[Al_U_Card]

ldrews, on 2017-June-30, 16:38, said:

And how is politics different?

It relies on personal preference (bias) to determine "success". OUR candidate is right and THEIR candidate is wrong. The all or nothing vote count determines the "winner", right or wrong.

[mike777]

awm, on 2017-July-01, 08:48, said:

No schools are being shut down. All we are doing is protecting government investment -- something which used to be a Republican priority, before they moved on to funneling money into the pockets of the already-wealthy by any means possible.

We have in place a system of government loans, where the federal government loans money to college students so they can get their degree. This program costs the taxpayers very little as long as most recipients pay the government back with interest. Having such a system is very good for the economy, allowing people from middle-class (and below) backgrounds to get appropriate education and training to be competitive.

However, in order to protect this system we must make sure that the recipients of these loans are attending programs and institutions where they are actually gaining useful skills, and that they will be able to pay back the loan with a reasonable probability. We don't want to just hand over government money to scam institutions (i.e. Trump University) -- doing this will be terrible for the students (who now have huge debt along with a useless degree) and for taxpayers (who are now on the hook for the money which won't get repaid). So we need to make sure our government-backed student loans are going to students who are learning something legitimate.

All the system described does, is to evaluate the average salaries and total debt of the graduates of various programs, and refuse to issue government loans to programs where the salaries of graduates do not justify the expense. Note that even legitimate and prestigious institutions have fallen afoul of this (one of the programs named was at HARVARD). Of course the institutions are not shut down, the programs need not be eliminated. But some of these institutions are basically scams -- profiting almost solely by sucking up federal government "loan" money in order to give useless diplomas to poor people looking for a leg up. Once the federal government declines to fund such programs they have little choice but to shut down (a recent example being ITT Tech).

I agree that a lot of these student loans do indeed seem to be scams. The next big financial scandal may very well be the taxpayer not getting their money back from the students. It looks like roughly half the loans are in trouble of not being paid back.

As you rightly point out shutting down some of these nonprofit colleges which fail students is very difficult if not impossible. The good news is that the failing for profit schools are easier much easier to destroy the bad news is the nonprofit schools are protected and almost impossible to destroy. Another issue seems to be a growing problem of students getting these loans and not going to class and blowing the loan money.

"Outstanding student loan debt is now the second largest form of consumer debt, but about half of the $1 trillion in student loan debt isn't being repaid because the borrowers are struggling to make payments, according to an analysis released Monday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"

-----

The answer to the problem may be to simply have the feds pay all and I do mean all the costs of college and not worry about whether the students graduate or not. That way the teachers can pretend to teach and the students can pretend to learn...win win

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-30, 20:33, said:

You obviously can't answer the initial question - how will Trump's agenda solve the problems of the U.S.A - so you try to change the direction of the thread.

I didn't vote for Trump and do not support him. You claim to be his supporter. I'm asking you why you supported him - how is his agenda going to make this country better?

You are right, I can't answer how will Trump's agenda solve the problems. But the current system seems to be failing rapidly. Doing nothing doesn't seem like a solution. How would you solve the problem?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 11:01, said:

You are right, I can't answer how will Trump's agenda solve the problems. But the current system seems to be failing rapidly. Doing nothing doesn't seem like a solution. How would you solve the problem?

I believe that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Putting Trump in charge is like finding yourself in a hole and hiring an excavation team to see if you really can make it to China.

I believe in adult solutions to adult problems, meaning that nothing moves quickly when the government is purposefully at odds. Compromise seldom leads to grand bargains but to incremental change. I don't expect a single payer healthcare system in the next 40 years, but that does not mean the the Affordable Care Act - initially a Republican think-tank idea - cannot be adopted as a working model and improved upon. To do what the Republicans did - demonizing a plan that their own think tank originated - is childish and to continue to try to undo it as a change in "healthcare" is disingenuous; the Republicans want a tax cut for the wealthy as a result of taking government out of the healthcare equation.

I think we spend too much of our countries wealth appeasing the military industrial complex and defense department. I believe the national debt needs to be reduced, but this is not a crisis that requires immediate desperate action.

