2012 Election Thread

[quote name='Temporaryscars']Oh boy, here you go talking about history again, yet you never provide historical examples that prove my points as incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Your thesis was that those thing were "liberal" platforms. My thesis is that your reasoning is flawed and those issues are far more deeper than you characterized them to be. All I have to do is offer counterpoints. I don't need MLA citations to prove you wrong.

So something qualifies as a talking point if somebody puts something out in numbered format? What the fuck?! What do you want, a 50 page dissertation? It's not necessary. All you would have to do is post something to the contrary and yet, it never happens.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

Why would it need to be contrardictory when it's your characterization that's the problem?

I really need to stop arguing with retards.
Click to expand...
This is you NOT calling me a retard here, right?

If not, then why is he committing these acts?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Would you call a 90's Republican a liberal? Or maybe you should figure out what neo-liberalism is and get a deeper understanding of what it is first.

:lol: One has nothing to do with the other. You are horrific at similes.
Click to expand...
I've been beating you over the head with hints for several posts. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

So if Bush were pulling the same shit that Obama is pulling now, you think things would be just as quiet? Keep dreaming.
Click to expand...
Get back to me if no one protests if Obama decided to spend a trillion dollars sending 160,000 troops for a war.

Why would they? They didn't say a peep when spent 4.7 trillion during his first three years as president. Only the right called him out on it, but that's hard to take seriously when they'd call him out on farting in a bathroom.
Click to expand...
Another conservative talking point? Seriously? Wars cost money and were off the books when Bush was in office; Obama put it back in and tax cuts cost money too. Again, your characterization is shallow.

Oh, so that makes it ok. Gotchya.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

If both parties do it, then there HAS to be another variable that has an effect. It's pretty fucking simple.

Ok, I'll bit. What are you then?
Click to expand...
I'm a fucking Martian.

Who give a fuck what my political affilation is when my argument isn't hinging on the letter on my voter registration.

More could be done, and it certainly hasn't made any Obama supporters second-guess their vote.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck should they vote for? Ron fucking Paul???:rofl: Yeah...I'll vote for him when you unironically vote for Bernie Sanders.

mykevermin also explained this at length. I have no idea why you think you think this bullshit would work on me,

I already did, but you're obviously not reading too closely. He cited the interstate commerce clause for why he had the authority to enact Obamacare, why can't he do the same thing with the equal protection clause?
Click to expand...
That was the Supreme Court; not Obama. Maybe you should re-read the thread to see how easily he rammed it down our throats. Or better yet, stop using conservative talking points.

But he DID circumvent state laws and spend justice department resrouces to shut down dispensaries. Again, you seem to be having trouble following along.
Click to expand...
He gave himself an out and he took it. Not only that, but he contradicted himself in the very video. If you interpreted as loosening regulations, that's on you, not Obama.


Big deal. Nobody takes the birthers seriously. If the same people brought up his plan to legalize, nobody would take them seriously either.

First off, I never lauded the right for being open with their bullshit. Second, how else would you describe such a reversal? He promised he would close down Gitmo, he didn't, then, he spends all that money to renovate it, and like also, the left still light up to lick his boots. It's pretty shameful.
Click to expand...
Is this before or after NIMBY? Politicians were on fucking national news screaming about it. What the hell else was there to do? Risk losing all of the political capital on something and being powerless to do anything else for the rest of the term 1 year in?

Hey moron, their parents paid taxes too. If the average person lives to be about 75, and lets say the average person starts working and paying taxes when they're 20 (and yes, I'm just pulling these ages out of my ass, but I'm trying to be generous to your point of view since I'm sure most start paying taxes way before 20), are you going to tell me that 55 years of paying into the pool isn't enough to cover 12 years of school? Even if it didn't, it's hardly my fault that it costs so much to educate students...
Click to expand...
School isn't the only things that taxes pay for, but oh right, I'M the moron here cause roads and infrastructure pay for themselves. And what the hell do your grandparents have to do with it as if somehow shifting the argument 1 generation down changes it? You think your grandparent's taxes cover them, your parents, AND you? And you're calling ME a moron??? It sounds more like you have no clue how taxes work, kid.

Btw, unions are fully compatible with libertarianism. Freedom of association and market forces and all that. You're not a very good libertarian, but like most, you're probably just another conservative in Libertarian clothing.

Sorry, but that's just a lie. You're lying. I stick around until the argument goes stale. Post some proof otherwise, liar.
Click to expand...
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8514063&postcount=132

Regardless, I mixed you up with another lolbertarian. It's all the same shit anyways, so who gives a fuck, right?

