U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

Chuck in all the gender culture war stuff and a 5yo going into the ladies with his mom is taking his life in his hands in some Republican states.

[sidcow]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Chuck in all the gender culture war stuff and a 5yo going into the ladies with his mom is taking his life in his hands in some Republican states.

ESPECIALLY if his mum is his Dad. 

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

Wow. Hardly extreme crazy ideas

They're certainly extreme. Why should people who got to college to get education to increase their earning potential have the debt they took out for that purpose be forgiven? What forgiven means is other tax payers paying off the debt for you. That's completely ridiculous and unfair to any working tax paying person who didn't go to College.

While reparations is the same. Why should working tax payers who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery have their tax money handed over to others on the basis of their skin colour. What about the internship of Japanese Americans during WW2. Reparations there. On and on. 

Government gets its money from taxing the population. 

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

The extreme left of the Democrats is a laughably small group that makes noise disproportionate to it's actual weight.

Meanwhile the Republican party has literally hundreds of figures that are fully paid up right wing nut jobs or, perhaps worse, those prepared to support that viewpoint for their own gains.

It's not really a balancing act.

Agree totally. As stated in earlier post as there is no bipartisanship on anything iteans the most extreme fringe wings of the parties have disproportionate power. This is bad as a system of government 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

They're certainly extreme. Why should people who got to college to get education to increase their earning potential have the debt they took out for that purpose be forgiven? What forgiven means is other tax payers paying off the debt for you. That's completely ridiculous and unfair to any working tax paying person who didn't go to College.

1. Its in the National Interest to have a highly educated workforce

2. That highly educated workforce will go on to be higher contributors to the income tax take by any government. They literally pay back the cost of their education over their lifetime in the higher income tax they pay.

It's not even a zero sum gain

WHat you appear to be saying is that if you are intelligent, you should be taxed twice.

[LondonLax]

There are reasonable arguments for free university tuition and reasonable arguments against. 

Repatriations (other than a simple acknowledgment and apology) for historical crimes to one’s ancestors is much more controversial. 

[choffer]

7 hours ago, DCJonah said:

So twitter is a right wing media tool now then. Great.

Much like it's owner.

[El Zen]

7 hours ago, CVByrne said:

It's surely as hard as ever being a centrist. Or as they say in the US "swing voter". 

So many topics have nuance and different sides to it that can't be discussed, you've to be 100% on one side or another. 

I think both Dems and Rep have been taken over by the extreme fringes and it is those fringes driving now. 

Someone smart needs to come along and take the middle ground - it will need to be a Dem most likely. If that kind of person who has an extreme right opponent to face should get the "anybody but him" contingent like what got rid of Trump and then try get things back to a centre left.

Starmer is our equivalent here.

 

 

You mean someone like, say Joe Biden and the vast majority of congressional Democrats? 

Yeah, if only they were in charge of the Democratic party, and not the crazy left wing fringe (whoever they are.) 

[StefanAVFC]

Look at the Democratic leadership.

Biden - centre right

Kamala Harris - centre right

Chuck Schumer - centre right

Hakeem Jeffries - centre left to centre

Jaime Harrison - centre left to centre

There's not a single extreme person there, there's barely even a left winger.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, LondonLax said:

How do slavery repatriations actually work in practice? 

I heard a journalist, or former journo, explain her situation. She found out a couple of years ago that when slavery was ended by the British government, her ancestors were compensated by the government for the loss of their slaves. That compo, at todays prices was £200 grand, I think she said. So she and her family decided to “return” the money to the Caribbean island they lived on. I think they essentially funded stuff to help people. I don’t recall the detail, but it may have been like youth centres, medical stuff, school stuff or whatever. The point being that her family made a statement that the family, long ago had benefited from slavery and they acknowledged it and wished to make amends by returning money linked to slavery to be used to help the descendants of slaves by supporting public services for them.

The principle and implementation seemed pretty straightforward to me.

[blandy]

I got some details wrong, here’s what the meeja reported

Quote

“The Trevelyan family is apologising to the people of Grenada for the role our ancestors played in enslavement on the island, and engaging in reparations,” she said.

The family intends to donate £100,000 to establish a community fund for economic development on the island, the BBC said.

Trevelyan revealed that her family had received about £34,000 from the British government in 1834 as compensation for the abolition of slavery. The sum is thought to be the equivalent of about £3m in today’s money.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/laura-trevelyan-bbc-slavery-grenada-b2300840.html

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

1. Its in the National Interest to have a highly educated workforce

2. That highly educated workforce will go on to be higher contributors to the income tax take by any government. They literally pay back the cost of their education over their lifetime in the higher income tax they pay.

It's not even a zero sum gain

WHat you appear to be saying is that if you are intelligent, you should be taxed twice.

No, that's clearly what you are saying and trying to twist and apply that to me. It's quite amusing though given my comments on education across OT. Just to refresh you on that.

I believe 3rd level education should be completely free and funded by the government. There should be fair method for assigning the best performing students to the courses. This to me is the fairest system and requires a fundamental change to the application system on top of the funding. 

One off debt relief to those who have used the current unfair system to get into college and expect others to pay for it via taxes is ridiculous populism that focuses on one small group rather than the many / changing the system for the better.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

No, that's clearly what you are saying and trying to twist and apply that to me. It's quite amusing though given my comments on education across OT. Just to refresh you on that.

I believe 3rd level education should be completely free and funded by the government. There should be fair method for assigning the best performing students to the courses. This to me is the fairest system and requires a fundamental change to the application system on top of the funding. 

