Slashdot Mirror
Obama Proposes 'Meaningful Progress' On Climate Change
astroengine writes "President Barack Obama called for 'meaningful progress' on tackling climate change in his State of the Union speech in Washington, DC on Tuesday night. While acknowledging that 'no single event makes a trend,' the President noted that the United States had been buffeted by extreme weather events that in many cases encapsulated the predictions of climate scientists. 'But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods — all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it's too late,' Obama added."
Other significant statements from Obama's speech: 34,000 troops coming back from Afghanistan over the next year; new gun regulations "deserve a vote"; rewards for schools that focus on STEM education; increases in tech research; a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.00/hr and tie it to inflation; and a proposal to use oil and gas revenues to fund a move away from oil and gas,
along with the rest of the US government...
Best set of policies I've ever seen from an American President. Hope he manages to get some of them through.
Nonsense. Climate change is God's wrath for allowing a black (probably Muslim, possibly alien) Democratic President to come to power.
Well, if he was a Republican... he'd do the same, then lower taxes. Maybe a hair different on what exactly he'd spend it on, but otherwise, very little difference.
There's so little actual difference left between the two parties' stances that the strife and "you people"-ing has long since ceased to make sense. Why then even do it? Clearly it's not about any actual issue, and hasn't been for a long, long time.
I've been reading Slashdot for over 10 years, and there has been politics ever since I remember. Nerds care about this stuff too.
It strikes me that if you just let this man run the country for the remainder of his term without obstruction America could be the country that most people in the world have been told it is. And the whole world would be a better place.
Alternatively you can obstruct him at every turn and show that you are hypocrites that talk democracy and freedom, but are nothing more than corporate shrills doing the bidding of lobbyists, none of which are working for the American people, let alone the world.
And if you won't, for fuck sake let him run another country. Australia would love to have Obama as the leader. People of his mien come once a generation FFS.
Giving a nice speech doesn't really convince me of his intentions after sabotaging Kyoto.
Talk is cheap, and the State of the Union address is about pageantry and blowing hot air, not anything that will actually happen. Come back to me when you have a serious effort, which will probably involve legislation, a budget, an actual agency, probably some grant programs, and other tangible steps. Come back to me when thanks to some serious efforts and funding, we have solar or geothermal or hydro power that could handle the entire energy needs of the US. Come back to me when you have serious conservation efforts that make Americans not the most wasteful people on the planet.
You know, people made fun of Jimmy Carter suggesting things like turning down the thermostat and wearing a sweater, and for installing solar panels on the White House, but he was basically right about the necessary course of action.
I am officially gone from
Now, I'm no economics expert... But aren't minimum wage increases one of the (albeit small) contributors to inflation? And as such, wouldn't tying minimum wage increases to inflation create a circular reference of sorts?
Common Sense (+1)
There was a certain King Canute who went to the beach one day and ordered the tide to stop flowing. I can imagine Obama's ideas and efforts will have exactly the same effect.
Your analogy is terrible. History and other countries have shown that industry and consumers don't give a shit about the environment. And that goes for both capitalistic and socialistic societies. We've shown in the past that government regulation can fix things like CFCs and the pollution of drinking water so what's so batshit insane about proposing we fix this with regulations?
Your analogy would work if King Canute had previously ordered a lake to split in two and it had worked.
While he's at it he should make tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes illegal.
I don't know what this is? Some throwback to that bullshit logic about gun control? I guess people are still being murdered so we should revoke all the laws outlawing murders? I mean, when murdering is outlawed then only murderers will have the ability to murder people!
... is this some new parroted right-wing narrative you're getting from Facebook or something?
It's not about controlling the weather. The weather is a symptom of the problem of spewing tons and tons of carbon and greenhouse gases into the air and environment. So he's tackling the root cause of the problem, not making a symptom illegal
My work here is dung.
That and internalizing a formerly externalized cost.
The solution is tariffs on goods from or trade restrictions with countries that do not meet minimum human rights, worker pay, and environmental regulations.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Do you remember what happened when he actually tried to close it? Congress refused to let it happen. The only way he's going to get the detention camp closed is if he orders the release of all the prisoners.
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
Because the trend is to turn us into either unemployed, or independent contractors, or temporary workers. An independent contractor can work for lower than minimum wage so the minimum wage doesn't matter when not everyone is paid in wages. Why not minimum income? Why not government guaranteed basic income? Watch this video for more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDBF_MbflY
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"? Because that sure seems to be what people are meaning by the word these days.
