The Next President is...

[slackline]

From what I’ve seen, some Gen-Xers, Millennials, Zoomers, take your pick. Pretty much all of them who didn’t go to college when tuition was $200 a year and could be paid for by working part-time like Boomers.

True statement. I don’t hear any Gen Xers out there saying, “hey, we’re happy to pay our debts! Leave us out of this conversation...”. We’re all too happy to let someone fight the fight and look like the mooches because we know it will benefit us to get loan forgiveness. I paid mine off long ago by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

24 minutes ago, slackline said:

True statement. I don’t hear any Gen Xers out there saying, “hey, we’re happy to pay our debts! Leave us out of this conversation...”. We’re all too happy to let someone fight the fight and look like the mooches because we know it will benefit us to get loan forgiveness. I paid mine off long ago by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gen X here.  Happy to pay my own debts.  

Or are generations now based on political views instead of when you were born?  Lord knows I've been called "boomer" plenty of times.

[ViperMan]

RE: education

One thing we need to do if we really are concerned about the rise in education costs is ask ourselves why the cost of education has gone up. It's all well and good to lament the cost of higher ed and just throw more money at the problem - which is exactly what student debt "forgiveness" (transfer) is, in actuality. The solution is likely counter-intuitive, though, and IMO this means eliminating all (yes, ALL) student loans from the federal government.

I get that this is a problem affecting a generation, but if we are going to solve this problem, let's solve it permanently, and avoid going around the merry-go-round for another lap. There is good evidence that the student loan program which has swelled from $3B in 1970 to over $160B in 2017 (https://www.mercatus.org/publications/education-policy/reevaluating-effects-federal-financing-higher-education) is driving up the cost of college - it just makes sense, right? I mean, if you're an institution of higher learning, what incentive do you have to not raise the price when there is effectively and unlimited stream of money to tap into?

Other studies have determined that for every $1.00 subsidy (in student loans) the price of college rises between $0.58 and $0.78 - not much bang for our tax buck (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/).

My compromise? Fine, let's all "forgive" student debt, but any discussion along those lines needs to come with an admission that the student loan program has unequivocally failed, having had the opposite effect from its stated goal, and hence will be permanently scuttled.

Edited January 4, 2021 by ViperMan

[jazzdude]

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  
Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

Interesting argument, I'll take the bait.

Forget airframes-should a flight commander be compensated more than a line pilot or line instructor since they are in a supervisory position?

Should flight commanders be the most experienced person available in the organization (say a major or an extra Lt Col in a sq) since they are already being compensated more for their leadership potential, or should it be filled by someone younger to check a career advancement box? (For an organization that likes to say it's a meritocracy, we do a lot of things that don't really fit in a true meritocracy, but I digress)

Should instructors make more than copilots? What if the copilot was a cross flow instructor/evaluator from a different airframe?

Is getting passed over for major because you just flew the line and didn't do SOS or a master's the same as a civilian not getting a promotion to a supervisory job because they didn't take on extra responsibilities in their current job to improve their company or take night classes to get a degree the company wants at that level?

Lastly and most importantly, a C-17 pilot clearly should make at least twice what a C-130 pilot makes: twice the cargo at twice the speed! (I'd say 4 times the pay, but sometimes the gear is not down before landing or the cargo/pax arrives at the wrong destination...so deductions were made)

[FLEA]

7 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  

Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

Isn't this what we've been asking for? Compensating pilots as pilots, doctors as doctors, lawyers as lawyers, etc.... And that as a Major/Instructor, I should be making significantly more than a Public Affairs specialist or personnelist, with significantly less training and transferable skills? 

[jazzdude]

Isn't this what we've been asking for? Compensating pilots as pilots, doctors as doctors, lawyers as lawyers, etc.... And that as a Major/Instructor, I should be making significantly more than a Public Affairs specialist or personnelist, with significantly less training and transferable skills? 