I believe voting should be made easier and simpler to accomplish, not more difficult.

But the most pressing problem by far is the redistribution of wealth that has left the top 1% with virtually all of the productivity gains of the past 40 years. Without a strong and vibrant middle class, there will be no great America again. And the middle class does not spring automatically from an economic system that is designed around a zero sum game of winners and losers. It can't. That zero-sum game must be forced into supporting those who lose the game or can't compete equally.

This is why I supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Hillary understood that change is incremental, that what is started today may not come to fruition in our lifetimes. In other words, she talked as an adult to other adults.

Donald Trump made empty promises and empty threats, appealing to those who have not outgrown their teenage insecurities and anger.

[Al_U_Card]

Quo vadis Hesperades?

Trump appealed to insecurity and anger.

Clinton appealed to idealism and fear?

I suppose that Sanders appealed to intellectualism and regret...

As I recently heard on the 2nd season of "Mr. Robot", "Politics is for puppets!"

Can the USA continue its Imperial imperative or will the BRICs dislodge the dollar as commercial coercion? As long as the banks have the US taxpayers as underwriters of their largesse, the US should remain on top. Remove or alter that relationship significantly and ...

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-01, 14:25, said:

But the most pressing problem by far is the redistribution of wealth that has left the top 1% with virtually all of the productivity gains of the past 40 years. Without a strong and vibrant middle class, there will be no great America again. And the middle class does not spring automatically from an economic system that is designed around a zero sum game of winners and losers. It can't. That zero-sum game must be forced into supporting those who lose the game or can't compete equally.

This is why I supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Hillary understood that change is incremental, that what is started today may not come to fruition in our lifetimes. In other words, she talked as an adult to other adults.

Donald Trump made empty promises and empty threats, appealing to those who have not outgrown their teenage insecurities and anger.

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income? In my opinion it is due to "regulatory capture". When you put more power into the government, the government then becomes a major prize to be won by the highest bidder. As long as political campaigns cost money, politicians will be susceptible to bribes in one form or another. You want better distribution of incomes, then significantly reduce the size and reach of government. Of course it will be less equal, but better distributed. Not everyone but the 1% will be poor. But can you accept such inequality? Or would you prefer what is happening now, a trend toward everyone being equally poor except for the 1%?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 16:36, said:

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income?

I said wealth. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Productivity gains used to be shared, albeit not perfectly proportionately, among labor, management, and ownership. That stopped being the case, starting with the redistribution of wealth that occurred under Reagan and Greenspan and has continued since.

Quote

You want better distribution of incomes, then significantly reduce the size and reach of government. Of course it will be less equal, but better distributed.

I can't imagine how greater inequality equates to better distribution. Sounds like something from either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-01, 19:06, said:

I said wealth. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Productivity gains used to be shared, albeit not perfectly proportionately, among labor, management, and ownership. That stopped being the case, starting with the redistribution of wealth that occurred under Reagan and Greenspan and has continued since.



I can't imagine how greater inequality equates to better distribution. Sounds like something from either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

If everyone has nothing then equality is perfect,right? Is that preferable to some having more than others?

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 20:03, said:

If everyone has nothing then equality is perfect,right? Is that preferable to some having more than others?

There will always be people who have more than others (no one is promoting pure communism, it's as much a fantasy as trick-down). The question is how much more. The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, that's extremely lopsided.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-July-01, 20:14, said:

There will always be people who have more than others (no one is promoting pure communism, it's as much a fantasy as trick-down). The question is how much more. The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, that's extremely lopsided.

I agree. The question is: what causes or allows to be such lopsideness. Do you think it is just magic or dumb luck, or might there be some natural laws in operation?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 20:03, said:

If everyone has nothing then equality is perfect,right? Is that preferable to some having more than others?

Silly comparison and therefore a silly question.

Here's one for you: which is your favorite Ayn Rand novel?

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-02, 00:07, said:

Silly comparison and therefore a silly question.

Here's one for you: which is your favorite Ayn Rand novel?

Not as stupid as it sounds. If in a communist country, 90% of people have less than 90%+ of yours in a capitalist country, but nobody is being allowed to die of poverty, is that better or worse ? is a valid question.

