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.

 whembly wrote:

I don't recall Obama getting approval for those "low-level" excursion in the ME...

He, and many others, argued that he had the authority under the initial Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that followed 9/11 because ISIS was just a follow up of those same groups.

Congress critters, and many others, argued that he didn't have the authority under that authorization, but even though they bitched about it they neither wanted to pull support from active military operations, nor did they want to do explicitly authorize that force.

Congress, to this day, has every ability and every right to either pass an authorization or force Obama/Trump/Whoever to withdraw US troops. But it's easier for them to complain about the executive branch doing executive things than to actually make a decision about anything and then be responsible for the outcomes caused by that decision.

Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?

 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.

Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.

Well, during the second week of the teacher strike our governor signed a bill cutting $50 million of funding.

So things are going great in this state.

 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.

Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?

 Vulcan 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.

Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.

Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.

Are we? Cutting military spending by 25% and closing the myriad tax loopholes exploited by corporations would outpace the money saved by slashing public sector wages by a pretty massive amount.

I'm not against the notion that some public sector figures are overpaid, I just don't care because the amount of money we're wasting by overpaying those people is peanuts compared to the money we're lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et all with.

This.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't recall Obama getting approval for those "low-level" excursion in the ME...

He, and many others, argued that he had the authority under the initial Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that followed 9/11 because ISIS was just a follow up of those same groups.

Congress critters, and many others, argued that he didn't have the authority under that authorization, but even though they bitched about it they neither wanted to pull support from active military operations, nor did they want to do explicitly authorize that force.

Congress, to this day, has every ability and every right to either pass an authorization or force Obama/Trump/Whoever to withdraw US troops. But it's easier for them to complain about the executive branch doing executive things than to actually make a decision about anything and then be responsible for the outcomes caused by that decision.

You are absolutely correct and it's a total abdication of Congress in this regard.

I know the President has a LOT of leeway to engage in armed conflict due to past precedents that totally the fault of Congress. I just wished they'd sack up and recoup their Declaration of War powah...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?

It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.

 whembly wrote:

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

Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...

Well, he lost, so....

 whembly wrote:

I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )

The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.

So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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

Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...

Well, he lost, so....

Doesn't really answer my question...

I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.

Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan 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.

Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.

Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...

Common knowledge amounts to nothing more than hearsay in court, even if it is true. You need actual PROOF for a warrant.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )

The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.

So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.

Huh... never thought of it like that... thanks!

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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

Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...

Well, he lost, so....

Doesn't really answer my question...

I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.

Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...

It's quite possible. After all, that would only require 0.000176% of the participating voters who didn't vote for Gore to change their minds and vote for him, or a similarly tiny percentage of eligible voters who didn't vote at all to show up and vote for him. It's not hard to believe that there were 537 people out of the 16 million in Florida who decided not to vote for Gore over the Clinton impeachment.

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan 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.

Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.

Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...

Common knowledge amounts to nothing more than hearsay in court, even if it is true. You need actual PROOF for a warrant.

This ^ Not to mention the level of proof required is extraordinarily high, it'll be interesting to see what the FBI had (note, it was the FBI not Mueller's investigation that did the search, even if it was on a tip from Mueller) that was convinced a judge.

And on another note, it means whatever they grabbed is now in the FBI's investigation not just Mueller's, so even if Mueller gets fired (and Congress chickens out of impeachment) there's now evidence of whatever crime Cohen committed, and any links that stem from that will be investigated.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Seb is Ben Wyatt confirmed

This post was extremely confusing to me, because Ben Wyatt is the name of the current treasurer of Western Australia, a guy who's job is to manage the state budget. For a second I was completely blown away by both your memory that I work for the WA state government, and your research in looking up who the treasurer was.

Then I remembered the name of the character in Parks & Recreation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

To an extent, some process improvement involves large up front investment in computer systems*. But a lot of process improvement is literally just cutting the resources and telling the manager to figure it out. "We've reviewed and think you only need 1.5 FTE in transactions, so the second 0.5 FTE is being taken to fill an existing gap somewhere else in the organisation. You'll figure out how to cope."




