ADVERTISEMENT

Live feed

Forum list Trending threads

Live feed

 Posts

Policies

S
Merge said:
What do you mean? Trump answered on child care - Was this not clear?

"Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it — in this country you have to have it."

Now that's a plan.
Click to expand...
sorry i didn't read this because kamala already used the word price gouging and i already made up my mind!
Click to expand...

Policies

M
SHUSA said:
who ends up paying into social security? you need a new crop of humans for that.

right now nobody can afford to have a child. if not having a child was the result then the birth rates would be insanely low. people (like myself) go from financially stable to walking a fine line once you have a child. more so than before. you need the second income, hostage by daycare price, etc. we still lag woefully behind on standard things like giving a mother a realistic time off after giving birth. just general human stuff .

the problem is, where does the money come from. we can at least discuss these things with kamala. which you cant do for the other candidate
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Trump answered on child care - Was this not clear?

"Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it — in this country you have to have it."

Now that's a plan.
Click to expand...
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Robot_Man, SHUSA and silkcitypirate

Policies

M
SPK145 said:
No, absolutely not, the real measure of this so-called price gouging would be to measure gross profit margin, not net margin. Look at the publicly traded grocery stores, their gross profit margins were essentialy flat, or slightly up or down.
Click to expand...

Most if not all of them show an increase in either 2020 or 2021, higher than the company averages prior to the pandemic and higher than today. Fair to not call that gouging, but taking advantage of an environment with rising prices was certainly a part of it.

SPK145 said:
It's not government money, it's borrowed taxpayer money.
Click to expand...


Of course. It's always taxpayer money.
A program is either worth funding or not.

SPK145 said:
How about personal responibility? You want to have kids, that's great, but everyone else shouldn't have to contribute.
Click to expand...

Your tax rate is not changing if we fund that program or not.
We can help families or not. Again, I can respect the view that you think we shouldn't but I would tend to disagree because it would be money well spent to help with the costs to raise a child. Long term, is a net benefit to the country to help families.
It encourages more babies being born which we need. It gives money to people who will put it right back into the economy. It helps provide a better environment for a child and it helps with one of the biggest reasons why women have abortions.
Click to expand...

Policies

S
Merge said:
Did grocery store profits not surge in 2020 and 2021 well above what a normal margin would have been for the industry?



It doesn't. Your issue is really that the tax credit should have been in section 2.
I'd agree with that.

I get why you as a libertarian would be against it, but a birth year tax credit to help with the related costs during that first year would be a huge help for new families and wouldn't cost that much relative to the current child tax credit. There is also always a fairly strong ROI when the government gives lower to middle class families more money.

I do understand the argument that if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. That's what I did, but it doesn't change the fact that many people do have children who can't afford them and longer term impacts of helping those families will be beneficial to the children and the country overall. Longer term, the birth rate in the US is too low a tax credit would help there as well.
Click to expand...
who ends up paying into social security? you need a new crop of humans for that.

right now nobody can afford to have a child. if not having a child was the result then the birth rates would be insanely low. people (like myself) go from financially stable to walking a fine line once you have a child. more so than before. you need the second income, hostage by daycare price, etc. we still lag woefully behind on standard things like giving a mother a realistic time off after giving birth. just general human stuff .

the problem is, where does the money come from. we can at least discuss these things with kamala. which you cant do for the other candidate
Click to expand...

Policies

S
Merge said:
Part of running for office and being president is a sales pitch getting people to understand why your polices are good and why the public should support them. Harris is really bad at the sale.

That's why Trump isn't offering any specific policies. He's good at selling a narrative, but he's horrible talking about the details.
Tariffs are a great example there. He still doesn't understand how they work and if his campaign outlined a full policy - he would be completely lost.
Click to expand...
i think that 80 page policy booklet is comprehensive enough to be a surprising sale than what i expected out of her. yes the issue is a lot of them are either (a not actual solutions but explaining the problem and b) not in the control of the president. but theres a semblance of work being done to at least address issues. the flipside is trump just yelling stuff on his policy website. its really embarassing for a presidential candidate
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: silkcitypirate and Merge

Initial KenPom 2024-25

P
His analytics are nearly impossible to gauge in the preseason in this environment of Free Agency and roster turnover. There was much more reliability in the past when the turnover was less and the continuity higher.

I think the number is reasonable for Seton Hall if you take into account all the past data of individual players. But roles will change, dynamics change, teams are different, coaching, etc. and that’s going to make it fun to watch. We’re not going to be seen a preseason star team by human or computer.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: The SHUttle, hallball, Halldan1 and 4 others

Initial KenPom 2024-25

SHUSource
Bud Boomer said:
I think you may be confusing kenpom with Jerry Palm. Two different poms/palms. Kenpom is propped up by everyone as the gold standard of college hoops analytics/rankings. Jerry Palm is CBS’s sub-mediocre bracketology guy.
Click to expand...
Yup, you're absolutely right. Hey, it's the preseason for fans, too! I'll be game-ready next month!
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: The SHUttle, Bud Boomer and Hall84

Initial KenPom 2024-25

Bud Boomer
SHUSource said:
It's amazing that CBS, which is inextricably linked to the NCAA Tournament, is the only major outlet that really props up this clown. Almost anyone they could use would be better.
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing kenpom with Jerry Palm. Two different poms/palms. Kenpom is propped up by everyone as the gold standard of college hoops analytics/rankings. Jerry Palm is CBS’s sub-mediocre bracketology guy.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: The SHUttle, shu09, lloyde dobler and 4 others
Load more
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back