[awm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 16:36, said:

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income? In my opinion it is due to "regulatory capture".

It's interesting that you post this, because I agree this is a big part of the problem. However, keep in mind who has:

1. Put an international oil company CEO (with no other relevant experience) in charge of foreign policy.
2. Put a big campaign donor (with no other relevant experience) in charge of education policy.
3. Put a banker in charge of the treasury (okay this one has been done before).

Sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me.

And a smaller government won't fix all the problems either. When we had a smaller federal government (back before the Great Depression) big companies basically walked all over their employees, and inequality was quite a bit worse than it is now. The time when productivity gains were shared evenly was roughly 1945-1980, and key features included very high tax rates on the top incomes, more regulation of banks and potential monopolies, cheaper access to education than exists today (mostly funded at the state level), stronger unions in the workplace, and jail time for white collar criminals (rather than fines which are tiny compared to the profits made from the criminal activity).

What we need is cleaner government and not necessarily smaller government. To some extent both parties have been captured by wealthy interests, but the Republican party (whose sole purpose these days seems to be helping out big companies and wealthy individuals by "de-regulating" and reducing their taxes while cutting benefits for poor and middle-class people) is far worse. If we want a "smaller government" why not reduce sentences for non-violent drug offenders? Reduce the size of ICE rather than increasing it? Reduce military spending and waste rather than increasing it? Why not reduce taxes for small business rather than for big business? Why not eliminate subsidies to oil companies? Strengthen the unions so workers don't have to rely on government to enforce their rights? Somehow "reduce the size of government" seems to equate to giving big monopolistic companies free reign. Feudalism is not an improvement over democracy, however flawed democracy might be.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-July-01, 16:36, said:

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income? In my opinion it is due to "regulatory capture". When you put more power into the government, the government then becomes a major prize to be won by the highest bidder. As long as political campaigns cost money, politicians will be susceptible to bribes in one form or another. You want better distribution of incomes, then significantly reduce the size and reach of government. Of course it will be less equal, but better distributed. Not everyone but the 1% will be poor. But can you accept such inequality? Or would you prefer what is happening now, a trend toward everyone being equally poor except for the 1%?

The problem started when we were given the illusion of choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the candidates for President. When you look at the candidates who weren't selected, you can immediately see this is no ordinary marketplace or natural selection process.

Our political markets do not produce natural outcomes because big money, national committees, and big business (corporations) including the 4th estate are gatekeepers who CONTROL the selection of individuals for the candidacy menu! This is dangerous consolidated power that essentially disenfranchises the body politic.

We the people argue over Trump and Clinton but don't really question the system that creates such horrible choices. Why is that?

It is unfair to blame the people for selecting Trump when the broken system produced a final duel between Trump and Clinton. Trump is too inexperienced and allegedly unqualified and Clinton is too corrupt, puppet-like, and familiar. The whole notion that we even open the White House to another potential 8 years of Bill Clinton is antithetical to what our forefathers wanted, envisioned, or designed.

No Former President who served for 8 Years should be in the White House again "just as" First Gentleman. He becomes an unpaid and unseen Senior Adviser to the President who influences her policy making. The optics alone smack of malfeasance and corruption. There are term limits for President for a reason. Political dynasties and media corporations have become too strong when they can influence outcomes and our menu choices this way.

It's the illusion of choice. We are witnessing the "unnatural selection" of our menu choices for the highest office by those with big money and power. We should be reviewing and questioning HOW did we get this crazy menu in the 1st place.

[y66]

From Trump Fails To Reach Beyond Base As Independents' Disapproval Grows by Jessica Taylor:

Quote

President Trump's support among independent voters has eroded since he took office. Though he still clings to a loyal base of supporters, his overall disapproval among Americans has reached record highs, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Just 37 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing just over five months into his tenure, while 51 percent disapprove. Forty percent of those polled strongly disapprove of Trump's performance, twice the 20 percent who strongly approved.

The most pronounced swing seen in the poll was among independents. Over the past four months, their approval of the president has dissipated. In February, 40 percent of independents said they approved of the job Trump was doing, with 51 percent disapproving. Four months later in June, just 31 percent say they approve of the president with 59 percent of independents disapproving — a 17-point net-negative drop.

