The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The costs in the UK are huge compared to the US HOWEVER society is setup totally differently, its rare anyone in the UK drives for more than 20 miles in a day and frequently people won't use a car at all if they commute by train (which a lot of people do).

That would depend what part of the country you live in. In London I could get by without owning a car, but in a lot of Scotland a car is essential.

London has an awesome public transport system, but it is terrible up here. In the rare occasion that it works for me in Scotland, I always end up either getting delayed or sharing a carriage with an angry drunk.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

That would depend what part of the country you live in. In London I could get by without owning a car, but in a lot of Scotland a car is essential.

London has an awesome public transport system, but it is terrible up here. In the rare occasion that it works for me in Scotland, I always end up either getting delayed or sharing a carriage with an angry drunk.

You guys should probably get taxis instead of using horses. Having doors you have to open helps to keep out the drunks.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

It does suck for the people that have to bear the brunt of it this minute, but shouldn't more expensive gas in theory lead to greater demand for public transportation, and more demand for walkable cities and pedestrian-friendly city planning? (not to mention the positive environmental impact of less driving). Part of the reason I bought the house I did was I got tired of commuting and having my paycheck essentially tied to gas prices, and having to drive a couple of miles just to go to supermarket or the movies - a million individual decisions like that can add up.

In Atlanta they've voted it down so many times it's comical. Our highways now have 7 lanes in them and it still takes an hour to go 10 miles. But the prospect of poorer people having access to the suburbs has people scared. The funny thing is, anyone who goes to Gwinnett county now (one of the aforementioned burbs) can see the huge influx of the feared "lower" classes thanks to the drug trade.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How would you pay for the roads? There's already a significant gap between tax income and needed maintenance.

Eliminate the enormous amounts of crap that the government shouldn't be involved in, then we'll see where we're at.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

But the prospect of poorer people having access to the suburbs has people scared.

Yeah, the comical ineptitude of the existing system couldn't have anything to do with the resistance.

[RainMaker]

But the people who use the roads the most should be the ones paying for them. So I don't have a problem with taxing them to use them (directly or indirectly). It also has the added bonus of incentivizing people to use more fuel efficient cars or alternative energy cars which will save us tax dollars from not having to invade shitholes in the Middle East for oil.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

In Atlanta they've voted it down so many times it's comical. Our highways now have 7 lanes in them and it still takes an hour to go 10 miles. But the prospect of poorer people having access to the suburbs has people scared. The funny thing is, anyone who goes to Gwinnett county now (one of the aforementioned burbs) can see the huge influx of the feared "lower" classes thanks to the drug trade.

Not necessarily the drug trade, but because due to the massive time expense it takes to commute into the city, a lot of suburbanites have moved back into the city (hence the gentrification of places like Little 5 Points, East Atlanta, etc) and Gwinnett's property values have gone down. Making it easier for poorer minorities to afford to live there (and they'll deal with the traffic).

[finketr]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But the people who use the roads the most should be the ones paying for them. So I don't have a problem with taxing them to use them (directly or indirectly). It also has the added bonus of incentivizing people to use more fuel efficient cars or alternative energy cars which will save us tax dollars from not having to invade shitholes in the Middle East for oil.

of course, if we would develop our own resources and approve Keystone XL...

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by finketr

of course, if we would develop our own resources and approve Keystone XL...

And that would lead to even higher gas prices.

[JPhillips]

I know how Keystone is good for the oil companies, but I don't know how it benefits everybody else.

[JPhillips]

Because there isn't a thread for news so stupid and depressing it makes me want to scream.

On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee considered HB 1674 — a House bill that would prevent teachers in science classes from penalizing students who contest evolutionary principles with untestable, faith-based claims.
It passed, 9-8.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because there isn't a thread for news so stupid and depressing it makes me want to scream.

There's ignorant and then there's willfully ignorant. Only one has a cure.

[Edward64]

Yup, I like what Obama is doing, low risk and helping strengthen relationships with France. But it is somewhat puzzling, you would think France would not like this dependency ... why don't they just buy the drones from us.

Obama deploys drones, US military personnel to Niger - U.S. News

President Barack Obama has deployed American military personnel and drone aircraft to the African country of Niger, where they could be used to support a French counterterrorism mission in neighboring Mali.

Defense Department officials told NBC News that a first wave will include two Raptor surveillance drones and 250 to 300 military personnel, including remote pilots and security and maintenance crews. They are expected to arrive soon.

