Presidential Race 2016

[rehmwa]

25 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

It's good to see you did what had to be done with the opportunity you were given. That's really what Bernie is talking about.

OK....as soon as you post a link to a speech where Bernie tells a bunch of 20 year olds that his plan is for them to work 2 jobs while taking full time classes, then I'll believe that whopper.

[phillyk]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, it was hard work, tenacity and a bit of luck that allowed me to secure a full-time position at the school I went to, but I know many others that worked their way through college as well.

I'm 50 years old and was the first person in my immediate family to earn a college degree, it meant something then.  What I'm seeing in the business world today thanks to all the student loans is that the value of a college degree has dropped significantly.  

If Bernie pulls off a miracle and makes college free for everyone what will happen is that an undergraduate degree will be valued roughly at what a high school diploma is today and in order to secure the best and highest paying jobs you will need a graduate or doctorate degree which won't be free.  

The cheese will always be moved, it's all just an illusion that Bernie and millennials are creating that free college is the solution to our problems. 

This I definitely agree with.  Even now, a science major in college is almost nothing.  To get anywhere, you need to go to graduate/doctorate schools.  BUT, college teaches some valuable life skills that current high schools don't, like doing taxes, business planning, writing a good resume, actually doing math and reading.  With the stupid no child left behind crap, high schools pushed kids through school even if they couldn't read just so the school would pass the requirements.  Now I suppose community college actually would teach you those things I mentioned above for far cheaper than a 4 year college/university, but we should be teaching these things in high school and making it mandatory to pass before graduating.  It would make going to college less of a requirement.  But this line of thought may cost more money as more and more kids would be held back.  Either way, it costs money for someone.

[Chilli Dipper]

Just a thought that came to me today...

Conservatives usually love to raise concerns about the state of our national debt. Meanwhile, the general view of most economists is that the debt is of little worry, so long as the United States is engaged in friendly and productive economic relationships with the countries who hold that debt. Donald Trump's proposed economic policy promises to start a trade war with our creditors; how does that not turn the issue of the national debt into a powder keg that is poised to explode, with catastrophic effect to America's finances?

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, phillyk said:

This I definitely agree with.  Even now, a science major in college is almost nothing.  To get anywhere, you need to go to graduate/doctorate schools.

People just need to get work experience. In the end you are going to start at an entry level position. The employer is going to teach you most of what you need to do and know. Most people will say they use less than 25% of what they learn in college. I could throw about half my time at Ohio State and still know what I need to for the job I got after college.

College has a bunch of filler that isn't required.

8 minutes ago, phillyk said:

With the stupid no child left behind crap, high schools pushed kids through school even if they couldn't read just so the school would pass the requirements.

This I agree with. Standardized testing and value added evaluation of teachers has screwed up our education system.

 

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Just a thought that came to me today...

Conservatives usually love to raise concerns about the state of our national debt. Meanwhile, the general view of most economists is that the debt is of little worry, so long as the United States is engaged in friendly and productive economic relationships with the countries who hold that debt. Donald Trump's proposed economic policy promises to start a trade war with our creditors; how does that not turn the issue of the national debt into a powder keg that is poised to explode, with catastrophic effect to America's finances?

I don't know what economists you read but in my view debt at a personal or national level is never good.  The amount of money we waste annually servicing our National debt could be far better utilized.  

I guess these same economists think it's okay for individuals to be deep in debt as long as they as they kiss their lenders asses too?  

Trump isn't in office yet but we've had Saudi Arabia threaten to sell off our debt if we disclose their involvement in 9-11 and other terrorist activities.  I'm sure China has used our debt against us as well, so let's not pretend that this will all be Trumps fault.  

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't know what economists you read but in my view debt at a personal or national level is never good.  The amount of money we waste annually servicing our National debt could be far better utilized. 

Certain levels of debt is a good thing. It allows for leverage.

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I guess these same economists think it's okay for individuals to be deep in debt as long as they as they kiss their lenders asses too? 

I highly doubt any economists would say that.

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump isn't in office yet but we've had Saudi Arabia threaten to sell off our debt if we disclose their involvement in 9-11 and other terrorist activities.

Saudi's were threatening sell of the debt if congress passed a law allowing citizens of this country to sue other countries that have ties to terrorists activities.

