Absolutely agree that it is valuable as compared to the absence of steady, reliable income. But it is much less valuable as compared to the opportunity to earn a high-beta income. Not sure what you mean by limited, but I mean limited in the sense of limited wealth creation ability. Earning a nice, steady $100k/year will keep you comfortable (absent inflation, wealth effect, etc), but will never make you wealthy.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders">@BernieSanders</a> cuts <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton">@HillaryClinton</a>'s natl lead from 25 to 11-pts in new <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews">@NBCNews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WSJ">@WSJ</a> Dem poll <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MTPDaily?src=hash">#MTPDaily</a> <a href="https://t.co/LVSzFxTRja">pic.twitter.com/LVSzFxTRja</a></p>— Meet the Press (@meetthepress) <a href="https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/700439831126675457">February 18, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Good ole Bernie. Funny thing, it doesn't matter how crazy your ideas are people will like you if they think you have their best interests at heart.
No, not a fan. But this was discussed in certain circles at the time. Do you see your self more like a billionaire / multi-millionaire Wall Street guy or a middle class guy?
That's cool. Would love to understand where... Age at which someone can "know" their career path? Ability to earn more is a better path to wealth than capped ability to earn? Something else entirely?
I agree that there is some level of waste in the education process, and that getting kids to really start focusing in on what they want to do after year 10 (I'm assuming that's 10th grade) would be a good idea, but there a couple issues I would like to point out in looking at the entire system from just your experiences (I realize you have other justifications for your opinions, I'm going to just address your particular history here) -You've realized that much of your education was irrelevant. However, this evaluation is in hindsight, and so had you become a musician (or any other distinctly different field) for example, you might have viewed a completely different subset of your education as irrelevant. So unless you knew exactly what you wanted to become from an early age (props to you if that is true), this argument can't really be generalized to the entire population because not every kid knows for sure what he is learning that will be necessary for their future or unnecessary since they might not be sure about their career path. -Your field is less technically specific than a lot of other fields. I'm sure others have pointed this out, but with fields like engineering and pharmacy for example, the 4 years of undergrad are extremely important in developing a broad base that can later be specialized to any existing field in the industry. Yes you might learn a lot of unnecessary information that may never be used later in your specialty, but people rarely know what their eventual specialty will be when studying in these fields (again, hindsight). If you want to revamp how education for your field is done, by all means go ahead, but it does not apply for a lot of other fields. -Your viewpoint stems from practicality, and I can respect that, but at the same time, the liberal arts are not useless. If you want students to have the option to streamline their college education by negating classes unrelated to their majors if they want to, then fine. But if you want to reduce things like history, music, English, and art from the public K-12 system, then heck no. Want to know the biggest complaint employers have about engineers? Ability to coherently present projects to managers/clients/investors etc. A lot of times though, one course during college for engineering majors specifically for communication can't repair years of deprivation from the skill. In addition, even if your english is good, your ability to argue your case has to be good as well (where do we learn how to argue effectively? English class, debate). In addition, having lawyers/politicians that don't know how to analyze scientific data and how separate good and bad data is also a big problem. If we had more STEM professionals that could communicate effectively and were well aware of their community and the world, we might have more politicians who are literate in science and could perhaps make better policy decisions. (this obviously isn't an absolute, just look at Ben Carson) -Countries that beat the U.S. in math and science (from k-12) often don't even have a focus on that. They just have well-rounded education and things end alright more often than not. -Exposure to multiple fields and well-roundedness can create a more reasonable constituency. Having more exposure can help you see the other side of the story more often for more issues. Especially in a nation as diverse as the U.S., having the ability to relate across cultures and professions is an invaluable tool. I don't think this can be taught in a classroom, but anything that contributes to narrow-mindedness is not good in my opinion. To sum up, I think that education needs to be cheaper (free IMO), more accessible to all classes, able to provide exposure to a variety of viewpoints and fields, and not necessarily focused on producing students that are focused on STEM degrees (a mistake that our standardized school system has unfortunately made). In addition, kids should have more of a say in regards to which classes they take in the 11th and 12th grades. All this, btw, coming from someone who is in a STEM field.
Don't know what's crazy about people having a right to a liveable wage, free education and free healthcare. We are the richest country on earth and one of the few that doesn't offer it. And the best economic minds in the world say his plans in action create millions of jobs and swing the deficit greatly back into the U.S.' favor. Young people want this from a leader and every four years creates a huge amount of young voters that are further and further to the left. I can't imagine a Rep. ever being elected in this country again.
