Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire 608
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."
Re:./ed (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's anwsers from 2008 (Score:2, Informative)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427074402/http://sciencedebate.org/www/index.php?id=42
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.
Climate change (Score:5, Informative)
No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% [usatoday.com] of scientists in agreement.
-S
Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. (Score:3, Informative)
That's not what he said. In fact, this is pretty good news: both candidates actually admit the reality of AGW.
He said the size of the effects hasn't been nailed down, and that the science should inform the political solutions rather than dictate them.
Pretty sensible, for a politician.
Re:./ed (Score:5, Informative)
Coral cache here. [nyud.net]
CoralCDN and Pastebin links (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:inb4 (Score:1, Informative)
Calling the people you agree with "tards" does not work well either.
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:./ed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
Yep this was the Romney response that disgusted me the most. Full of bald-faced lies and right-wing scare words.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Here be no surprises (Score:5, Informative)
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 [propublica.org]:
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.
Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that research has shown a link between AGW and unusual droughts of the past few years. It seems at least possible that the unusual weather patterns contributed to the extreme midwest drought of this summer. Corn production is down anywhere from 15-50%, Soybean production is down 10-40%. (Still being harvested, so estimates vary greatly)
So 2 degrees has resulted in "nothing much" except massive amounts of food in the country vanishing. It won't affect America much this year, but you can expect revolutions around the world based on high food prices this winter.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
He commands the armed force of the US. He does not command the nation. To review, he gives speeches to Congress and can ask them nicely to do things. He can convene Congress outside its schedule, but he can only adjourn it if Congress itself is unable to reach an agreement on adjournment. If both bodies of Congress vote to stay in session, he can't do squat. He gets to talk foreign Ambassadors and sign treaties--but the treaties don't take until the Senate ratifies them. He gets to appoint the officers of the executive branch, none of which have more power than he does, and also judges, but those all have to be approved by the Senate. Oh, and he has to make sure that the laws *that Congress passed* get carried out.
There's a reason that the office of the Presidency is described in Article *II* of the Constitution. Guess who's number one?
FYI: Isaac Asimov quote (Score:4, Informative)
Isaac Asimov quote from a column in Newsweek - Jan 21st, 1980
'There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."'
Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c93xs/antiintellectualism_has_been_a_constant_thread/ [reddit.com]
LMSTFY (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:3, Informative)
Um, I know it doesn't fit your narrative and all, but you did know that we know the truth of the McCarthy matter now and his only real sin was not realizing just how far the rabbit hole actually went, right? Or perhaps you don't know and don't want to know.
But if you are actually curious you might want to put yourself some knowledge on. The fifty year seal on the Senate records is expired and combined with the opening of the Verona decrypts and the access some scholars got to the old Soviet records the truth ain't pretty for the standard version of those events. Might I suggest skipping Ann Coulter's polemic, which while it does get most of the basic historical facts right is in the end an Ann Coulter book, and go for the much more scholarly work by M. Stanton Evans entitled _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies_. Instead of just references and footnotes (which it also has in quantity) it has reproductions of many original source documents and leaves little doubt as to just how bad things were in that era.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slcgov.com] 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.
Re:Well that cinches it for me (Score:5, Informative)
The LDS church doesn't control government in Utah the way that he suggested. It's not a theocracy. They don't choose the candidates or decide who gets elected. But in many significant ways they do have near-complete control over politics in the state. There is certainly no other state in the US where a single religious organization has such a large degree of control over (ostensibly) secular politics.
And it is often a *very* direct and deliberate type of control. Take, for example, the recent revitalization of downtown, primarily City Creek Center [wikipedia.org], a $5 billion mixed use development deal undertaken by the LDS church. Like many cities in the US, Salt Lake struggles with urban decay and development. The Salt Lake temple and the headquarters of the LDS church are downtown. Downtown SLC is not that large of a place, and in many ways the city itself is a showcase for the church. And the LDS church is *extremely* image-conscious. They don't want visitors to the Salt Lake temple or church headquarters to see downtown in a state of neglect, they want it to look clean and successful. So they bought a bunch of property and invested in City Creek Center.
Obviously that's not really all that normal compared to most US cities, but overall it seems like a good thing, right? And for the most part it is. But the church also starting mucking around manipulating SLC politics in very shady and underhanded ways. Let me digress for a second...bear with me.
One problem with Utah is that SLC citizens and the SLC government are far morel iberal than the rest of the state (think more in line with Portland or Seattle, whereas most of the state is *extremely* conservative). A common theme in Utah politics is Salt Lake liberals vs. the rest of the state. SLC progressives want to change the laws, but since the state legislature is much, more conservative they are often prevented from doing what they want, and they end up yelling back and forth at each other, fighting in the media, etc. One common solution to that problems is the state legislature often lets the Salt Lake liberals do whatever the hell they want in Salt Lake County with the understanding that the liberals will leave them alone the rest of the state.
In the example you gave of Mayor Becker passing anti-discrimination laws for LGBT individuals, you are only getting half the story. The Democrats tried to get that law passed for the whole state. The Republicans fought it, and a compromise was worked out. The state legislature wouldn't pass a statewide law nullifying the discrimination laws if the Democrats would give up the fight and settle for just Salt Lake County. This is an example, of how, like you explained, the government in Utah reflects the values of Utah voters. Obviously the church has a lot to do with the anti-gay feelings felt by the majority of Utah's legislators, but in this situation they did not influence it in any sort of direct way.
In the case of the downtown developments, however, the church acted in a very direct way to influence local legislature. The LDS church is not very tolerant of alcohol use. They do everything they can to control the sale and use of alcohol. For the most part it's not that big of a deal, the alcohol drinkers work around it and it's fine. But there are three major things that Salt Lake County businesses hate about Utah liquor laws:
1) There is a finite number of business in Utah that can sell liquor, based on the population of the entire state. Once the liquor licenses are gone for the year, no businesses can get a new liquor license unless a business that already has a license sells it off. Most businesses feel that the number of licenses, particularly for full-service bars, is far too low.
2) You can only open a full-service bar in an area zoned