You're probably not going to get the hint on that either.

I find the lively debate to be fun. If you want to label that "trolling," be my guest, though I'll point out that it's just another cop-out. You paint something with the troll brush and it means you don't have to actually prove a point, because after all, they're just a troll!
Click to expand...
I've proven my point 20 times over with you. The only one doing the cop-out is you. You've already said that you only harp on liberals here because it's a liberal circle-jerk, you do the same thing on conservative boards, and then attempt to parlay that into characterizing yourself as being balanced and wanting nuanced discussions while only picking on "liberal apologists" and only proving yourself to be a partisan hack.

edit: fuck it. I'm done with this your stupidity. I can't even count how many times I've proven my point that you don't know what you're talking about and only using talking points. Hit me up when you understand Spokker's post and neo-liberalism...and don't forget to see how many "liberals" here blindly support Obama and give him a free pass on everything.
 
[quote name='Chase']All politicians are crooks. Anarchy for President in 2012.

I try to avoid politics, but this "Jill Stein" person seems like someone with whom I can agree. I somewhat disagree about immigration, but everything else seems to be right. Someone give me reasons why I should dislike her.[/QUOTE]
You agree with most of her positions except on immigration? I find that hard to believe.

Hell, she's probably to the left of Bernie Sanders and he's a socialist!:rofl:
 
Stein's a true moonbat, way way out there. A testament to how far highly educated and intelligent people can be detached from reality.
 
Yeah, I don't get the notion that Obama voters aren't second guessing their vote. It's just that there are no viable options. We have two party system and most elections are voting for the lesser of two evils unless you're center right or center left.

Many liberals are disenchanted with Obama over the wars, drone attacks, pot policy, lackluster support of gay marriage etc. But they're sure as hell not going to vote for Romney who would do all the same things, and go opposite of Obama (and liberal desires) on things like health care and tax policy. So they have choices of just sucking it up and voting for Obama, throwing away a vote on someone like Stein (which again is fine if you're not in a swing state) or staying home. As many articles have noted, a lot will do the latter and Obama isn't going to get as big a turnout among young voters and the far left this time as he did in 2008.

As for the tax thing, K-12 education in the US is heavily subsidized for people in the middle class and below. Only a small portion of taxes a family pays goes to education (larger portion of local taxes, smaller of state and federal) as taxes get eaten up on defense spending, infrastructure, running the governments at all levels, debt payments, foreign aid and everything else we spend money on. A family has to make a fairly high salary for the portion of their taxes that goes to education to cover their kids 13 years of education. Thus most are benefiting from our progressive tax system where the wealthy are paying more than their kids' public education costs--even better if they're sending them to private schools and not using public resources.
 
In our system of government, rarely will anyone come along that completely matches our ideals. While it can be disheartening to think about it like that, it's important to keep in mind that compromise does not equal defeat. We may have to compromise and temper our ideals when it comes to voting but that isn't a reason to completely throw up our hands and quit.
 
I was watching Bill Moyers yesterday, and it is definitely sad that we've been reduced to a two party system. There may be a Green Party and they also have an actual plan and whatnot, but who cares? The largess of our system has basically reduced them to a "joke."
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']In our system of government, rarely will anyone come along that completely matches our ideals. While it can be disheartening to think about it like that, it's important to keep in mind that compromise does not equal defeat. We may have to compromise and temper our ideals when it comes to voting but that isn't a reason to completely throw up our hands and quit.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Unless we're willing to get involved in politics ourselves, all we can do is vote for who ever is closest too (or least opposed to anyway) our own views.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Stein's a true moonbat, way way out there. A testament to how far highly educated and intelligent people can be detached from reality.[/QUOTE]
But Menino is ok? Do you really think that Stein is that much further to the left of Menino? You're the one dreaming here buddy.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']In our system of government, rarely will anyone come along that completely matches our ideals. While it can be disheartening to think about it like that, it's important to keep in mind that compromise does not equal defeat. We may have to compromise and temper our ideals when it comes to voting but that isn't a reason to completely throw up our hands and quit.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
 
[quote name='dohdough']But Menino is ok? Do you really think that Stein is that much further to the left of Menino?[/QUOTE]
Don't be silly, Menino knows how to set a practical, achievable goal and accomplish it. Even Dennis Kucinich puts some thought into how his ideas might be realized. Stein has a lot of pie in the sky positions that are completely impractical.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Don't be silly, Menino knows how to set a practical, achievable goal and accomplish it. Even Dennis Kucinich puts some thought into how his ideas might be realized. Stein has a lot of pie in the sky positions that are completely impractical.[/QUOTE]
Like?

