Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2016, 03:20:34 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 340
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 02:00:11 pm
A debate in the Morning??  A NY debate the day before the Wisconsin Primary Opposite of the NCAA Championship game??  Arre they seriously picking times in which the least amount of people will be watching??

Uh, what is wrong with April 14th, a Thursday night debate?

Maybe he has an appointment with his rheumatologist that day.

You and Torie ought to start some kind of joint Clinton/Sanders Death Watch podcast.
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:23:01 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 12:59:20 pm
My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

All of which takes for granted the idea that we need more lawyers, more MBAs, more medical specialists, etc. If higher tax rates encourage more high-achievers to opt for less remunerative careers with larger non-monetary rewards, I do think that we'd be better off.

Whether Sanders tax policy would encourage more MDs to become primary care docs rather than highly-compensated specialists (for example) is another matter, but you're coming at this with a set of assumptions about what is good that I suspect that most of the people you're arguing with do not share.

According to NBC, the most highly paid professions are surgeons, doctors, dentists, executives, petroleum engineers, lawyers, architects, pilots and air traffic controllers, pharmacists, and various upper-level managers.  I disagree strongly with your assertion that our brightest and most motivated people should be discouraged from pursuing those career paths.

That is not something that I said or implied, but maybe it was a mistake to engage with someone who declares himself a liar in his display name. Anyway...

Median pay figures mask quite a lot of variation in compensation within those professions - by specialty, by length of tenure, by public vs. private sector employment, by geography, by academic pedigree, and other factors. For example, primary care physicians earn 50% less than specialists, and primary care physicians living in under-served areas tend to earn even less. So, in principle, higher marginal tax rates could encourage people in these professions to make decisions that are more socially beneficial. And we know that even under our current tax code, many people are willing to work very hard for much less than they could be earning doing something else because of non-financial rewards. The idea that there's a direct correlation between a wage-earner's compensation and the degree to which that person's work benefits the public is not correct. It is not true for comparisons within professions, and it is not true for comparisons between professions.

Even if this isn't a policy goal - and this is the most direct and most important counterpoint to what you are claiming -  there's not much reason to believe that we'd be lacking for people who want to become high-status professionals because of higher tax rates. You might worry about how someone from a working class family would ever afford medical school, for instance, but that's an extremely severe problem even today. If we're lacking in a particular kind of professional, we'd be better off reducing barriers to entry - like the cost of medical school - rather than insisting on keeping everyone's income taxes low indefinitely in the hopes that it will encourage them to do something socially useful. And that's the argument that you set out to make - that there's some kind of public benefit in having people pay lower taxes on six-figure salaries (or, for that matter, investment income).
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 12:29:01 pm
My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

All of which takes for granted the idea that we need more lawyers, more MBAs, more medical specialists, etc. If higher tax rates encourage more high-achievers to opt for less remunerative careers with larger non-monetary rewards, I do think that we'd be better off.

Whether Sanders tax policy would encourage more MDs to become primary care docs rather than highly-compensated specialists (for example) is another matter, but you're coming at this with a set of assumptions about what is good that I suspect that most of the people you're arguing with do not share.

o/c this isn't even getting into some of the less favorable economic implications of what you're describing (e.g. Baumol's cost disease), or the negative sociological consequences: status anxiety, conspicuous consumption, consumerism, etc.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Clinton to the right of Obama? on: April 02, 2016, 12:23:07 pm
I've never understood the argument that there's much of an ideological difference between Clinton and Obama at all, one way or the other.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Project Trump's RNC Delegate Total on: April 02, 2016, 12:20:27 pm
~1100
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly on: April 02, 2016, 12:16:47 pm
So the idea that Sanders should only stay in the contest if he respects some omertà-like code of silence is ludicrous. His critique of corruption and political influence is as much at the heart of his campaign as his concerns about poverty and inequality. Thank God someone in the Democratic Party takes it seriously enough not to give Clinton a pass.

It's one thing talking about corruption in politics in general and another pushing specious arguments about Clinton taking money from Big Oil, implying that she is beholden to them.
Sanders himself has accepted money from fossil fuel employees.
Sanders also conveniently forgets that 97% of fossil fuel industries contributions have gone to Republicans, showing how ridiculous is his attempt to convince the voters that Hillary is somehow a darling of them.

