StrangeSox

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:57 PM) Ugh... that did NOT have to be so big. Fail. That's what she said

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) standard Ideal Gas Law: pV=mR*T p=pressure (psi), gauge pressure plus atmospheric pressure V=volume (in3) m=mass R*=gas constant T=temperature ® You have scenario 1 (indoors, 70F) and scenario 2 (outdoors, 50F). Mass, volume and gas constant are constant for both, so the equation can be rewritten as: (p1V1/mR*T1)=p2V2/mR*T2) p1/T1=p2/T2 p1=12.5 psi (gauge pressure) + 14.7 psi (atmospheric pressure) = 27.2 psi T1=70F=529.67R T2=50F=509.67R p2=p1T2/T1 p2(gauge)=26.2-14.7=11.5 psi So that's a psi drop just from the temperature change. I really doubt that the NFL rules are detailed enough to state the temperature at which the ball's pressure should be measured. Guys I already posted the correct equations.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 03:37 PM) http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/23/physics-...-science-video/ Physicists say that if the balls were inflated at league minimum indoors, they would absolutely lose 1 PSI or more just by being out in the cooler weather. Also, look out for some wacky political references standard Ideal Gas Law: pV=mR*T p=pressure (psi), gauge pressure plus atmospheric pressure V=volume (in3) m=mass R*=gas constant T=temperature ® You have scenario 1 (indoors, 70F) and scenario 2 (outdoors, 50F). Mass, volume and gas constant are constant for both, so the equation can be rewritten as: (p1V1/mR*T1)=p2V2/mR*T2) p1/T1=p2/T2 p1=12.5 psi (gauge pressure) + 14.7 psi (atmospheric pressure) = 27.2 psi T1=70F=529.67R T2=50F=509.67R p2=p1T2/T1 p2=26.2-14.7=11.5 psi So that's a psi drop just from the temperature change. I really doubt that the NFL rules are detailed enough to state the temperature at which the ball's pressure should be measured.

Really not sure what's supposed to be wrong with s.3567. Should congress ignore major international issues?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 07:14 PM) Show me just what you think is wrong with what I posted. Besides you not liking it. She was a carperbagger, Bill cheated and she looked the other way, she had no political experience before than and got their on name recognition, Bengazi happened, people died and they wrongly blamed a movie. And Walker and MArtinez are governors and running states. Lol benghazi

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:18 PM) Universities can't lower the tuition. The state continually decreases funding and their needs to be revenue from somewhere. Less than 30% of the public school professors make 6 figure salaries. I'm in a high demand profession with nearly 20 years experience and I don't make near that. Administrators do though. More and more it's low paid adjuncts teaching anyways. The idea that it's those professors living high on the hog driving increasing tuition is just silly.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 05:03 PM) Which is f***ing laughable. My wife and I make a good living (e.g., upper class by that definition) and can barely afford our student loans, house and 1 child in day care with a smidge left over to save for baby #2, which will increase that daycare cost to a mid-level car a year. We live in a nice community with good schools, but still. That actual dollar figure of our income is laughably inconsistent with our lifestyle ability. Now imagine those same problems with half or less of that income and you're the average American.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) Yeah how's that working out for our k-12 systems? No thanks. Fairly well for most people, poorly where it's underfunded and there's other, larger issues at hand. How does a bunch of credits differ substantially in this regard, though?

Some were fearing that the results of the 2014 elections in Arkansas meant that the state would be eliminated it's privatized version of Medicaid expansion, but their governor is pressing hard on continuing to fund the program and even make improvements to it. http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archi...ow-poverty-line

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:31 PM) It would, but if you did direct tuition assistance, everyone is poor so it has its own failures as well. I am just stating that I have zero problem with us having programs that encourage you to "save" money for college. I see little negative to something like that and the general cost (in terms of tax savings) vs. the benefit (advanced education at a more affordable price for those who do have it) as pretty beneficial. When you already have quite a bit of benefits for the poor, it really is the middle class and upper middle class who ultimately get pinched in all of these programs and if you pull this program away, its probably the upper middle (and really the upper middle is the middle class of 20 years ago) who is most impacted (as opposed to the wealthy). I'd rather we get back to fully publicly funded world-class universities than having a bunch of Rube Goldberg 10-20 year tax incentive programs. It seems like a much more reliable and even-handed way of assuring access to higher education for everyone, poor to wealthy.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:24 PM) No more of a loophole than an IRA is a loophole and I'd argue IRA's are pretty self explanatory. "loophole" wasn't the right word, but it's yet another complication in the tax code. You can't claim to hate a big, complex tax code but then love every one of these programs that help make it so complex.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:27 PM) I define wealthy as > 500K (really in that top 2% category) and again it differs by area. I'd probably argue their are certain areas in the US where 150K (or at least the high end of the middle class range) would be simliar to 75K middle class in certain areas because of COL. Say San Francisco / New York / LA. That said I don't live their so I don't know for sure but San Fran seems pretty absurd. San Fran prices are absurd, but if you're talking about the larger Bay Area versus strictly San Francisco (and similar for New York), $150k still makes you fairly comfortable. The median income in San Fran is $87k, so $150k is still almost twice that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) In the current system, if parents contributed nothing, the kids coming from those who couldn't afford would be better off than the kids coming from those who did afford. I think there is a great place for a 529. I'm a fan of any program that encourages people to save and plan and pay for something in the future. Just as I am a huge fan of us incentivizing retirement (through IRA's) because I think these are all things that we as individuals should control and prepare for. I do realize that you can't always prepare for them and every family has different incomes and needs and clearly a family making 30K can't possibly squirrel away enough money to send their kids to college. But to me the concept of putting me in control vs. the government, which is what these programs do, is great. If you can't tell by now, I like to be in control and responsible. I don't want to be counting on the government to provide the service. I don't mind the tax incentive when it is being used as a way to encourage something critical (in this case minimizing collegiate debt and encouraging savings to provide and educate our future leaders and youth). However, when you put the money into government programs with government schools, my fear is that the overall costs will just increase even more and be even more out of control. But what I'm missing is how a 529 helps an 18 year old from wealthy parents whose parents refuse to pay? Wouldn't they also have not bothered to set up a 529 in the first place, and wouldn't direct tuition assistance help them a heck of a lot more than their parents getting tax breaks?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:13 PM) It COULD be and SHOULD be. Just because it isn't doesn't mean it's a bad law. Sometimes forcing people to be smart with their money is still good policy, even if the end result is it benefits the rich more than the middle class. Add another tax to the rich in another area if you want to offset it, that's fine with me. This would just make the tax code even more complicated. The growth is still tax-free. Taxes are deferred until disbursement. Most people's net federal tax rate (not sure if that's the technical term but hopefully you know what I mean) is less than 25%, so they'd need to be pulling out more than $10k a year in gains alone for the 529 to be worth more. That's why, no matter how "smart" everybody is with their money, programs designed like this will always benefit the well-off more. The Obamas just dumped $240k into their kids' 529's. Even upper-middle class Americans would have a hard time dumping that much money into a 529. Plus, you know, the stock market isn't exactly stable. Same as people who were looking to retire or did retire in 2006-2008 got smashed, the same can happen to invested college funds.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:19 PM) The other question comes in to what is "wealthy". I will always argue "wealthy" is different depending on where you live (maybe that is cause I life in California where cost of living is absurd). Wealth almost needs to be based upon some form of COL factor by area. The reality is there are pretty significant differences in cost of living depending on where you live. Middle Class means 25K - 75K which is a pretty wide ass definition and upper mid is in the low 100's IIRC. I don't have a problem with that loose definition. As noted in a couple of the links I posted, something like 80% of the benefits of 529 programs go to families making more than $150k. That's not wealthy, but that's not middle-class anywhere in the country unless you're going block-by-block.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:15 PM) 529 is pretty straight forward and it's really a loophole. Put your money here, anything that it makes is tax free if used for college. That's the extent of it. Now multiply that by about 50,000 programs and you've got our tax code. A big motivation for Obama's proposal (and Republicans have made similar points though with different proposed policies) is to greatly reduce and simplify the number of programs for college aid.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) It is working, It's working to do what? Make college affordable for the middle class? Yeah, for some people, but not very many. Some googling indicates only 3% of Americans have one. You wouldn't expect 50% or anything (only really for people 0-25ish), but that's a tiny percentage. And for the middle class that do, it's something but it's not all that substantial. It's definitely not $2.5k/year. That goes back to what your policy goal is. Is the goal "subsidize education, regardless of need" or is it "subsidize education to make it more affordable for those who need it?" I don't particularly care for a program that "works" to mainly subsidize wealthy families' educations with little benefit to the rest of us. For whatever reason, they're not. So why stick with a program that plainly isn't doing what you say you want it to do?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:05 PM) Well hell, I didn't realize you could do both. I f***ing hate our tax system. So needlessly complicated. I think i've pissed away about 600 bucks the last two years not doing this. Having a whole bunch of different loopholes like 529's that people will call "punishment" if they're modified or eliminated is why our tax system is so complicated, you know.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:09 PM) So are we just assuming that the well off are going to take care of their kids education? Technically they are adults and the responsibility for college is not that of the parents. I hope that I can bear that cost for my children (or at least a substantial cost for them when they go to school to help them get a head start in life) but that happens to be my personal belief (and I'm willing to sacrifice other things to hopefully ensure that happens). However, there are plenty of others, including people who are extremely wealthy, who might not want to give their kids a time to college. Yet that kid who comes from a wealthy parent, but has to bear the full financial load of their education and gets no benefit and could ultimately end up starting their professional careers in a significantly worse off position from a pure financial perspective. Those kids would be no worse off than the kids whose parents can't afford it regardless. And I'm really not sure how this ties into 529's anyway, since that's still parental funding. I'd be all for straight-up tuition grants over either a 529 or a tax credit. Like I said, California's world-class university system used to be entirely free for residents.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) I said earlier do both - it makes little sense to get rid of something just because it helps people with money. For some situations, i'm sure tax free benefits of a 529 plan may be preferred over a 2,500 credit (middle class kid going to a private school, for example). And it's not adding MORE deductions/credits, it's not taking away one that already exists. What school the kid goes doesn't really matter. What matters is how much their parents make and how much they can even afford to save up in the first place. It's hard to imagine your typical family of four earning $50k a year having plowed away so much money into a 529 (after their 401k and IRA, too, right?) that they'll see anything close to a $2.5k advantage from a 529. It does make sense to end tax subsidies for wealthy families' educations if those same funds can be used for people who actually need it. Why should we continue a program the subsidizes Obama's, Romney's, Bush's, Clinton's etc. kids education with marginal benefits for most Americans?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) I was lucky that my college was cheap so it wasn't that big of a deal to work and pay for school, but their are some in-equality from that perspective as well, and school is a heck of a lot more expensive today than it was when I went in the beginning of the century. . That's something that a lot of the older people (50+) who complain about "kids these days whining about college, why I paid for college myself working a minimum wage job!" don't seem to get.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:55 PM) Why? It is. It's a very weird mindset, to me anyway, to see loss of privileged status as punishment. Are we sure about that? And even if so, it's overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy from the start, so it's a very poorly designed program if that wasn't the goal. The 529 changes and the AOTC expansion are part of a much broader reform proposal. Either way, that's a completely dishonest reading of what is going on here. 529 plans ostensibly exist to help the middle class, but they really don't. An expansion of the AOTC could help them much more, and we can end preferential tax treatment that the well-off don't need to fund education. If you want to keep 529's around just as another tax break for the well-off, okay, but be honest about it. It doesn't really help lower/middle class Americans pay for college, at least not nearly as much as alternative programs could. It would be more honest to say "this program is supposed to help the middle class pay for college, but it's primarily just a tax break for the wealthy. Let's instead use those expenditures to actually help the middle class."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) I said earlier do both - it makes little sense to get rid of something just because it helps people with money. For some situations, i'm sure tax free benefits of a 529 plan may be preferred over a 2,500 credit (middle class kid going to a private school, for example). And it's not adding MORE deductions/credits, it's not taking away one that already exists. The federal government doesn't have unlimited funds, though. If they want to expand that AO credit, they have to get it from somewhere. If your goal isn't to give tax breaks to the better-to-well off for education but is instead to make education more attainable for lower and middle class groups, it makes sense to shift expenditures from a program that overwhelmingly benefits the well-off to programs that benefit more lower and middle class groups. What greater policy goal is served with a $2B/year 529 program with $1.6B of those expenditures going to families earning over $150k a year? Money explains: So the $2.5k tax credit is a far, far better deal for most Americans, especially if its expanded to more than that. If your underlying policy goal is college for families making less than $100k, why wouldn't you support an expanded AO over 529's?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:34 PM) Child credits/deductions only benefit people with money who can afford to pay those expenses. Let's end those programs. You seem to be shifting from wanting to help the middle class to calling for more deductions and tax credits for the upper-middle/upper class. edit: or at least preserving those tax credits instead of re-purposing them for a program that could help a broader range of people. It also always strikes me as really weird to view a reduction or removal of preferential tax treatment as "punishment."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:49 PM) IL is pretty soundly democratic, mostly because of Chicago. For Presidential races and the State house, yes. For US Senate seats and governorship, more Democrats than Republicans but far from a solid lock. New York and California have also both had Republican governors within the last decade. Montana is consistently Republican for Presidents (every time since 1952 except '64/Goldwater and '92) but still sent Max Baucus to the Senate for three decades and has had a Democratic governor for a long time. Presidential and state or even other federal level voting patterns don't always line up, so it's sort of silly to look at a particularly strong midterm for the Republicans as indicative of their Presidential chances like jenk's NRO link did.