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 August 10 2013 06:00 DoubleReed wrote: Here, Krugman explains better than I can:
Cowen can’t see why corporate hoarding is a problem. Like Riedl and Cochrane, he concedes that there might be some problem if corporations literally piled up stacks of green paper; but he argues that it’s completely different if they put the money in a bank, which will lend it out, or use it to buy securities, which can be used to finance someone else’s spending.
But of course there isn’t any difference. If you put money in a bank, the bank might just accumulate excess reserves. If you buy securities from someone else, the seller might put the cash in his mattress, or put it in a bank that just adds it to its reserves, etc., etc.. The point is that buying goods and services is one thing, adding directly to aggregate demand; buying assets isn’t at all the same thing, especially when we’re at the zero lower bound.
What’s depressing about all this is that Say’s Law is a primitive fallacy – so primitive that Keynes has been accused of attacking a straw man. Yet this primitive fallacy, decisively refuted three quarters of a century ago, continues to play a central role in distorting economic discussion and crippling our policy response to depression.
Yes, I understand the role of investment, but there's no need to encourage it because there's no other choice of what to do with your extra money. You invest to make money of your own, after all.
Notice the context: he's talking about the crisis. He argues there's a mismatch in the american economy and it needs to be fixed, and I agree! But money hoarding is a problem when your economy is in the dumps, which is the exception, not the rule.
Unless you're saying that Say's Law is true when the economy is doing well, I don't see why this matters so much.
On August 10 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] We already have a progressive tax code. Sales taxes and a progressive income tax are not mutually exclusive.
You can encourage consumption as part of a cyclical adjustment, but generally you want to encourage saving. For the most part, saving is just as much spending as consumption, the only difference is the structure of the spending and the goods and services bought.
Our tax code is not actually that progressive. State/local taxes often are flat or regressive (like sales tax!) so it actually ends up being pretty flat overall. Source.
Nah, inflation is way way better than deflation, and consumption is way better than savings (deflation encourages savings after all), at least from a macro perspective.
Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).
I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.
So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.
Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.
Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)
Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.
Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.
No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:
Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.
Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...
Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.
I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.
We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?
By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.
One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.
Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.
No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.
Our tax code is not actually that progressive. State/local taxes often are flat or regressive (like sales tax!) so it actually ends up being pretty flat overall. Source.
Nah, inflation is way way better than deflation, and consumption is way better than savings (deflation encourages savings after all), at least from a macro perspective.
Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).
I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.
So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.
Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.
Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)
Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.
Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.
No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:
Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.
Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...
Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.
I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.
We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?
By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.
One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.
Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.
No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.
Yea, but that's all taxes in general.
The point of taxes is to raise money for the government, and we should do that with less economic damage. As the rich have vast diminishing returns on the value of their money, taking money from them will do less economic damage.
Remember, I'm saying we should have more progressive taxation. That's all. As in, let's tax the middle class less and jack up the rates on the wealthy. The middle class are hurting right now. It's not a crazy thing to suggest. It's a normal thing to suggest. And unfortunately, it's also "class warfare." You seem to have a problem with class warfare, but class warfare is exactly what we want right now! Embrace it!
On August 10 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).
I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.
So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.
Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.
Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)
Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.
Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.
No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:
Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.
Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...
Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.
I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.
We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?
By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.
One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.
Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.
No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.
Yea, but that's all taxes in general.
The point of taxes is to raise money for the government, and we should do that with less economic damage. As the rich have vast diminishing returns on the value of their money, taking money from them will do less economic damage.
Remember, I'm saying we should have more progressive taxation. That's all. As in, let's tax the middle class less and jack up the rates on the wealthy. The middle class are hurting right now. It's not a crazy thing to suggest. It's a normal thing to suggest. And unfortunately, it's also "class warfare." You seem to have a problem with class warfare, but class warfare is exactly what we want right now! Embrace it!
Agree to disagree buddy, but I like where your heart is
And let me know if you hear about any Democrats who supports treating dividends like interest. I'd be pleasantly surprised to see them take up that position.
On August 10 2013 06:00 DoubleReed wrote: Here, Krugman explains better than I can:
Cowen can’t see why corporate hoarding is a problem. Like Riedl and Cochrane, he concedes that there might be some problem if corporations literally piled up stacks of green paper; but he argues that it’s completely different if they put the money in a bank, which will lend it out, or use it to buy securities, which can be used to finance someone else’s spending.
But of course there isn’t any difference. If you put money in a bank, the bank might just accumulate excess reserves. If you buy securities from someone else, the seller might put the cash in his mattress, or put it in a bank that just adds it to its reserves, etc., etc.. The point is that buying goods and services is one thing, adding directly to aggregate demand; buying assets isn’t at all the same thing, especially when we’re at the zero lower bound.
What’s depressing about all this is that Say’s Law is a primitive fallacy – so primitive that Keynes has been accused of attacking a straw man. Yet this primitive fallacy, decisively refuted three quarters of a century ago, continues to play a central role in distorting economic discussion and crippling our policy response to depression.
Yes, I understand the role of investment, but there's no need to encourage it because there's no other choice of what to do with your extra money. You invest to make money of your own, after all.
