Should read "Please explain the difference between an unemployed person WITH A TRUST FUND AND an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes"
Please explain the difference between an unemployed person with an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes.
Now, let's compare a working parent in an affluent neighborhood versus a less affluent working person living in a poorer neighborhood, I'd argue again they both have the same amount of free time to report potholes in their neighborhood...
Podesta argues that pothole repairs will be disproportionately skewed towards smartphone-toting folks in the suburbs, not the low income areas, really?
What happens when a city bus load of smartphone-toting commuters hit a pothole? Thirty or fourty simultaneous alerts will all go out for the same pothole.
Don't poor/lower income areas, by definition (almost) have orders of magnitude more traffic that the affluent neighborhoods? Wouldn't the greatly increased traffic, even with disproportionately fewer smartphones in use, result in an equal or greater number of alerts than in the more affluent areas?
Finally, Mr. Podesta appears to have forgotten that the FCC has expanded it's lifeline phone service (which, though initiated under Pres. Reagan, is commonly referred to as Obamaphones) to include 2 Gb/month data plans and free smartphones?
Helathcare.gov is something like eBay for health insurance. How long did it take eBay to refer 32 billion dollars worth of business? (8 million accounts, 4 K a year premium per person). No body had done in two quarters. Even banking and mutual fund sites like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity do not do 32 billion dollars a year. Even if the do, they did not ramp up in 2 quarters.
The size of the transaction isn't an issue, it's the number of transactions. After three years of planning, it took healthcare.gov 6 months to successfully process 8 million transactions of moderate, but not that significant, complexity.
Let's not forget, the website does NOT process financial transactions (that part STILL) hasn't been written yet (see above story summary) - so technically, after three years of planning, one year of programming and two "miraculous" quarters of "heroic" coding, healthcare.gov still hasn't completely processed one financial transaction independently...
Working hard is admirable, but not the same as getting the job done the first time.
The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating).
Not so much profitable as viable - it was/is believed that a lower number might be indicative of a risk pool that is overly skewed toward the sick and elderly as opposed to the young and healthy.
The bill that passed in the house was an completely re-written bill that originated in the Senate and passed to the House for a reconciliation vote quick before Scott Brown was sworn into office. See, there wasn't enough time to properly pass a House bill though the Senate before Brown took office and messed up their party-line vote.
But hey, what do I know - I just paid attention while this train wreck occurred - it's not like I read it on Wikipedia.
Because they can't do any calculations until enrollment is closed? They can't say, for example, as of Nov. 1st, Dec. 1st, Jan. 1st, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, or Apr. 1st how many people have paid their premiums? Are you really arguing that they can ONLY say as of May 1st how many people have paid their premiums?
That's a pretty small market segment, 0.0001% of 330 million US citizens comes out to a few thousand Teslas.
BTW, the Tesla 'S' lists for just under $60K/year, it isn't that much more than a well-equipped Chevy Suburban or imported SUV (Mercedes, BMW, Land Rover). Based on combined sales volumes, that may put it squarely in the 10%er's price range...
Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.
Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...
Now the only real question is how long will it be before Tesla prevails in all states?
I will admit to being just a casual observer of the trials and tribulations Tesla is going through with their direct sales model, but has Tesla actually won ANY of cases where state laws prohibit direct sales of cars?
'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.'
By discriminating against non-minorities you maintain the racial discrimination you claim to be ending - you simply reverse it.
How does admitting a lesser-qualified minority applicant today because of their race make amends to the qualified minority applicant that was previously refused admittance?
Seven other states, including California, Washington, New Hampshire and others already have laws similar yo the one Michigan's voters choose - to end racial discrimination by no longer discriminating based on race.
I bet your Canadian Tire tool didn't pass through US Customs and I wonder about Canada's enforcement of a US Trademark - does Fluke have a similar trademark registered with the Canadian Gov't?
Go work at "non-profit" schools - that's where the real money is...
Ask yourself, why is it that students upon graduation from a traditional school can defer payments for three years, and the "analysis" the DOE has done is based on the default rate 3 years after graduation?
Can "non-profit" graduates defer their loan payments for three years? I seem to recall not, but I'm not sure...
"Endowment" is just another word for untaxed profits.
When a "non-profit" college collects hundreds of millions of dollars, and in turn lavishes silly high six-figure salaries on tenured professors, and rich pensions, the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit" becomes nothing more than a game of semantics.
I'll applaud these types of rules when they are applied fairly to all recipients of federal loan money, not just the "for profit" schools everyone likes to vilify.
Maybe it's time to re-think loaning anyone nearly any amount of money to study almost anything... It's great if you are the one profiting, but it lets too many folks invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in an education that has little commercial value after graduation.
new regulations that would hold colleges that receive federal student aid accountable for the employment success of their graduates.
Will this regulation change also apply to "non-profit" colleges and universities?
From the article:
Students at for-profit colleges represent only about 13 percent of the total higher education population, but about 31 percent of all student loans and nearly half of all loan defaults. In the most recent data, about 22 percent of student borrowers at for-profit colleges defaulted on their loans within three years, compared to 13 percent of borrowers at public colleges.
Can a graduate of a "for-profit" school apply for a three year deferral like a student at a "non-profit" school? Odd how their default rates are calculated three years after graduation/leaving school, exactly the same amount of time a college graduate can defer their loan payments...
Slashdot Mirror
Should read "Please explain the difference between an unemployed person WITH A TRUST FUND AND an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes"
Please explain the difference between an unemployed person with an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes.
