Slashdot Mirror
Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire
rhsanborn writes "President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney have both responded to a questionnaire on the 'most important science policy questions facing the United States.' The questionnaire was created by ScienceDebate.org, a group consisting of many influential organizations in science and engineering. The questions are on many topics including research, internet regulation, and climate change."
I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!
Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% of scientists in agreement.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The bald-faced denial of simple facts involved in his response to Internet governance makes his veiled climate denial seem reasonable in comparison. He called net neutrality "a solution looking for a problem."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Since both candidates (but especially Romney) blabbered on for so long, I thought it might be helpful to have a summary of the candidates' positions. I tried to make it as accurate and neutral as possible, but I couldn't resist a few editorial comments.
Q1: How will you ensure America remains a world leader in innovation?
Obama: Double funding for research agencies, train more STEM teachers.
Romney: Increase visa caps for foreign workers, permanent residence for foreign grad students, cut taxes, make regulation harder, aggressive trade attitudes towards China and increased free trade agreements with "nations committed to principles of free enterprise", education reform, increase funding for basic research. [Much of this doesn't have anything to do with innovation as far as I can see, but this is what he said. -ed]
Q2: How will you deal with climate change?
Obama: Continue pushing for the same policies as before (e.g. invest in "clean energy" increased fuel economy standards, carbon emission limits for new power plants, international efforts to reduce emissions).
Romney: Doesn't believe there is a scientific consensus; suggests "No Regrets" policy (i.e. every policy implemented must yield benefits to America even if global warming is a hoax or if no other nations do anything; example: development of "low-emissions technology" and removal of regulations including nuclear power regulations)
Q3: How will you fund research programs?
Obama: Set goal to spend more than 3% of GDP on public and private research and development. Also argues that his administration's research funding, including stimulus funding, has yielded and/or will yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Romney: No explicit details on future plans, but implied proposal to implement new policies that "facilitate medical innovation" (i.e. relaxation of FDA regulations). Argues that Obama administration's research programs have not yielded and/or will not yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Q4: How will you deal with the threat of a pandemic?
Obama: Strengthen public health systems.
Romney: Strengthen public health systems, relax regulations on pharmaceutical companies to encourage innovation
Q5: How will you fix the education system?
Obama: Train more (good) STEM teachers (with private and charity support).
Romney: Destroy the teachers' unions, school choice, increase focus on standards and testing.
Q6: Where will you get energy from?
Obama: Increased development of renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels), continue existing natural gas-friendly policies.
Romney: Relax environmental restrictions on oil and gas extraction and pipelines both onshore and offshore, but retain a full commitment to environmental protection [which really tells us nothing about how he plans to balance these factors... -ed], pursue energy free-trade treaties, reassess nation's energy reserves to reflect new technology [the implication is that Romney thinks the whole "energy independence" thing is overblown and we actually have plenty of oil, though this is not explicitly stated -ed] more focus on coal and oil than Obama's plan.
Q7: How will you protect the food supply:
Obama: Increase regulation by FDA in general; reduce use of antibiotics and pesticides; strict regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals by FDA.
Romney: "Work closely with industry" to implement the preventive practices recommended by the industry.
Q8: How will you protect the water supply?
Obama: Increase investment in water infrastructure (esp. in rural areas) and funding to water conservation programs.
Romney: Re-examine water regulations; switch to more market-based approaches.
Q9: How will you handle the internet?
Obama: Protect intellectual property without reducing freedom of expression [another one of these answers that tells you nothing about how these factors will actually be balanced... -ed], shore up cybersecurity
Romney: Get rid of Net Neutrality.
Slightly better paste from the source, with basic formatting, on Pastebin.
The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
We did, that's why we have the 2 other branches of government, legislative and judicial. There are things you need an executive for, however, and that is why we have a chief executive as well. When Europe was still mostly monarchies, we divided the power between 3 ostensibly separate but equal branches of government. As time has gone on we've seemed to fudge the lines between the branches to an alarming extent, but on paper we have done exactly what you seem to be lamenting the absence of.
One problem is that the voters don't realize that the president is Supposed to be limited in his powers, and they expect him to fix everything for them. Instead, candidates promise the moon and then blame the other branch when he can't deliver when he shouldn't have been promising things he can't deliver on in the first place. No one seems to challenge the candidate on whether his promises are even within his authority to deliver, never mind politically possible to achieve without an absolute majority in the legislative branch. The "I win because I can blame the other party for my failure" political maneuver is poisonous, but as long as we voters keep falling for it they are going to keep using it.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama
Not sure where you got that from, but it's almost literally the opposite of what's true. From ProPublica:
Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $82,224,493
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $21,933,068
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $17,003,035
American Crossroads $12,078,463
Club for Growth Action $11,959,430
Majority PAC $10,459,928
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $7,529,620
Make Us Great Again (supports Rick Perry) $3,959,824
House Majority PAC $3,668,363
Endorse Liberty (supports Ron Paul) $3,579,627
Those are the top 10 PACs by spending. The Republican/conservative organizations are in bold. Note that the spending of all the Democrat supporting PACs comes to less than half what Restore Our Future alone has spent. Sorting PACs by contributions is similar. Obama has a lot of money behind him, but it's nothing like what Romney's got.
