patrick.net

1. Universities that accept one dollar of Federal Money:
* Must abide by the first amendment
* Disband any courts beyond those that handle plagarism, cheating, or academic/student misconduct (ie dorm room arguments, petty agendas between scholars). Must refer any crime that could be a felony to the proper Law Enforcement Officer or Prosecutor (mandatory reporting).
* Cannot have more than 1 individual per 200 students making over $99,999 per year, indexed to inflation. Including and especially Administrators. There is no need for an institution with 1000 students to need more than 5 six figure plus individuals. The trade off in academia for pay is security.
* The highest paid person must be either the President or an Academic, not the Coach and not any other Administrator.

thunderlips11 says

The highest paid person must be either the President

The salaries and perks for that position have gone a bit crazy. Like $700k/year and a house to live in! Seriously, they need to rethink a lot of university salaries.

turtledove says

The salaries and perks for that position have gone a bit crazy. Like $700k/year and a house to live in! Seriously, they need to rethink a lot of university salaries.

And they stay for like a couple of years... then move on into an even higher position somewhere across the country!

30-40 years ago, being a Dean or President was a reward to a long serving well loved Professor or Alumni who had been supporting or serving the college/uni for decades. Then, it became a den of Professionals who hop from one school to another, and they have next to no Teaching or Research experience. They are "Professional Managers" in the worst sense.

It's not just President, but they have Vice Assistant Deans of Whatever, who all make over 100k. Plus they each have an army of assistants, some of whom also make north of $100k. It's crazy!

thunderlips11 says

Cannot have more than 1 individual per 200 students making over $99,999 per year, indexed to inflation. Including and especially Administrators. There is no need for an institution with 1000 students to need more than 5 six figure plus individuals. The trade off in academia for pay is security.

This is too severe. Berkeley and Stanford would become ghost towns if they could not pay an engineering professor at least 200k/year. Bureaucrats should be limited to 100k, not the academics.

Tenpoundbass says

That's some elitist bullshit. As most degrees don't require all of the Social engineering classes, nor do they require advanced math or other High school rehash classes that people that people must take all over again. Just to make sure they filter out the Clowns who's parents didn't buy into the Good School districts, and and hit all of the marks on the Dog Whistle questions.

You should only have an aptitude for the field you're trying to get into. That's with a free market school or Bernie Sanders USSR Utopian State ran school.

Getting rid of the Department of Education, will be the best thing that ever happened to education in this country.

Let people get the school systems they deserve by the School Superintendent they elect. They'll smarten up eventually and find a Trump for that.

I can't parse the above stream of unconsciousness. But I am almost certain I agree with very little of whatever it is supposed to mean.

Ironman says

You want to thrive and live on one income, like they did in the 1950's, then you need to move to a average sized house during that time, which was between 900 sq. ft - 1100 sq.ft. You ready to do that?

Also, most families only had one car, and it wasn't a SUV. You willing to sell one of your cars?

So, to make a comparison to 1950's just shows, once again, how clueless you are to reality.

Actually, not so. There have been huge productivity increases over the last 50 years. So, 1 income households should be able live in larger homes with 2 cars.

Ironman says

Delusional again, Trump has provided jobs for over 22,000 people in all his different organizations. How many jobs has Bernie provided in all his businesses?

Let's see. He created jobs, then destroyed them. Created them again, then destroyed them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

tatupu70 says

Actually, not so. There have been huge productivity increases over the last 50 years. So, 1 income households should be able live in larger homes with 2 cars.

And the reason they don't is the FED-created constant and incessant inflation and devaluation of money. You are getting somewhere..

tatupu70 says

Let's see. He created jobs, then destroyed them. Created them again, then destroyed them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Still he paid and is still paying plenty of salaries every year for many people so they can have a job and make a living - Sanders the career politician, not so much. He just lives off of tax money.

mell says

tatupu70 says

Actually, not so. There have been huge productivity increases over the last 50 years. So, 1 income households should be able live in larger homes with 2 cars.

And the reason they don't is the FED-created constant and incessant inflation and devaluation of money. You are getting somewhere..

I know you like to attribute everything bad to the Federal Reserve, but we've been over this a million times. It's NOT the Fed. I've been over the reasons for inequality and showed you why it's Republican policies that have caused this mess.

Ironman says

He has 100's of business ventures and decided to make a good business decision and close 4 casinos that were doing badly in liberal controlled Atlantic City using current legal methods. That's, at minimum, of a 96% success rate.

Yes--that was after he declared bankruptcy multiple times.

Ironman says

You avoided answering my questions again. Why?

Because I decide which questions of your are worth answering, and this one is basically rhetorical. So, being a dumb question, like most of your questions, I just left it be.

Unlike you, I don't worship "job creators" that use their Daddy's money to build hotels. And screw over their investors by declaring bankruptcy repeatedly. Nothing wrong with it--just not particularly admirable from my point of view.

Dan8267 says

Going over Sander's plan...

9. Work? Create wealth?

Tenpoundbass says

Getting rid of the Department of Education, will be the best thing that ever happened to education in this country.

Which, like the Department of Energy, never produced a barrel of oil or MCF of gas, never "educated" one person.

Ironman says

You're safe there too, if Bernie doesn't start/own any businesses, and instead, lives off of the public tit, there's no money he needs to borrow to grow his non-existent businesses and create non-existent jobs. Sounds like just the guy I want running the country with all that experience.

