Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yeah, let's focus on flag burning.
    Maybe it's far too soon to tell.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
      It could be argued that he had no choice. There were some pretty dire predictions being tossed about at the time. If that is accurate I'd say that all things considered, $9.3B is a pretty sound investment in preventing the complete collapse of the world economy.
      You mean predictions like these?

      Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
      She's going to win Florida. Broward county is still at only 15% in and she has like 66 percent of the vote there so far.
      Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
      Pa will note vote Trump! The rural counties and small to ne may lean that way but they will not overcome the impressive coalition of voters in Philadelphia and its suburbs (a quarter of the state's population) turned out by the Democratic political machine there. It may not be the black vote that makes the difference. Women in that area will not vote for Trump, period. I am as confident about Pa as I am about Maryland and NY. As a monolithic entity, Pa goes for sanity and stability -- traits that are foreign to the Donald.
      Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
      I doubt that Pa., Mich, and NM are I play for Trump. Same with Colo.
      Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
      There is no way in hell that Trump is going to come close to winning this election -- no matter what "the locals" do. Nate Silver's latest forecast gives Trump less than 13% change of winning the election outright. There is no way Trump is winning this election. All this talk about a rigged election is just Trump acting like a petulant middle schooler.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
        From IndyMac to OneWest: Steven Mnuchin's Big Score (Bloomberg, March 2012)

        Good bio from 2012 on Trump's new Treasury Secretary who spent seventeen years at Goldman Sachs, working his way up to partner, then starting his own hedge fund, acquiring a bank through which he has financed quite a number of movies and become a billonaire.

        He'll be in charge of financial reform of Wall Street, limiting the excesses of big banks, closing loopholes of hedge funds, and protecting Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

        URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-steven-mnuchin-treasury-conflicts-20161118-story.html"]With Treasury candidate Mnuchin come possible conflicts[/URL] (Chicago Tribune)
        Mnuchin and Ross gave a good interview on CNBC this AM. It pushed the markets up and it will be interesting to see what these growth oriented guys can do.

        http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000572204
        Running the damn ball since 2017.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
          You mean predictions like these?
          Bwahahahaha

          Damn smoked it!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Redbar View Post
            Yeah, let's focus on flag burning.
            ...we'll ask your permission next time something comes up, so as not to waste "paper"...????

            Its a discussion board...that little fucking wheel on your mouse...roll it!
            One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

            Comment


            • On another note, I like Mnuchin for Treasury.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                On another note, I like Mnuchin for Treasury.
                I think Munchkin would be great in the lollipop guild.

                Comment


                • His experience with Mad Max will make him a natural in the Trum administration!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                    His experience with Mad Max will make him a natural in the Trum administration!

                    Now that wasn't your typical intellectual essay linked post.

                    Regression?

                    Planet of the Apes! Later Caesar.

                    Comment


                    • I'd like to think I only smell my own farts with about a quarter of my posts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                        I'd like to think I only smell my own farts with about a quarter of my posts.
                        You're definitely a fart sack away from H2S poisoning.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                          ...we'll ask your permission next time something comes up, so as not to waste "paper"...????

                          Its a discussion board...that little fucking wheel on your mouse...roll it!
                          It is a an issue raised periodically, usually as a diversion, to tug on those patriotic heart strings and provide a little cover fire so we don't see the issue on our flank. But you are absolutely right, I will STFU, indulge yourself by all means. Brilliant!
                          Maybe it's far too soon to tell.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Redbar View Post
                            It is a an issue raised periodically, usually as a diversion, to tug on those patriotic heart strings and provide a little cover fire so we don't see the issue on our flank. But you are absolutely right, I will STFU, indulge yourself by all means. Brilliant!
                            You can do whatever you want...

                            When folks engage in a discussion, even if it appears relatively unimportant, I'm not sure why folks find the need to remind them how unimportant it is...when they can scroll on by. Comes off Smug to me.

                            Again it is a discussion board...no one said you couldn't discuss whatever you want...raise the level of conversation as you see it...have at it.
                            One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MJ12666 View Post
                              Now I am going to preface this by stating that I have not heard or read any details regarding Trump's agreement with Carrier so I have no idea if keeping the jobs in the US will cost the taxpayers anything. Regarding what occurred with the GM and Chrysler, taxpayer money was used to effectively save union jobs and pensions; and according to the USA Today article, cost US taxpayers approximately $9.3B. This does not include the billions lost by bondholders (many of whom were retirees) who were "bullied" into accepting terms effectively dictated by the Administration.

