Raider5678

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That mostly speaks to political apathy in the US population, though. If you look at approval ratings, polls show that around 40% of Americans look at the current state of affairs and thing that it is just fine.

Aren't those usually of "registered/likely" voters?

On 4/16/2020 at 12:17 PM, Sensei said:

There are migrants who don't know language. It is good moment to teach them English. Because everything in USA spins around money, everybody should get prepaid Visa/Mastercard with their name, uploaded with money once a day e.g. $30-$50. Person goes to special on-line training website. Performs tests and when they are okay, extra money appears on their prepaid card. We have teaching connected with economic help.

What if they have kids?

What if they can't put food on the table now because they don't have a job, and you want them to go take tests in order to be worthy to get money?

Yet, they can't study for said tests because they have kids?

And they were able to have a job before, because their kids were in school, but can't study now, because their kids aren't?

Also, $30-$50 a day? That's less then minimum wage.

Welcome to the forum!

If I'm not wrong, this only applies to the reporting and monitoring obligations, correct?

I.E, A company doesn't have to hire an independent assessment contractor to evaluate their processes every 90 some days, and report to the EPA that everything is good, due to a lot of these companies temporarily suspending operations.

Which makes it hard to abide by said rules.

Additionally, when things return to normal, they need to prove that the virus caused aforementioned environmental breaches if there are any. Which seems like it'd be hard to do.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Isn't COVID-19 also a type of influenza ( caused by a different viral strain ) ?

I didn't think so. I thought Influenza was the name of the virus that causes the flu.

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Meanwhile I have a sniffling, sore throat  cold, due to the constant temperature changes this time of year ( and not dressing appropriately ), and I can't go out lest people think I have the COVID-19 scourge.

Yeah, tell me about it. My brother got back from Egypt and everyone was freaking out he had the corona since he started getting sick.

Turns out it was just Influenza. 

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

We’re off topic but cyber aggression can’t be stopped by planes, whether built 30 years ago and mainstreamed or the latest and greatest from Lockheed 

Agreed we're off topic, and I agree with the point you made here. I didn't say whether I agreed with our military, I commented on what seemed like a misunderstanding as to the power of the American Military.

Anyways, back on topic, it appears that Biden is likely to win South Carolina. If that happens, then at least 3 individual candidates won a primary state.

During super Tuesday, it's predicted that both Mike and Amy are likely to pick up a state as well, putting that number at 5 individual candidates.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

The Americans better not reduce their military; who will protect us Canadians ?

Protect you from whom?

The American military isn't about defense. It's mostly about deterrence.

A lot of nations know that the USA is unlikely to just randomly unleash nuclear weapons.(Even Trump didn't, despite listening to hours and hours of doom and gloom predictions from my more liberal friends, who at this point likely owe me millions of dollars from saying "I'd bet a thousand dollars.....").

They're less sure of the idea of us Americans showing up with a hundred million pounds of explosives and rendering their military a smoking pile of garbage in a matter of weeks.

And we have to keep upgrading our planes because with the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea selling terrorists and other nations high tech anti aircraft technology. We need to constantly get better to maintain that appearance of being "untouchable". (Also, how would Lockheed Martin stay in business without hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars🙄)

On 1/26/2020 at 9:29 PM, Airbrush said:

Kobe was the kind of athlete that is likeable, a real nice guy, besides being poetry in motion

And an alleged rapist apparently.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/kobe-bryant-death-basketball-helicopter-alleged-rape-20200130.html

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can see how it looks like I aimed that at JCM. I should’ve been more precise in my language. My intent was to remind us how often arguments from Trump and his supporters seem to accuse and lambaste the left for actions they themselves are terribly guilty of. 

I can agree that many Trump supporters hold double standards.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m confused why one side gets held so consistently to a different standard than the other. Maybe Goebbels had the right idea here... something about accusing others of what you yourself are doing?

This is a ridiculous accusation to level at JC. 

JC Macswell pointed out that Democrats and Republicans are lobbing insults at each other during the impeachment trial. The Senators are doing it via twitter and news conferences, the house managers and the white house lawyers are doing it during the impeachment trial.

You however, in the same breath, dismiss what Democrat's are saying as not insults and prejudice, but take what the Republicans are saying as insults and prejudice.

However upon examining what's being said by both sides, I find that JC Macswell is correct. Both sides are lobbing insults at each other. In fact, even Judge Roberts the Chief Justice admonished both sides and told them to remember exactly they're speaking to. 

