Generally a tell of a losing campaign.
Even the campaign thinks debates "aren't his strength" and isn't that keen on more debates
I absolutely hate politicians who do that.
(1) Look at how ACA was passed. All the benefits were promised upfront but all the costs were hidden. Why do you think the Cadillac tax keeps getting delayed? Because really nobody (not even the unions) want to pay for other peope's health care.
(2) Look at how all the state pension and health care plans are so under-funded. Politicians like to promise benefits but shaft the costs onto someone else ("the next guy" or "the next generation".
This is not integrity. This is buying votes.
Until Sanders gives a full accounting of who is paying for all the things he is promising, I will always keep questioning his policies.
Look at how in the second debate he couldn't even say what the highest marginal tax would rise to!
When reality meets the road, not even Vermont wanted to pay for single payer!
Sanders is saying that housing and car loans have lower interest rates so we should lower the interest rates on student loans.
OK, he chose to make this argument and NOT "investing in students is good for society in the long-term as a mattter of public policy".
It's like saying "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!". Sure there may be good reasons to acquit and whether the glove fits isn't necessarily the best argument. However since you (Sanders) chose to focus on the glove, we shall examine your argument in light of your proposal (lowering student loans).
Firstly, interest rates on loans are set as a function of:
(1) term: the longer the loan the higher you want your interest rate to be
(2) risk free rate: since you could lend the government risk free, you always want a premium over the risk free rate if you are lending to a non-government entity
(3) likelihood of default: how likely is the borrower going to stop repaying the loan?
(4) recovery in default: what can you get back if the borrower defaults.
(5) credit score, taking into account your ability to pay
On #1, student loans can stretch out decades while car loans are only 5 - 7 years.
On #3, student loan defaults have been climbing very high.
According to one calculated number, 23% of student loans that are not in deferment are seriously delinquent (> 90 days late). This is far far higher than the equivalent numbers for housing and car loans.
On #4, many people have pointed out that federal loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That's true but if you owe $100,000 you will never repay the principal even if the federal government takes your Social Security income and income tax refunds. So often many of these loans will never be repaid. Also there are other government programs (IBR) that result in forgiveness of loan principal. On the other hand, if you default on a car or housing loan, the borrower can just seize the underlying collateral. You can't repossess a degree.
on 5, most of the time you are lending to somebody with no income and no assets and not even the certainty of completing the degree
Now given all these can somebody explain why the interest rate on a student loan should be the same as a car or housing loan, assuming no public policy intervention (which isn't Sanders argument here)?
the race-baiting, tax cuts for the rich, xenophobic, Mexicans are rapists, Xenophobic Trump.
this primary season has been crazier than usual
As they say, politics make strange bedfellows
Galactic Empire. He failed to publicly support the Rebel Alliance like Clinton did.
He had every opportunity to denounce the aggressive actions of Emperor Palpatine and his cronies in the Trade Federation against defenseless planets like Naboo and Alderaan but he failed to do so.
What is his position on the oppression of drones, robots, and droids?
Does he support free and fair elections without the use of mind control or threatening to blow up one's planet?
what would the appropriate remedy be?
Would three people losing their jobs be enough?
Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said four Sanders campaign staffers accessed Clinton data, and that three of them did so at the direction of their boss, Josh Uretsky, who was the operative fired.
This was NOT accidental. This was deliberate. They knew what they were doing.
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. How apoplectic would Sanders supporters be if Hillary's campaign had been the one stealing data? Now they are making up all kinds of conspiracy theories about Clinton and the DNC? And they are angry that the DNC might even want to take action against the Sanders' campaign?
At work, I know that if I get some inadvertent computer access (even if the IT administrator screwed up) and use it to poke around files that I'm not supposed to look at, I get fired immediately and may even face criminal charges.
This is the National Data Director, not some low level staffers. He represents the campaign. It's extremely easy to tell from log files whether it was just "hey that isn't supposed to be here. let's take a look. whoa...let's get out of there immediately and tell the DNC" or "hey look what we found! let's look for their super-secret plan for xxx".
Cheating is wrong, no matter which side you are on. Just ask Tom Brady.
Watching the video now...
- it seems clear "firewall" isn't a "network firewall", it's more a logical firewall.
- there are no files to access "accidentally". Access is controlled through the application.
Possibly somebody accessed a Campaign from the Clinton camp e.g. "Clinton's plan to win Iowa v3.5"
There is also API access using something like REST.
If this was the case THERE IS NO WAY they didn't know they were not supposed to access the information.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Current location: New York City
Member since: Fri May 29, 2015, 07:51 PM
Number of posts: 1,772