Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Given the quality of care I receive at the VA, I'd say $40,000 is overpaid.


However, I get the point. It was bad to discount those jobs, but it seemed like the worst example to throw in as public sector. Those four jobs are available in the public AND private sector, which is why I was discounting it.


Once again, however, all one needs to do is look at the pay for congresspersons, and for thrills look up how many of them are still running their private law practices and what they make. We definitely have an issue with our budget, and educators seem to be the worst place to spend light.

There are also teachers in the private sector. Lots and lots of them. When you take in to account trainers in companies there are probably more private sector teachers than public sector.

So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.

No but seriously, on the night that the FBI raided the office of the President's long time personal lawyer, a man who is also the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Finance Committee, Tucker Carlson didn't have time for that story, because he needed to talk about panda sex.

 Just Tony wrote:
The point I was trying to make, that I really should have written an in depth book to explain the subtleties of, is that we seem to have no problem with our legislators making 6-7 figures a year while our teachers barely exceed minimum wage. We don't need to increase government spending to increase teachers' salaries, pay the government employees that make 6-7 figures a year less.

You've looked at this 100% the wrong around. Government pay scales are very flat - they're fairly close to the private sector at the starting levels, even higher for some types of work, but they don't rise anywhere near as quickly as the private sector. A state governor will be overseeing a budget of several billion dollars, and getting paid maybe $140k. Do you think there's a CEO operating a billion dollar company anywhere on the planet that isn't getting more than ten times that governor?

And sure, the governor is only one example, but its throughout high end jobs. When health administrators and civil engineers and lawyers shift from the private to the public sector, they're taking a pay cut. They run surveys constantly, the reason people in high end jobs move to government - work life balance, stability & service. The reason they go from public to private - more pay.

There's money to be saved in public sector budgets. I know, it was until fairly recently what I did for a living. But the savings are found in cutting admin, reforming processes, and by asking if specific services are really so important they are worth borrowing money for. It isn't found in cutting the salaries of high level management and specialist skillsets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.

You could consider paying a little more in taxes.

Private companies don't want to pay teachers a fair wage either, that cuts into their profit margins/executive salaries.

Voters can put pressure on the people they elect to change it. What's wrong with people paying more tax or funding taken from other places? It does not have to be a direct "We will pay X people less to pay teachers more" but "We will cut X budget and move it to education". That seems the realistic and sensible option, for democracy to work the way it should.

 sebster wrote:
There's money to be saved in public sector budgets. I know, it was until fairly recently what I did for a living.

Seb is Ben Wyatt confirmed

 sebster wrote:

There's money to be saved in public sector budgets. I know, it was until fairly recently what I did for a living. But the savings are found in cutting admin, reforming processes, and by asking if specific services are really so important they are worth borrowing money for. It isn't found in cutting the salaries of high level management and specialist skillsets.

I'm guessing the issue is the same the world over though with that. It will cost money to save money. You have to spend money right now to save 10 times the amount in future, but you can't get that starting money now, and no one wants to pay it in the public sector.

As much as it might be unpopular I think the US could easily cut back on military spending to pay for a raise for teachers. I mean, our spending is something like the next 7 biggest countries combined iirc.

(I.e. I think we could skip the next aircraft carrier or the fleet of b21 stealth bombers)

 sebster wrote:
No but seriously, on the night that the FBI raided the office of the President's long time personal lawyer, a man who is also the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Finance Committee, Tucker Carlson didn't have time for that story, because he needed to talk about panda sex.

Its Carlson digging deep. Fox News learned that Daniels found out about Cohen's fetish for pandas. Now obviously Trump couldn't let his good friend get blackmailed, who knows what he might say? So generous as he is, he allowed Cohen to pay off Daniels to keep quiet about the pandas (who may or may not have been FBI plants by Obama in the first place). I'm still missing Clinton, but its almost going full circle

I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:

If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.

 d-usa wrote:
I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:

If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.

Doesn't that only work with the assumption that the Republican base will fall back in line and vote for a generic Republican candidate - which was soundly shattered with the 2016 election? It's not as though Pence has any sort of positive history that he could run on aside from hanging onto Trump's coattails, and by 2020 that might leave his hands politically radioactive.

If Trump himself becomes so much of a liability that the Dems sweep in the midterms, I would expect the GOP to cut their losses and chalk it up as a one-time fluke and try their hands at repairing their brand (like they say they will do after ever defeat) and going with the establishment option in Pence.

 d-usa wrote:
I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:

If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.