The hard part is determining what is the appropriate civilian counterpart. For a mobility pilot/AC, is it the UPS 777 Captain (legacy airline)? The Atlas Air 767 Captain (ACMI carrier, roughly same cargo capacity as a C-17, similar schedules as an AMC line flyer)? Jet Blue A320 Captain ("lower tier" major airline, similar size to C-130)? Should our helo pilots get paid what helo pilots get paid on the outside (aka peanuts)? What happens when someone moved onto a staff job? Do they take a pay cut from pilot to get paid as a low-mid level manager? Should your initial UPT commitment be compensated at the regional airline level (argument here is that if you pursued a purely civilian airline career, you'd likely spend 5-15 years at a regional, so that level of compensation could be seen as "fair")?

What about AF engineers? They are paid way less than their civilian counterparts, and have no bonuses or incentives outside of basic pay/bah/eyc. I know I had an engineering job offer out of college that my AF pay didn't match until I pinned on major, including accounting for my additional flight pay.

Realistically, the AF will never win the pay battle against the airlines (short of when, not if, airlines go through tough times and furlough). Even military doctors could probably make more on the outside, especially working in a big city. But at some point, serving our nation is it's own reward to some degree, and it's not all about the cash in the bank account. Same goes for people who elect to work for a non profit vs a for profit company.

[slackline]

Can some of you MAGA/Trump diehards explain why every Republican that doesn’t outright support the unsupported claims of fraud and overturning of Democracy as we know it is now labeled a RINO, or has to worry about reelection? How is this turn of events not seen as a problem on the right? It is totally possible that the GOP loses the Senate because of this sentiment and Trump’s inflammatory words. That is an outcome that is highly undesirable, but they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. Trump and his MAGA crowd will have effectively handed the senate, and therefore, tons of control to the Dems. Great... I just don’t get it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

i don't either. it's a losing strategy.

best case for them: the election is overturned....great...what will THAT do to the country?

it's in the nation's (and GOP) best interest for trump to concede.

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

i don't either. it's a losing strategy.

best case for them: the election is overturned....great...what will THAT do to the country?

Well, I get to participate in my first protest. So I got that going for me.

[Pooter]

I don't think there's any strategy at all. They lost, they know they lost, so they're defensively lashing out in all directions. 
 

I love pointing out how the democrats are being idiots when they do things that are logically inconsistent or harmful to their own cause, but republicans are putting on a spectacular display of the same thing right now. The fact that trump bandwagoners can't see that he is taking their own party to a very unproductive place blows my mind. 
 

It used to be nice being on the right because I could reasonably tell myself that republicans generally stick to some core values and respect our institutions. Lol not anymore. 

[Pooter]

Also I'm getting genuinely excited that we might see trump dragged out of office.  If he doesn't concede after the ratification tomorrow I think the the time for him to escape this with any level of self respect has come and gone. Could be a very fun start to 2021

[jazzdude]

I don't think there's any strategy at all. They lost, they know they lost, so they're defensively lashing out in all directions. 

I think the strategy is "admit nothing, deny everything, counter accuse, demand an apology." Don't think it's going to work out very well, and the Republicans risk disillusioning many who have supported their candidates/platform in the past.

It used to be nice being on the right because I could reasonably tell myself that republicans generally stick to some core values and respect our institutions. Lol not anymore. 

I'm in the same boat as you here. It's disappointing to see the Republicans implode on themselves

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

I think the strategy is "admit nothing, deny everything, counter accuse, demand an apology." 

You're right, it's a strategy. Just a really, wildly, alarmingly bad one. Maybe trumpers will begin to realize the damage they've done if the Georgia republicans lose tonight. Incumbents are generally favored to win runoffs but trump's post election buffoonery has galvanized democrat voters to the point that what should be very winnable races are now a toss up. 
 

The shortsightedness is just astounding. "Oh I have a good idea! Let's gamble senate control, while simultaneously ruining election confidence and our own credibility, while also irreparably splitting the party.. to hitch the wagons to a guy who's gonna be politically irrelevant/dead of a heart attack in 1-5 years, and he wasn't even really a republican in the first place. What could possibly go wrong."

[Homestar]

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

 

I don't think there's any strategy at all.

 

I think this is closest to the truth. Trump wants to just burn it all down and it seems to me that he’s actually sabotaging the Georgia senate runoff to somehow convince republicans to put him on the ticket in 2024. It’s insane to me. 

[Sua Sponte]

Judging by how the GA Senate Runoff is currently going, looks like it’s going to be a rough four years for the GOP.