The officials stressed that the drones are meant for surveillance only. The White House has faced criticism for a legal memo concluding that the U.S. government can use drones to kill American citizens overseas in certain cases.

Besides helping the French in Mali, the drones could be used to provide intelligence on a growing Islamic militant threat throughout North and East Africa.

The president notified Congress on Friday under the War Powers Act, which requires him to tell Congress when heavily armed U.S. military personnel are newly deployed to a region or nation.

Obama told Congress that the U.S. military presence was under the consent of the government of Niger, and that they would “facilitate intelligence-sharing” with the French. He said that the American military personnel were armed for their own protection and security.

Next door in Mali, Tuareg rebels overthrew the government last year. Islamists took control of important towns and pushed toward the capital. France intervened last month — initially with airstrikes and later with about 4,000 ground troops.

[ISiddiqui]

At least this way, its the Americans who are using drones (and no one likes drones) .

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because there isn't a thread for news so stupid and depressing it makes me want to scream.

Nice quote. Too bad you didn't include the source. Did you even read the bill before you posted this? I'd guess not.

[JPhillips]

From the bill:

Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of
course materials, but no student in any public school or institution
shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a
particular position on scientific theories.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From the bill:

Oh no! Just because a student doesn't believe in something that hasn't been proven and is a theory, they won't be penalized! What's your point?

Just stop while you're behind. You were in an uproar and wanted to scream over something you knew nothing about. Now that you've read (maybe) the bill, you cherry pick a quote that is quite harmless.

Look at the bill. There is nothing objectionable in it.

[JPhillips]

All illnesses are caused by imbalances in humours.

The HIV virus does not cause AIDS.

You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up.

According to the bill in question these answers would probably have to be given at least partial credit if the student questioned the teacher's assessment as incorrect. Perhaps the state school board's standards would allow questions that get to the right answer, but the wording of this bill is so poor that there will be all kinds of challenges.

"May not be penalized in any way" is very strong and clear language. The previous section of "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials," is much more vague.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Oh no! Just because a student doesn't believe in something that hasn't been proven and is a theory, they won't be penalized! What's your point?

Just stop while you're behind. You were in an uproar and wanted to scream over something you knew nothing about. Now that you've read (maybe) the bill, you cherry pick a quote that is quite harmless.

Look at the bill. There is nothing objectionable in it.

Do you understand science? When you say "theory", its not in any way to akin to the way "theory" is used by your buddy to explain how he got home after drinking too much last night. Evolution is real - I cannot believe that a civilized society needs this discussion to occur.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Do you understand science? When you say "theory", its not in any way to akin to the way "theory" is used by your buddy to explain how he got home after drinking too much last night. Evolution is real - I cannot believe that a civilized society needs this discussion to occur.

Maybe he was educated in Oklahoma?

[sabotai]

The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some
scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the
areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can
cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the
expectations concerning how they should present information on some
subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the
chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Classic.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Classic.

Nothing like setting yourself up for a lifetime of mediocrity or less.

[JPhillips]

I know this is common in state legislatures, but I still find section four to be funny.

SECTION 4.
It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

There's a Darwin emergency!!!!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Oh no! Just because a student doesn't believe in something that hasn't been proven and is a theory, they won't be penalized! What's your point?

Just stop while you're behind. You were in an uproar and wanted to scream over something you knew nothing about. Now that you've read (maybe) the bill, you cherry pick a quote that is quite harmless.

Look at the bill. There is nothing objectionable in it.

Theory in science and 'theory' in every day usage is very different - a scientific theory is basically proven and far different to my theory regarding why I have so many odd socks in my drawers.

Originally Posted by Science Experiment

http://thehappyscientist.com/science...-theory-or-law
Is Gravity a Theory or a Law?
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other

[JediKooter]

What does that word salad even mean? That it goes into affect as soon as it gets voted on and passes?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What does that word salad even mean? That it goes into affect as soon as it gets voted on and passes?

Yes. A lot of states have laws that keep a passed bill from going into effect until a certain number of months passes or the next legislature is voted in, but there's always a public emergency exception that allows a bill to become law immediately.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes. A lot of states have laws that keep a passed bill from going into effect until a certain number of months passes or the next legislature is voted in, but there's always a public emergency exception that allows a bill to become law immediately.

Nice to see they take non punishment so seriously there that it requires an emergency enacting.

