Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
Author Message
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #81
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
Im not particularly worried about the country if of any of the candidates win the WH...except Sanders. He is dangerous and must be stopped at all cost. If you are in a state that allows you to vote in either primary? I urge you to vote D and against Sanders. It will be the best vote you could cast in this election.
02-12-2016 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #82
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-11-2016 10:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 09:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Clinton is the establishment candidate. That isn't a bad thing. The country runs on the establishment. Rapid / radical change will ruin the country, whether it is in the form of Bernie's socialism or Cruz' Tea Party. Barring a sudden resurrection of Bush or the GOP unifying around a dark horse Kaisich (spell) there isn't a establishment candidate coming out of the Republican primary. Clinton wins and as much as those on the right ***** and complain the country runs relatively smoothly. If the GOP puts forth one of the establishment candidates they probably beat Clinton and those on the left ***** and complain and the country runs relatively smoothly.

That's a load of garbage.

"Running smoothly" =

Establishment Dems and GOPers passing NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China costing us millions of manufacturing jobs and gutting the middle class

Establishment Dems and GOPers siding with for profit insurance companies to keep tens of millions uninsured and people getting ripped off by drug companies and at hospitals

Establishment Dems and GOPers taking money from defense contractors and starting wars in the Middle East costing trillions of dollars and thousands their lives with countless others maimed

Establishment Dems and GOPers cutting funding to public higher education and kids graduating with $30,000 debt on average with an 8% interest rate

Establishment Dems and GOPers deregulating Wall Street so they become too big to fail and engage in rampant speculation that brings down the economy and cost millions their jobs, homes and pensions

Establishment Dems and GOPers giving tax breaks to the rich and watching all productivity gains go to the rich.

Establishment Dems and GOPers holding down the minimum wage so Wal Mart and their billionaire owners can pay their employees so little they need to go on food stamps and Medicaid.


Oh but it's all RUNNING SMOOTHLY because REASONS! If we let an outside in the White House he might crash the economy and start a quagmire in the Middle East!

For the first 7 years, I've seen various memes from liberals such as this one floating around, touting Obama's successes.

Now roughly half of the liberals (Bernie supporters) seem to be saying the country has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Which is it? Wasn't the left pretty united in saying that the country has gotten back on track, that is, until Comrade Bernie gained some traction?

[Image: fb3f5008388ba0054a15aa782c265d06e5c7d7f4...441e6a.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2016 01:15 PM by Motown Bronco.)
02-12-2016 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #83
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-11-2016 10:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Establishment Dems and GOPers cutting funding to public higher education and kids graduating with $30,000 debt on average with an 8% interest rate

BTW, that's not the primary reason why tuition has gotten so out of control.
02-12-2016 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #84
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-12-2016 01:15 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  
(02-11-2016 10:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Establishment Dems and GOPers cutting funding to public higher education and kids graduating with $30,000 debt on average with an 8% interest rate

BTW, that's not the primary reason why tuition has gotten so out of control.

Yeah it is. Colleges and students are an easy target for billionaires and politicians they can control, so they can give themselves tax breaks.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budge...e-students

In 1988, public colleges and universities received 3.2 times as much in revenue from state and local governments as they did from students. They now receive about 1.1 times as much from states and localities as from students.

Nearly every state has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years — with the most drastic shift occurring since the onset of the Great Recession. In 1988, average tuition amounts were larger than per-student state expenditures in only two states, New Hampshire and Vermont. By 2008, that number had grown to ten states. Today, tuition revenue is greater than state and local government funding for higher education in half of the states, with seven — Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont— asking students and families to shoulder higher education costs by a ratio of at least 2-to-1.[28]

[Image: 5-12-15sfp-f7.png?itok=MF_Nj_j3]

[Image: 5-12-15sfp-f8.png?itok=uYX7OG-A]
02-12-2016 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #85
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-12-2016 01:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  
(02-11-2016 10:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 09:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Clinton is the establishment candidate. That isn't a bad thing. The country runs on the establishment. Rapid / radical change will ruin the country, whether it is in the form of Bernie's socialism or Cruz' Tea Party. Barring a sudden resurrection of Bush or the GOP unifying around a dark horse Kaisich (spell) there isn't a establishment candidate coming out of the Republican primary. Clinton wins and as much as those on the right ***** and complain the country runs relatively smoothly. If the GOP puts forth one of the establishment candidates they probably beat Clinton and those on the left ***** and complain and the country runs relatively smoothly.