                              Two good articles.

                              Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

                              The Obama administration bullies GM's bondholders
                              Details are to be released today, but it's been mentioned that the two key items are tax breaks and grants for training.

                              Living in Indy, I've heard the stories since Carrier originally made the announcement. This was long before Pence was announced as Trumps running mate. He (Pence) took a lot of heat because he couldn't get Carrier to even consider staying. It appears Trump is indeed quite the negotiator.

                              Comment


                              • The Art of the Deal baby! Daddy Trump knows what's up.
                                Based Mullet Kid owns

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                  The Art of the Deal baby! Daddy Trump knows what's up.
                                  DUDE...PULEASE DON"T CALL HIM DADDY...

                                  sounds too Milo

                                  (I think he's funny at times...but that Daddy thing creeps me the fvck out)
                                  One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post
                                    Details are to be released today, but it's been mentioned that the two key items are tax breaks and grants for training.

                                    Living in Indy, I've heard the stories since Carrier originally made the announcement. This was long before Pence was announced as Trumps running mate. He (Pence) took a lot of heat because he couldn't get Carrier to even consider staying. It appears Trump is indeed quite the negotiator.
                                    Could it be a businessman knows what motivates and incentivizes businessmen - even more than a politician? Novel f-ing concept. No offense to the board lawyers but damn if lawyers don't think they know everything - and that is what political ranks are predominantly overrun with.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                      Could it be a businessman knows what motivates and incentivizes businessmen - even more than a politician? Novel f-ing concept. No offense to the board lawyers but damn if lawyers don't think they know everything - and that is what political ranks are predominantly overrun with.
                                      I totally agre. Crazy to me that people blast successful people for getting into politics. Our government needs successful people running it. Not career politicians or amateurs driving special interest

                                      Comment


                                      • https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-donald-trump/

                                        Bernie Sanders savages the Carrier deal in this.

                                        I'm kind of torn- I'm not a huge fan of Sanders but I kind of agree with him that this sets a bad precedent. You want attention and special treatment from President Trump? Threaten to offshore jobs.

                                        This is why I think Trump can't (or at least shouldn't) proceed on a case by case basis. I disagree with Sanders on what the right remedy is though- an Outsourcing Prevention Act sounds terrible. I think it would be better to create incentives for companies that keep jobs in the US (that apply across the system and not to just one corporation). This probably includes lowering the corporate tax rate.

                                        And I get that Carrier was central to his campaign so this isn't necessarily an indication that Trump will proceed on a case by case basis.

                                        Finally, I think this focus on manufacturing by both Trump and Sanders is pretty misplaced. The golden age of American manufacturing is never coming back- better to adopt a set of policies that acknowledges that.

                                        Comment


                                        • Question,

                                          Do we know what Pence and Indiana was offering as incentives to stay long before the election and what what different from those item to the ones agreed to in order to keep a little less than half of the jobs from going outside the US? Do we know if the talks were all carrot and no stick or if Carrier was also threatened with a stick?

                                          Answers to these questions will help to shape my view of this.
                                          Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by connor_in View Post
                                            Question,

                                            Do we know what Pence and Indiana was offering as incentives to stay long before the election and what what different from those item to the ones agreed to in order to keep a little less than half of the jobs from going outside the US? Do we know if the talks were all carrot and no stick or if Carrier was also threatened with a stick?

                                            Answers to these questions will help to shape my view of this.
                                            Completely agree.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                              Could it be a businessman knows what motivates and incentivizes businessmen - even more than a politician? Novel f-ing concept. No offense to the board lawyers but damn if lawyers don't think they know everything - and that is what political ranks are predominantly overrun with.
                                              So you're in favor of keeping businessmen out of education policy then, right?