[Edward64]

I can remember when "don't ask don't tell" was a major milestone in gay rights albeit wasn't near enough for the gay supporters (but best Clinton thought he could do at the time).

Look at where we are now ... almost there. History books will remember Obama for his gay rights advocacy.

Obama administration weighs in on defense of marriage law - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- In a preview of a major constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage, the Obama administration said on Friday that a federal law denying financial benefits to legally wed gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department filed the first of a series of briefs in a pair of cases dealing with the multilayered issue, outlining the executive branch's positions.

The high court will hear oral arguments next month on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 congressional law that says for federal purposes, marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman.

That means federal tax, Social Security, pension, and bankruptcy benefits, and family medical leave protections -- do not apply to gay and lesbian couples.

This case deals with Edith "Edie" Windsor, forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than other married couples would have to pay. Because her decades-long partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize the same-sex marriage in legal terms, even though their home state of New York did.

But now, led by President Barack Obama's recent political about-face, the administration opposes the law.

"Moral opposition to homosexuality, though it may reflect deeply held personal views, is not a legitimate policy objective that can justify unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people" contained in the DOMA law, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in the Justice Department's legal brief.

[Kodos]

Where is the like button?

[mauchow]

he he he, the article said 'oral'. heh heh heh

[Edward64]

I like Michelle. Not the traditional first lady.
Michelle Obama and Jimmy Fallon show off their mom dance moves on 'Late Night' - The Clicker

First lady Michelle Obama has never been shy about wanting America to get moving to get fit and healthy. To promote her "Let's Move" campaign on "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" on Friday, the president's No. 1 gal proved that getting active can be fun and funny -- for both parents and their children.

In a segment titled "Evolution of Mom Dancing," the late-night host -- dressed up in a soccer mom outfit complete with brunette wig, khakis and a pink cardigan -- and Mrs. Obama busted out some hilarious aerobic dance moves. Among them: the "Go Shopping, Get Groceries," the "Just the Hands Part of 'Single Ladies,' " the "Where's Your Father? (Get Him Back Here!)" and several more heart-healthy struts that Mama Fallon couldn't keep up with.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

History books will remember Obama for his gay rights advocacy.

He just followed the changing U.S. culture and didn't become outspoken until it made political sense to do so. There's been plenty of expressed disappointment in the gay community about Obama's words and actions in his first term. He didn't show any courage at all, the real change was the result of individuals - a million little cultural victories happening everywhere (people having the courage to come out, people having the courage and insight to look past their former prejudices, etc.) That's how culture changes, when a lot of real people change individually, its not anything that happens in Washington. Obama joined up only when it was popular to do so.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

He just followed the changing U.S. culture and didn't become outspoken until it made political sense to do so. There's been plenty of expressed disappointment in the gay community about Obama's words and actions in his first term. He didn't didn't show any courage at all, the real change was the result of individuals - a million little cultural victories happening everywhere (people having the courage to come out, people having the courage insight to look past their former prejudices, etc.) That's how culture changes, when a lot of real people change individually, its not anything that happens in Washington. Obama joined up only when it was popular to do so.

I think you are both right. I'm not sure if Obama really believes in his first-term position or his current position, but he is definitely matching his public opinion with popular opinion. Having said that, history books will probably match Obama with the growing gay-rights movement. Right time, right place.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

He just followed the changing U.S. culture and didn't become outspoken until it made political sense to do so. There's been plenty of expressed disappointment in the gay community about Obama's words and actions in his first term. He didn't didn't show any courage at all, the real change was the result of individuals - a million little cultural victories happening everywhere (people having the courage to come out, people having the courage insight to look past their former prejudices, etc.) That's how culture changes, when a lot of real people change individually, its not anything that happens in Washington. Obama joined up only when it was popular to do so.

I agree with this too. Unfortunately, history usually credits the Presidents for these changes when in fact it was many of the other figures who pushed over the years against unpopular sentiment to get to where things are. You can say the same about the Civil Rights Act which only got pushed when it was a popular move.

