2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

In his 25 years in the house and the senate, Sanders had 153 amendments agreed to.

In her 8 years in the senate, HRC 315 amendments agreed to.

Don't worry though. I'm sure his amendments were 6 times as useful.

Byrth is wrecking shit, I've never heard these stats before. Well done.

[kuronosan]

Me neither. That's actually amazing. What did those amendments do, or is there somewhere to look them up?

[Niiro]

to wit

“Without serious attempts to achieve significant savings in [military compensation], which consumes roughly half of the DOD budget and is increasing every year, we risk becoming an unbalanced force.” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

“The cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001; it’s going to almost double again by 2025. We can’t go on like this, so we have to come up with new compensation packages." - General Ray Odierno

“Health-care costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to roughly $50 billion.” - Defense Secretary Robert Gates

“About 50 percent of every Defense Department dollar goes to personnel predominantly as compensation. And if we keep going this way, it’ll be at 60, and then it’ll be at 70 in about a decade plus... I think it’s our responsibility to take a hard look at it.” - Admiral Jonathan Greenert

Is there a known reason for the ballooning costs?

Or it just a side effect of having soldiers deployed in dangerous areas for such a long time.

[Byrthnoth]

Me neither. That's actually amazing. What did those amendments do, or is there somewhere to look them up?

I didn't know either until today, but the library of congress site tracks all these bills and stuff.

https://www.congress.gov/

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Bernie+Sanders%22]}&resultIndex=2

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Hillary+Clinton%22]}&resultIndex=1

The website gets a 10/10 on the dopeness scale honestly. It's really pretty well made. It includes links to the text of each amendment. I've been pretty amazed how simple the language is in the vast majority of these amendments. A lot of the amendments (and some bills) don't even break a page.

[kuronosan]

I'm gonna have to mill through those. If they're substantial, you might have just swung me Democrat for the general.

[dasva]

Is there a known reason for the ballooning costs?

Or it just a side effect of having soldiers deployed in dangerous areas for such a long time.

That's part of it. Costs of taking care of a large number of soldiers that have seen shit can be high. A lot more on VA now then before etc. But there are also other things like we got a pay raise pretty much every year I was in... granted the pay is still mediocre for the time/work put it in but it does add to the cost. The new GI bill was pretty awesome too which probably doubled the payout per person using it. But more than that while purely anecdotal but from what I've seen it's actually encouraged a decently greater portion of people to actually use it as with the pre 9/11 GI bill people often just didn't use even if they paid into it... oh and you don't have to pay into it anymore either. Also from what I've seen they've been expanding what Tricare covers. Was pretty awesome when I found out they cover chiropractors. I'm sure there are other reasons too

[Rooney]

I didn't know either until today, but the library of congress site tracks all these bills and stuff.

https://www.congress.gov/

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Bernie+Sanders%22]}&resultIndex=2

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Hillary+Clinton%22]}&resultIndex=1

The website gets a 10/10 on the dopeness scale honestly. It's really pretty well made. It includes links to the text of each amendment. I've been pretty amazed how simple the language is in the vast majority of these amendments. A lot of the amendments (and some bills) don't even break a page.

Fairly sure they passed a requirement at some point to make bills written "in plain English" so the public could actually understand wtf was in the bills.

[Quicklet]

In his 25 years in the house and the senate, Sanders had 153 amendments agreed to.

In her 8 years in the senate, HRC 315 amendments agreed to.

Don't worry though. I'm sure his amendments were 6 times as useful.

That's not a very helpful metric to use. First of all, quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. Second, you'd have to normalize those numbers against other Democrats/Republicans over similar time periods to get meaningful comparisons. The last 6 years have been some of the least productive in Congress. A lot of those House years were under Republican control. Even during the Bush years, the Senate was moderately functional so you'd naturally expect more to get done. This is just a bad comparison to make without additional details.

[archibaldcrane]

It's still double the amendments in one third the time, and Bernie was in Congress for the entirety of time Hillary was.

