|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I wonder if having a housing complex, shared by all of Congress regardless of party, would help at all with the collegiality. It certainly could in principle; but I'm not sure if it'd help in practice.
And since plansix answered the query from Travis before me (was playing a hots game), he saved me some work :D
PS it bothers me that some state public university coaches make more money than the President of the US.
|
That should bother a lot of people. But super sports fans will say its worth it to provide the professionals sports with free, tax free farm leagues for reasons.
|
Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them.
|
Right, the public university that is allowed to exist in its current state because it was designed to educate the state's youth. And is immune to labor laws for players, can market players and make money off of those players. But the players themselves are not allowed to make any money because that would be going to far. That would ruin the purity of the system, because they are really students. When really it would just remove the thin excuse for why the school can make all that money off of free labor.
A system designed to make everyone rich but the educators and players taking the hits. Division 1 college sports is super fucked in he US.
|
On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. Coaches are a veblen good just like american CEOs.
|
On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them.
And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves.
|
it should be noted that college coaches salaries are inflated by booster funds so it's not the state making all that money. It's still ridiculous salary wise especially with all the NCAA rules and stuff floating around.
|
On May 13 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves.
A coaches benefit to a school can very easily be measured. You can look at the improved value of a team and the revenue it generates in TV deals and jersey sales and the good ones get paid very well for generating a lot of this for the school.
However a congressmen is harder to judge. How do you decide which congressmen are good and which are bad? You could say its based on who gets elected but some districts and states are free wins and you can hardly say that the US has an informed electorate so its not as easy to judge which congressmen deserve a big salary and which do not.
|
On May 13 2016 08:39 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves. A coaches benefit to a school can very easily be measured. You can look at the improved value of a team and the revenue it generates in TV deals and jersey sales and the good ones get paid very well for generating a lot of this for the school. However a congressmen is harder to judge. How do you decide which congressmen are good and which are bad? You could say its based on who gets elected but some districts and states are free wins and you can hardly say that the US has an informed electorate so its not as easy to judge which congressmen deserve a big salary and which do not.
The amount of bacon they bring back
|
Even as Donald Trump careens toward the Republican Party's nomination and a likely clash with Hillary Clinton in the general election, President Barack Obama believes the GOP will eventually straighten itself out.
But he also thinks the Republicans have only themselves to blame for Trump.
In an interview published Thursday with The Daily Targum, Rutgers University's student newspaper, Obama mused about not only his record but also the historic contest to replace him.
"My sense is that there will be a corrective at some point, perhaps after this next presidential election," Obama told the Targum's Dan Corey, who participated in last month's event for college journalists at the White House, at which he asked the president whether he could score a one-on-one interview.
Obama accepted that invitation ahead of delivering the school's commencement address this Sunday, using it as an opportunity to tick through his administration's accomplishments and scold the Republican Party for what he says it has become: "increasingly ideological and extreme, and I think that’s reflected in the current presidential race."
"I’ve always shown myself willing to compromise — principled compromises that would still advance the interests of the American people," the president remarked in the interview, conducted Monday. "What we’ve seen within the Republican Party has been a refusal even to engage on a whole range of issues like climate change, for example, that are vitally important. The issue here has never been both sides stuck in a corner, unwilling to meet in the middle."
Source
|
On May 13 2016 08:39 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves. A coaches benefit to a school can very easily be measured. You can look at the improved value of a team and the revenue it generates in TV deals and jersey sales and the good ones get paid very well for generating a lot of this for the school. However a congressmen is harder to judge. How do you decide which congressmen are good and which are bad? You could say its based on who gets elected but some districts and states are free wins and you can hardly say that the US has an informed electorate so its not as easy to judge which congressmen deserve a big salary and which do not.
Its easy to look at federal and state expenditures and to link them back to the members of congress that voted it into action. You then separate them into three buckets: Pure Expenditure (non-employee costs of programs), Pure Revenue (taxes), Employment Expenditure (Cost to Staff a Program)
We then know how much money that congressman brings in, how many people he employs, and how much that congressman's decisions costs the country.
