As conservatives foam at the mouth about appeasement, the recent agreement with Iran (full text available here) reads less like appeasement and more like Nixon's pivot to China. The president himself has channeled Ronald Reagan using Gip's "Trust but verify" line but the comparisons to China are closer to objective reality.
China was a pretty awful country on a number of levels when Nixon went to China and already had a small cache of nuclear weapons. Nixon gambled that bringing China into the world economic community would tame their more militaristic intentions. He was right. Making money in a global economy based on capitalism using tends to chill people out. This is exactly what President Obama thinks will happen with Iran.
With sanctions set to fall apart anyway, this was the best route to take even though it isn't a perfect deal. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon in the next decade. Take note of how criticism of the deal is now centered on Iran being able to fund terrorism not get a nuclear weapon. That speaks volumes...
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Jeb! Wants Us to Work!
Last week Jeb! Bush said that Americans need to work more hours to get our economy to grow at 4%.
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
Since 2000 average Americans are working 25% harder for no more money.
So the question is, what incentive do Americans have to work even harder? From 2000 to 2012 the wages of real working Americans did not go up, while productivity (the thing Jeb! wants us to crank up), increased from a relative base of 100 in 2000 to 124.9 in 2012.All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
| Tax rate ordinary income | Single | Tax rate on capital gains | |
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $9,225.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $9,225.00 | $37,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $37,450.00 | $90,750.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $90,750.00 | $189,300.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $189,300.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $413,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $413,200.00 | 20.00% | |
| Married filing jointly / Qualifying widow or widower |
|||
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $18,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $18,450.00 | $74,900.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $74,900.00 | $151,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $151,200.00 | $230,450.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $230,450.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $464,850.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $464,850.00 | 20.00% | |
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
Predictable Responses
Now that an agreement has been reached with Iran regarding its nuclear technology, bowels are being blown all over conservative land. The race to see who can denounce it best is on! The responses have been all too predictable and I have to wonder if people are even paying attention to what conservatives are saying anymore. It's always the same "Obama succeeded again so we have to act like 8 year olds" response. I mean, have they even read the agreement yet? How can they denounce it?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
Monday, July 13, 2015
The False Flag Candidate?
Donald Trump is leading the Republican presidential race in many national polls. He's doing this by espousing the most cliched Republican memes, becoming the very caricature of a conservative that Democrats love to ridicule.
Many are speculating that Trump will drag the Republican Party into such a deep, dark hole that they'll never be able to crawl out of it. The consensus is that Trump can never be president; far too many Republicans despise the man.
The question is, why is Trump doing this?
Unquestionably because he's a greedy narcissist who thrives on attention. In that way he's the same as the other 20 Republicans running for the nomination.
But Trump's "campaign" is costing him real money. He doesn't have billionaires like the Koch brothers pumping money into his Super PAC. Many of his business deals have been sunk because of his comments. If he's as brilliant as he tells us he is, he must have some ulterior motive.
Trump's right-wing credentials are called into question by conservatives who are capable of remembering anything that happened before the last Indy 500:
“I truly, honestly, and with all my heart and mind think Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters are making a yuuuuuuge mistake. I think they are being conned and played,” Jonah Goldberg, the author of Liberal Fascism, wrote. “I feel like a guy whose brother is being taken advantage of by a grifter. I’m watching helplessly as the con artist congratulates him for taking out a third mortgage.”They cite his Ivy Leauge and Manhattan background, his previous support for abortion, immigration, assault weapons bans, government health care, as well as his backing of Democratic politicians.
Other National Review writers concurred. “Donald Trump has been a conservative for about ten minutes,” Jim Geraghty wrote.
Sometimes, as people age they become more conservative -- whether that's due to the wisdom of age, an inability to adapt to the new realities of a changing society, or atherosclerosis is still open to debate. So maybe Trump is sincere in his racism and intolerance.
On the other hand, there's speculation that Trump is running a false-flag campaign: he's pretending to run for president to sabotage the rest of the Republican field with his outlandish stances.
