[poorgradstudent]

[quote=flu]Romney is the candidate that people are going to think is out of touch with reality…He’s the “rich” person people just hate. and Obama and crew is going to have a field day on the Caymen Island accounts. Question: why do americans these days hate successful people?[/quote]
To be fair, I agreed with most of what you wrote, and I’m cherry-picking your final question.

I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting that a multi-millionaire who thinks 360K isn’t a lot of money to make in a year paid a lower effective tax rate on his income than they did. I understand how these tax incentives work, and I’m struggling with how it is fair. He’s actually the best incentive of a modified “fair tax” I’ve encountered, assuming it’s a version of the fair tax that gets rid of capital gains being taxed at a lower rate.

I’m actually surprised to see so many Republicans mutiny against him. Mitt Romney is a “Job Creator” in the truest Republican ideal. If you honestly believe in trickle down, he’s the ideal candidate. But maybe southern conservatives still hate Mormons that much?

[poorgradstudent]

Oh god, I truly and deeply hope Newt wins South Carolina today. It’s looking like he will, with Mitt in second. Ron Paul is polling in third, which might be enough to kill off Santorum’s campaign, although he got a boost recently when he was declared the official winner of Iowa. Also curious to see how Herman Cain/Steven Colbert ends up doing. A 5-10% protest/lulz vote isn’t out of the question.

It’s fascinating, because on Monday it looked like Mitt had this thing locked up, and now it almost looks wide open. Money is going to be an issue long haul for the non-Romney candidates, but Newt has shown that he knows how to use the national news media for free attention.

[poorgradstudent]

I doubt this is going to pass.

I’m personally torn. I think it’s a tough situation with no easy answers. So the big open question is not if the Brown plan is perfect, it’s clearly not, but if it ends up being the best idea out there or if something better comes along.

[poorgradstudent]

I think it’s common for two highly intelligent, educated people to disagree on policy issues. I’ll cite two examples of very intelligent men I strongly disagree with on a lot of issues: Newt Gingrich and Anton Scalia. Both are incredibly intelligent men. Both have opinions on how the world should be that appall me.

I do think the Left over bashed GW Bush’s intelligence. While he may have lacked the raw intellect of Bill Clinton (or Newt Gingrich) or even Nixon, he certainly wasn’t an idiot and is more intelligent than your average person. He tended to pander to less educated voters and play up his “Good ‘Ol Boy” act. I’ve seen his IQ estimated between 115-125 based off his SAT score, which seems pretty reasonable.

Estimates for Obama’s IQ score tend to roam all over the map. Obama is a Harvard Law grad, and law school is challenging even at a lower tier school like Thomas Jefferson here in San Diego. Obama is probably in the same ballpark for IQ as Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich, somewhere in the 120-135 range.

[poorgradstudent]

Although I think SOPA is a terrible idea, it’s pretty clearly part of Interstate Commerce.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=UCGal]I use the following criteria –
– Is it under (or not much above) $10 at costco?
– Does it have one of those wine spectator wine advocate placards giving it a 90+ rating?
– Is it a type I like? (I don’t really like Malbecs, Reislings, and a few others. Just a preference thing. Tend to stick to cabs, chards, and sauv blanc.)[/quote]
Wow, you have almost the exact opposite taste in wine I do! Love Malbecs and Resilings. I used to be a big Pinot Noir fan, but the “Sideways” effect drove prices up.

For me, the “Decent” price point is around $20-30 at full price, which usually puts it around $15 at Costco. With some exceptions, quality does seem to improve noticably as you move from $5 to $10 and from $10 to $20 (although obviously there are stinkers at that price), but beyond the $20 price point it’s more about getting lucky or finding a great recommendation than anything else.

[poorgradstudent]

With extremely limited information, I’m going to guess $300K.

I’m also going to guess based on experience and education, these two could clear $350-500K in the private sector, before bonuses. I’m also going to guess they are both well above the median income in their departments; one is probably at the equivalent of “VP” level, the other the equivalent of a highly skilled technician. Both probably have professional degrees beyond a bachelor’s.

[poorgradstudent]

Short answer: No, there will not be another crash like 2008 in 2012.

Longer answer: I don’t think many intelligent people, those who actually have or manage real amounts of assets, believe in any of that Mayan Calendar hocus-pocus.