edit: Lot's of candidates have "pie in the sky" ideas that seem completely untenable, but a lot of what she proposes are things that have been done elsewhere. The only argument I see you having is American Exceptionalism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of pie, Clinton's discussion of the arithmetic of Romney's tax-and-reduce-the-deficit plan has led to a lot of questions directed at Romney this weekend about what he will cut. He's mentioned some specifics about tax breaks he will keep (mortgage interest deduction, investment deductions), but has thus far refused to mention a single loophole he'll scale back - whether in policy papers (available on his website) or in interviews.

Krugman's op-ed this morning discusses both the impossibility of Romney's claims as well as how he is a "weaponized Keynesian" (a phrase I positively adore).
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I was watching Bill Moyers yesterday, and it is definitely sad that we've been reduced to a two party system. There may be a Green Party and they also have an actual plan and whatnot, but who cares? The largess of our system has basically reduced them to a "joke."[/QUOTE]

I was reading a news story a couple weeks ago that was talking about how the number of voters who don't identify with either party is growing with each election. Right now, it's around 20%. My hope is that the number continues to grow and that we eventually have someone throw their hat into the ring that is able to unify enough voters to, at the very least, upset the system.
 
As long as people continue to force the idea that voting third party is a waste of a vote, nothing will change w/r/t the two-party system.

It's funny to me that folks who try to claim they don't follow the party lines are some of the same ones who repeat the "wasted vote" trash. Let me assure you, it wasn't a third party candidate that came up with that line.

Be the change you want to see in the world. I know it's easier to sit back and wait for someone else to do it first... I wonder if that's why right-leaning third parties tend to get slightly more attention than left-leaning ones...
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I was reading a news story a couple weeks ago that was talking about how the number of voters who don't identify with either party is growing with each election. Right now, it's around 20%. My hope is that the number continues to grow and that we eventually have someone throw their hat into the ring that is able to unify enough voters to, at the very least, upset the system.[/QUOTE]
I'm not actually registered to a party.:)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As long as people continue to force the idea that voting third party is a waste of a vote, nothing will change w/r/t the two-party system.

It's funny to me that folks who try to claim they don't follow the party lines are some of the same ones who repeat the "wasted vote" trash. Let me assure you, it wasn't a third party candidate that came up with that line.

Be the change you want to see in the world. I know it's easier to sit back and wait for someone else to do it first... I wonder if that's why right-leaning third parties tend to get slightly more attention than left-leaning ones...[/QUOTE]

I think you should keep voting for third-party candidates. When people say wasted vote they are not talking about you. Just keep doing your thing.

:D
 
When a viable third party comes along I'm sure they'll be looked at as such, so far no viable third party has come forth.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Like?

edit: Lot's of candidates have "pie in the sky" ideas that seem completely untenable, but a lot of what she proposes are things that have been done elsewhere. The only argument I see you having is American Exceptionalism.[/QUOTE]
"Green New Deal", with Soviet style guaranteed public sector jobs for all
Replace national food supply with regional organic farming
Cancel all student loan debt
Nationalize all utilities including communications
Medicare for everyone
Free education through grad school
 
[quote name='Clak']When a viable third party comes along I'm sure they'll be looked at as such, so far no viable third party has come forth.[/QUOTE]

Yep. And it's not just viable in terms of being able to win a national election (which is a big issue) but also that most third party candidates end up being too extreme for a lot of folks who aren't center left/right but also aren't far left/right.

So for me, being I guess somewhere between moderate left and center left, the democrat candidates are usually the closest to my views. They're usually to the right of me, but the Nader's, Stein's etc. tend to be further to my left than an Obama or Gore are to my right.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']"Green New Deal", with Soviet style guaranteed public sector jobs for all[/quote]

Can't speak to that, don't know much about it.

Replace national food supply with regional organic farming
Click to expand...

