Patrick
- theexitwound
- +3 diggs
- -5 / +8
- -1 diggs
- -4 / +3
here's a hint, its a subsidy. the money IS going to paying back student loans.
while this alternative wouldn't address the actual rising costs of tuition, we would be MUCH better off if every cent that was spent subsidizing interest rates was instead spent subsidizing the tuition rates.
the same money gets spent by the government that way, but the student ends up with a much smaller principal to pay interest on.
regardless, subsidies don't address the fact that tuition is increasing at insane rates, vastly outpacing inflation, and something has to be done about it. everything being debated right now (and even my hypothetical idea above) is nothing but a band-aid that doesn't address the real problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- 0 diggs
- -2 / +2
- +3 diggs
- -1 / +4
Ding Ding Ding someone gets it.
Poor families (about 50% of the country) Don't buy junk in place of good healthy food because they WANT the junk.
They buy it because THEY CAN NOT AFFORD the good healthy food but they "CAN" afford the "junk"
SO by having an ultra high tax on the "junk" all your going to do is starve people. because they are not going to just "start" buying the "good healthy" food they can not afford.
why? because THEY CAN NOT AFFORD IT. its not because they don't want it.
now if your going to tax the "bad food" and take 100% of that tax revenue and use it to SUBSIDIZE that might at first appear to be a good idea but it has TWO problems.
#1 they won't do that they want to profit from this tax.
#2 the "good food" vendors will simply increase the price to absorb the extra profit from the subsidies JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER SUBSIDIZED ITEM DOES ON THIS PLANT 100% of the time.
- 0 diggs
- -1 / +1
I was more emphasizing that it being a *sole* cause is stretching it. I won't deny it's a factor. But even in your own links it states there's only a correlation (which doesn't immediately imply causation).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2011-027 Here's a study released not long ago showing how commodity trading has affected the price of products. Goldman Sachs released a report last month showing that $20-$30 per barrel is due to speculation. I'm sure you've seen it.
You can't just put blame on any one thing and ignore the others.
- +3 diggs
- -0 / +3
it's not a stretch as it takes more American dollars to buy the same amount of crude barrel oil.
a weakened dollar also exacerbates every other factor...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42703813/Don_t_Like_a_Weak_Dollar_Might_as_Well_Get_Used_to_It
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/8482960/Obamas-lax-dollar-is-to-blame-for-oils-spike-not-bankers.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/03/06/obama-wants-lower-oil-prices-but-forgets-the-printing-press-effect/
--->"Obama recognized supply-side issues in oil markets but failed to mention the effect of a weaker dollar and ultra-loose monetary policy on global demand.
... a reporter asking Obama what he thought about high oil prices, and then asking if they helped his cause of shifting away from fossil fuels.
After laughing, Obama first rejected the issue on political grounds. “Do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants higher gas prices”...
- 0 diggs
- -1 / +1
I was more emphasizing that it being a *sole* cause is stretching it. I won't deny it's a factor. But even in your own links it states there's only a correlation (which doesn't immediately imply causation).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2011-027 Here's a study released not long ago showing how commodity trading has affected the price of products. Goldman Sachs released a report last month showing that $20-$30 per barrel is due to speculation. I'm sure you've seen it.
You can't just put blame on any one thing and ignore the others.
- +4 diggs
- -0 / +4
I never said only. I said mostly. Obama's weakening of the dollar has much to do with why gas prices have gone up significantly under his watch. and while global demand/consumption has increased, here in the US it has actually decreased.
If Obama would have committed to increasing production domestically, gas prices would not have shot up the way they did (doesn't mean gas prices wouldn't have gone up, but not to the extent that they have). the more we make ourselves less dependent on foreign oil/energy, the better off we will be economically.
Obama pushed ideology over common sense solutions, hence his trying to force the American people into ideological energy solutions that are not viable nor being demanded.
bad approaches yield bad consequences.
- +1 diggs
- -2 / +3
and not only did he do nothing to increase our domestic supply, which is overly abundant and untapped, but he also helped to cripple the existing oil/refineries/coal/electric producing companies as well.
a double whammy. and when combined with the weakened dollar, it's a triple whammy.
he wants oil/gas/electric/coal to be unaffordable bc it suits his ideology. that is horrendous energy policy. it hurts us economically and is a national security problem as well.
- +3 diggs
- -0 / +3
- +2 diggs
- -0 / +2
Yes they might but that does not mean they should not have that budget should be higher than what is spending on education. Meaning people are donating to the wrong things for universities :). Also ticket sales are not just for athletics, they are supposed to help out the rest of the university and lower education costs really.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
You have not given any evidence on why you believe politicians screw everything up and can't fix it. You even state you have little trust but haven't given any reasons why. That bias is something that's in the way of your argument. I've fought with health problems my entire life and I'm deep in debt because of it. The ACA is a fantastic step in the right direction. It might not be perfect but the step is required and moving in the right direction so insurance companies and the for-profit nature of health insurance can stop raping the customers they require to survive.
- -1 diggs
- -2 / +1
He's a one-dimensional actor. Look at his resume in the last decade though: Iron Man, Jumper, Star Wars, Captain America, The Avengers... he's become pigeon-holed. He's nothing spectacular.
The only film I've ever seen him branch off and really feel has depth was Lakeview Terrace. Otherwise, he just yells a lot. I honestly don't see him doing anything beyond "being Samuel L Jackson".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theexitwound7 days ago
Newspapers that 'back' candidates, in my opinion, are just as untrustworthy.