That's not how the bill was written: agencies were given no discretion at all as to what and where they could cut.
The sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, but it's not the first time sequestration was used. It was first used in 1985, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
The Congressional Research Service published a report on the sequester (PDF link) that provides a very good overview of what sequestration means:
"In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. Moreover, this uniform percentage reduction is applied to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account."
Sequestration is as across-the-board as you can get. Every "program, project and activity" that's not exempt from the sequester gets cut by an equal percentage. That's the way the bill was written, and that's the bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Sequestration was meant to be as blunt and distasteful an alternative as possible, to give the supercommittee (remember them?) and Congress incentive to come up with a deal.
The page asks you to enter in three separate numbers based on the taxes you paid in 2010: Social Security, Medicare and income tax.
That's pretty clear from the start, isn't it? If you're not supposed to pay attention to them, why are you prompted for them as the very first step? Why are you reminded about them in the grand total at the bottom?
The receipt then shows that 100% of your Social Security taxes go to the Social Security program.
Are you arguing that, since the receipt doesn't show Social Security as a percentage of total taxes, the government is trying to fool you?
That makes no sense.
SS and Medicare, unlike income taxes, are itemized on your pay stub - you can see exactly how much is being deducted for those programs.
You can't do that with military personnel salaries and benefits, for example, or student financial aid for college. That's where this receipt, which looks like it originated with a group called Third Way, comes in.
Even if you pick one of the provided income levels, you'll see the exact dollar figures for each item. No one's trying to fool you - they're trying to inform you.
...a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it.
From an article that discusses the professor's presentation:
"But what do we say to people who say the lag proves current warming isn’t caused by CO2? We know that orbital changes (the Milankovitch cycles) kick off the ice ages – this was predicted 50 years before we had data (in the 1970s) to back it up. But temperature never goes far without the CO2, and vice versa, but sometimes one lags the other by about 2 centuries. And a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it."
Read through the article, then watch the lecture. Professor Alley makes a compelling, accessible argument.
Professor Richard Alley recently gave a presentation called "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History," in which he makes the case that climate models simply don't work right unless you incorporate CO2.
The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2. Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.
There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity, and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing, and further strengthening the argument.
There's a source that supports the position that "denialists" came up with the term "climate change:"
"Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142)."
The DHHL program is a land lease program that native Hawaiian Islanders may participate in.
No one is trying to make the argument that Barack Obama is from native Hawaiian blood - they're just trying to make the correct argument that he was born in Hawaii.
The certificate called the Certification of Live Birth specifies a date, time and location of birth and provides prima facie evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore qualifies as a natural born citizen who is eligible to hold the office of President.
There's a subtle flaw in your logic, mi. Article I Section 10 refers to the several States, and not to the Federal Government:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The First Bank of the United States was chartered shortly afterwards, which started the process of tying thirteen separate colonial economies into a single national economy.
As far as gold-backed currency vs. fiat currency, this article explains the pros and cons pretty easily. In general, fiat money allows the economy to respond to the market more flexibly than the gold standard does.
Blackberries are safer than Twitter accounts. If you enter the wrong password into a Blackberry a set number of times (usually 10), it erases its contents.
I'm not sure I understand the logic - would you say that I have a right to rob someone, for instance, even though I'm not shielded from the criminal penalties?
There's a difference between the ideal and the practical, and the Founders recognized that. The Supreme Court does place limits on free speech - see the Wikipedia articles here and here.
Yes, you're answerable if you're responsible, but that's not the issue.
No one can force you to be responsible, in the same way that no one can force you to be happy, or sad, or hungry. When you're forced to say or do something, you're being compliant. In fact, you're relieved of any responsibility, because you're following orders.
You're overlooking one critical aspect of responsibility: it's not an external decision imposed on you. It's an internal decision you impose on yourself.
Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to say almost anything you care to. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of something the First Amendment does not give you the right to do. The example of the Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, is something that is protected under First Amendment rights.
Where does responsibility meet the First Amendment? In the first case, by not spreading false and potentially harmful information. In the second case... there's no act of responsibility behind that particular organization's communications.
Debate - open, honest, frank and passionate, is definitely something this nation was founded on.
I agree with you - there is absolutely nothing wrong with being partisan, and the tension between the two major parties is what produces progress for the country as a whole.
But mudslinging, blind partisanship and unfounded accusation are the wrongs I'm referring to. We can do better than that.
Keep one window open to fivethirtyeight.com; one window for The Huffington Post, and one for Swampland. For TV, I'd go with MSNBC (Chuck Todd ftw), CNN and Fox, just to watch and see if their heads asplode:)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how the bill was written: agencies were given no discretion at all as to what and where they could cut.
The sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, but it's not the first time sequestration was used. It was first used in 1985, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
The Congressional Research Service published a report on the sequester (PDF link) that provides a very good overview of what sequestration means:
Sequestration is as across-the-board as you can get. Every "program, project and activity" that's not exempt from the sequester gets cut by an equal percentage. That's the way the bill was written, and that's the bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Sequestration was meant to be as blunt and distasteful an alternative as possible, to give the supercommittee (remember them?) and Congress incentive to come up with a deal.
