2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BleedBlueGold]

It's not. But I think he is betting that he already has his "supporters" in the GOP, as he thinks he already has their vote. Flipping does nothing to them, or so he hopes. I also think he believes the people he is trying to pander towards hasn't been paying too close attention, since they have not already made up their mind.

In the end, he is waging a bet that most people don't care about flip flopping, or at least care about it less than certain populist trends. He is literally taking this populist movement to a new level and I am fascinated to see what happens.

Lets put it this way: I get why he's doing what he's doing. I just don't respect it/nor trust it.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

To clarify an earlier post: Trump doesn't mean raise taxes above the current rate. It was raise them above his initial proposal. So in a sense, this isn't earth shattering like I originally suggested. My apologies.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you can get someone to glue a mirror onto a windshield for $2/hr that's the value of that job in a global economy. Not $20/hr or $40/hr. What people like you fail to accept is the unionized worker took compensation past a place where you could raise a family and to an unsustainable level where someone with a HS Diploma was making six figures.

If you want to bring up the subject of greed how about talking about all of it. How about the union employee who through the actions of his/her union inflated the compensation of their job to the point where you could not even run a business based on the operation costs because people are not going to buy Buicks for $90,000 so some guy in Michigan can make $40/hr?

I'll give you two examples of this lunacy.

The first was told to me by my grandfather who was in management at Bethlehem Steel. Management was not allowed, by union rules, to do any work that was under the union contract. One day on the plant floor there was a spill and he picked up a broom to sweep it to the side to keep things moving along. There was a formal complaint filed because that work was to be done by a union worker. The process was actually to call in for a union approved custodian to sweep the floor. Bethlehem Steel is now closed.

The second was one of my first conventions in California. We needed to setup our booth and needed to connect multiple displays. We had to wait over 3hrs for a union electrician to come along and plug in the TVs for us. We then got an invoice for over $100 for this work.

Both of these examples are of absolute bull shit that happens when unions need to negotiate year after year and justify their value in dues. Once you get safe working conditions, a good wage and benefits...the only thing to negotiate for are stupid rules like the above. It's these rules that eventually took the entire house of cards down.

Lastly, if you want to bring up the poor middle class, how about asking them to act like it? Just take a look at what kind of housing and lifestyle the middle class had in the 'glory days' and then compare it to what people feel they are entitled to today. The middle class didn't go anywhere. It's still there. The problem is nobody wants to live it.

But people like you want to blame everything on the greed of others. Maybe this is because it's too difficult for you to look in the mirror and see how misguided your thinking really is.

You'll get no argument from me that the unions went too far in many cases. They lost the bubble on "fair" wages, and they pushed too far. But let's not forget what brought about the rise of the unions -- exploitation and poor treatment of employees. I would argue that the pendulum has been swinging back that way for some time. Unions have become weaker and their ability to shape policy has faded -- given way to the power of corporate influence that has introduced the country to a new age of greed that is hurting people. Corporations have seized the opportunity to push back in the other direction, and they too have gone too far.

There is a sweet spot somewhere between exploitation and excessive benefits. At some point over the past decades, we were right there. Everyone was benefiting from a roaring economy. The middle class was growing -- peoples' lot in life was improving. Until it wasn't.

What happened? I believe the shift occurred when the keys to our economy were handed over to the wealthy under the guise of "prosperity for all" and a "trickle down" scheme that would eventually serve everyone well. That never happened. Things got progressively worse for most and immeasurably better for a few. The corporations got greedy and overstepped when given this opportunity, just as the unions did when they had their chance. We moved in a direction that allowed the balance to fall way out of whack, and we are all worse off for it. If we do not change our approach that has handed over power to the corporate elites -- yes, that is fueled by excessive greed -- we will be increasingly under their thumb. We need to find the sweet spot again between the two extremes.

 

[irish1958]

You'll get no argument from me that the unions went too far in many cases. They lost the bubble on "fair" wages, and they pushed too far. But let's not forget what brought about the rise of the unions -- exploitation and poor treatment of employees. I would argue that the pendulum has been swinging back that way for some time. Unions have become weaker and their ability to shape policy has faded -- given way to the power of corporate influence that has introduced the country to a new age of greed that is hurting people. Corporations have take the opportunity to push back in the other direction.

