# The Great Un-Fork Hillary Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458 "2015-04-12T00:17:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 55
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1081 "2015-08-19T14:25:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Just follow the Keynesian model: deficits in recessions and surpluses in good times. And don’t spend a dime on something that gives little value to the taxpayers. Private companies have to clear out the middle management bloat when times get tough. Governments rarely do that. They just let it grow and grow and then when times get tough, if they have no choice, they’ll cut services to taxpayers first before reducing the size of the bureaucratic staff. Kinda hard to do when pinheads like Bush declare that “the surplus belongs to us” and promptly eliminate it. The use of the word “taxpayer” is quite silly. EVERYBODY pays taxes. How about “public”? I don’t believe either the claim that private companies clear out middle management in tough times or that government doesn’t. Got a cite? What private companies do is lay off the low men on the totem poles. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1082 "2015-08-19T14:34:05Z")
What they usually do is lay off middle managers, who tend to cost a lot and provide little value to a company. In the private sector, middle management gets added because department budgets increase, so they add staff. Companies generally do not cut customer-facing staff, which would be the low men on the totem pole, because that costs them business. Eliminating middle management is nearly costless. As for governments, administrators keep on increasing as a percentage of school staff, in good times or bad. At some public universities, the ratio is 1-1, where 30 years ago it was more like 17-1 in favor of instructors. And when public school funding drops, it’s always the teachers that get cut. Because taxpayers must be punished for refusing to pony up. [http://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/](http://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/) > [@](#): > > Across U.S. higher education, nonclassroom costs have ballooned, administrative payrolls being a prime example. The number of employees hired by colleges and universities to manage or administer people, programs and regulations increased 50% faster than the number of instructors between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education says. It’s part of the reason that tuition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has risen even faster than health-care costs. > **[Administrative Bloat at America's Colleges and Universities](https://outsidethebeltway.com/administrative-bloat-at-americas-colleges-and-universities/)** > > One major factor in the skyrocketing cost of a college education in America is a huge increase in overhead costs. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1083 "2015-08-19T14:43:15Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I believe that Hillary Clinton is _opposed_ to socialized medicine. Hillarycare was _not_ socialized medicine. And neither is Obamacare. Are you opposed to it too? > [@](#): > > Wait, am I remembering wrong? Was she the one whose 2008 health care reform plan had _no public option_, or was that Obama? Both. It was not achievable at the time. Are you forgetting that politics is the art of the possible? > [@](#): > > ETA: Oh, and everything Hillary Clinton has done amounts to, “married well, stayed with the bozo, grubbed all the money she could.” IOW, “Ditto!” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1084 "2015-08-19T14:52:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **adaher** : > > It’s only putting more money into the economy if you’re borrowing. otherwise you’re just moving money around. “Just moving money around” is exactly what the economy _is_. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1085 "2015-08-19T15:15:01Z")
No it isn’t. It’s the exchange of money for goods and services that add value. If I give you $1 and you give it back to me, no growth has taken place. But if you give me $1 for a loaf of bread that I made, then we have both benefitted, as has the person who sold me the ingredients to make the bread, as have the workers on his farm who planted and harvested the wheat. If it was just about moving money around, we could take $1, give it to the farm worker, who would give it to his boss, who would give it to the supermarket, who would give it to me, who would give it to you, and we’re all richer! Actually you just now have $1 and we have nothing. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1086 "2015-08-19T15:28:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What they usually do is lay off middle managers, who tend to cost a lot and provide little value to a company. In the private sector, middle management gets added because department budgets increase, so they add staff. Companies generally do not cut customer-facing staff, which would be the low men on the totem pole, because that costs them business. Eliminating middle management is nearly costless. > > As for governments, administrators keep on increasing as a percentage of school staff, in good times or bad. At some public universities, the ratio is 1-1, where 30 years ago it was more like 17-1 in favor of instructors. And when public school funding drops, it’s always the teachers that get cut. Because taxpayers must be punished for refusing to pony up. > > [http://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/](http://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/) > > [Administrative Bloat at America’s Colleges and Universities – Outside the Beltway](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/administrative-bloat-at-americas-colleges-and-universities/) > [@](#): > > The number of employees hired by colleges and universities to manage or administer people, programs and regulations increased 50% faster than the number of instructors between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education says. Suppose the number of instructors increased by 2% and the number of administrators increased by 3%. The above quote would be true but meaningless. I think there isn’t enough context provided to make that stat meaningful. I’m quite skeptical of an increase in the administrator/instructor ratio from 1:1 to 17:1. In fact, I’m very doubtful, indeed. All this I suppose makes sense if one views it through the distorted prism that bends every stat into “OMG! Goverments are EEEEVIL!!!”, but not to anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1087 "2015-08-19T15:40:22Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > **iiandyiiii** , you’re tilting pretty far toward the, “But we need deficits!” fallacy. That’s not really how it works. > > More spending money _in the hands of the poor or illiquid_ means more more liquidity, higher demand, and higher GDP. But just printing money doesn’t grow the real economy, which is comprised of actual services performed. I didn’t mention printing money, but I take your point (considering that spending in excess of revenue requires either borrowing or printing money). ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1088 "2015-08-19T16:46:42Z")