Do they really want Pence? I mean, his popularity numbers aren't exactly impressing anyone and the whole "Jesus hates you, now give me a tax cut" thing doesn't seem like the best way to try to appeal to anyone outside the rabid Trump fans (IOW, the people they need to win back to have any hope of keeping power). And that's before we add any guilt by association factor from being the vice president to someone who makes Nixon look scandal-free, assuming the various speculation turns into proof of impeachable offenses. I just don't see anything about him that would be so irreplaceable that keeping him eligible for 10 years is a priority.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:

If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.

Do they really want Pence? I mean, his popularity numbers aren't exactly impressing anyone and the whole "Jesus hates you, now give me a tax cut" thing doesn't seem like the best way to try to appeal to anyone outside the rabid Trump fans (IOW, the people they need to win back to have any hope of keeping power). And that's before we add any guilt by association factor from being the vice president to someone who makes Nixon look scandal-free, assuming the various speculation turns into proof of impeachable offenses. I just don't see anything about him that would be so irreplaceable that keeping him eligible for 10 years is a priority.

That's all great, but are you really thinking like a GOP strategist here?

 d-usa wrote:
That's all great, but are you really thinking like a GOP strategist here?

Yes, and that's my point. Obviously I personally hate Pence and would never vote for him, because he's the opposite of me on pretty much every issue. But what I can't see is why the republican party would love him so much that exploiting a technicality in the rules is essential to keep him for 10 years, after he has been damaged by association with an impeached president. He's just a generic white Christian man who votes reliably for tax cuts for the rich, hardly a rare and priceless asset. Nothing about him appeals to anyone outside of the base, the people who are going to vote R no matter whose name is next to that R.

 sebster wrote:
No but seriously, on the night that the FBI raided the office of the President's long time personal lawyer, a man who is also the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Finance Committee, Tucker Carlson didn't have time for that story, because he needed to talk about panda sex.

I'm still wondering what genius at Fox News decided that it was worth paying Tucker Carlson a salary after he flamed out on CNN when John Stewart went on his show and humiliated him so bad on national evening television it got Carlson's show cancelled. That segment alone should have been enough to kill any job prospects.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's all great, but are you really thinking like a GOP strategist here?

Yes, and that's my point. Obviously I personally hate Pence and would never vote for him, because he's the opposite of me on pretty much every issue. But what I can't see is why the republican party would love him so much that exploiting a technicality in the rules is essential to keep him for 10 years, after he has been damaged by association with an impeached president.

Because:

He's just a generic white Christian man who votes reliably for tax cuts for the rich

And he's anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration, etc etc etc. Just your typical generic (but reliable) GOP candidate.

Nothing about him appeals to anyone outside of the base, the people who are going to vote R no matter whose name is next to that R.

They've always been all about that base, 'bout that base, no treble.

 sebster wrote:

nobody wrote:
And honestly she hadn’t even tried to market it to those areas either, most of her campaigning was to run up the scoreboard in areas she was already winning.

Yeah, that was one of the weirder complaints I've seen about Clinton's campaign, that she focused on running up big margins in urban areas to offset rural areas. It's a really weird complaint to make against Clinton, because it was the exact same strategy that Obama used successfully.

Granted, the odds of anything passing in the current Congress was already nil.

Pennsylvania is a swing district that includes marginal seats held by both parties. No way in hell either party would stand in the way of special funds going there. Washington is in a logjam, but essential porkbarrel to competitive areas would still get through.

Obama did make smaller venue stops, but I was more referring to skipping campaign stops in those states (number of Wisconsin stops after the primary? 0).

And no, Republicans are very happy with blocking funds for their own voters while relying on othering, bibles, and guns to keep them in check. Paul Ryan got a reputation as a granny starver for a reason.

But the whole point about "generic white Christian man who reliably votes for tax cuts for the rich" is that they're generic. If one particular option doesn't work out there are plenty more lined up and waiting. Nothing about Pence is exceptional enough to go out of their way to give him eligibility for 10 years, especially in a situation where Trump is about to be impeached and make Pence look really bad for being associated with him too closely. Dump Pence, find a random governor or senator or whatever with no unfortunate Trump ties to be the "generic white Christian man who reliably votes for tax cuts for the rich" candidate. Delaying impeachment, making the entire party look bad in the process, to preserve a candidate who is entirely replaceable would be insanity.

 d-usa wrote:
If Trump himself becomes so much of a liability that the Dems sweep in the midterms, I would expect the GOP to cut their losses and chalk it up as a one-time fluke and try their hands at repairing their brand (like they say they will do after ever defeat) and going with the establishment option in Pence.