Notice the context: he's talking about the crisis. He argues there's a mismatch in the american economy and it needs to be fixed, and I agree! But money hoarding is a problem when your economy is in the dumps, which is the exception, not the rule.
Unless you're saying that Say's Law is true when the economy is doing well, I don't see why this matters so much.
Given the posts between you and jonny I thought you were talking in general terms about taxes and investment/consumption, so I responded in general terms. In general terms, it is better to have policies that encourage savings and not consumption. And yes, Say's law does hold at full employment, because at full emplotment hoarding is minimal (since there are profitable investment alternatives).
If you wanna talk about how encouraging savings is not something that should be done now because of the current economic downturn, fine, but that was not my point.
Obama pledges spy programme transparency: US President vows to reform Patriot Act to increase transparency and restore public trust in surveillance by NSA.
Barack Obama has unveiled measures he says will increase transparency and build public trust in controversial US spying programmes - but there are no plans to stop collecting information.
"Given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives," the US president said on Friday.
He said that his administration would work with Congress to reform the Patriot Act and provide greater oversight and transparency. The reforms would target section 215 of the act, which allows the National Security Agency to collect data from millions of communications without a warrant.
He added that he planned to create an "adversary" position that would raise civil liberties concerns on cases which went to the secret Fisa court, which governs programmes run by the National Security Agency.
The court currently hears only from Justice Department officials who want the surveillance approved.
"All these steps are designed to ensure that the American people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values," Obama said.
"And to others around the world I want to make clear once again that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."
However, there was no intention to stop current spying programmes revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden which collect data from millions of internet and telephone conversations by foreigners and American citizens.
Obama said that Snowden, who has been granted asylum in Russia, was not a patriot but admitted that his disclosures prompted a faster and more passionate response than if Obama had just appointed a board to review the policies.
Obama added that Snowden's asylum status was not the only factor in a worsening of relations between the US and Russia. The president recently cancelled a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.
Since the data-gathering programmes were revealed in June, Obama has repeatedly said he would encourage a national conversation about balancing the need for US surveillance with people's rights to privacy.
On July 25 the House of Representatives rejected a bid to cut funding for some NSA programmes by a surprisingly narrow 205-217 vote, with both conservatives and liberals worried about citizens' privacy.
Obama's reform plans came after he held a meeting on Thursday with representatives of civil liberties groups and executives from technology companies including AT&T, Apple and Google. The meeting was not on Obama's public schedule.
Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.
Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.
Two former JPMorgan Chase employees are expected to be arrested for their role in the so-called "London Whale" scandal that lost the bank roughly $6.2 billion last year, The New York Times reports. The arrest of the employees, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, will reportedly take place in London.
Not among those expected to be charged is the London Whale himself, one Bruno Iksil, who built up the massive positions in the derivatives market that eventually cost the bank billions, according to a Reuters report published Thursday. According to a later report, Iksil will have to play a key role in any arrests related to the scandal.
On Thursday, Reuters reported that JPMorgan, the largest bank in the country by assets, was close to a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the scandal in which the bank would admit fault, a relative rarity on Wall Street.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal prosecutors are separately investigating whether company employees underrepresented the scandal's potential fallout to investors in a 2012 meeting, according to a separate New York Times report.
The company's chief executive officer, Jamie Dimon, early on described the scandal as a "tempest in a teapot," an opinion he later described as "dead wrong," according to the Wall Street Journal. But Dimon has maintained that he did not purposefully deceive anyone with his initial comments. "There was no hiding, there was no lying, there was no bullshitting, period," he said of the scandal In June.
On August 10 2013 07:18 DoubleReed wrote: Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.
Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.
I think he wants to assure that in the future the NSA does not do things he does not want them to do under the auspices of another administration.
That, and I'm not sure how much ability he has to force more transparency if the statutes he's enforcing currently do not allow that transparency does not allow for it. If the legislature mandates secret executive action I don't think the executive branch can technically disclose that secret action without legislative approval under the constitution.
On August 10 2013 07:18 DoubleReed wrote: Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.
Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.
Obama has proven himself capable of pledging to end things in a government he's the chief executive of well into his second term. He projects an image of a relentless crusader. His crusade is against injustice. The results of his policies are in no way connected to him, they're just more things to oppose vociferously. It's like he's still on the campaign trail years after election.
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.
The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”
The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.
WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.
Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.
The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.
The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”
The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.
WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.
Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.
The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.
I couldn't help but chuckle at the conflation of "fascist", "atheistic", "socialistic", "pro-genocide", and "pro-murder", particularly given that "fascist" and "socialistic" are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Forget about facts or logic; let's just call our enemies every single insult we know!
2014 Senate Math Favors Republicans But Primary Battles Loom
Republican dreams of a U.S. Senate takeover have been shattered in recent elections by a collection of "unelectable" nominees — the term of art used by political pros to refer to not-ready-for-prime-time candidates whose extreme views doomed their chances with mainstream voters.
There was Delaware's Christine "I'm Not A Witch" O'Donnell, and Nevada's Sharron "Some Latinos Look More Asian To Me" Angle in 2010.
