|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 10 2015 06:49 cLutZ wrote:
Standardized testing/common core being used as an evaluation technique for teachers is only a thing because the school districts allow themselves to become dependent on federal dollars and/or that such federal dollars are such a thing. The Feds want to see results for the dollars, but run into the locally entrenched union structures so they implement basically arbitrary standards to receive the dollars in the hopes that the localities will solve the problems themselves because even the Feds are not so obtuse and arrogant to believe they could go into each school district and magically make the correct hiring/firing/training decisions.
So, free money was always going to come with the hassles, and I am in favor of such a scheme because it theoretically puts pressures to stop with the free money scheme.
What do you mean by "free money scheme"?
|
On September 10 2015 06:49 cLutZ wrote:
Standardized testing/common core being used as an evaluation technique for teachers is only a thing because the school districts allow themselves to become dependent on federal dollars and/or that such federal dollars are such a thing. The Feds want to see results for the dollars, but run into the locally entrenched union structures so they implement basically arbitrary standards to receive the dollars in the hopes that the localities will solve the problems themselves because even the Feds are not so obtuse and arrogant to believe they could go into each school district and magically make the correct hiring/firing/training decisions.
So, free money was always going to come with the hassles, and I am in favor of such a scheme because it theoretically puts pressures to stop with the free money scheme.
It's not so much as the schools allowing that as it is our school funding system has its flaws. Relying primarily on local property tax dollars means that schools in shitty ghettos will inherently be shitty, or reliant on state/fed money and oversight.
At the same time, without the $$ from state/fed level, the worst districts in the nation would actually get far worse.
I also think that, even without unions, there would still be some kind of accountability measure in there so the state isn't just cutting a blank check everywhere.
|
On September 10 2015 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 06:49 cLutZ wrote:
Standardized testing/common core being used as an evaluation technique for teachers is only a thing because the school districts allow themselves to become dependent on federal dollars and/or that such federal dollars are such a thing. The Feds want to see results for the dollars, but run into the locally entrenched union structures so they implement basically arbitrary standards to receive the dollars in the hopes that the localities will solve the problems themselves because even the Feds are not so obtuse and arrogant to believe they could go into each school district and magically make the correct hiring/firing/training decisions.
So, free money was always going to come with the hassles, and I am in favor of such a scheme because it theoretically puts pressures to stop with the free money scheme. What do you mean by "free money scheme"?
State and Federal level money being put into locally controlled districts. IMO its a bad scheme (similar to Medicaid, highway funding, etc) because it separates the taxes that a person sees from the services, so it is difficult for a citizen to get accountability. These kinds of programs are terrible because every lower tier of government is incentivized to snap up as much funding as possible because their citizens are taxed by the higher level government either way. Classic Diners' Dilemma situation. Either you get local funding for a locally run school, state funding for a school run by the state, or federal funding for a school run by federal officials.
|
House Republican leaders are, once again, in a jam.
Just one day after returning from a monthlong summer recess, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) have found themselves stymied on what they believed would be an easy vote: disapproving of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
Never mind that there is not one Congressional Republican who supports the accord. Never mind that the disapproval vote would've seen more than a dozen Democrats buck a president of their own party. House Republicans are now resisting Boehner's attempt to bring the bill to the floor, because they believe Obama has not disclosed to Congress what they call "side deals" between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.
The strategy has not been finalized, and is subject to change.
Whatever course House Republicans choose will have almost no practical impact. Obama has won the support of enough Democrats in the Senate to sustain his veto. The move would force Democrats to vote for the agreement, instead of against disapproval.
But, as of next week, Obama can implement the multi-nation agreement with Iran. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Roskam's plan "cute," and said that no matter what, Obama's deal goes into effect on Sept. 17.
House and Senate Republicans find themselves deeply split. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who drafted the process that gave Congress the right to review the agreement, doesn't think Roskam's motion is worth considering. Corker said the Senate will vote on a disapproval resolution.
Source
|
Certainly its a common problem, clutz; local bureaucrats just try to take any dollars they can get, without regard to whether its good for society as a whole.