There is a sweet spot somewhere between exploitation and excessive benefits. At some point over the past decades, we were right there. Everyone was benefiting from a roaring economy. The middle class was growing -- peoples' lot in life was improving. Until it wasn't.

What happened? I believe the shift occurred when the keys to our economy were handed over to the wealthy under the guise of "prosperity for all" and a "trickle down" scheme that would eventually serve everyone well. That never happened. Things got progressively worse for most and immeasurably better for a few. The corporations got greedy and overstepped when given this opportunity, just as the unions did when they had their chance. We moved in a direction that allowed the balance to fall way out of whack, and we are all worse off for it. If we do not change our approach that has handed over power to the corporate elites -- yes, that is fueled by excessive greed -- we will be increasingly under their thumb. We need to find the sweet spot again between the two extremes.

I believe the word you are looking for is"Reaganomics;" or, perhaps as George H Bush called it: " voodoo economics."

 

[Legacy]

If Trump were elected, what would the challenges be for his assets to be placed in a Blind Trust?

The Use of Blind Trusts by Federal Officials

CRS Report for Congress
The Use of Blind Trusts By Federal Officials
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
A blind trust, as discussed in this report, is a device employed by a federal official
to hold, administer and manage the private financial assets, investments and ownerships of the official, and his or her spouse and dependant children, as a method of conflict of interest avoidance. In establishing a qualified blind trust upon the approval of the appropriate supervisory ethics entity, the official transfers, without restriction, control and management of private assets to an independent trustee who may not communicate information about the identity of the holdings in the trust to the official. The trust is considered “blind” because eventually, through the sale of transferred assets and the purchase of new ones, the public officer will be shielded from knowledge of the identity of the specific assets in the trust. Without such knowledge, conflict of interest issues would be avoided because no particular asset in the trust could act as an influence upon the official duties that the officer performs for the Government.

The body of federal law and regulation concerning conflicts of interest and the private assets and investments of federal officials is generally directed at the concern, as expressed by the Supreme Court, “that an impairment of impartial judgment can occur in even the most well-meaning men when their personal economic interests are affected by the business they transact on behalf of the Government.”

Disclosure. To enforce conflict of interest provisions, to deter the ownership of
assets which may raise ethical problems, and to provide public information and
assurances concerning the ethical conduct of high-level Government officials, the identity
and categories of amount of one’s assets, ownerships, and property (as well as other
detailed financial information), must be publicly disclosed by high-level federal officials
upon entering Government and every year thereafter, under the provisions of the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978.7 Generally, the identity of the assets and ownerships of a
covered official, such as stocks, bonds, interests in income-producing real property, stock
options, futures, mutual fund shares, and partnership shares, even those interests held in
a “trust” managed by an independent trustee for the benefit of the official, are required to
be disclosed by the public official in his or her disclosure reports, unless the trust meets
one of the three exceptions in the law, including a “qualified blind trust.”8 For elected
federal officials, that is, Members of Congress, the President and Vice President, public
financial disclosure and the attendant publicity is the principal method of conflict of
interest regulation, as such constitutional officers are not required by statute to disqualify
or recuse themselves from the performance of their constitutional duties.9

Will he release his tax returns before the election?

 

[GoIrish41]

Brass knuckles attack puts state senate candidate in hospital - CBS News

I'll wager 100 million vbucks that Porter is a Trump supporter. Any takers?

 

[dales5050]

What happened? I believe the shift occurred when the keys to our economy were handed over to the wealthy under the guise of "prosperity for all" and a "trickle down" scheme that would eventually serve everyone well.

Ya. It's all about this wealth transfer by the 1%.

The decline from the heights of the 1950s has nothing to do with other nations becoming industrialized. It had nothing to do with Europe and Japan completing the rebuild of their manufacturing after WWII had left those area in ruins. It had nothing to do with technology like computers, robotics, data transfer and storage...oh and the internet.

Nothing to do with these reasons or 100s of other events or trends that have happened since. It has nothing to do with the world becoming flat.

It's just a bunch of 1% folks stealing money. Got it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ya. It's all about this wealth transfer by the 1%.

