RealGM

https://thehill.com/latino/456566-immigration-agents-arrest-680-mississippi-food-processing-facilities

what the f are we doing? how does this reduce drugs/crime?

pancakes3 wrote:

Ruzious wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:doesn't it ultimately come down to who the party chooses to advance? even if Sanders isn't willing, the party will make the decision for him like it did in 2016.

the question is whether there's enough of a movement for dem leadership to risk alienating centrists and independents, hoping that #nevertrump is enough of a galvanizing force to nominate someone progressive.

and to me, their response seems easy - no, it's not worth it. the only saving grace would be to have Biden keep sliding in the polls, and for Warren/Sanders to keep gaining ground and normalizing their policies that by the time it comes to nominate someone, those policies won't seem so anathema to centrists. the flip side of that playbook is for republicans to keep playing off cold-war-era biases and continue to throw out "socialist" like it's a dirty word.

take "free college" for instance. we've accepted the proposal that k12 education is a given, compulsory even. we also acknowledge that degree inflation is real, especially compared to the '60s when LBJ committed federal funding for k12 education (before that it was state funded). so coupling a commitment to provide free k12 education and degree inflation, free college seems to be a logically consistent extension. we can argue over financial feasibility (not really) but the plain proposition shouldn't be met with the vitriolic pushback that it sees.

Things are not logical if they're not financially feasible, and the unwillingness to face that is a logical irritation with some of the Democratic candidates.

Bernie's plan costs $47 billion and Trump just approved a budget that sets the FY2020 military budget at 738 billion an increase of 52 billion from FY 2019 so it's just really hard to take "financial feasibility" arguments seriously in today's era of military spending.

To me - Trump's military budgets and tax cuts that have whacked our budget are the number #3 reason that he needs to go.

But let's do some back of the napkin math on Bernie's plan - free four year college tuition for all. First, only 20% of high-school students attend a 4 year university - so, would kids want to go to school if it was free? Double or triple? That is the first unintended consequence.

Total expenditures on higher education were about ~575B of which ~$375B was spent at public universities. So, Bernie's plan is only a fraction of higher ed. That will of course grow to cover everyone. And that is the second unintended consequence of Bernie's plan.

Bernie's plan has the federal government funding 2/3 and states funding 1/3. But we all know that will grow increasing an unfunded federal mandate (Bernie BTW is terrific at supporting that kind of legislation - and he was one of the key sponsors for the current bill - still don't see why he hasn't come out publicly and said he made a mistake there). Anyway, third unintended consequence.

BTW, I would totally be good cutting the military by that amount for higher ed. But I would much prefer that the Federal government gets out of higher ed and reduces the federal deficit instead.

dckingsfan wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Ruzious wrote:Things are not logical if they're not financially feasible, and the unwillingness to face that is a logical irritation with some of the Democratic candidates.

Bernie's plan costs $47 billion and Trump just approved a budget that sets the FY2020 military budget at 738 billion an increase of 52 billion from FY 2019 so it's just really hard to take "financial feasibility" arguments seriously in today's era of military spending.

To me - Trump's military budgets and tax cuts that have whacked our budget are the number #3 reason that he needs to go.

But let's do some back of the napkin math on Bernie's plan - free four year college tuition for all. First, only 20% of high-school students attend a 4 year university - so, would kids want to go to school if it was free? Double or triple? That is the first unintended consequence.

Total expenditures on higher education were about ~575B of which ~$375B was spent at public universities. So, Bernie's plan is only a fraction of higher ed. That will of course grow to cover everyone. And that is the second unintended consequence of Bernie's plan.

Bernie's plan has the federal government funding 2/3 and states funding 1/3. But we all know that will grow increasing an unfunded federal mandate (Bernie BTW is terrific at supporting that kind of legislation - and he was one of the key sponsors for the current bill - still don't see why he hasn't come out publicly and said he made a mistake there). Anyway, third unintended consequence.

