Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Several Romney advisers provide insight into his rationale for running––he’s the “turnaround guy,” he sees no better choices to fix the country––but one in particular had some pretty bold words to say about how Romney would fix the country, or would have, if he won last time:

If Romney were president, one longtime adviser said, “There wouldn’t be an ISIS at all, and Putin would know his place in life. Domestically, things would be in better shape.”

I highly fucking doubt that.

 

[CharlieDigital]

This is a long term trend, not something you can blame on Obama.

I think the reason is quite a bit more complex than what you described in your post and it's related to the cost of risk.

Quite simply, the cost of risk is higher today than it was in previous decades.

The cost of education has gone up so that if you attend a top school, you will likely graduate with debt.

Real take-home wages have not kept up with inflation, again, draining a source of individual capital for a startup business.

The cost of healthcare and health insurance has gone up so that it's more expensive to take risks.

The landscape has also changed to favor mega-conglomerates and mega-corporations like Walmart versus a local store.

In essence, my hypothesis on the root cause of the decline of business startups is that it's too expensive to take on that risk nowadays and too difficult to challenge the market because it's so global and dominated by a few huge forces that has been enabled by improvements in technology.

It's become more expensive and more risky to do a startup.

How can we address this?

- Free college education?
- Universal healthcare?
- Create stronger safety nets to encourage risk taking?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I highly fucking doubt that.

It sure is nice when the losing presidential candidate can say "Oh yeah, that totally wouldn't have happened if I were in office." I bet Kerry could have stopped Katrina and McCain would have plugged the BP oil spill.

Romney should be happy Obama got elected. He fulfilled all his campaign promises except the stupid ones like eliminating Medicare.

 

[B-Dubs]

In essence, my hypothesis on the root cause of the decline of business startups is that it's too expensive to take on that risk nowadays and too difficult to challenge the market because it's so global and dominated by a few huge forces that has been enabled by improvements in technology.

It's become more expensive and more risky to do a startup.

We basically agree, I just left out the cost side of it.

 

[CharlieDigital]

We basically agree, I just left out the cost side of it.

The crazy thing is that the Conservative answer to this is to reduce business taxes as opposed to addressing the factors like cost of college education and cost of healthcare or stronger public safety nets to support taking risks.

Business taxes only become a factor once you're making money and thus does not help address the financial risk hurdle in starting a business.

 

[Don Chalupa]

I am?

The chart paints a pretty clear picture. In 1977, it was easy to make new businesses (probably this data point is a fluke and the entire reason the chart begins in 1977). Making new businesses gets easier when the economy does well and harder when the economy does poorly. We had a huge recession in 2008 and it got very hard. Now it's getting easier.

What's your takeaway, exactly?

My comment was more tailored to me not being as cheerful as Obama as to the state of the economy. As for the trend in the chart, while regulatory hurdles for small businesses have become greater since the 1980's, the one thing we can blame Obama for is the grossly inadequate response to the 2008 crisis, which has left small businesses and the middle class in the gutter, and corporations swimming in cheap money from the Fed. The GOP congress shares much of the blame for this, but Obama has deepened Wallstreet's chokehold on our government with every subsequent appointee.

Then there is that monster of a regulatory burden to small businesses: the ACA. This hasn't helped any.

Be honest now. Have you ever?

I did intensely when I voted for him in 2008. My hope was dashed not long after that.

 

[B-Dubs]

The crazy thing is that the Conservative answer to this is to reduce business taxes as opposed to addressing the factors like cost of college education and cost of healthcare or stronger public safety nets to support taking risks.

Business taxes only become a factor once you're making money and thus does not help address the financial risk hurdle in starting a business.

Reducing taxes does all of jack shit, shit it does less than jack shit, to help people start their own businesses.

Some colleges are trying to help reduce the cost to individuals though, for example NYU built their own incubator. If you're a student and have an idea for your own business you can go there, they'll help you with not only the planning and getting everything together but with finding funding. The idea is that by the time you graduate you'll be ready to open your doors.