The Supreme Court already did something similar.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/26/iran-blasts-supreme-courts-ruling-on-terror-victims-threatens-to-sue-us.html

Many economist believe Saudi wouldn't sell of the debt because it would cripple their economy to do so.

 

[Chilli Dipper]

19 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't know what economists you read but in my view debt at a personal or national level is never good.  The amount of money we waste annually servicing our National debt could be far better utilized.  

I guess these same economists think it's okay for individuals to be deep in debt as long as they as they kiss their lenders asses too?  

Trump isn't in office yet but we've had Saudi Arabia threaten to sell off our debt if we disclose their involvement in 9-11 and other terrorist activities.  I'm sure China has used our debt against us as well, so let's not pretend that this will all be Trumps fault.  

In summary: If the United States unnecessarily defaults on its debts as a direct consequence of Donald Trump's foolhardiness and lack of tact in foreign relations, in your opinion Trump serves to shoulder none of the blame?

[Golfingdad]

40 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Just a thought that came to me today...

Conservatives usually love to raise concerns about the state of our national debt. Meanwhile, the general view of most economists is that the debt is of little worry, so long as the United States is engaged in friendly and productive economic relationships with the countries who hold that debt. Donald Trump's proposed economic policy promises to start a trade war with our creditors; how does that not turn the issue of the national debt into a powder keg that is poised to explode, with catastrophic effect to America's finances?

 

22 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't know what economists you read but in my view debt at a personal or national level is never good.  The amount of money we waste annually servicing our National debt could be far better utilized.  

I guess these same economists think it's okay for individuals to be deep in debt as long as they as they kiss their lenders asses too?  

Trump isn't in office yet but we've had Saudi Arabia threaten to sell off our debt if we disclose their involvement in 9-11 and other terrorist activities.  I'm sure China has used our debt against us as well, so let's not pretend that this will all be Trumps fault.  

An FYI to both of you, as well as everybody else with the strong opinions in here:  There are many of us who enjoy reading some of the stuff in this thread for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't know a lot about politics and like to learn some new things.  Both of these posts have some intriguing info in them, and we would love to know more, so I would request that when you guys make statements like the bold ones I highlighted, it would be awesome if they were links.

That is all - carry on. 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

In summary: If the United States unnecessarily defaults on its debts as a direct consequence of Donald Trump's foolhardiness and lack of tact in foreign relations, in your opinion Trump serves to shoulder none of the blame?

I didn't say none but the way you wrote your earlier post you seemed to be putting 100% of the blame on Trump if it should happen.  

[14ledo81]

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

My family couldn't afford to send me to college either.  I worked and saved money from the time I was 13.  Prior to securing a student loan I had taken the ASVAB exam and seriously considered joining the military in order to pay for college.  The combination of student loan, personal savings and some minor assistance from my parents covered my first year of college.  

I worked two jobs while going to college as a freshman, one at the University, the other at a retail store.  In my sophomore year I applied for a full-time position at the school as a computer operator working midnight - 8am which not only paid me a salary but also covered my tuition.  I worked full-time and went to school full-time.  

It wasn't easy but I did what I had to do.  I realize that I had some good fortune that not everyone else has but my point is if you want it bad enough you find a way to make it happen rather than expect someone else to hand it to you.  

You don't go to a lofty private school if you don't work hard enough to earn a scholarship and can't afford to go, it's simple.  You don't buy a Porsche if you can only afford a Ford, you don't eat steak if you can only afford hamburger.   This mentality that millennials have that they are entitled to things they haven't worked for is going to be the downfall of our country.  

I agree with both points completely.

 

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, it was hard work, tenacity and a bit of luck that allowed me to secure a full-time position at the school I went to, but I know many others that worked their way through college as well.

I'm 50 years old and was the first person in my immediate family to earn a college degree, it meant something then.  What I'm seeing in the business world today thanks to all the student loans is that the value of a college degree has dropped significantly.  

If Bernie pulls off a miracle and makes college free for everyone what will happen is that an undergraduate degree will be valued roughly at what a high school diploma is today and in order to secure the best and highest paying jobs you will need a graduate or doctorate degree which won't be free.  

The cheese will always be moved, it's all just an illusion that Bernie and millennials are creating that free college is the solution to our problems. 

If everybody has a college degree....nobody has a college degree.