In the case of energy policy, I'm less concerned by Greenpeaces shouts of "follow the money!" than I am by concrete policy differences, such as Clinton's equivocating with regard to a federal ban on hydraulic fracturing.* I think that this this piece from Vox mostly gets it right, although it is overly dismissive of the importance of direct contributions to the Clinton campaign from lobbyists and the $3M that her SuperPAC has raised from people who are "connected with" the fossil fuel industry.


*Cue "b-b-b-but what about the jobs!" concern trolling from people who could live the remainder of their adult lives without going within one hundred miles of a fracking well if they wanted to.
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly on: April 02, 2016, 11:56:59 am
Most of Krugman's points are good ones. The Sanders camp needs to have a better response to the process crap that spinning implausible and undemocratic scenarios regarding superdelegates, and downballot Democrats would benefit from his help during the general election. (I'm not sure that most downballot Democrats want his help but that's another discussion.)

Regarding corruption, though... come on. Republican conspiracy theories about e-mails and Benghazi aside, the Clintons are corrupt and have been throughout their entire careers as national politicians and leaders of a Democratic Party faction. They've built a massive private fortune off of their political careers, and everyone knows this. They've surrounded themselves with grifters and con artists, and everyone knows this. Democratic leaders have collectively tolerated this for decades, for the sake of the party and their own careers. If they had not, maybe we would have had a stronger, broader field of candidates to choose from in this election.

So the idea that Sanders should only stay in the contest if he respects some omertà-like code of silence is ludicrous. His critique of corruption and political influence is as much at the heart of his campaign as his concerns about poverty and inequality. Thank God someone in the Democratic Party takes it seriously enough not to give Clinton a pass.
109  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: George Mason University to Rename Law School after Antonin Scalia on: April 02, 2016, 10:29:15 am
It's nice to see an American university naming something after someone who isn't a major donor for a change.

Oh, wait a second:

Quote
Officials at the Fairfax, Virginia-based school said the new moniker is part of a $30 million donation to George Mason. An anonymous donor who gave $20 million required the name change as part of the gift; the other $10 million was provided by billionaire conservative activist Charles Koch.

In conclusion, I can only manage a flippant "lmfao." Amazing what passes as a "gift" in the world of non-profits, isn't it?
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #AnyoneButC(ruz/linton) on: April 02, 2016, 10:23:43 am
"Triangulating"? Cruz?!?

I think I can explain.

(1)




(2)



#staywoke
111  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support public space exploration? on: April 02, 2016, 10:04:46 am
If you want a practical reason to support public space exploration, it's a way of keeping defense contractors and the people who work for them satisfied, busy, and prepared to mobilize for an actual war without doing anything actively harmful (e.g. spending/contracting/national defense disasters like the B-2, F-22, or Zumwalt).

Probably more controversially, I also see it as a safeguard against the (inevitable?) privatization of space. If space travel effectively means leaving the public realm behind, our future will be a horror show.
112  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour on: April 02, 2016, 09:44:29 am
Well, so much for trying to get legal workers in California agriculture.  Agriculture is largely hard labor and you're not going to find legal workers willing to do it for minimum wage.  Either otherwise legal workers are going to be getting paid off the books so as to avoid the taxman or illegal workers will be getting paid off the books so as to avoid the ICEman. Strawberries picked at $20/hour or more are not going to be competitive with berries picked elsewhere.  On the other hand, killing off the California agriculture industry would do a lot to solve California's water problems.
They don't care about things like that, this is a victory, man, don't...ahem....rain on their parade.

and I didn't consider how this was going to affect me earlier.  So now I'm going to pay 10% more for strawberries in Feb and they are going to come from Argentina?

This is getting pretty tangential, but why wouldn't you expect to pay a lot for strawberries in Nebraska in February? I don't even eat much fresh fruit over the winter because of the price/quality difference. As much as I love fresh fruit, it's hardly an intolerable burden to eat it mostly when it is in season.
113  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour on: April 02, 2016, 09:34:37 am
Am I the only one who doesn't think this is all that huge?  I mean, we're talking about 2022 here.  While it's true that with inflation at current rates, that is a significant increase, if inflation rises at all (which I think is fairly probable), it won't be that radical of a wage increase.