[Prozac]

48 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Judging by how the GA Senate Runoff is currently going, looks like it’s going to be a rough four years for the GOP.

Careful now. Dems have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

[raimius]

If the Dems win by a narrow margin, the conspiracy theorist will go nuts, and have a lot of Republicans following them.  We already have some polls showing a majority of Republicans saying the Nov election is untrustworthy...what happens when the race goes to the Dems after many people on both sides said it favored the Repubs?

It might get ugly.

Edited January 6, 2021 by raimius
Auto correct

[FLEA]

Well, on the bright side, I just interested 10K from my grandfather I was going to use to pay down the remaining balance of my wife's student loans. But with he way things are going, definitely going to hold off on that! 

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, raimius said:

If the Dems win by a narrow margin, the conspiracy theorist will go nuts, and have a lot of Republicans following them.  We already have some polls showing a majority of Republicans saying the Nov election is untrustworthy...what happens when the race goes to the Dems after many people on both sides said it favored the Repubs?

It might get ugly.

The fact that data is showing voter turnout in typically blue areas of the state may have been higher than even the Presidential election just two months ago is not going to help ease those theories either. 

[spike]

5 minutes ago, kaputt said:

The fact that data is showing voter turnout in typically blue areas of the state may have been higher than even the Presidential election just two months ago is not going to help ease those theories either. 

It's quite interesting how a failed presidential ticket campaigning on a message of bat shit crazy could inspire even more voters to turn out in a run off election.  Definitely a conspiracy.

[kaputt]

6 minutes ago, spike said:

It's quite interesting how a failed presidential ticket campaigning on a message of bat shit crazy could inspire even more voters to turn out in a run off election.  Definitely a conspiracy.

I’m not saying I believe the conspiracy, I’m just saying it’s not going to go away and there are going to be certain individuals that play strongly on the fact I listed above. 

[spike]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

I’m not saying I believe the conspiracy, I’m just saying it’s not going to go away and there are going to be certain individuals that play strongly on the fact I listed above. 

Not a dig at all.  I understood your meaning.  

More of a sarcastic critique on those grasping for straws.

[Negatory]

Can’t say I expected it to happen, but the R party has really imploded these last 2 months. Many of you expected Trump to throw a wrench in traditional politics and he did - he fractured voting confidence and the base for Rs as he tried to burn down the establishment. At the same time, he’s galvanized some more fringe voters to vote dem. It’s funny, because in Nov it was relatively understood that Rs were going to be able to keep the senate if they could just hold themselves together. You can’t argue that you didn’t get what you voted for.

Incoming: senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The mayor’s lost control.

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Can’t say I expected it to happen, but the R party has really imploded these last 2 months. Many of you expected Trump to throw a wrench in traditional politics and he did - he fractured voting confidence and the base for Rs as he tried to burn down the establishment. At the same time, he’s galvanized some more fringe voters to vote dem. It’s funny, because in Nov it was relatively understood that Rs were going to be able to keep the senate if they could just hold themselves together. You can’t argue that you didn’t get what you voted for.

Incoming: senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The mayor’s lost control.

The (R) are like the gangsters in The Dark Knight who hired the Joker. They hoped for a one sided chaos they could control, but they just got chaos. 

 

Still. 

 

I think we've only seen the end of the beginning, with Trump as the catalyst for what comes next. Rational liberals who voted Democrat, and could have voted no other way because of the absurdity of Trump as president, no longer have the boogeyman to distract them from the insanity of democratic policy.  Phase two is going to be the breakdown of the democratic party, a split that has been a long time coming, will once again take away the fabled supermajority of voters that Democratic politicians have been chasing for decades.

 

Joe Manchin may be able to sell out his entire ethical foundation, but the American voters will be less pliable. The worship of race, and the now open demonization of "whiteness," wealth, and masculinity will take the many, many suburban woman who voted against Trump for the justified hated of his disgusting composure, and deliver them right back to the Republicans. Well, only if the Republican politicians learned from the last 4 years. Some have. 

 

Warnock is the continuation of the Marxism camel getting it's nose under the tent. The (D) will be hard pressed to keep it out now.

[Negatory]

I’ll put $10 down on RIFs in the next 2 years.