If you think Obama is breaking the law, give solid examples. If you think he is lying, give facts that attempt to prove your case. If and when your facts are shown to be lacking, acknowledge the fact and come up with a different argument. At the moment the people that don't like Obama are throwing words around like rocks but I never, EVER see any facts coming about.
I hate what is going on with the drones, but the absolute lack of rationality in Obama's opposition right now keeps driving me to make comments. Get some rational leaders and get some good arguments with honest to goodness FACTS that aren't simply word twisting and I'm sure people will listen to your side, but right now you're no better than the loud, drunk redneck in a saloon.
1. Congress has had years to do something about this and has refused to act.
2. The camp is unconstitutional.
3. The camp does more harm than good.
The problem is we have a President who prefers to appear to be a wimpy appeaser of right wing extremists than be an actual liberal.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If we don't need hundreds and thousands of workers as cheap labor, then we don't need to outsource of jobs.
So what are you going to do with the people who can't hold down a high-tech/creative job? They don't magically vanish, and putting them all in prison would be horribly expensive.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Just like every other State of the Union, it doesn't tell us one damn thing we didn't already know. "The planet's getting warmer." "The poor don't have any money." "Rich people don't pay enough taxes." Zzzzz...
How about this:
"My fellow Americans: yes, the aliens are real. We used to keep them at Roswell, but that got a little too touristy, so Lyndon Johnson had them moved to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Ain't nobody gonna look there," he said, and he was right. Oh, and I really was born in Kenya - suck it."
How are you going to compete when some guy in China can do your job for less than the US poverty level?
Trade Tariffs.
I like Victor Davis Hanson's take:
He wrote that about the inaugural address, but frankly it also applies to the State of the Union, and pretty much every other public utterance by this President.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I could see Obama doing that. Then he could just drone them all as soon as they are released.
I agree, lets also trim government down to the same size as it was then. Oh wait - can't have that, can we?
"Nobody has lost a job in the US because someone else could do the job in another country for less."
Hrmm. Obviously, you've never worked in IT.
I know hundreds of people who were removed from their positions because someone on the other side of the planet could do the same job (actually, they did the job much worse, but apparently that's irrelevant compared to cost) for less than half the price, plus, they aren't being employed as an "employee" so, no health care, matching 401k contributions, or any of that other nonsense that makes a regular employee so expensive.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Coming up on this last election, I made the mistake of thinking the appropriate question was really, "why vote for either of them". For this reason, among others.
But now I'm left wondering if I screwed up. Not that my vote matters more than anyone else, but I was listening to the Address and thinking, as much as I disliked Romney, would his Address have been, "spend billions, raise taxes, ban guns, spend billions more"? I don't think it would have been. His platform, for all the things I disagreed with, was more like, "curb spending, close tax loopholes, that's all." I mean, he wasn't going to get to shut down PBS, or any of the other hyperbole we ate up.
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
The definition of tyranny was and remains a government that does not protect the natural rights of its people. The fact that people don't like a government which, like ours, routinely abrogates those rights does not mean that the abrogation is not tyrannical. So just to give one example, the President asserts the right to kill Americans without due process if he deems them to be a terrorist threat, even in America, on the theory that "the battlefield is everywhere." Is that, the utter abrogation of the right to life, not to be taken without due process of law (which doesn't simply mean making a law, or worse a regulation, or worst an executive order), not tyranny? And before you stalk off about this, yes, Bush was tyrannical, too, as witness the Padilla case.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
How are you going to compete when some guy in China can do your job for less than the US poverty level?
Trade Tariffs.
Because "some guy in China" will NEVER be able to flip burgers HERE.
It should be noted that it was his Democrat buddies that put the kibosh on closing Gitmo.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
If we can set spending levels there, too, it might just work. But if you're nervous about a 42% cut in federal spending, we could just go back to Clinton-era spending (when they actually came really close to balancing the budget), which would only be a 35% spending cut.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
If you believed the math on his tax plan worked, you damn well should feel like a sucker.
Good news! We're nearly there. The average outlays for fiscal years FY82 through FY89 was 22.3 percent of GDP. The average for FY09 through FY11 has been 24.5 percent of GDP. Compare that to the receipts averages of 18.0 and 15.2 percent, respectively. I think most Democrats would be perfectly fine with outlays of 22.3 percent of GDP. The 2015 estimate is 22.3 percent, in fact.