Unfortunately, it's to no one's advantage to emphasize this: Republicans want you to believe that this will "kill small businesses" and ruin the statewide economy, while Democrats want immediate credit for achieving the full increase to $15.

The same is happening in New York State, where Cuomo's minimum wage deal doesn't even achieve a statewide increase to $15: Upstate will only go to $12.50 in five years. But nuance doesn't sell, which is why this thread is a strange mix of Democratic triumphalism and Republican doomsaying.
114  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour on: April 02, 2016, 09:30:11 am

Uh, yes. Agricultural work is exhausting and I don't see why it shouldn't be compensated appropriately.


So why wouldn't supermarkets start ordering even more of their produce than they already are from Chile and Argentina? The importation costs would be more than offset by the labor savings.

If a Chilean strawberry is retailing 29 cents cheaper than a Californian one in a supermarket, the consumer's going to pick it every time.

One reason why I'm skeptical of these claims is that many employers in the agriculture and service industries are not following existing labor laws in the first place. (Some of these employers will even insist that their business model wouldn't be viable if they were not already breaking the law.) Their employees do not have the power to challenge this, and the minimum wage increase will most likely mean nothing to them.
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DC Madame Scandal - Who Is It? on: April 02, 2016, 09:09:36 am
It's definitely Bernie Sanders.
He's so old that he probably can't even have sex anymore.
Viagra!

The most shocking and scandalous part would not even be that Bernie Sanders was having sex with someone other than his wife - it would be that he was paying for it.
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 09:05:35 am
Absolute and utter garbage. The way Bernie and liberal groups have talked lately would make one think that "the rich" don't pay any taxes at all, when in reality, they pay the overwhelming majority of federal income tax already.

It's all about taking money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not.

My wife and I would literally have 27% of our income redistributed away from us, just by the Feds. Add in state income taxes and property taxes and you're looking at almost 40%. This means that all my work from January 1 to almost the end of May would be working to earn money for other people, and that doesn't even factor in payroll taxes. And then, after that's implemented, the left will still think taxes are too low.

Does it get more "entitled" than living in a developed country, benefiting from public services and (relatively) non-corrupt governance, and expecting not to pay for any of this? That is exactly what rhetoric about working until whatever date "to earn money for other people" implies.

It's Randian garbage, and few trends in American politics have been more corrosive to our politics than the emergence of this narrative as a leading concern for middle-class households. Living in this country, working in this country, being a citizen of the United States means accepting the obligations that come with that, including paying taxes on your income. It's a shame that even Democrats are afraid to talk about this in terms of duty.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 08:56:27 am
Anyway, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I like the Sanders plan: It's a very rough policy proposal, as all platform statements are.

But is it better than Clinton's absurd, reckless, and infeasible, pledge not to raise taxes on households earning less than a staggering $250,000 per year? Absolutely. Is it a better starting point for tax reform than the flat tax charlatanry that Trump and Cruz are peddling? Of course it is.

Given the level of public services that Americans currently enjoy and claim to prioritize, taxes need to go up on most of us, and some of us - including any family with an income of $300,000 which is above the 98% percentile for income - need to pay much more.

The only people who are currently paying "too much" are people at the lower end of the income distribution, some of whom are literally being taxed into poverty, others who face effective tax rates of  - *gasp* - above 50% (!) because they earn just enough to become ineligible for certain kinds of public benefits. (And, taking LvP's points into account, this mark against the Sanders plan is much less severe than Vox's calculations would make it seem.)
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 08:44:40 am
linusvanpelt, one of our best posters, had a few keen points of criticism with regard to these calculations on AAD. I hope that he doesn't mind my re-posting them here. I do so less to defend the specifics of the Sanders tax plan than to demonstrate that Vox's policy analysis tends to be shallow and overconfident in its (frequently unspecified) assumptions:

Quote
If I understand their description of the methodology (on a separate page) correctly, they are including the employer portion of your health insurance in your "income", so the tax increase will be offset not only by your premium but by the employer's premium payments as well.

It is really a misleading tool. Most people will just enter their gross income from their W-2's, but if you read the fine print you should be adding all non-taxable benefits to this total, including any employer pension contribution. It is based on "expanded cash income", which doesn't appear anywhere on your 1040. This is what it says on the Q and A site:

The calculator also uses a broader measure of income than adjusted gross income, or AGI, the basic measure used for the federal income tax. The broader measure, called expanded cash income, or ECI, includes income from various sources not subject to income tax and therefore not in AGI.