*Probably more than anything else, that's the area where government really sucks. Does anyone know of a single instance where a government rolled out a new IT system that would save money and improve the service, and it just worked?

 Vulcan wrote:

 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.

Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?

You do realize that children in low income communities both urban and rural are already languishing in underperforming public schools failing to achieve an adequate education with no hope for a better outcome because their parents are too poor to send them to a better school, right? It’s not like the current system of a centuries old outmoded process designed to churn out minimally qualified factory labor for the industrial revolution without interfering with planting/harvesting farming schedules is ensuring that every student is meeting or exceeding federal and state mandated grade level standards and test scores. We shouldn’t be so heavily invested in the stays quo when it’s been leaving the poor kids behind and stuck in the same vicious cycle for decades.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
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

Clinton carried the Soros money to the pandas, to convince the pandas to be part of it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

increasingly, as Seb put it in the Russia poisoning thread, I am suspecting we may be dealing with people on all sides who just arent actually very good at their jobs.

The current US administration is its own form of circus, while the Kremlin stages its own display, and a lot of actors are on relatively long leashes and blunder into stupid mistakes because theyre not coordinating through centralized channels and are led by people who are far more into politics and causes than being professional at what they do.

Properly coordinated professional forces dont blunder into well supported entrenched and prepared positions held by a global superpower.

I definitely think that that Wagner mercenaries getting blasted was just a Russian screw up. The Wagner Group is, more or less, part of the Russian war machine. They're fully equipped with armor, and were a big part of the force that invaded Ukraine. (Along with soldiers who were "on vacation," according to Putin.) Russia uses them so they can have thinly veiled plausible deniability for whatever they do. They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up."

Russia said "We don't know them. We have no idea what's going on. Go head."

The theory running around that makes most sense to me is that Russia had no idea Americans were embedded with the Kurds at this position and gave the orders to hit them. When we contacted them to tell them they were about to get lit up, Russia had to let the attack carry on and disown the guys as doing otherwise would unquestionably establish that they are actually pulling the strings with Wagner. There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

Soviets and Americans have been killing each other by proxy since 1945.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.

I
Under Nixon, US went to defcon 2 and threatened full nuke fun to stop the Soviets in the Israeli 1973 war.

 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.

Dismal failure in conventional circles doesn't just not hurt trying for a job in conservative circles, it's a job requirement. The primary thing is to never, ever swerve from the message, no matter how ridiculous it gets. Guys who have respect in mainstream credibility are likely to have independent thoughts, and worse than that they might feel the need to express those independent thoughts, and have the power to do so knowing there's another audience for them out there away from the conservative bubble.

But guys who've failed dismally out in the real world can be trusted to stick to the conservative message no matter how crazy it gets. Tucker knows all this, so the day the President's personal lawyer, a man who is also the deputy chair of the Republican National Finance Committee is raided by the FBI, Tucker will sit there and talk about panda sex.

nobody wrote:
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).

Nate Silver said, admittedly somewhat harshly, that criticism of Clinton for not visiting Wisconsin is a way of sorting people who understand the election from people who don't. Because with the way the electoral college fell, Wisconsin is a small state that fell on the blue side of Michigan and Pennsylvania - if Clinton doesn't win Mi and Pa she loses no matter what happens in Wi, if she wins those states Wi doesn't matter either way.

Also, Clinton visited Pa and Mi a lot, and her result there was actually worse than Wi, relative to 2012. The problem wasn't the states Clinton targeted, the problem was her visits to the states weren't winning any votes.

[quote[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.

Never saw this coming

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/09/600898950/-1-trillion-deficits-to-return-national-debt-to-rise-projects-cbo?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180410

As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.

"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."

 Ustrello wrote:

As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.

"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."

Hang on, what? I could not have seen this coming. You mean the Republican tax cut that was meant to pay for itself didn't end up suddenly spurring so much new growth that it paid for itself? I mean sure, a Republican president promised the same thing in 1981 and it didn't work. And then promised the same thing in 1986 and it didn't work. Then a different Republican president promised the same thing in 2001 and it didn't work, then promised the same thing again in 2003 and it didn't work.