[kuronosan]

That's not a very helpful metric to use. First of all, quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. Second, you'd have to normalize those numbers against other Democrats/Republicans over similar time periods to get meaningful comparisons. The last 6 years have been some of the least productive in Congress. A lot of those House years were under Republican control. Even during the Bush years, the Senate was moderately functional so you'd naturally expect more to get done. This is just a bad comparison to make without additional details.

Which is why you should get up and read them. I'm doing it, because while I think the number is impressive the content is more important.

And normalizing is a terrible idea.

[Quicklet]

It's still double the amendments in one third the time, and Bernie was in Congress for the entirety of time Hillary was.

Again, it's trying to compare two things under different circumstances.

Which is why you should get up and read them. I'm doing it, because while I think the number is impressive the content is more important.

Looked at some. Not terribly impressed -- the amendment process just doesn't strike me as an accurate indicator of productivity.

And normalizing is a terrible idea.

Wat.

[Cjskater]

Seems the MSM topic for the next month is how fast some republicans want to hang themselves with something that's really not even worth it (the transgender bathroom shit). You cant pass a law preventing it, you cant segregate, why are you even exposing yourself...

Edit: We will start up a new division of law enforcement to monitor who goes into bathrooms. They will check the genitals of suspect individuals and correctly assign them the bathroom they belong in. We will call them the poop police or brown shirts if you will.

Spoiler: show

that setup was all for the brown shirts joke... not feeling it completely but it will do

[Byrthnoth]

This just feels kind of damning to me:

Spoiler: show

Clinton:

Just in terms of motivation / trying to get things done, her worst year was better than his best year, and he looks like he phoned it in during the 90s and early 2000s when he might have actually been able to pass some legislation. There was a spike in his productivity ~8 years ago when I'm guessing he decided to run for president (and also we had the most thoroughly deadlocked congress in recent memory).


I will say that volume-wise they're both miles ahead of some congressmen, like Paul Ryan (109 sponsored legislation in 17 years), but some Republicans pull pretty much even with them, like McCain:

Spoiler: show

outlined the presidential bump. underlined the "wat?" year

The more I look at this data, the more sure I am that intraparty politics play a big role in who introduces what meaningful legislation.

[kuronosan]

Again, it's trying to compare two things under different circumstances.



Looked at some. Not terribly impressed -- the amendment process just doesn't strike me as an accurate indicator of productivity.



Wat.

Then don't use his amendments as an accurate portrayal?

Jesus dude.

You can't normalize something that is qualitative. Come on now.

[Quicklet]

Just in terms of motivation / trying to get things done, her worst year was better than his best year, and he looks like he phoned it in during the 90s and early 2000s when he might have actually been able to pass some legislation. There was a spike in his productivity ~8 years ago when I'm guessing he decided to run for president (and also we had the most thoroughly deadlocked congress in recent memory).

House vs Senate. You're talking about 435 people competing to get legislation through (with a very different process) vs 100.

You can't normalize something that is qualitative. Come on now.

I'm saying the quality of the numbers is subjective, yes. If there's an argument (which I generally reject) that number of amendments agreed to correlates with productivity or future productivity, then the least you can do is normalize those numbers to account for objective differences in process and relative comparisons among peers.

My point is that if we're trying to look at these numbers as some indicator of how productive either of these candidates would be as president, you have to separate out House and Senate numbers and you have to account for the fact that the Senate in which Hillary was part of was much more functional than the Senate in which Bernie is part of. Basically, I'm not sure there exists a good aggregate comparison between the two because of the different chambers and time periods, and using better points of reference to judge their productivity would be more appropriate instead of direct comparison.

Regardless of all of that, I don't see what difference any of this amendment stuff makes when either of them will be facing a Republican controlled House that will be as obstinate as ever. There are plenty of issues and reasons I can see for deciding between one or the other, but I don't see this as being a substantive one.

[Byrthnoth]

Bernie's increased productivity years do correspond to his years in the senate. I don't really understand how being in the house vs. senate would affect the rate at which you introduce legislation, but his lowest years were certainly in the house. They're possibly just an artifact of the differences between the two legislative bodies (although Clinton is still about 50% up on him).

