Political Discussion

jaycee said:
R people supposed to believe that a Fordham degree (or any other for that matter) is going to pay for $200+K in debt in anything other than a lifetime. Absolutely ridiculous. The Board of Regeants are just as guilty Wall Street
Click to expand...

I have about 100K for a state school for 6 years of loans. The whole time working two jobs one through school and one I had prior to enrolling. Usually 7 days a week. However I would not be able to afford what I can now and this is also with a wife that makes a similar salary range. I think it was worth paying back the loan debt for the rest of my life. I just wish that money wasn't going to a bunch of greedy corporations, maybe paying back in to a national college fund where profits are reinvested.
 
Dtknuckles said:
I have about 100K for a state school for 6 years of loans. The whole time working two jobs one through school and one I had prior to enrolling. Usually 7 days a week. However I would not be able to afford what I can now and this is also with a wife that makes a similar salary range. I think it was worth paying back the loan debt for the rest of my life. I just wish that money wasn't going to a bunch of greedy corporations, maybe paying back in to a national college fund where profits are reinvested.
Click to expand...

I agree the piece of paper and the college experience are incredibly valuable, but the tuition is going to pay for what exactly? A lot of administration, the college investment portfolio, the gift bags at the conference being hosted at the alumni center, the pitted dates at the board of regents meeting

It's about priorities and where the burden of those priorities fall. Should they be placed on the shoulders of the education consumer? Should the consumer be getting more for their money or have more of a say in where the $ are spent?

It's also about the priorities of the country. Where do we want our communal coffers to be spent. Do we want to militarize the police? Do we want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest so they can trickle down all over us? Do we want to prop up the insurance industries? Do we want to build more fighter jets?

Instead we could be:
educating our citizens at institutes of higher learning
ensuring all people get mental health care
building the infrastructure to modernize our society
paying for clean air and water
conserving fossil fuels instead of burning them
etc. etc. etc.

There are reasons that Fordham is asking for $52k a year for undergraduate education and all of them likely stem from solvable problems if the people who get to make the choices would choose differently or if we all had more of a say in how the $ was spent
 
jaycee said:
I agree the piece of paper and the college experience are incredibly valuable, but the tuition is going to pay for what exactly? A lot of administration, the college investment portfolio, the gift bags at the conference being hosted at the alumni center, the pitted dates at the board of regents meeting

It's about priorities and where the burden of those priorities fall. Should they be placed on the shoulders of the education consumer? Should the consumer be getting more for their money or have more of a say in where the $ are spent?

It's also about the priorities of the country. Where do we want our communal coffers to be spent. Do we want to militarize the police? Do we want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest so they can trickle down all over us? Do we want to prop up the insurance industries? Do we want to build more fighter jets?

Instead we could be:
educating our citizens at institutes of higher learning
ensuring all people get mental health care
building the infrastructure to modernize our society
paying for clean air and water
conserving fossil fuels instead of burning them
etc. etc. etc.

There are reasons that Fordham is asking for $52k a year for undergraduate education and all of them likely stem from solvable problems if the people who get to make the choices would choose differently or if we all had more of a say in how the $ was spent
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem with all western democracies is inequity of wealth across society. We’ve bought into the myth that wealth is created rather than it just being a thing that is distributed. It is not moral to have 1% owning more that the rest of society combined and it is the job of the state to mitigate against this and not to enable it. Third level education is a right, not a privilege. Affordable healthcare too. The property rights of the super wealthy are so unimportant to me as to fade in to irrelevance.
 
Last edited:
We have all heard you are living above your means if your rant/mortgage is more than 30% of your salary. And in many cities that 30% of salary is impossible to obtain for most.

Well here's a real kicker and one I have never heard. Have you ever heard of the 1/10th rule for buying a car? I never have. But you are considered living above your means if you purchase a car who's total cost is more than 1/10th of your yearly salary. That's the total cost of the car, not what ever you yearly payment adds up to.

So if you make $42,000 a year you should never spend more than $4,200 on a car.

40 years ago that figure was actually realistic. In 2019 it is not. Today the median gross income is $42,00. So that means if you are buying a $36,000 car, which is the median priced car you are spending about 81% of your gross salary. That is 8 times higher than what would be considered living within your means!

My thought is, this leaves most people buying cheap used cards which will likely need $1k to $2k annually to keep them on the road and pass inspections.