                                              Comment


                                              • <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense <a href="https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS">https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS</a></p>&mdash; Ed O&#39;Keefe (@edatpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/804432550567366656">December 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                Apparently Mattis is Trump's pick for SecDef. I have no issues with Mattis (and, technically, served under him when I was in Afghanistan) but I don't think he's so good as to justify changing the statute that establishes the principle of civilian control of the military.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                  Finally, I think this focus on manufacturing by both Trump and Sanders is pretty misplaced. The golden age of American manufacturing is never coming back- better to adopt a set of policies that acknowledges that.
                                                  I don't think anyone is delusional about the manufacturing boom of the 50s -60s-70s coming back. But you focus on manufacturing because those jobs generally are living wage jobs that don't require much in the way of advanced training. A newbie can do "probation" in a factory, learning how to operate an injection molding machine, for 90 days and then have a skill. Servicing the Injection Molding machine, or the robots that operate them, takes a lot more training. And companies can't afford to pay for their employees to take that training. So those jobs are available to less people.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                    I don't think anyone is delusional about the manufacturing boom of the 50s -60s-70s coming back. But you focus on manufacturing because those jobs generally are living wage jobs that don't require much in the way of advanced training. A newbie can do "probation" in a factory, learning how to operate an injection molding machine, for 90 days and then have a skill. Servicing the Injection Molding machine, or the robots that operate them, takes a lot more training. And companies can't afford to pay for their employees to take that training. So those jobs are available to less people.

                                                    No doubt that it's a great gig but fighting to keep them here/trying to bring a few back just isn't enough and I worry that the focus on them comes at the expense of a search for real long term solutions.

                                                    Ted Cruz, of all people, just chaired a special committee on artificial intelligence. I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that as robotics and AI tech advances a lot of good jobs are going to disappear and never come back.

                                                    I think there's opportunity in this, but we have to seize it. Saving 1,000 jobs here and there -while huge for the families involved- won't do much to keep America great in the future.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                      No doubt that it's a great gig but fighting to keep them here/trying to bring a few back just isn't enough and I worry that the focus on them comes at the expense of a search for real long term solutions.

                                                      Ted Cruz, of all people, just chaired a special committee on artificial intelligence. I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that as robotics and AI tech advances a lot of good jobs are going to disappear and never come back.

                                                      I think there's opportunity in this, but we have to seize it. Saving 1,000 jobs here and there -while huge for the families involved- won't do much to keep America great in the future.
                                                      That's why you keep as many manufacturing jobs as you can, and then take the money that Liberals want to give away for free college, and use it to subsidize apprenticeship programs in skills that will be in demand........... like electronics and computer sciences.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                        So you're in favor of keeping businessmen out of education policy then, right?
                                                        What education policy?
                                                        Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                          That's why you keep as many manufacturing jobs as you can, and then take the money that Liberals want to give away for free college, and use it to subsidize apprenticeship programs in skills that will be in demand........... like electronics and computer sciences.
                                                          Why not both?

                                                          The Iraq War cost as much money as it would take to cover the college tuition of every student for ~33 years. And that's just at the $2 trillion projection, the war may balloon to $4 trillion over time.

                                                          Unfortunately, automation may become so incredible that even education wouldn't successfully deal with an economic reality in which people just aren't needed to produce what we need. I have yet to see any politician talk about a future Bill Gates and other incredibly successful technology leaders say may soon be a reality.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense <a href="https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS">https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS</a></p>&mdash; Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/804432550567366656">December 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                            <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                            Apparently Mattis is Trump's pick for SecDef. I have no issues with Mattis (and, technically, served under him when I was in Afghanistan) but I don't think he's so good as to justify changing the statute that establishes the principle of civilian control of the military.

                                                            Mattie might be the choice but the Transition Team promptly noted no decision has been made.

                                                            Miller ‏@JasonMillerinDC
                                                            No decision has been made yet with regard to Secretary of Defense. #TrumpTransition

                                                            Donald Trump wants James Mattis for secretary of defense - CNNPolitics.com
                                                            Last edited by BGIF; 12-01-2016, 08:48 PM.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                              Why not both?