BTW, I would totally be good cutting the military by that amount for higher ed. But I would much prefer that the Federal government gets out of higher ed and reduces the federal deficit instead.

well the point is that these massive, game-changing, culture-shifting social programs are drops in the bucket, budget-wise.

but re: your handwringing on the unintended consequences, free college doesn't mean guaranteed college. public universities are already at capacity so i don't see how 2-3x more kids will flood into those schools.

pancakes3 wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Bernie's plan costs $47 billion and Trump just approved a budget that sets the FY2020 military budget at 738 billion an increase of 52 billion from FY 2019 so it's just really hard to take "financial feasibility" arguments seriously in today's era of military spending.

To me - Trump's military budgets and tax cuts that have whacked our budget are the number #3 reason that he needs to go.

But let's do some back of the napkin math on Bernie's plan - free four year college tuition for all. First, only 20% of high-school students attend a 4 year university - so, would kids want to go to school if it was free? Double or triple? That is the first unintended consequence.

Total expenditures on higher education were about ~575B of which ~$375B was spent at public universities. So, Bernie's plan is only a fraction of higher ed. That will of course grow to cover everyone. And that is the second unintended consequence of Bernie's plan.

Bernie's plan has the federal government funding 2/3 and states funding 1/3. But we all know that will grow increasing an unfunded federal mandate (Bernie BTW is terrific at supporting that kind of legislation - and he was one of the key sponsors for the current bill - still don't see why he hasn't come out publicly and said he made a mistake there). Anyway, third unintended consequence.

BTW, I would totally be good cutting the military by that amount for higher ed. But I would much prefer that the Federal government gets out of higher ed and reduces the federal deficit instead.

well the point is that these massive, game-changing, culture-shifting social programs are drops in the bucket, budget-wise.

but re: your handwringing on the unintended consequences, free college doesn't mean guaranteed college. public universities are already at capacity so i don't see how 2-3x more kids will flood into those schools.

First, they won't be a drop in the bucket budget wise. Second our budget is busting at the seams as it is. Third, states can't print money - so busting their budgets as well is a pretty bad thing, no?

Now, if Bernie came back and said he was going to cut the military and other programs to fund this and not have an unfunded mandate to the states - then count me in.

dckingsfan wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:To me - Trump's military budgets and tax cuts that have whacked our budget are the number #3 reason that he needs to go.

But let's do some back of the napkin math on Bernie's plan - free four year college tuition for all. First, only 20% of high-school students attend a 4 year university - so, would kids want to go to school if it was free? Double or triple? That is the first unintended consequence.

Total expenditures on higher education were about ~575B of which ~$375B was spent at public universities. So, Bernie's plan is only a fraction of higher ed. That will of course grow to cover everyone. And that is the second unintended consequence of Bernie's plan.

Bernie's plan has the federal government funding 2/3 and states funding 1/3. But we all know that will grow increasing an unfunded federal mandate (Bernie BTW is terrific at supporting that kind of legislation - and he was one of the key sponsors for the current bill - still don't see why he hasn't come out publicly and said he made a mistake there). Anyway, third unintended consequence.

BTW, I would totally be good cutting the military by that amount for higher ed. But I would much prefer that the Federal government gets out of higher ed and reduces the federal deficit instead.

well the point is that these massive, game-changing, culture-shifting social programs are drops in the bucket, budget-wise.

but re: your handwringing on the unintended consequences, free college doesn't mean guaranteed college. public universities are already at capacity so i don't see how 2-3x more kids will flood into those schools.

First, they won't be a drop in the bucket budget wise. Second our budget is busting at the seams as it is. Third, states can't print money - so busting their budgets as well is a pretty bad thing, no?

Now, if Bernie came back and said he was going to cut the military and other programs to fund this and not have an unfunded mandate to the states - then count me in.

Bernie does want to add a Wall Street tax to pay for this program.