Then there is that monster of a regulatory burden to small businesses: the ACA. This hasn't helped any.

If anything the ACA is good for people looking to start their own businesses as it takes away part of the risk involved. There's plenty of would-be entrepreneurs out there that never took the jump because they'd have to do without health insurance, and couldn't afford to do that for whatever reasons, that are now taking that jump. Also the ACA doesn't apply to businesses that employ below a certain number, as such 99% of start-ups aren't really affected by it at all. If anything, most entrepreneurs love the thing.

 

[pigeon]

My comment was more tailored to me not being as cheerful as Obama as to the state of the economy. As for the trend in the chart, while regulatory hurdles for small businesses have become greater since the 1980's, the one thing we can blame Obama for is the grossly inadequate response to the 2008 crisis, which has left small businesses and the middle class in the gutter, and corporations swimming in cheap money from the Fed. The GOP congress shares much of the blame for this, but Obama has deepened Wallstreet's chokehold on our government with every subsequent appointee.

I would agree that the 2008 stimulus was not large enough. I would say that the GOP Congress should take the majority of the blame for this.

Then there is that monster of a regulatory burden to small businesses: the ACA. This hasn't helped any.

This is not well understood. If you look at the chart, you'll notice that when the ACA went into effect, small business starts went up. This should not be surprising, since the ACA makes it much easier for people to start and own small businesses while still maintaing adequate health care. The removal of job lock is one of the biggest social victories of the ACA.

Note that the business-related regulations of the ACA a) don't apply to businesses under a certain size and b) have not gone into effect yet. This should be a telltale sign that your model has gone astray here.

 

[Black Mamba]

My comment was more tailored to me not being as cheerful as Obama as to the state of the economy. As for the trend in the chart, while regulatory hurdles for small businesses have become greater since the 1980's, the one thing we can blame Obama for is the grossly inadequate response to the 2008 crisis, which has left small businesses and the middle class in the gutter, and corporations swimming in cheap money from the Fed. The GOP congress shares much of the blame for this, but Obama has deepened Wallstreet's chokehold on our government with every subsequent appointee.

I agree he should have done more when he had the chance, but he probably couldn't have. What more could he have done other than a bigger stimulus which probably wouldn't have passed the Senate (despite the advantage there because of the blue dogs).

Then there is that monster of a regulatory burden to small businesses: the ACA. This hasn't helped any.

HAHAHAHA. Small Businesses are some of the biggest supporters of the ACA. The ACA is a huge boon to these guys! Not only is there the SHOP network and major tax breaks for them, but it allows employees to get insurance on their own with tax credits, too!

This is from 2012:

Only a third of small business owners want the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act; a plurality of 50% would like it upheld, with minor or no changes. This support grows after learning more details about the law’s key provisions:
Only 34% of small businesses want to see the healthcare law overturned, while 50% want it to remain intact with, at most, minor changes. After learning more about its specifics, only 28% want to see it repealed and a 56% majority want it to be kept, as is or with minor changes. A 55% majority say they want it upheld because we need to make sure everyone has health coverage.

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.or...thcare/small-business-owners-views-on-aca.php

A small business only had to provide insurance, by law, if they have 50 or more full time employees. Guess what, 96% of small businesses have less. That means not only are their businesses completely unaffected by the mandates, but all that they if they do provide insurance out of their choice, it will now be cheaper to do so!

And those that have 50-100 employees also can bask in those benefits (and many of those companies already offered insurance, anyway).

It is the large corporations and businesses that do not welcome the ACA. Most small businesses are far better off as a result of it. It should help new business startups.

Numerous small business associations support the law.

This whole "ACA hurts small businesses" thing is 100% bullshit. The ACA is the best thing to happen to small businesses and startups in decades.

