AW - serious question. Are you opposed to any military cuts and even some modest forms of gun control (ie limiting who could own assault rifles, limits on ammo, background checks on those who purchase, etc)?
Are there ANY forms of gun control you might support or is it just a free-for-all?
As far as military cuts, I do believe that we could probably be more efficient in our spending. I mean, the government isn't exactly known for using their resources very wisely. But I have no problem with our government spending twice as much (or more) as other countries do on defense spending. It's why our military is so powerful and effective and that personally is comforting to me. That's the main job of the government IMO - stay out of my business and keep me safe.
As far as gun control, I'm not opposed to things like background checks.
You want to see what Obama's military budget cuts are doing in my community?
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
Post by ChillyMcFreeze on Aug 17, 2012 12:18:27 GMT -5
Do the debate moderators ever ask about judicial appointments? Like, who would you appoint, given the opportunity? This issue just came onto my radar in the last year or so (thanks, ESF!), so I don't remember if it's been done in the past.
Can you show me where Obama said that, specifically? Because IIRC, his response was exactly the same as Romney's - we should enforce current gun legislation, but stop short of curtailing an individual's right to own guns.
Aw, you can pick any reason you want to vote for a candidate. I just hope it would be a little more informed than "some people on the internet are too liberal."
No, you're so right. I have no reason. I just rely on internet strangers to tell me who to vote for.
You're kidding me right?
I vote the same way you do. I research about the candidates. I take my daily experiences, the things I read about, and everything else I know and make a decision that most closely aligns with what I believe.
But, when neither candidate stands for what you believe, but there is one that maybe scares you a little more (or whose supporters maybe scare you a little more), then you have to decide whether you will vote on principle or cast a vote against the one you dislike more.
Of course, I don't do that. I'm too stupid. I don't vote for any reason, really
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
A little off-topic, but somewhat pertinent since you're projecting internet opinions onto the presidential candidates. I think you're also projecting budget issues onto the POTUS instead of on Congress.
This is a prime example of why the buget is getting out of hand. It's always...cut spending, no new taxes, but NOT IN MY BACKYARD. So instead it comes to more spending (b/c each district/state works it's own angle), no new taxes (b/c nobody in Congress can agree to let tax cuts expire or raise taxes to their constituents) and that = a crazy out-of-hand budget.
For that tank-facility, the decision lies with Congress and the Army...not the president really. It says it right in the article that the fate is up to Congress, "But in the end, the fate of the Lima Army Tank Plant will be decided mainly on the basis of whether members of Congress think it is prudent for the U.S. to go several years (maybe much longer according to Lima’s mayor) with no capacity to build tanks."
Honestly, if this was your home budget and you could go to a local grocer that you've known your whole life and spend X% more or maybe put that person out of business and cut spending by X% by going to Walmart but not go in the red each month, what do you chose? I think the Army has to look at the fact that the plant might not be a good financial choice even if it's a good moral choice.
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Aug 17, 2012 12:36:37 GMT -5
Last election I was passionately pro-Obama. This year I'm more of an apathetic Dem. I like Obama more than Romney, and I have hot-button issues just like everyone else, but I honestly geuninely believe that it makes not one lick of difference who is elected as president this time around because nothing will get done anyway. SSDD, as far as I'm concerned. I am basically voting Dem this time around because it's the lesser of two evils as far as the party itself is concerned. I think Obama and Romney both are about as singularly useful as a mole on my vagina.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
This is an issue that is hardly limited to Obama, though, and it's not the result of slashing the military budget. The funding and defunding of military bases and plants operated by military contractors is a HUGE political game. Nobody ever wants THEIR district's military base closed. And it's been that way for decades. Military bases are closed and realigned regardless of which party is in power.
And a lot of the things that you're saying could be applied to other areas of government spending. I'm bitter that Wisconsin didn't get high speed rail because it would have resulted in jobs for laying track, building railroad cars, operating the train, and probably businesses that would have sprung up across the rail line. People want to see other areas of government spending trimmed - reduce the size of the IRS, cut the regulatory red tape, etc., etc. All of that would result in lost jobs.
Decreased employment caused by reduced military spending is a valid concern, but it should hardly make the military budget an untouchable sacred cow while the slashing of other areas of the federal budget are slashed.