If so, Trump wouldn't be the first to fool conservatives. Comedian Stephen Colbert is famous for duping conservative viewers with his parody of conservative talking heads like Bill O'Reilly.
I guess we'll find out if Trump is punking Republicans when he announces his running mate:
Seventeen Now!
It looks as though former Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore, is going to fill up the GOP clown car even further and throw his hat into the 2016 presidential race. That makes seventeen candidates now on the GOP side and five candidates now on the Democratic side. AP News has a piece up about why there are so many people running on the GOP side.
Personally, I think it's a vanity thing combined with that white trash reality show dealio that conservatives just can't resist. I suppose the fact that being a conservative is part of a cottage industry as well. Being all loud and shouty about librals makes some good cash!!
Personally, I think it's a vanity thing combined with that white trash reality show dealio that conservatives just can't resist. I suppose the fact that being a conservative is part of a cottage industry as well. Being all loud and shouty about librals makes some good cash!!
Sunday, July 12, 2015
A Deeply Attractive Man
Donald Trump is on a roll. His recent speeches in Las Vegas and Arizona were extremely well attended by the conservative base. Ol' Sheriff Joe Arpaio had the honor of introducing the Donald at the Arizona speech, even taking the time to bring up that tried and true chestnut from the past-the president's birth certificate.
There's been quite a bit of talk about how Trump isn't a real Republican and is just doing this to promote himself. Yet if you take a look at him, the constant fear peddling, anger and hate that emits from his yap makes him a PERFECT representation of conservatives today. Combine that with his self centeredness on steroids, his wealth, and his titanic hubris and, if you are a conservative, what's not to like? Truly, a deeply attractive man...:)
There are a couple of interesting pieces on Trump that have popped up this week. The first comes from Paul Rosenberg over at salon.com who widens out the discussion to include Sanders and a broader look at what American voters want.
Subsequent research has intensified this division. Conservatives win by making broad, sweeping appeals, which can often have little relationship with the facts (Iraq’s WMDs, “voter fraud,” global warming denialism, etc.). Liberals win by focusing on how to fix specific problems. Thus “government spending” in general is seen as a negative, but spending on most specific programs is strongly supported. The pattern is clear: The more practical the question, the more liberal the answers. That’s just how U.S. politics works.
Yep.
Kevin Williamson at the National Review has looked at Trump and decided a new term was in order-the WHINO.
You know the RINO — Republican In Name Only — but you may be less familiar with the WHINO. The WHINO is a captive of the populist Right’s master narrative, which is the tragic tale of the holy, holy base, the victory of which would be entirely assured if not for the machinations of the perfidious Establishment.
The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.
This certainly explains why there is so much division among conservatives. And why they can't win national elections. Williamson has a great take on an argument I've heard many times from some conservatives.
I did an interview with Matthew Boyle of Breitbart Radio, a nice enough guy but a pretty good example of the WHINO style in American politics. What about Romney? Boyle demanded. Romney, he said with absolute assurance, lost to Barack Obama because millions of conservatives stayed home, finding him insufficiently committed to their cause.
The first aspect of what is wrong with this analysis is obvious: It assumes that a “real conservative” who couldn’t beat Mitt Romney in a Republican primary dominated by “real conservatives” would have defeated Barack Obama in a national election not dominated by conservatives at all, i.e. that Romney was the weakest candidate except for all the guys who couldn’t beat him. But the defects in this analysis do not stop there. I am not sure that the psephology actually says what the WHINOs think it does, but even if it were so, the further problem with this line of thinking is obvious: If you are a conservative, and if you believe that the way to reform American public policy is to elect conservatives, and you arrived at Election Day believing that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were, from the conservative point of view, interchangeable commodities, then you are either a fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed.
We must give some consideration to Trump, Breitbart’s Boyle informed me, because he is a vessel for the expression of the base’s frustration. The base should get a hobby.
No shit. But this is exactly how much of the base thinks. And that's why they are supporting Trump.
