pawnman

Agreed. You won't find many people bemoaning all the stable hands and carriage drivers put out of work by the automobile, or all the phone switchboard operators put out of work by VOIP, or all the typists in what used to be called the steno pool becoming obsolete. Sure, people are likely to get hurt in the short-term. But the vast majority will be made better off by the technology. This isn't a new argument...just read up on the original Luddites to see how long people have feared these new technologies.

Might get easier when the military budget starts getting cut.

Guess I'll just wait until I PCS back to a base. When I was close to San Antonio, the timing wasn't good. Now that the timing is good, I'm not close to a base.

Anyone run into the "you're not within 100 miles of an MTF" issue? I'm at a GSU in a non-flying gig, ~150 miles from WPAFB. Their surgery center told my I can't to PRK with them because I'm not within 100 miles of an MTF...even though WPAFB is my servicing MTF and where I already have to go for aircrew-specific appointments like the soft contact lens program and annual flight physicals. Anyone have luck fighting this one? I have family that lives about 2 miles from the hospital, so it's not like I'd get surgery then drive 100+ miles back home the same day.

IIRC, the argument for giving payments directly to people was that it was less expensive to just write those checks than it would have been to pay for the administrative burden of things like paying rent to landlords, paying mortgages to lending companies, paying for food through something like an EBT card, etc.

Fair enough. I just remember him using the legal system a bit...zealously, and that he was no longer in the Air Force. I retract my previous statement about him getting kicked out.

I don't think so. This guy was talking about recent job gripes in the AF. I thought PYB was removed from the Air Force after some conscientious objecting/protesting related to drone strikes.

One thing that would help is to eliminate the cliffs in our current system. There are several areas in the current way government assistance works where getting a job/getting a raise results in less total money coming in. If we can smooth those transitions so that someone can work their way out of poverty without ending up worse off at any point, we can create an incentive to work and get raises and eventually get off government assistance. We saw this in Seattle when they went to $15/hr minimum wage. A bunch of people no longer qualified for government benefits as full-time workers and asked to have hours slashed because they were losing money by having their wages increased. If we can introduce intermediate steps that reduce, but not eliminate, government assistance in those cases, there's less disincentive to get a better job or work longer hours.

In advance, maybe. Two and a half months in advance seems excessive. Keep the vote where it is, have the next president in office before Christmas. Plenty of time to do swapping out. And not much gets done in government around the holidays anyway.

How's that strategy worked out for us, historically speaking?

They might be busy this week...

And now that the election is over... Coumo wants to reopen New York.

Seems like you're really committed to calling "gather evidence and try him in court" a defense of Assad. The whole point is not to launch sorties. Because we've seen that it often causes more problems than it solves...Is Libya better off without Gaddaffi?

Or just wait a week. Crazy, I know.

So for a community that often derides leadership for acting without evidence, preaches innocent until proven guilty, etc...you're upset that she called for gathering evidence and actually having a trial for war crimes?

I think people have mistaken "Let's not get into yet another war like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya with Syria" for a defense of Assad. She's said repeatedly he's a bad person and we need to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. Her stance is, and always has been, we have no national interest in changing the regime in Syria just because Assad is a bad person.

She's the subordinate. Seems like the lines are pretty clear here.

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

People thought the same thing about the Tea party. How'd that work out?

AETC is toxic, but you seem to have stumbled into a whole new level of jackassery.

Oh, I have zero problem with them banning Trump. I just think it's disingenuous to pretend they're trying to "prevent violence" when they don't kick terrorists off the platform for actively planning attacks. Maybe there isn't as much to be gained from the liberal media for kicking radical Islamists...sorry, austere religious scholars...off the site.

Very true, but you can only collect BAH from the GI Bill if you aren't getting it otherwise (like, being on orders as a reservist, for example).

They didn't have much credibility left anyway.

Well, we spent all summer in protest mode. It was foolish to think that wouldn't cut both ways.

I don't know if it's for another "first", or if it's because they fear Breyer getting old like RBG and losing another seat on the court at an inopportune time. Getting three SCOTUS picks will be the most lasting legacy for Trump's presidency.