That's a load of garbage.

"Running smoothly" =

Establishment Dems and GOPers passing NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China costing us millions of manufacturing jobs and gutting the middle class

Establishment Dems and GOPers siding with for profit insurance companies to keep tens of millions uninsured and people getting ripped off by drug companies and at hospitals

Establishment Dems and GOPers taking money from defense contractors and starting wars in the Middle East costing trillions of dollars and thousands their lives with countless others maimed

Establishment Dems and GOPers cutting funding to public higher education and kids graduating with $30,000 debt on average with an 8% interest rate

Establishment Dems and GOPers deregulating Wall Street so they become too big to fail and engage in rampant speculation that brings down the economy and cost millions their jobs, homes and pensions

Establishment Dems and GOPers giving tax breaks to the rich and watching all productivity gains go to the rich.

Establishment Dems and GOPers holding down the minimum wage so Wal Mart and their billionaire owners can pay their employees so little they need to go on food stamps and Medicaid.


Oh but it's all RUNNING SMOOTHLY because REASONS! If we let an outside in the White House he might crash the economy and start a quagmire in the Middle East!

For the first 7 years, I've seen various memes from liberals such as this one floating around, touting Obama's successes.

Now roughly half of the liberals (Bernie supporters) seem to be saying the country has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Which is it? Wasn't the left pretty united in saying that the country has gotten back on track, that is, until Comrade Bernie gained some traction?

[Image: fb3f5008388ba0054a15aa782c265d06e5c7d7f4...441e6a.jpg]

spit on the screen fonzies that is.....
02-12-2016 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #86
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-12-2016 01:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  
(02-11-2016 10:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 09:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Clinton is the establishment candidate. That isn't a bad thing. The country runs on the establishment. Rapid / radical change will ruin the country, whether it is in the form of Bernie's socialism or Cruz' Tea Party. Barring a sudden resurrection of Bush or the GOP unifying around a dark horse Kaisich (spell) there isn't a establishment candidate coming out of the Republican primary. Clinton wins and as much as those on the right ***** and complain the country runs relatively smoothly. If the GOP puts forth one of the establishment candidates they probably beat Clinton and those on the left ***** and complain and the country runs relatively smoothly.

That's a load of garbage.

"Running smoothly" =

Establishment Dems and GOPers passing NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China costing us millions of manufacturing jobs and gutting the middle class

Establishment Dems and GOPers siding with for profit insurance companies to keep tens of millions uninsured and people getting ripped off by drug companies and at hospitals

Establishment Dems and GOPers taking money from defense contractors and starting wars in the Middle East costing trillions of dollars and thousands their lives with countless others maimed

Establishment Dems and GOPers cutting funding to public higher education and kids graduating with $30,000 debt on average with an 8% interest rate

Establishment Dems and GOPers deregulating Wall Street so they become too big to fail and engage in rampant speculation that brings down the economy and cost millions their jobs, homes and pensions

Establishment Dems and GOPers giving tax breaks to the rich and watching all productivity gains go to the rich.

Establishment Dems and GOPers holding down the minimum wage so Wal Mart and their billionaire owners can pay their employees so little they need to go on food stamps and Medicaid.


Oh but it's all RUNNING SMOOTHLY because REASONS! If we let an outside in the White House he might crash the economy and start a quagmire in the Middle East!

For the first 7 years, I've seen various memes from liberals such as this one floating around, touting Obama's successes.

Now roughly half of the liberals (Bernie supporters) seem to be saying the country has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Which is it? Wasn't the left pretty united in saying that the country has gotten back on track, that is, until Comrade Bernie gained some traction?

[Image: fb3f5008388ba0054a15aa782c265d06e5c7d7f4...441e6a.jpg]

Obama definitely got us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him, but we have more progress to make. Also, deregulating Wall Street NAFTA and the Iraq War weren't Obama's fault, obviously.
02-12-2016 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,346
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 448
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #87
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
I love Stephen Colbert.

He pointed out that Bernie Sanders got 83 pct of the youth vote in New Hampshire. The only demographic that Hillary won was voters 65 and older. So while she didn't win New Hampshire, Hillary won Old Hampshire.

He also showed Hillary's latest ad to court the youth vote, which her campaign smartly ran on AOL

01-wingedeagle
02-17-2016 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #88
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-12-2016 03:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama definitely got us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him, but we have more progress to make. Also, deregulating Wall Street NAFTA and the Iraq War weren't Obama's fault, obviously.