Summarized:
The Top American Science Questions: 2012 ...
1. What policies will you be putting in place that will keep America an Innovation leader?
O - Doubling funding to key research agencies
O - Goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers (science, technology engineering math) - with the goal of 1 Million new STEM graduates
M - Raise visa caps to allow for more foreign workers
M - Offer permanent residence to foreign knowledge workers
M - Reduce taxes on corporations
M - More vigorously defend intellectual property rights abroad
M - Deregulate industry
M - Ambiguous education reform
2. Climate Change. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
O - Policies that lead to the growth of using alternative energy
O - Already limited greenhouse emissions from vehicles
O - Large investments in green energy
O - Reduce emissions within federal government
O - Reduced dependency on oil (Claim is already readuced 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, US is at a 20 year low)
M - Believes in climate change, and that human activity is a contributor, though because of "lack of scientific consensus" believes the next step is more debate / investigation
M - Believes that Obama policy will "bankrupt the coal industry" (poor guys)
M - Opposed to carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems
M - Supports government funded research on low-emission technology
M - Supports investment in nuclear power
3. What priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
O - Strong support
O - Current level is 3% of GDP, which is higher then the level achieved during space race
O - Created Recovery Act, - $100 Billion dollars in research spending / education / training / etc. $90 Billion of which was devoted to clean energy.
* Plans to make R&D tax credit permanent
M - Strong supporter as well
M - Critical of where money gets spent, would divy it up differently
M - Does not list actual intentions
4. OHMEGERD Bird flu.
O - Chill. We got it.
M - Further investment in public health monitoring systems (?)
M - Reduced restrictions on FDA
5. Our kids suck at science. How do we fix it?
O - Educate to innovate program, 100,000 STEM teachers
M - Spending ineffective
M - Teachers unions bad
M - Wants more choice for parents as to which schools their children go to
M - Higher standards (More national tests?)
6. Energy. What policies?
O - "All of the above" energy approach (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc.)
O - Since taking office Solar / Wind production doubled
O - World leader in natural gas production (100 year supply quoted)
M - Goal energy independence within a decade
M - Allow states to make decisions regarding energy resources on federal land within their borders
M - Open Off-shore drilling
M - Energy partnership with North america NAEP
M - Use federal money for performing energy surveys
M - restore "transparency and fairness" to permitting and regulation
M - Federal money for private sector energy research
7. Food Safety?
O - Signed comprehensive food safety law reform
O - Increased FDA funding
O - Believes in Organic farming
M - Encourages more "private" participation in regulation process
8. Fresh Water.
O - Grants to water conversation projects
O - Invested in waste water treatment infrastructure
M - Modernize federal laws governing water use
M - Incentives
9. Teh webz.
O - Free / Open internet essential (Net Neutrality)
O - Supports intellectual property law, as long as it doesn't hamper freedom of expression, or undermine innovation
O - Strengthen Cybersecurity, and data confidentiality
M - Believes government should not regulate internet, but should be left to "Mark
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
I get the concept you're shooting for, but it's a bit too simplistic.
As the titular leading force of his political party, a sitting president is supposed to have the influence and political will to rally congressional members of the same political party (and perhaps other parties) into performing tasks that benefit his promised goals. Examples? For better or worse, we have the "Bush Tax Cuts", "Obamacare", "Reaganomics", et al. Each of those were initiatives started by their respective presidents, allied congresscritters got the ball rolling, and the results were signed into law by respective presidents.
So yeah, when a president promises something, most of the time it is at least somewhat within his power to fulfill it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Clearly you've never been to Salt Lake City. Utah IS a theocracy. It's a nice place on the surface, but it's entirely controlled by the Mormon Church. They decide who gets to run for office, who gets elected, and what those people do once in office.
Normally I try not to feed the trolls, but I couldn't let this complete and utter bullshit pass.
Let's start with just the first sentence. The two term mayor of Salt Lake City is a long-time Democrat who's official about page has quotes like "He also championed the state’s first municipal protections in the areas of employment and housing for the City’s LGBT community." and "His progressive agenda for Utah’s Capital City centers on increasing livability through initiatives that give choices back to residents including transportation alternatives, green initiatives, equal treatment for all and much, much more."
Sounds like SLC is totally controlled by your supposed Mormon theocracy, doesn't it?
The rest of your statement is just as much bullshit. Yeah, since half the state is Mormon, of course people who are Mormon can vote and have an influence on who gets elected where. The Mormon church itself, nor its prominent leaders, don't choose nor endorse any candidates. They don't decide who gets elected and they don't tell them what to do once in office. At best, they sometimes get a sympathetic ear in zoning committees because everyone knows who they are.
Does the government in Utah tend to reflect the values of Utah's voters? Of course it does, just like it does everywhere else in the U.S. Does the Mormon church itself "control" anything like you've described? Absolutely and totally not.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.