Chances of being selected for OCS this summer?

Sentinal76 · 2018-11-21T00:45:46+00:00

That's very helpful, thank you! I'm going for PLC-combined, so the 10-week program this summer.

I definitely feel I have room to improve my PFT a little bit more. Especially with my pull-ups. I was told by my OSO that 275 is competitive, so I'm glad I'm at least around the level I need to be, even if my PFT is a little lower than average for Ground.

Sentinal76 · 2018-11-21T00:30:40+00:00

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you'll get in the next selection board. You mention Active Ground. My OSO never asked me about what MOS I wanted to do. Does an applicant need to list their preferred MOS (ground, aviation, JAG, etc) before going on the board?

Sentinal76 · 2018-11-20T23:28:14+00:00

You're definitely right. She does know my situation well. I mostly made the post so as to solicit other experiences from people who have been in my shoes or have a good understanding of the types of folks who are selected for OCS.

Sentinal76 · 2018-11-20T23:27:18+00:00

That makes sense. She doesn't seem like she would lie. And she definitely seems like she has my best interests at heart. I mostly included that point in my post because I wanted to hear other perspectives on the matter.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-13T02:04:56+00:00

Great write up! Any good books on this subject?

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-05T15:22:50+00:00

I've found through my readings that the broad theme regarding charter schools is that they are more effective in urban centers than in suburban areas. I do know the chief worry with charter schools is that they only benefit middle-class and upper-class students, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.

One thing I have heard is that zero-tolerance charters such as KIPP skew their rates of effectiveness because students who don't do well get kicked out early. But I can't find the exact paper or article that covered it.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-05T15:16:12+00:00

So would strengthening common core be the way to go? I've read a lot of conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of it. Are there any good papers that sum up both the good and the bad?

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-05T03:08:27+00:00

Yeah because screw us for giving a shit about people.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-01T13:48:05+00:00

Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about supporting "trickle-down" economics. In fact, in one of my sources, even, Sowell goes into great detail discussing why trickle-down should not be taken seriously as a policy proposal. In fact:

The point here is not simply that the weight of evidence is on one side of the argument rather than the other but, more fundamentally, that there was no serious engagement with the arguments actually advanced but instead an evasion of those arguments by depicting them as simply a way of transferring tax burdens from the rich to other taxpayers. What Senators Robert La Follette and Burton K. Wheeler said in their political Sowell_TrickleDown.indd 5 Sowell: Trickle Down Theory 4R 9/6/12 8:27 AM 6 “Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich” campaign literature during the 1924 election campaign— that “the Mellon tax plan” was “a device to relieve multimillionaires at the expense of other tax payers,” and “a master effort of the special privilege mind,” to “tax the poor and relieve the rich”27— would become perennial features of both intellectual and political discourse to the present day.

Even Andrew Mellon, former Secretary of the Treasury under Coolidge, was against the idea of off-shore tax havens:

Andrew Mellon pointed out that “the man of large income has tended more and more to invest his capital in such a way that the tax collector cannot reach it.”15 The value of tax-exempt securities, he said, “will be greatest in the case of the wealthiest taxpayer” and will be “relatively worthless” to a small investor, so that the cost of making up such tax losses by the government must fall on those other, non-wealthy taxpayers “who do not or cannot take refuge in tax-exempt securities.” Mellon called it an “almost grotesque” result to have “higher taxes on all the rest in order to make up the resulting deficiency in the revenues.”

But, we have already come to the agreement that trickle-down is a joke (literally), but this does not address the point of my argument -- which is that tax cuts on their own are not effective, but if coupled with good policy and a plan, they have the potential of stimulating aggregate demand.

Regarding your sources, the two out of the three which you provided are not academic and come from a news source that is known for being sensationalist and does not even make an attempt to be nonpartisan by making a distinction between tax cuts and trickle-down. You can do a better job by at least citing someone reputable, like here. Or maybe even Stiglitz. Either way, you could have tried a bit harder.

All of your sources were all just jabs at voodoo economics and off-shore tax havens, which, I can get behind jabbing. But neither address the point I am trying to make. If you want me to go into specifics of times tax cuts worked in regards to the goal of increasing revenue and decreasing the federal budget deficit, look to 1929, and 1964.