 

[Jack Remington]

Honestly, you can do a start-up much more cheaply today than you could in the past. Computing power and the internet have massively cut down on the required costs.

There are probably fewer market entry opportunities now than there were in the past.

HAHAHAHA. Small Businesses are some of the biggest supporters of the ACA. The ACA is a huge boon to these guys! Not only is there the SHOP network and major tax breaks for them, but it allows employees to get insurance on their own with tax credits, too!

This is from 2012:

Kind of funny that the Wall Street Journal never commented on this.

 

[Don Chalupa]

Sorry I'm not responding to all, but this should cover my points.

I would agree that the 2008 stimulus was not large enough. I would say that the GOP Congress should take the majority of the blame for this.

No amount of fiscal stimulus could stop the world-wide deleveraging that began (and is completely necessary) in 2008 (and will continue now after a relatively short period of artificial liquidity-induced "recovery"). You can't fight a debt problem with more debt. What Obama's Fed and SEC do was turn a blind eye to criminal behavior by the banks. They got juiced up instead of punished (token penalties are simply cost of doing business). Obama has done the bidding of international banks, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the establishment to the letter.

This is not well understood. If you look at the chart, you'll notice that when the ACA went into effect, small business starts went up. This should not be surprising, since the ACA makes it much easier for people to start and own small businesses while still maintaing adequate health care. The removal of job lock is one of the biggest social victories of the ACA.

Note that the business-related regulations of the ACA a) don't apply to businesses under a certain size and b) have not gone into effect yet. This should be a telltale sign that your model has gone astray here.

I am aware that the penalties don't apply to business with a certain size, and that the administration scrambled to delay the implementation of the law because it became quite clear that it had negative effects on businesses.

Small business starts went up as a function or organic population growth, but most importantly, QE from the Fed. This is fine and dandy, except no recovery in real wages has happened, hence we are seeing everything breaking down now again.

The comments that ACA is beneficial to small businesses has to contend with polls like these from 2013 and 2014. If there are more recent polls stating otherwise, I welcome them:

Half of U.S. Small Businesses Think Health Law Bad for Them
Forty-one percent are holding off on hiring because of the Affordable Care Act

Small biz: We're not hiring because of Obamacare

"These costs have real-world implications," said NSBA President Todd McCracken. "One-third of small businesses held off on hiring a new employee, and more than half say they held off on salary increases for employees."

 

[eBay Huckster]

Kind of funny that the Wall Street Journal never commented on this.

while it's funny, it's also not really unexpected given its new ownership

 

[Wilsongt]

Sorry I'm not responding to all, but this should cover my points.



No amount of fiscal stimulus could stop the world-wide deleveraging that began (and is completely necessary) in 2008 (and will continue now after a relatively short period of artificial liquidity-induced "recovery"). You can't fight a debt problem with more debt. What Obama's Fed and SEC do was turn a blind eye to criminal behavior by the banks. They got juiced up instead of punished (token penalties are simply cost of doing business). Obama has done the bidding of international banks, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the establishment to the letter.



I am aware that the penalties don't apply to business with a certain size, and that the administration scrambled to delay the implementation of the law because it became quite clear that it had negative effects on businesses.

Small business starts went up as a function or organic population growth, but most importantly, QE from the Fed. This is fine and dandy, except no recovery in real wages has happened, hence we are seeing everything breaking down now again.

The comments that ACA is beneficial to small businesses has to contend with polls like these from 2013 and 2014. If there are more recent polls stating otherwise, I welcome them:

Half of U.S. Small Businesses Think Health Law Bad for Them
Forty-one percent are holding off on hiring because of the Affordable Care Act

Small biz: We're not hiring because of Obamacare

Chances are, those small businesses wouldn't have hired people regardless of the ACA.

 

[jamesinclair]

Another day, another Obama fuck up.

Why is he letting Nintendo sell the new 3ds without a power cable?

That needs to be illegal.