The decline from the heights of the 1950s has nothing to do with other nations becoming industrialized. It had nothing to do with Europe and Japan completing the rebuild of their manufacturing after WWII had left those area in ruins. It had nothing to do with technology like computers, robotics, data transfer and storage...oh and the internet.

Nothing to do with these reasons or 100s of other events or trends that have happened since. It has nothing to do with the world becoming flat.

It's just a bunch of 1% folks stealing money. Got it.

We were decades ahead of any other country in all of those areas. The world caught up because we shifted gears, IMO, and took our foot off the gas to transfer wealth to the already wealthy. Sure there are a lot of factors, but it is hard to ignore the obvious -- Greed. You can focus on the other factors all you want -- we left our advantages slip through our fingers. You can't hide from the obvious shift in our national economic approach that has left a lot of folks in this country in the dust. The middle class was the engine of the economy and that engine is getting smaller and weaker.

Are you suggesting that a nation that enjoyed profound advantages in infrastructure, technology, education, wealth, prestige, security, resources, etc., etc., was inevitably going to lose those advantages because other countries got in the game? If so, I disagree. If we were focused appropriately (instead of shifting our focus making the rich, richer) we would have remained in the catbird seat in all of those areas. There was nothing inevitable about it -- something that we did allowed others to catch up. We shifted from something that, for the most part, worked very well from the end of WWII until 1980 (of course there were ups and downs, notably the recession under Carter that paved the way for Reagan), to a new normal where upward distribution of wealth became the focus.

As a result, we allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate; casualty let other nations catch up to our technological superiority; fell behind in education (who wants to pay for someone else to go to school if they don't have to); concentrated our wealth with a few (while ignoring other important things like the other things on this list); squandered our prestige in the world (initiating oil wars; antagonized new enemies); and made our country less safe (the rise of terrorism from our new enemies); and continued to knowingly harm environment by refusing to evolve to cleaner energy sources (because the energy sector isn't quite ready to let that cash cow go).

Just like a football team that carries a big lead into the 4th quarter and takes their foot off the gas, our focus from Reagan to the present allowed everyone else to get back in the game. This isn't a condemnation of rich people, it is a condemnation of our policies and our focus since 1980. The rich have just been the beneficiaries of those policies, and they have used their political influence to keep it that way. We need to shift our focus away from what we know does not work and try something else.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Brass knuckles attack puts state senate candidate in hospital - CBS News

I'll wager 100 million vbucks that Porter is a Trump supporter. Any takers?

The damn Donald... making people punch people in the face! If it wasn't for him, nobody would get punched!

 

[GoIrish41]

The damn Donald... making people punch people in the face! If it wasn't for him, nobody would get punched!

So take the wager. Dude, the guy showed up at a political event with brass knuckles and assaulted a candidate. This wasn't some chance encounter that turned ugly.

 

[GoldenDomer]

So take the wager. Dude, the guy showed up at a political event with brass knuckles and assaulted a candidate. This wasn't some chance encounter that turned ugly.

He may be a Trump supporter, who gives a fuck? What does his support of Trump have to do with it? There are crazy people in every sect of society.

See: Muslim woman attacked at Indiana café by drunken Bernie Sanders fan yelling ‘white power’

Those damn Bernie supporters... I tell you.

 

[GoIrish41]

He may be a Trump supporter, who gives a fuck? What does his support of Trump have to do with it? There are crazy people in every sect of society.

See: Muslim woman attacked at Indiana café by drunken Bernie Sanders fan yelling ‘white power’

Those damn Bernie supporters... I tell you.

If only this incident was a one-time thing, and the candidate didn't actively encourage violence from the podium of his rallies. If only he didn't tell his supporters he'd pay their legal fees if they used violence against protesters. If only he didn't predict violence if he was not selected as the nominee. Sure, there are crazy people everywhere. Bernie Sanders isn't encouraging them to use violence.

 

[GoldenDomer]

If only this incident was a one-time thing, and the candidate didn't actively encourage violence from the podium of his rallies. If only he didn't tell his supporters he'd pay their legal fees if they used violence against protesters. If only he didn't predict violence if he was not selected as the nominee. Sure, there are crazy people everywhere. Bernie Sanders isn't encouraging them to use violence.