[larrymcg421]

When Obama came out for gay marriage, no state had rejected a gay marriage ban. Not even liberal California. There's no doubt it was politically safer than it would've been in 2008, but to say that it wasn't still a divisive issue just isn't true. He was opposed almost by the GOP on ending DADT. The GOP platform still had a anti-gay message. If Obama lost everything he's done would've taken at least 4 years longer and probably more. Also consider the effect Obama had on African-American support for gays. It's fair to say he should've acted sooner, but to say he just rode the coattails of the movement and deserves no credit for the progress over the last 4 years is just ludicrous.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

When Obama came out for gay marriage, no state had rejected a gay marriage ban. Not even liberal California. There's no doubt it was politically safer than it would've been in 2008, but to say that it wasn't still a divisive issue just isn't true. He was opposed almost by the GOP on ending DADT. The GOP platform still had a anti-gay message. If Obama lost everything he's done would've taken at least 4 years longer and probably more. Also consider the effect Obama had on African-American support for gays. It's fair to say he should've acted sooner, but to say he just rode the coattails of the movement and deserves no credit for the progress over the last 4 years is just ludicrous.

Why do you think he waited so long then if he was going to be the force (or one of the major forces) that changed America's view on this ? Why were so many elected Democrats also so cowardly on this? (I actually asked this earlier in the thread, and the general consensus - including from liberal posters - was that it just made sense politically, which is all I'm saying now.) Giving Obama credit for this is kind of insulting to the people who took strong stands in their own lives and communities before it was easy to do - and the tiny handful of elected politicians who stood out when it wasn't yet popular and politically beneficial to do so.

Edit: Looking around a little on this, you're one of the few strong gay-rights supporters I've seen that want to give Obama really any credit for cultural change in this country the last few years. Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage publicly, unequivocally until MAY 2012! The train had LONG ago left the station by then. I can accept the argument that in a practical sense, that's just how it had to be and he did come around eventually, but not an argument that he deserves any significant credit for the changing cultural views over the 5-10 years before that, that's just preposterous. I give Obama credit for being publicly opposed to the Iraq war before it was the cool thing to do, and he deserves that legacy, but he also deserves the legacy of not supporting gay marriage until May 2012.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

When Obama came out for gay marriage, no state had rejected a gay marriage ban. Not even liberal California. There's no doubt it was politically safer than it would've been in 2008, but to say that it wasn't still a divisive issue just isn't true. He was opposed almost by the GOP on ending DADT. The GOP platform still had a anti-gay message. If Obama lost everything he's done would've taken at least 4 years longer and probably more. Also consider the effect Obama had on African-American support for gays. It's fair to say he should've acted sooner, but to say he just rode the coattails of the movement and deserves no credit for the progress over the last 4 years is just ludicrous.

Support has come along way in support of gay marriage even over the last 4 years. It's jumped like 10 percent looking back at some of the polls.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Why do you think he waited so long then if he was going to be the force (or one of the major forces) that changed America's view on this ? Why were so many elected Democrats also so cowardly on this? (I actually asked this earlier in the thread, and the general consensus - including from liberal posters - was that it just made sense politically, which is all I'm saying now.) Giving Obama credit for this is kind of insulting to the people who took strong stands in their own lives and communities before it was easy to do.

Edit: Looking around a little on this, you're one of the few strong gay-rights supporters I've seen that want to give Obama really any credit for cultural change in this country the last few years. Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage publicly, unequivocally until MAY 2012! The train had LONG ago left the station by then. I can accept the argument that in a practical sense, that's just how it had to be and he did come around eventually, but not an argument that he deserves any significant credit for the changing cultural views over the 5-10 years before that, that's just preposterous.

The initial statement you responded to was that history will remember Obama for his gay rights advocacy. That seems to bother you and I don't understand why unless you just have an irrational hatred of Obama and don't want him to get credit for anything. He was fought stringently on Don't Ask Don't Tell and on reversing the Justice Department's position on DOMA. When he came out in support of gay marriage, North Carolina had just voted for a gay marriage ban, becoming the 30th state to do so without a single state popularly supporting gay marriage up to that point. In 2010, three Iowa justices were voted off the court for ruling in favor of same sex marriage (a move you supported). A poll on May 8th (when you say the train had left the station) showed unanimous support for the issue This was the atmosphere in May 2012 when you allege that it was such an easy and popular position to take. This article here (Polls Show Obama's Support For Gay Marriage Influencing Blacks : It's All Politics : NPR) demonstrates how Obama's announcement had a profound effect on African-American support for marriage equality.