New Harry Enten article from 538, “[Senator Sanders, You’re No Barack Obama](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/).” The concluding sentence: > [@](#): > > By pretty much every metric, Clinton is in a stronger position than she was at this point eight years ago. That doesn’t mean she is guaranteed to win, but the 2016 Democratic presidential primary is not the 2008 primary. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1089 "2015-08-19T16:47:26Z")
Yup, I’m a Dittohead _and_ a Communist. You got me. e\_e I said I had ideological reasons for disliking her, you asked what they were, that’s what they are. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1090 "2015-08-19T16:48:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s only putting more money into the economy if you’re borrowing. otherwise you’re just moving money around. And you can’t borrow forever. Plus money that goes for interest on the debt is almost completely useless. This is something below sophomoric. This is _incoherent._ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1091 "2015-08-19T16:51:03Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I said I had ideological reasons for disliking her, you asked what they were, that’s what they are. And I showed you to be wrong about the single ideological reason you have, and then you went back into hate mode. Gotta do better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1092 "2015-08-19T17:58:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Just follow the Keynesian model: deficits in recessions and surpluses in good times. And don’t spend a dime on something that gives little value to the taxpayers. Private companies have to clear out the middle management bloat when times get tough. Governments rarely do that. They just let it grow and grow and then when times get tough, if they have no choice, they’ll cut services to taxpayers first before reducing the size of the bureaucratic staff. Well, except when you look at historical data and facts. [The Real Reason for Big Government](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1582196) _A chronicle of government growth over the last 100 years shows that most of the increase in federal programs took place in only two decades: the 1930s and the 1960s. And the last 40 years have seen little significant growth in our national government. In 1970, 2.9 million civilians worked for the federal government; in 2008, that figure was 2.8 million. In 1970, federal bureaucrats made up 3.8 percent of total U.S. workers, while in 2008 they made up a mere 1.9 percent. Hardly evidence of continuous or uncontrollable growth._ Read to the end; it’s fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1093 "2015-08-21T11:31:59Z")
Might be time to stick that fork back in: > **[Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S....](https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-dozens-clinton-emails-were-classified-start-u-050425736.html)** > > By Jonathan Allen NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a... > [@](#): > > NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids. > > While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as “Classified,” it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it. > > But the details included in those “Classified” stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found. > > The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton’s emails from her time as the nation’s most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department’s own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. > > In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department’s own “Classified” stamps now identify as so-called ‘foreign government information.’ The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts. > > This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be “presumed” classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1094 "2015-08-21T11:33:33Z")
The funny part: > [@](#): > > The State Department disputed Reuters’ analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect. Isn’t it illegal for the State Department to get involved in politics? This sure sounds like they are trying to protect Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1095 "2015-08-21T12:02:49Z")
The timing of this “scandal” (whether it ultimately bears fruit or is just another fake Clinton witchhunt) is good for the Democrats – either nothing significant will come to light and it will blow over and voters will mostly forget about it, or it will sink her with time for Biden or someone else to jump in long before the convention. We’ll see, but when it’s come to supposed scandals, betting against the Clintons has been a losing bet. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1096 "2015-08-21T12:10:21Z")
Betting against BILL is a losing bet. Someone else already used her constant scandals to beat her. Whatever became of that guy? I half agree with you on whether it’s good for Democrats. If Clinton is sunk and a good alternative takes her place, that’s great. What would have been better for the party would have been Liz Warren, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Howard Dean, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee all in the race right now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1097 "2015-08-21T12:46:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Betting against BILL is a losing bet. Someone else already used her constant scandals to beat her. Whatever became of that guy? I don’t think her “constant scandals” (or the myth of such) were a significant part of the 2008 campaign. Obama’s support was much more about Obama than about Hillary. > [@](#): > > I half agree with you on whether it’s good for Democrats. If Clinton is sunk and a good alternative takes her place, that’s great. What would have been better for the party would have been Liz Warren, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Howard Dean, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee all in the race right now. That many candidates would not have been good. Maybe one or two of them on top of those already in. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1098 "2015-08-21T14:13:37Z")
[Per HillaryHating[sup]tm[/sup] Reuters\*, “ **Dozens** of Clinton emails were classified from the start”](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821) So, clearly Reuters is also Out To Get Hillary. \*Using the current “Anyone who has any (even one!) question/concern/issue with Hillary is a HillaryHater[sup]tm[/sup]” definition being used in this and other Election threads ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1099 "2015-08-21T16:20:16Z")
So, it comes down to who to believe: the State Department, who are experts in the field and knowledgeable about the subjects and persons involved, says the emails that THEY dealt with on a daily basis weren’t classified, or Reuters, which is a news organization, with, one presumes, NO access to classified material, who says the emails were classified. Do I have to draw you a map? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1100 "2015-08-21T16:29:00Z")
And apparently the ACLU has been bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton on this issue ;). > **[What Hillary Clinton Has in Common With NSA Whistleblowers | ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/what-hillary-clinton-has-common-nsa-whistleblowers)** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=54) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=56)