There's been quite a bit of talk about how Trump isn't a real Republican and is just doing this to promote himself. Yet if you take a look at him, the constant fear peddling, anger and hate that emits from his yap makes him a PERFECT representation of conservatives today. Combine that with his self centeredness on steroids, his wealth, and his titanic hubris and, if you are a conservative, what's not to like? Truly, a deeply attractive man...:)
There are a couple of interesting pieces on Trump that have popped up this week. The first comes from Paul Rosenberg over at salon.com who widens out the discussion to include Sanders and a broader look at what American voters want.
Subsequent research has intensified this division. Conservatives win by making broad, sweeping appeals, which can often have little relationship with the facts (Iraq’s WMDs, “voter fraud,” global warming denialism, etc.). Liberals win by focusing on how to fix specific problems. Thus “government spending” in general is seen as a negative, but spending on most specific programs is strongly supported. The pattern is clear: The more practical the question, the more liberal the answers. That’s just how U.S. politics works.
Yep.
Kevin Williamson at the National Review has looked at Trump and decided a new term was in order-the WHINO.
You know the RINO — Republican In Name Only — but you may be less familiar with the WHINO. The WHINO is a captive of the populist Right’s master narrative, which is the tragic tale of the holy, holy base, the victory of which would be entirely assured if not for the machinations of the perfidious Establishment.
The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.
This certainly explains why there is so much division among conservatives. And why they can't win national elections. Williamson has a great take on an argument I've heard many times from some conservatives.
I did an interview with Matthew Boyle of Breitbart Radio, a nice enough guy but a pretty good example of the WHINO style in American politics. What about Romney? Boyle demanded. Romney, he said with absolute assurance, lost to Barack Obama because millions of conservatives stayed home, finding him insufficiently committed to their cause.
The first aspect of what is wrong with this analysis is obvious: It assumes that a “real conservative” who couldn’t beat Mitt Romney in a Republican primary dominated by “real conservatives” would have defeated Barack Obama in a national election not dominated by conservatives at all, i.e. that Romney was the weakest candidate except for all the guys who couldn’t beat him. But the defects in this analysis do not stop there. I am not sure that the psephology actually says what the WHINOs think it does, but even if it were so, the further problem with this line of thinking is obvious: If you are a conservative, and if you believe that the way to reform American public policy is to elect conservatives, and you arrived at Election Day believing that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were, from the conservative point of view, interchangeable commodities, then you are either a fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed.
We must give some consideration to Trump, Breitbart’s Boyle informed me, because he is a vessel for the expression of the base’s frustration. The base should get a hobby.
No shit. But this is exactly how much of the base thinks. And that's why they are supporting Trump.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Study Finds That Guns Don't Deter Crime
A recent study by Harvard Medical study finds that higher firearm ownership does not deter crimes. "We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."
Monuteaux and his colleagues wanted to test whether increased gun ownership had any effect on gun homicides, overall homicides and violent gun crimes. They chose firearm robbery and assault, because those crimes are likely to be reported and recorded in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report. Along with that FBI data, the researchers gathered gun ownership rates from surveys in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an ongoing, nationally representative survey in which participants answered questions about gun ownership in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
Using those years and controlling for a slate of demographic factors, from median household income, population density, to age, race and more, the researchers compared crime rates and gun ownership levels state by state. They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant).
Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun.
Monuteaux and his colleagues wanted to test whether increased gun ownership had any effect on gun homicides, overall homicides and violent gun crimes. They chose firearm robbery and assault, because those crimes are likely to be reported and recorded in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report. Along with that FBI data, the researchers gathered gun ownership rates from surveys in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an ongoing, nationally representative survey in which participants answered questions about gun ownership in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
Using those years and controlling for a slate of demographic factors, from median household income, population density, to age, race and more, the researchers compared crime rates and gun ownership levels state by state. They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant).
Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun.
Had We Passed Manchin Toomey...
AmericaBlog has a post up regarding the failure of the antiquated background check system which allowed Dylan Roof to get his gun that eventually killed 9 people in Charleston. It turns out that the gun used in the massacre was not, in fact, a gift from his father. Roof purchased the gun himself.
