The personal discrediting and outlying issue reviews are not important. The importance of Mr. Sanders 'campaign' is exposing a generation of voters to progressivism , to a government and candidate that doesn't sell out to Plutocrats, their propaganda, obscene campaign contributions or self interested lobbying . It's the chink in the armor that scares them. Though it's a tiny step in a long haul, uphill haul, you have to believe that reason will eventually prevail if people really begin to talk and the created stigma of liberalism is debunked.
Depends on what you define as a "good job." If a guy drives a garbage truck and his kids aren't missing any meals and they have a roof over their head ---> that's a good job IMO. Especially if money isn't his god and he doesn't need to buy a bunch of unnecessary materialistic things to make him happy. Congrats on your business venture... And remember, you don't learn to ride a bicycle without falling.
College isn't for everyone, but it can be a place where incredibly learned and studied individuals can share their knowledge and help people to gain not only knowledge but how to evaluate evidence, learning, and critical thinking.
Even garbage truck jobs don't grow on trees! Here's one opening that makes a whopping $11.47 an hour! http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sanantoniotx/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=1154165 At least they get insurance. You're right in that the term "good job" is subjective. We all have different priorities and it is unfortunate that so many people worship money enough to continue to rack up debt (this happens in both the lower class and the middle class). There's nothing wrong with working hard and having the ability to raise children with a roof over your head. These people pay taxes and deserve the same dignity and pride that any other higher-earning citizen has. It took failing at that business and having to financially suffer to overcome a lot of personal entitlement issues. People don't realize how fortunate they are to have an income that allows them extra savings over their regular monthly expenses. Going back to what we were saying about what schools are responsible for and how they should change, I believe that kids today are learning to perpetuate the mistakes and misunderstands about personal finance and savings of their parents. My grandmother is a child of the depression and saving is just something that is built into her life. People just aren't built that way anymore. Our society just tells us to spend and procreate more spenders. Not that people shouldn't have kids, but if the young people understood the financial implications of having kids (or any long term financial liability) and compared that to current and potential income, they might be smarter about finances and put themselves in a situation where they don't have to rely on anybody else besides themselves. But hey... let's just teach em to pass standardized tests instead.
I believe it depends on what you learn (or start learning) as a child and China has the right idea as far as educating their children. And I didn't say everyone can start their own business and or be self employed... But there are a lot of people who probably could if they were guided that way as children. Many Hispanics come over here all the time with hardly any book education but they start their own businesses and survive. Higher education can be a good thing but it's overrated if people aren't paying attention to the job market... Heck, having a class A CDL with all the endorsements is probably more valuable than most college degrees. And as far as the increasingly small group of food growers... Blame that on super companies like Monsanto and the FDA.
I don't think that's an actual garbage truck driving job that drives the big garbage trucks that require at least a class "B" CDL. That listing you posted only requires a class "C"... You're right about how people spend money... I read a book back in the 90's called The Millionaire Next Door. And it touched on how a lot of people who have money don't spend there money to keep up the appearance of wealth unlike many middle-class and under do. And as far as the children... It's not just the corporate government indoctrination educational system but the entertainment industry as well. The President made an appearance on the Grammy Awards and said "These are the people raising our children." And he may have a point because many kids spend more time in front of the TV and or listening to music than they do with their parents.
This cartoon made me think of Tim Wise... A majority of the whit middle-class was created by receiving handouts. 400 YEARS HEAD START AND ADVANTAGES... https://youtu.be/6JErESW-CQI
Tighter bid ask spreads are a factor in long term investment. If you have to pay a spread that is 25 cents on a 25 dollar stock then that adds up a lot more than a nickel spread. Sure it isn't titanic, but it helps. IMO transaction taxes are stupid. I have my gripes about HFTs, but the market is far more efficient with them than without them. I mean it's not like they are saving tons and tons of money for investors, but help a lot more than the old systems that were in place. Just because they don't provide insane amounts of value doesn't mean they need to be taxed either. And these estimates of how much money a transaction tax will bring in will not be accurate because trading volumes will drop. If you want to tax the markets then just raise the long term capital gains to the regular income tax rate. I don't think there is any evidence that shows the long term capital gains tax rate incentivizes investors to hold investments longer or that it makes investors want to invest in companies.