As to accountability, that's not so clear, local governments often aren't very accountable, and do some awfully questionable things at times.
|
On September 10 2015 07:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Republican leaders are, once again, in a jam.
Just one day after returning from a monthlong summer recess, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) have found themselves stymied on what they believed would be an easy vote: disapproving of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
Never mind that there is not one Congressional Republican who supports the accord. Never mind that the disapproval vote would've seen more than a dozen Democrats buck a president of their own party. House Republicans are now resisting Boehner's attempt to bring the bill to the floor, because they believe Obama has not disclosed to Congress what they call "side deals" between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.
The strategy has not been finalized, and is subject to change.
Whatever course House Republicans choose will have almost no practical impact. Obama has won the support of enough Democrats in the Senate to sustain his veto. The move would force Democrats to vote for the agreement, instead of against disapproval.
But, as of next week, Obama can implement the multi-nation agreement with Iran. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Roskam's plan "cute," and said that no matter what, Obama's deal goes into effect on Sept. 17.
House and Senate Republicans find themselves deeply split. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who drafted the process that gave Congress the right to review the agreement, doesn't think Roskam's motion is worth considering. Corker said the Senate will vote on a disapproval resolution. Source
Your tax dollars at work!
|
On September 10 2015 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 06:49 cLutZ wrote:
Standardized testing/common core being used as an evaluation technique for teachers is only a thing because the school districts allow themselves to become dependent on federal dollars and/or that such federal dollars are such a thing. The Feds want to see results for the dollars, but run into the locally entrenched union structures so they implement basically arbitrary standards to receive the dollars in the hopes that the localities will solve the problems themselves because even the Feds are not so obtuse and arrogant to believe they could go into each school district and magically make the correct hiring/firing/training decisions.
So, free money was always going to come with the hassles, and I am in favor of such a scheme because it theoretically puts pressures to stop with the free money scheme. What do you mean by "free money scheme"?
I think its federal government bad and standardized testing will make people not accept federal funding because bad for students. Its likely bad for education as a whole, but it unions don't get what they want so its good.
Or something.
|
On September 10 2015 08:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 07:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Republican leaders are, once again, in a jam.
Just one day after returning from a monthlong summer recess, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) have found themselves stymied on what they believed would be an easy vote: disapproving of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
Never mind that there is not one Congressional Republican who supports the accord. Never mind that the disapproval vote would've seen more than a dozen Democrats buck a president of their own party. House Republicans are now resisting Boehner's attempt to bring the bill to the floor, because they believe Obama has not disclosed to Congress what they call "side deals" between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.
The strategy has not been finalized, and is subject to change.
Whatever course House Republicans choose will have almost no practical impact. Obama has won the support of enough Democrats in the Senate to sustain his veto. The move would force Democrats to vote for the agreement, instead of against disapproval.
But, as of next week, Obama can implement the multi-nation agreement with Iran. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Roskam's plan "cute," and said that no matter what, Obama's deal goes into effect on Sept. 17.
House and Senate Republicans find themselves deeply split. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who drafted the process that gave Congress the right to review the agreement, doesn't think Roskam's motion is worth considering. Corker said the Senate will vote on a disapproval resolution. Source Your tax dollars at work!
Sometimes I dream of being an elected official where I can not actually do my job while enjoying unlimited job security
|
It's is like they just can accept they lost and move on. Republicans in Congress are that kid who refuses to leave the field after being tagged out.
|
The California Assembly approved a measure Wednesday that would allow terminally ill patients to legally end their lives. The proposal now goes to the state Senate, which is expected to endorse it.
Lawmakers in the Assembly voted 42-33 after a long and emotional debate, during which many legislators invoked religious beliefs in arguing for and against the legislation.
"I, as a Christian, do not pretend to know what God has in mind for all of us, why there is pain or suffering in this world. But I do know he is a merciful God and we have the ability to allow others to have a choice," said Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Pleasanton, who supported the measure. "I believe it is cruel — nothing short of cruel — to deny them that choice in their final hours and final days."
It was the second effort by lawmakers this year to allow doctors to prescribe life-ending medication after the highly publicized case of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, a California woman with brain cancer who moved to Oregon to legally take her life.