Despite almost full employment nationwide, independents are particularly dissatisfied with Trump on the economy. That's likely driving much of their overall disapproval. Just 31 percent of independents say they have confidence in Trump's ability to improve the U.S. economy, while 49 percent doubt he can do so. Just three months ago, 44 percent thought Trump could turn around the economy, while 38 percent didn't — a whiplash-worthy 24-point swing.

Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said the scope of the shift over the past few months among independents should cause "alarm bells to go off" at the White House.

"Independents were certainly willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he entered office," Miringoff said, "but on issues like the direction of the country and the economy, they've really soured on him. It's hard for someone like him to make a second impression. Independents have come to the conclusion that what you see is what you get."

The good news for Trump is that his base hasn't abandoned him even as he has faced mounting investigations. Eighty percent of Republicans still approve of the job he is doing, including 91 percent who identify as strong Republicans. Trump has an 89 percent approval rating among those who voted for him last November. He has a 65 percent approval rating among white evangelical Christians, though almost a quarter disapprove of the job he is doing.

Still, there are some warning signs for the president among some of his key demographic groups. Only 52 percent of white, non-college-educated Americans approve of the job he's doing, though just 37 percent disapprove. And that is higher than most other subgroups. More worrisome for the president, among older Americans, 60 and older, he's underwater — 47 percent disapprove, while 43 percent approve.

Overall, Americans' outlook under Trump is dismal. Almost double say the country is on the wrong track as those who think it's on the right track, 61 percent to 31 percent, a gap that has nearly doubled since February.

More people say they feel worse off — 40 percent — since Trump took office, than better off — 34 percent. There is a deep partisan divide on that question, of course — 73 percent of Republicans say they're better off, while 67 percent of Democrats say the opposite. Among independents, far more — 44 percent — say they're worse off, compared with just 27 percent who say they're better off.

Americans also think Trump has hurt the country on the global stage. Fifty-eight percent say the president has weakened the United States' position abroad, while 34 percent say he has strengthened it.

In addition, by a 24-point margin, Americans believe former President Barack Obama was, by far, a more effective leader in comparison to Trump, 58 percent to 34 percent. Among independents, there is an even more pronounced 36-point difference, 65 percent to 29 percent.

A narrow plurality do think Trump is keeping his campaign promises (48 percent who do and 45 percent who don't), but most people disagree with some of the president's recent decisions. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they opposed Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accord earlier this month, while just 30 percent supported it.

Just over half of Americans also think the Supreme Court should rule against Trump's travel ban, which would curtail the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries, while 43 percent say the high court should rule in the president's favor and allow him to proceed with one of his key campaign promises. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) also think the court should strike down the ban.

There is a cloud of suspicion that hangs over the president as well, with mounting questions about his business ties that are only compounded by his continued refusal to release his tax returns. More than 6 in 10 Americans say they believe Trump has either done something illegal (33 percent) or unethical but not illegal (28 percent). Just 31 percent say they believe he has done nothing wrong.

One place where Trump is losing GOP support is over his Twitter habit. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say Trump's use of Twitter is "reckless and distracting," while only 21 percent say it's "effective and informative." Even among Republicans, only a narrow plurality (43 percent) say the president's use of Twitter is positive, while 42 percent agree it's reckless and distracting.

And while Americans have a sour view of Trump, their opinion of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — is no better. Congressional Republicans have a 33-point net-negative approval rating (28 percent to 61 percent) while congressional Democrats are not much better with a 27-point net-negative approval (30 percent to 57 percent).

"Nobody is benefiting in Washington from what is going on," Miringoff said.

Looking ahead to the 2018 midterms, registered voters say they're more likely to vote for a Democratic member of Congress over a Republican one by a 10-point margin, 48 percent to 38 percent.

But, with a gerrymandered congressional map that benefits the GOP, that double-digit advantage is less imposing than it may seem and may not be enough to help Democrats win back the House.