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
A little off-topic, but somewhat pertinent since you're projecting internet opinions onto the presidential candidates. I think you're also projecting budget issues onto the POTUS instead of on Congress.
This is a prime example of why the buget is getting out of hand. It's always...cut spending, no new taxes, but NOT IN MY BACKYARD. So instead it comes to more spending (b/c each district/state works it's own angle), no new taxes (b/c nobody in Congress can agree to let tax cuts expire or raise taxes to their constituents) and that = a crazy out-of-hand budget.
For that tank-facility, the decision lies with Congress and the Army...not the president really. It says it right in the article that the fate is up to Congress, "But in the end, the fate of the Lima Army Tank Plant will be decided mainly on the basis of whether members of Congress think it is prudent for the U.S. to go several years (maybe much longer according to Lima’s mayor) with no capacity to build tanks."
Honestly, if this was your home budget and you could go to a local grocer that you've known your whole life and spend X% more or maybe put that person out of business and cut spending by X% by going to Walmart but not go in the red each month, what do you chose? I think the Army has to look at the fact that the plant might not be a good financial choice even if it's a good moral choice.
Did you read the article though? It's only a good financial choice in the short-term. The army plans to reopen the plant (probably in a different location, because it's cheaper that way) in 2017. They are only saving money for four years. But when they reopen they are going to be spending much more money on retraining and everything else involved in reopening than they would by keeping the plant open for those four years. This isn't a good financial choice for anyone involved. Projections show that it would save more money to continue to make the Abrams for those four years at this plant.
Post by EllieArroway on Aug 17, 2012 12:38:24 GMT -5
Obama:
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”
Romney:
"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal."
Yeah, those positions are so different it's scary.
A little off-topic, but somewhat pertinent since you're projecting internet opinions onto the presidential candidates. I think you're also projecting budget issues onto the POTUS instead of on Congress.
This is a prime example of why the buget is getting out of hand. It's always...cut spending, no new taxes, but NOT IN MY BACKYARD. So instead it comes to more spending (b/c each district/state works it's own angle), no new taxes (b/c nobody in Congress can agree to let tax cuts expire or raise taxes to their constituents) and that = a crazy out-of-hand budget.
For that tank-facility, the decision lies with Congress and the Army...not the president really. It says it right in the article that the fate is up to Congress, "But in the end, the fate of the Lima Army Tank Plant will be decided mainly on the basis of whether members of Congress think it is prudent for the U.S. to go several years (maybe much longer according to Lima’s mayor) with no capacity to build tanks."
Honestly, if this was your home budget and you could go to a local grocer that you've known your whole life and spend X% more or maybe put that person out of business and cut spending by X% by going to Walmart but not go in the red each month, what do you chose? I think the Army has to look at the fact that the plant might not be a good financial choice even if it's a good moral choice.
Did you read the article though? It's only a good financial choice in the short-term. The army plans to reopen the plant (probably in a different location, because it's cheaper that way) in 2017. They are only saving money for four years. But when they reopen they are going to be spending much more money on retraining and everything else involved in reopening than they would by keeping the plant open for those four years. This isn't a good financial choice for anyone involved. Projections show that it would save more money to continue to make the Abrams for those four years at this plant.
The article doesn't have direct numbers, so it's hard to compare, but I assumed that the 4+ years of savings would be more than the retraining and opening of a plant (there or elsewhere later) - especially when the article mentions that they have to continually retrain workers anyway due to upgrades/technology, "It’s usually easier to start over at a new location, especially since the next generation of weapon systems is likely to be a good deal different from the last one. That’s true even in the case of tanks, which now contain as much electronics and computing capability as some combat aircraft."
It sounds like the community is projecting additional losses in the community (housing crashes, fewer amenities, etc.) to the cost, which is true for the community, but those aren't federal government costs that the Army can use to make a financial decision - thus the moral issue.
AW - serious question. Are you opposed to any military cuts and even some modest forms of gun control (ie limiting who could own assault rifles, limits on ammo, background checks on those who purchase, etc)?
Are there ANY forms of gun control you might support or is it just a free-for-all?
As far as military cuts, I do believe that we could probably be more efficient in our spending. I mean, the government isn't exactly known for using their resources very wisely. But I have no problem with our government spending twice as much (or more) as other countries do on defense spending. It's why our military is so powerful and effective and that personally is comforting to me. That's the main job of the government IMO - stay out of my business and keep me safe.
