Trump Presidency

[IrishJayhawk]

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.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

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?

 

[IrishinSyria]

<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>— 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.

 

[kmoose]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[kmoose]

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.

 

[NorthDakota]

So you're in favor of keeping businessmen out of education policy then, right?

What education policy?

 

[Buster Bluth]

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.

 

[BGIF]

<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>— 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

 

[kmoose]

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.

 

[drayer54]

<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>— 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.

 

[kmoose]

<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>— 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.

 

[Irish2155]

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.

 

[Booslum31]

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

 

[Buster Bluth]

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.

 

[BGIF]

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."

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

 

[RDU Irish]

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.

 

[RDU Irish]

The G-File | National Review

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

 

[BleedBlueGold]

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.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

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.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

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.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

 

[wizards8507]

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.

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.

 

[kmoose]

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.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

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.

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.

 

[wizards8507]

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."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

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.