2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're saying that teacher pay isn't education spending, but it's hard to tell with that question mark at the end.

I'm trying to say that not all education spending is teacher pay.

Our system of separate school districts all trying to reinvent the wheel by having their own curriculum experts for revery field and their own IT solutions that do not take advantage of the scale of our overall education system creates a ton of waste that more nationalized systems do not have. That is a function of our history and I am not trying to argue whether it is good or bad. But if you are having a conversation about teacher pay, then let's stick to teacher pay. Not the overall bucket of education spending, which includes a ton of stuff that is not just teacher pay and therefore not so easily comparable to other countries.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a cynical giveaway to a particular segment of the Democrats' base.

But you described it as money for nothing. It can't be as you described unless of course you believe that "teaching is nothing".

It's pretty simple. You can tax different kinds of income differently. You can set up tax credits for particular expenditures that the government sees as socially beneficial. But you cannot tax different kinds of people differently.

Teachers are not different kinds of people. Almost anyone can become a teacher. What the government would be saying is that we value income derived from teaching and that is all. It certainly has more merit than not taxing hedge funds.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's a cynical giveaway to a particular segment of the Democrats' base.



It's pretty simple. You can tax different kinds of income differently. You can set up tax credits for particular expenditures that the government sees as socially beneficial. But you cannot tax different kinds of people differently.

That's not taxing different kinds of people.

First of all, people are not taxed. Income sources are taxed, property is taxed, exchanges and transactions are taxed, etc.

As already pointed out, different kinds of income sources and different kinds of expenditures have varying tax burdens or exemptions.

 

[acbytesla]

That's not taxing different kinds of people.

First of all, people are not taxed. Income sources are taxed, property is taxed, exchanges and transactions are taxed, etc.

As already pointed out, different kinds of income sources and different kinds of expenditures have varying tax burdens or exemptions.

Exactly. Whether or not it is a good idea might be arguable. But the Constitutional argument against it seems weak.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know. Charisma has, perhaps, little to do with what someone laughs off or what they know or are bigoted about.

Comparing Hillary Clinton to either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is, in a sense, unfair - those guys both had a swagger that, let's be honest, women aren't "allowed" to have in the US. But certainly, I saw Hillary Clinton as someone who inspired many women and girls, and who could connect to even large audiences and make them cheer about a positive vision, which is no small feat.

Mango Mussolini is like a Tom Green character with measles and a herpes outbreak. Thoroughly disgusting, and lacking a single positive attribute, but many negatives. He can make people cheer - but only by saying how he'll destroy their enemies, who are somehow both weak, and all-powerful (yes, I am comparing him to Hitler here). He's not charismatic in any real sense, he's just a demagogue.

And it may just be that one of the people he delights in demagoguing against is me, but I don't see the attraction, or even the possibility of it. It's be like me falling for Farrakhan's antisemitism - except Farrakhan's more charismatic aside from that (and thus far more troublesome, in theory). Which is why I'm...a bit shocked to see Trebuchet consider the clown more charismatic than Clinton. He always struck me as a really cool guy.

 

[acbytesla]

Comparing Hillary Clinton to either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is, in a sense, unfair - those guys both had a swagger that, let's be honest, women aren't "allowed" to have in the US. But certainly, I saw Hillary Clinton as someone who inspired many women and girls, and who could connect to even large audiences and make them cheer about a positive vision, which is no small feat.

Which is why I'm...a bit shocked to see Trebuchet consider the clown more charismatic than Clinton. He always stuck me as a really cool guy.

I never saw Hillary to be very charismatic. But I've read comments from lots of people that one on one she is.

I think your remarks are certainly worth considering. I've questioned myself as to why I think that Hillary isn't. And I certainly wouldn't dismiss out of hand a built in sexism. I've thought for the longest time the pitch of the female speaking voice doesn't lend itself to persuasive oratory.

I'll say this though, a lot of people including Hillary's campaign treated her as she wasn't. She almost hid from the public during her campaign.

 

[Brainster]

But you described it as money for nothing. It can't be as you described unless of course you believe that "teaching is nothing".

They are already being paid for teaching. The extra money is for nothing.

Teachers are not different kinds of people.

They are if you tax them differently.

Almost anyone can become a teacher. What the government would be saying is that we value income derived from teaching and that is all.

Still unconstitutional.

It certainly has more merit than not taxing hedge funds.

Meaningless diversion. It has more merit than jumping off the George Washington Bridge, too. Doesn't make it constitutional.

 

[Brainster]

That's not taxing different kinds of people.

First of all, people are not taxed. Income sources are taxed, property is taxed, exchanges and transactions are taxed, etc.

Incomes are taxed, not income sources, which means at the end of the day the individual taxpayer is responsible.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

(Italics added)

And that said, the incomes that teachers make are a very common type of income--we call it wages or salary. There are countless people who work side by side with teachers making the same type of income and from the same income source (albeit not necessarily the same amount)--janitors, the principal, administrative staff, the librarian, the nurse, cafeteria workers, etc. Starting to see the problem?

If you think teachers should be higher paid, pay them more, or lobby for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be taxed less than everybody else.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure I see the problem with offering tax incentives to certain professions, for the greater good. I'm not even sure I see the unconstitutionality of it.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh dear - bit of mourning going on, is there?