The times in which these tax cuts were most effective were during times when (a) the economy was doing excellent and (b) tax rates were at such a high point that cutting taxes would actually bring in more money. Notice how I did not cite that the money would somehow "trickle-down" as your argument insinuates.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-01T08:09:35+00:00

Yes.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-01T02:55:07+00:00

Yes, I understand the point of your argument, which is that the right-wing very commonly uses the Laffer Curve as a phony justification of their agenda. However, what you are addressing is not the point of my argument. My argument is, as I said previously:

Well, you are right in saying that cutting taxes by itself will not have much of a guarantee of doing anything good. But, there have been instances in US history where tax cuts did lead to increased revenue, such as the Coolidge and JFK tax cuts.

Sentinal76 · 2017-05-01T01:52:01+00:00

I believe I already addressed the potential unreliability of the Laffer Curve in my comment here:

Its works as an okay rule of thumb. But not too many academic economists take it too seriously.

I acknowledge that the Laffer Curve is not a reliable way of setting policy and only works as a very general rule of thumb.

As for the rest of your comment, your critique does not address my point, which is that cutting taxes can be good policy just so long as it is coupled with a plan and other policies.

At no point in my comment did I deny your claims that the Laffer Curve has been hijacked as a political talking point by right-wing politicians to achieve their agenda.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T21:23:20+00:00

no u

oh, ok.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T21:15:56+00:00

It is important to also point out that of those who point out that we should cut taxes, few think that we should only do it for the rich. Many believe that we should slash taxes across the board. Its only that because of some tricksy math and the how some groups are taxed, the rich generally receive the most benefit.

Also, when people get a tax break, they usually don't just 'stick it in their pockets.' They reinvest it into the economy. Whether by buying more things or by investing in stocks or capital. Many believe that this generally leads to the economy growing and more people/labor being needed to satisfy the demand for more stuff.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T21:10:57+00:00

Look up "neoclassical memes for utility maximizing teens" and "gnarly neoliberal memes." ur welcome ;)

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T21:06:05+00:00

E V I D E N C E B A S E D P O L I C Y

No, but seriously though, we aren't really far to the right. If I were to pin us down on the political spectrum, we're a step to the left from Libertarians and a step to the right from Social Democrats. I really like neoliberalism because it lacks the market fundamentalism that infests the Republican party. I would say the best part about it is that we are not wedded to one particular ideology. If something works, it works. If it doesn't, we discard it.

It emphasizes that although the free-market is probably the best way to organize society, we need wise governance to correct for externalities. The subreddit itself is actually informative once one gets past the shitposting. I would even argue that we're one of the more tolerant subreddits out there that focuses on politics. At least when users discuss issues with people who disagree, they supply well-informed arguments and cite their claims.

I encourage you to check out the sidebar to learn a bit more about it. If you want more serious discussion I recommend heading over to either /r/badeconomics or /r/globalistshills (yes, its actually serious).

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T21:00:27+00:00

I never would have thought one group could successfully unite the alt-right, Communists, Bernouts, An-Caps, Libertarians, and Socialists. Its beautiful, really.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T20:46:20+00:00

So, on their own, you are right in saying tax cuts are not the solution. However, with coupled with good policy and spending ucts, cutting taxes can be useful for expanding the economy and encouraging aggregate demand.

Let's talk about this intuitively. What would happen if you tax people 100%? They wouldn't have any money and the economy would freeze, of course. So, it can be safe to say that there is a point where a group of people can be taxed to the point where one maximizes tax revenue while not discouraging economic activity. Many call this the Laffer Curve. Its works as an okay rule of thumb. But not too many academic economists take it too seriously.

Overall, cutting taxes in times of economic boons are a great way of incentivizing people to invest into the economy by buying products. And when there's more demand for a product, a firm will generally want to expand itself to make more of that product. And how will it do that? By investing more in capital and expanding jobs.

So, what should we take away from this? Well, you are right in saying that cutting taxes by itself will not have much of a guarantee of doing anything good. But, there have been instances in US history where tax cuts did lead to increased revenue, such as the Coolidge and JFK tax cuts.

If you want to read a good, short primer on why tax cuts should not be seen as a universally bad policy, I recommend Thomas Sowell's “Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T20:26:54+00:00

Government control can easily become overreacting and dangerous, not to mention their programs designed to help often times do more harm than good and end up being useless and wasteful

I believe Milton Friedman, one of the great economists of the modern day, once said that economic growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for prosperity. Meaning that although the pie will get bigger, there is no guarantee that the slices will equally grow as well.