For example, ECI includes tax-exempt interest on municipal bonds, all income earned by Americans working outside the US, health insurance premiums paid by employers, and employer contributions to workers' retirement plans. People often fail to take account of income from those sources when they consider how much they make each year.

Despite this, the main page advertises it as a "simple calculator" and asks you to input your "income" without explaining this. Typical Vox.

[...]

They also appear to be including employer-side payroll taxes (social security, medicare), etc., in the taxes that "you" pay, on the grounds that payroll taxes are passed on to the employee in the form of lower wages. Thus they are imagining that under Sanders' plan, employers will cut all our wages by the amount of the increase in their payroll tax, and this is counted as a tax increase.

This may be the case over the long run, as economic theory predicts, but I think it can be questioned for low-income workers in the short run. First of all, for the lowest-wage workers, a wage cut will put them below the minimum wage. But even if that's not the case, do you really think every small store owner employing someone making $10 an hour is going to cut their employees' gross wage to something below $10 right when taxes are increased? The raw wage figure is very visible - the employees are aware of it and not aware of complexities of their tax rate. Many employers will just recognize that the hit to worker morale is not worth it.

For this reason, I suspect that Sanders' tax plan actually increases taxes on low-income workers less than a "calculator" like this predicts.
119  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How would you solve the student debt crisis? on: April 02, 2016, 08:35:59 am
Ironically, many of those who profit from our corrupt, wealth-driven university system...are the same university people voting for Sanders. Though that might not actually stop him from reforming the system if he were put in a position to do so.

Your typical high-level, six- or seven-figure salary university administrator (or board member) is basically a textbook Clinton supporter/bundler.

The "education-industrial complex" has been firmly embedded within the Democratic Party's infrastructure for a long time. Some of this influence has been benevolent, other parts... not so much. That's just how interest group politics work. Unfortunately, the interests of students have never been organized enough or well-financed enough to serve as a counterweight to that influence in state or national politics.
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New York counties on 4/19 on: April 01, 2016, 01:30:05 pm
Does anyone think Kasich might have a chance of winning Nassau or Suffolk? They both seem to have a lot of those awful "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" Republicans who would support a candidate like him, plus also they seem to have a fair number of Jewish Republicans who'd be turned off by Trump supporters doing Nazi salutes at his rallies (I suspect the Israel-Firsters will support Cruz, but the Super-Rich might vote Kasich).

I think he's more likely to win Monroe (Rochester), if he wins any large population counties. Buffalo would also be in play if Paladino weren't putting out hits on any local Republican who doesn't support Trump. But Northeastern NY should be his best territory: Clinton and Essex counties especially. The Capitol and Mid-Hudson regions should be relatively strong for him as well.
121  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How would you solve the student debt crisis? on: April 01, 2016, 01:24:10 pm
I'm totally not understanding the logic behind the "forgive all the debt" idea.  How is that fair?  The poor people that worked their way through school (like one should if they don't have the money) get nothing and the lazy layabouts get a hand out?

Who are the ďlazy layabouts,Ē though? Not many people get through college without ever working or interning part-time. Most of us would have no hope of post-graduation employment without the latter. The exceptions are mostly either (1) people who donít need loans in the first place, and who have jobs waiting for them at graduation by virtue of their wealth and pedigree, regardless of prior experience or (2) people who were never really qualified to attend college, or who for some reason struggled to adjust to it, and who most likely dropped out by the end of their freshman year.

I think itís obvious that debt forgiveness is unfair in some ways. People assumed risks by attending private schools rather than public schools, or by majoring in a less remunerative/less employable discipline, and through countless other decisions. Other people chose to make sacrifices rather than expose themselves to the same level of risk.

But there comes a point at which you need to ask what kind of consequences are appropriate. Are tens of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable debt, backed by no collateral, a reasonable burden for any person to bear? Especially, it should be added, when weíre talking about decisions made by young adults under the auspices of a culture, an education system, and government-backed landers that market college so heavily that any realistic assessment of its expected payoff is impossible. As if the distribution of wealth in this country were not already skewed enough toward the few, now many of us are expected to begin our adult lives with literally less than nothing to build on in terms of accumulated wealth.