I was looking at Paddy Power to get some odds on Trump's re-election and couldn't help noticing the three joint favourites for Dem nomination right now:

Que Mala Harris
Creepy Joe Biden
Terminally Ancient Bernie

Congratulations, Democratic Party of United States, you've spent two years with Trump Drerangement Syndrome, convinced that Trump would be replaced by his party, or be caught with his hands so dirty he could not avoid impeachment and criminal proceedings.

Now that he isn't, the lack of priming a candidate is obvious, and to make matters worse, you voted one of the only two politicians in USA more disliked than Trump into the most visible leadership job.

Stephen King always makes a noise about how stupid Democrats were and it's only recently I've realised he was right all along.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Lack of strategy, lack of direction, lack of a winning candidate, lack of balls, lack of brains.

Who's running the party these days? Steve Bannon?

 

[Craig4]

Oh dear - bit of mourning going on, is there?

I was looking at Paddy Power to get some odds on Trump's re-election and couldn't help noticing the three joint favourites for Dem nomination right now:

Que Mala Harris
Creepy Joe Biden
Terminally Ancient Bernie

Congratulations, Democratic Party of United States, you've spent two years with Trump Drerangement Syndrome, convinced that Trump would be replaced by his party, or be caught with his hands so dirty he could not avoid impeachment and criminal proceedings.

Now that he isn't, the lack of priming a candidate is obvious, and to make matters worse, you voted one of the only two politicians in USA more disliked than Trump into the most visible leadership job.

Stephen King always makes a noise about how stupid Democrats were and it's only recently I've realised he was right all along.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Lack of strategy, lack of direction, lack of a winning candidate, lack of balls, lack of brains.

Who's running the party these days? Steve Bannon?

We saw how well having an anointed candidate worked last time.

 

[Belz...]

Comparing Hillary Clinton to either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is, in a sense, unfair - those guys both had a swagger that, let's be honest, women aren't "allowed" to have in the US.

...what? She either does or does not have charisma. What does being "allowed" to have it even means?

Mango Mussolini is like a Tom Green character with measles and a herpes outbreak. Thoroughly disgusting, and lacking a single positive attribute, but many negatives. He can make people cheer - but only by saying how he'll destroy their enemies, who are somehow both weak, and all-powerful (yes, I am comparing him to Hitler here). He's not charismatic in any real sense, he's just a demagogue.

But the two aren't mutually exclusive!

 

[Aridas]

We saw how well having an anointed candidate worked last time.

Also, Paddy power is hardly definitive, especially with the primaries still, what, a year away?

 

[acbytesla]

They are already being paid for teaching. The extra money is for nothing.

No, it's not.

They are if you tax them differently.

Sorry, you're wrong. Taxing income derived from teaching is no different than taxing income derived from a hedge fund. It's not directed at specific people, but a particular kind of income. But if you think all income including capital gains should be taxed similarly than I'm sure we can find room for agreement.

Still unconstitutional.

Saying it without evidence is what a theist would do. Try and support your claim. Not just make one.

Meaningless diversion. It has more merit than jumping off the George Washington Bridge, too. Doesn't make it constitutional.

No, it doesn't. Neither does just saying it isn't. I see ZERO Constitutional problems. The precedence is not on your side.

 

[acbytesla]

Incomes are taxed, not income sources, which means at the end of the day the individual taxpayer is responsible.

(Italics added)

And that said, the incomes that teachers make are a very common type of income--we call it wages or salary. There are countless people who work side by side with teachers making the same type of income and from the same income source (albeit not necessarily the same amount)--janitors, the principal, administrative staff, the librarian, the nurse, cafeteria workers, etc. Starting to see the problem?

If you think teachers should be higher paid, pay them more, or lobby for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be taxed less than everybody else.

You can say all day that it is different than say income derived from a hedge fund, but it's not. Teaching is a different activity than working as a janitor.

It is income derived from a specific activity. Note that we make a slew of different exemptions and credits that apply to specific people. To families instead of being single for example. You still haven't explained how we can give people tax credits for buying a new car, refrigerator, dependents, or say not making enough and receiving the EITC.

The exceptions are so many you can drive a train through it.

I absolutely love the idea. It's a way for the country as a whole to say that education and educators are important.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here is a story of Mayor Pete showing up at the ER to translate Arabic because he heard they needed one over the the police scanner.

https://mobile.twitter.com/iSmashFizzle/status/1109282942621224961

 

[theprestige]

Here is a story of Mayor Pete showing up at the ER to translate Arabic because he heard they needed one over the the police scanner.

https://mobile.twitter.com/iSmashFizzle/status/1109282942621224961

Fascinating. In some health care organizations, it's a fireable offense to do that if you're not a HIPAA-certified medical translator.

 

[acbytesla]

Fascinating. In some health care organizations, it's a fireable offense to do that if you're not a HIPAA-certified medical translator.

I don't buy seeking out a translator is a fireable offense in ANY healthcare organization.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't buy seeking out a translator is a fireable offense in ANY healthcare organization.

And hospitals need janitors, too, but anybody who wants to just can't walk in with a mop and wander into restricted areas.

 

[acbytesla]

And hospitals need janitors, too, but anybody who wants to just can't walk in with a mop and wander into restricted areas.

He wasn't just a guy with a mop. He was a needed translator. To say that someone would be fired for attempting to find a needed translator is risible.