PseudoSABR

Well he's getting an AAV just over 25 million, with an AAV of say 33 million over the same time, he'd be receiving a 100 million more. I think that's a lot.

I guess he valued total contract dollars over AAV. I think he potentially gives up a lot money by not taking a shorter term deal.

Thanks for the reply. What you call use tax, I call, and many call, a regressive tax. The poor person pays the same tax on gas as the rich person (a greater share of the poor person's earnings, so under this system they have more trouble gaining wealth); it also affects actual industry (your example the gas tax), as opposed to those who benefit from industry. (As an aside, there's an old economic debate between "use value" and "exchange value" and that's part of my point about the current market, it values the latter.) Does inequality not worry you? Let them eat cake isn't really a viable policy. (At some point the born-poor and the wage-earners won't take it any more, they'll steal your stuff if not revolt.) And I'm glad we agree benevolent billionaires are preferable to tax evading billionaires. And not to press a good natured discussion too far, but you haven't responded to the notion that the market actually pays people for their contribution--if we can agree there's inequity in the way CEOs and professional athletes are paid as opposed to laborers, teachers, etc., why not tax them at a higher rate to balance that out. (Indeed why do we put up with inequity at birth, but it's a bridge to far to balance inequity during life). And why would we want to continue wealthy aristocracy? How many generations of Waltons need to be rich off Wal-Mart before what's deserved is so divorced from who gets the money. (And really that's a lot of who is the 1%, Bill Gates, etc. are the exception in terms of making their own wealth). (Also watch that video of AOC above, I think you'll find her less of schmuck than what's being circulated in the interwebs. She's a young, even naive, politician, but she didn't grandstand like some today and was deft in terms of tracking down actual evidence and corroboration).

We can probably find agreement, then. (Of course, I question both whether the market appropriate pays those who contribute the most, and that those who earn the most are rational in terms of where they decide to spend it or save it, e.g. giving to their children. I hope we can agree we need less Donald Trump Jr.'s of the world. And having a whole class/generations of people who never have to work for wealth is bad for all). That parenthetical aside, how do you think we should tax, and who should we tax? Are you in favor of a progressive tax (taxing more the more you earn; capital gains; higher corporate tax), a regressive tax (sales tax and the like); I mean is a high estate tax such a bad idea, given the beneficiary didn't earn it (putting aside that a dead person wants it to go to them)? And I don't think any wants to be on welfare or really wants anything for "free." People want meaningful work and to earn a living where they aren't living in constant anxiety about making ends meet (for my part, I grew up modestly, and saw this worry take years off my parent's lives, who both had fulltime jobs, and worked on the side). For instant, why not see access to higher education as an investment in our fellow citizens, to keep them from being a drag on society as a whole? There's common ground here. Let's find it.

I agree, but Pelosi has been much more politically palatable than I anticipated, so credit due where it's deserved.

But 27 with a grade 45 or better speaks to depth.

So you do you believe in a meritocracy or not? Because I'm having trouble squaring your thoughts on what people "deserve."

I don't think I insulted him personally on this board (but I'm sure someone could construe my criticism of him as such); I was speaking for myself in real life. Did you get warning points for your "like" post poking at AOC? Must have a bunch of right wing moderators then, no?

Here's AOC from today's hearing questioning Cohen. Note not one "like," and jeeze she seems so out of her element. Here's the full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRK3FwmjH-Y

If I directed rudeness at another poster, I should be called out for it. And so should you. It wasn't at all clear if you were making fun of AOC, or me, or anyone who supports her. My "liking" something is not an affirmative step to insult someone, although, I'll admit I've insulted Trump plenty of times, but I hope I've rarely if ever insulted another poster here. But seriously, both-sides-ism is how you deflect? And thanks for addressing the issues on the merits. Big fan of an estate tax, then? Or do only the poor get what that deserve?

You can disagree without resorting to this kind of rude tripe. Evidently, Congresspersons are given close to a million in appropriations for staff, travel, office needs; so she going to pay her staff more, travel less and have less nice furniture (I've seen nothing that she's going to cap her chief of staff's pay, but I wouldn't be against that either, though clearly, that will hurt in attracting talent if it's not comparable to what others make). That you're construing paying her staff a livable wage (50K isn't that much), as a handout seems pretty radical. You have no idea how hard these people work or what and how much they deserve.

So you must be a huge fan of a higher estate tax. The notion that the market pays people according to how much they deserve or put another way their worth to society is an absurdity, an example of free market idealism that is divorced from reality.