Nice in theory, but wouldn't work. Giving McDonald's apples to sell doesn't make people not buy fries. I love the idea of local co-ops, fresh produce, fresh meat, fresh milk (if you've never had milk from a local small-time dairy farm, you have no idea what trash the stuff we buy in stores is). But availability is not entirely the problem. Our culture is. A microwave society. I'm not one of those "slow food" movement people, but I do love to cook, I want to know where the things I cook came from, whether they are GMOs, etc. I drove myself insane trying to find a loaf of bread at the grocery the other week w/out HFCS. BREAD! WITHOUT HFCS! That was hard to find. Jesus. I did find it eventually, but it shouldn't be that bloomin' difficult. But fixing diet, like education, rests much with culture as much as availability. Putting a book in front of a kid who, in their own words, "doesn't give a fuck," won't make them read any more than putting a cucumber in front of them will make them healthy. They'll knock it over while reaching for a microwave meal.

Cancel all student loan debt
Click to expand...

This is actually a very sensible policy, as long as it's tied to stringent limitations on availability of loans in the future. This will stimulate a remarkable amount of economic growth. The more reasonable alternative is the current HR 4170 proposal, but to get real results real fast, yes, canceling it all makes the most sense. Banks and the auto industry are "too big to fail," but an entire generation of graduates is okay to turn into the new indentured servants, it would seem.

(full disclosure: I'd benefit greatly from this. I'd be able to do things like buy a newer car, have a child, afford to go on vacation more than once ever five years. you know, crazy things. Is it hedonistic? Yep. But me spending money on a beach vacation or a new car is what our economy needs, because it's what our economy lacks: DEMAND.)

Nationalize all utilities including communications
Click to expand...

nah.

Medicare for everyone
Click to expand...

I'm all about single-payer universal coverage systems, but I'm not sure if that's what she's going for here.

Free education through grad school
Click to expand...

Not yet. We need to bolster our attitude towards education first. There's a lot of change that needs to come with education. A complete separation of higher education from minor league sports (like the NCAA) and also significant cuts in the size and pay of administrative staff will do a lot to decrease tuition costs for students. If you're going to nationalize something in education, I'd say that the textbook publishing industry should be cut off at the knees, first. They're a fucking racket.
 
[quote name='Clak']When a viable third party comes along I'm sure they'll be looked at as such, so far no viable third party has come forth.[/QUOTE]

Have no real, viable candidates ever come forth, or have no candidates without giant war chests and enough corporate backing come forth?

Is it a coincidence that the only "major" third-party candidate in the past 30 years or so is one of the top 100 richest people in the country?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can't speak to that, don't know much about it.
[/quote]
Neither does she.


[quote name='mykevermin']Nice in theory, but wouldn't work. Giving McDonald's apples to sell doesn't make people not buy fries.[/quote]
You can't even meet the country's food demand on 100% organic and regional farming, to say nothing of the export markets that rely on our food supply. You're right but its also completely unworkable. Its hippie bullshit.


[quote name='mykevermin']This is actually a very sensible policy, as long as it's tied to stringent limitations on availability of loans in the future. This will stimulate a remarkable amount of economic growth. The more reasonable alternative is the current HR 4170 proposal, but to get real results real fast, yes, canceling it all makes the most sense. Banks and the auto industry are "too big to fail," but an entire generation of graduates is okay to turn into the new indentured servants, it would seem.

(full disclosure: I'd benefit greatly from this. I'd be able to do things like buy a newer car, have a child, afford to go on vacation more than once ever five years. you know, crazy things. Is it hedonistic? Yep. But me spending money on a beach vacation or a new car is what our economy needs, because it's what our economy lacks: DEMAND.)[/quote]
What about the people on the other side of those loans? It's not the bank's fault that tuition has increased at 4 times inflation. It's not the taxpayer's fault that some people chose to go to a more expensive school than others. And how is anyone else ever going to get another student loan again if the government decides (and is legally able) to cancel all that privately held debt?

This also runs into another issue... Under government programs (Obamacare, Medicare etc) much of the 'savings' comes from paying doctors a lot less. Doctors have some of the highest debt loads of any profession and much of their income goes towards these loans for decades. If both factors continue it's going to really harm the profession.


[quote name='mykevermin']I'm all about single-payer universal coverage systems, but I'm not sure if that's what she's going for here.[/quote]
Those are her words. She intends to eliminate the waste of private insurance and replace it with... The waste and fraud of Medicare. I guess.



[quote name='mykevermin']Not yet. We need to bolster our attitude towards education first. There's a lot of change that needs to come with education. A complete separation of higher education from minor league sports (like the NCAA) and also significant cuts in the size and pay of administrative staff will do a lot to decrease tuition costs for students. If you're going to nationalize something in education, I'd say that the textbook publishing industry should be cut off at the knees, first. They're a fucking racket.[/QUOTE]
It's not sports that is raising tuition (many schools make a net profit from their programs)... It's market forces. They charge more because they can get it, not because their expenses dictate it, a lot of these institutions are growing their billion dollar endowments every year.