                                                              The Iraq War cost as much money as it would take to cover the college tuition of every student for ~33 years. And that's just at the $2 trillion projection, the war may balloon to $4 trillion over time.
                                                              I don't know the exact breakdown of your figures, but I will almost guarantee that that it includes the pay and benefits of the people who are over there serving. Those people would be getting paid whether they are there or not. They may be getting some extra hazardous duty pay, but the vast majority of their pay would STILL be being spent, no matter the war........... or peace. The fuel that powers the fighters and bombers would still be being spent, for use in training. Until I see what NEW costs Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost, I'm not caring what numbers people throw out, because it just doesn't matter.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense <a href="https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS">https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS</a></p>&mdash; Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/804432550567366656">December 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                Apparently Mattis is Trump's pick for SecDef. I have no issues with Mattis (and, technically, served under him when I was in Afghanistan) but I don't think he's so good as to justify changing the statute that establishes the principle of civilian control of the military.
                                                                I LOVE this pick. Fine man and amazing marine. Very professional and excellent choice to take care of our military. Waaaaay more qualified than Carter. Also understands that the military isn't here to drive social change.
                                                                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                  <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense <a href="https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS">https://t.co/LrQzQ5anOS</a></p>&mdash; Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/804432550567366656">December 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                  <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                  Apparently Mattis is Trump's pick for SecDef. I have no issues with Mattis (and, technically, served under him when I was in Afghanistan) but I don't think he's so good as to justify changing the statute that establishes the principle of civilian control of the military.
                                                                  Just to be clear........... the 7 year rule is waiverable. No need to change the statute.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • I'm very happy that Carrier decided to stay in states. I know a few people impacted and hopefully it all works out for the best.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Ha. Whether you like Trump or not...that speech down in Cincy was entertaining.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                        I don't know the exact breakdown of your figures, but I will almost guarantee that that it includes the pay and benefits of the people who are over there serving. Those people would be getting paid whether they are there or not. They may be getting some extra hazardous duty pay, but the vast majority of their pay would STILL be being spent, no matter the war........... or peace. The fuel that powers the fighters and bombers would still be being spent, for use in training. Until I see what NEW costs Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost, I'm not caring what numbers people throw out, because it just doesn't matter.
                                                                        Are you being serious right now? Like are you actually claiming that occupying a nation of 30 million people wouldn't really cost anything extra?



                                                                        It simply costs more to feed, house, pay, protect, and arm a national guardsman spending 24/7 across an ocean than it does if he's doing one weekend a month polishing guns, and the personnel numbers jumped up for the war and then again for the surge...



                                                                        The $2 trillion is the new costs. It's the cost of the war.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Donald Trump wants James Mattis for secretary of defense - CNNPolitics.com

                                                                          y Dana Bash, Phil Mattingly and Jamie Gangel, CNN
                                                                          Updated 9:11 PM ET, Thu December 1, 2016
                                                                          (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump will nominate retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as his secretary of defense, he announced Thursday in Cincinnati at the beginning of his post-election tour.

                                                                          "We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defense. But we're not announcing it until Monday so don't tell anybody," Trump said at his rally, adding later, "They say he's the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have and it's about time."
                                                                          Last edited by BGIF; 12-01-2016, 11:35 PM.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                            That's why you keep as many manufacturing jobs as you can, and then take the money that Liberals want to give away for free college, and use it to subsidize apprenticeship programs in skills that will be in demand........... like electronics and computer sciences.

                                                                            I agree that free college is not a great priority for libs. I agree that focusing on vocational schools would be better (amongst other things like infrastructure). As a general principle, I think more free trade is the best way to do this and then you try to capture some of the gains of that increased economic activity and redistribute them to the people negatively effected. Obviously trade deals are enormously complicated and this isn't an absolute position.

                                                                            Re the 7 year thing, my reading of the law is that it is NOT waiveable.

                                                                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113

                                                                            There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
                                                                            However, it's tough to see how this law would be enforced so it might be effectively waivable but without changing the statute it would clearly be "against the law" even if as a practical matter that means close to nothing.

                                                                            I've been told that it bothers conservatives when the government willfully decides not to apply the law. I think the principle behind the law is a good one and I see no special circumstances that would justify putting the law aside now. I like Mattis and have no problem with him serving in any other job.
                                                                            Last edited by IrishinSyria; 12-02-2016, 01:57 AM.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                                              So you're in favor of keeping businessmen out of education policy then, right?
                                                                              Since education isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the feds should 100% be removed from the equation and those decisions should be in the hands of each state.
                                                                              The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                                Are you being serious right now? Like are you actually claiming that occupying a nation of 30 million people wouldn't really cost anything extra?



                                                                                It simply costs more to feed, house, pay, protect, and arm a national guardsman spending 24/7 across an ocean than it does if he's doing one weekend a month polishing guns, and the personnel numbers jumped up for the war and then again for the surge...



                                                                                The $2 trillion is the new costs. It's the cost of the war.
                                                                                Not to mention the health care and disability costs that will carry on 50 years.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • The G-File | National Review

                                                                                  Even you Clinton strokers have to give this guy creativity points. Had me laughing out loud more than once.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                    Since education isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the feds should 100% be removed from the equation and those decisions should be in the hands of each state.
                                                                                    I don't mean to put words in Jayhawk's mouth, but perhaps he was referring to the use of charter/voucher schools versus adequately funded (or lack thereof) public schools.