 

[Black Mamba]

The comments that ACA is beneficial to small businesses has to contend with polls like these from 2013 and 2014. If there are more recent polls stating otherwise, I welcome them:

Half of U.S. Small Businesses Think Health Law Bad for Them
Forty-one percent are holding off on hiring because of the Affordable Care Act

Small biz: We're not hiring because of Obamacare

These are bullshit polling. There are answers given to cover up the reality. For instance, when asked if they reduced employment because of the ACA, 1/5th answers that yes they have. But this makes no sense as I previously stated since 96% of small businesses aren't subject to the mandate. Why would a business not affected by the ACA react to the ACA? They're either lying or stupid.

The other issue is these polls consider large firms as small businesses, which again is bullshit.

The Gallop polling is mostly polling people who are clearly ignorant. As the other poll mentioned, when people were actually told about the provisions in the law, their opinions changed. Here, Gallop is simply asking a question to ignorant owners and getting a dumb response as a result.

Furthermore, the poll I posted didn't ask if it would hurt business, it asked if they supported it. You can still say "yeah, I think it will hurt business overall, but we still need it." I was countering this notion that small business owners are against the ACA.

All you've proven is people are ignorant (duh) and nothing more. In some cases, they're lying (like in hiring freezes or employment reduction).

Any business under 50 people not hiring because of the ACA has an owner too stupid to survive in the marketplace. These owners are just making shit up, though. They're not hiring because Demand sucks.

Almost all the polling indicates small businesses don't know what the fuck is going on. That sucks for them, and sure the admin can take blame for that, but just because small business owners think it hurts their business doesn't mean that it will.


As I have said before, 96% of all small businesses are not subject to these ACA fines. Those businesses get special tax breaks if they do offer insurance. The only logical conclusion is the ACA helps small businesses which is why numerous associations, whose job it is is to understand these laws, support it.

 

[BSsBrolly]

These are bullshit polling. There are answers given to cover up the reality. For instance, when asked if they reduced employment because of the ACA, 1/5th answers that yes they have. But this makes no sense as I previously stated since 96% of small businesses aren't subject to the mandate. Why would a business not affected by the ACA react to the ACA? They're either lying or stupid.

The other issue is these polls consider large firms as small businesses, which again is bullshit.

The Gallop polling is mostly polling people who are clearly ignorant. As the other poll mentioned, when people were actually told about the provisions in the law, their opinions changed. Here, Gallop is simply asking a question to ignorant owners and getting a dumb response as a result.

Furthermore, the poll I posted didn't ask if it would hurt business, it asked if they supported it. You can still say "yeah, I think it will hurt business overall, but we still need it." I was countering this notion that small business owners are against the ACA.

All you've proven is people are ignorant (duh) and nothing more. In some cases, they're lying (like in hiring freezes or employment reduction).

Any business under 50 people not hiring because of the ACA has an owner too stupid to survive in the marketplace. These owners are just making shit up, though. They're not hiring because Demand sucks.

Almost all the polling indicates small businesses don't know what the fuck is going on. That sucks for them, and sure the admin can take blame for that, but just because small business owners think it hurts their business doesn't mean that it will.


As I have said before, 96% of all small businesses are not subject to these ACA fines. Those businesses get special tax breaks if they do offer insurance. The only logical conclusion is the ACA helps small businesses which is why numerous associations, whose job it is is to understand these laws, support it.

This is why I get so mad when I hear false stuff. Republican FUD is real. My wife's mom thought she was going to lose her job because of the ACA. The owner was telling her it would put them out of business. His company had 4 employees... The owner had no idea what he was talking about.

Then my wife's ex husband was telling her and their kids that he would lose his job if Obama won re-election and the ACA wasn't repealed. His boss told him that. He already had insurance through the company. Fast forward to today: still works there, still has the same insurance, still hates Obama.

 

[RustyNails]

IAnd once again, people know nothing!

This is my only takeaway from that poll too. I am screaming inside.