Had we passed the Manchin Toomey bill in 2013, Roof would have been denied the purchase of a gun and those nine people would still be alive today. Here is the full text of the bill which clearly illustrates the streamlining of the background check system. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the assholes in the Gun Cult are responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Unlike the relatives of the victims, I am unable to forgive so easily.
They're at fault and should be treated accordingly...like any other fucking criminal.
Had we passed the Manchin Toomey bill in 2013, Roof would have been denied the purchase of a gun and those nine people would still be alive today. Here is the full text of the bill which clearly illustrates the streamlining of the background check system. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the assholes in the Gun Cult are responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Unlike the relatives of the victims, I am unable to forgive so easily.
They're at fault and should be treated accordingly...like any other fucking criminal.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Force. Period
The Confederate Flag came down today in South Carolina and I'm certain that plenty of people out there are taking it as some sort of victory. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the way conservatives argue. They set the battle line somewhere on the 5 or 10 yard line on the right side of the field and then "compromise" at the 35 yard line on the right side of the field. Sorry, fuckers, but that ain't gonna cut it with me.
The simple fact that it was up this long is an absolute insult. The Civil War was won 150 years ago and the people that are keeping the Confederacy alive (see: the current form of the GOP base, the Tea Party, Right Wing Bloggers, Gun Rights Douchebags) should be considered in a state of insurrection and in violation of the Constitution. Their constant whining and adolescent rebellion requires what every child throwing a temper tantrum needs: a firm hand.
I'd start with cutting off federal money to the areas of the country that bitch the most about the federal government. The Deep South is a start followed by Texas and Arizona. Cut off their fucking allowance and, like teenagers, see how long they last. In addition, I think that the people who claim they want to improve the gun laws in this country should change their tactics. You can't bring a limp noodle and milktoast to a gun fight. The Gun Cult are assholes and they're armed. How has America dealt with people like this in the past?
Force. Period.
After all, isn't that exactly what they preach when it comes to countries like Iran or Russia and groups like ISIL? The only thing militants understand is force so begin to apply it. The next time there is a shooting at a school, the next group of families that have to suffer as a result of assholes' insecurity and control freak/power syndromes should park a tank on the steps of the NRA headquarters plastered with photos of all their dead children. They should pool their resources with other families who have lost loved ones to gun violence and hire a Blackwater type security team to fuck with gun rights people...in the same way they fuck with Islamic extremists. I'm sure Michael Bloomberg has the money:)
It took the deaths of 9 people in a massacre to pull down a stupid ass flag. Given just how giant of assholes these people are, it's going to take a lot more for serious and substantive change. I mean, we didn't ask kindly with the Nazis, now did we?
The simple fact that it was up this long is an absolute insult. The Civil War was won 150 years ago and the people that are keeping the Confederacy alive (see: the current form of the GOP base, the Tea Party, Right Wing Bloggers, Gun Rights Douchebags) should be considered in a state of insurrection and in violation of the Constitution. Their constant whining and adolescent rebellion requires what every child throwing a temper tantrum needs: a firm hand.
I'd start with cutting off federal money to the areas of the country that bitch the most about the federal government. The Deep South is a start followed by Texas and Arizona. Cut off their fucking allowance and, like teenagers, see how long they last. In addition, I think that the people who claim they want to improve the gun laws in this country should change their tactics. You can't bring a limp noodle and milktoast to a gun fight. The Gun Cult are assholes and they're armed. How has America dealt with people like this in the past?
Force. Period.
After all, isn't that exactly what they preach when it comes to countries like Iran or Russia and groups like ISIL? The only thing militants understand is force so begin to apply it. The next time there is a shooting at a school, the next group of families that have to suffer as a result of assholes' insecurity and control freak/power syndromes should park a tank on the steps of the NRA headquarters plastered with photos of all their dead children. They should pool their resources with other families who have lost loved ones to gun violence and hire a Blackwater type security team to fuck with gun rights people...in the same way they fuck with Islamic extremists. I'm sure Michael Bloomberg has the money:)
It took the deaths of 9 people in a massacre to pull down a stupid ass flag. Given just how giant of assholes these people are, it's going to take a lot more for serious and substantive change. I mean, we didn't ask kindly with the Nazis, now did we?
