Donald Trump Sack Watch

What older people in the US don't understand (except a few I've had discussions with, so not all) is the cost of education. That for them tuition was $75 a semester. Sure, there is inflation, but if someone went to University in 1960 or thereabouts, $75 a semester was $650. And I'm not pulling $75 a semester out of nowhere either, these people I've talked to have quoted numbers or numbers just like it.

So that's $1300 a year. Multiply by 4 and you're looking at $5200 to get yourself a bachelor's degree. Some of these people said they worked at an ice cream shop in the summer to pay for college.

The rising cost of education in the US has raped the middle class and the poor in America. I say that as a very very lucky individual who has had his college subsidized by parents. On my salary, I wouldn't have much money to save at the moment if I had student debt. Which would mean my ability to save aggressively early in life is diminished, which means my ability to make wealth grow FOR me with time is diminished. Which means my ability to help my own kids with college, when I get to that point, is diminished.

And so on and so forth.

education is nothing more that someone telling you something and you remembering it. you dont teach people to read and write you tell them a word tell them what letters are in the word and what order they go in and they just remember it. people will leave school with everything they need what you do after that can be self taught. there is nothing a teacher in college can teach you that you cant learn from a book. you get charged crazy money for something you dont really need.

That sounds very folksy and out of touch with modern society.

The cold, hard reality of today is that if you want a good paying job that you can build a comfortable, stable life around, you need to be college educated here. I have both interviewed people for positions as a manager in a corporate environment and been interviewed by managers in those same environments. The first thing we're told to look for is a degree in the field the job resides within. If you don't have one, you damn well better have at least 5-10 years experience doing the work they're hiring for and even then, they'll always take someone with a degree over you if they have the choice. Why does the degree matter? It varies from HR manager to HR manager.

Education matters and it's a real barrier to success when ironically it's also the key to that same success.

McLewis wrote:That sounds very folksy and out of touch with modern society.

The cold, hard reality of today is that if you want a good paying job that you can build a comfortable, stable life around, you need to be college educated here. I have both interviewed people for positions as a manager in a corporate environment and been interviewed by managers in those same environments. The first thing we're told to look for is a degree in the field the job resides within. If you don't have one, you damn well better have at least 5-10 years experience doing the work they're hiring for and even then, they'll always take someone with a degree over you if they have the choice. Why does the degree matter? It varies from HR manager to HR manager.

Education matters and it's a real barrier to success when ironically it's also the key to that same success.

education matters but how you get that education dont matter. people pay crazy money to go to harvard to be a doctor but as i said education is nothing more than you being told something and you remember it. the knowledge you gain from going to harvard from books and the people that teach there can be gained by studying the same books they use there. unless they have infomation in harvard you cant get anywhere else. my point is people pay crazy money to go to collage when you can use the same medical books they use in your own home. paying crazy money to go to collage for a education you could get at home is a con imo.

It really doesn't work that way in the modern world though, especially for the medical world, where many of those situations are literally life and death. It takes nearly a decade of school to become a doctor and that's not even counting board certification. It's not something you can just order a book online from Amazon, study for, and then just pass a test to earn those letters behind the name.

With Law, it's not as black/white as that, given as long as you pass the Bar, you get to be a lawyer pretty much. That's open to just about anyone provided they put in the work to study for the bar exam. No degree needed for that, but without one, you're pretty much an ambulance chaser as you won't even be able to get a job being overworked by the system as a public defender let alone a cushy one at a firm. It's pretty much the same with IT.

I get what you're trying to say and this was very much the case like 100 years ago, but reality is just very very different right now.

Some fantastic discussion boys

Some absolute drama unfolding on Capitol Hill today:

NEWS: Source tells me that after House Republicans tried flooding the SCIF with non-committee members, “many brought their cell phones too into the classified area.”

“Stand off in progress,” source adds.

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) October 23, 2019

So basically, The Trump Impeachment Inquiry hearings where sensitive information is likely to be shared get held in closed door, secret locations within the Capitol called the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility). Only the person testifying (in this case, Asst. Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who oversees the Trump Defense Department's dealings with Ukraine) and the members of the committee are allowed into these rooms. The GOP, in an absolute temper tantrum , are storming this particular area of the Capitol because they didn't like that this hearing was being conducted behind closed doors.

What the committee is doing here is entirely legal and there are actually 9 Republicans who sit on it and are allowed to ask question during the hearing so it's very much bipartisan.

What the GOP members who are NOT part of this committee are doing is illegal as cell phones are absolutely not allowed in these areas.

In short - This is political theater of the highest quality from Republicans and it will serve as perfect whataboutism the next time they try this same tactic.

The Republican party is having a meltdown over the testimony from Bill Taylor.

This is so embarrassing

McLewis wrote:Adding onto Freeza and Art's points, Trump gave these billionaire "job creators" the perfect chance to demonstrate that ability to provide some relief to the rest of us and what did they do? Those corporations took the money saved from lower taxes and re-invested in their shareholders. Not their employees and not their customers, both groups firmly in the middle class bracket.