 

[Teggy]

http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/

So are you going to run for President?

No.

No wordplay there.

 

[bananas]

http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/



No wordplay there.

Hillary it is.

 

[HylianTom]

So the GOP's convention will be before the Dems'. Excellent.

 

[kess]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.



I highly fucking doubt that.

haha, Romney sent one of this kids to Russia a week before the election:

Romney's Son Travels to Russia, Reassures Putin Allies

Matt Romney, Mitt Romney’s second-oldest son, traveled to Russia this week, The New York Times reports.

Romney met with several Russian investors, attempting to secure backing for his California-based real estate firm. And despite some of the rhetoric his father has used on the campaign trail—calling Russia the U.S.’s No. 1 “geopolitical foe,” for instance—one source told The Times Romney explained to a Russian who is “known to be able to deliver messages” to President Vladimir Putin that his father wants good relations between the two nations.

 

[RustyNails]

So the GOP's convention will be before the Dems'. Excellent.

I can't wait. I really can't. How can we make Herman Cain to run once again? Is there a way to tweet him and tell him to run?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Since the current topics of discussion bore me, let me interject the following:

(1) Tomorrow, a federal district court in Texas will hold a hearing to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction against the immigration action announced by President Obama back in November. Here are some documents relevant to the lawsuit, which was filed by some dozen states or so.

(2) Contra ivysaur, I don't think we can safely conclude that "accompany," as used in 18 U.S.C. 2113(e), is unambiguous, unless we first consider it in light of every other individual provision of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. To do otherwise would be to commit the interpretive sin of reading the provision in isolation.

(3) Is Nintendo really sticking with "New" 3DS in the U.S.? Does this mean they didn't fire the geniuses that came up with "Wii U"?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I can't wait. I really can't. How can we make Herman Cain to run once again? Is there a way to tweet him and tell him to run?

Clap your hands 9 times, light 9 candles, and say his name into a mirror 9 times more. He will appear in your pantry. If you speak his magic phrase (and sacrifice a goat), he will run for president again.

 

[benjipwns]

Is there a standard/conventional definition of what constitutes a "small business"?

A business smaller than a medium sized business.

Duh.

 

[Mike M]

(3) Is Nintendo really sticking with "New" 3DS in the U.S.? Does this mean they didn't fire the geniuses that came up with "Wii U"?

DS->3DS was already the Wii->Wii U analog, but yes, they really do seem to have a penchant for names that engender consumer confusion. DS->3DS->2DS->New 3DS is just wat. It took me a while to even piece together that New 3DS had significant changes beyond being a DS Lite-esque product revision, and I do this shit as my hobby.

 

[RustyNails]

Clap your hands 9 times, light 9 candles, and say his name into a mirror 9 times more. He will appear in your pantry. If you speak his magic phrase (and sacrifice a goat), he will run for president again.

Done.

 

[Teggy]

Clap your hands 9 times, light 9 candles, and say his name into a mirror 9 times more. He will appear in your pantry. If you speak his magic phrase (and sacrifice a goat), he will run for president again.

"uzbekibekibekibekistanstan"

 

[Poodlestrike]

Done.

Good man.

"uzbekibekibekibekistanstan"

That's a word, not a phrase.

Okay, it's not a word. But it's definitely not a phrase.

 

[HylianTom]

I know it's very very very improbable, but I would looooove to see a brokered GOP convention, where the huge variety of candidates splits things up to the point where there's a giant food fight I'm Cleveland.

Barring that, another Clint chair speech would be welcome.

 

[RustyNails]

(3) Is Nintendo really sticking with "New" 3DS in the U.S.? Does this mean they didn't fire the geniuses that came up with "Wii U"?

Well no. Wii is a line of Nintendo products like the DS. Look at this:

We're gonna have many Wii "insert stupid personal pronoun here"

 

[benjipwns]

what is the school lunch program doing lol

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I can't wait. I really can't. How can we make Herman Cain to run once again? Is there a way to tweet him and tell him to run?