Here's another way to look at it. The average deficit for FY82 through FY89 was 4.3% of GDP. The estimation of FY13 through FY16 is an average deficit of 4.1% of GDP.
Statistics. Use these data points, stated this way, and it will support your position.
"Shut up already. It's Science".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
He didn't say the war would be won, only that it would end. He also only promised 34,000 troops would come home, which would set the troop levels in Afghanistan to about the same level they were at when Bush was in office.
"U.S. troops" is a specific term that does not include "private security" (read: mercenaries), contractors, DoD "consultants", State Department, CIA, etc., etc. What's left in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world (they call it a "complex"), with tons of military equipment like Apache attack copters, tanks, rocket launching platforms, and of course facilities for launching drones (although most of the drones in the region are actually launched and controlled from Djibouti). So, yea, the "war" is "over" there, too.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
Look a little closer. There was a claimed "surplus" for one year, yet there was also an increase in debt. How? Because it was kind of faked.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The last time a Republican budget was signed into law by a Republican president, it had a deficit of 165 billion dollars. So to claim there is no difference, is to embrace ignorance.
Nevermind the last 80,000,000 years... how about the temperatures of the Earth's formation? Or of the Big Bang? FAR higher. The President's LYING, I TELL YOU!
No, he's not a businessman. Never has been. He's a 'Community Orginizer'...
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Do people actually believe that nonsense? Obama is left, not left center, not center, left. The majority of what he does is extremely partisan, which is why many believe he may officially be the most divisive president in history.
Unfortunately, people to believe this. It scares me on how extreme that means a lot of our people are.
Of course, Bush grew the federal deficit by more than twice what Obama has... and if you look back at records of the increase/decrease in the federal deficit each year since the current federal debt began, you'll find that almost every year that the deficit has been decreased, a Democrat was President.
When even the left calls you on your claim of "transparency" you know that's a bogus argument...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The budget being balanced wasn't planned. It was an accident caused by the internet bubble, many people selling over priced stocks, and having to pay taxes on the profit.
The housing bubble was an attempt to keep things going, and while it resulted in increased revenues, the continued increases in planned increases, plus the new drug benefit, unfunded wars kept us well in the red during the last decade.
Basically, Regan, Clinton, both Bushes and Obama have all allowed spending to remain out of control as well as all members of Congress who don't actually propose to cut the actual amount of money being spent.
If I were the president, I'd propose a strong evaluation of military spending, keep the CIA, FBI, State Department, and the EPA, and turn almost everything else over to the states. That is, the government would concern itself with international relations and matters between the states, or that spill over state borders, and leave everything else to the states to figure out, especially medicare, social security and education.
There is never a good reason to vote Democrat - OR Republican.
My vote, this time and last, happened to be for the Democrat. But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
Give us some mainstream, centrist choices, who aren't bought and paid for by corporate interests, then I might vote for that choice. Until then, there is no difference between the parties. The single most important issue in America today, is that idiot "War on Terra". Has Obama attempted to have the Patriot Act repealed? Nope. Has he attempted to reign in Homeland Security? Nope. Has he renounced any of the special powers that the Bush administration pushed for? Nope. Has he fought for internet freedom? Well - sorta. Internet freedom was a great thing when the Arab Spring was blooming, but it's no longer a good political tool, so Obama follows Bush's lead now, pushing for more and more control.
The same corporations own both parties, so there is no reason to vote "for" either one.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's intellectual laziness, and it frees those who claim there's "no difference" from guilt for having picked the worse of the two.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
Tax revenue is more than just marginal tax rates - it also includes deductions. For example, consider the "hey day" of high marginal rates, the late 50s, back when the top marginal rates were 90%+ - and we ran an actual surplus (which has not happened since 1957).
In constant 2011 dollars, federal tax receipts in 1957 were $3200 per person.
Today, with the "much lower" marginal rates, federal tax receipts in 2011 were $6600 per person.
We're collecting over twice the revenue per capita - in constant dollars - now, with huge deficits, versus in 1957 when we had actual surpluses (and paid down the debt). We had many, many more deductions back in the high marginal tax rate days than we do today, allowing for a much lower level of actual taxation (less than 50% effective of what we pay today).