This Wall Street speculation tax will raise $2.4 trillion over the next ten years. It works by placing a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades – 50 cents on every $100 of stock – a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades.

↑↑↑↑↑

Which IMO is another bad idea - just fix the tax code and have earned income taxed at the same rate as investment income.

You know, he was the same guy that was sooooo for the guaranteed student loan bill. Instead of trying to be cleaver - just do it the right way.

Which kind of brings me to my next point - he broke it, so now he is the right guy to fix it?

Note: I would still want him to fix it over Trump.

dckingsfan wrote:↑↑↑↑↑

Which IMO is another bad idea - just fix the tax code and have earned income taxed at the same rate as investment income.

You know, he was the same guy that was sooooo for the guaranteed student loan bill. Instead of trying to be cleaver - just do it the right way.

Which kind of brings me to my next point - he broke it, so now he is the right guy to fix it?

Note: I would still want him to fix it over Trump.

Bernie... yeah... I'm willing to give Warren more chances because she's done some good and some bad and at least on the surface appears to be learning from her mistakes. Whether or not she will learn enough, or even if learning from her mistakes will do any good is up for debate but that's something that I look for in a candidate. Bernie just doesn't adapt, or adapts about as slow as glass flows. And yes, Bernie is still better than Trump by miles, there are jus tso many better options out there.

And taxing wall street is tricky. I tend to be more for simplicity there. I'm not against taxing wall street quite a bit more than it's taxed right now but I want it to be a straightforward tax that can't easily be loopholed. Wall street is very good at paying the best tax people to switch sides and find loopholes for them. Make it simple and as easy to enforce as possible and then focus on enforcing it. And making that a part of fixing the broader tax code really should be a thing, even though it's clear I have a slightly different take than you there I don't feel we're so far apart on the issue, either.

I think a very nominal transaction tax on shares of stock would be a good thing.

dobrojim wrote:I think a very nominal transaction tax on shares of stock would be a good thing.

Many unintended consequences of that... just fix the damn tax code.

So much for ISIS being 'nearly 100%' defeated...

dckingsfan wrote:To me - Trump's military budgets and tax cuts that have whacked our budget are the number #3 reason that he needs to go.

But let's do some back of the napkin math on Bernie's plan - free four year college tuition for all. First, only 20% of high-school students attend a 4 year university - so, would kids want to go to school if it was free? Double or triple? That is the first unintended consequence.

Total expenditures on higher education were about ~575B of which ~$375B was spent at public universities. So, Bernie's plan is only a fraction of higher ed. That will of course grow to cover everyone. And that is the second unintended consequence of Bernie's plan.

Bernie's plan has the federal government funding 2/3 and states funding 1/3. But we all know that will grow increasing an unfunded federal mandate (Bernie BTW is terrific at supporting that kind of legislation - and he was one of the key sponsors for the current bill - still don't see why he hasn't come out publicly and said he made a mistake there). Anyway, third unintended consequence.

BTW, I would totally be good cutting the military by that amount for higher ed. But I would much prefer that the Federal government gets out of higher ed and reduces the federal deficit instead.

I'm not even sure I support what I'm about to suggest, but I do think that Bernie would at least have a more logical ground to stand on if he were to also argue for effectively limited spots. Don't allow for simply free education for its own sake but tailor it to labor market needs and academic performance. It won't solve all the problems because there is already a major disparity in educational outcomes before that point based on wealth but partially removing education as effectively an economic barrier to shut down lower classes while tailoring the education system towards labor market needs would help a lot.

Heck, he also seems to love getting businesses to pay more or whatever - I'm sure he could find a way to not let them off the hook by having the state essentially train workers for them so they don't have to. The private sector has slowly offloaded that cost onto the public sector over centuries now and we see far fewer apprenticeships and even the ones we see or often supported. Bernie isn't going that way, though, and I really wish that somewhere over the decades he'd have considered something a little different than essentially stretching out school an increasing number of years. The biggest unintended consequence of what he's proposing is that we will ultimately see the evolution of yet another level of education that somehow comes at an incredible personal cost which allows the wealthy to basically cordon off specific job markets from poorer classes through some institutional barrier that effectively makes it much less accessible to others.

dobrojim wrote:I think a very nominal transaction tax on shares of stock would be a good thing.