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Marco Rubio's "New" Idea: Indentured Servitude
It's ironic that as the South Carolina legislature was debating the Confederate battle flag and its status as the emblem of slavery, Marco Rubio is seriously proposing to reinstate a practice that amounted to the same thing, indentured servitude.
What? you say. Surely Nikto has flipped his lid. Nope. Rubio's proposal is exactly like indentured servitude:
Rubio proposed a system in which private investors could pay a student’s tuition in return for a cut of the graduate’s future earnings. In economics circles, the concept is known as “student investment plans,” “human capital contracts,” or "income share agreements."How very 1984 of them to give them such nice names. "Indentured servitude" is more apt. According to Wikipedia:
Indentured servitude was a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years.Replace passage to the New World with college education and working for an employer with a cut of the graduate's future earnings and you have the 21st century version of serfdom.
Why does Rubio think this is needed? Why, it's those evil college cartels. Somehow Harvard, MIT and UCLA are preventing innovative, low-cost competitors from entering the college marketplace.
Except they're not. We've had a plethora of "innovative" private and Internet-based colleges entering the marketplace in the last 10 years. Most of them are scams, like Corinthian Colleges, which declared bankruptcy last May.
The business model of these for-profit colleges is ripping off government-run college grant and loan programs. They enroll students with low self-esteem they know will never graduate, promise them great jobs at fabulous salaries, give them bogus courses that teach nothing, and then laugh all the way to the bank when the students flunk out. Students that actually complete their coursework rarely find the jobs they were promised.
The evil thing about these indentured servitude contracts is that you'd never be able to get out of them. If you take out a student loan, it's possible (though difficult) to declare bankruptcy if you bottom out. These indentures would be impossible to get out of because they would just take a percentage of whatever you earn:
At an event last year at Miami-Dade University, Rubio went into more detail on how such a student investment plan might work.Now, 4% might not sound like a lot. If you got a job as a computer programmer at $50,000 that would be $2,000 a year. But that would go up every year as you got raises. A programmer with five years experience can easily earn $75,000 in some parts of the country. That would be $3,000.
A student who needs $10,000 for tuition makes an agreement with a private investment group to pay the lender 4 percent of their income after graduation for 10 years, regardless of whether this is more or less than $10,000, he said.
But how much would you pay if you borrowed $10,000 with a regular college loan? This financial calculator shows you. If you borrowed $10,000 at 4.66% (the federal student loan rate for 2014-2015), you would pay $1253 a year. That will stay the same no matter how much money you make. Even at 8.5% a regular student loan is a far better deal than the man owning a piece of your ass for a decade.
And of course students won't be borrowing just $10,000. For four years you need anywhere from $40,000 to $200,000 or more, depending on where you want to go to school. Does that mean the investor is going to want 16% to 40% of your salary for the next 10 years? Or 10% or 20% for the next 20 years?
Geeze, it's like Rubio wants to let corporations tax private citizens...
Also, the people "investing" in students are going to dictate what your major is -- they're not going to sign contracts with education, art history and English majors: they're going to demand you major in computer science, engineering, pre-med, pre-law, business administration and so on.
Even creepier, Rubio talks about investors owning a "diversified portfolio" of students. Almost certainly there would be a secondary market where these indentures would be bought and sold, sort of like the derivatives contracts that torpedoed the economy in 2008.
And it would result in exactly the same kind of bubble and bust cycle after a President Rubio gutted the federal student loan program, and "entrepreneurs" signed a bunch of sub-par students, sold off their contracts to some sucker like Lehmann Brothers, who would then collapse when these kids could only find work at Walmart.
