Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,977 Excellent

About Bottomfeeder Sports

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

12,626 profile views
  1. Good thing that there weren't many hurricanes or wild fires or other natural disasters this fall.
  2. Earlier I mentioned the prefrontal cortex - what is its purpose? when does it finish developing?
  3. What about that argument is invalid? If validity means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises then I can easily show how it's valid. If soundness is what you're striving for, then that's another matter. But there's nothing invalid about holding a standard of fairness and accountability for loans taken out on or before "xx" date. If we move towards a policy of future forgiveness and don't apply it retroactively, then there's a much better case to be made for it. But there's an inherent unfairness about somebody that has worked or invested in a path of life only to see similarly situated people able to shirk understood responsibility and get away with it. If that sounds like plaintive whining, perhaps it would do us good to remember Florence King's dictum of how morals and ethics happen: somebody says "that's not nice" or "that's not fair" and we civilize ourselves according to that edict. And it truly isn't a fair system when you get some people making huge sacrifices while others at the same situation and time don't have to fulfill their obligations. I'm not going to speak for @Yankee23Fanbut to me whether or not a policy is "fair" ultimately is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a policy change that doesn't create undeserved winners and losers of no fault of their own. While mitigating the damage to losers is a worthy goal, ultimately policy that ultimately create more benefits than it costs, create more winners than losers, etc. If forgiving college loans is the "fuel to jumpstart a roaring economy" which rises the tides for most everyone then the fact that I went to lesser schools, worked 60 hour weeks for 3 of my 4 years, long ago paid of my loans is not a consideration.
  4. My reply had little to do with forgiving the loans. It is about how college loans need to be fundamentally different from other loans if they are part of a policy goal of creating a path for those where the only impediment to going to college is money. I've acknowledged that this goal could probably be achieved in other ways. I'm guessing that there are a few who disagree that this is a worthy goal at all - at least as far as the government involvement is concerned. But none of those things are part of my point. That point being few are giving to be offering these loans otherwise, and those that are offered are going to be at paycheck loan interest rates.
  5. There wasn't a taker in 2010. I've posted before that the most powerful person in the Senate in 2010 would have been the 60th vote from a GOP member. They could have had just about any bill contain whatever [semi reasonable to democrats] amendments they believed in enough to cast that "bipartisan" vote. Now I'm not arguing one lone GOP senator really makes a bill bipartisan, just that the democrats were desperate on more than one occasion to make that claim in 2009 and 2010 no matter how weak the foundation for the claim. But no one took the opportunity.
  6. I think the media gives the people what they want.
  7. The passage of the ACA didn't really depend on the CBO scoring in the same way as the tax bills, but there was plenty of procedural nonsense involved that this technicality doesn't change your original point. I also don't think it is really possible to "grade" those CBO and GAO analysis of the ACA because what was scored never actually saw the light of day. But mostly I don't think that the CBO and GAO "debase common accounting practices". I think they do the best job with the limited information they have making static projection in a very dynamic world. If the CBO and GAO had "looked the other way" with the tax cuts then I think that the tax cuts would have been permanent. So I don't think this is the problem. Now if I assume that you wanted the Bush and/or Trump tax cuts to have been permanent from the get go then I think the elimination of the filibuster rules might have accomplished this as the GOP would have had the votes (I'd think). I'm not so sure that the ACA ever gets done if not for the crisis of Scott Brown's election. I could imagine that democrats would have kept on having hearings and discussions and such but never having enough of a consensus to pass anything. So while I'm not certain either way, it could very well be that the filibuster rules and the lost of the super majority was the trigger that made 2010 different from other attempts. Maybe!
  8. If the Senate got rid of the filibuster this would no longer be an issue. I was about to post that this belongs in the ending the filibuster conversation that existed in one of these threads.
  9. I would like to know if this is really true. Most of the changes to the individual taxes expire in 2025 and start phasing out in 2021. This is because to get the bill under reconciliation rules it had to add less that $1.5 trillion to the deficit over ten years and not add anything to the deficit beyond that ten year window. (Or something really close to that.)
  10. An 18 year old without a cosigner, without a credit history can get a $50K car loan with reasonable interest rates? ETA- Not to mention with limited job prospects because they are going to college. ETA2 - And I get that you want to make college loans just like any other similar loan, just that when you do this no one is getting a college loan without a credit history, a job, and/or a cosigner. Maybe that is good policy in terms of driving down the growth of college costs or ending the problems of student debt but it is horrible policy in a vacuum for providing opportunity to the 60% or so of jobs that require more than a high school degree. Sure there are other means to address those issues which could be part of a comprehensive plan, but in a vacuum of a standalone change this would be terrible.
  11. The above doesn't seem suggest that emissions are lower because of ...
  12. They are meaningfully different in that 18-25 year olds with no established credit history are receiving them with their still undeveloped prefrontal cortex. What other large loans exist for this target audience?
  13. Assuming that Biden's campaign site is still what he is thinking then - not really. He was proposing lots of programs that would be part of a bigger picture, but this specifically he proposed where one can earn 10K a year up to 50K to apply to forgive such loans. Specifically working in specific jobs. Maybe that is not much better for some, or his thinking has changed, or there is a consensus building which he will join, but as of now I don't think it is an accurate representation of his thinking.
  14. I guess my biggest fears for a Biden presidency are more general than specific I fear that Biden will be too concerned with protecting the Obama/Biden legacy to allow for more than minor tweaks to initiatives from that period or, where Trump has taken us elsewhere to try too hard to get back to where we were I fear that Biden will be too convinced that he can work with McConnell and gang and waste energy and political capital on items that are not going to happen I fear that Biden has too many challenges and could easily lose focus by his administration being stretched too thin or trying to have an impact in too many places I conversely fear that Biden will get bogged down on one or two things and allow too much other necessities wither. I fear that Biden's "folkiness" and other personality traits will quickly wear thin I fear that Biden will try too hard to "get back to normal" which is never going to look like "normal" of February 2020 again
  15. You mean in 2020? Was this some nth dimensional chess where Trump capitalized on a pandemic in order to cut emissions that no one else could ever achieve?