                                                                                    I'm fine with your premise in regards to the Constitution and how ultimately states should make these decisions, but I wouldn't mind seeing a more national curriculum that is competitive globally and while doing so, allowing states to fund all schools locally in a manner that is efficient and effective for the students (of all socioeconomic levels), as well as determining the best pathway to achieving said curriculum.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by BleedBlueGold View Post
                                                                                      I don't mean to put words in Jayhawk's mouth, but perhaps he was referring to the use of charter/voucher schools versus adequately funded (or lack thereof) public schools.

                                                                                      I'm fine with your premise in regards to the Constitution and how ultimately states should make these decisions, but I wouldn't mind seeing a more national curriculum that is competitive globally and while doing so, allowing states to fund all schools locally in a manner that is efficient and effective for the students (of all socioeconomic levels), as well as determining the best pathway to achieving said curriculum.
                                                                                      The movement to privatize and corporatize (which has been somewhat bi-partisan) public education at all levels is not being driven by educators.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                                                        The movement to privatize and corporatize (which has been somewhat bi-partisan) public education at all levels is not being driven by educators.
                                                                                        Correct.

                                                                                        It's become a business-like, for-profit approach to education. IMO, that's completely unethical.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                                                          The movement to privatize and corporatize (which has been somewhat bi-partisan) public education at all levels is not being driven by educators.
                                                                                          If public education were working on a large scale level, the rise of charter schools and private schools wouldn't be a discussion.
                                                                                          The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Originally posted by BleedBlueGold View Post
                                                                                            Correct.

                                                                                            It's become a business-like, for-profit approach to education. IMO, that's completely unethical.
                                                                                            IMO, the consumers (parents, taxpayers) want more options for education. And since they're going to pay either way, what's the difference to them in where the money is going?

                                                                                            Unethical is trapping kids in failing public schools without other options.
                                                                                            The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                                                              The movement to privatize and corporatize (which has been somewhat bi-partisan) public education at all levels is not being driven by educators.
                                                                                              Originally posted by BleedBlueGold View Post
                                                                                              Correct.

                                                                                              It's become a business-like, for-profit approach to education. IMO, that's completely unethical.
                                                                                              The profit motive serves the customer. If I want beef in a ten mile radius of my home, I can spend $1 for a cheeseburger at McDonald's, $51 for a ribeye at Capital Grille, or literally 200 options in between, with multiple options at each price point. If I want to send my daughter to public elementary school, I have exactly ONE option. The school has absolutely no reason to appeal to me on the basis of cost or quality because they get my "business" (i.e. tax dollars) no matter what crap product they put out because I have no alternative.

                                                                                              This isn't advanced economic theory, it's insanely basic. Competition benefits everyone.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                                                Are you being serious right now? Like are you actually claiming that occupying a nation of 30 million people wouldn't really cost anything extra?
                                                                                                Yes, I'm being serious, and no, I'm not claiming that there aren't any additional costs, or that those costs are not significant. What I said was that I don't believe that we could pay for college for everyone by simply getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those Active Duty folks are still getting paid if you bring them home. So that money isn't available for college tuition. Planes are still flying training missions, so that fuel money isn't available for college tuition. Units are still doing training, using some live ammunition and incurring transportation costs, so that money isn't available for college tuition. You liberals like to throw out the total cost of the war, so that people are shocked, and to make it seem like the US would have trillions of extra dollars to spend elsewhere, if we simply would bring our boys home. It doesn't work like that. Show me a figure of how much real money would be saved, and then you might persuade me.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                                  IMO, the consumers (parents, taxpayers) want more options for education. And since they're going to pay either way, what's the difference to them in where the money is going?

                                                                                                  Unethical is trapping kids in failing public schools without other options.
                                                                                                  Exactly, and poor kids literally are trapped in public schools who do not receive enough funding. Vouchers and scholarships don't address enough of these kids living in poor school districts.

                                                                                                  Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                                                  The profit motive serves the customer. If I want beef in a ten mile radius of my home, I can spend $1 for a cheeseburger at McDonald's, $51 for a ribeye at Capital Grille, or literally 200 options in between, with multiple options at each price point. If I want to send my daughter to public elementary school, I have exactly ONE option. The school has absolutely no reason to appeal to me on the basis of cost or quality because they get my "business" (i.e. tax dollars) no matter what crap product they put out because I have no alternative.

