PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
Oh, you.
-
Horrible investment, aside from all the elderly and the infirm since the Great Depression - they probably think it's a good deal.
-
Sell out the guy who put him up to the hit? (Nacho Varga never did appear in Breaking Bad, did he?) Not that Mike would sell Nacho out, but he'll find a way to implicate Nacho, and evade culpability.
-
You can't sow the sails of public welfare to the interests of publicly traded companies, it defies the free market! We can't let ourselves once again be on the hook for the risks corporations take to increase the value of their stock.
-
Apologies for cropping, but I do so in deference to your technical expertise, which I can't even speak to. For me, the essential question is what kind of investment do you want to reward with tax breaks? Hopefully it's the kind that creates jobs and puts money back into the economy, not wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake. We want Jack and Jill to grow that nest egg, but we can't keep rewarding wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake. The stock market creates this secondary market for wealth-creation, which sucks dollars out of the economy, not the other way around. I mean this is why we don't privatize social security, because suddenly the interests of a democratic majority are aligned with the interest in Wall St. (etc.), so we'd be biased in any assessment of a bailout/regulation/etc.. That a bunch of hard working people invested/(gambled?) on the stock-market should have no bearing on how much you tax it; they took a risk that really has minimal added benefit for the rest the economy. (If people want to create more wealth for themselves, why not encourage local investment? We need more small businesses, not more corporate wealth.)
-
The walk both ways in the snow solution! I worked all through college (etc.); but meager pay and lack of hours to work simply doesn't add up to the cost of living and tuition. (That said, the path I've taken I wouldn't recommend, but I ended up here not because of lack of work ethic but because of ignorance, largely due to my parent's income level and job stability.) It would be great if paying for school forced people to appreciate the cost and risk of higher education, and although it probably would force some people work 40 hours and earn a bachelor's over a half dozen years, the reality is that the people who would go to college, in this scenario, would be the ones whose parents would pay for it. I think you underestimate taking the market out of the equation, suddenly universities' bargaining goes from millions of competing individuals to just one, the government. That's going to have an affect on cost. The thing is that people feel compelled to go to college regardless of cost and opportunity for employment -- it's already treated like it's free. "Free" and "being blind to consequences" are effectually the same thing. Giving people the money to pay for school isn't working, so let's not deprive them of the opportunity to go (necessarily) and instead just directly pay for the school taking their idiocy and abuse out of the equation, among other benefits.
-
Down to two.
- 77 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- senate
- advise & consent
- (and 3 more)
-
This is overly simplistic, but the underlying principle is fair: when you buy stock (beyond when the firm first goes public), the money really doesn't go back in the economy, it goes to whoever sold their stock, who tend be people with lots of wealth. Buying stock is a very different kind investment than, say, opening your business, which does in fact create jobs and put money into the economy. You could call buying a baseball card an investment (in the hopes it will increase value and you can sell it), but that's not the kind of investment that makes sense to encourage through small taxes. Heck, we tax wages at a higher rate than we do capital gains.
-
Bernie couldn't maintain/enlarge his momentum following Michigan; he'll probably begin to seriously think about getting out. The Republicans can still hold out hope for a brokered convention with the Kasich win, though if Trump nets something like 48% of the delegates it would be politically untenable to give the nomination to someone else. Though Trump is pretty politically untenable himself.
-
Levi tackled the first part, but I'll respond to the second point--that taxes would equally take money out of the economy. In general, that would be true, taxing people who spend their earnings would deprive the economy of those dollars. But part of the problem is that a staggering amount of our wealth is held by people who don't spend any where near their earnings. If your tax is prudently targeted it could capture that unused wealth and reintroduce it into the economy through relief of everyone's student loan debt. (Another way thinking about it is you give a dollar to a man with no money he spends it right away, you give a dollar to a millionaire, he puts it in his pocket.) In mind we have rigged economy that favors the already-wealthy, no one likes taxes but they can act as penance for an economy that creates cavernous wealth disparity.
-
Way to avoid the actual legitimacy of the comparison! You're such an honest broker, Dave, always love having discussions with you!
-
If Bernie really cared he'd burn the whole world down!
-
I agree with your criticism, but whatever we've been doing hasn't worked, and no other candidate has ever made fixing funding-for-college a campaign issue. I think it's better to have a bad plan that gets rid of tuition, than have nothing at all, in that the bad plan might provide a blueprint and an incentive to actually deal with the problem.
-
It is in the terms that I described--in that people aren't properly screened to determine whether they can afford the loan. (And it was Chief who made the comparison of mortgages to student loans, but somehow I think you'd rather correct me on this point.)