He was the CEO of Godfather's Pizza, he should run on the Pizza Party. People like pizza parties, right?

 

[Metaphoreus]

DS->3DS was already the Wii->Wii U analog, but yes, they really do seem to have a penchant for names that engender consumer confusion. DS->3DS->2DS->New 3DS is just wat. It took me a while to even piece together that New 3DS had significant changes beyond being a DS Lite-esque product revision, and I do this shit as my hobby.

I actually like "3DS"--the "3D" clearly indicates the system's gimmick, and the "3" indicates that it's a successor system to the DS, not just a rebranding. In contrast, "Wii U" makes no sense, as it sounds like a peripheral, and the cleverness of "2DS" would be lost on most people. "New" 3DS could very well be the worst of the lot. My 3DS was, at one point, "new." The As-Seen-On-TV logo isn't exactly helping things, either.

Oh well. I suppose the next couple of years will just involve me replaying Scott Pilgrim's Young Neil mouthing "new new" over and over again in my head.

 

[ivysaur12]

I actually like "3DS"--the "3D" clearly indicates the system's gimmick, and the "3" indicates that it's a successor system to the DS, not just a rebranding. In contrast, "Wii U" makes no sense, as it sounds like a peripheral, and the cleverness of "2DS" would be lost on most people. "New" 3DS could very well be the worst of the lot. My 3DS was, at one point, "new." The As-Seen-On-TV logo isn't exactly helping things, either.

Oh well. I suppose the next couple of years will just involve me replaying Scott Pilgrim's Young Neil mouthing "new new" over and over again in my head.

3DS is certainly better than Wii U, but I still don't think 3DS clearly differentiates enough that this is a new system. The Wii U certainly doesn't. Nintendo's branding is all over the place. If I didn't keep up with it (and I do, to a certain extent), I wouldn't understand what was new and what wasn't.

 

[Poodlestrike]

3DS is certainly better than Wii U, but I still don't think 3DS clearly differentiates enough that this is a new system. The Wii U certainly doesn't. Nintendo's branding is all over the place. If I didn't keep up with it (and I do, to a certain extent), I wouldn't understand what was new and what wasn't.

Except for the New 3DS, I hope.

 

[benjipwns]

I believe the tradition is that the incumbent party (the party that current controls the WH) gets to hold their convention second.

So Dems had to go first in 2004 and 2008 but went second in 2012 and will go second in 2016.

I don't think there's any kind of agreement or requirement, it's just worked out that way. The Democrats held theirs after the Republicans in every election until 1956.

A July date is more in line with earlier conventions though, the September thing is really recent. 2004-ish. (To get the GOP one close to 9/11 I assume.)

 

[Aaron Strife]

I am a pretty hard Nintendo fanboy but I admit their naming schemes are dumb.

Now that Warren isn't running I'm sure the frontpagers at DailyKos will shut up about her running oh wait that won't happen

 

[CygnusXS]

I actually like "3DS"--the "3D" clearly indicates the system's gimmick, and the "3" indicates that it's a successor system to the DS, not just a rebranding. In contrast, "Wii U" makes no sense, as it sounds like a peripheral, and the cleverness of "2DS" would be lost on most people. "New" 3DS could very well be the worst of the lot. My 3DS was, at one point, "new." The As-Seen-On-TV logo isn't exactly helping things, either.

Oh well. I suppose the next couple of years will just involve me replaying Scott Pilgrim's Young Neil mouthing "new new" over and over again in my head.

Blame Apple.

 

[ivysaur12]

I am a pretty hard Nintendo fanboy but I admit their naming schemes are dumb.

Now that Warren isn't running I'm sure the frontpagers at DailyKos will shut up about her running oh wait that won't happen

BUT SHOULD WE BELIEVE HER?!!!!!! (was a Vox headline ugh)

And I'm a huuuuuuge Nintendo fanboy, and their naming system sucks.