No, Obama did not get "us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him." And Wall Street was never "deregulated"--for example, regulators watched and accepted every move that Bernie Madoff made. NAFTA isn't what's wrong with anything--it's a symptom of US non-competitiveness in the global marketplace, not a cause. And the second Iraq War was on Bush, but the third one now building is on Obama.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2016 09:10 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-17-2016 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardFan1 Offline
Red Thunderbird
*

Posts: 15,148
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 644
I Root For: Louisville ACC
Location:
Post: #89
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-17-2016 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 03:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama definitely got us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him, but we have more progress to make. Also, deregulating Wall Street NAFTA and the Iraq War weren't Obama's fault, obviously.

No, Obama did not get "us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him." And Wall Street was never "deregulated"--for example, regulators watched and accepted every move that Bernie Madoff made. NAFTA isn't what's wrong with anything--it's a symptom of US non-competitiveness in the global marketplace, not a cause. And the second Iraq War was on Bush, but the third one now building is on Obama.

Actually the first and second were squarely on Saddam and His greedy Henchmen.
02-17-2016 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-12-2016 03:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 01:15 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  BTW, that's not the primary reason why tuition has gotten so out of control.

Yeah it is. Colleges and students are an easy target for billionaires and politicians they can control, so they can give themselves tax breaks.

No it's not. Several things happen that screw up the numbers and make them either hard to understand (you're stupid) or twist (you're a liar).

1 - States spend a smaller percent of their budgets on educaiton now than in 1980: True - States have added numerous programs to their health and human services departments. The *amount* they spend since 1980 has not went down but all the new programs can help hide that fact.

2 - A smaller percentage of money spent on education comes from the state since 1980: True - But there are two parts to this formula. *1* The total cost of the education and *2* the amount allocated by the states. If they both go up but *1* goes up faster than *2* then you can make a pretty picture and imply it's a state spending problem not a cost of education problem.

The best way to actually look at state spending in higher education is to, well, look at the dollars and not percentages.

3 - A lot of systems took a big hit in 2008 when the economy tanked. So it's not fair to look back 5-10 years. We have still not recovered from what happened in 2008 fully. 20-30 years is a better time frame (besides that considers with the rises in tuition which started growing out of control long before 2005.

So====

[Image: cda2012indexdependencegovtchart7750px.ashx]


*Spending has not decreased*

What you can see here is that from 1979-2001 the federal government spent, on average, 13.7 Billion on higher education. From 2002-2010 that number about doubles. ergo federal education spending is five billion higher now than it was during the 1079-2001 timeframe.

Now to be fair we many more kids going to school now than in 1979, so what about "per pupil" spending..

[Image: cp-2015-f16b.png]

Here we see a decrease of about 2,000$ *per student* in spending by the states.

Over that same period of time the cost of tuition, per year, at state schools has went up about 10,000$ per year.

Therefore, math says, that the dominating factor in the rise of tuition cost is spending, not a lack of state aid. The ratio is about 4:1.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2016 12:39 PM by Bull_In_Exile.)
02-17-2016 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #91
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-17-2016 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, Obama did not get "us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him."

He kinda did.

[Image: 4b511ea2c330b97571e3eb2ebbf45f4f7456e273.png]

Quote:And Wall Street was never "deregulated"--for example, regulators watched and accepted every move that Bernie Madoff made.

You're equating one instance of negligent oversight on the part of regulators with the systemic risks posed by repealing Glass Steagall so investment banks could grow to be too big to fail and speculate with deposits (1998) and deregulating derivatives so they could bet on the performance of financial instruments (2000). Madoff's Ponzi scheme didn't bring down the economy.

Quote:NAFTA isn't what's wrong with anything--it's a symptom of US non-competitiveness in the global marketplace, not a cause.

It's a symptom alright. It's a symptom of our politicians being bought by corporations who want to ship jobs overseas and write tax codes in their favor. NAFTA was passed and shortly thereafter the Maytag plant in nearby Galesburg shut down and moved to Mexico. That wasn't a ******* coincidence. Factories like that would still be here if it weren't for NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China and corporate apologists like yourself.

Quote:And the second Iraq War was on Bush, but the third one now building is on Obama.