As far as gun control, I'm not opposed to things like background checks.
You want to see what Obama's military budget cuts are doing in my community?
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
But wherever we cut the budget this will happen. If we cut social services it puts social workers out of work and people who need that safety net lose it. If we cut medical spending people die for lack of healthcare. There's no happy or comfortable place to cut where nobody is affected unfortunately.
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”
Romney:
"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal."
Yeah, those positions are so different it's scary.
Romney flip flopped on gun control though. That quote is from 2004. So if we're weighing the risks, Romney is less likely to enact more gun control than Obama.
But wherever we cut the budget this will happen. If we cut social services it puts social workers out of work and people who need that safety net lose it. If we cut medical spending people die for lack of healthcare. There's no happy or comfortable place to cut where nobody is affected unfortunately.
Agreed - that's what I'm getting at. Congress doesn't want to do the hard work of cutting the budget, but they're also not doing the hard work of raising taxes/fees to match.
I'm on the side of raise taxes/fees (and a little cutting of the budget, but not a lot).
Did you read the article though? It's only a good financial choice in the short-term. The army plans to reopen the plant (probably in a different location, because it's cheaper that way) in 2017. They are only saving money for four years. But when they reopen they are going to be spending much more money on retraining and everything else involved in reopening than they would by keeping the plant open for those four years. This isn't a good financial choice for anyone involved. Projections show that it would save more money to continue to make the Abrams for those four years at this plant.
The article doesn't have direct numbers, so it's hard to compare, but I assumed that the 4+ years of savings would be more than the retraining and opening of a plant (there or elsewhere later) - especially when the article mentions that they have to continually retrain workers anyway due to upgrades/technology, "It’s usually easier to start over at a new location, especially since the next generation of weapon systems is likely to be a good deal different from the last one. That’s true even in the case of tanks, which now contain as much electronics and computing capability as some combat aircraft."
It sounds like the community is projecting additional losses in the community (housing crashes, fewer amenities, etc.) to the cost, which is true for the community, but those aren't federal government costs that the Army can use to make a financial decision - thus the moral issue.
Here's one with the numbers - the projection by the army and the projection by the plant.
As far as military cuts, I do believe that we could probably be more efficient in our spending. I mean, the government isn't exactly known for using their resources very wisely. But I have no problem with our government spending twice as much (or more) as other countries do on defense spending. It's why our military is so powerful and effective and that personally is comforting to me. That's the main job of the government IMO - stay out of my business and keep me safe.
As far as gun control, I'm not opposed to things like background checks.
You want to see what Obama's military budget cuts are doing in my community?
1100 people are employed here. I have friends and coworkers' husbands that are employed here. What happens to those people when you close down the plant in the short-term (which we all know is long-term)? My community has already lost all of it's manufacturing jobs. People can barely afford to farm anymore. People have nothing here and our community is declining rapidly. So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Whether we like it or not, the military employs people and helps our economy. Weapons and ammo employ people and help our economy.
But wherever we cut the budget this will happen. If we cut social services it puts social workers out of work and people who need that safety net lose it. If we cut medical spending people die for lack of healthcare. There's no happy or comfortable place to cut where nobody is affected unfortunately.
Right. I hate when people start picking on government workers and calling to get rid of some. Those workers are middle class folks with families. What do you think happens to them when their job gets cut? The same thing that happens to someone laid off from the private sector. They don't just disappear.
That's the thing with government spending. Everyone wants to slash and burn until it starts to impact jobs in their community. But at this point SO much of government spending and government programs are implemented by the private sector (both companies and nonprofit entities) that inevitably cutting government spending will result in the loss of at least some private sector jobs. The nonprofit sector in the US receives 38% of its funding from government and only 10% from philanthropy. That's the third largest workforce in the US (after retail and manufacturing). Cutting spending = jobs lost there as well.
Be thankful you actually have voting representation in Congress that can defend jobs and spending in your state. Some of us don't even have that. And Congress appropriates the $$$.
This is not how the economy functions though. Government spends via taxed or borrowed (or inflated, I guess) dollars that are first removed from the private sector and then paid to government jobs. Whether or not the government jobs belong to a publicly-traded company, non-profit, or government agency, the money still comes out of the private sector first. When the gov't stops paying for those jobs, the money also doesn't need to come out of the private sector first. So that money is then contained in the private sector and used for jobs there. Untaxed, unborrowed money isn't collecting dust under someone's mattress. It's still being used in the economy. So the question isn't whether reduced spending to company A costs jobs to company A. Of course it does. But in the economy overall, is that money now providing jobs to companies B, C, and D.