That is just crazy if you think about it.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
We have all heard you are living above your means if your rant/mortgage is more than 30% of your salary. And in many cities that 30% of salary is impossible to obtain for most.

Well here's a real kicker and one I have never heard. Have you ever heard of the 1/10th rule for buying a car? I never have. But you are considered living above your means if you purchase a car who's total cost is more than 1/10th of your yearly salary. That's the total cost of the car, not what ever you yearly payment adds up to.

So if you make $42,000 a year you should never spend more than $4,200 on a car.

40 years ago that figure was actually realistic. In 2019 it is not. Today the median gross income is $42,00. So that means if you are buying a $36,000 car, which is the median priced car you are spending about 81% of your gross salary. That is 8 times higher than what would be considered living within your means!

My thought is, this leaves most people buying cheap used cards which will likely need $1k to $2k annually to keep them on the road and pass inspections.

That is just crazy if you think about it.
Click to expand...

So I had a Toyota trachoma for over ten years, when an old lady totaled it it had 240k on it. It was only in the last year did I have to put money into the cars. I used my insurance check to buy a Audi A6 that was top of the line at its time with 120k miles for 4K. Cars are the most flexible necessity in a budget.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
We have all heard you are living above your means if your rant/mortgage is more than 30% of your salary. And in many cities that 30% of salary is impossible to obtain for most.

Well here's a real kicker and one I have never heard. Have you ever heard of the 1/10th rule for buying a car? I never have. But you are considered living above your means if you purchase a car who's total cost is more than 1/10th of your yearly salary. That's the total cost of the car, not what ever you yearly payment adds up to.

So if you make $42,000 a year you should never spend more than $4,200 on a car.

40 years ago that figure was actually realistic. In 2019 it is not. Today the median gross income is $42,00. So that means if you are buying a $36,000 car, which is the median priced car you are spending about 81% of your gross salary. That is 8 times higher than what would be considered living within your means!

My thought is, this leaves most people buying cheap used cards which will likely need $1k to $2k annually to keep them on the road and pass inspections.

That is just crazy if you think about it.
Click to expand...
But most people don't pay for a car out of one year's salary, either. More likely the better rule is that you shouldn't be spending more than 10% of your annual take-home (net, not gross) on a car, in that year. So if you buy a $36,000 new car, and get a five year loan -- forgetting about the interest for a moment -- you're spending more like $7000 and change each year, which is more feasible.

If you buy a used car for $18000 and get a 5 year loan -- the situation I'm currently in -- I end up with about a $325 monthly payment with interest +/-, or about $3900 a year, which is right in line with the 10% guidance for the average salary you mentioned.

Otherwise, you're right, the advice is nonsense.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Cherry picking a quote here to anchor a response to. The trouble here is that there were competing audiences and interests tracking this investigation and the associated stories. I agree that too many people conflated the purpose of the Russia investigation with trying to find a single reason Clinton lost. The DNC needs to do its own soul searching either way. But that wasn’t actually the purpose, in my mind. The purpose was delineating exactly how our democracy was being influenced by foreign powers, and how the candidate who eventually won not only broke norms by encouraging that behavior, but now had a vested interest in not protecting the electoral process from further attacks. The integrity of the investigation isn’t sullied by the desires that some in the media projected onto it, but the sense you get from a casual reading of Greenwald or Taibbi (emphasis on the casual, meaning not someone who follows them closely for a really nuanced perspective of their specific views) is that they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the end result in many instances is that even if Greenwald’s and Taibbi’s motivations are the opposite of the right’s, the constant assailing of “mainstream media” as a bunch of dupes who can’t be trusted only serves to further weaken public confidence in the nature of truth (which, I know, is exactly what Greenwald/Taibbi AND the right would both say about mainstream media, also, so everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else).

I take your point, but my issues aren’t that they’re assets as much as that their dismissal of the “scandals” also necessarily comes with a minimization of the real issues that generated them.
Click to expand...


I know this is a very late response but articulating my response was tricky and I just didn't feel up to it at the time.

That said two things have happened this week that cause me to circle back around to this convo.

A) Clinton went onto Howard Stern and basically red-baited Bernie. She straight up blamed him for 2016' and then implied Russia was backing him. So basically, she attempted to do the same thing to Bernie that she did to Tulsi but in a much more subtle manner.