Yeah, especially for quaunts and derivative trading which may ultimately have very little value added to the economy.

pancakes3 wrote:https://thehill.com/latino/456566-immigration-agents-arrest-680-mississippi-food-processing-facilities

what the f are we doing? how does this reduce drugs/crime?

It literally does nothing but to get the fear boners of the right wing racist base going. And notice how there won’t be any significant penalty for the facilities owners and operators? I guarantee that right wingers don’t see the irony of a Koch owned plant hiring undocumented workers.

Trump probably going to tweet about the Pentagon tonight.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-blames-trump-for-return-of-isis-syria-and-iraq-2019-8

I'd really like to see politicians focus their attention on common sense legislation that actually benefits society.

I mean what has become of the FCC? I mean it's amazing to me how lax our culture has become. Trying to watch TV with your kids , and I'm talking during the day , not late night or even prime time, sex innuendo and profanity, ridiculous violence, commercials about ED and herpes , drug abuse. I mean this stuff used to be regulated. I mean everyone is inundated at such a large volume and at such young ages nowadays , no wonder people are desensitized and treat people rude. You can't pump your gas without someone blasting inappropriate music, or drive without someone cutting you off.

It is a chain reaction which is just growing with increased rudeness and animosity to each other. Young people only care about their phones and don't respect elderly. People have no respect for themselves or each other. They go out in public wearing pajamas and talking profanity with kids around and don't care. There is an erosion of common sense and respect of how you act in public. Nobody cares anymore.

They need to reinstate the FCC. They need to lower speed limits and enforce Jay walking, and stop people throwing trash out their window, and make the test harder to get drivers license because many people are on the road who don't know how to drive. And people need to get their face out of the phone and look at each other and talk to live people.

Stop cussing, stop talking about ED, show some respect for yourself, take a bath or shower, build more playgrounds, clean up the trash, stop driving like an idiot, read a book, and have a conversation with an old person. We can make this a better place and we can all get along if you just have some respect for your neighborhood and you neighbors. We are all brothers and sisters and a big family.

Government needs to focus on these principles. Make our schools better, fix the roads, pick up the trash, lower the speed limits, keep people safe, and stop all the arguing and name calling. And remove all the R rated stuff on TV before 10 pm like it used to be. Otherwise we will continue to spiral into a increasing mess of rudeness and inappropriate behavior to each other and nobody will care.

SUPERBALLMAN wrote:I'd really like to see politicians focus their attention on common sense legislation that actually benefits society.

I mean what has become of the FCC? I mean it's amazing to me how lax our culture has become. Trying to watch TV with your kids , and I'm talking during the day , not late night or even prime time, sex innuendo and profanity, ridiculous violence, commercials about ED and herpes , drug abuse. I mean this stuff used to be regulated. I mean everyone is inundated at such a large volume and at such young ages nowadays , no wonder people are desensitized and treat people rude. You can't pump your gas without someone blasting inappropriate music, or drive without someone cutting you off.

It is a chain reaction which is just growing with increased rudeness and animosity to each other. Young people only care about their phones and don't respect elderly. People have no respect for themselves or each other. They go out in public wearing pajamas and talking profanity with kids around and don't care. There is an erosion of common sense and respect of how you act in public. Nobody cares anymore.

They need to reinstate the FCC. They need to lower speed limits and enforce Jay walking, and stop people throwing trash out their window, and make the test harder to get drivers license because many people are on the road who don't know how to drive. And people need to get their face out of the phone and look at each other and talk to live people.