The elite schools will always charge crazy amounts because of the high demand for entry and limited supply. As much as we complain that their prices are insane, people are still knocking down their doors and willing to put themselves into a lifetime of debt to get in.

I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but maybe its time to re-evaluate how federal financial aid and stafford loans work. These private institutions that are charging so much don't need to be federally subsidized, maybe we need to shift these funds out of pell grants, etc and into creating and sustaining quality, affordable state institutions and private colleges within the same quality and price parameters?

K-12 is a bigger issue that nobody wants to address in a meaningful way.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']

You can't even meet the country's food demand on 100% organic and regional farming, to say nothing of the export markets that rely on our food supply. You're right but its also completely unworkable. Its hippie bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

I prefer organic, but I do wonder if it's workable for a large portion of our population. Many tecHnological advances in farming are based on getting better yields and less loss due to pests, envirnomental factors, etc. Some more modern organic farming tecniques address these issues, but I doubt organic farming can be anywhere near as efficient as conventional farming, and food shortages could become a serious issue as the population increases.

[quote name='dafoomie']

I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but maybe its time to re-evaluate how federal financial aid and stafford loans work. These private institutions that are charging so much don't need to be federally subsidized, maybe we need to shift these funds out of pell grants, etc and into creating and sustaining quality, affordable state institutions and private colleges within the same quality and price parameters?

[/QUOTE]

Aren't Stafford Loans capped? The private loans that banks give out like candy are probably more of a factor than Stafford Loans or Pell Grants.

I agree with Myke about the textbook publishing industry. That industry desperately needs to be regulated or even fully taken over by the government.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And how is anyone else ever going to get another student loan again if the government decides (and is legally able) to cancel all that privately held debt?[/quote]

In a perfect world college or trade school would be free for decent students. Some states already have programs for students with B or above GPAs in high school to go to state schools for free-usually funded by the state lottery revenue.

High school diplomas are largely worthless these days. Very few things you can do with one and have a stable, middle class lifestyle. Pretty much need either a degree or some time of trade certification. Given that we need to shift to supporting that so everyone can have their right to pursue happiness.

It's not sports that is raising tuition (many schools make a net profit from their programs)... It's market forces. They charge more because they can get it, not because their expenses dictate it, a lot of these institutions are growing their billion dollar endowments every year.
Click to expand...

Only a very few of the top level (i.e. BCS football, D1 basketball) schools make profits. The vast majority of colleges and universities lose money on their athletic departments.

And the main reason tuition keeps shooting up is states keep slashing funding to higher education. A lot of universities (including the one I work at) have switched from being public universities that got more than 50% of their operating budget from state funding, to publicly assisted universities that not get more than 50% of their operating budget from tuition and fees which have had to rise and state funds were slashed.

On top of that, lots of things have been slashed to reduce costs. Staff has been laid off, no regular raises for faculty/staff in 4 years in my state, classes sizes have increased, more classes taught by part timers and grad students as it's cheaper etc. There's not much more that can be cut--other than continued wasteful spending in administrative staff etc.--without really crippling the quality of education provided.

So as a result of state de-investment we've basically seen tuition and fees rise, and quality of education drop.

The elite schools will always charge crazy amounts because of the high demand for entry and limited supply. As much as we complain that their prices are insane, people are still knocking down their doors and willing to put themselves into a lifetime of debt to get in.

I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but maybe its time to re-evaluate how federal financial aid and stafford loans work. These private institutions that are charging so much don't need to be federally subsidized, maybe we need to shift these funds out of pell grants, etc and into creating and sustaining quality, affordable state institutions and private colleges within the same quality and price parameters?
Click to expand...

As noted above, Pell Grants are capped at a certain amount for the subsidized and unsubsidized portions arleady. It's the unsubsidized private loans that are a bigger issue. Not to say that one can't still graduate with a lot of subsidized loan debt.

But I agree, as above we need systems were good students can go to state schools for free, and lesser students can go to vocational trade schools for free.
 
Sometimes I wonder how necessary textbooks even are in some cases, given how much free information is available online. In a lot of my IT classes we didn't really use a book, might have been given bits and pieces from one, but a lot of was just "read this from x site".
 
