There are usually more than two.
The Department of Education was created under Carter, when K-12 was already free in all 50 states. It was created, along with the Department of Energy, solely as a political gimmick to demonstrate that the federal government was “doing something” about two areas that were considered to be in crisis at the time.
I doubt anyone takes that position, but it is sensible to not throw billions of new money at agencies that already waste billions. You’ll tend to just get more waste. Since infrastructure has been mentioned, one of the problems we’ve had with infrastructure spending is that politicians prefer new projects to maintenance. Better photo ops, more jobs, at least initially. If you believe that the problem we have with our infrastructure is that we need MORE roads and bridges, then it makes sense to increase infrastructure spending. However, if you believe the problem is that the ones we have are crumbling, then we have to reform the process first, otherwise most of the money will just be used on stuff we don’t need right now, like bridges to nowhere and roads to some campaign donor’s private estate.
No, I’m maintaining that they did not vote for any candidates, just the minimum wage increase.
If someone supports the minimum wage increase, but does not appreciate the performance of the President, and are generally nonideological, they very well would vote for Tom Cotton.
In 2006, there were a lot of gay marriage initiatives on the ballot. Bans of gay marriage actually. Every one of them passed. And the Republicans went down with them. People were against gay marriage but supported Democrats. For the nonideological, as in, most voters, the performance if the President is what most elections are about.
There’s no shame in being bipartisan . . . I mean, we all experimented a little in college . . .
How do you know that?
No it doesn’t. It shows deficits by year. Obama presided over most of the FY 09 deficit. Most of the FY 09 deficit was due to Bush’s policies. Both of these statements are consistent with the article.
You are incorrect and clearly and demonstrably false. The 09 deficit was mostly from Bush’s policies – mostly policies that Obama had nothing to do with. It’s factually true that Obama reduced the deficit by about 2/3rds from when he took office.
Each one of these sentences is factually true, and consistent with my cite.
“Obama reduced the deficit” is factually false. He “presided” over a lower deficit, just as he “presided” over a higher deficit in 09. Obama has opposed the deficit reduction accomplished by Congress every step of the way and opposes it in his upcoming budget as well. You can’t take credit for things that happened in spite of your opposition.
It’s not factually false any more than “Obama accomplished the ACA” is factually false. It’s shorthand for “Obama supported and/or signed bills that led to XXX”, when it’s a legislative (or series of legislative) accomplishment(s). In short, it’s true.
And it’s false that Obama opposed deficit reduction. He just wanted to go about it in a different way.
Furthermore, one of the bright spots in the economy has been the expansion of fossil fuel production, and Obama opposed that as well.
Dp you have a cite for the part I helpfully bolded?
Obama supported ACA, urged its passage, and signed it. He is responsible for ACA. Obama opposed less spending, promised to veto less spending, and then made a deal for less spending while complaining about it the whole time, and continues to propose budgets with much higher spending.
His budgets say he opposed deficit reduction. If he had his way, spending would be $400 billion higher. Even if we enacted every one of his proposed tax changes, he’d still have a deficit at least $300 billion higher than we have now.
Do you have a cite that there were legitimate policy reasons to upgrade the Dept. of education from office status to cabinet status?
Everything is political in DC. You know that.
No, the budgets he signed say he was for reducing the deficit. The rest was negotiation. The compromise was what actually happened. He actually gets credit for that too (and he’s not the only one). It’s correct to say Congress reduced the deficit, and the Senate reduced the deficit. All three did.
He gets credit for making deals rather than shutting down the government, I’ll give him that much. But he has been on record as demanding more spending and not proposing even close to enough tax revenue to make up for it. It is a fact that he has wanted more deficit spending than the Republicans during his Presidency. A lot more.
It’s also a fact that he wanted less oil production, and there has been less oil production on public lands. The fact that he didn’t go out of his way to make it more difficult to drill on private land doesn’t mean he gets credit for increased oil production.
The economy isn’t everything.
If that had happened, the economy would be a lot healthier.
I made no such claim. Do you have a cite to back up your assertion?
Telling someone “you know that” is rude, IMO. It’s an attempt to force agreement from someone with whom you are currently not in agreement, and as a debate tactic is nothing but deceitful passive-aggressive bullying, IMO.
I.e., there was already a Cabinet-level department in charge of education. This was not an expansion of government’s role, it was just a reorganization and regrouping of existing sub-Cabinet agencies. Similar to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.