B) PBS just did a special where they talked about every candidate under the sun EXPECT Bernie Sanders.

www.commondreams.org

'He's Just...Erased': PBS 2020 Segment Finds Time for Klobuchar, Sestak, and Bullock—But Completely Ignores Bernie Sanders

It was like watching "manufacturing consent in action,' said Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson.
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org

Similarly, NPR did a story a few weeks back that was quite literally billed as a story about the Top 3 candidates. Bernie was firmly in 2nd or 3rd this story aired - **BUT**, the hosts managed to talk about Biden, Warren, and several other candidates outside the Top 3, without ever once mentioning the words “Bernie” or “Sanders”. Not even a passing mention of him being a candidate at all, let alone the candidate polling 2nd. In a story about the *top 3 candidates...

Which brings me back around to:

These things are directly related. The same media that is doing everything it can to dismiss and ignore Bernie Sanders just like they did in 2016. Meanwhile, they fan the flames about Russia because it's an effective deflection and side show that distract from very real issues that make the 1% look bad. It's McCarthyism and somehow educated liberals don't see it. That somehow? Probably has to do with that being the same demographic that refuses to criticize CNN or MSNBC (much less NPR or PBS) the way they do Fox News.

And by the way, Warren fucked herself with her handling of M4A. I don't necessarily view it as a good thing because she's easily my plan B, but she is nosediving in the polls and Bernie is picking up a lot of those people who jumped ship. A poll today had his him up in CA. His likely up in NH. He was up in Nevada and Colorado before the heart attack and could feasible recover there. Nobody knows what's happening in Iowa or whose supporters will show up.

In other words, this thing is wide open and the media is busy manufacturing consent. All while Bernie continues to crush Trump in head to heads and polling with independents (which is not true of either Warren or Pete).
 
I'm willing to bet there are a lot of special interests that do not want to see Bernie win.

Perhaps even media executives.

Remember this?




It has to be intentional that they are dismissing Bernie / acting like he's doesn't exist and is not part of this election.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I know this is a very late response but articulating my response was tricky and I just didn't feel up to it at the time.

That said two things have happened this week that cause me to circle back around to this convo.

A) Clinton went onto Howard Stern and basically red-baited Bernie. She straight up blamed him for 2016' and then implied Russia was backing him. So basically, she attempted to do the same thing to Bernie that she did to Tulsi but in a much more subtle manner.



B) PBS just did a special where they talked about every candidate under the sun EXPECT Bernie Sanders.

www.commondreams.org

'He's Just...Erased': PBS 2020 Segment Finds Time for Klobuchar, Sestak, and Bullock—But Completely Ignores Bernie Sanders

It was like watching "manufacturing consent in action,' said Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson.
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org

Similarly, NPR did a story a few weeks back that was quite literally billed as a story about the Top 3 candidates. Bernie was firmly in 2nd or 3rd this story aired - **BUT**, the hosts managed to talk about Biden, Warren, and several other candidates outside the Top 3, without ever once mentioning the words “Bernie” or “Sanders”. Not even a passing mention of him being a candidate at all, let alone the candidate polling 2nd. In a story about the *top 3 candidates...

Which brings me back around to:

These things are directly related. The same media that is doing everything it can to dismiss and ignore Bernie Sanders just like they did in 2016. Meanwhile, they fan the flames about Russia because it's an effective deflection and side show that distract from very real issues that make the 1% look bad. It's McCarthyism and somehow educated liberals don't see it. That somehow? Probably has to do with that being the same demographic that refuses to criticize CNN or MSNBC (much less NPR or PBS) the way they do Fox News.

And by the way, Warren fucked herself with her handling of M4A. I don't necessarily view it as a good thing because she's easily my plan B, but she is nosediving in the polls and Bernie is picking up a lot of those people who jumped ship. A poll today had his him up in CA. His likely up in NH. He was up in Nevada and Colorado before the heart attack and could feasible recover there. Nobody knows what's happening in Iowa or whose supporters will show up.

In other words, this thing is wide open and the media is busy manufacturing consent. All while Bernie continues to crush Trump in head to heads and polling with independents (which is not true of either Warren or Pete).
Click to expand...


Is the Bernie-camp media conspiracy true? I don't know and personally I don't care, but I also assume that wealthy people that run media outlets, regardless of political team affiliation, would prefer a more status quo government.