On the policy front, the good news is that the Obama administration has done some good work in terms of expanding income-based repayment options for some students. But I think itís difficult to look at the cost of education or rising debt levels and conclude that itís been enough to make things better.
122  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How would you solve the student debt crisis? on: April 01, 2016, 12:54:34 pm
Third, I would encourage kids going to college to NOT take out excessive loans.  You can be poor and graduate college without stupid amounts of debt.  People do it all the time.  Yeah, it will be harder and maybe longer.  So?  Will it be harder than making loan payments for the next 30 years?  Probably not.

There’s strong evidence that, in most cases, a highly motivated student will be better off taking out loans and going to class full-time. On average part-time and non-traditional students have worse grades and have higher rates of non-completion.

They also tend to exist on the fringes of campus life, which means missing out on a lot of opportunities for socializing and personal enrichment. For some non-traditional students, this isn't a big deal: They might already have families, hobbies, professional contacts, etc. But if you're a young person who's still growing into adulthood, this is harmful to your future in two ways: It’s likely to reduce your lifetime earnings, and it’s likely to stunt your development as a person. In addition, there’s a very real risk that lacking social support will reduce your likelihood of completing a degree in the first place.

The clearest problem with this strategy is that it involves a great deal of risk: If you fail to complete your degree, or if your career isn’t sufficiently remunerative, you will struggle to manage your debt and it could impede or delay any aspirations toward marriage, home ownership, social and geographic mobility, parenthood, or even retirement. But, if you’re concerned with what happens on average, or even to the median graduate, the numbers are in your favor.
123  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How would you solve the student debt crisis? on: April 01, 2016, 12:36:34 pm
Here are a handful of general points that I think should guide efforts to move away from debt-financed higher education:

(1) Allow students who are already in heavy debt to enter income-based repayment programs, with complete forgiveness following 10-15 years of payments.

(2) Restore state (or make it federal, if necessary) funding for public universities to what it was decades ago, so that undergraduate tuition is no longer a primary source of revenue.

(3) Taper, and eventually terminate, federal aid and student loans for students at most private schools, including not-for-profits. Curb less tangible public subsidies for private institutions, including property tax exemptions, unless per pupil spending is kept to a reasonable level. Public institutions can provide the same education without spending extra to maintain a country club atmosphere.
 
(4) Limit eligibility for student loans to students who have done something to show that they are prepared for college and likely to benefit from the experience. (Something needs to be done for these students as well, but for the purposes of this discussion what matters is that encouraging them to attend college is harmful at both the individual and collective levels.)

(5) Totally reject debt as an instrument of guaranteeing access to higher education. The risks involved in taking out thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable loans as a young adult for a degree that wonít necessarily have large financial benefits are simply unacceptable, even if most students benefit and the payoff is positive on average.

Generally, people who donít have collateral should not be taking out loans. Nor should creditors be encouraged to grant loans to virtually anyone, regardless of expected payoff, which is what our current system for funding higher education encourages. We are not helping young people by burdening them with large amounts of debt at the outset of their adult lives. (Nor is a college degree that fails to lead to markedly higher earnings necessarily wasteful, but that's another discussion entirely...)
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New York counties on 4/19 on: April 01, 2016, 10:37:14 am
Cruz
A couple of counties near the border of Canada (EX: Hamilton County) that tend to be more conservative.

I hope that this is a joke. (Although Hamilton County is weird; then again, it contains barely 5,000 residents and is the only county located entirely within the Adirondack Park.)

Cruz's best part of the state should be rural western NY, i.e. places like Wyoming and Allegheny counties. Expect Kasich to run well in the most affluent Rochester and Buffalo suburbs, the Albany area, and the Mid-Hudson. He may also do well in the ancestrally very heavily Republican parts of Northern New York, esp. near Vermont.

My early prediction for Trump is that he'll run very strong in the less affluent portions of the Buffalo and Rochester metro areas. His best county in upstate NY might be Jefferson (home of Fort Drum and one of the highest concentration of veterans in the Northeast).
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DeBlasio to campaign for Hillary in New York (not a joke) on: April 01, 2016, 09:32:03 am
Sanders ought to hold a major press conference from the nearest glue factory. Tongue
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 340


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines