TBayXXXVII

Exactly this.

When I got loans, I never saw the cash, it went right to the school. Are things different today?

I value the degree based on what Alumni is making. So, for example, if accounting graduates from Ole Miss average $65k a year, the Ole Miss should charge less than Alabama. Schools should not be allowed to charge based on other schools. If accountant grads from Vanderbilt make $95k, neither Alabama nor Ole Miss can charge off of that, because their graduates aren't getting those jobs. If other schools want to charge more money, then they need to improve their programs. If someone changes majors then their tuition changes accordingly. They're still responsible to pay for the prorated portion of the prior program... you don't get that for free. This also protects students from being conned. Majoring in gender studies or some stupid crap like that has no future, so the school won't offer that as a degree program. Maybe just a class or two as electives.

States should do an economic inventory of what the 7-year average income of graduates in their field of study by the graduates from their in-state schools. Then, assume what a reasonable percentage would be in that industry to pay a loan back in 10 years. That's the cap at which a school can charge in-state students. So, lets say Alabama University Accounting graduates average $75k a year over a 7-year period... or $525k. How much of that gross, is a reasonable amount to charge a person over a 10-year period for that degree? Let's call it 15%.... just short of $80k. So, Alabama University can only charge incoming accounting majors, $80k for an accounting degree. Said graduate gets a loan of $80k and has 10 years to pay it back... or $8k per year. That percentage isn't locked in stone. Figure out a number... or make it payable over 15 years. Something like that. Why is this fair? it prevents price gouging. Alabama University had a net income of $2.7B for the 2021-2022 school year. They're not hurting for money.

He's not as good as his dad. Through their first 6 seasons, Vlad Sr has better numbers across the board than Jr... it's not really even all that close.

Define "a lot".

Agreed.

My guess at what Guerrero is asking for, is nuts. I think that a team that gives him the number he's asking for, is even more nuts. Soto got $51M per year. Outfielders get that kind of cash, especially when they have 9 years with an OPS+ of 160 and is still in his prime. Guerrero is a 1B, and 1B's don't get that kind of cash. Also, let's be fair at what he is... he's had 2 (out of 6), seasons where he's a 160+ OPS+ (the other 4 are 133, 116, 115, & 106). He's had a 4.0 WAR (or less), in 4 of 6 seasons. Yes, he's about to really hit his stride, but what are you going to get going forward? Over the next 8 seasons, my guess is that I'd get 4 seasons of 6+ WAR and 4 seasons of sub 4 WAR. If you go by the average of $8M per WAR for free agents and assume that Guerrero averages 5 WAR per year, that's $40M. With that, I'd give him, as a 1B is a 8 year $320M deal. I'm willing to bet that the Blue Jays offered more than that and he turned it down. Guerrero, outside of his 2 big years, has an OPS of .798... Bryan Reynolds has a career OPS of .821. Vlad's average WAR for 162 games is 4.3... Bryan Reynolds is 4.0.

He just wanted this out there to gaslight college and recent graduates to vote Democrat.

Oregon (Washington?) has shown us that age of consent when the "victim" is male, is irrelevant. Remember the teacher who got pregnant from a 7th grader? She got 6 years and had her sentence reduced to 6 months. Isn't California saying that age of consent is something like 14 as long as the older person is like within 10 years? I don't know what the laws were, or are, in Illinois as far as LeBrock is concerned, but I think we all know that 16 year old boys are NOT getting "raped" by hot women. If the parents want to press charges, they can. If the state wants to press charges, they can... nothing's going to happen though if the boys deny everything.

The Saints are $51M over the cap, they're going to need to be creative one more season with their current players as they have 3 guys (Lattimore, Thomas, & Winston), making up about $48M of that number in dead cap space this season. That should give them more flexibility next year, but not this coming year. Picking 9th doesn't give them a good chance at drafting a top QB prospect in this year's draft. Their cap situation and Carr's contract does not make going after a FA like Darnold who might command a Baker Mayfield type contract,... spotrac.com is saying his market value is on par with what Daniel Jones got (4/$160M), seem very likely. Rodgers isn't getting a big pay day. If he signs somewhere, I think it's one of those 1 yr/$10M chance to compete for the starting job, type of deals. For that reason, I think he signs with the Saints. If Rodgers wins the job, then Carr is gone after the season and there's no dead cap hit for 2026. If this doesn't fit within Rodgers' ego, then my guess is that he'll wait to see if a contender loses their starter. The Steelers could be an option as well, if they don't want to pay Wilson. Though, I think the Steelers might be more inclined to go after Darnold. If they think he's worth a multi-year deal, then 28 year old Sam Darnold is a better investment than 37 year old Russell Wilson. The Colts could see if he's willing to back up Richardson. That's not a bad idea for Rodgers. Richardson is going to get hurt and/or play like crap at some point. If that team can win 8 games with their QB carrousel last year, 11+ wins is possible with Rodgers if Rodgers plays like he did before the injury.

I still think it's funny that you people think Nazi's were right wing.

I don't know why you guys respond to him.

Ummm.....????

It is, but it doesn't have to be. If government operated optimally, the federal government doesn't handle the socially liberal aspects of taxation - that would get done at the state/local level by those who support them... State's Rights. This country would operate best if Federally, it was run by republicans and locally by democrats. If California wants to be a communist state, let them. That's what the people want... but they shouldn't be allowed to push those communist agendas on the national level. Personally, I think the most fundamentally flawed aspect of our government is the length of terms we have. Not term limits, but the length of those terms. In our current society where people's wishes, whims, and opinions change and fluctuate like the weather and our immediate gratification standards, having Presidents and Congress possibly being completely altered every 4 years, it increases the likelihood of economic waste (like we have). Yes, we've always had it, but it's worse now than ever before. I think we should give Presidents a single term of 10 years. Congress should all get a maximum of two 8-year terms. That would allow more stability and allow for plans and agendas to run their course. But that's a different topic for another thread/day. But again, on topic, social programs should be handled at the state level. Dependency on the federal government is what causes problems. If your state can't afford a certain things, then you shouldn't have those certain things unless your constituency wants to pay for them through higher local taxes... or get creative with taxation. Either way, wanting to a have $5B education system when you can only afford $4B and asking the feds for $1B is crap. You force other people in other states to foot the bill for you. If my taxes are paying for programs in another state, then I should be able to vote in that state in their local government elections. Otherwise, it's taxation without representation.

He is close, but not entirely correct. When tariffs are placed on other countries, the tax is applied and paid to the CBP, which is a part of the DHS. Trump wants to create a External Revenue Service to collect those tariffs and streamline the process. Now, if those businesses choose to raise their prices to cover these costs, it's still a net gain for the consumer as, instead of paying all of the money through income tax, the foreign country businesses are picking up some of the slack. Ideally, we'd drop income tax from say 28% to 25% where someone who's making $50k a year, will save $1500. Yes, if a person buys that product, they can expect to pay an increase, though you'll still have money in your pocket because your expenses would be less than $1500. Sure, if the net result is that people stop buying those foreign goods and buy American, it could increase jobs and alike in the US, which would employ more people, reduce unemployment, and increase the tax base as well as business taxes. The plus side to this is that there's less government spending on unemployment, welfare, and other social programs to help out the less fortunate. When the government is spending less, the rate of inflation slows, the need for tax dollars slows, and efficiency goes up. Your dollar goes further. If those foreign countries still want to stay in the American market, they won't pass the expense on to the consumer. So that would be a true $1500 savings for the person who makes $50k per year.

Him and Rusty have been the 2 worst for years.

I can see a scenario where the Titans trade down. If you're Tennessee, do you take Vegas' #1 and #2 this year and next year for #1 overall? Ward and Sanders may be the top 2, but what if the Titans like someone else (say McCord), just as much. Take him at #6 and add pick #37 and a potentially top 10 pick next year. Still, in this scenario, you're right that the Sanders and Ward are gone by pick #3... just might not be the two teams we expect.

Even in a league where passing is made easier, a good pass rush will trump a great QB.

Of course you didn't... I'm just smart enough to know that's what you'll do. I was born on a day... but it wasn't yesterday.

The Democrats have billions of dollars going to "fund" left wing ideologies abroad. We know this, do we not? All of that money is solely for the purpose to launder it back into the Democrat coffers to pay back for their financial and verbal support. The Clinton's, Obama, Biden, Harris, all of them... all got money to use to pay those people back. Trump spent 4 years raising money for this past election, even used his OWN money, and got what... $400M? Harris ran for 4 month's and got $1.5B? You think the people donating that kind of money were doing it because they actually thought that piece of trash was a good presidential candidate? Of course they didn't, but they did know they were getting the money back. Programs like USAID are just one of the sources.

LOL, trampling established law. All they're doing is bringing it out into the light. Trump has the ability to pause the funding, which is what he's doing. The media and communist party are telling you that he's actually stopped the funding. No, you're reading that wrong. Republican's wouldn't be opposed to it, they know the Democrats wouldn't do it because they're the bigger problem of the two. The Democrats DO NOT want this door opened. It's why they have people like you believing that Trump is breaking the law.

I don't trust the original source that the OP provided. Based on the content of that account, it looks like it's a Democrat just trying to stoke the flames of conservatives to do exactly what the OP did. I have NO DOUBT that the Clinton's got money from USAID that ended up being used for personal use. Willing to bet it's 7 figures. I don't think however Chelsea got $84M. The person whom you are championing, @Mike Honcho is doing exactly what the intent of that initial tweet was. He's saying you're an idiot for believing Chelsea got $84M and then using that as motivation to poo poo anything involving Democrats being corrupt or fraudulent. Go check out the second post of this very page. I gave an example of government fraud/corruption. I know those on your side of the aisle will either dismiss it, excuse it... or be short, and say "Well, he was wrong and shouldn't have done that".

I agree with you. Trump and Musk are cracking down on government subsidizing that kind of act. The left are trying to use the court system to stop it. Just wanted to see where you stood. I expect that in threads about the USAID and alike, you'll be in there cheering Trump and Musk along.

The point is, anyone that anybody brings on to look into wasteful spending is going to be someone they have ties to. Let's say that Harris won this past election and she wanted to look into this. Who do you think she'd bring in? It would be a DNC donor. There's a 0.0% chance that anyone in the White House wouldn't bring in someone they or the party is comfortable with. That person will be a political donor... guaranteed. So, that's why I said, "you mean someone on your side". You're ok with a Democrat president doing what Trump is doing and you'll acquiesce to whomever they choose to do what Musk is doing.