-
I misspoke by saying universal higher education. I don't mean universal higher education, in that everyone must go; rather that it's universally free and available to those who qualify. The free-market approach is what we currently have, where you just throw money at the school, and they let you in. If schools aren't in the position of farming for tuition, their admission standards can become meaningful. And hopefully the degrees-to-jobs ratio goes way up. Also, for my part, any higher education plan would need to include expansion of vocational education. We need a system that helps put kids in the right track towards their capabilities - we don't have that now. How is school-loan debt bad? Well it deprives the economy of all those dollars spent paying them back, along with the interest rate. Less home sales, less retail sales, less car sales equals less jobs and more poverty and greater draw on social resources. We can take the 'not my money' approach to any issue that doesn't directly affect us; from what wars we fight, to any social program. Yeah, yeah, it's not your fault, but hell, it'd be great if you'd help become part of the solution. An 18 year old purchasing education is not at all like a person who is about to buy a home, a person presumably with enough wealth to be able to afford that home. Part of the problem with the loan-system is that it's blind to ability/capacity to repay that loan. Our education lending is a lot like the subprime lending that led to the 2008 crash...
-
Right. He should start writing them checks himself if he really cared! He should give up one his Kidneys while he's at it! If Clinton really cared, she would use her PAC money to build hospitals, and if Trump really cared he would use his wealth to build the Wall, and if Dave really cared he would spend more time making better arguments and doing a bit of research on his own!
-
Well they are slightly more tolerable than internet posters who demand for others to post facts which are readily available on that same internet.
-
So we wait for the perfect plan, and then do something? I'd rather decide to do something and take time and gov't resources to figure out how to best get that done. Even using whatever Bernie's plan is puts us on the path to figuring what actually will work. If Bernie's plan doesn't work, you don't give up the goal, you try a different means. We shouldn't be afraid of government failure, it's how we learn to institute better policies. Well, Clinton certainly is the incremental change candidate. I mean, what incremental changes will 1) actually have an impact 2) will make real progress towards the goal of free higher education? For my part, incremental change argument is really one about political viability and not so much about what is governmentally possibly.
-
Except it's not just the Republicans in the South who suffer the consequences; sure the poor, rural redneck whites vote against their interests and so might the church-going poor (and I think these people make up a minority of Republican voters), but largely those who are most affected by the Southern values (or lack their of) are not the ones voting Republican. The lack of education and public resources helps entrench power in that such people lack the means and ability to organize and overcome such burdens, thus they tend not to vote, and when they do, they do so acting on their base desires. *I'm generalizing here, and I realize not everyone fits into my rough sketch.
-
I agree, we need a national solution, but any proposal will have a lot more legitimacy if we can point to how, say, California did it. We need to be willing to try federally-funded programs on a limited basis, so we can see whether they will be viable nationally. If Bernie was smart, he wouldn't be demanding free-education, though that would still be the goal, rather, he'd be advocating that he'd figure out how to do it through a variety of federal experiments instituted in various states.
-
I think of it this way: they aren't invested in the system that Bernie wants to bring down as much as older liberals. I think many of us conflate 'life experience' with having 401K. It's not that we think there's any less corruption in the stock market than when we young, it's that we'd personally feel the hit should the sham suddenly fall apart. There's also a lot more to Bernie's support than White Privilege liberals, though that's clearly part it. He speaks, at least to me, directly to my values and principals. Too long have liberals publicly hedged their principals to get elected and get things done. I'm tired of starting negotiation at the 50 yard line, when the other side makes no such concessions
-
I think a Bernie victory is very unlikely, however, your assessment is just dishonest. Clinton leads Bernie in delegates-won 748 to 542. Super delegates are not committed or pledged; they can change at any time before the convention; many of those who were once committed to Clinton later switched to support Obama.
-
I think there's a good argument that political rallies constitute state-action (quasi-public facilities, local municipalities running security, state-sanctioned political party), which would then make the first amendment enforceable upon Trump and his authorities.
-
This is my two-cents on governance and free college. Universal higher education, just like universal health care, should not again be relegated to "let's not do it, until we have the fool proof plan." The debate shouldn't be about whether or not to institute free college, the debate should be how we get that done. We need to experiment, and perhaps the States might be a good place to test-drive some possible plans--just as Colorado is doing with legalizing pot, or Massachusetts did with Romenycare.
-
Who's doing what? The protesters might be doing that through trying to shut down the rallies; and Trump is certainly doing that through calling for protesters to be arrested and popped in the mouth.