In the smaller town that I live in, I am already seeing this to a large extent.  Those that are willing to work with their hands at a skilled trade (carpenter, plumber, electrician, etc.) are making more money than those with a 4 year degree.

[RandallT]

 

1 hour ago, Chilli Dipper said:

In summary: If the United States unnecessarily defaults on its debts as a direct consequence of Donald Trump's foolhardiness and lack of tact in foreign relations, in your opinion Trump serves to shoulder none of the blame?

President Simpson (Lisa) will fix it. I am not gonna sweat it. She will have to cut back on her book-mobile program a bit though. But I agree with that, since the US Constitution, I believe, delegates to the states the responsibility for book-mobile programs.

 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I guess these same economists think it's okay for individuals to be deep in debt as long as they as they kiss their lenders asses too?  

I always go back to my college Econ professor: the national debt doesn't matter because countries don't have a life expectancy.

That's a simplification, but it's what it boiled down to.

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I didn't say none but the way you wrote your earlier post you seemed to be putting 100% of the blame on Trump if it should happen.  

China has no reason to force the United States' hand, because the value of the U.S.-China economic relationship is worth much more than the value of U.S. debt in their possession. If they tell us to pay up and we default, they've lost their largest trade partner; at the same time, if we pay our debts in full, they lose their main bargaining chip for an agreed co-operation between the two nations. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If one supposes the argument of "China's been ripping us off for years," the strongest move the U.S. can make is to propose an aggressive schedule to pay the balance of the national debt in Chinese hands. The mere prospect of us owing China nothing would give our government power to re-negotiate more favorable terms in our trade agreement. Ironically, this is an orthodox conservative position that would not have looked out of place on the platform of a Republican presidential candidate before this year.

This is not the strategy Trump has in mind, because he is oblivious to political realities. He thinks that he can what he wants from the Chinese president with threats of tariffs and embargoes. If he tries that, he upsets the symbiosis between Chinese trade and U.S. debt, and they hold the trump card. China is then free to demand we pay up on our debts, and we lose our strength in the agreement. China can force us to less favorable trade terms than what exist now; they can impose onerous conditions to the servicing of our debt; or, we can default. Either way, we lose.

[newtogolf]

40 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

China has no reason to force the United States' hand, because the value of the U.S.-China economic relationship is worth much more than the value of U.S. debt in their possession. If they tell us to pay up and we default, they've lost their largest trade partner; at the same time, if we pay our debts in full, they lose their main bargaining chip for an agreed co-operation between the two nations. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If one supposes the argument of "China's been ripping us off for years," the strongest move the U.S. can make is to propose an aggressive schedule to pay the balance of the national debt in Chinese hands. The mere prospect of us owing China nothing would give our government power to re-negotiate more favorable terms in our trade agreement. Ironically, this is an orthodox conservative position that would not have looked out of place on the platform of a Republican presidential candidate before this year.

This is not the strategy Trump has in mind, because he is oblivious to political realities. He thinks that he can what he wants from the Chinese president with threats of tariffs and embargoes. If he tries that, he upsets the symbiosis between Chinese trade and U.S. debt, and they hold the trump card. China is then free to demand we pay up on our debts, and we lose our strength in the agreement. China can force us to less favorable trade terms than what exist now; they can impose onerous conditions to the servicing of our debt; or, we can default. Either way, we lose.

The trade relationship with China was another short sighted policy by our government in that it brought lower priced products to the country which our consumers wanted but it was at the expense of manufacturing jobs.  

Sadly I'm old enough to remember the days when "Made in China" meant the product was a piece of junk.  Like it or not, China and the US are co-dependent and neither can afford to walk away from the relationship.  
Trump is a business man, he's talking a tough game because that what he feels he needs to do to secure the nomination but when it comes time to sit across from leaders of other governments he's savvy enough to know what he can and can't get away with.  

[Patch]

Just read that Cruz dropped out of the race when he lost Indiana. However Trump is not guanteed the nomination.  

[saevel25]

That isn't a nice number 

 

[newtogolf]

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That isn't a nice number 

 

It's 2100 respondents, not a true representation of the general population.  Let's see what happens now that Trump can focus on the national election and not fighting his own team.   

[Chilli Dipper]

Even if Trump loses in a landslide, we've emboldened every hateful idiot who has been rightfully excluded from public discourse to feel entitled to be taken seriously.

I hope you guys are proud of yourselves.