We can then know how much the congressman is worth, and how many people the congressman gives worth.
|
|
On May 13 2016 09:37 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 08:39 Adreme wrote:On May 13 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves. A coaches benefit to a school can very easily be measured. You can look at the improved value of a team and the revenue it generates in TV deals and jersey sales and the good ones get paid very well for generating a lot of this for the school. However a congressmen is harder to judge. How do you decide which congressmen are good and which are bad? You could say its based on who gets elected but some districts and states are free wins and you can hardly say that the US has an informed electorate so its not as easy to judge which congressmen deserve a big salary and which do not. Its easy to look at federal and state expenditures and to link them back to the members of congress that voted it into action. You then separate them into three buckets: Pure Expenditure (non-employee costs of programs), Pure Revenue (taxes), Employment Expenditure (Cost to Staff a Program) We then know how much money that congressman brings in, how many people he employs, and how much that congressman's decisions costs the country. We can then know how much the congressman is worth, and how many people the congressman gives worth.
At this point you are encouraging them to vote for as much pork as they can for there district and its suddenly in every congressmens interest to vote for the other guys pork as well so he will vote for yours and spending on pet projects will get even more out of control because there is suddenly a finanicial incentive to put those ahead of what is in the best interest of the country.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
election is over, trump won. sandernistas dancing on the streets. american people btfo
|
On May 13 2016 09:50 oneofthem wrote: election is over, trump won. sandernistas dancing on the streets. american people btfo
Now things will change! Anything is better than the status quo! No more paying for school or healthcare or housing!
|
On May 13 2016 09:49 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 09:37 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 08:39 Adreme wrote:On May 13 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 07:02 Adreme wrote: Those coaches are an investment. The coaches bring the players and having a good program makes the university money so they pay the coaches to keep them. And congressmen aren't? Unlike the president, the house and senate are the actual people that makes things happen and the president just vetos or approves. A coaches benefit to a school can very easily be measured. You can look at the improved value of a team and the revenue it generates in TV deals and jersey sales and the good ones get paid very well for generating a lot of this for the school. However a congressmen is harder to judge. How do you decide which congressmen are good and which are bad? You could say its based on who gets elected but some districts and states are free wins and you can hardly say that the US has an informed electorate so its not as easy to judge which congressmen deserve a big salary and which do not. Its easy to look at federal and state expenditures and to link them back to the members of congress that voted it into action. You then separate them into three buckets: Pure Expenditure (non-employee costs of programs), Pure Revenue (taxes), Employment Expenditure (Cost to Staff a Program) We then know how much money that congressman brings in, how many people he employs, and how much that congressman's decisions costs the country. We can then know how much the congressman is worth, and how many people the congressman gives worth. At this point you are encouraging them to vote for as much pork as they can for there district and its suddenly in every congressmens interest to vote for the other guys pork as well so he will vote for yours and spending on pet projects will get even more out of control because there is suddenly a finanicial incentive to put those ahead of what is in the best interest of the country.
How is that?
Every expenditure is now linked to them, every project that is losing money is linked to them. The only thing that gives them money is spending money on taxes--which people will push back on. Suddenly you know who overtaxes people (now on record) who overspends (now on record) and who makes programs that actually employs people.
This is only bad if you don't like regulating taxation, expenditure, and are against giving people jobs.
|
US immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.
The operation would likely be the largest deportation sweep targeting immigrant families by the administration of Barack Obama this year after a similar drive over two days in January that focused on Georgia, Texas and North Carolina.
Those raids, which resulted in the detention of 121 people, mostly women and children, sparked an outcry from immigration advocates and criticism from some Democrats, including the party’s presidential election frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has now told field offices nationwide to launch a 30-day “surge” of arrests focused on mothers and children who have already been told to leave the United States, the document seen by Reuters said. The operation would also cover minors who have entered the country without a guardian and since turned 18 years of age, the document said. Two sources confirmed the details of the plan.
The exact dates of the latest series of raids were not known and the details of the operation could change.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
will be very happy when trump deports these people.
|
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, fueling a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education Department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.
The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.
After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration has made bathrooms its latest battleground.
Source
|
Seems like Congress' pay should be progressive, I like the forced cohabitation idea too (neighborhoods).
|
|
|
|