An earlier measure stalled amid religious opposition and hesitant Democrats. The renewed push comes after at least two dozen states have introduced aid-in-dying legislation this year, though none of the bills have passed.
Doctors are permitted to prescribe life-ending drugs in Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont.
The right-to-die movement has been galvanized by the high-profile case of Maynard, who argued in widely viewed online videos that she should have had access to life-ending drugs in her home state.
Source
|
Looks like Republicans have finally won a battle against Obamacare
(AP) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-just-won-major-214647764.htmlRepublicans in the US House of Representatives have standing to proceed with a lawsuit against US President Barack Obama's administration over his signature healthcare law, a federal judge said Wednesday, handing them a significant and somewhat unexpected victory in the ongoing legal battle. US District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled Wednesday against the Obama administration's motion to dismiss the case. Collyer said House Republicans do have the standing to pursue their challenge, which argues that the Obama administration violated the US Constitution by spending money on the law that had not been appropriated by Congress. That was a key question in the lawsuit, which the White House and House Democrats have continually dismissed as a "political stunt." In her ruling, Collyer rejected that argument, calling the House's challenge valid. "Despite its potential political ramifications, this suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter," she wrote. The case centers on the more than $175 billion the administration will spend over the next decade under a cost-sharing program with health-insurance companies. The Obama administration has said it's spending previously allocated money. The attorney for the House, Jonathan Turley, called Collyer's decision "historic and profound." "The ruling today means that the United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse," he wrote in a statement posted to his website. "We are eager to present the House's merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit." House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's leading the lawsuit against the president, said he was "grateful" for the court's ruling. "The president's unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution," Boehner said in a statement. "I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended."
|
They should be using their congressional powers, not waiting and hoping the courts don't screw up and make it worse.
|
I fail to see how that will do anything against Obamacare. It may, at best, hamper the execution of some aspects of Obamacare, meaning the Republicans in congress have effectively fucked over whatever portion of the population was counting on those $175million in health care. But it seems like a very minor detail in the implementation of Obamacare that they are allowed to challenge in court.
At best it´s a pyrrhic victory. And when that´s your best, you´re not really doing very well.
EDIT: oh, I misread. It´s 175billion. In that case it will immediately fuck over everybody who is relying on Obamacare. Great idea to do that without a backup plan in place. If the court rules in favour of that... well... then the joint congress and courts is dumber than I imagined.
|
Surviving a motion to dismiss is literally the least impressive victory in law. It's the judge ruling the case isn't complete shit. But that doesn't mean anything. Many shit bags cases go to trail.
|
Yeah, it would be the judicial equivalent of the Allies landing on Normandy beach (not even clearing the beaches) and declaring victory in WWII.
|
On September 09 2015 08:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. I am pretty sure everyone just wants her to let her office issue marriage licences. People said she should be jailed because she defied the court order and she works for the Court. You're continued efforts to try to make it about "a disagreement of opinion" completely disingenuous. She had her disagreement of opinion and it when before highest court in the country. She lost.
All things are possible, though I find your argument here to be highly improbable. Why was she not issued the reasonable religious accommodation that she asked for, namely that another clerk be deputized and be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and not under her explicit authority? She has the right for reasonable accommodations, just like every other American, and yes, that includes Muslims too (I know you did not bring up that point, but many others in real life discussions have). I would be appalled if a Muslim man or woman was imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs.
Imprisoning her was and is a terrible crime, and a grave injustice. The could have easily solved this without imprisoning her. She specifically requested an accommodation in a letter to the court, so if this was all about homosexuals being able to be married, then why imprison her, rather than granting a completely reasonable request for her. It is so obviously a political punishment, especially when you take the context into account. Some photographers and bakers do not want to put their artistic talents in support of a gay-marriage, often citing religious objections. They don't want to be morally associated with it because they have a deeply held (if flawed) belief that doing so risks the displeasure of God. Instead of the gay couple being reasonable and going somewhere else, they invariably bring suit, usually with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
Even more revealingly, they will often offer to withdraw the suit if the religious person simply performs the service and provides the support. And we are not talking about grocery stores or gas stations, where no one can reasonably claim a religious objection. No mainstream code of ethics or religious tenets forbid the sale of gasoline or candy bars to homosexuals. Many mainstream religions do, however, forbid the moral support of such unions. Distinguishing between simply doing business with an individual who happens to be homosexual and actively/openly supporting the lifestyle. Where the gray area comes in is that many people do consider artistic expression to be closely tied to the moral aspect of humanity. I think most people would agree that painting and selling a picture of a rose is wholly different than standing in a check-out line at a grocery store.