I avoid the news because I don't need to be told the same thing over and over again by people that are (and I'll be kind here) not very good at telling a story... but I have been listening to the daily for a while now on my morning bus ride. It's been yet another sobering week of stories including the ongoing situation in Iran, the failure of public education, and today an interview with Bernie. A statistic during the education story got me. 86% of 15 year olds (i think it was 15 year olds) failed to be able to identify fact from opinion when presented with two stories about the same subject. 1 from an advocacy/advertising firm, and one from a journalist. If you had told me the population surveyed would have been over 65 I would've been less surprised. How do we have real conversations about ANYTHING when the average person, the average young person at that, can't tell facts from opinion? - but that's another conversation.

Bernie was less than impressive in his conversation with Michael Barbaro and the Bernie campaign's philosophy of media conspiracy was evident. This does the campaign no favors imo even if it's the truth. When questioned about his role in supporting the Sandinistas Bernie crumbled. He deflected and this will undoubtedly be seized upon by all of his detractors. Most importantly it's going to come out in any national election. I don't think that Bernie did anything morally incorrect, but this is the sort of, probably irrelevant, talking point that will make it difficult to build the enthusiasm his campaign is so dependent on in my part of the country. Leftist-rebels is a very dirty term across much of the U.S. and I have no-doubt that term will be thrown around quite a bit. Bernie was evasive but truthful in his responses but I'm not sure the truth matters in politics at all.

@DownIsTheNewUp when you post about Bernie your advocacy is clear, but so is the vitriol against any entity that doesn't "feel the Bern." the media and the democratic establishment being the too main targets of the campaign. I'm concerned that this attitude that seemed evident coming from the man himself in today's interview is antithetical to the ideals of the coalition that is supposedly being built. It still comes across as a very much with us or against us attitude. I'm not suggesting that attitude is wrong or even unjustified, but my concern stems from the reality of having to get things done, which always starts with buy-in from at least a few skeptics that are really just barriers to your goals. The attitude exhibited by Bernie today was more 'we'll drag you along kicking and screaming if we have to' than 'let me try to understand where you're coming from so that I can show you I understand and you can support me'.

There is probably wide support for Bernie. If you believe in the efficacy of polling-data there is no-doubt about that. I don't fully believe it because it suffers from the fundamental problem of self-selection, who is willing to answer their phone, and who wants to talk about it. Still, it is clear that many Americans want a different life and want a different government and Bernie is seen as a viable option by many. So as a sociologist, or at least someone who works with sociological data, why do you believe (I think) that Bernie has a greater advantage over any other blue candidate in defeating Trump who will have a base of 30% of the electorate? There's another 70% out there and the Bernie campaign is trying (as Trump did) to tap into non-traditional voter markets - perhaps wisely, but WHY not as an advocate but as a sociologist do you see Bernie as having the best chance.

Sorry I'm putting you on the spot here (feel free not to respond), but I'm genuinely interested. I think there is something that I'm missing - maybe.... and I'm also trying to find a glimmer of hope.
 
Last edited:
As someone who works in education I find this depressing, but at the same time surprising. Kids have tests on this all the time and pass.

jaycee said:
86% of 15 year olds (i think it was 15 year olds) failed to be able to identify fact from opinion when presented with two stories about the same subject.
Click to expand...

However, teachers and education in general are competing with a lot when it comes to students attention. It takes some much work sometimes to even get kids to comply with basic rules let alone understand content.

A lot has to get reformed in our school system, but a lot has to do with the general culture. It’s gonna take a lot of resources and the political willingness to do both. Bernie is the only candidate that has addressed this in any way. My union has recently enforced him and I was in support of it even though there was some vocal opposition amongst the people I represent.


Bernie media bias. I believe in it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. People always protect their power base. His policies threaten the Cooperate And Political Elite. I can see why they would put their thumb on the scales. Weather that is coordinated or not nobody can really tell.

Another thing I do like about Bernie is the way his campaign is funded. Grassroots should be the only way they are funded. I would want him to win just because of that. I’m sick of cooperations ruling us all. There is no government. There is only people who do the cooperations bidding.
 
Dtknuckles said:
As someone who works in education I find this depressing, but at the same time surprising. Kids have tests on this all the time and pass.



However, teachers and education in general are competing with a lot when it comes to students attention. It takes some much work sometimes to even get kids to comply with basic rules let alone understand content.

A lot has to get reformed in our school system, but a lot has to do with the general culture. It’s gonna take a lot of resources and the political willingness to do both. Bernie is the only candidate that has addressed this in any way. My union has recently enforced him and I was in support of it even though there was some vocal opposition amongst the people I represent.