ETA - we haven't even discussed the stupidity involved in shutting down the only tank plant in the country.
There's no denying that a private firm that runs a federal government service/component wouldn't fight for their jobs and contracts with budget projections. I work as a subcontractor to a private firm that runs a government facility and have witnessed first-hand the dance between the feds budget and the private company's profit margin and squeezing of their own subs to try and keep things going.
Maybe those high-ups at the private firm running that tank operation for the feds can figure out a way to privitize their services so they can win the contract and move seamlessly into production in 4-6 years when the feds need more tanks. Sort of like the privitization and competition by the private aircraft industry to make military planes.
...I know this is far off-topic from the original post about not trusting the president for your own reasons.
ETA - we haven't even discussed the stupidity involved in shutting down the only tank plant in the country.
There's no denying that a private firm that runs a federal government service/component wouldn't fight for their jobs and contracts with budget projections. I work as a subcontractor to a private firm that runs a government facility and have witnessed first-hand the dance between the feds budget and the private company's profit margin and squeezing of their own subs to try and keep things going.
Maybe those high-ups at the private firm running that tank operation for the feds can figure out a way to privitize their services so they can win the contract and move seamlessly into production in 4-6 years when the feds need more tanks. Sort of like the privitization and competition by the private aircraft industry to make military planes.
...I know this is far off-topic from the original post about not trusting the president for your own reasons.
Did you read about the projections from the 90's when they wanted to close it the first time and how they compare with the current projections. I don't mean to argue. I don't doubt that both sides are reflecting their agendas within their projections. Maybe it's because I'm personally invested, but I really think the government is making a bad decision. And not just for economic reasons. It's stupid to shut down our only tank plant. The projections show it will take years to restart, so what happens if we suddenly go to war?
Right. That's how economies work on a macro scale. But that doesn't ensure that companies A, B and C will hire a bunch of people in Lima, Ohio who appear to have limited desire to relocate and presumably limited skills. That's why Congresspeople send money to their districts. Because many people in this country are both/either unwilling or unable to relocate to areas with greater employment opportunities. No one wants to see their town, or their county shrivel up--even if that's the natural course of the market. And when Congresspeople are a constant cycle of seeking reelection they need those pork projects to point to to win votes.
I understand the politics behind all the pork, you're completely right. I've just seen a lot of "cut spending, lose jobs" rhetoric lately, as if that's the economic certainty. It's politics, not economics.
By the standard established this week in the Paul Ryan threads that any vote you've taken or thing you've said at any point in time is exactly how you'd govern (even if you have no history of making that issue a priority), AW is absolutely correct to be concerned about gun rights in an Obama administration.
I thought for sure I'd come back from lunch to an exploded thread from this comment, and now I'm disappointed. No one wants to discuss this double standard, or explain why it isn't one?
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”
Romney:
"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal."
Yeah, those positions are so different it's scary.
Romney flip flopped on gun control though. That quote is from 2004. So if we're weighing the risks, Romney is less likely to enact more gun control than Obama.
How do you figure? He who flipped can also flop. If anything, I think you'd have to worry more about a person whose positions are so unknowable and so variable.
Romney flip flopped on gun control though. That quote is from 2004. So if we're weighing the risks, Romney is less likely to enact more gun control than Obama.
How do you figure? He who flipped can also flop. If anything, I think you'd have to worry more about a person whose positions are so unknowable and so variable.
I know that. I do worry about his positions having consistency and predictability. You're missing my point. Obama has always been pro-gun control. It's extremely unlikely that he will ever flip on this issue. Romney has already flipped, so he's obviously less likely than Obama to be pro-gun control.
I would argue all the recent shootings contribute to a climate of fear about guns, and make anti-2nd amendment legislation more likely. Many politicians came out for more gun restrictions in the wake of Aurora, incl Obama.
I actually hadn't seen 'many' politicians come forward in the debate, so I'll have to look for that link.
I would argue that all the recent shootings contribute to a climate of fear that - wait for it - is leading people to come out more strongly for the right to carry and the right to bear arms. Certainly I have heard more of that pro gun propaganda than gun control propaganda after Aurora.