You can find those graphs here:
http://helpthe99ers.blogspot.com/2010/10/debt-congress-or-president.html
The page asks you to enter in three separate numbers based on the taxes you paid in 2010: Social Security, Medicare and income tax.
That's pretty clear from the start, isn't it? If you're not supposed to pay attention to them, why are you prompted for them as the very first step? Why are you reminded about them in the grand total at the bottom?
The receipt then shows that 100% of your Social Security taxes go to the Social Security program.
Are you arguing that, since the receipt doesn't show Social Security as a percentage of total taxes, the government is trying to fool you?
That makes no sense.
SS and Medicare, unlike income taxes, are itemized on your pay stub - you can see exactly how much is being deducted for those programs.
You can't do that with military personnel salaries and benefits, for example, or student financial aid for college. That's where this receipt, which looks like it originated with a group called Third Way, comes in.
Even if you pick one of the provided income levels, you'll see the exact dollar figures for each item. No one's trying to fool you - they're trying to inform you.
source: http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/
No, not really.
From an article that discusses the professor's presentation:
Read through the article, then watch the lecture. Professor Alley makes a compelling, accessible argument.
Watch the lecture.
An over 400 million year- record tend to refute the "correlation does not imply causation" rule.
The other phrase that's often bandied about also seems to have originated from the opposing side: "settled science."
It makes a great strawman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbandrews/the_science_is_settled
Professor Richard Alley recently gave a presentation called "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History," in which he makes the case that climate models simply don't work right unless you incorporate CO2.
The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2. Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.
There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity, and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing, and further strengthening the argument.
There's a source that supports the position that "denialists" came up with the term "climate change:"
"Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142)."
source: http://www.ewg.org/node/8684
Frank Luntz is the Republican pollster and go-to person to craft Republican messaging.
It constantly amazes me that the people who complain about politicizing science, are the ones who are doing it the most.
According to this paper, optimal copyright duration is 14-15 years.
Sorry, but the DHHL argument is a non-starter.
The DHHL program is a land lease program that native Hawaiian Islanders may participate in.
No one is trying to make the argument that Barack Obama is from native Hawaiian blood - they're just trying to make the correct argument that he was born in Hawaii.
The certificate called the Certification of Live Birth specifies a date, time and location of birth and provides prima facie evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore qualifies as a natural born citizen who is eligible to hold the office of President.
There's a subtle flaw in your logic, mi. Article I Section 10 refers to the several States, and not to the Federal Government:
The First Bank of the United States was chartered shortly afterwards, which started the process of tying thirteen separate colonial economies into a single national economy.
As far as gold-backed currency vs. fiat currency, this article explains the pros and cons pretty easily. In general, fiat money allows the economy to respond to the market more flexibly than the gold standard does.
Blackberries are safer than Twitter accounts. If you enter the wrong password into a Blackberry a set number of times (usually 10), it erases its contents.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy. Aircraft do crash.
<whisper mode="conspiratorial">
That's exactly what they want you to think...
</whisper>
I'm not sure I understand the logic - would you say that I have a right to rob someone, for instance, even though I'm not shielded from the criminal penalties?
There's a difference between the ideal and the practical, and the Founders recognized that. The Supreme Court does place limits on free speech - see the Wikipedia articles here and here.
Yes, you're answerable if you're responsible, but that's not the issue.
No one can force you to be responsible, in the same way that no one can force you to be happy, or sad, or hungry. When you're forced to say or do something, you're being compliant. In fact, you're relieved of any responsibility, because you're following orders.
You're overlooking one critical aspect of responsibility: it's not an external decision imposed on you. It's an internal decision you impose on yourself.
Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to say almost anything you care to. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of something the First Amendment does not give you the right to do. The example of the Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, is something that is protected under First Amendment rights.
Where does responsibility meet the First Amendment? In the first case, by not spreading false and potentially harmful information. In the second case... there's no act of responsibility behind that particular organization's communications.
Self-reliance is definitely a virtue, but it's not exclusive to the American Dream.
And the Common Good is also a part of the American Dream.
It's "a little looking out for the other fella", as Mr. Smith said so eloquently.
bobobobo, how did that TV watching work out for you?
Debate - open, honest, frank and passionate, is definitely something this nation was founded on.
I agree with you - there is absolutely nothing wrong with being partisan, and the tension between the two major parties is what produces progress for the country as a whole.
But mudslinging, blind partisanship and unfounded accusation are the wrongs I'm referring to. We can do better than that.
Level Headed,
Does every wrong need to be met with another wrong?
Or can we draw a line, and say "enough - time to fix the problems and reclaim the American Dream for our children and ourselves"?
Well, reality does have a liberal bias...
Keep one window open to fivethirtyeight.com; one window for The Huffington Post, and one for Swampland. :)
For TV, I'd go with MSNBC (Chuck Todd ftw), CNN and Fox, just to watch and see if their heads asplode
There are a few packages available on the Network Neutrality Squad's website:
(These were mentioned on Slashdot a little while back)
...would be a UV-C Light Wand from this company.