Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think the State should step in saying what business can or can't do. Think they should focus on ways to increase less minimum wage jobs, make housing more affordable, take the initiative to make a State run health insurance market, lower cost of higher education, and work on ways to lower taxes.
I have to agree the minimum wage seems a less important issue to me. That said I'm happy with the last minimum wage law we passed for some reason $10.00 feels about right to me, I wish they would just connect it to some kind of inflation so we can leave it alone.
Going back to old post a few days ago. Corporationshe have their hands dipped in so many political agendas that it destroyed a lot of manufacturing jobs and many jobs went over seas. In doing so a boom in a new wave of minimum wage fast food/retail jobs expanded. With CTs job market very small and only Stroh in select fields this new growth of low minimum wage job takes up a large majority of CT workforce. Especially in CT with it's high cost of living drains the State budget. Additionally, prevents people from escaping because many jobs outside of the minimum wage field requires degrees with cuts to federal loans/rising cost of higher public education in the State prevents many from doing so.
Should focus less on rasping the minimum wage and ways to prevent taking more money from them to live.
Going back to old post a few days ago. Corporationshe have their hands dipped in so many political agendas that it destroyed a lot of manufacturing jobs and many jobs went over seas. In doing so a boom in a new wave of minimum wage fast food/retail jobs expanded. With CTs job market very small and only Stroh in select fields this new growth of low minimum wage job takes up a large majority of CT workforce. Especially in CT with it's high cost of living drains the State budget. Additionally, prevents people from escaping because many jobs outside of the minimum wage field requires degrees with cuts to federal loans/rising cost of higher public education in the State prevents many from doing so.
Should focus less on rasping the minimum wage and ways to prevent taking more money from them to live.
What you're describing is a nationwide issue and not restricted to CT. Politicians and corporations sold out American workers decades ago. IMO the current political environment will never change unless we use immediate and meaningful counter measures. I would recommend these four actions/strategies.
1. Unionization of workers
2. Boycotting of companies
3. Banning all campaign contributions (corporate and individual) and have elections publicly funded.
4. 3rd political party that can win elections and gain power. I would recommend a "Labor Party" that can/will negotiate for better wages and benefits for ALL workers.
These things DO NOT have to occur at the same time, but if they did things would probably change faster.
I'm sure no one will pay attention to any thing I just wrote though. They will just go on and on how billion dollar profitable corporations need tax breaks and if we would just reduce taxes some more (maybe even to negative rates like GE had in 2008 2009 2010) we would be flush with high paying jobs and unemployment would be .0000001%
What you're describing is a nationwide issue and not restricted to CT. Politicians and corporations sold out American workers decades ago. IMO the current political environment will never change unless we use immediate and meaningful counter measures. I would recommend these four actions/strategies.
1. Unionization of workers
2. Boycotting of companies
3. Banning all campaign contributions (corporate and individual) and have elections publicly funded.
4. 3rd political party that can win elections and gain power. I would recommend a "Labor Party" that can/will negotiate for better wages and benefits for ALL workers.
These things DO NOT have to occur at the same time, but if they did things would probably change faster.
I'm sure no one will pay attention to any thing I just wrote though. They will just go on and on how billion dollar profitable corporations need tax breaks and if we would just reduce taxes some more (maybe even to negative rates like GE had in 2008 2009 2010) we would be flush with high paying jobs and unemployment would be .0000001%
OT voting for Johnson don't agree with some ideas of the Party, but only one who could possibly bring change to the System and Republicans confess members for CT to shake CT up with new ideas.
OT voting for Johnson don't agree with some ideas of the Party, but only one who could possibly bring change to the System and Republicans confess members for CT to shake CT up with new ideas.
Johnson is on the CT ballot. I think he is on all 50 state ballots. Weird that he has former Mass Gov Weld as his VP, yet we barely here about these guys.
Most likely I will be voting for Johnson too, I don't think he has a chance, but if a 3rd party can get significant percentage of the votes, it should be easier for them to be included in future elections.
I think we need a 3rd party at the CT state level too. So many yahoos have come and gone thru CT's political parties its depressing. Definitely time to kick these yahoos to the curb.
4. 3rd political party that can win elections and gain power. I would recommend a "Labor Party" that can/will negotiate for better wages and benefits for ALL workers.
This won't work without a constitutional amendment. If no one party wins the required 270 electoral votes the Presidency is decided by the House and the VP by the Senate. Voting third party means Congress gets to pick who sits in the White House.
Third parties don't seem organized enough to take seats in Congress despite an abysmal teens-digit approval rating.
Quote:
Johnson is on the CT ballot. I think he is on all 50 state ballots. Weird that he has former Mass Gov Weld as his VP, yet we barely here about these guys.
You don't hear about them because the debates require a certain popular vote % to be included. This is why so many Republican candidates got shuffled to the "B" team debates during the primaries. During the general election I think the number is 16% of the popular vote and the libertarians & greens are tied with 9%. I think Ross Perot was the last third party candidate to be featured in major debates back in 1992. He took around 19% of the popular vote that election.