One off debt relief to those who have used the current unfair system to get into college and expect others to pay for it via taxes is ridiculous populism that focuses on one small group rather than the many / changing the system for the better.

Just to remind you of what you said and to which I was responding

Quote

They're certainly extreme. Why should people who got to college to get education to increase their earning potential have the debt they took out for that purpose be forgiven? What forgiven means is other tax payers paying off the debt for you. That's completely ridiculous and unfair to any working tax paying person who didn't go to College.

You asked a question. I answered it. I twisted absolutely nothing, I even quoted that bit. It's in plain sight.

I do not search every opinion you've ever posted on a subject before I respond, no one does, now that would be a completely ridiculous expectation especially as you may have changed your mind in the intervening period.

I take it that now you've stated your opinion again, you've once again changed your mind

[DCJonah]

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

No, that's clearly what you are saying and trying to twist and apply that to me. It's quite amusing though given my comments on education across OT. Just to refresh you on that.

I believe 3rd level education should be completely free and funded by the government. There should be fair method for assigning the best performing students to the courses. This to me is the fairest system and requires a fundamental change to the application system on top of the funding. 

One off debt relief to those who have used the current unfair system to get into college and expect others to pay for it via taxes is ridiculous populism that focuses on one small group rather than the many / changing the system for the better.

Have you read the college fees proposal? It's not a case of everyone who went to college gets everything paid for by the tax payer. 

[LondonLax]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

I heard a journalist, or former journo, explain her situation. She found out a couple of years ago that when slavery was ended by the British government, her ancestors were compensated by the government for the loss of their slaves. That compo, at todays prices was £200 grand, I think she said. So she and her family decided to “return” the money to the Caribbean island they lived on. I think they essentially funded stuff to help people. I don’t recall the detail, but it may have been like youth centres, medical stuff, school stuff or whatever. The point being that her family made a statement that the family, long ago had benefited from slavery and they acknowledged it and wished to make amends by returning money linked to slavery to be used to help the descendants of slaves by supporting public services for them.

The principle and implementation seemed pretty straightforward to me.

There would be no need for government intervention in that scenario though. 

[CVByrne]

51 minutes ago, bickster said:

Just to remind you of what you said and to which I was responding

You asked a question. I answered it. I twisted absolutely nothing, I even quoted that bit. It's in plain sight.

I do not search every opinion you've ever posted on a subject before I respond, no one does, now that would be a completely ridiculous expectation especially as you may have changed your mind in the intervening period.

I take it that now you've stated your opinion again, you've once again changed your mind

It's quite clear I've not changed my opinion. You attributed your comment

Quote

"WHat you appear to be saying is that if you are intelligent, you should be taxed twice." 

To my post. 

Quote

Why should people who got to college to get education to increase their earning potential have the debt they took out for that purpose be forgiven? What forgiven means is other tax payers paying off the debt for you. That's completely ridiculous and unfair to any working tax paying person who didn't go to College.

It's an effective way of confusing others who read it. So they read what you say I said. 

I clarify further so people read the right meaning. There is a clear difference between a free state funded education system which has removed barriers to entry (which is what I favour) and the allocation of government resources to pay off debt of those who freely used the existing system (took on the debt). They are two different things. 

The barriers to entry, many many people can't afford to go to college because they can't get the loans the barriers to those people availing of the 3rd level education. Those people never got the chance to have their debt forgiven because the system denied them the chance. So to those tax payers we give the middle finger and pay off those who could go to college.

There is a clear difference between free funded 3rd level education and debt forgiveness for those who availed of it under the current system.

Edited May 24, 2023 by CVByrne

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It's quite clear I've not changed my opinion. You attributed your comment

To my post. 

It's an effective way of confusing others who read it. So they read what you say I said. 

I clarify further so people read the right meaning. There is a clear difference between a free state funded education system which has removed barriers to entry (which is what I favour) and the allocation of government resources to pay off debt of those who freely used the existing system (took on the debt). They are two different things. 

The barriers to entry, many many people can't afford to go to college because they can't get the loans the barriers to those people availing of the 3rd level education. Those people never got the chance to have their debt forgiven because the system denied them the chance. So to those tax payers we give the middle finger and pay off those who could go to college.

There is a clear difference between free funded 3rd level education and debt forgiveness for those who availed of it under the current system.

Imagine that happened overnight, and everyone from this point forward gets free education and everyone before is saddled with debt. That wouldn't be fair would it? You have to forgive the previous debt before you can make it free for everyone. To not do that makes it completely unfair

[CVByrne]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Imagine that happened overnight, and everyone from this point forward gets free education and everyone before is saddled with debt. That wouldn't be fair would it? You have to forgive the previous debt before you can make it free for everyone. To not do that makes it completely unfair

No it wouldn't be fair. But nothing happens overnight.

What would be fair is bringing in free education and a reform of the application / place allocation system. Then in conjunction tackling student debt. The former precedes the latter. 

In this case it's only the debt forgiveness though

[Villaphan04]

I really really really hope it doesn't come down to Biden vs Trump again 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

There would be no need for government intervention in that scenario though. 

Sure. It was just an example of money being put towards helping the descendants of slaves improve their lives and their economic outlook. There's no reason Government couldn't do similar, as far as I can see. In the US there's huge inequality and effort to redress that, whether via compo for slavery in the past, or as part of a general package covering disadvantaged folk seems like a good thing, to my way of thinking. That's all.