The whole region would be far better off if Bush did nothing. Obama may not be doing the best job cleaning up Bush's mess but that doesn't mean he owns everything. This can all be traced back to Bush's invasion, Rumsfeld disbanding the Iraqi army (many of whom eventually joined ISIS), Bush supporting a hardline Shia leader who alienated the Sunnis and Kurds, and his decision to sign a SOFA before leaving office. LOL at the ridiculous attempt to pin everything still going on on Obama. At least we're not getting flag draped coffins shipped back every day. For that I'm a little grateful.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2016 10:06 AM by Max Power.)
02-18-2016 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #92
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-17-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 03:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 01:15 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  BTW, that's not the primary reason why tuition has gotten so out of control.

Yeah it is. Colleges and students are an easy target for billionaires and politicians they can control, so they can give themselves tax breaks.

No it's not. Several things happen that screw up the numbers and make them either hard to understand (you're stupid) or twist (you're a liar).

1 - States spend a smaller percent of their budgets on educaiton now than in 1980: True - States have added numerous programs to their health and human services departments. The *amount* they spend since 1980 has not went down but all the new programs can help hide that fact.

2 - A smaller percentage of money spent on education comes from the state since 1980: True - But there are two parts to this formula. *1* The total cost of the education and *2* the amount allocated by the states. If they both go up but *1* goes up faster than *2* then you can make a pretty picture and imply it's a state spending problem not a cost of education problem.

The best way to actually look at state spending in higher education is to, well, look at the dollars and not percentages.

3 - A lot of systems took a big hit in 2008 when the economy tanked. So it's not fair to look back 5-10 years. We have still not recovered from what happened in 2008 fully. 20-30 years is a better time frame (besides that considers with the rises in tuition which started growing out of control long before 2005.

So====

[Image: cda2012indexdependencegovtchart7750px.ashx]


*Spending has not decreased*

What you can see here is that from 1979-2001 the federal government spent, on average, 13.7 Billion on higher education. From 2002-2010 that number about doubles. ergo federal education spending is five billion higher now than it was during the 1079-2001 timeframe.

Now to be fair we many more kids going to school now than in 1979, so what about "per pupil" spending..

[Image: cp-2015-f16b.png]

Here we see a decrease of about 2,000$ *per student* in spending by the states.

Over that same period of time the cost of tuition, per year, at state schools has went up about 10,000$ per year.

Therefore, math says, that the dominating factor in the rise of tuition cost is spending, not a lack of state aid. The ratio is about 4:1.

At least you admit near the end that you can't compare total spending in the 1970s with the 2010s. There's a reason why we need to grow over 100k jobs every month or we're effectively losing them. Per pupil spending is dropping, and yes, not every dollar being spent on public colleges all goes toward lowering tuition. Growing enrollment has forced them to spend on classrooms, forms, renovations, and yes, sports programs that are getting out of control. I do think more should go directly to lowering tuition.
02-18-2016 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #93
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-17-2016 10:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(02-17-2016 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 03:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama definitely got us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him, but we have more progress to make. Also, deregulating Wall Street NAFTA and the Iraq War weren't Obama's fault, obviously.

No, Obama did not get "us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him." And Wall Street was never "deregulated"--for example, regulators watched and accepted every move that Bernie Madoff made. NAFTA isn't what's wrong with anything--it's a symptom of US non-competitiveness in the global marketplace, not a cause. And the second Iraq War was on Bush, but the third one now building is on Obama.

Actually the first and second were squarely on Saddam and His greedy Henchmen.

Cheney? Is that you?
02-18-2016 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #94
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-18-2016 10:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-17-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 03:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 01:15 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  BTW, that's not the primary reason why tuition has gotten so out of control.

Yeah it is. Colleges and students are an easy target for billionaires and politicians they can control, so they can give themselves tax breaks.

No it's not. Several things happen that screw up the numbers and make them either hard to understand (you're stupid) or twist (you're a liar).

1 - States spend a smaller percent of their budgets on educaiton now than in 1980: True - States have added numerous programs to their health and human services departments. The *amount* they spend since 1980 has not went down but all the new programs can help hide that fact.

2 - A smaller percentage of money spent on education comes from the state since 1980: True - But there are two parts to this formula. *1* The total cost of the education and *2* the amount allocated by the states. If they both go up but *1* goes up faster than *2* then you can make a pretty picture and imply it's a state spending problem not a cost of education problem.

The best way to actually look at state spending in higher education is to, well, look at the dollars and not percentages.

3 - A lot of systems took a big hit in 2008 when the economy tanked. So it's not fair to look back 5-10 years. We have still not recovered from what happened in 2008 fully. 20-30 years is a better time frame (besides that considers with the rises in tuition which started growing out of control long before 2005.