Last edited by GoHuskies; 09-06-2016 at 06:07 PM..
Back on the ITT thing. How is it that corruption always leads to Clintons? Follow up from WSJ:
The Clinton For-Profit College Standard
ITT’s biggest mistake was not putting Bill Clinton on the payroll.
ITT Technical Institute folded on cue Tuesday after the Obama Administration issued a regulatory death warrant last month. ITT investors must be wishing they had ponied up for political protection like Laureate International Universities, the for-profit college that paid Bill Clinton $17.6 million to serve as its “honorary chancellor.”
ITT’s decision to close all of its 130 some campuses—stranding 40,000 students and 8,000 employees—comes after the Education Department barred new enrollees from tapping federal aid, delayed loan reimbursements and raised its collateral by $153 million. ITT had a mere $78 million on hand at the end of June and no way of meeting the Administration’s cash demand.
ITT’s execution follows the usual pattern: A pack of regulators attack from all angles—i.e., the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state Attorneys General—and try to run their target out of business before it can raise a legal defense. None of their charges have been proven in court.
Department officials claim they are merely trying to protect students and taxpayers even though the SEC and CFPB allegations involve ITT’s private loan program. Many ITT students won’t be able to transfer to other schools, and the college’s closure means that nearly $500 million in student debt could be wiped out. ITT has put up only $90 million in collateral to cover discharged loans. Taxpayers would be on the hook for the rest.
Although Education Secretary John King claimed that ITT could have stayed in business by taking “corrective action,” liberals appear to have plotted the company’s assassination long ago. Rohit Chopra worked at the CFPB and the Center for American Progress before signing on as a special adviser to Mr. King in January. In June 2015 Mr. Chopra warned ITT shareholders that the department “can revoke eligibility for federal student aid with minimal notice” and that “ITT may be forced to post even more collateral to maintain eligibility. . . . Unless ITT makes improvements to management culture, the board of directors, and executive compensation, it may be unable to survive over the long term.”
Immediately after the department imposed its lethal sanctions on ITT, Mr. Chopra departed for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Maybe he’ll be tasked to answer questions about the Clintons’ lucrative ties to Laureate.
According to the results of a public records request by Judicial Watch, Bill Clinton was paid $17.6 million to serve as Laureate’s “honorary chancellor” between 2010 and 2015. Laureate has also donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. The company’s founder Doug Becker contributed $2,700 to Mrs. Clinton’s current presidential campaign.
As the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, Mr. Clinton’s consulting duties were redacted from his publicly released contract and labelled trade secrets. At least part of his job involved speechifying, hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries and lending his credibility to recruit students and protect the company from regulatory depredations. He also may have had a word with this wife, the former Secretary of State.
The Post reports that Mrs. Clinton requested that a Laureate representative be invited to a State Department dinner in 2009—while the rest of the for-profit industry was on the Administration’s menu—because it was “the fastest growing college network in the world” and founded by Mr. Becker, “who Bill likes a lot.” Laureate has 87 campuses in 28 countries, most in the developing world, so the State Department’s imprimatur could be useful.
Yet the Obama Administration’s College Scorecard shows that its five U.S. campuses have graduation rates comparable to ITT’s. However, student debt levels are higher—$31,976 at Walden University and $43,417 at the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego compared to about $26,000 at ITT schools.
A report by the Senate Education Committee in 2012 found that Laureate devoted more of its revenues to marketing and profit (54%) than the industry average (42%). While progressives like Mr. Chopra howl about how companies determine executive pay and market-based incentives, Laureate says it seeks to align “executives’ interests with those of our investors” and be competitive in the industry.
We know that Mr. Clinton was paid more than what regulatory filings show ITT CEO Kevin Modany has earned during the last five years (assuming no bonus this year). Laureate investors must have believed that the services Mr. Clinton rendered justified his rich remuneration. Readers can reach their own conclusions about for-profits and double standards.
The article tries to claim one school is only in business because of Clinton involvement but I don't see any evidence to support this. This is reaching journalism at best with comparing two schools and not giving us any real details behind company finances.
The article tries to claim one school is only in business because of Clinton involvement but I don't see any evidence to support this. This is reaching journalism at best with comparing two schools and not giving us any real details behind company finances.
Some people on the OJ jury didnt see evidence either. I guess that circumstantial evidence isn't enough... There is a series of articles on this. It was obvious this administration was hell bent on shutting ITT down. It was a political move and the reasons were not applied to others in the same way (Clinton involvement).
Some people on the OJ jury didnt see evidence either. I guess that circumstantial evidence isn't enough... There is a series of articles on this. It was obvious this administration was hell bent on shutting ITT down. It was a political move and the reasons were not applied to others in the same way (Clinton involvement).
There are dozens of for-profit colleges out there including the well known UoP. Is Clinton involved with each one still in business?
You've failed to provide any evidence and instead directed me to look for my own. I give you a D for debate skills.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