Was the legal fee thing smart to say? Of course not, but it was a tongue in cheek comment in response to a protestor. He doesn't encourage violence. He could say dumber things, like "I'm running on CP time".

And if they stole the nomination from him it would be an atrocity, so yes someone would likely act out violently. Doesn't seem like a crazy prediction to me.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

We were decades ahead of any other country in all of those areas. The world caught up because we shifted gears, IMO, and took our foot off the gas to transfer wealth to the already wealthy. Sure there are a lot of factors, but it is hard to ignore the obvious -- Greed. You can focus on the other factors all you want -- we left our advantages slip through our fingers. You can't hide from the obvious shift in our national economic approach that has left a lot of folks in this country in the dust. The middle class was the engine of the economy and that engine is getting smaller and weaker.

Are you suggesting that a nation that enjoyed profound advantages in infrastructure, technology, education, wealth, prestige, security, resources, etc., etc., was inevitably going to lose those advantages because other countries got in the game? If so, I disagree. If we were focused appropriately (instead of shifting our focus making the rich, richer) we would have remained in the catbird seat in all of those areas. There was nothing inevitable about it -- something that we did allowed others to catch up. We shifted from something that, for the most part, worked very well from the end of WWII until 1980 (of course there were ups and downs, notably the recession under Carter that paved the way for Reagan), to a new normal where upward distribution of wealth became the focus.

As a result, we allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate; casualty let other nations catch up to our technological superiority; fell behind in education (who wants to pay for someone else to go to school if they don't have to); concentrated our wealth with a few (while ignoring other important things like the other things on this list); squandered our prestige in the world (initiating oil wars; antagonized new enemies); and made our country less safe (the rise of terrorism from our new enemies); and continued to knowingly harm environment by refusing to evolve to cleaner energy sources (because the energy sector isn't quite ready to let that cash cow go).

Just like a football team that carries a big lead into the 4th quarter and takes their foot off the gas, our focus from Reagan to the present allowed everyone else to get back in the game. This isn't a condemnation of rich people, it is a condemnation of our policies and our focus since 1980. The rich have just been the beneficiaries of those policies, and they have used their political influence to keep it that way. We need to shift our focus away from what we know does not work and try something else.

I personally love when people say the US can't compete internationally because of unions and environmental regulations, meanwhile Germany which has some of the strictest labor laws and environmental regulations in the world is a MASSIVE exporter, particularly of heavy industrial products.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Was the legal fee thing smart to say? Of course not, but it was a tongue in cheek comment in response to a protestor. He doesn't encourage violence. He could say dumber things, like "I'm running on CP time".

And if they stole the nomination from him it would be an atrocity, so yes someone would likely act out violently. Doesn't seem like a crazy prediction to me.

It’s not whether it’s a good prediction or not, and it’s not about being tongue-in-cheek, it’s about knowing that, when you are in a position of power like Trump is, your words have power and they have consequences. It’s astonishing for me that he doesn’t get that, or even worse, that he doesn’t care.

Those things were incredibly stupid to say, and words like that have given many (not all and not even most) of his supporters liberty (in their minds) to say horrible things and act like idiots and bigots. Trump could have put an end to this a long time ago, but he knows it is good for business, so he’s willing to incite a little violence, get some people hurt/arrested, etc, to further his cause. And it has worked. But it doesn’t make it right, or even OK.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

FWIW...another traditional conservative voting for Clinton.

Conservative Author P.J. O'Rourke Reluctantly Backs Clinton : NPR

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," O'Rourke continued. "It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

"Wrong within normal parameters" is brilliant.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I personally love when people say the US can't compete internationally because of unions and environmental regulations, meanwhile Germany which has some of the strictest labor laws and environmental regulations in the world is a MASSIVE exporter, particularly of heavy industrial products.

Germany over the last 15 years has gone through painful social reforms, artificially depressed wages all the while ripping of the Eurozone. I am not sure their export success proves anything you say it does.

Germany has also benefited from the fixed exchange rate that the Euro effectively secures between itself and its major European markets. This means that its export boom was not offset by a rise in its own currency. If Germany had been outside the Euro, currency appreciation would have hurt Germany’s gains. Not so in the Eurozone.

