Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 498053 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2600 on: March 07, 2017, 08:29:37 AM »
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7509
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2601 on: March 07, 2017, 08:38:02 AM »

Snip!


Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?

No... not hyperbole. I reckon if you are going to eliminate your Department of Eduction and the body charged with protecting your environment from the worst excesses of the market system then it really shows what you (don't) value.

Can't think of a more bone headed idea than stating to your population that "we don't think it's important that there is an oversight body which looks at setting appropriate education standards for your children. Or giving the green light to every oil company out there to frack for oil in your farmlands and tell them "not to worry, there's no consequence because we neutered the people who will prosecute you for poisoning the water table".

What's going to happen? Will Trump be writing the education curriculum and will children be taught alternative facts? How will you know if your air is safe to breathe and your water is safe to drink? Who will monitor that in the absence of the EPA? Please do not say the corporations will self-regulate.
Like I said; hysterical claims. None of the above are particularly great ideas, but turning control of education to the states is not going automatically to fuck everyone and instantly throw the country back into the dark ages. These bills are still in committee and without Democrat support wont make it past a fillibuster, so the forestated hyperbolic fucking is even more ridiculous to cry about, at this time.

...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2602 on: March 07, 2017, 08:42:25 AM »
...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?

This was a key Republican talking point all through campaign season.  It goes like this:  "Donald Trump is clearly insane, but don't worry about making him the President because other people in the government will keep him from doing anything crazy."

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2907
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2603 on: March 07, 2017, 08:42:35 AM »
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1894
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2604 on: March 07, 2017, 08:50:17 AM »
I think it's about time that all progressive/liberal folks take the conservative view and just put everything on the states (education, health care, taxes etc).

The conservative states receive more in federal funding than the progressive ones. The dumb states get fucked, seems fair to me.

If you happen to live in a dumb state the progressive stance can be to utilize your mobility rights and move to a smart state.

Yeah, I know poor people can't move that easily but I think in the long run it will be better for the republic.

It's too hard to convince people that their policies aren't good. So let them have as close to full autonomy as possible and let's see the results. Here is a list of states by the % of budget they receive from the feds. Let's take it away and see what happens.

•Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue.
•Louisiana, 41.9%
•Tennessee, 39.5%
•South Dakota, 39.0%
•Missouri, 38.2%
•Montana, 37.4%
•Georgia, 37.3%
•New Mexico, 36.6%

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2605 on: March 07, 2017, 08:54:56 AM »
Quote

...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?
While I think worry is a strong word, I  would not suggest one not be concerned about proposed bills. I  have not suggested such a thing, to be sure.

What I  did suggest is that one should not resort to hysterical appeal to hyperbole; it does not help the people who would be hurt by this proposed legislation and it does not help propose better legislation. It is merely a cheap dopamine spike for the people who write these things.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2606 on: March 07, 2017, 08:59:21 AM »
I think it's about time that all progressive/liberal folks take the conservative view and just put everything on the states (education, health care, taxes etc).

The conservative states receive more in federal funding than the progressive ones. The dumb states get fucked, seems fair to me.

If you happen to live in a dumb state the progressive stance can be to utilize your mobility rights and move to a smart state.

Yeah, I know poor people can't move that easily but I think in the long run it will be better for the republic.

It's too hard to convince people that their policies aren't good. So let them have as close to full autonomy as possible and let's see the results. Here is a list of states by the % of budget they receive from the feds. Let's take it away and see what happens.

•Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue.
•Louisiana, 41.9%
•Tennessee, 39.5%
•South Dakota, 39.0%
•Missouri, 38.2%
•Montana, 37.4%
•Georgia, 37.3%
•New Mexico, 36.6%
I think that helping poor people is worth the spending, in a general sense, and the republic is stronger for it. Just because poor people win elections occasionally is no reason to let massive portions of the population, with the fewest means to take care of themselves, wither and die.

Of course, I'm a pretty liberal person that way.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2607 on: March 07, 2017, 10:00:51 AM »
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.

Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2608 on: March 07, 2017, 10:47:25 AM »
Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.

The evidence (which is just beginning to trickle in, as voucher programs haven't been around all that long and only exist in a few places) seems to indicate that they harm students, rather than help them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers-surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html

Obviously there's plenty of room for more research, but I'd hardly say there's a compelling case for anything more than continuing to watch the results from existing programs. Expanding voucher programs without solid evidence that they actually help would be foolish.