So that tells me that when the rich are given a chance to actually grow this economy by allowing the middle class to stimulate it with extra money saved from tax breaks, they absolutely will not do it. They will protect themselves and their interests first.

And yet we're suppose to look to them for economic growth and relief? I don't understand this attachment to such thinking. Trickle-down economics didn't work in the 80s and it damn sure isn't working now. Something else needs to be tried.

well, what do you expect? he gave corporations a tax cut, the corporations returned that money to their investors (many of which are 401k and pension funds btw). That's as it should be, no one could possibly expect them to just give a general raise because they ahve more money.

the solution, i agree, is to tax the shit out of rich people

@Myesyats and @Unique, in addition to what Freeza, Rincon, McLewis and Art Morte said; I will add a personal experience. over 20 years ago I took a degree in Business Administration (BBA) from THE BEST institute in Bangladesh. It was a public institute and it costed me around $1000/year, ALL INCLUSIVE. It included tuition fees, books, transport (partly private), hostel, photocopy, debates WHATEVER. A similar degree from a private university would have costed me 8-9K in tuition alone and I couldn't have afforded that. Just to put things in perspective of how this subsidized system has worked, 12-15 of the 45-50 that graduated are now holding CEO level posts in leading local and multinational firms today.

@Freeza @rincon @Art Morte, Do you guys think this welfare model (specially in education, healthcare and transport) can work efficiently in a country like Bangladesh with a population of over 160 million? I know a lot of that boils down to good governance, transparency, accountability etc. but would the sheer volume be any hindrance???

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McLewis wrote:Adding onto Freeza and Art's points, Trump gave these billionaire "job creators" the perfect chance to demonstrate that ability to provide some relief to the rest of us and what did they do? Those corporations took the money saved from lower taxes and re-invested in their shareholders. Not their employees and not their customers, both groups firmly in the middle class bracket.

So that tells me that when the rich are given a chance to actually grow this economy by allowing the middle class to stimulate it with extra money saved from tax breaks, they absolutely will not do it. They will protect themselves and their interests first.

And yet we're suppose to look to them for economic growth and relief? I don't understand this attachment to such thinking. Trickle-down economics didn't work in the 80s and it damn sure isn't working now. Something else needs to be tried.

well, what do you expect? he gave corporations a tax cut, the corporations returned that money to their investors (many of which are 401k and pension funds btw). That's as it should be, no one could possibly expect them to just give a general raise because they ahve more money.

the solution, i agree, is to tax the shit out of rich people

And none of that helped the large majority of the middle-class or those on the poverty line who are still struggling paycheck-to-paycheck yet he's passing those cuts off like they really helped people. They didn't. It was a giveaway to the wealthy and corporations.

Some people make so little money from their jobs that this tax cut actually led to them losing money rather than gaining. At best, many saw no increase or decrease at all. And yet Trump touts this as a victory and a campaign promise kept? Mind you, that's not a Trump thing. That's a politician thing. They all find ways to turn actual losses into political wins for their brand. The middle-class in the states (like mine) who were key to his victory were not the winners in these tax cuts. That may very well end up hurting him with voters more than anything a Democrat can say.

We have free education at all levels (all Universities are tuition-free if you study full-time), free healthcare, not many benefits but there are some - and our tax rates are not nearly as high as Denmark's.

We probably pay half as much in taxes and it's still widely considered too much.

The one thing I can agree with Trump on!!

Trump didn't announce the death of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi....he narrated it, like a showman and entertainer. Not like a President. There was too much glee behind his words. Too much bloodlust.

The irony is that while this is good news and blow to ISIS, had this announcement been more presidential, it would've had a bigger impact. Now? This will just incite anger among al-Baghdadi's followers and it will fuel their return and it will fuel future attacks on soft targets both here in the US and in Europe.

McLewis wrote:Trump didn't announce the death of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi....he narrated it, like a showman and entertainer. Not like a President. There was too much glee behind his words. Too much bloodlust.

The irony is that while this is good news and blow to ISIS, had this announcement been more presidential, it would've had a bigger impact. Now? This will just incite anger among al-Baghdadi's followers and it will fuel their return and it will fuel future attacks on soft targets both here in the US and in Europe.

you think how trump reports news will effect the murderous acts of a bunch of religous maniacs. come on man i know you hate trump but dont sink as low as the idiots that just look to blame trump for anything they can. did the way obama reported the death of bin laden reduce the terrorism. i dont think it did.

That's because he is a showman and an entertainer. He never fooled anyone with how he handles things. He is not a politican.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Trump didn't announce the death of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi....he narrated it, like a showman and entertainer. Not like a President. There was too much glee behind his words. Too much bloodlust.

The irony is that while this is good news and blow to ISIS, had this announcement been more presidential, it would've had a bigger impact. Now? This will just incite anger among al-Baghdadi's followers and it will fuel their return and it will fuel future attacks on soft targets both here in the US and in Europe.

you think how trump reports news will effect the murderous acts of a bunch of religous maniacs. come on man i know you hate trump but dont sink as low as the idiots that just look to blame trump for anything they can. did the way obama reported the death of bin laden reduce the terrorism. i dont think it did.