While Germany has benefited so much from the Eurozone, its less successful partners are left to fend for themselves. The Eurozone lacks the automatic stabilizers that other currency unions apply among the various regions — namely, fiscal transfers such as unemployment and housing benefits, shared health care costs, or the pooling of bank risks and deposit insurance. The Eurozone also lacks the large movement of workers across state borders enjoyed by the United States, mostly due to language and regulatory barriers. These institutional features of the Eurozone have created a highly unfair economic union, which magnifies disproportionately the consequences of failure.

Why Germany is the Eurozone’s biggest free rider - Fortune

During the 1990s, German workers’ real (inflation-adjusted) wages rose along with productivity gains, meaning that employers could pay the higher wages without facing higher labor costs per unit of output. After 1999, wage gains no longer kept pace with productivity, and the gap between the two widened. As wages stagnated, inequality worsened, and poverty rates rose. Total labor compensation (wages and benefits) fell from 61% of GDP in 2001 to just 55% of GDP in 2007, its lowest level in five decades.

German wage repression went even further than necessary to meet the 2% inflation target mandated by the eurozone agreement, and insisted upon by German policymakers. Unit labor cost (workers’ compensation per unit of output) is perhaps the most important determinant of prices and competitiveness. Unit labor cost rises with wage increases but falls with gains in productivity. From 1999 to 2013, German unit labor cost increased by just 0.4% a year. The reason was not German productivity growth, which was no greater than the eurozone average over the period; rather, it was that German labor-market policies kept wage growth in check.

This combination of a built-in system of currency manipulation afforded by the euro and labor-market policies holding labor costs in check turned Germany into the world’s preeminent trade-surplus country. As its competitive advantage grew, its exports soared. Germany’s current account surplus became the largest in the world relative to the size of its economy, reaching 7.6% of the country’s GDP, more than twice the size of China’s surplus compared to its GDP.

Germany’s transformation into an export powerhouse came at the expense of the southern eurozone economies. Despite posting productivity gains that were equal or almost equal to Germany’s, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy saw their labor costs per unit of output—and in turn prices rise— considerably faster than Germany’s. Wage growth in these countries exceeded productivity growth, and the resulting higher unit labor costs pushed prices up by more than the eurozone’s low 2% annual inflation target (though by only a small margin).

The widening gap in unit labor costs gave Germany a tremendous competitive advantage and left the southern eurozone economies at a tremendous disadvantage. Germany amassed its ever-larger current account surplus, while the southern eurozone economies were saddled with worsening deficits. Later in the decade, the Greek, Portuguese, and Spanish current account deficits approached or even reached alarming double-digit levels, relative to the sizes of their economies.

In this way, German wage repression is an essential component of the euro crisis. Heiner Flassbeck, the German economist and longtime critic of wage repression, and Costas Lapavistas, the Greek economist best known for his work on financialization, put it best in their recent book Against the Troika: Crisis and Austerity in the Eurozone: “Germany has operated a policy of ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ but only after ‘beggaring its own people’ by essentially freezing wages. This is the secret of German success during the last fifteen years.”

While Germany’s huge exports across Europe and elsewhere created German jobs and lowered the country’s unemployment rate, the German economy never grew robustly. Wage repression subsidized exports, but it sapped domestic spending. And, held back by this chronic lack of domestic demand, Germany’s economic growth was far from impressive, before or after the Great Recession. From 2002 to 2008, the German economy grew more slowly than the eurozone average, and over the last five years has failed to match even the sluggish growth rates posted by the U.S. economic recovery. With low wage growth, consumption stagnated. German corporations hoarded their profits and private investment relative to GDP fell almost continuously from 2000 on. The same was true for German public investment, held back by the eurozone budgetary constraints.

At the same time, Germany spread instability. Germany’s reliance on foreign demand for its exports drained spending from elsewhere in the eurozone and slowed growth in those countries. That, in turn, made it less likely that German banks and elites would recover their loans and investments in southern Europe.

German Wage Repression: Getting to the Roots of the Eurozone Crisis | naked capitalism

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I find it funny that a kid that wasn't even born when Reagan was President is on here lecturing us on how much better of we were then.