The problem for the GOP is that there are large elements of the base that have formed a bonafide cult of personality around Trump. I forget which GOP Congressman said it, but he described how it's gotten 'tribal'. That when you show up for an event, they don't even care much about issues. The only thing they want to know is whether you support Trump or not. And the GOP can't afford to have parts of their base sit out elections, at least not at a national level and not at many state levels.

So no, I really don't expect that the Republicans in Congress will turn on Trump, at least not so long as FOX and other personalities continue whipping Trump's supporters into a frenzy. And why would they stop? I thought differently about all of this 12 months ago, just because politicians tend to behave in self-interested ways. But I'm increasingly convinced that they see less future for themselves if they turn on Trump. Dumping him and installing Pence would be a rational move, but the base isn't behaving rationally.

Despite what Graham and some others have said, if Trump moves to fire Mueller, I believe almost all of the GOP in Congress will either be sweeping or lifting the rug. Honestly, do we have even a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise?

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm still wondering what genius at Fox News decided that it was worth paying Tucker Carlson a salary after he flamed out on CNN when John Stewart went on his show and humiliated him so bad on national evening television it got Carlson's show cancelled. That segment alone should have been enough to kill any job prospects.

Yeah, I think some people just shouldn't get a second chance - Sean Spicer comes to mind. I think it would be reasonable for him to slide back into those bushes and remain forever unhireable.

 Peregrine wrote:
But the whole point about "generic white Christian man who reliably votes for tax cuts for the rich" is that they're generic. If one particular option doesn't work out there are plenty more lined up and waiting. Nothing about Pence is exceptional enough to go out of their way to give him eligibility for 10 years, especially in a situation where Trump is about to be impeached and make Pence look really bad for being associated with him too closely. Dump Pence, find a random governor or senator or whatever with no unfortunate Trump ties to be the "generic white Christian man who reliably votes for tax cuts for the rich" candidate. Delaying impeachment, making the entire party look bad in the process, to preserve a candidate who is entirely replaceable would be insanity.

It's not delaying much, considering that there is zero for him to be impeached over at this time anyway. If something shows up, and if there are hearings, and/or if the democrats take over the house (and maybe the Senate), then you might have the possibility of impeachment. But nothing is happening until any of those things happen. So by the time some of those things might happen, it will be close to January anyway, if they even happen at all.

And at that point the GOP will still have the numbers in the Senate anyway to prevent the removal of Trump if, and only if, the House votes to impeach to begin with. So unless the GOP wants to impeach Trump, he's not getting impeached because there is no way that the Democrats end up with 67 Senate seats.

So if something comes up, either some real impeachable dirt on Trump or a Democratic wave so big that the GOP just can't ignore it (with the Democrats having every opportunity to piss it away in the next 7 months), the GOP then has to make a choice:

A) Keep on defending Trump, hope he doesn't drag the party down much more in 2 years, and run him against the Democratic Candidate while hoping that he doesn't cause an increased turnout among Democrats affecting the ballot on all levels in a year where redistricting is on the line.
B) Keep on defending Trump, fight a dirty primary, and almost guarantee that you will end up losing in 2020 no matter which GOP candidate wins.
C) Sacrifice Trump, elevate Pence, and count on the fact that voters don't remember gak in 2 years while you rebuild your establishment GOP brand.

I'm not saying C is a great option, but it's probably the best option they have. And if they get rid of Trump, they won't do it in a way that would take a 4 year term away from Pence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, absolutely everyone is shocked that the tax cuts are not paying for themselves:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/09/600898950/-1-trillion-deficits-to-return-national-debt-to-rise-projects-cbo

The GOP doesn't give a crap about the deficit, unless they can use it as an excuse to cut funding for anything they don't like.

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm still wondering what genius at Fox News decided that it was worth paying Tucker Carlson a salary after he flamed out on CNN when John Stewart went on his show and humiliated him so bad on national evening television it got Carlson's show cancelled. That segment alone should have been enough to kill any job prospects.

Yeah, I think some people just shouldn't get a second chance - Sean Spicer comes to mind. I think it would be reasonable for him to slide back into those bushes and remain forever unhireable.