[quote name='Clak']Sometimes I wonder how necessary textbooks even are in some cases, given how much free information is available online. In a lot of my IT classes we didn't really use a book, might have been given bits and pieces from one, but a lot of was just "read this from x site".[/QUOTE]


That's something that varies by topic area.


I'd rather just assign scholarly research articles (and I do assign several), but too many undergraduate students just aren't on that level.

I teach my classes with a stronger focus on the academic side of things than the practical, so I really need text books that do a good job of both describing things, and dumbing down research findings to a level the students can understand. Otherwise we waste too much time in class getting them to understand the articles. Frustrating and I hope to someday get to a point where I'm mainly teaching graduate courses and don't have to deal with this shit.

But anyway, the textbook industry definitely is a racket and it's ridiculous what most books cost (and how it's usually impossible to find a cheaper book that doesn't suck)
 
In your field, would using a previous edition hurt things much? Say just one edition back? Usually the old editions are dirt cheap.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Only a very few of the top level (i.e. BCS football, D1 basketball) schools make profits. The vast majority of colleges and universities lose money on their athletic departments.[/quote]
Yeah but the point was that 'minor leagues' for professional sports should be separated from schools, but its those programs that are profitable. Its the other things that aren't. A lot of programs have already been slashed due to budget cuts and the expenses of title IX compliance.


[quote name='dmaul1114']And the main reason tuition keeps shooting up is states keep slashing funding to higher education. A lot of universities (including the one I work at) have switched from being public universities that got more than 50% of their operating budget from state funding, to publicly assisted universities that not get more than 50% of their operating budget from tuition and fees which have had to rise and state funds were slashed.[/quote]
Even though they're up, I would still consider the in state tuition and fees at most state colleges to be less than horrible, they're still significantly less than comparable private colleges.



[quote name='dmaul1114']As noted above, Pell Grants are capped at a certain amount for the subsidized and unsubsidized portions arleady. It's the unsubsidized private loans that are a bigger issue. Not to say that one can't still graduate with a lot of subsidized loan debt.

But I agree, as above we need systems were good students can go to state schools for free, and lesser students can go to vocational trade schools for free.[/QUOTE]
The maximum Pell grant is about $5k and the maximum unsubsidized Stafford loan is around 10k. Good enough for most state colleges, minus room and board.

People could stand to be a little more responsible when making these decisions. Maybe you don't need to go across the country or go to that expensive private school or live on campus. Undergrad programs at the big name schools are highly overrated anyway. What I'm doing is taking my first two years at a community college and transferring into a state college for the next two and commuting, wasn't any need to pay full price for all 4 years.
 
I think Libya could use a few of those brown people killing drone strikes that UncleBob talks about. To kill a United States Ambassador is a huge fucking deal.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Yeah but the point was that 'minor leagues' for professional sports should be separated from schools, but its those programs that are profitable.
[/quote]

Not all of them. Don't have time to look up the stats, but very few of even the BCS conference programs have ADs that are both self sufficient (take no state or university dollars) an profitable.

Even though they're up, I would still consider the in state tuition and fees at most state colleges to be less than horrible, they're still significantly less than comparable private colleges.
Click to expand...

But still way up from where they were 5, 10 years ago. So it's gotten much more expensive.

Of course private schools will always be much more expensive since they get 100% of their operating budget through tuition and fees. As well as the prestige factor etc.

People could stand to be a little more responsible when making these decisions. Maybe you don't need to go across the country or go to that expensive private school or live on campus.
Click to expand...

True. Though a lot of schools require kids to live on campus for at least the first year. And off campus living isn't always cheaper. Especially for schools in major metro areas.

Undergrad programs at the big name schools are highly overrated anyway. What I'm doing is taking my first two years at a community college and transferring into a state college for the next two and commuting, wasn't any need to pay full price for all 4 years.
Click to expand...

And that is a smart thing to do. Undergrad education is largely the same anywhere--other than prestige your degree carries from university name, connections you can make while there etc. of course.

But at a top program in a top school, the top professors aren't teaching many undergraduate classes anyway as they're teaching low loads from buying out classes with research grants and mainly teaching graduate classes and mentoring graduate students. So really only the graduate students benefit from going to a top program in terms of access to top faculty anyway.

But it's important to not downplay the prestige factor as a degree from a well regarded university will open more doors than one from some tiny liberal arts school or a lesser state university when people see it on the resume.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was under the impression that dafoomie was implying that the profitable programs are among those being cut.[/QUOTE]

I didn't get that. And that would be silly. :D

If a school's AD is making money, no need to cut anything. If they're losing money, it only makes sense to cut programs that will always lose money and keep those that can make money (i.e. football and men's basketball)--along with the women's programs you have to keep to comply with Title IX.