 

[benjipwns]

Now that Warren isn't running I'm sure the frontpagers at DailyKos will shut up about her running oh wait that won't happen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-run-draft-warren-groups-kick-it-back-open/

And, of course, careful readers of the Fortune interview may well notice that the senator did not say “never, ever” or “in 2020,” or “no way, no how.” Stay tuned.

 

[FiggyCal]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/politics/rand-paul-disability/index.html

Democrats blasted Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday for arguing that a majority of people collecting Social Security disability benefits are taking advantage of the system.

Speaking at a New Hampshire diner about government waste, the Kentucky Republican said "there's always somebody who's deserving" of entitlement programs, "But everybody in this room knows somebody who's gaming the system."

"What I tell people is, if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn't be getting a disability check. Over half of the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts -- join the club," he said, drawing a few laughs from the audience. "Who doesn't get a little anxious for work everyday and their back hurts? Everybody over 40 has back pain."
...

"We all know people who are horrifically disabled and can't work, but if you have able-bodied people taking the money then there's not enough money left for the people who are truly disabled," he added.

;_;

 

[FyreWulff]

What an ignorant tool.

 

[Oblivion]

So Marco Rubio had $100,000 in student loan bills. Also wants to criticize government for not living within its means.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So Marco Rubio had $100,000 in student loan bills. Also wants to criticize government for not living within its means.

I think his net worth is the lowest in the senate.

 

[Jack Remington]

I had six figure student loan debt. Par for the course if you do an MBA, JD or MD.

 

[RustyNails]

So Marco Rubio had $100,000 in student loan bills. Also wants to criticize government for not living within its means.

Didn't he also go to college on government assistance program, and now wants to dismantle it? Or was it Walker?

 

[Oblivion]

Didn't he also go to college on government assistance program, and now wants to dismantle it? Or was it Walker?

Walker didn't go to college at all, iirc. Or if he did, he dropped out.

 

[benjipwns]

I think his net worth is the lowest in the senate.

Based on a couple of lists it looks like Debbie Stabinow, Kirsten Gillibrand, Chris Murphy and the now defunct Mark Pryor were some of the lowest on various lists covering 2011-13. Though Deb Fisher may have a negative net worth apparently. (Temporarily due to recent stock losses.)

Rubio is in the bottom 20 Senators though. He's also the 93rd youngest senator and only four Senators took office at a younger age than he did (Cotton, Murphy and Mike Lee plus 40 years ago Leahy did.) So he needs some more time getting those Pelosi style deals.

The big ones as estimated by OpenSecrets:

1	Mark Warner (D-Va)	    	$254,168,650 
2	Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn)     $99,581,170 
3	Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)      $77,235,068 
4	Bob Corker (R-Tenn)	    	$54,419,017 
5	James E. Risch (R-Idaho)  	$53,630,527 
6	John Hoeven (R-ND)	    	$38,665,535 
7	Ron Johnson (R-Wis)	    	$36,840,507 
8	David Perdue (R-GA)	    	$31,670,606 
9	Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)	    	$30,402,026 
10	Claire McCaskill (D-Mo)	    	$23,410,107 
11	Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)	    	$22,531,011 
12	Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) 	$22,361,024 
13	John McCain (R-Ariz)	    	$20,594,578 
14	Steven Daines (R-Mont)	    	$20,337,086 
15	Rob Portman (R-Ohio)	    	$16,868,060 
16	Mike Rounds (R-SD)	    	$16,097,514 
17	Angus King (I-Maine)	    	$15,481,085 
18	Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo)	$12,110,515 
19	Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala) 	$11,189,008 
20	Thom Tillis (R-NC)	    	$8,646,013

 

[ivysaur12]

Ah, I see Richard Blumenthal really lives up to the Fairfield County stereotype.

Also why does anyone in Idaho have 53 million dollars.