|
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 February 26 2016 09:53 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Christie: 'Stupid' mandatory school recess bill deserved my veto
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday said he vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed daily recess to New Jersey's youngest elementary school children "because part of my job as governor is to veto the stupid bills. That was a stupid bill and I vetoed it."
The bill would have required a 20-minute daily recess period for grades K-5.
Appearing on Fox News, Christie — a Republican presidential candidate — said it represented "crazy government run amok," because, he claimed, the bill required that children play outdoors, even on cold days or during inclement weather.
The bill's language allowed for the recess to be held indoors or outdoors, though it expressed a "preference" for outdoor play, "if feasible."
On Tuesday, the bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Shirley Turner (D- Mercer) called her bipartisan proposal a "no-brainer." It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without opposition.
The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States identified as "obese" increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 18 percent in 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control. According to the CDC, more than one-third of U.S. children are considered overweight.
On Tuesday, the governor's office gave no specific reason for not approving the bill, with a spokeswoman instead blaming the Legislature for dumping 158 bills onto Christie's desk in last week's final days of the two-year session.
Christie on Wednesday gave an explanation, telling Fox host Neil Cavuto: "With all the other problems we have to deal with, my Legislature is worried about recess for kids from kindergarten to fifth grade?" http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/christie_stupid_law_assuring_kids_recess_deserved.html This is what happens when politicians are in charge of schools and education. Any educator- especially elementary school teachers- will tell you that students need breaks from all-day classes, and little kids need to run around and burn off their energy. People are worried about overdiagnosing ADD in kids who can't sit still, and this is one of the simplest and healthiest ways for kids to actually deal with bouncing off the walls. They cannot sit still for 6 straight hours, nor should they have to. Physical education and recess are absolutely vital for kids. Especially when fighting against obesity too. This is the millionth reason for New Jerseyans to tell Christie to go fuck himself. Aren't school principals in charge of deciding to have recess or not? Is this really an issue that has to be solved through legislation?
Having outdoor breaks is fairly important for kids. Talk to teachers on a Monday who have a lots of kids in their classes that didn't have any physical activity over the weekend if you are in doubt.
There's also not a lot of actual legislation involved, you just make it mandatory for teachers to see that the kids get their x amount of activity per day. As far as I know that's pretty much standard in a lot of places. Given the obesity epidemic getting some mandatory exercise in seems very important.
|
People on welfare have jobs, so free lunch is not really part of the discussion. We could take away welfare, but that only leads to desperate people. Desperate people do desperate things, including steal and other criminal activity to get by. Then they go to jail and we end up paying more than we did when we had welfare. Its like people who want to get rid of subsidized housing don't understand they will just be making a lot of old people homeless. And that one family that totally pisses them off.
Edit: Chris Christie is a fucking moron. Jesus.
|
We are only talking about those who gets lazy on it (which could be the majority).
If you are already productive, you are a cool dude.
|
Christina D. Romer (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010) and David H. Romer (Professor of Economics at Berkeley) have released an analysis of Friedman's work on Sanders' policies.
The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient. The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit.
Source (.pdf)
|
Does anyone have a working stream for the debate?
edit: nvm, got it to work on cnn.com
|
Weed, check. Glass of water, check. Time to watch Trump yell at people.
Stream: http://www.cnn.com/
|
I'm going to be disappointed in the others if they don't go after Trump for once. Like, hard.
|
On February 26 2016 10:36 Introvert wrote:
I'm going to be disappointed in the others if they don't go after Trump for once. Like, hard.
I would say there is an extremely high chance of that happening. They have nothing to lose. Rubio is VERY down in Florida and Trump looks like he's gonna lock this down on Tuesday. The campaign is on track for death.
|
On February 26 2016 10:29 kwizach wrote:Christina D. Romer (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010) and David H. Romer (Professor of Economics at Berkeley) have released an analysis of Friedman's work on Sanders' policies. Show nested quote +The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient. The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit. Source (.pdf)
I have been trying to say this to my Team-Bernie Facebook friends. They seem resistant to the evidence. Sanders may have a nice message, but the meat isn't there on his plans. Democrats can't afford to run on stuff that own't even work in theory.
|
Trump's gotta fumble hard to lose it at this point.
|
On February 26 2016 10:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 10:36 Introvert wrote:
I'm going to be disappointed in the others if they don't go after Trump for once. Like, hard. I would say there is an extremely high chance of that happening. They have nothing to lose. Rubio is VERY down in Florida and Trump looks like he's gonna lock this down on Tuesday. The campaign is on track for death.
Rubio's trying to keep to get to a brokered convention and drain Cruz voters who think Rubio has a better chance vs Trump. He's probably going to say more than he has up until now, but I'm not sure if it will be enough. It's Cruz who has the most the lose.