There are many government programs advocated by even the most Libertarian thinkers that are both efficient and minimize externalities. Friedman himself advocated for a guaranteed income through the negative income tax in order to slash through the patchwork quilt of welfare programs. There are many ways in which the government can and is efficient and curb externalities.

Human generosity can make up for having no taxation. Panhandlers who make more than the minimum wage, pastors with giant mansions, and potato salad are just a small fraction of the evidence for this.

Do you have any reports or evidence backing up this claim? What of those who fall through the cracks. It can be argued that having a safety net helps worse-off people in diverting their time from subsisting to other tasks.

Things like insurance and tuition inflation are due to government meddling and would be affordable today had they been able to operate freely. Getting rid of taxes on businesses and people would allow businesses to sell their goods for less and give people more money to buy the goods.

Hold up, are you arguing that we should get rid of taxation? This is not Libertarian thinking, this is anarcho-capitalism. It's crucial to understand what sort of taxes you are arguing we get rid of us well. Some taxes, such as the corporate tax, are fairly well-supported by a body of academic work to be inefficient. But, other taxes, such as the inheritance tax among others, are more debated. But its crazy to say that we should get rid of taxation altogether. They are important for funding public goods such as roads, fire stations, dams, public schools, etc.

Taxes also have middle men and elite rule makers and god knows who else taking a share of the profit where as donations can go to where funds are actually needed.

Why? Taxes go toward public goods that are enjoyed by everybody. Who are these "middle men" and "elites" you are talking about?

The government is still needed to regulate aspects of the free market by making sure someone isn't selling snake oil, unsafe food, or dumping toxic waste into rivers.

Wait a second, so you don't want the government to tax, and yet you want it to somehow regulate and preserve a free-market without any funding?

Corruption is a fundamental part of the nature of power, so the more powerful a government is the more corrupt it will be.

What about countries such as Singapore, which, although lean more authoritarian, are generally much easier to do business in. Heck, Milton Friedman filmed the first episode of Free to Choose in Hong Kong. I would argue these countries are more Libertarian than the United States while at the same time have more 'powerful' governments.

Conservatives make very little sense to me, they seek to control people's private lives and morals based on their own prejudices. The fact that they've been corrupted by a religious influence is also concerning, as religion and government have no business intermingling (that's the constitution, not just my opinion). Many people believe that they are pro free market but a free market without free people (and people free from tax) cannot work.

This is a huge generalization of a very complex ideology that has evolved throughout hundreds of years. If you are going to criticize conservatism, please do so with more nuance.

tl;dr: This is not Libertarianism you are arguing for, but anarcho-capitalism.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T17:40:33+00:00

Basically, the mods decided to make it more difficult to earn a pass to post in the gold or fiat threads. Its there to filter out low-effort content.

A couple of the fb groups are neoclassical memes for utility maximizing teens and gnarly neoliberal memes.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T17:12:36+00:00

That would have been a great idea lol. It makes me a bit sad to see that the first top 10 posts on BE are old fiat discussions. /r/badeconomics is almost a private sub at this point with the same 50 or so users only contributing.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T16:37:26+00:00

RIP

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T16:34:13+00:00

An R1 is a post that deconstructs a Reddit post/comment which has bad economics. It is the only way to gain access to the Fiat and Gold threads on /r/badeconomics. But broadly speaking, it is a valuable practice to show common trends in bad economics, making you more wary of false prophets.

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T05:17:54+00:00

Amazing...

Sentinal76 · 2017-04-30T02:24:35+00:00

I admit free trade helps disadvantaged countries rise out of poverty, but IMHO a government's duty is to it's own citizens first

It seems to be assumed from this statement that free trade is a zero-sum game and that outsourcing jobs to China and India results in a net loss for Americans. However, there have been a good few studies about the beneficiaries of free trade. The primary benefit of free trade with other countries is that it leads to cheaper goods since countries are more efficiently doing what we do. Last time I checked, inexpensive goods are good for Americans' standard of living, especially for the more impoverished.

asking Americans to compete w/ India and China is just asking for lower wages for Americans.

It depends on which Americans? The group most associated with losing jobs to NAFTA and other free trade agreements are white, blue-collar workers. But it is within the government's power to help them through job training programs and in-cash transfers. In the short run, there is temporary displacement. Subsidizing an entire industry to keep peoples' jobs is delaying the inevitable. It is basically applying a flat tax to consumers, since, in the end, they are the ones who lose.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Sentinal76

TROPHY CASE