I've never denied that Obama made a political decision to wait until it was more acceptable. But just because he did that doesn't mean it was this settled, universally popular measure when he finally did it. You seem to be operating in a very limited framework where either it was completely a political decision or politics were not involved at all

As I said in the post you responded to, it is fair to criticize Obama for not acting sooner on certain issues. But he did eventually act, and all I'm arguing is that he deserves credit for finally taking those actions. He deserves credit for ending DADT. He deserves credit for attacking DOMA. He deserves credit for coming out in favor of gay marriage. History will (and should) remember him for doing those things. That doesn't mean he's the driving force or one of the major driving forces of changing people's minds over the last 5-10 years (not sure how you read that from my post), but it certainly means that saying he deserves no credit for those things is completely ludicrous.

[molson]

He didn't hinder gay rights and he did probably modestly help them particularly with his influence in the black community, but it would be unfortunate if the "history books" remembered him as this leading gay rights activist, which was the sentiment I was responding to. Nobody who didn't publicly support gay marriage until May 2012 should have that legacy, IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

In 2010, three Iowa justices were voted off the court for ruling in favor of same sex marriage (a move you supported).

I don't recall supporting the result of the vote but I did think, and still do think, that gay marriage is state issue and not something mandated by the federal constitution, and I certainly support the rights of individuals and states to oppose gay marriage. I think the U.S. culture is plenty effective enough at effectuating actual long-lasting change, and culture, rather than law, is the only way to really change people's views. A million gay people coming out, and demanding acceptance, and earning acceptance from their own families and communities, and those families and communities getting over themselves and realizing that the world won't end if people are openly gay, and even marry, is a lot more effective at changing people's views than a court telling everybody they have to think and act a certain way, again, IMO.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't recall supporting the result of the vote but I did think, and still do think, that gay marriage is state issue and not something mandated by the federal constitution, and I certainly support the rights of individuals and states to oppose gay marriage. I think the U.S. culture is plenty effective enough at effectuating actual long-lasting change, and culture, rather than law, is the only way to really change people's views. A million gay people coming out, and demanding acceptance, and earning acceptance from their own families and communities, and those families and communities getting over themselves and realizing that the world won't end if people are openly gay, and even marry, is a lot more effective at changing people's views than a court telling everybody they have to think and act a certain way, again, IMO.

If a court rules for marriage equality tomorrow, then people are free to act and think the same way they do then as they are now, so I'm not sure how that statement makes any sense. And as I've said before, I agree that change throughout society is important, but at some point the court has to come in and put the final stamp on it. If we had waited for state by state change during the civil rights movement, who knows how long it would've taken Kansas and other states to end segregation or Virginia and other states to allow interracial marriage. I'm not going to subject my friends to the whims of what the rest of backwards Georgia thinks. They shouldn't have to wait however long it takes for GA to catch up with the rest of the country before their marriage is legally recognized. And the person in the original article has to pay a higher estate tax now, so waiting for Republicans to approve a DOMA repeal doesn't really make sense in her case, as by then it would be too late. Eventually it becomes time for the court to act, and that time is now.

[Edward64]

Interesting article on the sequester blame-game.

Bob Woodward: Obama’s sequester deal-changer - The Washington Post

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

[Edward64]

A quick response rebutting Woodward.

On the sequester, the American people ‘moved the goalposts’

I don’t agree with my colleague Bob Woodward, who says the Obama administration is “moving the goalposts” when they insist on a sequester replacement that includes revenues. I remember talking to both members of the Obama administration and the Republican leadership in 2011, and everyone was perfectly clear that Democrats were going to pursue tax increases in any sequester replacement, and Republicans were going to oppose tax increases in any sequester replacement. What no one knew was who would win.

“Moving the goal posts” isn’t a concept that actually makes any sense in the context of replacing the sequester. The whole point of the policy was to buy time until someone, somehow, moved the goalposts such that the sequester could be replaced.

Think back to July 2011. The problem was simple. Republicans wouldn’t agree to raise the debt ceiling without trillions of dollars in deficit reduction. Democrats wouldn’t agree to trillions of dollars in deficit reduction if it didn’t include significant tax increases. Republicans wouldn’t agree to significant tax increases. The political system was at an impasse, and in a few short days, that impasse would create a global financial crisis.

The sequester was a punt. The point was to give both sides a face-saving way to raise the debt ceiling even though the tax issue was stopping them from agreeing to a deficit deal. The hope was that sometime between the day the sequester was signed into law (Aug. 2, 2011) and the day it was set to go into effect (Jan. 1, 2013), something would…change.

There were two candidates to drive that change. The first and least likely was the supercommittee. If they came to a deal that both sides accepted, they could replace the sequester. They failed.