And now it turns out that doing the exact same thing in 2017 didn't work this time either. What could be happening? What theory could possibly explain how cutting taxes actually reduces revenue?

 Formosa wrote:
Why are none of you talking about the Zuckerberg Trial ???

Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.

You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )

The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.

So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.

I'm not a lawyer but pretty sure this is not accurate.

 Ouze wrote:
Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.

You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.

People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?

It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.

If that was the case why didn't they ask him in 2010

The Atlantic article says it all basically: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/the-strangest-moments-from-the-zuckerberg-testimony/557672/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.

You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.

People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.

Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?

It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.

If that was the case why didn't they ask him in 2010

The Atlantic article says it all basically: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/the-strangest-moments-from-the-zuckerberg-testimony/557672/

It was just an idea as to why they might've asked.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.

You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.

People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.

Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.

Yeah, it's not the collecting of data that people are upset about it's that people had their data collected just for being friends of someone who actually agreed to it. By and large when companies tell people up front the data will be collected people are 90% more OK with it. Also there's the issue of FB collecting outside-of-FB data like you mentioned. The collecting call history just for having the app installed is pretty shady and ought to have some legal oversight.

The reason why people are shocked is that they had no idea that if they happened to have a "friend" who installed the "yourdigitallife" app, their personal details would be scraped and sold to third parties without so much as a courtesy message to inform them it was happening.

Secondly, that Facebook knew this and covered it up for three years.

It doesn't matter if Facebook excuse themselves through some legal reason about EULA, or blah-di-blah "we're sorry and we'll do better next time". The damage has been done.

 sebster wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.

"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."

Hang on, what? I could not have seen this coming. You mean the Republican tax cut that was meant to pay for itself didn't end up suddenly spurring so much new growth that it paid for itself? I mean sure, a Republican president promised the same thing in 1981 and it didn't work. And then promised the same thing in 1986 and it didn't work. Then a different Republican president promised the same thing in 2001 and it didn't work, then promised the same thing again in 2003 and it didn't work.

And now it turns out that doing the exact same thing in 2017 didn't work this time either. What could be happening? What theory could possibly explain how cutting taxes actually reduces revenue?

Seems funny to me that when the trickle-down cuts were tried after the 29 crash, and in fact deepened the Great Depression, that politicians on both sides of the aisle recognized the abject failure which is why we went what. . . just a bit under 60 years without major trickle-down policy in place, and most of congress on board with the idea that some level of regulation in the economy was absolutely necessary.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.

Are we? Cutting military spending by 25% and closing the myriad tax loopholes exploited by corporations would outpace the money saved by slashing public sector wages by a pretty massive amount.

I'm not against the notion that some public sector figures are overpaid, I just don't care because the amount of money we're wasting by overpaying those people is peanuts compared to the money we're lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et all with.

While it wouldn't necessarily be bad to examine the military budget and trim some fat, at the same time our military strength and readiness are the man reason we haven't had the kind of attacks that other countries as hated as us have enjoyed. I'd love a top-down reevaluation of the ENTIRE federal budget, and trim fat across the board. But congressional salaries are major thing for me, especially since they are effectively double dipping from their law firms, real estate empires, etc.

Vulcan wrote:

 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.

Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?

Nobody is deadlocked into a minimum wage/underpaid job. Ever. Sure, it may take effort. Sure, it may be a job you legitimately hate. However, when it comes down to it, the SECOND you are responsible for raising a child, what you like or hate is completely irrelevant? My dream was to be a comics penciller or to play punk music for a living. My reality is as a machinist making $26.10 an hour as of my $1.30 raise last week (a raise that was the direct result of the new tax laws, along with some saucy new bonus, but that's another topic for another time). While I don't hate machining, it's not necessarily pleasant or fun. However, since I will be putting my 5 year old in private school this fall, and my 16 year old is moving to a private alternative school as well, I can't rightly afford to play clubs in the evenings.

We have welfare assistance programs for the disadvantaged, THOSE are what public school would be for if the rest of the education system was privatized. Someone already pointed out the quality of those schools, but if there were less government run schools to fund, then maybe the schools left could have a higher caliber staff and curriculum.