(Actually, this makes me wonder how much money private colleges are secretly giving to Rubio's Super PAC...)
If this actually caught on, it wouldn't just be investors taking out these contracts. Companies would want to eliminate the middle man: they'd sign promising students directly out of high school like the NBA does. Instead of owing an investor your salary, you'd owe your employer a chunk of your salary. You would be a literal indentured servant.
There's no question that there's a problem with burdensome college debt loads, especially for doctors who have to go to school for so many years. Creating a new class of indentured servants isn't the answer.
Since corporations are the primary consumer of college grads, companies should pay enough in state taxes to ensure that every student with a part-time job can afford to commute to an in-state public college or university. Hospitals, insurance companies and medical firms should pay a special tax to offset tuition at medical schools.
Tone It Down
Apparently, Reince Priebus had a little convo with the Donald recently and told him to tone it down.
Hee hee, I wonder why...?:)
Hee hee, I wonder why...?:)
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
The Donald That Keeps On Giving
Donald Trump's remarks about Hispanics being all rapey and stealy and stuff has been a real boon for the Democratic party. And the GOP...check out those poll numbers:) Reince Priebus must be just shitting himself right now in anticipation of the debates next month. He probably thought he could dust all that angry and hateful bullshit under the rug after 2012. Less debates was going to be the fix, right? Hee hee, not so much. You can only deny the negative aspects of your ideology for so long before it bites you in the ass with voters. Unless Jeb Bush is the nominee, the GOP can wave buh bye to the Hispanic vote.
Because that first debate on Fox News is going to be an excellent example of just where conservatives stand on Hispanics. They are going to be falling all over themselves to somehow support what the Donald has said. Personally, I can't wait! Combine this gem with six of the 16 (!) candidates running for the GOP nomination getting the cut to accommodate the required 10 slots and there really is a lot to look forward to!!
Because that first debate on Fox News is going to be an excellent example of just where conservatives stand on Hispanics. They are going to be falling all over themselves to somehow support what the Donald has said. Personally, I can't wait! Combine this gem with six of the 16 (!) candidates running for the GOP nomination getting the cut to accommodate the required 10 slots and there really is a lot to look forward to!!
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Illegal Immigrants Working on Trump's Hotel?
Donald Trump made a lot of noise at the announcement of his presidential campaign. But the thing that raised the most attention was his comment about Mexican immigrants:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.Most other Republican candidates have repudiated Trump, except for Ted Cruz, who congratulated Trump for his comments.
The thing is, while Trump is bellowing about illegal immigrants, he's employing them to build his hotel:
Interviews with about 15 laborers helping renovate the Old Post Office Pavilion revealed that many of them had crossed the U.S-Mexico border illegally before they eventually settled in the Washington region to build new lives.Latinos make up about 25% of the construction workforce. It's an open secret that Latino immigrants are widely employed in construction: about 29% are undocumented.
Several of the men, who hail mostly from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, have earned U.S. citizenship or legal status through immigration programs targeting Central Americans fleeing civil wars or natural disasters. Others quietly acknowledged that they remain in the country illegally.
This is especially true in states like Texas, where private-sector unions have been completely dismantled. Companies have little interest in ensuring that construction workers are citizens and documented immigrants: they just want to pay workers as little as possible, and illegal immigrants are willing to work for much less than unionized Americans.
Trump's legal counsel said he will take no responsibility for this situation: he'll just blame the subcontractor.
“Mr. Trump, who is the 100 percent owner of the Old Post Office, hired one of the largest contractors in the world to act as the general contractor,” Cohen said in a telephone interview. “That company is Lend Lease. They then go out and employ subcontractors to work for them. The obligation to check all workers on site is exclusive to Lend Lease. This of course assumes that the assertion regarding the employees’ status is accurate.”In other words, Trump is shocked -- I tell you -- shocked to find out that the Mexicans he insulted in his announcement are the very people building his fancy hotel.