Now, let's compare a working parent in an affluent neighborhood versus a less affluent working person living in a poorer neighborhood, I'd argue again they both have the same amount of free time to report potholes in their neighborhood...
Nice theory, but there are more poor whites than blacks, therefore more poor white folks exposed to lead plumbing than poor blacks.
Just a statistical fact - while 13% of blacks are poor, 6% of whites are also classified as poor, yet whites out-number blacks almost five to one...
It's incorrect to assume the majority of the poor are minorities.
Podesta argues that pothole repairs will be disproportionately skewed towards smartphone-toting folks in the suburbs, not the low income areas, really?
What happens when a city bus load of smartphone-toting commuters hit a pothole? Thirty or fourty simultaneous alerts will all go out for the same pothole.
Don't poor/lower income areas, by definition (almost) have orders of magnitude more traffic that the affluent neighborhoods? Wouldn't the greatly increased traffic, even with disproportionately fewer smartphones in use, result in an equal or greater number of alerts than in the more affluent areas?
Finally, Mr. Podesta appears to have forgotten that the FCC has expanded it's lifeline phone service (which, though initiated under Pres. Reagan, is commonly referred to as Obamaphones) to include 2 Gb/month data plans and free smartphones?
We also know that this bill won't increase the deficit by one thing dime... President Obama said he would never sign a bill that added one thin dime to our deficit in the next decade.
No one says that - they say the Health Care LAW (PPACA) is bad...
For example, wait times were down for VA doctor visits in Arizona and waiting times in the ERs in UK's NHS are down, the government has no problem finding ways to lower certain metrics... And rewarding employees for their efforts!
The size of the transaction isn't an issue, it's the number of transactions. After three years of planning, it took healthcare.gov 6 months to successfully process 8 million transactions of moderate, but not that significant, complexity.
Let's not forget, the website does NOT process financial transactions (that part STILL) hasn't been written yet (see above story summary) - so technically, after three years of planning, one year of programming and two "miraculous" quarters of "heroic" coding, healthcare.gov still hasn't completely processed one financial transaction independently...
Working hard is admirable, but not the same as getting the job done the first time.
Not so much profitable as viable - it was/is believed that a lower number might be indicative of a risk pool that is overly skewed toward the sick and elderly as opposed to the young and healthy.
Wikipedia is an authoritative source? Seriously?
The bill that passed in the house was an completely re-written bill that originated in the Senate and passed to the House for a reconciliation vote quick before Scott Brown was sworn into office. See, there wasn't enough time to properly pass a House bill though the Senate before Brown took office and messed up their party-line vote.
But hey, what do I know - I just paid attention while this train wreck occurred - it's not like I read it on Wikipedia.
Because they can't do any calculations until enrollment is closed? They can't say, for example, as of Nov. 1st, Dec. 1st, Jan. 1st, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, or Apr. 1st how many people have paid their premiums? Are you really arguing that they can ONLY say as of May 1st how many people have paid their premiums?
That's a pretty small market segment, 0.0001% of 330 million US citizens comes out to a few thousand Teslas.
BTW, the Tesla 'S' lists for just under $60K/year, it isn't that much more than a well-equipped Chevy Suburban or imported SUV (Mercedes, BMW, Land Rover). Based on combined sales volumes, that may put it squarely in the 10%er's price range...
There were many, many different car manufacturers in 1914 (100 years ago) - just look here.
Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.
Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...
I will admit to being just a casual observer of the trials and tribulations Tesla is going through with their direct sales model, but has Tesla actually won ANY of cases where state laws prohibit direct sales of cars?
You realize that there are a fair number of minority 'legacy' applicants now, right?
By discriminating against non-minorities you maintain the racial discrimination you claim to be ending - you simply reverse it.
How does admitting a lesser-qualified minority applicant today because of their race make amends to the qualified minority applicant that was previously refused admittance?
Seven other states, including California, Washington, New Hampshire and others already have laws similar yo the one Michigan's voters choose - to end racial discrimination by no longer discriminating based on race.
Or the hurdles Tesla is facing trying to sell their cars without conventional 'dealerships' in several states...
I bet your Canadian Tire tool didn't pass through US Customs and I wonder about Canada's enforcement of a US Trademark - does Fluke have a similar trademark registered with the Canadian Gov't?
Go work at "non-profit" schools - that's where the real money is...
Ask yourself, why is it that students upon graduation from a traditional school can defer payments for three years, and the "analysis" the DOE has done is based on the default rate 3 years after graduation?
Can "non-profit" graduates defer their loan payments for three years? I seem to recall not, but I'm not sure...
"Endowment" is just another word for untaxed profits.
When a "non-profit" college collects hundreds of millions of dollars, and in turn lavishes silly high six-figure salaries on tenured professors, and rich pensions, the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit" becomes nothing more than a game of semantics.
I'll applaud these types of rules when they are applied fairly to all recipients of federal loan money, not just the "for profit" schools everyone likes to vilify.
Maybe it's time to re-think loaning anyone nearly any amount of money to study almost anything... It's great if you are the one profiting, but it lets too many folks invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in an education that has little commercial value after graduation.
How about holding traditional colleges and universities to the same standard?
How many ivy league baristas are there? Book store clerks with Masters & PHds?
Will this regulation change also apply to "non-profit" colleges and universities?
From the article:
Can a graduate of a "for-profit" school apply for a three year deferral like a student at a "non-profit" school? Odd how their default rates are calculated three years after graduation/leaving school, exactly the same amount of time a college graduate can defer their loan payments...