As I've said before, I don't have a huge issue with college sports in general, but at public schools it should be required that the AD at least break even to justify keeping sport around. If they can't, then scrap them and just offer intramurals (or regional, club based sports with other area schools) for students who want to play semi-competitively.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was under the impression that dafoomie was implying that the profitable programs are among those being cut.[/QUOTE]
No, but some prestigious programs have been cut due to their own expenses plus the added expense of an offsetting program for title IX. Baseball has been hit hard, even football below the BCS level is taking a hit, and a lot of the minor sports are being demoted to club status. My point is that the belt tightening in these athletic departments is already occurring.

I tend to agree with dmaul that public schools should try to break even but you also have to factor in the financial benefits of the added exposure that the sport gives you, out of state tuition is often a profit center at these schools. That's minimal if you're not on TV though.
 
Wow no mention of Romney being criticized by both parties for his knee-jerk criticism of Obama over the violence in the Middle East. If you were worried that Romney did not have the foreign relations chops before it is down right scary to think how he would handle these types of things if he were President.
 
Has anyone read Bob Woodward's new book, The Price of Politics? I might order it tonight. It seems to back up what was written before in Confidence Men by Ron Suskind, a book that painted him as highly intelligent but weak and indecisive as a leader and lacking the experience necessary to manage his team in his first two years in office. Woodward goes further to suggest that, based in part on the failed debt crisis negotiations, he doesn't know how to work with people, he's alienated many and he doesn't have the chops to "work his will", as Clinton and Reagan did, on important issues. The division within the Republican party was also interesting in excerpts and interviews.

I'm tempted not to purchase it based on reviews that say it gets bogged down in details and becomes dull in spite of its revelations.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Wow no mention of Romney being criticized by both parties for his knee-jerk criticism of Obama over the violence in the Middle East. If you were worried that Romney did not have the foreign relations chops before it is down right scary to think how he would handle these types of things if he were President.[/QUOTE]

Because it makes the White House look bad to back away from Official Embassy statements.


EDIT:
US Embassy in Yemen marched upon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19584734

What the hell is going on?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']No, but some prestigious programs have been cut due to their own expenses plus the added expense of an offsetting program for title IX. Baseball has been hit hard, even football below the BCS level is taking a hit, and a lot of the minor sports are being demoted to club status. My point is that the belt tightening in these athletic departments is already occurring.[/quote]

Why are they being cut, finally? Because they're not profitable. ;)

I tend to agree with dmaul that public schools should try to break even but you also have to factor in the financial benefits of the added exposure that the sport gives you, out of state tuition is often a profit center at these schools. That's minimal if you're not on TV though.
Click to expand...

1) This kind of effect is a huge overstatement.
2) Tuition - even out of state - is a net loser by itself. The difference b/w the schools that are profitable and that are not come down to (a) merch and (b) indiviualized tv contracts. "Fightin' Irish" sweatshirts and the money ESPN pays to show their games exclusively (it may be CBS, I don't follow college ball, go figure) make Notre Dame profitable. Not Johnny from North Dakota who wants to go there because they have a football legacy
3) Do you think about what a waste of educational resources it is for people to select their school because of the awesome sports program? Do we want people to be entertained by college or find a program that is a good fit for them academically? Don't you see that advocating for the former comes at the expense of the latter? Factor in long-term debt and selected a college on a sports program suddenly sounds like a really bad, really bad idea to try to advocate.

[quote name='cancerman1120']Wow no mention of Romney being criticized by both parties for his knee-jerk criticism of Obama over the violence in the Middle East. If you were worried that Romney did not have the foreign relations chops before it is down right scary to think how he would handle these types of things if he were President.[/QUOTE]

It's a *huge* blunder, a shameful blunder, and one Democrats should be much louder about in terms of what it does to divide this country, how hateful it is, etc. But the average American won't be effected by this. The economy is still the biggest issue. In three days it won't be brought up as an issue.

[quote name='dafoomie']highly intelligent but weak and indecisive as a leader[/QUOTE]

I could see this. The extent to which he bent over backwards to appease Republicans in the PPACA, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and extensions of the Bush tax cuts - yet now all of those things are being used against him politically by that same party ("Obamacare," "failed stimulus," and "exploding debt," respectively) - well, that doesn't paint him as weak as it does naive. Naive in the sense that he attempted to govern with Republicans in the same way Charlie Brown attempted to kick the football Lucy was holding.
 