-W

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7036
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2609 on: March 07, 2017, 10:47:53 AM »
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.

Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.

If vouchers work, they would've worked in Indiana or Louisiana or Ohio. They didn't. The voucher programs in those states are failures.

Vouchers are not a panacea.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2610 on: March 07, 2017, 11:19:03 AM »
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good.  If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless. 

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2907
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2611 on: March 07, 2017, 11:39:03 AM »
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good. [/b] If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless.

And a chance of failing. So what's the net gain? It's a fucking crap shoot. That isn't a solution. Schools can't just pick up best practices. Stanford has written quite a bit of research on the difficulties of trying to replicate the better charter schools and why underperforming charter schools still exist and will continue to exist.


waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2612 on: March 07, 2017, 11:56:21 AM »
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good.  If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless.

The point isn't that some of them can work. That's just like some stock-pickers can beat the market just by chance.

Overall, the numbers are mixed to negative. That's not to say it can't work, but it does seem that the Feds (NCLB and other similar standards stuff isn't popular but it probably works to an extent) are winning right now.

-W

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2613 on: March 07, 2017, 12:10:10 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way. 

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2614 on: March 07, 2017, 12:21:24 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

That ("there will always be some bad schools") is not relevant to the discussion, though. What we care about is the overall effect of various ways of running things, and for that we can use data.

The data currently shows charters to do *worse* or at best the same, overall, as public schools.

-W

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2615 on: March 07, 2017, 12:41:53 PM »
There are a lot of problems with charter schools. I found this article, although a little dated, interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/28/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-21-claims-about-charter-schools/?utm_term=.65a223c031fa

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2907
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2616 on: March 07, 2017, 01:06:59 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

Neither is providing some with a choice to move on to something that likely will be worse. Scrap the stupid voucher program and let's start focusing on arguably the most important determining factor for success in school. Improving home life and neighborhoods. More specifically poverty and racial/ethnic inequality. The current administration isn't exactly a champion for those folks. So vouchers it is. We'll just blame it on public schools and the teachers. Vicious cycle isn't it.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6693
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2617 on: March 07, 2017, 01:48:14 PM »
Doesn't pertain to the schools topic but I'll just leave this here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-republicans-see-a-%E2%80%98deep-state%E2%80%99-foe-barack-obama/ar-AAnXZdW

Real life turns into a bad reality TV show...

We NEED to get past the knit-picking over the tiny details that divide us. SO much we need to be working on together to get rid of this guy.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2618 on: March 07, 2017, 01:53:40 PM »
Doesn't pertain to the schools topic but I'll just leave this here.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-republicans-see-a-%E2%80%98deep-state%E2%80%99-foe-barack-obama/ar-AAnXZdW
Real life turns into a bad reality TV show...
We NEED to get past the knit-picking over the tiny details that divide us. SO much we need to be working on together to get rid of this guy.

Sure. Call your representatives.

I think the picture of Obama in that article needs the cartoon balloon in response to Trumpy that says "I don't give a fuuuck!"

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2619 on: March 07, 2017, 01:57:00 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.



NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2620 on: March 08, 2017, 06:11:20 AM »
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2621 on: March 08, 2017, 08:10:30 AM »
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.

As written, perhaps. There ought to be some checks on what unelected bureaucracies, etc can do. Maybe a "2/3 majority can block new regulations within 120 days" type thing would do it.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2622 on: March 08, 2017, 08:22:26 AM »
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2623 on: March 08, 2017, 08:48:51 AM »
Let's just call it what it really is. A big fat "fuck you" to the poor and hello yuge tax breaks for the rich. Republicans doing what they do best.

Hmmm, let's see.  The Republican health care bill cuts taxes on the rich, slashes benefits for the poor, and massively restricts abortion access. 

Yep, sounds like a Republican plan all right.  The same plan I've been hearing about for my entire life.

Summary of proposed AHCA provisions:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1463790/#msg1463790


NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2624 on: March 08, 2017, 09:04:29 AM »
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.

As written, perhaps. There ought to be some checks on what unelected bureaucracies, etc can do. Maybe a "2/3 majority can block new regulations within 120 days" type thing would do it.