Rather than fearing for my 2nd Amendment rights, I fear that I will one day be required to carry a gun. I have heard it suggested that crime is my fault (as a bleeding heart liberal), because I don't have a gun! I'm not sure how my buying a gun would make the crime rate go down, but there you have it.
By the standard established this week in the Paul Ryan threads that any vote you've taken or thing you've said at any point in time is exactly how you'd govern (even if you have no history of making that issue a priority), AW is absolutely correct to be concerned about gun rights in an Obama administration.
I thought for sure I'd come back from lunch to an exploded thread from this comment, and now I'm disappointed. No one wants to discuss this double standard, or explain why it isn't one?
I think it doesn't interest me because 1) I tired of the Paul Ryan shit on like page 2; b) guns are so far down on my priority list; and iii) given that the Republicans are going to hold onto the House, I'm really not worried about some anti-gun fever sweeping Washington.
I'm far more amused by aw suddenly being up in arms (terrible pun intended) over a government cut potentially affecting HER town, as though it's never occurred to her that government budget and program cuts affect real people.
But then, it's Friday, and I've had a shitty week, so actual intellectual stuff is a bit much for me right now.
i too really don't much interest in this election...i don't like either candidate...i fall in the middle but consider myself republican...and all i can see is regardless of who gets elected it will be a mess, congress is playing partisian games and i feel like they really don't care about what's best for the country but rather what is best for them....
i'll vote, but i live in NJ, so it's not like my votes going to matter and i can honestly say i don't like the idea of voting for Romney, i HATE Ryan, but I don't want another 4 years of Obama...In all honesty I am beyond dismayed that this was the best the republican party could come up with....
i'd almost rather not vote, but i'd never hear the end of it from FI
I'm far more amused by aw suddenly being up in arms (terrible pun intended) over a government cut potentially affecting HER town, as though it's never occurred to her that government budget and program cuts affect real people.
Who says that I am suddenly up in arms and that I haven't been upset or vocal about this very issue in my hometown for quite a while (and as I discussed - not just because of what it does to the real people where I live, but because I think it's a stupid military decision)?
Also, what makes you think it has never occurred to me that government budget and program cuts affect real people?
So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Honestly, the same could be said of teachers, EPA workers, Welfare workers or any government employees that would be cut as a result of budget cuts. People always say they're for budget cuts, and that sacrifice is necessary so as not to burden our grandchildren with this debt - until the sacrifice and the cuts hit too close to home.
I would argue all the recent shootings contribute to a climate of fear about guns, and make anti-2nd amendment legislation more likely. Many politicians came out for more gun restrictions in the wake of Aurora, incl Obama.
I actually hadn't seen 'many' politicians come forward in the debate, so I'll have to look for that link.
I would argue that all the recent shootings contribute to a climate of fear that - wait for it - is leading people to come out more strongly for the right to carry and the right to bear arms. Certainly I have heard more of that pro gun propaganda than gun control propaganda after Aurora.
Rather than fearing for my 2nd Amendment rights, I fear that I will one day be required to carry a gun. I have heard it suggested that crime is my fault (as a bleeding heart liberal), because I don't have a gun! I'm not sure how my buying a gun would make the crime rate go down, but there you have it.
So, sure, we're saving a little money in the short-term by not having to pay the salaries of these people, but the government's still going to have to support them somehow and then pay twice as much to retrain someone else when they eventually re-open (somewhere else).
Honestly, the same could be said of teachers, EPA workers, Welfare workers or any government employees that would be cut as a result of budget cuts. People always say they're for budget cuts, and that sacrifice is necessary so as not to burden our grandchildren with this debt - until the sacrifice and the cuts hit too close to home.
I'll agree to an extent, but I think the different between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is the cost of retraining. Sure, when teachers lose their jobs, it can cost the government money while the person is on unemployment. But it isn't going to cost the government more money when and if they decide to rehire new teachers to replace them. There are always teachers out there looking for jobs.
But when you're looking at something like the technology involved with a tank, the cost of rehiring, training, and reopening a new facility is astronomical. This is what I'm talking about. The decision in my particular community just doesn't make good economic sense.
I realize we're talking about budget cuts in general. I'm just clarifying why I think my local issue is different.