Stop cussing, stop talking about ED, show some respect for yourself, take a bath or shower, build more playgrounds, clean up the trash, stop driving like an idiot, read a book, and have a conversation with an old person. We can make this a better place and we can all get along if you just have some respect for your neighborhood and you neighbors. We are all brothers and sisters and a big family.

Government needs to focus on these principles. Make our schools better, fix the roads, pick up the trash, lower the speed limits, keep people safe, and stop all the arguing and name calling. And remove all the R rated stuff on TV before 10 pm like it used to be. Otherwise we will continue to spiral into a increasing mess of rudeness and inappropriate behavior to each other and nobody will care.

Amen brother.

SUPERBALLMAN wrote:I'd really like to see politicians focus their attention on common sense legislation that actually benefits society.

I mean what has become of the FCC? I mean it's amazing to me how lax our culture has become. Trying to watch TV with your kids , and I'm talking during the day , not late night or even prime time, sex innuendo and profanity, ridiculous violence, commercials about ED and herpes , drug abuse. I mean this stuff used to be regulated. I mean everyone is inundated at such a large volume and at such young ages nowadays , no wonder people are desensitized and treat people rude. You can't pump your gas without someone blasting inappropriate music, or drive without someone cutting you off.

It is a chain reaction which is just growing with increased rudeness and animosity to each other. Young people only care about their phones and don't respect elderly. People have no respect for themselves or each other. They go out in public wearing pajamas and talking profanity with kids around and don't care. There is an erosion of common sense and respect of how you act in public. Nobody cares anymore.

They need to reinstate the FCC. They need to lower speed limits and enforce Jay walking, and stop people throwing trash out their window, and make the test harder to get drivers license because many people are on the road who don't know how to drive. And people need to get their face out of the phone and look at each other and talk to live people.

Stop cussing, stop talking about ED, show some respect for yourself, take a bath or shower, build more playgrounds, clean up the trash, stop driving like an idiot, read a book, and have a conversation with an old person. We can make this a better place and we can all get along if you just have some respect for your neighborhood and you neighbors. We are all brothers and sisters and a big family.

Government needs to focus on these principles. Make our schools better, fix the roads, pick up the trash, lower the speed limits, keep people safe, and stop all the arguing and name calling. And remove all the R rated stuff on TV before 10 pm like it used to be. Otherwise we will continue to spiral into a increasing mess of rudeness and inappropriate behavior to each other and nobody will care.

Hmm...sounds like regulation. Rs aren't going to like that.

Kanyewest wrote:

dobrojim wrote:I think a very nominal transaction tax on shares of stock would be a good thing.

Yeah, especially for quaunts and derivative trading which may ultimately have very little value added to the economy.

Another idea along those lines but not really: put a federal excise tax on marijuana. There's obviously no law that says you can't tax something that's illegal - though it certainly would raise the tax revenue if they legalize it - federally... which leads to my next suggestion... legalize it! Yeah, some states are legalizing it to various extents, but there's the pesky federal laws that gets in the way sometimes.

Ruzious wrote:

Kanyewest wrote:

dobrojim wrote:I think a very nominal transaction tax on shares of stock would be a good thing.

Yeah, especially for quaunts and derivative trading which may ultimately have very little value added to the economy.

Another idea along those lines but not really: put a federal excise tax on marijuana. There's obviously no law that says you can't tax something that's illegal - though it certainly would raise the tax revenue if they legalize it - federally... which leads to my next suggestion... legalize it! Yeah, some states are legalizing it to various extents, but there's the pesky federal laws that gets in the way sometimes.

Agree with this.
1) Make marijuana legal like alcohol
2) Tax marijuana like alcohol
3) Let everyone out of prison (both federal and state) that have anything to do with the use of marijuana

And then fix the damn tax code so we don't think about nibbling at the edges on new taxes

i'm curious as to what you mean by "fix the damn tax code" other than taxing capital gains and income at the same rate