According to you, pointing out that both sides are doing it, is holding one side to a different standard than the other. However, claiming that one side is doing it, while flat out dismissing what the other side is doing, is the fair and correct way to do that. 

Yet you have yet to prove how JC is applying a different standard to Republicans than he is to Democrats. 

Let's take the example of what Adam Schiff actually said, versus how you perceived it.

Real words: "Now I don't know if that's true. But we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch."

How you took it: "I’m unsure that’s true, but speaks to the broader theme here of Trump seeing himself like a monarch. "

It is a bigger stretch to say that Adam meant what you're claiming he meant, then it is to look at it and say Adam was saying Trump would make himself a monarch. Clearly, the biased approach here is yours. 

We cannot prove that Trump would make himself a monarch. Period. Yet Adam says it as a certainty. That is prejudice, a preconceived opinion that is not actually based on evidence.

That means that what JC said is not holding people to a different standard, but rather the same standard he is using to say the Republicans are doing the same thing.

It's easy to look at both sides and realize that they're clearly insulting each other. Yet you're making an outlandish claim that only the Republicans are doing it, and that any suggestion that Democrats are doing it is just holding them to a totally different standard.

The irony is that statement is insane. 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems like you're saying that tuition would not go up since enrollment is declining. Is this correct?

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost.

I explained why I think tuition would go up as well.

" the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. "

 In capitalism, there is supply and demand. Demand for higher priced degrees would increase, because more people are willing to take loans out of that amount. Then, in concurrence with that increased demand, prices would rise. This cause and effect is a well proven concept. Increased demand, with no increase in supply, results in higher prices. Demand will increase far faster than supply will increase. This will result in higher prices.

If you're arguing whether or demand would increase or not, that's something I think we could discuss. If you're arguing whether or not demand actually increases prices when supply doesn't grow, you need to provide mathematics to prove that it doesn't. (I'm presuming the burden of proof is on you here, because it's a well established rule of economics: https://www3.nd.edu/~cwilber/econ504/504book/outln3b.html)

4 hours ago, iNow said:

“Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania indicated to colleagues that he was open to calling witnesses if Republicans could arrange a witness like John R. Bolton and one more friendly to the president.”

Hey, I've met that guy!

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?

I'd agree to statement one.

For statement 2, it can mean other things. If you don't want a fair trial, it could be because you know the person is not guilty. (To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind.)

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

This serves as yet another example of how important availability of education is and how our current system is badly failing even the most talented among us.  

Touche...... +1

No, but I will argue to kill the idea because I believe it'll cause more harm then good.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

And I don’t feel obligated to pay for wars or tax cuts for billionaires, or for President Trumps golf trips, but we don’t get to choose which individual programs receive our tax dollars. 

I'm assuming you have a point here, but I don't see it.

Why does this make debt forgiveness a good idea?

BTW, only about 4% of the savings for the loan forgiveness plan would actually help the bottom 20% who need it the most. 96% of the loan repayment would go to people who are having no issues paying their loans at the moment.^[1]

(This next statement is sarcasm about the general state of politics, and is not aimed at you iNow.(unless you were aware of these statistics already))

But don't let statistics and math get in the way of a good election promise.

Additionally, let's not forget what happens if, as all too often happens in politics, Warren only delivers on half of her promise. That half being debt forgiveness.

College tuition would sky rocket, because the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. And now we're all worse off, except those that got their debt forgiven. A one time benefit bill. In my mind, equivalent to an unspoken bribe, that wrecks everybody else's future for the selfishness of those currently here.

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

* Those who’ve graduated and can’t start a family, buy a house, or start a business because of their portion of the over $1.7 trillion with a T dollars in student loan debt being carried by graduates in the US

Earlier, you said you didn't care how people who don't get their debt forgiven feel. It doesn't matter to you.

Likewise however, I don't feel obligated to pay off the debt that these people signed up for.

I do feel obligated however, that if we're paying one group of people's debt, we should repay those who already paid their debt. That is fair. Because believe it or not, to most of us $70,000 is a lot of money.

That "somehow" is because they haven't been paying their student loans for the entire 20 years...... They skipped a portion of it.

Just now, iNow said:

It’s not a red herring. It’s one of the points I’d use I’d ask to argue on the topic of fairness. Feel free to ignore it. Point 2 is strong enough on its own by that metric. 