First, I'm not lecturing anyone. Second, the fact that I was in Huggies for Reagan's second term doesn't mean one can't look back on history and point out the obvious.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And so what do we do with those who have advanced degrees but can't find employment in their field? They have very high skill sets, and by your explanation should be compensated accordingly. But there is no job for them. There is a fine line between paying people what their skill set is worth and exploiting people to maximize your profits.

Tell young people to stop getting Master's degrees in Art History and 1900's Lesbian Poetry. Encourage them to focus their money, time, and work toward career fields that have low unemployment or get into skilled trades.

 

[pkt77242]

Why Donald Trump's debt proposal is reckless - May. 9, 2016

 

[Buster Bluth]

Tell young people to stop getting Master's degrees in Art History and 1900's Lesbian Poetry. Encourage them to focus their money, time, and work toward career fields that have low unemployment or get into skilled trades.

I hope you don't go around in life assuming everyone who has a degree and is unable to find work in their field was a fool getting a Master's in "1900s Lesbian Poetry." You should know (but will certainly ignore as it's a prerequisite to the conservative bubble) that people who borrow a ton of money for those admittedly flimsy degrees usually pay it back just fine, as it's normally rich kids who seek them.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Mr. Trump, ladies and gentlemen:

Donald Trump dubs himself the "king of debt." Experts say he doesn't have a clue -- at least when it comes to U.S. government debt.
Only a few weeks ago, Trump said he could eliminate federal debt in just eight years, a nearly impossible task. Trump's own tax plan would add trillions to the debt.
Now he says the U.S. should just borrow more and renegotiate the terms later.
"I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said on CNBC last week.
The reaction on Wall Street and in Washington was that Trump can't be serious. U.S. bonds are seen as one of the safest (if not THE safest) places to put your money in the world. Tinkering with that would almost certainly hurt America for years to come.
"Mr. Trump doesn't have a coherent idea of what he's talking about," says Michael Strain, an economic policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "This is the bond market equivalent of 'we're going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.'"

Why Donald Trump's debt proposal is reckless - May. 9, 2016

 

[dales5050]

Are you suggesting that a nation that enjoyed profound advantages in infrastructure, technology, education, wealth, prestige, security, resources, etc., etc., was inevitably going to lose those advantages because other countries got in the game? If so, I disagree. If we were focused appropriately (instead of shifting our focus making the rich, richer) we would have remained in the catbird seat in all of those areas.

Am I suggesting this? Yes. Do I think it could have been maintained as you suggest? No.

Not only did you have nations enter the manufacturing game with cheaper labor but they also entered with no legacy costs. That's a double whammy.

If a company in Michigan needs to pay both a higher wage and legacy pension costs compared to a company in Asia that doesn't...and they produce a similar quality product...the company in Asia is going to win. It's basic math.

Beyond this, Americans decided long ago they would rather have more choices than higher quality. So globally manufacturing changed to meet this demand. So it became even less about skill and more about volume.

As a result, we allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate;.

Part of the reason our infrastructure deteriorated is based on how it was built. There is a difference between building a new road to the middle of nowhere and repaving that same road with traffic.

Added to this, much of the infrastructure done in the US was done under a labor system that did not include legacy or union costs. The federal highways were not done under union/pension labor. Once the road was done...that was it. Now if you want to repave, you need to do it with MUCH more expensive labor.

casualty let other nations catch up to our technological superiority;

You don't understand technology. You don't understand open source and you don't understand frameworks. It's not as much of an evolution as you want to infer. It's more about moving to new platforms and each time you do the previous advantages are erased.

Outside of always being the nation that created everything, you can't stay ahead of the game when the game changes every few years.

Fell behind in education (who wants to pay for someone else to go to school if they don't have to);

Education has it challenges rooted in legacy costs. Period.

Take a look at any major cities school district budget. Take a look at where there money goes. While the total cost is typically applied on a 'per pupil' basis to make it easier for people to wrap their head around it, the amount of money that goes into the classroom, teaching kids TODAY, is less. Much less.

Most urban school districts have been destroyed by pension benefits. It's pretty simple how it happened. Back in the 40s and 50s, teachers were not paid that much. But in exchange for this lower income they were given pensions and lifetime benefits. At the time it seemed like a reasonable trade.