I thought you were for a smaller government--so you don't want a job creator as President then, right? That would just be more people living off of the public tit, as you so eloquently put it.

This has probably been pointed out, but that shows the increases in taxes. It doesn't show the increases in services, which lead to less expenses for all. Universal health care would be a great idea for the simple reason that our current system is a hugely expensive mess. It would require new taxes, but would save everybody lots of money in the long run. It would also be a shift of burden from poor and middle class people to wealthier people. It would be interesting to see a transparent and detailed account of the financial impact of Bernie's policy suggestions on people in each income bracket.

One of the biggest differences between a Bernie Tax plan and a Trump (or any GOP) tax plan, is that because of gerrymandered congressional districts, republican will almost surely dominate congress, therefore republican POTUS candidate tax plans will likely be enacted. Democrats won't.

With Trump or any of the others GOP candidates, the rich will get richer and the govt and the rest of us will be fucked.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/23/donald-trump-plan-tax-policy-center/

With Bernie he MIGHT, just MIGHT, prevent the taxes on rich going down, and he might get ever so slight changes in the direction he wants (but doubtful).

This isn't rocket science folks.

YesYNot says

Universal health care would be a great idea for the simple reason that our current system is a hugely expensive mess. It would require new taxes, but would save everybody lots of money

YEs. Ironically it would be a huge boost to corporations.

Ironman says

We need a PRIVATE job creator President, NOT a Government PUBLIC job creator President. Can't you tell those two apart?

lol--how does a President create private jobs exactly?

tatupu70 says

lol--how does a President create private jobs exactly?

By getting the fuck out of the way

tatupu70 says

I don't worship "job creators" that use their Daddy's money to build hotels. And screw over their investors

You're right. Screwing over the taxpayers is much more admirable.

turtledove says

You're right. Screwing over the taxpayers is much more admirable.

How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?

tatupu70 says

How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?

Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable. Investors take risks when they make an investment. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. They know that going in and they make the choice accordingly. Fast forward to the bailouts/bail-ins... We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two.

Ironman says

By having experience working in the private sector, knowing what it takes to create jobs, before becoming president..... Duhh..

Really? Do tell me more. How exactly will that experience help one create private sector jobs as President?

Ironman says

Then Bernie isn't your boy.

Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.

tatupu70 says

Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.

The sad thing is that Tat is in the majority if not with Sanders then will Clinton.

Ironman says

Once again, your LACK of knowledge of how business operates comes through clear as a bell.

I figure--it was really a rhetorical question because everyone knows you aren't going to answer it. Because you can't. There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.

turtledove says

Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable

Yep--nobody said he broke the law. There are a lot of activities that aren't illegal but may not represent things we want our future President to engage in.

turtledove says

We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two

That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions. Who made the comparison? Certainly not me.

But, fyi--the government actually make a profit on the bailouts.

Good---when you have to break out the stupid Internet memes, that means you've pretty much given up.

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.

"building a hotel"...

Do some reading, you might learn something:

Sorry, I take it back. He also builds golf courses.

tatupu70 says

That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions.

Sure, when they are making decisions that represent the will of the people. When they go rogue, it's more like a hostile takeover. What a shock, voters have since mutinied.

Ironman says

So, tell us, old wise one, if Trump doesn't have the knowledge to create private sector jobs, how does Bernie accomplish this wish list with all HIS past ability?

Not surprisingly, you have completely misunderstood the point. The President doesn't create private sector jobs. All he can do is allocate Federal m money to programs that will employ people and/or improve the economy so that there is more demand. Bernie will do both. Making taxes more progressive, increasing cap gains, and the inheritance taxes will reduce inequality, increase demand, and create private sector jobs. He will also allocate Federal money to programs that hire people--creating jobs.

My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.

This is where the mutts get confused with all the Keynesian gibberish.

The true factors are Says Law and the Hayekian triangle. IOW production comes 1st in the sequence, production creates the demand NOT the other way around.

indigenous says

Says Law

Not that bullshit again.

thunderlips11 says

Not that bullshit again.

Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.

indigenous says

production creates the demand NOT the other way around.

What if no one wants what you are producing?

indigenous says

Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.

I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.

turtledove says

What if no one wants what you are producing?

Then you have to change your name to "government".

The key to success in the economy is choosing to produce a product/service that is wanted. E.G. A GP in the flyover part of the country makes way less than a plastic surgeon in Hollywood. Another example is over-investment where many people were fooled by low interest rates into investing in oil fracking. Oil is always valuable was the assumption. In this situation the entrepreneurs then have to reevaluate what is valuable.

thunderlips11 says

I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.

Back at ya. Got any of that data to prove your contention?

tatupu70 says

My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.

Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology.

Reality check the only Prez who really got out of the way was the GREAT Coolidge. We need another Coolidge the only one close would have been Ron (not Rand) Paul.

indigenous says

We need another Coolidge

Along with the wonderful music. Everything is the 20's was memorialized in music, including Coolidge's famous statement--I've heard that Spike Jones (born in 1911) was greatly influenced as a young man in his late teens in the late 20's by the madcap antics of Harry Reser's Six Jumping Jacks.

www.youtube.com/embed/KSAZPVhtZVI

FortWayne says

Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology

I think Trump has some good ideas w.r.t. international trade and H1Bs But building a hotel or golf course didn't give any great insight.

You're being ridiculous about Sanders--unlike Clinton, he hasn't moved left for the primaries. He's stayed true to himself