The topic of fairness regarding debt forgiveness? How does this directly relate to that?

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

* Those kids who are hard working, smart, and talented, but who can’t ever go to college at all bc of the financial burden / they were born to the wrong parents or in the wrong zip code

This is a red herring though.

Again, neither MigL nor I are against free education.

Debt forgiveness does not affect these people.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

She’s proposing both. Debt forgiveness now and debt free moving forward. Walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. 

Point being?

We're against the first one. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

At some point, no matter what analogies we use, we either choose to accept that it’s unfair to some people and choose to move forward anyway (while seeking ways to minimize that inequity), or we throw our hands up and do nothing because it won’t be perceived as perfect by all people. 

I know which aide of that equation I’m on. I’m on the side of educating our people and improving our world. 

Minimizing the inequity is expanding college education from K-12 to K-16. That's fair enough. It benefits all future people equally, and equally doesn't benefit people in the past. The medical advancement analogy works here.

Them taking the loan happened at the same time. The analogy was a bit off, let me rephrase it a little. Take #2

Imagine two people. They walk into a hospital(Take student loans) at the same time, with the same condition(Student debt). Person A goes to one reception desk(Pays minimum payment on loan), Person B goes to another reception desk(Pays loan off as fast as they could.). They get their treatment. Except, Person A get's the best treatment they have to offer and is cured(Debt forgiven), while Person B gets some pain medication and has to wait it out(Pays debt them self).

Going in, both desks should have been the same. Nothing was inherently wrong with going to either desk. But why does Patient A get cured and Patient B does not?

I meant in addition to, rather then separately. My bad. I.E. "Profit skews it like this too."

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As iNow pointed out, you wouldn't resent someone who got better medical treatment than you did because of advancements in knowledge. 

This analogy is flawed, in a subtle but important way. You're presuming 2 people go to get medical treatment at different times. Sure. If that's the case, then that's fine. Things change.

This is 2 people going to the same hospital, at the same time, with the same condition. Except one person get's expert level treatment, the other person get's told to fix it themselves. Why? Because person #1 walked into the hospital and put his left foot through the door first. Person #2 put his right foot through the door first.

If a hospital did that, I don't think iNow nor you would argue with "At least some people get expert level treatment, even though not everyone does. Let's not give up the good in the pursuit of the perfect." It's clear why it's unfair. 

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If we truly want to spread knowledge to our people, we should be leery of how a focus on profit skews that.

Profit skews it separately. Colleges make you pay per credit. Then they say you need 120 credits. Many of those credits totally unrelated to the major you're looking for. For a "Well rounded education.". I call bull. Well rounded pocket book, obviously.

Either way, off topic. Just wanted to mention that.

Edit: This post seems to come off a little more aggressive then I thought it would, looking back at it. My apologies.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s still the right thing to do. 

This needs to be proven.

Why is it the right thing to do?

7 hours ago, MigL said:

To set up an unfair situation where some repay their debt through hard work and sacrifice, while those who chose not to work hard or make sacrifices to repay their debt, simply have it forgiven, seems to invite defaulting on future debts in the hope of further debt elimination.

I'm all in for making things a level playing field.

But take Bob and John. Both took their loans out at the same time, etc. Bob pays his off, John does not. Government eventually pays Johns debt.

40 years later, the money that John saved from not paying his student debt has been sitting in the stock market.

$70,000 initial investment for 10 years after college, he's got a little over $2 million dollars sitting in his retirement fund.

Bob? He paid his debt. He doesn't have a retirement fund, because he spent those valuable 10 years after college paying his student loans. But Bob shouldn't feel cheated. He should feel happy for John while he's scratching a living off of social security, while John is traveling the world doing who knows what.

(Obviously, this is implying both John and Bob make smart financial decisions with the exception of John paying the minimum on his student loans. Also obviously, this is an extreme example. But I think it helps serve the point I'm trying to make.)

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Is the resentment mostly because it's about cashy-money instead of something else? As iNow pointed out, you wouldn't resent someone who got better medical treatment than you did because of advancements in knowledge. We may grumble but we understand it when a friend gets more features when he buys the same car we bought 3 years ago. But people's attitudes change a lot when money is involved.

Would you feel cheated if we both took a mortgage out, you paid yours off, and then later the government paid off mine since I didn't pay mine off yet?