I don't know what you think is false? This is his campaign policy. His track record is pretty good. His intent on raising minimum wage to 15.00 is what Seattle has already implemented and their economy and job creation has grown substantially over a year. L.A. & SF have also followed suit. Economist magazine and Elizabeth Warren support his policies. I can trust their word that they know and have done their math before they'd endorse or publish a story on it. Do you not believe young people will support him? He's at about 80% to Clinton's 20% in every national poll with voters under 25 and still holds a commanding lead with voters under 40. I feel the more and more media coverage that he wasn't getting until recently and now he's being treated as a viable nomination and see him speak the more and more he is going to swing votes by evidence of him shaving 14% off Clinton's national lead in the latest national poll.
Try to get past the minute to minute movements of the financial markets. Even more important consider getting policy type and economic views outside the confines of the mainstream and particularly the business press that we are all inundated with. try nakedcapitalism.com or dollarsandsense.org for awhile for some balance
Excellent post worth repeating from an ordinary reddit poster.. It is simply brutal and cringe worthy when you go back and splice together Hillary videos in front of various groups throughout the years on topics like criminal justice, gay marriage, Wall Street, NAFTA, TTP etc. Miceland 71 points 5 hours ago* https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...icago_police_officers_carry_protester_bernie/. ++++++++++++ People can be dubious of the internet in a lot of ways, can be dubious that millennials are actually going to organize and all that. But I think it's become very clear that the old politics—obfuscations, lies, backroom deals—have become orders of magnitude less effective. I truly believe this is at the heart of Bernie's surprising successes and Hillary's struggles. She's the perfect candidate for 1992. But with the aggregate power of the internet the old model runs into problems again and again. You can't lie to the internet quite as easily. This makes authenticity much more important: your entire history is searchable, and any discrepancies can and will be made into a youtube supercut, which will be disseminated instantly through facebook, reddit, or twitter. And it might not fully overcome the establishment spin, but it at least mitigates it in a way that breaks off from the rest of political history. As a 74 year old man, Bernie Sanders clearly didnt see this coming, not any more than Hillary did. But by a complete accident of history, qualities he's always possessed are now magnified. He's a basketball long distance shooter, and the league just invented the 3pt line. I don't know if it will be enough to get him over the top, but I think either way, the old politics is dying, and the people who succeed in its wake will look more like Bernie than Hillary. Hillary, whether she wins or loses, will do so as a relic of the pre-internet politics.
13 minutes of Hillary lying. To paraphrase Hillary she has been totally consistent her whole career. She will say anything to get elected. I had to force myself to watch the whole 13 minutes. It was hard to continue after the first couple of minutes. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-dY77j6uBHI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sanders annual spending plan of tax dollars: Free Medicare for All: $1.38 Trillion New WPA: $200 Billion (5 Yr Limit) Free College for up to 4 yrs: $75 Billion (Although The Atlantic says it can happen for 62.6 Billion while Occupy Wallstreet claims $15 Billion) Paid Family Leave for 12 Weeks: $31 Billion This amounts too 1.49 Trillion (annually) How to cover it with Tax Dollars: Eliminating these handouts that benefit only the 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans will pay for 90% of Bernie Sanders policy platform the remainder can be made up through a nominal increase of just 0.2% of a payroll tax increase. What he intends on cutting out of annual spending: Allowing Wall Street to trade tax-free: $352 Billion Extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: $277.6 Billion Government Contracts for the 200 wealthiest corporations: $176 Billion Lifting Cap on Social Security taxing: $120 Billion Money lost to corporate tax havens: $100 Billion Wall Street Welfare: $83 Billion (this alone covers a free college education for every American) Corporate Welfare in omnibus spending bill: $65 Billion Surveillance-Industrial Complex: $52.6 Billion Tax Breaks for Wealthy Investors: $51 Billion War in Afghanistan: $35 Billion Oil Company subsidies: $37.5 Billion Tax Breaks for Rich Brats: $26.9 Billion New Nuclear Missiles: $18 Billion Ford-class Aircraft Carrier: $15 Billion Federal War on Drugs (proven failure): $15 Billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: $10 Billion Foreign War Slush Fund: $8 Billion Wal Mart subsidies: $7.8 Billion Tax Breaks for CEO Bonuses: $7 Billion Littoral Combat Ship: $2 Billion Unusable Planes for Afghan Air Force: $800 Million Keeping Guantanamo Bay open: $454 Million The total for all this is 1.46 Trillion