Bernie media bias. I believe in it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. People always protect their power base. His policies threaten the Cooperate And Political Elite. I can see why they would put their thumb on the scales. Weather that is coordinated or not nobody can really tell.

Another thing I do like about Bernie is the way his campaign is funded. Grassroots should be the only way they are funded. I would want him to win just because of that. I’m sick of cooperations ruling us all. There is no government. There is only people who do the cooperations bidding.
Click to expand...

My comments weren't meant to discredit the job teachers are doing, but more a commentary on the failures of policy and how we behave in modern society, the convenience of screen time and associated advertising for instance, is potentially influencing education outcomes. I don't know how any teacher is actually able to do their job given the framework they are asked to do it within.

Also - I would happily vote for Bernie - if I vote - it continues to feel like a near pointless endeavor to me.
 
This typo on my part is
jaycee said:
My comments weren't meant to discredit the job teachers are doing, but more a commentary on the failures of policy and how we behave in modern society, the convenience of screen time and associated advertising for instance, is potentially influencing education outcomes. I don't know how any teacher is actually able to do their job given the framework they are asked to do it within.

Also - I would happily vote for Bernie - if I vote - it continues to feel like a near pointless endeavor to me.
Click to expand...


Yea, I didn't take it that way. I just come form an ED background so that is where my thoughts went.
I've recently run into this on the Intercept group when people are criticizing Nate Silver. People have a hard time understanding data and how to use and interpret it. I think he does a good job of expressing the limits of data, but I don't think people listen because they want everything to be so black and white and look for a boogie man to blame.

Anyway I really should be getting back to writing the Emotional Disturbance Eligibility for my 8:30 IEP. This kid just had call to DCFS because of suspected abuse. This is the stuff we deal with on a daily basis in Education.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Meanwhile, they fan the flames about Russia because it's an effective deflection and side show that distract from very real issues that make the 1% look bad. It's McCarthyism and somehow educated liberals don't see it.
Click to expand...
This, this is what I was criticizing about Taibbi.

Informed voters can—mostly—distinguish between facts and disinformation. And to them, the Russia focus is detrimental, because they’re well past that. But to the average, uninformed voter, this is a valuable thing, because my Aunt Linda can’t figure out how to fact check or vet sources or think for herself. She needs to know that this isn’t as simple as Repubs vs. Dems, and that outside parties are also trying to sow chaos and/or promote certain candidates.

Similarly, Russia can want to promote a candidate to their own ends, whether that’s because they support that candidate’s policies, or because they think that candidate is simply a disruptor who will cause instability in the American political system, or because they just need a certain other candidate to NOT win, or or or...
...and all of that can be true WITHOUT that candidate being a willing or cooperative asset of Russia. It doesn’t even mean they’re compromised as a candidate.
What it DOES mean, to me, is that I want those candidates to be cognizant of those pitfalls and acknowledge that Russia’s preferences are something we should be aware of, and potentially thwart, by strengthening our electoral process to more resistant to their efforts to exert influence. Instead, candidates are afraid to agree that Russia may have some incentive to support them, because they fear it will render their candidacy illegitimate altogether. And that doesn’t HAVE to be true, but back to my earlier point about uninformed voters, it very well could work out that way.

Are there other issues to address? Certainly.
Is it McCarthyism to try to objectively address the goals of our adversary’s intelligence apparatus? It can be weaponized in that fashion, but it isn’t inherently that.

The more we downplay the risks of foreign interference, or deny evidence that this interference was/is directed at particular candidates, the more vested others become in proving that it exists, and the more it *seems* like Russia is being blamed for everything. They’re not, I don’t think, but we’re doing ourselves a grave disservice if our society doesn’t address it soberly.

America’s real problem is that it can’t hold two thoughts in its head at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Buttigieg vs. Warren debate. Does it change much? I don't care about those long ago taxes of hers or his opening of fundraisers. If he made crazy promises it would of been recorded by someones iPhone and posted.

Neither of these things mean much to anyone, except people that are already on a team and looking for ammo.
 
KenKaniff said:
Neither of these things mean much to anyone, except people that are already on a team and looking for ammo.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. it's the other way around. Taking money from corporations creates the teams. It kind of disqualifies my support for him. I mean if my arm is twisted I'd vote for him, but there is going to be a lot criticism. Campaign finance is probably one of the biggest reasons our political system sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top