We're talking about agencies writing rules that fill in details for legislation passed by Congress. Having Congress micro-manage this stuff is a terrible idea. If they really have a problem with the way an agency writes a rule, they can pass legislation to change it.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2625 on: March 08, 2017, 09:58:14 AM »
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2907
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2626 on: March 08, 2017, 10:46:05 AM »
Let's just call it what it really is. A big fat "fuck you" to the poor and hello yuge tax breaks for the rich. Republicans doing what they do best.

Hmmm, let's see.  The Republican health care bill cuts taxes on the rich, slashes benefits for the poor, and massively restricts abortion access. 

Yep, sounds like a Republican plan all right.  The same plan I've been hearing about for my entire life.

Summary of proposed AHCA provisions:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1463790/#msg1463790

Yep!!

Edit: I erased my original comment because I saw the discussion on ACA thread.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2627 on: March 08, 2017, 12:35:53 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2907
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2628 on: March 08, 2017, 12:39:36 PM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

Awesome. So they get to choose between a crappy public school or a shitty charter school. Well at least they have choices now.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2629 on: March 08, 2017, 01:03:00 PM »
School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

If that's the goal, it would be much easier and cheaper to just give all children below the poverty line (or similar cutoff) $10k a year for any educational purpose their parents want. Hell, you could not even tie it to education and you'd probably still see massive improvements - a lot of those kids could use just things like decent food and a stable place to live.

But that sounds like welfare...

-W

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2630 on: March 08, 2017, 01:09:04 PM »
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2631 on: March 08, 2017, 01:26:18 PM »
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?

They're also a way to provide yet another tax break to the wealthy while increasing segregation between the rich/poor, yet with the PR advantage of being able to claim they are increasing education access for all.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2632 on: March 08, 2017, 01:57:18 PM »
Also, if conservatives were actually interested in metric-based programs that improve outcomes, they would continue funding school lunch programs fully. Hungry kids don't learn well.

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2633 on: March 08, 2017, 02:16:48 PM »
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?

They're also a way to provide yet another tax break to the wealthy while increasing segregation between the rich/poor, yet with the PR advantage of being able to claim they are increasing education access for all.

Yup. Public education has a pile of money republicans are itching to get their hands on.  The true beneficiaries of voucher programs are the suburban middle class who can almost afford tuition at The Gospel Christian Academy for Future Homemakers and Providers private school, but then they couldn't go to Disney.  Now, with vouchers, they can undereducate their children, funnel money away from godless liberal teachers and towards people like the DeVos family, and still have money left over not to feel any lifestyle pinch. Meanwhile, 5k/year doesn't begin to cover expenses at a private school for a truly poor family. 

Again, as sol noted, Republicans don't actually have a problem with taking tax money as long as it goes to their coreligionists.  At least liberals are honest about how they want to use taxes.  And once again, Republicans don't give a crap about choice or people making their own decisions when it comes to, say, wanting a health insurance plan to not cover birth control for women they've never met.  Then it's all about how they shouldn't have to subsidize blah blah blah.  Guess what?  I don't want to subsidize a school that teaches Adam riding dinosaurs.  And subsidizing birth control provides way better outcomes than subsidizing failing charter schools and crappy private schools.  In fact, subsidizing birth control and ending the cycle of teen pregnancy and poverty is probably the single best thing we can do to improve our schools in the future.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2634 on: March 08, 2017, 04:48:19 PM »
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party. 

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8724
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2635 on: March 08, 2017, 05:22:16 PM »
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party.
Republicans tend not to be backwards in coming forward with their views, and usually seem to attach to them a short form of their reasoning which boils down to "don't take our money, give us as much of other people's money as you can, and don't control what we do".  More nuanced and sophisticated explanations might lead to more productive discussions, so please by all means feel free to provide them.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2636 on: March 08, 2017, 05:28:31 PM »
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party.
I think there may be a disconnect between voters who identify as R and  those in office actually working with legislation. It would be unfair to lump all R voters together. However, the actual legislation that is either passed, supported, or receiving serious consideration by the GOP has a pretty clear slant that is largely described pretty well by the comments above. There are some pretty notable exceptions from places like Maine and Alaska (see Murkowski on inclusion of Planned Parenthood defunding into the ACA repeal http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/320764-gop-sen-wont-vote-to-defund-planned-parenthood-casts-doubt-on-repealing).


NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2637 on: March 09, 2017, 06:57:00 AM »
I think there may be a disconnect between voters who identify as R and  those in office actually working with legislation. It would be unfair to lump all R voters together. However, the actual legislation that is either passed, supported, or receiving serious consideration by the GOP has a pretty clear slant that is largely described pretty well by the comments above. There are some pretty notable exceptions from places like Maine and Alaska (see Murkowski on inclusion of Planned Parenthood defunding into the ACA repeal http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/320764-gop-sen-wont-vote-to-defund-planned-parenthood-casts-doubt-on-repealing).

I think this is way larger in scope than the Republican party. At this point, there isn't much "voter representation" going on in elected government, full stop. I think the Democrats are a little bit better at saying the right words to their voters on policy issues, while the Republicans are better at the empty emotional appeals.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Location: NC
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2638 on: March 09, 2017, 07:35:32 AM »
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

Of course families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.  They just don't get tax dollars to fund whatever choice they make.  And as many studies have shown, the vouchers do not cover what the schools actually cost so they end up being a big giveaway to those that CAN afford it.  It's been a big fat failure here in NC.  Calling it School Choice is a huge misdirection, so that people can think what you wrote above.  And not pay attention to Jerry Falwell Jr. being appointed by Trump to lead a committee tasked with finding ways to deregulate education.  That and Betsy Devos crazy religious ideas make my blood run cold. 

As background - I've sent my child to private, charter and public schools across three states, the private being Catholic.  In no way would I expect federal dollars to pay for my child's education there which included mandatory mass and religious instruction.

And then I read further down in the thread - Lagom, Sol, Wexler and Glenstache stated things very well!
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 07:37:57 AM by Unique User »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2639 on: March 09, 2017, 08:10:13 AM »
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2640 on: March 09, 2017, 10:31:05 AM »
I'm just going to leave this here ...


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2641 on: March 09, 2017, 10:54:00 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2642 on: March 09, 2017, 11:00:15 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

Funny that you failed to mention that poll says that more people want trunp to compromise with democrats than want democrats to compromise with trump.  Your post suggests you do not think that these are the same thing.

You also cited "more people are talking" as if it was a good thing, despite the article highlighting that most people find this increased discussion stressful and are actively trying to find ways to cut back.

I swear MM, it's like every time you post you are deliberately trying to twist the truth.  At first i thought you were just a die hard partisan hack with a distorted world view, but now I'm leaning towards mischievous troll who is actively trying to degrade the forums by clouding our honest discussions with deliberately false information.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 11:08:05 AM by sol »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7509
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2643 on: March 09, 2017, 11:02:57 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

It's worth noting that more people surveyed indicated that they want Trump to compromise than wanting Democrats to compromise.

Rounding one number up, the other down, and changing "they'd like President Donald Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills" to a generic "hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation" is misleading at best.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2644 on: March 09, 2017, 12:00:17 PM »
Almost as misleading as asserting that numbers that are well within the margin of error are importantly different...

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7509
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2645 on: March 09, 2017, 12:30:16 PM »
Almost as misleading as asserting that numbers that are well within the margin of error are importantly different...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Also straw-man, since nobody has claimed that the numbers were "importantly different" - we just pointed out that you're posting misleading information.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2646 on: March 09, 2017, 01:13:40 PM »
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.

According to Amnesty:
Quote
Under international law, all workers have a human right to organize and to bargain collectively. These rights are an essential foundation to the realization of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labor Organization.

My union has negotiated very good insurance rates for me*, and offers very good seminars and workshops with interesting topics. They also take care of the salary negotiations for me, a process I dislike intensely and am happy to pay someone else to do. The one time I had something that looked like it could become a conflict, I got free legal advice (telling me to just let it go).  I work in the public sector, and I think there are 3-4 large ones, and a dozen or so smaller unions to choose between. I don't agree with 100% of the politics of my union, but the last time I looked at the alternatives they scored among the top three on all my criteria, and were best on value for money. My union has not been part of a strike. Ever. That is one of the reasons I chose them over the next best alternative.

I learned about banned unions in school; those were horror stories from Germany in the 1930s and 40s. But hey, what do I know, maybe unions in the US are completely different from what I'm used to. In Norway, more than 50 % of the working population is member of a union (80 % of the public employees). The numbers in Denmark and Sweden are even higher, since paid sick leave is connected to union membership. Of course you can choose to not be a member, you will still have all the same rights and the same pay (if you are a good negotiator). But should the fan become full of shit, you don't have the insurance that the union represents.


