe that X is my real reason for believing something, then why are you even responding to me? Nothing I say will be a satisfactory response to you, so there's no point in even having or continuing a discussion under those circumstances.

I agree with you. It truly goes both ways.

If my statement goes both ways, then you would've replaced Obama with Romney and mentioned how you voted for him despite not agreeing with many of his issues.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm good with those three, although anyway you shake it, reducing the debt will ask us all to make sacrifices that I know we can't make. So a strong econmy is it.

Locking down the borders will add jobs. Amnesty to all who are here will add tax dollars. I'm down with that.

US Education is turning into a joke. Not sure how to handle this, but I don't think the Feds are better at this than the States.

It could start with eliminating No Child Left Behind. Because it's turned into teaching to a test, we're having to teach them things in college they should have learned in high school.

Like oh, say, the basics of critical thinking and writing? Seriously, I've taught at two different universities and in both cases, this has applied.

[JPhillips]

My college kids have a tremendous difficulty making choices without knowing the outcome. They fear being wrong, I suspect because being wrong has such consequences in a testing based environment. They don't know how to fail and try again.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Izulde

It could start with eliminating No Child Left Behind. Because it's turned into teaching to a test, we're having to teach them things in college they should have learned in high school.

Like oh, say, the basics of critical thinking and writing? Seriously, I've taught at two different universities and in both cases, this has applied.

I contend you cannot improve what you do not measure. You may disagree on what/how its measured but at least NCLB it is an attempt.

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students.[3] NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.[4] NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes

[JPhillips]

The problem isn't assessment, it's what's being assessed. There is a lot of a good education that doesn't fit into a bubble test.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem isn't assessment, it's what's being assessed. There is a lot of a good education that doesn't fit into a bubble test.

I don't disagree. Find a way to measure improvement that don't fit. It won't be perfect, it won't be fair to everyone but that's real world.

Everytime I catch Randi Weingarten on TV, she says alot of good visionary stuff but I do not see action. Michelle Rhee at least seems to take action regardless if you agree with her.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My college kids have a tremendous difficulty making choices without knowing the outcome. They fear being wrong, I suspect because being wrong has such consequences in a testing based environment. They don't know how to fail and try again.

Agree with this too. Everytime I take my students to the computer lab it amazes me the panic if they do something wrong and get errors, etc.

[Edward64]

BTW, I am sympathetic because my wife teaches Special Ed. I have no idea how to fairly measure progress with Special Ed.

[JPhillips]

Bubble tests are the cheapest and easiest to administer. At the end of the day nobody wants to spend the time and money to do a more complex assessment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

It could start with eliminating No Child Left Behind. Because it's turned into teaching to a test, we're having to teach them things in college they should have learned in high school.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. (pun intended btw)

I sat in a college classroom in the mid-90s and watched a professor in freshman English resort to using the phrase "doing word" because "verb" wasn't understood by over half the class. 3/4ths of the class were education majors.

NCLBA was a response to that situation, not the cause.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like what he is saying. With Obamacare done, my next big issue is positioning US for the future - this is primarily done with education and immigration (of talent) and reducing debt.

Obamacare is far from being done, and will see the impact (positive or negative) soon.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I sat in a college classroom in the mid-90s and watched a professor in freshman English resort to using the phrase "doing word" because "verb" wasn't understood by over half the class. 3/4ths of the class were education majors.
NCLBA was a response to that situation, not the cause.

Surely though thats entirely the WRONG response to that situation?

You shouldn't be able to get into university (in an English speaking country) without a fairly reasonable grasp of the english language ... that is surely a requirement for someone understanding texts at that level.

As I've seen it NCLBA simply increases the problem that some students have by not only delaying their emotional development to match their impeded educational development (ie. instead of staying with peers in the same age range they are now potentially far older than the people they're associated with - in some cases by 2 years which is a HUGE factor for a 13 year old boy).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Obamacare is far from being done, and will see the impact (positive or negative) soon.

So how will we see the impact soon if it is far from being done?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You shouldn't be able to get into university (in an English speaking country) without a fairly reasonable grasp of the english language ... that is surely a requirement for someone understanding texts at that level.

You really aren't familiar with the U.S. higher "education" industry, are you?

It's a business, and (in Georgia) once the free money started flowing in earnest (lottery revenues funding Hope schollies) anybody with a pulse could get into at least some part of the state university system. Had to, only way they (the school) could cash in on it. In this case, it was the 2nd largest unit of the state system (Georgia State Univ.).

As I've seen it NCLBA simply increases the problem that some students have by not only delaying their emotional development to match their impeded educational development (ie. instead of staying with peers in the same age range they are now potentially far older than the people they're associated with - in some cases by 2 years which is a HUGE factor for a 13 year old boy).

Must work differently from state to state, here you basically can't get held back for any reason, no matter how desperately appropriate it would be. Graduation tests and/or ECOT (End of Course Tests) at most delay the occasional diploma but I've never once come across a single case of them affecting any other grade promotion. They should -- 'cause if you can't pass those tests then honestly, you're in pretty sorry shape -- but they don't. It's pass 'em along & make 'em the next persons problem.