What's more, as they learned in last week's special-election loss in a Georgia House race, making the election too much about Trump isn't necessarily a silver bullet, either.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-01, 19:06, said:

I said wealth. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Productivity gains used to be shared, albeit not perfectly proportionately, among labor, management, and ownership. That stopped being the case, starting with the redistribution of wealth that occurred under Reagan and Greenspan and has continued since.

This has nothing to do with republicans. It's the new information tech. 5% of the population is of real value. They are mostly democrats and they are getting all the money. Zuckerburg says in the near future robots will replace 50% of the workforce.

Old rules no longer apply. The govt must provide income to the useless 50%.

[Al_U_Card]

Somewhat reminiscent of "The 400". The ratio is likely less but there are now more of the "1%". (But the 0.01% are likely the same with the rest being more "nouveau riche".)

Wealth indeed. Income is a measure of value to society/corporatism. (CEO vs. worker) and with our current "industrial" status more electronic than actual, the artisans are harder to identify.
Wealth also includes health and prospects. Poverty is not just measured by $$$.

[PassedOut]

The Post has a good read about how a Muslim doctor in Minnesota is dealing with the ugliness of Trump's election: ‘Love Thy Neighbor?’

Quote

The morning after the election, he was shocked and angry, and when he looked up the local results before he went to work, the feelings only intensified. Not only had Trump won the county, he had won Dawson itself by six percentage points.

By the time he got to the hospital, he was pacing up and down the hallways, saying he hoped people realized that they just voted to put his family on a Muslim registry, and how would he be treated around here if he didn’t have “M.D.” after his name? People tried to reason with him. A colleague told him it’s not that people agreed with everything Trump said, and Ayaz said no, you’re giving them a pass. He told the hospital’s chief executive that he was thinking of resigning, and she told him to take some days to cool off.

He and Musarrat talked about what to do. He began investigating a job in Dubai. He spoke to his brother in Florida, an investment adviser, who had received a fax after the election that read, “Get the f--- out of my country you Muslim pig,” and was moving to Canada. Musarrat kept thinking about the time after Sept. 11 when a man had chased her with a baseball bat, yelling about her headscarf.

Nothing like that had happened in Dawson, but the Virjis began feeling differently about the town. They wondered whether the people who had seemed so warm were secretly harboring hateful thoughts or suspicions about them. Musarrat told Ayaz that she noticed more silence from certain friends. Ayaz was stopped on a sidewalk by a woman who said, “Jesus loves you,” and wondered what would happen if he said, “Muhammad loves you.” Another day, he ran into a patient who told him that a lot of farmers had voted for Trump because of sky-high health insurance premiums, not because of “anything racial,” and please, no one wants you to go.

Ayaz wasn’t sure whether to believe that. But he and Musarrat decided to stay, at least for the time being, and he tried to transform his anger into understanding. Maybe people really didn’t know, he told himself. Maybe people were suffering in ways he didn’t understand. Not long after that, a patient of his named Mandy France, a pastor in training at Grace Lutheran, asked if he might be willing to give a talk about Islam to the community. She said she’d been horrified by some of the things she’d heard people saying about Muslims in her prayer group.

And, after that

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-July-02, 00:31, said:

Not as stupid as it sounds. If in a communist country, 90% of people have less than 90%+ of yours in a capitalist country, but nobody is being allowed to die of poverty, is that better or worse ? is a valid question.

No, it was silly because I could easily add a third option to the false dichotomy: what about everyone having an equal amount? Is that better or worse?

None of the all/some questions are relevant because they deal with non-realities. Even your example (for which you site no data other than your own guess of distribution in a communist country?), is flawed because it doesn't answer the none/some question posed. And furthermore, my own suggestion is silly because there will never be perfect equality.

Playing mind/word games may win points in some online debates, but it does nothing to resolve the real problems caused by wealth inequality.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-02, 10:50, said:

No, it was silly because I could easily add a third option to the false dichotomy: what about everyone having an equal amount? Is that better or worse?

That is plain silly. People are inherently unequal in talents, energy, creativity. So the results of their efforts are unequal. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is for the government to step in and take from those that produce/have more and give to those who produce/have less.

One of the foundations of US civilization if equality before the law. Historically that has been what is meant by "all citizens are created equal".