|
Wait, did you mean to respond to my post there, I’m posting whilst drowsy, so I knew I was rambling, but I’m struggling with how to respond to that within the context of my post lol
|
United States10399 Posts
On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering.
I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans.
Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like.
I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives.
|
Bisutopia19350 Posts
On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering.
It’s more of, I understand what people are going through, but when you sign an agreement to take someone’s money and pay it back, then that’s exactly what you should be expected to do. And I don’t think lenders prey on students in the same way credit card companies do either. I think the miseducation issue comes when students borrow for four years and don’t realize what that monthly payment has added up to after your 6 month grace period.
|
On November 09 2020 08:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 09 2020 08:00 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 07:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 09 2020 04:52 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 03:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 09 2020 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
What you're saying is that if enough progressives existed, Biden would suddenly shift political winds to that position except you can't admit that. I mean, I'm not Zambrah, but sure, I do believe that. The thing is though, there's a conflict between different 'types' of politicians. Should they be reactive (weathervane-type), or reformers? Myself, I believe that virtually all the 'great' politicians are reformers. They don't simply react to public opinion, they also shape it. It's not a virtue by default - while I think all great politicians are reformers, I believe it also holds true for the most abhorrent ones. Trump has not only responded to the ugly side of his electorate, he has also shaped public opinion (but from my perspective largely in a negative manner, some of it very dangerous/damaging. The entire handling of COVID is one such example, where I am confident that if Trump had backed expert opinion rather than contradicted it, it would have been more closely adhered to by the public). The weathervane politician is the 'career' politician, ones that never opine anything that does not poll well. They are the kind that opposes gay marriage publicly even if they are privately positive towards it / don't give a damn on a personal level. More likely to be technocrats, sure, and often they will provide us with some incremental improvement backed by experts. But this group is unlikely to provide society with truly meaningful change. Which type you prefer, will largely be determined by how content you are with the current direction of society. Sanders is a reformer. Yang seems like one, too - even if I agree more with Sanders than with Yang, I will give Yang credit for being the type of politician who tries to come up with solutions to problems society faces and then tries to convince people that this is the right solution, rather than checking the polls to see what his opinion should be. Clinton was absolutely an example of a weathervane politician. Biden is largely one, too, although I don't see him as being equally cynical about it. Obama, I actually think wanted to be a reformer, but he was largely neutered. (I do believe Biden is a genuinely caring human being. And I think the US needs some degree of bland , inoffensive leadership for the problem of 'increased societal division' to possibly be addressed. However, I also believe you need radical change to deal with many of the political issues you struggle with. Biden is probably as good of a unifying candidate as the US could find right now - so he checks that box, but I don't see him provide the actual change required, because I think you need changes that don't necessarily have majority support at the moment. ) The problem is that your reformers never have power. You point out that Obama wanted to be a reformer. His first reform of healthcare cost him the house and his entire presidential agenda. Your previous post pointed out that Bernie isn't a "mainstream politician" despite being in the US congress for thirty years and he was a politician in Vermont before that. I don't put any value in people having ideas. You have to get them implemented for them to have any meaning. What has Sanders reformed besides getting more pork for Vermont? The most interesting thing about the election to me was Florida voting for a $15 minimum wage and Republican. That would be a reform I could point out that Sanders champions. The logical thing to happen is that your reformer's ideas become main stream enough to get them elected. Not this, they don't have majority support but we're going to force them through anyway that you're posting. Popular policies are regularly shot down as "pie in the sky" despite a majority of Americans wanting them, at the end of the day, when it came to the ACA its an issue of Obama playing Republican games and winning Republican prizes. He let it burn him out politically for a long time, he had the power to have run through something damn near European, but Democrats dont sieze on power like Republicans do. Thats the issue, Democrats rarely get power but when they do they strive to be as ineffectual as they can, so any change they do manages to irritate advocates of change for being Republicanized and irritate conservatives because change. They need to study the Republican playbook, not to learn how to play nice, but how to copy how they wield power (or obstruct the use of power, really.) Its a really, really sad state, its crap that we have a government that exists for one side to brute force the other via the system, but its what we have and pretending we can all play nice with each other just enables the bad actors to act badly and get their way. We also need to stop being god damned dictated at by weather vanes. MAKE THE POLICY POPULAR! I believe our ideas are good, progressives have to sell their ideas to the American people! Weathervane politicians have normalized forcing the public to decide whats good for them so that they can bandwagon alongside the public, but we need to work on actually SELLING our policy ideas to them, convincing the average American why what we want to do is good for them. Thats obviously hard, Americans are ignorant, sometimes willfully ignorant, but at the end of the day if we're going to be organizing anyways, getting out there, talking to people, talking about why our policy is good for people will be key to making our policy more popular, assuming they arent literally already popular enough. TL is special, people like Biff and Jimmi already generally seem to agree with progressive policy, and people who dont like Danglars and Wegandi aren't ever going to agree with it even if it they were on their deathbed and the progressive policy would literally save their life. We should work to appeal not to the Wegandis and Danglars, but first to the stereotypical Trump demographics, frame it similar to how Kwark does but... like... not so... horribly. Americans do love a fight, I sincerely believe framing it as a fight is the right way there. Fighting the billionaires, and the like. But poor, uneducated working class people should be a priority demographic as they're the people who are most likely to be impacted positively by progressive change. People in the middle and upper classes are already comfortable, they're cagey, the Republican ones are almost unwinnable imo, they're too fearful of change. The ones like Jimmi and Biff are doable, the barrier I see with that would be one of convincing that we are viable winners, the tough part of that is the DNC is very, very, VERY interested in keeping progressives as "the problem" faction of the party, they fight us all the time, the blame-the-progressive shit has begun and its going to be a hard media battle to fight. Rambling incoherency... ending? I hope its ending. Look, my Bidenesque ranting concludes with; We have to make our policy popular/make people understand its popular. In particular for the traditional stereotypical Trump demographics. We have to keep primarying Democrats until they respect that progressives can be winners. We need to put aside our idealized idea of how gov't should function in the US because its not how power is wielded here. EDIT: Also a Trump related note, We're in a stage of American politics where our business as usual shitshow is creating and incentivizing Donald Trumps. The Proof of Concept has won an election, he drove absurd turnout for his side in this election even if he lost. This is NOT the time to be weak and timid because the next Donald Trump is not going to be hampered by a pandemic, they might not be a daft moron with infinite scandal. This is a thing I keep seeing and it frightens me. BIDENS ELECTION DIDNT DEFEAT FASCISM IN THE US. We're still teetering on that precipice, ready to start falling down. Could happen as soon as next election, I get people want to be relieved about Biden but FUCK, GUYS, WE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP AND WE ALMOST ELECTED HIM TWICE. Be scared. Understand that Democrats and Republicans as we know them have brought the conditions to bring him to power, and their preferred nonsense will bring more and more forward, we need to nip this in the bud, this isn't the time to go soft, fascism in the US is still alive, stamp it out, don't get complacent, please sweet jesus. What did I just read, rofl. Bro, don't talk about the "Biff and the Jimmy", you just clearly have no clue what I stand for. To clarify, you DONT believe in things like European style healthcare in the US, proactive climate change action, and other US progressive ideology? I think you really haven't followed, which is fine but why do you mention me then? