US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6791

On February 08 2017 05:49 farvacola wrote:
You're conveniently forgetting a huge factor, clutz; state politicians who make balancing the budget their priority love federal transfer programs like those conducted by the DoE, which is why you see so much reliance on them among Republican state governments.

As for school districts, the only districts with good enough liability insurance or discretionary funds needed to enter into protracted legal disputes are standard-bearing institutions more than happy to comply with issued guidelines.

On February 08 2017 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:
Letting states sort out DoE stuff is not a bonus. They tend to screw things up and do it badly.

On February 08 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote:

Did you take into account Steyn's sources or just his writing? Is it worth discounting Steyns sources because "it's clear the only sources Steyn would quote would be unabashedly pro-steyn?" I'm more of a many-source kind of guy, first interested in understanding what the author is saying and what he uses to back it up. Buckyman's question and response gives much insight into alternative research ideas.

On February 08 2017 05:43 cLutZ wrote:


I'm actually not aware of any such cases that made it too high in the court system. One problem is that individual teachers or taxpayers would not have standing. Instead, to prompt a suit, a state or school district would have to refuse one of the conditions imposed for funding, then be denied funding, then sue. But most of these places are happy to just vacuum up all the money they can because this kind of funding is a classic "Diner's Dilemma" issue. To get a plaintiff, you need someone who is willing to "cut off their nose to spite the face" then fund a long suit (that needs to get to SCOTUS for you to win because lower courts almost never rule against the Federal Government on spending).

On February 08 2017 06:12 farvacola wrote:
Should that "near impossibility" in making a fair choice stem, at least in part, from a failure to mitigate avoidable consequences on the part of the sovereign claiming unconstitutional unconscionability, the constitutional permissibility of the state's actions in consideration of and under the transfer program at issue is just as suspect as the terms of bargain dictated by the feds are.

On February 08 2017 06:21 cLutZ wrote:


Although this is an incredibly dense paragraph, I think the answer is "Our citizens cannot stop paying the taxes that fund this program."

On February 08 2017 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:

He may have good sources, but that's largely irrelevant. The question is not if his opinions on freedom of speech are valid, and personally I agree with the assertion that lawsuits to silence honest criticism should not be allowed.

However, I have zero reason to believe that his assessment of the case is a complete picture, especially since two separate judges and a court of appeals have all agreed that the case should move forward. It might be something as stupid as all of the lawyers representing him (and co-defendants) being idiots, or it could be that there is solid evidence that his writing crossed the line that protects opinionated hyperbole.

None of which would be shown by the defendant or the groups filing briefs on his behalf.

On February 08 2017 06:32 Danglars wrote:

I disagree, it's very relevant if his sources are to be considered for what they are or rejected. That's one of the core questions of taking primary sources as well as secondary sources into account.

On February 08 2017 06:24 farvacola wrote:
Then the citizens should vote state politicians into office who don't make poor budget decisions in detrimental reliance on government funds, though it should be said that the polity ought have the right to make a bad electoral bargain. In any case, it's not the place of the courts to rubber stamp the poor choices of state politicians who attempt to leverage federal funds against their own stated political goals of reducing the budget.

(I'm writing a law review article on this very topic )

On February 08 2017 06:25 oneofthem wrote:

not really, he is saying states need to fund schools betterr.

On February 08 2017 06:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Let's put it this way: I accept his argument and his sources 100%.

But I have zero context to know if they sufficiently argue against the accusations made against him in court.

The White House website may not even mention it as part of Trump’s “America First Energy Plan” — but the U.S. solar industry continues to post dramatic job growth numbers.

According to a new annual report by the nonprofit Solar Foundation, more than 51,000 solar industry jobs were added in 2016, a 24.5 percent increase over 2015. Overall, the foundation finds, some 260,000 Americans now work in the solar industry.

“Jobs have nearly tripled since we first started tracking them in 2010 and this is the fourth consecutive year that the solar industry increased its jobs number by 20 percent or more,” said Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of the Solar Foundation. (The latest numbers are as of November 2016 and are compared with November 2015.)

The largest percentage of these jobs — over half — are in the installation of solar panels, especially for residential uses but also in larger solar arrays. In other words, the growth in part reflects the fact that more and more American families and businesses are turning to solar.

The growing 2016 numbers were partly a reflection of the timing of an expected lapse of the solar investment tax credit at the end of 2016 — many projects were slated to be completed before that occurred, but then the credit ended up being extended and now phases down between 2019 and 2022.

Last year is also expected to have been the largest year on record for the total increase in U.S. solar electricity generating capacity — some 14 billion watts of added capacity are forecast, although the final numbers are not in yet.

The new report calculates that for total jobs, solar is now the second largest U.S. energy industry, second only to oil and petroleum and considerably larger than coal.

Strikingly, solar seems to be winning across the United States. The biggest state for jobs by far is California which now has over 100,000 of them, but solar jobs generally grew in states across the country. In Indiana, they nearly doubled from 1,567 to 2,700 in one year.

Other states seeing big growth included Louisiana, Michigan, Texas, and Utah.

“Every single one of the states that voted for President Trump, with the exception of Tennessee, had growth, and all battleground states, they all added substantially,” Luecke said. “We’re seeing solar jobs everywhere.”

The industry’s growth is not expected to be as fast in 2017, however — more like 10 percent. That may in part be because the industry will be losing some of its Obama-era exuberance and trying to figure out how to shift into the Trump years.

The survey was “administered right after the election so a lot of people were also cautious,” Luecke said. Solar stocks plunged the day after Trump’s election. Solar will continue to grow in the Trump era — falling costs of panels and continuing momentum are likely to ensure that. But whether a highly favorable policy environment continues very much remains to be seen.

On February 08 2017 07:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/829008961550553093

What an idiot. 100% of Democrats voted against Betsy DeVos in unity behind American education and still lost because of the Republican majority and VP Pence as tiebreaker. Yet another reason why Jill Stein is ridiculous.

I guess we could say that public schools are...

+ Show Spoiler +