I don't see how you can forgive student debt without having another revenue stream for students to pay for college. I personally think that making college "free" will make schools more selective in admission and create demand for vocational schools; and I think it will result in driving costs down as there won't be this endless bucket of funds to get students to borrow. The pay and number of administrators is absurd; the salary of university presidents is also absurd. Honestly, there's need to be an outside commission/an enormous audit on university spending. I have yet to hear anything close to a real plan on higher education from any candidate, beyond Bernie's aspirations.

I think MMT might be predicated on the optics over "more taxes" are necessary to fund a welfare state; but now that Democrats aren't frightened about suing the T-word, I don't know that MMT has as much cache. Bruening fills this out a bit in his discussion at the second link. That said, if the left does get on board with MMT, I'd be really worried about the optics. I think the optics of more taxes is less bad than the optics of MMT.

I've just encountered this discussion of Modern Monetary Theory as a way to fund the Green New Deal. I don't have my mind totally wrapped around it because it seems kind of crazy, but the crux of it sounds like we should print money to cover gov't spending and control inflation in other ways. Is there something I'm missing? Here's a couple articles on the notion. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thinking-about-the-magical-elixir-of-mmt https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/02/24/whats-the-point-of-modern-monetary-theory/

The invalidity of attacks on Klobuchar aside, that AOC wants to pay her staffers 50K is commendable. I'm interested in how she manages to swing that, if it comes out of her travel budget or what. We'll see if the market attracts her some talent, which it should.

Policy attacks on Klobuchar from the left make a lot of sense, given that there has never been a liberal presidential candidate at least in my lifetime. A lot of liberals, finally felt we had a voice on the national stage for the first time, as result of Bernie's candidacy. To run with a moderate candidate would feel like a devastating set back. And it's worth reemphasizing again, because this is a relatively moderate place, that liberalism has been a dirty word used to shame people, and liberal values have been routinely discarded as 'bleeding heart', radical or whatever for decades. Now that liberals have expressed actual liberal ideas in the mainstream, we actually see there's not simply a lot of support for many of their proposals but overwhelming support. This is more than 'free stuff.' This about having basic social safety net that guarantees at least health and education--these have never been radical ideas, and they aren't new but rather a deeply held core liberal belief that we ought do more to help the poor, the sick, and the ignorant. As I said earlier, I don't mind a candidate laying out a practical and measured plan to obtain said-liberal goal. But what I don't want is a candidate who suggests that the liberal goal itself is impractical, and only instead endorses only the incremental step, that keeps the entrenched interests benefiting. The quasi-capitalist solutions have made things worse: student loan debt, the insane inflation of tuition; the ACA, beyond expanding medicaid. Half measures haven't worked. So we should also be cynical of any supposed moderate plan. As for the Klobuchar staff stuff: it feels more like gossipy clickbait (unfortunately, I think people eat up stories like this). For my part, eating a salad with a comb, is actually pretty freaking clever. Though that she was reprimanded by Reed (iirc) might be the only real detail of any significance that's come out of the reporting.

That a sensible plan, but I just don't think the electorate will go for it. People want medicare for all, not baby-steps.

That she was moderate, wasn't why she lost, but it may have been partially why she didn't inspire any enthusiasm. I can't recall one single policy she was advocating for--her whole campaign was built around the idea that she was the most pragmatic, experienced candidate.

Who? That deal won't get you any better than say Pineda, who is our 4th starter.

I just don't know that Presidential candidate is going to get much headway with the States should do it first argument but zero pull to actually make/allow them to do it. I fine with someone saying here's my Medicare for all ten-year plan! But the emphasis should be on the Medicare for all part. We're probably not that far off from agreeing on policy, and even on how to get there, it's simply that the candidates are so new and their platforms so undefined as of yet.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that for my preferred candidate, I want them to advocate for Medicare for All and through legislation, I hope they can negotiate with people with whom they disagree. And no, the Democrats don't lose because it's my way or the highway; what Democrat in the last 30 years has advocated that!? Gore/Kerry/Clinton all totally moderated on liberal ideas and lost, with Obama being the exception. The lesson of 2016, shouldn't be let's double down on Democratic pragmatism. It should be we need some one who is authentic and advocates ideas that people can get behind.

He's an asset. And the Twins are spending money. That he's not Harper shouldn't be a valid criticism.

I don't think that's in the cards. People overwhelmingly approve of medicare for all. And policy designed to prevent a backlash from any one group is a policy plan that I won't sign up for.