Yes, yes I do. Trump made the right call here on al-Baghdadi. No one is disputing that. All I'm saying is the extra details ("he died like a dog, etc etc,") are unnecessary and unbecoming of a POTUS.

Obama's report of Bin Laden's demise was short, dry and rather boring. It was also exactly what is expected from a POTUS when we've taken out a high-value target. Decisions of this magnitude are grave ones and there has to be a level of decorum and dignity observed. Trump displayed neither and it's distasteful.

McLewis wrote:

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Trump didn't announce the death of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi....he narrated it, like a showman and entertainer. Not like a President. There was too much glee behind his words. Too much bloodlust.

The irony is that while this is good news and blow to ISIS, had this announcement been more presidential, it would've had a bigger impact. Now? This will just incite anger among al-Baghdadi's followers and it will fuel their return and it will fuel future attacks on soft targets both here in the US and in Europe.

you think how trump reports news will effect the murderous acts of a bunch of religous maniacs. come on man i know you hate trump but dont sink as low as the idiots that just look to blame trump for anything they can. did the way obama reported the death of bin laden reduce the terrorism. i dont think it did.

Yes, yes I do. Trump made the right call here on al-Baghdadi. No one is disputing that. All I'm saying is the extra details ("he died like a dog, etc etc,") are unnecessary and unbecoming of a POTUS.

Obama's report of Bin Laden's demise was short, dry and rather boring. It was also exactly what is expected from a POTUS when we've taken out a high-value target. Decisions of this magnitude are grave ones and there has to be a level of decorum and dignity observed. Trump displayed neither and it's distasteful.

but how the news is reported has no effect on future attacks. i myself like to hear that people like that died like a dog. i like it when they die in pain and on fire but i understand people like yourself dont. but how trump says the guy died will have no effect on how his buddies react.

Unique wrote:
but how the news is reported has no effect on future attacks. i myself like to hear that people like that died like a dog. i like it when they die in pain and on fire but i understand people like yourself dont. but how trump says the guy died will have no effect on how his buddies react.

I thought you of all people knew how Extremists held their vendettas? They've killed innocent people for far less. What I am worried about is Kurds now making USA their new enemy, They are present everywhere in the world and a minority everywhere.

-----

Guys thoughts on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u_pZ-SgACk

Nishankly wrote:

Unique wrote:
but how the news is reported has no effect on future attacks. i myself like to hear that people like that died like a dog. i like it when they die in pain and on fire but i understand people like yourself dont. but how trump says the guy died will have no effect on how his buddies react.

I thought you of all people knew how Extremists held their vendettas? They've killed innocent people for far less. What I am worried about is Kurds now making USA their new enemy, They are present everywhere in the world and a minority everywhere.

-----

Guys thoughts on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u_pZ-SgACk

what trump says on tv will not effect terrorism one way or the other. if words had any affect on terrorism then the great speach makers would have ended it years ago. i fully understand that some people might not like the way trump reported this but its silly to say it will effect terrorism imo.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Trump didn't announce the death of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi....he narrated it, like a showman and entertainer. Not like a President. There was too much glee behind his words. Too much bloodlust.

The irony is that while this is good news and blow to ISIS, had this announcement been more presidential, it would've had a bigger impact. Now? This will just incite anger among al-Baghdadi's followers and it will fuel their return and it will fuel future attacks on soft targets both here in the US and in Europe.

you think how trump reports news will effect the murderous acts of a bunch of religous maniacs. come on man i know you hate trump but dont sink as low as the idiots that just look to blame trump for anything they can. did the way obama reported the death of bin laden reduce the terrorism. i dont think it did.

Yes, yes I do. Trump made the right call here on al-Baghdadi. No one is disputing that. All I'm saying is the extra details ("he died like a dog, etc etc,") are unnecessary and unbecoming of a POTUS.

Obama's report of Bin Laden's demise was short, dry and rather boring. It was also exactly what is expected from a POTUS when we've taken out a high-value target. Decisions of this magnitude are grave ones and there has to be a level of decorum and dignity observed. Trump displayed neither and it's distasteful.

but how the news is reported has no effect on future attacks. i myself like to hear that people like that died like a dog. i like it when they die in pain and on fire but i understand people like yourself dont. but how trump says the guy died will have no effect on how his buddies react.

Well ISIS are going to hit back of course. This was going to happen anyway based on the very fact that we took out their leader. That alone demands retribution in their eyes. However, our leader basically rubbed the ignominious death of their leader in their collective face. Was al-Baghdadi was a bad person? Yes. Does his death make the world safer? Yes. Does it matter how he died? Absolutely not. This is extra detail that just isn't needed. It speaks to a barbarity that we, with the most power military in the world, should be above.

maybe this is all psychology from trump. we all know that the supporters of this guy will say he died bravley fighting the enemy and died a hero which will drum up support for him and ISIS.

Hence the dog comments. He died a coward.

Lex wrote:Hence the dog comments. He died a coward.

Lex wrote:Hence the dog comments. He died a coward.

exactly

watched the speech last night, he blew himself up with his three kids? wow, US forces would have spared the children ffs