The problem is not - NOT - revenue. It is spending. The Federal Government is spending over 3 TIMES more per capita, in constant dollars, than it did back in those high-marginal rate days. We have a massive spending (and scope of activity) problem, NOT a revenue problem.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
The last time we had a REAL surplus (not just something on paper) - a surplus where the Federal Government received more revenue than it spent - was in 1957. Source.
The referenced Wiki pages are for projected, on-budget spending surpluses - not overall. It's like you balance your own personal budget by ignoring your spending on your car, or mortgage interest... Take all Federal spending together, though, and we have not had a real, cash-basis surplus since 1957, in the Eisenhower Administration.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Of course, Bush grew the federal deficit by more than twice what Obama has...
Citation needed. The last Bush deficit - FY2008 - was $461 billion. FY2009 was signed by President Obama and had a $1.4 trillion deficit. Since then, every year (not budget - there hasn't been one for 3+ years) has seen more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The actual facts are that President Obama more than tripled the worst President Bush deficit - and has seen those deficits hold over his entire first term.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please read the entire second amendment. It mentions the need for a "well regulated militia"
Please read the Supreme Court ruling DC v Heller, and their ruling in McDonald v Chicago. The right to bear arms is for the individual, and is incorporated to the individual. It is not about a militia, but personal firearm ownership.
Unless, of course, you know more about case law and the Constitution than the US Supreme Court...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You bring up decent points, but I think you misstep when you blame the "corporations". The reason that different parties keep the powers that the other parties obtained is that they want to keep the power and the tools the other guy got them. Obama not returning those powers is all on Obama. If you blame external parties for the government's failures, they're going to keep using it as an excuse to keep doing what they want, while trying to sell you on their latest plan to deal with "evil corporations" at election time.
That's not to say that corporations cannot have an influence, even a large one, but elected officials could extract themselves from corporate control if they really wanted to. They don't, and that's all about them.
Try them where? Last time we even suggested it, all the states called foul and started a "zomg a terrorist comin' to arr state" campaign. I think it was only NY that accepted a trial at a considerable "security upgrade" charge to the feds.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
If that means getting rid of TSA and DHS instead of cutting education spending, I'm all for it.
You might want to read that article again. I didn't say that Reagan passed a ban. As the article you linked states, Reagan supported both the 1993 'Brady Bill' (aiming to create a national background check and mandatory waiting period) and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Indeed, the article you linked calls that a "180-degree turnaround" from his earlier stance on gun control.
Are you sure you got your "right wing" and "liberal" labels right? Let's review some simple definitions and connotations.
One point of view, is that the constitution is a "living document" and need not be strictly adhered to. Government's powers and responsibilties are flexible, and change with the times. Tradition is overrated. "Tried and True" strategies can become obsolete. Government leads. The vision shared by the many, outweighs the rights of a few. Be expedient and pragmatic, in the pursuit of performance and progress.
The other point of view, is that constitution is a strict limitation on powers and responsibilities, and if conditions change, the people can damn well pass an amendment. Government power should remain as limited as possible. When in doubt, do things like they've always been done. Some things change, but human nature doesn't change. Our basic relationship with the government, and the social contract itself, doesn't change. Government needs to get out of the way, much less lead. The rights of the few outweigh the desires of the many. Respect the rule of law, even if inconvenient or costly.
Let me ask you: which of the two above PoVs is conservative and which is liberal? (Each actually has its weak and strong points! but I'm not talking about which you agree with, just where you put each one on the spectrum.)
When I think of extra-judicial processes not authorized by the constitution, I think of FDR's Japanese internments. And I damn well know which side of the political spectrum we all put FDR on. But maybe that's just me. Is FDR considered "conservative" now? Am I all wrong about the right/left -ness of Gitmo (and by extension, Republicans vs Democrats on this issue), or are you? :-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Much of the deficit increase in 2009 was due to existing "safety net" programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance that kicked in in response to the depression, which was already underway when Obama took office. The rest was due to the financial bailout, in which Obama followed through on the bailout devised under the Bush administration. Obama brought an end to the growth in Federal spending
Sorry, but that doesn't prove we're spending too much. In fact, we may still be spending too little. The optimal amount is the amount where spending an additional dollar brings less than a dollar in economic benefits. Only when you can prove we're past that point will you be able to truthfully claim that we have a spending problem.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Are you seriously rolling out the much-debunked myth that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that we were heading into an ice age? I was reading the scientific literature back then, and I can tell you that that is simply nonsense. This notion seems to date mostly from a sensationalistic article in Time magazine based on the views of a fringe scientist. All of that literature can be found in any major university library, and much of it is available online, so you can check for yourself. Even in the 1970s, scientists knew that there was the potential for CO2 from fossil fuels to cause warming. If you aren't industrious enough to read the literature for yourself, others have done it for you
The notion that climate is "complete chaos" is also wrong. Weather is chaotic over the short term, but over the long term there are indeed rules--climate is determined by the overall solar energy balance of the globe, in which CO2 plays a major role--in fact it is impossible to explain why the earth (or Mars, or Venus) is as warm as it is unless you accept the warming effect of CO2--and once you do that, global warming in response to fossil fuel releases of CO2 follows inexorably.