Doesn't know how to work with people? This is a guy who did everything to try and appease republicans, and ended up getting fucked in the ass for his trouble. If anything he needs to grow a backbone and learn that sometimes you just can't work with people. He is the president after all, we didn't elect him to cow tow to the republicans.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) Tuition - even out of state - is a net loser by itself. The difference b/w the schools that are profitable and that are not come down to (a) merch and (b) indiviualized tv contracts. "Fightin' Irish" sweatshirts and the money ESPN pays to show their games exclusively (it may be CBS, I don't follow college ball, go figure) make Notre Dame profitable. Not Johnny from North Dakota who wants to go there because they have a football legacy.[/QUOTE]

It's not just individualized TV deals. The major conferences have huge TV deals.

WVU is in the Big 12 now, that league just signed a 13 year TV deal that comes out to $20 million a year per team for the tier 1 (network) and tier 2 (cable) rights. Schools still can sell their tier 3 games--i.e. ones that don't get picked up by network or cable channels.

The Pac 12 TV deal is worth a bit more per team, the SEC and Big 10 are a tad behind (but will probably both jump ahead when they renew their contracts). ACC lags a good bit behind.

So most of those teams (i.e. all but the cellar dweller programs) in the top conferences turn profits because the league TV deals are so high, and from selling merch etc. Not just the ND type national brand name programs. But very few teams outside those leagues have profitable athletic departments.
 
One thing that has surprised me is that the Obama campaign hasn't talked about the recovery of the stock market--which I think would be big with independent voters. It closed at 13,593 yesterday, has been over 13,000 for a good while now, and over 12,000 for most of the year other than a dip back late spring/early summer.

But I guess they're just trying to keep focus off the economy, and stocks are more a concern for the upper middle class and above I suppose. But still seems like a key concern to independents in those social classes. And really just anyone who has retirement accounts in mutual funds etc., as that was the big way people who didn't lose their jobs got hit by the recession. And now we're pretty much back to where we were before the fall.
 
I think pointing out to people the stock market is doing better is a kick in the teeth considering how disconnected the investor class is still from the plight of regular people.

Also, how I feel about this entire race:
Dwight Eisenhower wrote, in 1954:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...[a] few other Texas oil millionaries, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One thing that has surprised me is that the Obama campaign hasn't talked about the recovery of the stock market--which I think would be big with independent voters. It closed at 13,593 yesterday, has been over 13,000 for a good while now, and over 12,000 for most of the year other than a dip back late spring/early summer.

But I guess they're just trying to keep focus off the economy, and stocks are more a concern for the upper middle class and above I suppose. But still seems like a key concern to independents in those social classes. And really just anyone who has retirement accounts in mutual funds etc., as that was the big way people who didn't lose their jobs got hit by the recession. And now we're pretty much back to where we were before the fall.[/QUOTE]

It could also be due to the idea that the heavily manipulated recovery in the stock market has not been the result of Obama's policies but that of good old Uncle Ben and the Federal Reserve.

The same policies that have juiced the stock market to 5 year highs and that were "supposed" to aid in job creation have failed miserably in helping the average American with their job situations and average cost of living on a day to day basis.

Coming out and highlighting the fact that the upper class is much, much wealthier now than they were 4 years ago could be viewed as a giant kick in the face to the majority of voters that are not seeing the benefits of the stock market recovery.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']It could also be due to the idea that the heavily manipulated recovery in the stock market has not been the result of Obama's policies but that of good old Uncle Ben and the Federal Reserve.

The same policies that have juiced the stock market to 5 year highs and that were "supposed" to aid in job creation have failed miserably in helping the average American with their job situations and average cost of living on a day to day basis.

Coming out and highlighting the fact that the upper class is much, much wealthier now than they were 4 years ago could be viewed as a giant kick in the face to the majority of voters that are not seeing the benefits of the stock market recovery.[/QUOTE]

So what you are saying is that the wealthy don't reinvest their money into the economy at a substantial enough rate to raise the incomes of the middle and lower class? I think you are a liar sir. Trickle down economics is a good thing and someday it will raise everyone's SES through the roof. When this occurs, I got no fucking clue, but it's going to occur. I mean it has been 30+ years and it ain't done shit, but if we try it some more it clearly is going to bring wealth and prosperity to all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top