Asset values simply aren’t as inflated as they were in 2008. It’s entirely plausible we’ll see a 5% correction in the stock market at some point in 2012, and the major indexes could end the year down or flat. But the odds of another major crash are quite slim. Obviously there’s always a chance of some major, unexpected event like the Japan Tsunamis or worse, but you can’t plan for those.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=outtamojo]I would take Rivers over Carson Palmer anyday…[/quote]
The Vikings are my first love, and I would have loved to see Rivers or Carson Palmer start out the season in Purple instead of McNabb… Although Ponder may have some potential going forward.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=briansd1]True. That’s why I believe that kids of Republicans wont vote Republican. They have Facebook and socialize with other kids everywhere — black, hispanics, gays, etc… For example, it’s OK to be gay these days. Young adults know bigotry on the parts of their parents and political party then they see it.

….

But how do Republicans get behind a social moderate when the base is turning more right wing? If Republicans nominate a moderate like Huntsman, the base will stay home.

The Hispanic vote is becoming more important so Republican have to win a good portion of that block in order to remain relevant.

Time will tell…. The world is so interesting, that’s why I want to live a long time to see it all unfold.[/quote]

The Republican Party is less than a decade from caving on gay rights because of demographic trends. There will be a transition with some acrobatics to justify regional differences, but the writing is on the wall that as a block under 40s are ok with gay marriage, and that support isn’t really eroding with time.

The Latino vote is certainly intriguing. There’s a lot of evidence that Latinos on the whole aren’t very enthusiastic about the Republican party, but as a group Latino voters do tend to lean slightly more socially conservative. They’ve shown a willingness to vote with conservatives on specific ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 while still casting their votes for Obama and Democratic lawmakers. I’m curious what the Republican coalition will look like 20 years from now.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=zk]The republicans’ main objective seems to be to defeat Obama. So I don’t understand why Jon Huntsman isn’t getting more votes. He and Romney are the only two, in my opinion, who have a chance in hell of beating Obama. Heck, I’d consider voting for Huntsman, and I think a lot of moderates would.[/quote]
The best explanation I’ve heard on why Huntsman hasn’t been able to build more support is he’s not the greatest “retail” politician. He sounds good on paper and did ok at the debates, but my understanding is he doesn’t connect well at the handshake level with individual voters the same way Bill Clinton or GW Bush did. I’m an Obama supporter and I feel like Huntsman was the guy most likely to beat Obama in the general, although I agree Romney is fairly formidable. Collectively Republicans do seem to be taking the stance of “we want the most conservative guy we think can beat Obama”, which is a rational position. 2 months ago I would have called Obama vs. Romney a 50-50 proposition, but with the economy improving I see Obama as a bit of a favorite these days.

[poorgradstudent]

It’s silly but often true that a mostly meaningless week 17 game can often determine a coach’s status for the next year. 8-8 just sounds so much better than 7-9 does.

Turner coached a team with middle-of-the-road talent to a middle-of-the-road finish. He’s that employee you wish would produce more, but he’s not bad enough to fire, especially if you don’t have loads of qualified candidates lined up. My guess on AJ Smith is they just didn’t have any options to replace him they liked better. I think both men are one losing season away from losing their jobs.

I don’t see the Chargers moving. In this economy where there’s a lot of tough talk about balancing deficits, cities aren’t willing to shell out big bucks for publicly funded stadiums. The NFL clearly wants a team in LA, but LA doesn’t seem to care much, and seems quite unwilling to pay much to make that happen.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=markmax33]Is there such a thing as stealing money from a tax payer and then spending it more efficiently then the taxpayer would have in the free market?[/quote]
Oh god, the Efficient-market hypothesis? Hasn’t the groundbreaking work on behavioral economics pretty much stained this notion permanently?

There are times and places where government is more efficient and situations where private industry is better. In many situations regulated markets are by far the most efficient way to create wealth and avoid monopolies.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=AN]That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.[/quote]
Most women are still quite fertile throughout their 20s and into their early 30s. Even 35-39 the monthly fertility rate is still 10%, although the risks of chromosomal defects do rise.

So, “scientifically”, there aren’t major disadvantages to starting a family at 29 compared to 22 unless you really want 4+ children. There’s actually a lot of good evidence that a later start to having kids provides a lot of advantages to those children, although of course correlation is not necessarily causation.

[poorgradstudent]

A lot of Millenials are working crappy jobs below their education level (if employed at all) and are saddled with huge college debts. Many of them have *never* enjoyed a good economy in their working lives.

Attitudes will improve as the economy does. Millenials are going to buy a lot later than their parents did, but they will buy eventually.

[Author]

Posts