Kasich and Carson and going to sit there and do nothing.
|
On February 26 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 10:29 kwizach wrote:Christina D. Romer (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010) and David H. Romer (Professor of Economics at Berkeley) have released an analysis of Friedman's work on Sanders' policies. The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient. The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit. Source (.pdf) I have been trying to say this to my Team-Bernie Facebook friends. They seem resistant to the evidence. Sanders may have a nice message, but the meat isn't there on his plans. Democrats can't afford to run on stuff that own't even work in theory.
You have to understand just how amazing Bernie's rhetoric is for memes. I would argue a great deal of Bernie's success has been because of how meme'able his campaign is. It's just a bunch of shit college students want to hear because of their sociology class about inequality.
|
On February 26 2016 10:40 Danglars wrote:
Trump's gotta fumble hard to lose it at this point.
Even his fumbles score points. It's remarkable.
|
On February 26 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 10:29 kwizach wrote:Christina D. Romer (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010) and David H. Romer (Professor of Economics at Berkeley) have released an analysis of Friedman's work on Sanders' policies. The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient. The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit. Source (.pdf) I have been trying to say this to my Team-Bernie Facebook friends. They seem resistant to the evidence. Sanders may have a nice message, but the meat isn't there on his plans. Democrats can't afford to run on stuff that own't even work in theory.
I agree completely. It's frustrating because we are all critical of Republicans when their numbers don't add up, and I don't see a reason for not holding Democrats to the same standards, even when we strongly agree with their objectives. Otherwise we're no better than the opposition.
|
Wow, Carson making it awkward to be attacking right off the bat. I think that favors Trump.
|
On February 26 2016 10:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 10:29 kwizach wrote:Christina D. Romer (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010) and David H. Romer (Professor of Economics at Berkeley) have released an analysis of Friedman's work on Sanders' policies. The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient. The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit. Source (.pdf) I have been trying to say this to my Team-Bernie Facebook friends. They seem resistant to the evidence. Sanders may have a nice message, but the meat isn't there on his plans. Democrats can't afford to run on stuff that own't even work in theory. I agree completely. It's frustrating because we are all critical of Republicans when their numbers don't add up, and I don't see a reason for not holding Democrats to the same standards, even when we strongly agree with their objectives. Otherwise we're no better than the opposition.
It didn't end well when I started pasting in the charts. They ended up running to the argument that they didn't understand it, so why should the Average Voter understand it? Thus it doesn't matter right? If you are engaged enough in politics to learn about Bernie, you ought also be engaged enough in politics to wonder if his plans are functional. I feel like this is just lethal to Bernie though. His big meme is addressing income inequality in America. Thus his plan on addressing it needs to be airtight.
|
On February 26 2016 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Christie: 'Stupid' mandatory school recess bill deserved my veto
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday said he vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed daily recess to New Jersey's youngest elementary school children "because part of my job as governor is to veto the stupid bills. That was a stupid bill and I vetoed it."
The bill would have required a 20-minute daily recess period for grades K-5.
Appearing on Fox News, Christie — a Republican presidential candidate — said it represented "crazy government run amok," because, he claimed, the bill required that children play outdoors, even on cold days or during inclement weather.
The bill's language allowed for the recess to be held indoors or outdoors, though it expressed a "preference" for outdoor play, "if feasible."
On Tuesday, the bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Shirley Turner (D- Mercer) called her bipartisan proposal a "no-brainer." It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without opposition.
The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States identified as "obese" increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 18 percent in 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control. According to the CDC, more than one-third of U.S. children are considered overweight.
On Tuesday, the governor's office gave no specific reason for not approving the bill, with a spokeswoman instead blaming the Legislature for dumping 158 bills onto Christie's desk in last week's final days of the two-year session.
Christie on Wednesday gave an explanation, telling Fox host Neil Cavuto: "With all the other problems we have to deal with, my Legislature is worried about recess for kids from kindergarten to fifth grade?" http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/christie_stupid_law_assuring_kids_recess_deserved.html This is what happens when politicians are in charge of schools and education. Any educator- especially elementary school teachers- will tell you that students need breaks from all-day classes, and little kids need to run around and burn off their energy. People are worried about overdiagnosing ADD in kids who can't sit still, and this is one of the simplest and healthiest ways for kids to actually deal with bouncing off the walls. They cannot sit still for 6 straight hours, nor should they have to. Physical education and recess are absolutely vital for kids. Especially when fighting against obesity too. This is the millionth reason for New Jerseyans to tell Christie to go fuck himself.
Huh?
I don't see Christie prohibiting recess? Just vetoing a law that makes them mandatory. Seems fine. I disagree that states forcing shitty schools to have a recess will do anything except introducing shitty recesses to shitty schools.
|
Rubio went after Trump, but Cruz didn't really. Sigh, what a waste. Rubio can't win on immigration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