Oh man, between him and Sanders, I'm not sure which is worse, and I'm not sure which one I have less respect for, both seem determined to ruin their personal credibility and standing in the most dramatic fashion possible for someone who obviously isn't going to reciprocate. Like...even for people who share the same views, these are not competent people.

(eh, maybe shouldn't)

 d-usa wrote:
And if they get rid of Trump, they won't do it in a way that would take a 4 year term away from Pence.

But this is what I don't get. Why does it matter if Pence loses a 4-year term? I suppose incumbent advantage is a thing, if he gets elected in the first place despite being a weak candidate, but I'm not seeing any meaningful difference between 6 years of Pence followed by Pence trying to loophole his way to 10 and 6 years of Pence followed by the next generic white Christian who reliably votes for tax cuts for the rich. The only reason anyone (outside of the hardcore zealots) wants to see him as president is the fact that he's next in line and can't be worse than what we have now. If Pence had to run a primary campaign against his fellow republicans there wouldn't be anything to set him apart from the endless sea of generic white Christians and their identical tax plans.

What I would expect is option D: sacrifice Trump, allow Pence to stay on the condition that he gracefully decides to pursue alternative career options after his brief term is up, and run someone with no Trump ties in 2020 on a platform of "we're sorry Trump hijacked our party, but we cleaned him out". Pence is just damaged goods at that point and brings nothing to the table compared to the alternative 2020 candidates.

If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hey, anyone want to talk about the war with Syria that Trump is now mulling over?

He'll bend over for Putin soon enough. The US simply doesn't have the local backing to make a victory in Syria even if Russia wasn't involved. Moreover, Russia's citizens are interested in them pursuing the war (to prove their countries strength) - America's citizens will just punish Trump for it. That's not even getting to the fact that Trump was an isolationist even when he was a Democrat.

Russia has sensed that America has mostly lost it's collective will to fight foreign wars and is looking to take the spot of global regime builder. It's not going to back down because of a couple punitive drone strikes. Trump will blow up something Syrian, pretend it's a deterrent, and continue reducing force numbers there.

Radio 4 had a US ex-military or security person the other day.

He said what needs to happen is for the USA to make a small coalition. Naming no names it needs to include say the UK, France and Israel, as these countries have regional interests and heritagae, and useful bases. Then build up a significant air force in the area.

Then warn Russia you are going to wipe out Assad's air force, so they need to get their guys out of the target areas.

Then wipe out Assad's air force, including all the airfields, aircraft, refuelling facilities, bomb dumps and maintenance facilities.

I dare say the USA plus France, UK and Israel must have the wherewithall to do this, if the political will could be found. I doubt that Russia actually has the capability to prevent it, without entering into a direct power to power battle over Syria.

It's true that the West lost the best chance to intervene effectively in Syria due to vacillation during the Obama presidency. Crying and wringing our hands about that won't improve the situation now. Neither will doing nothing, or piddling about with a cruise missile strike.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.

What precedent? The issue with Stormy Daniels is simple, did the money she was paid by Trump/his people come from his campaign funds? If the money came from campaign funds then that was an illegal act. The best way for the .gov to trace the money is to seize the books and correspondence from Trump’s staff and legal team that pertains to Daniels and track the money and decision making process.

I don’t see how Daniels leads to an impeachable offense for Trump unless there’s evidence that Trump knew/directed that campaign funds were used. Being a philanderer isn’t a crime and the Republicans have been embracing and making excuses for “family values” hypocrites in their ranks for as long as I’ve been alive, it’s sad and embarrassing but I’m numb to the outrage of it.

If there was a similar possible crime hanging over HRC or TCF I’d want it investigated too but I can’t think of one at the moment.

The precedent being that the NY FBI office raided a sitting President's personal lawyer over attorney-client privileged documents.

The FBI *had* to get several prior authorizations from Federal Magistrate and either approval from DOJ, or invoked existing regulations. The bar is REALLY high to go after this... meaning, they have something specifically that a judge signed off to do this.

If all this is kosher... Cohen is fethed.

My point is simply this: They better have the goods on Cohen. If they don't... woah momma, buckle your seatbelts.

EDIT: what 'D' said.

If the FBI did a no knock in NYC, you can bet your grannie's ass they have met the requirements for a warrant.

Cohen is screwed. Now we see if he rolls on Trump. Trump defending him when it was His appointee(a devotee of Guiliani which means he is hard core) who pursued the warrant is foolhardy.