So====

[Image: cda2012indexdependencegovtchart7750px.ashx]


*Spending has not decreased*

What you can see here is that from 1979-2001 the federal government spent, on average, 13.7 Billion on higher education. From 2002-2010 that number about doubles. ergo federal education spending is five billion higher now than it was during the 1079-2001 timeframe.

Now to be fair we many more kids going to school now than in 1979, so what about "per pupil" spending..

[Image: cp-2015-f16b.png]

Here we see a decrease of about 2,000$ *per student* in spending by the states.

Over that same period of time the cost of tuition, per year, at state schools has went up about 10,000$ per year.

Therefore, math says, that the dominating factor in the rise of tuition cost is spending, not a lack of state aid. The ratio is about 4:1.

At least you admit near the end that you can't compare total spending in the 1970s with the 2010s. There's a reason why we need to grow over 100k jobs every month or we're effectively losing them. Per pupil spending is dropping, and yes, not every dollar being spent on public colleges all goes toward lowering tuition. Growing enrollment has forced them to spend on classrooms, forms, renovations, and yes, sports programs that are getting out of control. I do think more should go directly to lowering tuition.

You're kinda cute, like a confused puppy, when you decide to ignore the main point of what someone said to nitpick.

Your initial assertion blamed the rise in tuition on states giving less aid to higher education. I just showed you, with these fancy things called numbers, that state aid per student is only 20% of the problem.

Here on planet Earth 20% is not "a majority" of any problem.

And your assertion that the other 80% can also be blamed on more kids should be proven somehow. I suspect that like all capital improvements they are financed out over many years.

Like I can point out that over the last 15-20 years the salary of professors at AAU universities has nearly doubled.

[Image: perks%5B2%5D_0.png]
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2016 11:16 AM by Bull_In_Exile.)
02-18-2016 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #95
RE: Young Folks Don't Like Hillary
(02-18-2016 10:03 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(02-17-2016 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, Obama did not get "us back on track from the dumpster fire Bush left him."
He kinda did.
[Image: 4b511ea2c330b97571e3eb2ebbf45f4f7456e273.png]

No, he really didn’t, and that’s not what that oft-misused graphic shows. First, we have been told repeatedly that employment is a lagging indicator. If so, then what that graphic shows is an economy that turned around before Obama moved into the white house. Even if you don’t allow for that lag, what that graphic shows is an economy that turned around on its own before any of Obama’s policies had time to take effect. Second, the most notable thing about that graph is the sluggishness of the recovery. With the amounts dumped into the economy between government “stimulus” and the Fed, growth should have been white-hot. Considering that historically, when you go into a crash hard you come out hard, growth should have been white-hot. It wasn’t.

And as far as Bush’s creating a dumpster fire that Obama fixed, it’s kind of interesting to compare the economic policies. What did Bush do that caused it? The largest 8-year deficit to that point in our history, the second highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, and a top individual income tax rate that was among the highest in the developed world. What did Obama do to fix it? Cumulative 8-year deficits roughly twice Bush’s, moving up from second highest to highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and continuing among the highest top individual income tax rates in the developed world.

Quote:
Quote:And Wall Street was never "deregulated"--for example, regulators watched and accepted every move that Bernie Madoff made.
You're equating one instance of negligent oversight on the part of regulators with the systemic risks posed by repealing Glass Steagall so investment banks could grow to be too big to fail and speculate with deposits (1998) and deregulating derivatives so they could bet on the performance of financial instruments (2000). Madoff's Ponzi scheme didn't bring down the economy.

What part of the term, “for example,” do you not comprehend? No, I was not equating one occurrence to systemic risk or blaming the crash on Madoff. I was giving one example (kind of the meaning of “for example”) of the kind of behavior that went on all over the place. The banks and Wall Street were always highly regulated--before, during, and after the crash—and that bought us virtually nothing because the regulators failed to do their job. In fact, the real root cause of the crash—bad home mortgages--probably happened because of bad moves by regulators. Repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the problem. Investment banks did not speculate with deposits. Deregulating derivatives did not bring down the economy. Check your dates, both of those occurred under Bill Clinton and not GWB, by the way. So if you are going to blame the crash on those things, then no, GWB clearly did not cause the so-called “dumpster fire.”

