Not that guy, but basically the same situation. I'd be thrilled. Not having to think about those every month has been amazing. I want everyone to feel that way, even if I have to pay more in taxes to cover it.
I really like your last point, and I hope that’s the effect of this. I just also hope that it’s not to the detriment of the competitive service.
We’re already seeing a decrease in quality hires due to direct-hire authority — without checks on the hiring authority, they have a tendency to just hire fast without actually determining if someone is qualified for a role.
As you’re not American, I’ll assume you’re unaware of all the attractive benefits this employer already gets. Here’s a few:
its employees gain access to massive subsidies for higher education that most Americans have to pay for, since we are a shithole country
those education benefits are already extended to their spouses and children in instances of total disability*
any veteran has access to a welfare stipend if they have low income
any injury they have on duty that results in any chronic symptom means they get tax free money every month and free healthcare for life — this isn’t just while working on base either, if you’re on leave and you twist your knee skiing and it hurts to bend it sometimes, the government will pay you for life for that, and pay you more if you’re married or have kids. Depending on how many “disabilities” you rack up, this can be upwards of $4k, tax free, every month, for life.
*if you rack up 100% of disability, this does not necessarily mean you can’t do anything, it just means you’ve hit a combination of government disability math that thinks you can’t
And those benefits? I’m all for them. I wish everyone got them, since there are far more useful things a person can do instead of joining the military-industrial complex, but whatever, at least someone gets them.
What bothers me about this one is that it’s at the expense of the competitive service, and thus at the expense of the public — Americans will get poorer service from their public servants because they didn’t have to compete against the best-qualified to get their jobs. They just got plonked in there because of who they decided to shack up with.
I mean in a less dark timeline the republicans would reject extremism and get their shit together around a normal human being for speaker. That they won’t is neither the democrats’ fault nor the democrats’ job to save them from.
Democrat reps do not exist to elect a Republican speaker.
I guess this is where I sound like an asshole, but…so what?
No one is drafted into the military. You volunteer for a term and they pay you (like shit, but I digress). Most of them never leave the US and most don’t see combat over corporate interests, so it’s basically like any other shitty job apart from being able to be put in jail if you try to quit before your term is up.
Why do we have this fascination with treating this one shitty employer’s employees better than we treat everyone else?
It’s totally possible that it’ll be an amazing thing, but past practices don’t give me a lot of faith in that. The competitive process exists to weed out one or two people being able to hire who they want to without checks and balances. Removal of that for certain classes of people just makes it easier to skirt those checks as long as someone is in a special class.
The problem we run into is what the government considers jobs that require expertise — for example, the people who write rating decisions for disabled veterans have an immensely important job that requires substantial training and skills, but much of the aptitude for learning these is tested for in the panel and interviewing process. They aren’t specific degrees or certifications. Under this rule, those tests would never happen for these people. They’d just be hired, plonked into a training class they might have no ability to pass, and start creating financial obligations for the government in as little as six weeks.
It’s hard for me to see how this difficulty they have, which plenty of non-military and non-law enforcement families also have, makes them a special class uniquely qualified for remote positions based on who they decided to shack up with.
I don’t understand how that makes it sound any better. That hypothetical spouse could, right now, apply for a competitive remote position, compete against the other candidates, and, if they are the best-qualified for the position, obtain it.
All this seems to do is reduce the ability for people who don’t want to marry a service member or a cop to obtain remote work, since they’ll have no opportunity to compete for the job.
Yeah America is just full of perfectly pure left politicians. Why bother with someone who screwed up a whole twice (in your opinion, I don’t have enough info to make a point on your other instance of failing).
She shifted left because the right in this country are literally trying to dismantle it. That’s as good a reason as any. Throw stones at her for this, but don’t chuck someone who actually accomplishes things for the working class in the gutter.
I guess we'll never know, as you continue to provide...nothing.
It's entirely possible that Warren has pulled the wool over my eyes, established the CFPB as an obscure joke, Wall Street only pretends to hate her, and she's in the pocket of corporate America and banks, but no one that says these things ever seems to provide any proof of any of it.
This is especially fun, since usually they at least post some Fox News BS that laughably contradicts reality, but your trust-me-bro antics are even better.
I mean now I’m more curious. You’re not American, you have no detailed interest in Warren…what random set of circumstances had you watching her debates in 2012, when she was running for political office for the first time?
Frankly I wouldn’t think most non-Americans would have heard of her before she ran for President.
This is the best take in this thread. Warren is completely wrong about this and someone needs to bring her up to speed on the harm these bills pose. Mistakes like this are easily avoidable if your staff educates you properly in areas you have no expertise.
This doesn't ring true, like...at all. In 2012, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described her by saying "no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren." Archive Link.
I didn't watch any debate she had with Scott Brown in 2012, when she was running for Senate, for the first time, but I know she ran unopposed in the democratic primary for that position.
What exactly do you have as evidence of her being corpo-ANYTHING in that year?
"This senator is wrong about something, so she should probably be voted out of office."
Like. No, man. You don't remove a progressive Dem because they're wrong about one thing. You argue with them, educate them, and get them to change their mind.
Warren made and successfully defended the CFPB. She's wrong about this, but you don't throw people into the garbage because they have one bad take.
Just like in real life.