Also, I agree that it's highly likely that congress will still be deadlocked after the election. No one is going to be able to pass a tax plan or do the vast majority of the other shit The Bern is campaigning on.

[Marootsoobutsu]

My point is that if we're trying to look at these numbers as some indicator of how productive either of these candidates would be as president, you have to separate out House and Senate numbers and you have to account for the fact that the Senate in which Hillary was part of was much more functional than the Senate in which Bernie is part of. Basically, I'm not sure there exists a good aggregate comparison between the two because of the different chambers and time periods, and using better points of reference to judge their productivity would be more appropriate instead of direct comparison.

100% of the time Hillary was in the Senate, Bernie was in the Senate. 100% of the time Hillary was dealing with the Senate, the only difference between them was that she had to deal with him, while he had to deal with her. The only extra factor here is that Sanders had time both before and after her where he was basically a leach on the government teet.

Also, I would submit for the comparisons between Republicans and Democrats-- a lot of Republicans (especially in the ilk of Ryan), think the Federal government should do less. It would make sense for them to sponsor fewer bills, since their fundamental belief is not "The government can fix the problem." Reagan's whole, "The government is not the solution to our problem. The government *is* the problem" quote rings true to much of the right, even politicians.

Edit: Massive derp on Sanders time in the Senate; nvm.

[Andalusian girls]

Is there a known reason for the ballooning costs?

Or it just a side effect of having soldiers deployed in dangerous areas for such a long time.

as dasva alluded to it has primarily been a well-intentioned Congress seeking to give a wartime military increased compensation year after year to reward their service and maintain retention and recruitment rates (which were in some trouble prior to the 2008 economic collapse with the attrition in Iraq), but these compensation packages have reached the point where U.S. soldiers are paid considerably more than civilian counterparts with a similar level of skills and experience (with the added benefit of the military subsiding MOS training, many of which provide skills a civilian would have to pay to learn), and retention is no longer an issue with the desert wars entering low-profile, low-casualty stages. the legacy costs of the wars are enormous, but largely irrelevant insofar as the DOD's budget is concerned as they are mostly handled by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

from an internal DOD report

Military Annual Compensation package for both enlisted personnel and officers compares to approximately the 80th percentile of compensation for civilians, as compared to the 70th percentile when using only RMC as the point of comparison...

In fact, the average enlisted member earned approximately $5,400 more in 2006 than his or her civilian counterpart when comparing cash compensation, but $10,600 more when selected benefits are included in the comparison. The typical officer received an average of $6,000 more than civilians with comparable education and experience based on traditional cash comparisons, but $17,800 more with benefits included.

DoD recently updated that analysis, finding that average RMC in 2009 had risen relative to the civilian wage distribution. The average RMC for enlisted personnel reached the 90th percentile relative to the combined comparison group consisting of civilians with high school diplomas, those with some college, and those with two-year degrees; the average RMC for officers reached the 83rd percentile relative to the combined group of civilians with bachelor’s degrees and those with a master’s degree or higher.

i love our boys and girls in uniform, lot of my family is military, and if you are or were in combat i don't mind paying the above or honoring the agreement Congress made, but less than 1/5th of the military is in a role that would see combat and the number that are even in spitting distance of a fight today are the 3500 in Iraq and the 9800 in Afghanistan (along with the handful of special forces boys that roll wherever the urge strikes them). the above compensation packages are going out to 1,300,000 active duty members, with a lesser but still extremely generous package for 800,000 reservists. it isn't sustainable.

[Andalusian girls]

Clinton sponsored 3 bills that eventually became laws (renaming a post office, renaming a highway, making a historic site in NY).

Sanders sponsored 3 bills that eventually became a law, two to rename post offices and one bill pegging the cost of living adjustment for veterans to social security.

truly legislative titans

[Quicklet]

100% of the time Hillary was in the Senate, Bernie was in the Senate. 100% of the time Hillary was dealing with the Senate, the only difference between them was that she had to deal with him, while he had to deal with her. The only extra factor here is that Sanders had time both before and after her where he was basically a leach on the government teet.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.