Then the unions went to work. Unions, through each contract, raise the salary inch by inch. To the point now where many teachers make a 'professional salary' for their work. The problem with this is they never lowered the GUARANTEED pension or benefits. Now that time bomb is exploding in many districts. So when you look at budgets, a large % of the money allocated to education is actually going to pay for classroom time from when you and I were in the 9th grade. This reduces the amount of money you can spend in the classroom today because we're still paying for classroom time from 20 years ago.

The day I see a teachers union say they want to lower obscene pension benefits in an effort to improve in classroom funding is the day I will take seriously the claims that we don't fund education enough. Until then, it's just PR that fools buy into.

 

[IrishLax]

I hope you don't go around in life assuming everyone who has a degree and is unable to find work in their field was a fool getting a Master's in "1900s Lesbian Poetry." You should know (but will certainly ignore as it's a prerequisite to the conservative bubble) that people who borrow a ton of money for those admittedly flimsy degrees usually pay it back just fine, as it's normally rich kids who seek them.

Huh? If they're rich kids, why would they be borrowing money in the first place?

 

[EddytoNow]

I hope you don't go around in life assuming everyone who has a degree and is unable to find work in their field was a fool getting a Master's in "1900s Lesbian Poetry." You should know (but will certainly ignore as it's a prerequisite to the conservative bubble) that people who borrow a ton of money for those admittedly flimsy degrees usually pay it back just fine, as it's normally rich kids who seek them.

Polish Leppy believes what he wants to believe. He's not one to let facts get in the way. And where the facts don't exist, he just makes them up. Leppy, just how many unemployed people are there with degrees in Art History or Lesbian Poetry? And what percentage of the college-educated unemployed majored in these fields?

 

[irishfan]

Poll: Clinton, Trump 'dead even' in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released Tuesday has Clinton up by a single point in both Florida (43%-42%) and Pennsylvania (43%-42%), while Trump leads Clinton in Ohio by 43%-to-39%

"In Pennsylvania, Clinton's 19-point lead among women matches Trump's 21-point margin among men," Brown said. "In Ohio, she is up 7 points among women but down 15 points with men. In Florida she is up 13 points among women but down 13 points among men."

The Quinnipiac Swing State Poll says it "focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states."

 

[woolybug25]

A video you should send to any mouth breather that tells you that putting up a wall will be easy.

How a bill becomes a wall - CNNPolitics.com

 

[phgreek]

A video you should send to any mouth breather that tells you that putting up a wall will be easy.

How a bill becomes a wall - CNNPolitics.com

I agree it isn't easy...and God forbid we undertake a nation wide construction effort with this government.

However, as a what if exercise...let the wall live an existence like Obamacare for a moment...where there is no real plan just an agency and a bunch of "we'll decide that laters", and every concern is ushered away by an "expert" and a campaign of lies carried forth by a willing contingent of partisans and media...bolstered by an interesting view and use of executive powers...suddenly those barriers Bush dealt with don't seem so insurmountable...do they?

 

[irishfan]

Poll: Clinton, Trump 'dead even' in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Another new poll:

GOP Quickly Unifies Around Trump; Clinton Still Has Modest Lead - Public Policy Polling

Hillary Clinton leads Trump 42-38, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 2%. In a match up just between Clinton and Trump, her lead expands to 47-41. That's because supporters of Johnson and Stein would prefer her over Trump 36-18. Although there's been a lot of talk about third party candidates drawing support away from Trump, they're actually taking a little bit more from Clinton at this point.

Although much has been made of disunity in the GOP, it is actually just as unified behind Trump as the Democrats are behind Clinton. 72% of Republicans now say they're comfortable with Trump as their nominee to only 21% who they aren't. Those numbers are little different from the ones among Democrats that find 75% of them would be comfortable with Clinton as their nominee to 21% who say they would not be.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree it isn't easy...and God forbid we undertake a nation wide construction effort with this government.

However, as a what if exercise...let the wall live an existence like Obamacare for a moment...where there is no real plan just an agency and a bunch of "we'll decide that laters", and every concern is ushered away by an "expert" and a campaign of lies carried forth by a willing contingent of partisans and media...bolstered by an interesting view and use of executive powers...suddenly those barriers Bush dealt with don't seem so insurmountable...do they?

Not to be a dick, but I have read this several times and I literally have no idea what you are asking?