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"?
Whenever Democrats are in charge, Republicans suddenly start screaming about tyranny.
Bob Heinlein once described the two types of politicians as "business politicians" and "reform politicians".
A "business politician" is one that stays bought.
A "reform politician" is one that changes his positions if someone can convince him that his change is "for the good of the People".
Not really sure which Obama is - most days he comes across as a business politician, some days he comes across as a reform politician.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The optimal amount is the amount where spending an additional dollar brings less than a dollar in economic benefits. Only when you can prove we're past that point will you be able to truthfully claim that we have a spending problem.
Your standard of evidence is backward. It's always safer to assume that spending is just consumption, not investment, unless there is evidence to support the position that it produces more in economic benefits (net present value, of course) than it costs. Those who claim that additional spending will result in a positive ROI are the ones with something to prove.
This is an impossible task, of course, as economic benefit is not something you can aggregate and measure across individuals in a non-voluntary system. Voluntary trade may not result in an ideal allocation of resource, but no non-voluntary system can objectively be said to produce a better allocation—just one more in line with the preferences of the few specific individuals in charge.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Governments are not businesses. They print money, they don't trade for it. Citizens might be analogous to a "shareholder" but in point of fact it's an entirely different legal arrangement. You might consider it a natural monopoly on the use of force, but citizens can't exactly cancel their subscription to that.
Governments are bad enough without trying to drag in inapplicable concepts to mismanage them with. They are not businesses, they should not be run as businesses, and electing someone to the Presidency because of his business acumen is like appointing them to head General Motors because they're a good auto mechanic.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I have engaged in plenty of arguments with conservatives, on the Wall Street Journal comments pages and elsewhere.
I started out thinking, "They read the Wall Street Journal, how stupid can they be." Boy, was I wrong. I picked out people who seemed to be more intelligent. It was hopeless.
In the area that I know a lot about, health policy, they were repeating Republican and conservative talking points over and over again. I used to link to peer-reviewed journals. They would just dismiss it. ("Hah! The New England Journal of Medicine! That liberal rag!" "Science magazine! ...") There have been a lot of studies about conservative thinking in the peer-reviewed literature, and they found that, with conservatives, giving them more evidence merely makes them argue their beliefs more strongly. Conservatives and liberals are not symmetrical. Liberals do that, but significantly less.
The other thing I did on the Wall Street Journal comments pages was to track down their sources and see what they actually said. I was really surprised to see how often their facts didn't hold up. You'd think they'd be concerned about their credibility. Boy, was I wrong.
And for supporting evidence, I repeat that a Google search Chris Mooney is a good place to start.
Obama is dealing with a major recession, two wars that were funded by the clever strategy of cutting taxes, a population with a higher average age, and much higher medical costs per person (even before Obamacare). Reagan's tax cuts took care of the recession when he entered office, but even after his early tax cuts the taxes were far higher than they are now.
George W Bush tried to repeat Reagan's magic with his 2002 tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but 2007 taught us that the economic stimulus we saw from 2002 until then was the result of a financial bubble, not his tax cuts. Raising taxes on the wealthy will have a temporary negative effect on the economy, but nobody has evidence that keeping taxes at this level or lowering them further will have a stimulating effect.
Neither party has a stellar record when they control Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
The debt ceiling increased under all but Bush's first year, even when Congress was Republican controlled or split. Of course, Bush and Obama have war expenses that previous administrations, starting with Reagan, didn't have. And Obama takes the hit for significantly reduced tax receipts due to the recession. It's more complicated than "[insert the party you don't like] sucks!"
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.