                                                                                                  This isn't advanced economic theory, it's insanely basic. Competition benefits everyone.

                                                                                                  Not everyone. The poor kids who are stuck living in bad school districts don't have the same advantages as the higher-income kids who get their choice of better schools. If you want people to grow out of poverty cycles, you can't put your foot on their head from the very beginning.

                                                                                                  I understand that a lot of public schools piss away the funding they do receive, but that doesn't mean we just go build better private schools elsewhere that only benefit the few kids who's families have the means to send them there. Essentially, what you're breeding is a system in which people with money get to go to better schools and people who are poor are stuck with whatever is left over. How is that, in any way possible, fair to the child who has no say in the matter at all? Sorry Johnnie, mommy and daddy don't have as much money as Billy's so you have to go to this school and get a worse education and less opportunity.

                                                                                                  So unless you want to completely do away with public schools (and the tax that funds them) in order to build only privately own schools that allows every single person equal access to said school, then I'm not sure why this is even a conversation? Because I will never support more opportunity for rich kids at the expense of the poor kids. The objective should be about giving ALL children the best opportunity to succeed. Not just some.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by BleedBlueGold View Post
                                                                                                    Not everyone. The poor kids who are stuck living in bad school districts don't have the same advantages as the higher-income kids who get their choice of better schools. If you want people to grow out of poverty cycles, you can't put your foot on their head from the very beginning.

                                                                                                    I understand that a lot of public schools piss away the funding they do receive, but that doesn't mean we just go build better private schools elsewhere that only benefit the few kids who's families have the means to send them there. Essentially, what you're breeding is a system in which people with money get to go to better schools and people who are poor are stuck with whatever is left over. How is that, in any way possible, fair to the child who has no say in the matter at all? Sorry Johnnie, mommy and daddy don't have as much money as Billy's so you have to go to this school and get a worse education and less opportunity.

                                                                                                    So unless you want to completely do away with public schools (and the tax that funds them) in order to build only privately own schools that allows every single person equal access to said school, then I'm not sure why this is even a conversation? Because I will never support more opportunity for rich kids at the expense of the poor kids. The objective should be about giving ALL children the best opportunity to succeed. Not just some.
                                                                                                    Are you deliberately creating a strawman or do you honestly not understand the structure of current school choice proposals?

                                                                                                    School choice does NOT mean "rich families buy their way into better schools." It means "rich and poor families alike get to choose where to send their kids." The competition I'm talking about isn't between kids or families, it's between the schools. Let poorly managed schools fail and get those kids into better learning environments. This proposal specifically helps the poor kids over the rich kids. The rich kids live in the nice neighborhoods and already attend the best schools. By breaking down geographic barriers, school choice allows the poor kids in the shitty neighborhoods to go to the nice neighborhoods to learn.

                                                                                                    This is the problem I have when debating the Left on many of these issues. It's not just that you disagree with proposed solutions, but you refuse to recognize that the Right is debating from a place of good faith. I'd be happy to debate "my plan will help poor kids more than your plan," but it's disingenuous for you to imply that my position is "help the rich kids and screw the poor kids because fuck 'em."
                                                                                                    Last edited by wizards8507; 12-02-2016, 10:31 AM.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                                                      Are you deliberately creating a strawman or do you honestly not understand the structure of current school choice proposals?

                                                                                                      School choice does NOT mean "rich families buy their way into better schools." It means "rich and poor families alike get to choose where to send their kids." The competition I'm talking about isn't between kids or families, it's between the schools. Let poorly managed schools fail and get those kids into better learning environments. This proposal specifically helps the poor kids over the rich kids. The rich kids live in the nice neighborhoods and already attend the best schools. By breaking down geographic barriers, school choice allows the poor kids in the shitty neighborhoods to go to the nice neighborhoods to learn.

                                                                                                      This is the problem I have when debating the Left on many of these issues. It's not just that you disagree with proposed solutions, but you refuse to recognize that the Right is debating from a place of good faith. I'd be happy to debate "my plan will help poor kids more than your plan," but it's disingenuous for you to imply that my position is "help the rich kids and screw the poor kids because fuck 'em."
                                                                                                      Perhaps I'm not talking apples to apples, so I apologize.

                                                                                                      I have to run to work, I'll try and come back to this post later.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X