https://medium.com/@EmilMella/dear-america-please-get-your-head-out-of-your-ass-about-bernie-sanders-98ff306bf72
We all know he's not going to win, but how low do you rate Sanders' chances? It's obviously going to be Hillary barring a major screw up. And I really mean major. Even her shady financial dealings with CGI is not enough to shake her ascent. Has to be something which corporations rather than humans don't like. It's so funny too how blatantly she's lying everyday, because she knows it's in the bag as long as she doesn't rock the boat. Faking accents. Acting like she doesn't know how to use cellphones. Talking to people about WALL STREET lol. Too funny. Tough for Bernie. IMO he's the best candidate for 99.9% of the American people even though I saw that he supports drone warfare abroad. I really mean this: Americans can flourish under Sanders again, and all the media can talk about are his weak points as if they are weighted equally with red/blue corruption. I really want you guys to have universal health care, protect social security, boost spending on education, improve infrastructure, rely more on clean sustainable energy and stop treating companies like people. Obviously one President can't do that and Bernie Sanders has his weaknesses but he would no doubt be the first person perhaps in decades to set you on that path towards taking care of American humans rather than American companies and institutions. So much at stake here but nothing can shake this slumber that American voters are in. I have no doubt in my mind that if 100% of voters voted and all candidates got to debate, Bernie would be more fairly represented in the outcome. It's absurd that this guy is going to end up with less than 10% of the vote when his position on almost every issue is aligned with MOST Americans.
I think he will pull 10-20% in the primaries. Pretty meh for as important as his message is but so much of politics is perception and popularity; a dowdy old jew with a big negative buzzword attached to his identity is a hard sell no matter what he says. Maybe he could announce Clooney, Ruffalo or Baldwin as his running mate to get his Q score up. Also, he has no real pull within the party since he's not a member, he 's not associated with the nationwide machine.
Narrower bid/ask spreads through HFTs or any type of market makers don't actually save investors money at all - it costs them because the HFT is taking a cut. Take a $25 stock with a bid/ask spread of $25 and $25.25. Maybe the stock will trade at one of those prices or ultimately meet in the middle somewhere. Existence of HFTs can drive that to $25.14 and $25.16, which is nice in that it helps facilitate meeting in the middle. But in the original scenario, either the buyer or the seller will get all of that $0.25 spread, however it's divided between them. In the HFT scenario, if the HFT makes $0.01 on the transaction, that's $0.01 coming out of the pocket of the buyer or seller, and ultimately being taken out of the long-term investors' profits. That's basically the price they pay to get the narrower bid/ask. Nothing wrong it since the HFT is providing a service, but it's actually being done at a net loss to the investors. It's similar to speculators in the oil market or arbitragers in the currency markets. If these guys are making a profit, and the net price of the stock/oil/currency is not rising, then they are simply doing it at the expense of the original buyer and seller, meaning either the buyer is paying more than they had to or the seller is getting less than they could have earned, if the two parties had just negotiated directly. I don't have a problem with this at all. I think labor and capital should be taxed equally and that having separate capital gains taxes is a big part of the problem of our economic system - we value capital over labor by taxing it at a lower rate. There's no reason investing money in someone else's company should be taxed at a lower rate than investing time and sweat into your own.
I don't have time to break it down, but that's just not how it works and it is not an accurate assessment of what HFTs do. If they took money from anyone it was from the old specialists and market makers and even from me (a trader that used to make money off of order flow arbitrage) because they do things much more efficiently and on much smaller margins. I'm also for increasing the dividend tax rate to regular income tax.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WJaW32ZTyKE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What he said back then could pretty much be repeated now. Millionaires and billionaires are the exception. Why are we making rules to favor the minority over the majority.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">At this point 8 years ago, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors in his successful primary campaign against Hillary. Today, Sanders has 250,000.</p>— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/616653952399114241">July 2, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
We need to stop with the "throw away your vote" rhetoric. He's got a plan unlike any of these other nuts.
i hope clinton screws up or perhaps something comes out about her that is so horrible she cant win no matter who is backing her.
Even if Sanders did somehow get the nomination wouldn't a race between him and Jeb Bush/whoever be a lot more competitive than Hillary vs anybody? I think republicans would be happy to see Sanders take the nomination. He energizes the base, but winning a national election means winning the center. His policies will help the center far more than anyone else's, but is the country ready for this message?