Creativity and artistic expression is especially important to many religious people, as they consider that to be a divine gift specifically granted to them for the purpose of glorifying God. To ask them to use that talent in support of what they percieve as an immoral cause is quite literally to ask them to damn themselves, according to their honestly held beliefs. We might disagree with those beliefs, but we cannot rightly ignore the conviction with which they are believed and the spiritual anguish a person might feel if they violate a core tenet of their religion.
Kim Davis has been ordered to personally authorize a gay-marriage, to literally put her signature on her own death warrant. As far as she is concerned, she is being offered a choice of unemployment, imprisonment, or damnation. I could possibly see the point if she were not asking for a simple accommodation, and if that accommodation were not very easy to grant. But they have refused to grant her the accommodation, instead requiring her to personally show support. Just like the baker's (one of whom offered the gay-couple a generic cake, which they refused. Another offered to refer them to another baker, again they refused.)
These people are not being punished because they are preventing homosexuals from getting married, having their pictures taken, or eating decorated cakes. There are countless bakers who will have no problems with baking a gay-couple a cake for their marriage, there are countless photographers who will work at a gay wedding, and there could are dozens of county-clerks who are willing to sign licenses (four deputy-clerks in that county are willing, none of these could be deputized?). They are being punished for being against the marriage. Hence the uproar and threats to a pizzeria in the middle of nowhere, not because they denied a gay person pizza (they specifically said they would not do so), but because they said they were opposed to gay marriage.
I think fighting for gay-rights is a noble cause. There has been terrible persecution against homosexuals throughout history in this country, and there is terrible systematic persecution still occurring in other countries. However, I think a legitimate and noble movement has been hijacked by a small, vocal minority.
Unless there's another aspect to this that I'm missing.
|
You're literally wrong. They aren't being punished for being against gay marriage. She is being punished for ignoring the law. She is being punished for breaking the oath she took when she was put in office. She is being punished for being in contempt of court.
My view is she simply wants attention. If it was a real moral problem, she would quit her job. If it was a real moral problem, she would not be fine with filing the gay marriage forms as long as they were signed in a different county.
The lack of logic being applied by her and her supporters on what is a black and white legal issue is the same lack of clarity we see with their selective application of the bible.
Kim Davis and her lawyers claim she is a modern Martin Luther King. A much more apt comparison is that she is a modern day George Wallace.
|
|
|
When did she file that letter asking for accomodation? please provide citations.
Also, imprisoning her was not some terrible injustice; that's just nonsense, it was only a few days, and it was by her own choice. And its pretty clear she's being willfully obstructive about this by her attitude, and by her refusal to let clerks under her issue the licenses.
edit: mostly slaughter just said it better tho.
|
On September 10 2015 09:13 Acrofales wrote:
I fail to see how that will do anything against Obamacare. It may, at best, hamper the execution of some aspects of Obamacare, meaning the Republicans in congress have effectively fucked over whatever portion of the population was counting on those $175million in health care. But it seems like a very minor detail in the implementation of Obamacare that they are allowed to challenge in court.
At best it´s a pyrrhic victory. And when that´s your best, you´re not really doing very well.
EDIT: oh, I misread. It´s 175billion. In that case it will immediately fuck over everybody who is relying on Obamacare. Great idea to do that without a backup plan in place. If the court rules in favour of that... well... then the joint congress and courts is dumber than I imagined.
Remember your talking about a group that has been trying to repeal Obamacare for years yet has no replacement idea.
Several times they have come close to defunding the ACA and leaving millions of people without access to healthcare because they have no idea what to do after. It would have been utter chaos and this latest attempt is seemingly no different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