The second was the 2012 election. If Republicans won, then that would pretty much settle it: No tax increases. If President Obama won, then that, too, would pretty much settle it: The American people would’ve voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.

The American people voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.

In fact, they went even further than that. They also voted for a Senate that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes. And then they voted for a House that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes, though due to the quirks of congressional districts, they didn’t get one.

[Buccaneer]

My company is facing a $17 million budget deficit this year due to the drought (water restrictions = less revenues). Management went to each department head and asked for cuts. Within each department, we offered up cuts either through reductions or deferring projects. (In my case, we could give up our capital project for new servers to run my upcoming web GIS apps.) Every department, every section offered up savings and will reach the goal eventually. Management did not automatically lop X% out of each department's budget because that would be stupid. But if there has to be cuts, then we will work to find them and everyone shares in the reductions.

It seems that the federal department's mindset (including military) is not only refuse to cut but would turn around and ask for even more money. If management of large (public, private) companies can work together cut budgets, what prevents Congress from doing the same?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My company is facing a $17 million budget deficit this year due to the drought (water restrictions = less revenues). Management went to each department head and asked for cuts. Within each department, we offered up cuts either through reductions or deferring projects. (In my case, we could give up our capital project for new servers to run my upcoming web GIS apps.) Every department, every section offered up savings and will reach the goal eventually. Management did not automatically lop X% out of each department's budget because that would be stupid. But if there has to be cuts, then we will work to find them and everyone shares in the reductions.

It seems that the federal department's mindset (including military) is not only refuse to cut but would turn around and ask for even more money. If management of large (public, private) companies can work together cut budgets, what prevents Congress from doing the same?

It makes perfect sense, but it appears that the sense of entitlement isn't limited to our citizens. The government sectors/workers are just as bad, if not worse. I worked in the government in multiple posts for six years. There wasn't an area I saw where we couldn't have continued to function normally with a 20% labor cut.

[cuervo72]

That could well be. What I fear with our government entity though is that if cuts come down, they will end up landing disproportionately on contractors (like myself), because, well, we're only contractors. Never mind that the bulk of the IT work is done by contractors* - and at least on our contract we are already spread pretty thin.


* More and more call center people seem to be contractors these days too, vs union staff. The lawyer brigade though, they're certainly not contracted out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My company is facing a $17 million budget deficit this year due to the drought (water restrictions = less revenues). Management went to each department head and asked for cuts. Within each department, we offered up cuts either through reductions or deferring projects. (In my case, we could give up our capital project for new servers to run my upcoming web GIS apps.) Every department, every section offered up savings and will reach the goal eventually. Management did not automatically lop X% out of each department's budget because that would be stupid. But if there has to be cuts, then we will work to find them and everyone shares in the reductions.

It seems that the federal department's mindset (including military) is not only refuse to cut but would turn around and ask for even more money. If management of large (public, private) companies can work together cut budgets, what prevents Congress from doing the same?

Your company probably has a structure where the buck stops somewhere - if two people disagree, than someone higher up settles it. There's some mechanism where decisions are actually made, good or bad. Our government doesn't have that.

[JPhillips]

Most departments don't have discretion to allocate cuts. They have to be made across the board due to congressional authority in spending. Departments don't have anywhere near the authority to allocate spending as in the private sector, largely because most people don't want spending decisions being made outside of the political process.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

That could well be. What I fear with our government entity though is that if cuts come down, they will end up landing disproportionately on contractors (like myself), because, well, we're only contractors. Never mind that the bulk of the IT work is done by contractors* - and at least on our contract we are already spread pretty thin.

* More and more call center people seem to be contractors these days too, vs union staff. The lawyer brigade though, they're certainly not contracted out.

Absolutely. I was a contractor during that time. They justify the mass hiring of contractors because they don't have to pay benefits or retirement to contractors. There's still a big chunk of union entitlement in the gov't. It's one of the last footholds where the union still has some control, and not surprisingly, one of the most expensive and wasteful organizations as a result. I've never seen so many lazy people in my life. And as you say, they often pass the buck to the contractors to make sure their work load remains relatively light.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From the bill:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Perhaps the state school board's standards would allow questions that get to the right answer, but the wording of this bill is so poor that there will be all kinds of challenges.

"May not be penalized in any way" is very strong and clear language. The previous section of "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials," is much more vague.

My bad on this one. I read that differently in that they could challenge theories BASED on scientific proof, not any opinion. My apologies.