Last year's contests starred Indiana's Richard "Rape Pregnancies Are A Gift From God" Mourdock, and Missouri's Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin.
The very winnable general election races they bungled after capturing party primaries have left the GOP still in need of a half dozen more seats to wrest Senate control from Democrats.
Working in Republicans' favor during the 2014 election cycle? The math.
There are 20 Democratic and 15 Republican seats in play, and, at this point, the seats in danger of flipping are almost all Democratic.
A growing consensus is that the four most winnable-for-Republicans races include, for the moment, South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia, where Democratic senators are retiring; and Arkansas, where Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor is the party's most vulnerable.
No Republican-held seat appears to be flippable yet, with the exception of New Jersey, which will likely revert to Democratic control in an October 2013 special election. A Republican appointee has briefly held the New Jersey seat left vacant by the death in June of Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. ...
So very interesting, Democrats having some fights looming for their seats. It would make my day to seize the Senate away from the Dems and boot Harry Reid out of there.
In other news, the woman half the country loves to hate, is being vindicated.
Sarah Palin Was Right—More Dems Ditch Death Panels
ObamaCare: Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?
Palin was mocked by liberals when at a Tea Party rally in Reno, Nev., in late 2010, shortly before the GOP retook the House of Representatives, she told attendees: "Don't be thinking that we've got victory for America in the bag yet. ... We can't party like it's 1773."
Leftist know-it-alls insisted that 1776 was the correct year, when in fact Palin was right: The Boston Tea Party she referred to — a protest of British oppressive taxation — happened on Dec. 16, 1773.
Palin was right as well, and also took a lot of heat, when she referred to ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as a death panel whose decisions would result in health care rationing.
(Under ObamaCare, IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)
Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
Berwick also said: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"
In an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that Palin could have written, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and said he believes it will fail.
"The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," wrote Dean, who is also a physician. "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."
Indeed, a growing number of Democrats — many of whom face tough re-election bids next year — agree.
Over the past three months, 22 have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill. They include lawmakers such as Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., a longtime GOP target.
Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, R-Ark., is co-sponsoring the Senate repeal bill this year after spending the previous three defending IPAB. The Senate and House measures now have 32 and 192 co-sponsors, respectively.
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.
The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”
The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.
WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.
Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.
The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.
This is really good. I'm a student in KY right now and outside of the major metropolitan areas- basically just Louisville and Lexington- you would not believe how backwards the state is. I've come across plenty of people who go silent when the topic of evolution comes up, and for whatever reason some people try to rationalize micro-evolution (influenza, small mutations) while denying macro-evolution (evolution of homo sapiens from other primates). Hopefully this will put us on the path towards not only being some uneducated state that just cares about college basketball.
President Obama’s environmental policies are likely to play a prominent role in defining his second term, even as the budget, immigration and health care still dominate the current political debate.
When Gina McCarthy first met with Obama in the Oval Office on Jan. 10 to discuss the prospect of heading the Environmental Protection Agency, she recalled, “the first words out of his mouth was the need for EPA to focus on climate.”
“He sees this as a necessary part of his legacy,” she said in a recent interview.
Cutting carbon emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change are the biggest environmental policies the president is pursuing, but they are not the only ones. His deputies are laying the groundwork to manage public lands across broad regions, drawing on high-tech mapping to balance energy interests against conservation needs. They also are preparing to weigh in on a controversial mining proposal in Alaska.
In the administration’s first term, it framed climate initiatives as ways to promote energy independence or cut consumer costs. It also made modest concessions to business interests — such as rejecting a controversial smog rule, which would have affected a broad swath of industries, and delaying other regulations.
On August 11 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote: So very interesting, Democrats having some fights looming for their seats. It would make my day to seize the Senate away from the Dems and boot Harry Reid out of there.
In other news, the woman half the country loves to hate is being vindicated.
Sarah Palin Was Right—More Dems Ditch Death Panels
ObamaCare: Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?
Palin was mocked by liberals when at a Tea Party rally in Reno, Nev., in late 2010, shortly before the GOP retook the House of Representatives, she told attendees: "Don't be thinking that we've got victory for America in the bag yet. ... We can't party like it's 1773."
Leftist know-it-alls insisted that 1776 was the correct year, when in fact Palin was right: The Boston Tea Party she referred to — a protest of British oppressive taxation — happened on Dec. 16, 1773.
Palin was right as well, and also took a lot of heat, when she referred to ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as a death panel whose decisions would result in health care rationing.
(Under ObamaCare, IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)
Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
Berwick also said: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"
In an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that Palin could have written, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and said he believes it will fail.
"The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," wrote Dean, who is also a physician. "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."
Indeed, a growing number of Democrats — many of whom face tough re-election bids next year — agree.
Over the past three months, 22 have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill. They include lawmakers such as Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., a longtime GOP target.
Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, R-Ark., is co-sponsoring the Senate repeal bill this year after spending the previous three defending IPAB. The Senate and House measures now have 32 and 192 co-sponsors, respectively.
EPT
(I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)