Trump always talks about how smart he is, he brags about being god-damned lying son of a bitch who screws over everyone he does business with. Is his entire presidential campaign nothing more than a bargaining tactic to intimidate construction workers on his sites so he can pay them less?
Monday, July 06, 2015
The Surest Way to Reduce Abortions: Long-Acting Birth Control
Conservatives have been bitching about abortions for decades, doing everything they could to eliminate them. In some states they've passed laws to require waiting periods before abortions. They've taken away doctors' freedom of speech, forcing them to follow a state-mandated script. They've forced women to undergo expensive and invasive vaginal probes.
Six years ago one state decided to do something real: starting in 2009 Colorado gave girls and young women free long-acting birth control. The result?
This proves that simple and straightforward contraceptive programs will prevent more abortions than all the abstinence programs and restrictive legislation put together.
It also shows why private companies who want to opt out of paying for employees' birth control are so completely wrong: preventing unwanted pregnancies reduces the number of abortions, saves the health care system billions of dollars in unwanted pregnancies, helps keep young women and their unwanted children off the government dole, increases the graduation rate allowing more young women to get the education that is very much needed to be competitive in today's job market.
And, quite blatantly, it's better for business: women who don't get pregnant accidentally make better employees. Women with IUDs and implanted contraceptives are much less likely to get pregnant unexpectedly. Their absences can be better planned and aligned with business needs. Everybody wins.
It's now clear that the only reason a business wouldn't pay for their employees' birth control is to register their unbridled and childish annoyance at the health care law that has been designated the primary achievement of the first African American president of the United States.
The fact that it works and is better for everyone all around just makes conservatives that much angrier.
Six years ago one state decided to do something real: starting in 2009 Colorado gave girls and young women free long-acting birth control. The result?
The birthrate for teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.Colorado's program was funded by the Buffett Foundation, named for Warren Buffett's late wife.
This proves that simple and straightforward contraceptive programs will prevent more abortions than all the abstinence programs and restrictive legislation put together.
It also shows why private companies who want to opt out of paying for employees' birth control are so completely wrong: preventing unwanted pregnancies reduces the number of abortions, saves the health care system billions of dollars in unwanted pregnancies, helps keep young women and their unwanted children off the government dole, increases the graduation rate allowing more young women to get the education that is very much needed to be competitive in today's job market.
And, quite blatantly, it's better for business: women who don't get pregnant accidentally make better employees. Women with IUDs and implanted contraceptives are much less likely to get pregnant unexpectedly. Their absences can be better planned and aligned with business needs. Everybody wins.
It's now clear that the only reason a business wouldn't pay for their employees' birth control is to register their unbridled and childish annoyance at the health care law that has been designated the primary achievement of the first African American president of the United States.
The fact that it works and is better for everyone all around just makes conservatives that much angrier.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
What Happens When You Allow Open Carry...
2 dead after shootout at downtown Austin Omni Hotel
This morning, a man with a loaded rifle walked into an Omni Hotel in Austin, causing customers to cry, yell and call 911. Texas law allows the open carry of long guns, but does not require background checks on guns purchased from unlicensed sellers. An Omni Hotels manager said today that the hotel "follows state and local laws," meaning it allows people to open carry long guns inside its hotels.
"Police say they received a 911 call from a patron at 4:48 a.m. saying there was a man in the lobby of the Omni Hotel who was walking around with a gun. Two minutes later, the caller said the man had shot someone."
A profoundly sad example of how we can't really tell the good guys from the bad guys now can we?
This morning, a man with a loaded rifle walked into an Omni Hotel in Austin, causing customers to cry, yell and call 911. Texas law allows the open carry of long guns, but does not require background checks on guns purchased from unlicensed sellers. An Omni Hotels manager said today that the hotel "follows state and local laws," meaning it allows people to open carry long guns inside its hotels.
"Police say they received a 911 call from a patron at 4:48 a.m. saying there was a man in the lobby of the Omni Hotel who was walking around with a gun. Two minutes later, the caller said the man had shot someone."
A profoundly sad example of how we can't really tell the good guys from the bad guys now can we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)