*They even managed to negotiate it retroactively; we had diability insurance that paid a lump sum if you got permanent disability. For a higher cost, we could have gotten the better one, which startet to pay out monthly when you have been too sick to work for 12 months, but we decided to save that money. When DH had been sick for 18 months, we got a letter in the mail from the union that they had renegotiated the terms, and everyone was upgraded to the better version free of cost. If someone filled the terms, they would start getting money transfers as soon as the new terms were approved. One month later, we had the first payment in the bank.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2647 on: March 09, 2017, 02:12:46 PM »
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.

Can't say it's '100% no' anymore. I attended meetings, or at least the ones where they didn't change the location at the last minute and only tell their pets where. I voted in every election.

If you want to be in your union, go for it. I want a choice.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2648 on: March 09, 2017, 02:26:14 PM »
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.

Can't say it's '100% no' anymore. I attended meetings, or at least the ones where they didn't change the location at the last minute and only tell their pets where. I voted in every election.

If you want to be in your union, go for it. I want a choice.

Where is the logic in saying you want a choice, but you want to deny me my choice (ban unions for public employees)?

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2649 on: March 09, 2017, 02:30:03 PM »
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.

According to Amnesty:
Quote
Under international law, all workers have a human right to organize and to bargain collectively. These rights are an essential foundation to the realization of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labor Organization.

My union has negotiated very good insurance rates for me*, and offers very good seminars and workshops with interesting topics. They also take care of the salary negotiations for me, a process I dislike intensely and am happy to pay someone else to do. The one time I had something that looked like it could become a conflict, I got free legal advice (telling me to just let it go).  I work in the public sector, and I think there are 3-4 large ones, and a dozen or so smaller unions to choose between. I don't agree with 100% of the politics of my union, but the last time I looked at the alternatives they scored among the top three on all my criteria, and were best on value for money. My union has not been part of a strike. Ever. That is one of the reasons I chose them over the next best alternative.

I learned about banned unions in school; those were horror stories from Germany in the 1930s and 40s. But hey, what do I know, maybe unions in the US are completely different from what I'm used to. In Norway, more than 50 % of the working population is member of a union (80 % of the public employees). The numbers in Denmark and Sweden are even higher, since paid sick leave is connected to union membership. Of course you can choose to not be a member, you will still have all the same rights and the same pay (if you are a good negotiator). But should the fan become full of shit, you don't have the insurance that the union represents.


*They even managed to negotiate it retroactively; we had diability insurance that paid a lump sum if you got permanent disability. For a higher cost, we could have gotten the better one, which startet to pay out monthly when you have been too sick to work for 12 months, but we decided to save that money. When DH had been sick for 18 months, we got a letter in the mail from the union that they had renegotiated the terms, and everyone was upgraded to the better version free of cost. If someone filled the terms, they would start getting money transfers as soon as the new terms were approved. One month later, we had the first payment in the bank.

This will be my last reply on this topic so I don't derail the thread.

If we're going to trade anecdotes, I can tell you about how the unions I deal with now try to trade favorable outcomes on grievances for their favorites for unfavorable ones for the people who the shop steward doesn't like.  I can tell you how, when I was a member, there was a short-term spike in the price of the engineering wood product we made... it was temporary, not going to last. Management asked the union, can we switch this crew from this manufacturing line (similar product, but the line can't do both. different size panels, etc) over to the un-used line that makes the high margin stuff. We were going to be furloughed for 2 weeks because the run for the stuff we made was done. Would they allow it without putting it out to bid? NOPE. I didn't get paid for two weeks, the company missed ~4.8 million in sales... for no real reason.


I think you hit on the fundamental difference between US unions and yours - choice!  You can shop for your union. We can't. If you work at boeing? You're in the IAM. No choice.


Quote
Where is the logic in saying you want a choice, but you want to deny me my choice (ban unions for public employees)?


FDR says it best.  but basically, the government is not the same thing as a private employer. FDR didn't support banning them outright, and I'm sure they won't ever be. But I sure want to see what PEU's have become get reformed. Those jackals have looted my states treasury, and despite Oregon's revenue/capita being in the top 5 or 6 in the nation, while incomes are in the bottom 25... all our governor wants to do is talk about raising taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 02:40:36 PM by ncornilsen »