But Bill Clinton was a good president. IMO he was a better republican than GWB. And those moves did not cause the crisis. As much as anything, we needed them to modernize our financial system to be competitive in global financial markets.

And the situation regarding investment banks would have been relatively easy to deal with without Glass-Steagall. The popular meme is that it let investment banks and commercial banks merge, therefore exposing commercial bank assets to investment bank risk. But anybody who knows anything about corporate law knows that even if the two activities were both being conducted, you would never set up both in a single corporation. The risks of one were insulated internally from the other by having them in separate subsidiary corporations. So you bail out the commercial bank subsidiaries and tell the investment banking subsidiaries, “Hey, you were big boys, you knew (or should have known) what risks you were taking, and you made a pile of profits for a while. So sayonara.” As my good friend Jim Rogers says, “We saved Wall Street’s Maseratis and let Main Street go to hell.” There was a plan put forth by a number of republican representatives that would have made Main Street whole and let Wall Street pound sand. It was offered as an alternative to TARP, and was basically the founding idea behind the TEA Party (which began as bipartisan opposition to TARP). Had John McCain embraced it, he might have become president. Instead, he said that he knew nothing about economics, and then went out and proved it.

Quote:
Quote:NAFTA isn't what's wrong with anything--it's a symptom of US non-competitiveness in the global marketplace, not a cause.
It's a symptom alright. It's a symptom of our politicians being bought by corporations who want to ship jobs overseas and write tax codes in their favor. NAFTA was passed and shortly thereafter the Maytag plant in nearby Galesburg shut down and moved to Mexico. That wasn't a ******* coincidence. Factories like that would still be here if it weren't for NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China and corporate apologists like yourself.

Exactly WTF have I said that makes me a corporate apologist? I am totally opposed to shipping jobs overseas. The difference between you and me is that I understand why they do it and therefore what needs to be changed to stop it, whereas you simply regurgitate leftist talking points which advocate the very policies that make the situation worse.

I would appreciate a reasonable explanation how the left can complain that corporations move investment and economic activity and jobs overseas to realize lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, while at the same time advocating higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations as the solution. How exactly do you expect that to work?

I am not personally familiar with the details of the Galesburg plant you reference, but I am generally familiar with hundreds of similar cases. Those moves take years to plan, and are vetted from every possible angle. If a decision was announced shortly after NAFTA was passed, then obviously the decision to leave Galesburg had been made long ago, and the impact of NAFTA was to make Mexico more attractive than maybe any of a hundred other places that were under consideration. But don’t kid yourself, and don’t try to BS me, into believing that plant would still be here if it weren’t for NAFTA or other free trade agreements.

There is one thing that we could do in a hurry that would positively impact our balance of trade and future plant locations. Impose a consumption tax. If we had a 15% consumption tax, that would allow us to charge 15% on all imports without it counting as a tariff (something that our “free trade” partners do to us), and perhaps more importantly for these purposes, rebating the embedded consumption tax (probably around 10-12%) on all exports without it counting as an impermissible trade subsidy (something else that our “free trade” partners do to us). That would shift a number of jobs back to the US over time, because it would shift the factors that are considered in such decisions.

Quote:
Quote:And the second Iraq War was on Bush, but the third one now building is on Obama.
The whole region would be far better off if Bush did nothing. Obama may not be doing the best job cleaning up Bush's mess but that doesn't mean he owns everything. This can all be traced back to Bush's invasion, Rumsfeld disbanding the Iraqi army (many of whom eventually joined ISIS), Bush supporting a hardline Shia leader who alienated the Sunnis and Kurds, and his decision to sign a SOFA before leaving office. LOL at the ridiculous attempt to pin everything still going on on Obama. At least we're not getting flag draped coffins shipped back every day. For that I'm a little grateful.

I will not contest any statement that GWB screwed things up, but that does not mean that Obama has done anything right. Basically GWB screwed it up, and Obama is screwing it up worse. And we’re still getting plenty of flag draped coffins coming home. I believe we have actually had more in total under Obama than GWB. We simply don’t understand the region, and our attempts to intervene are misguided and do more harm than good as a result.

I find it interesting how much leftists like to defend Obama by comparing him to Bush. On the one had you say that Bush was the worst president ever (and I agree that he was a bad one), while on the other hand you say, “At least Obama is better than Bush.” If your highest praise is that he’s marginally better than the worst ever, then he’s pretty bad too. And I don’t necessarily buy the “marginally better” part of that.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2016 10:07 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-18-2016 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.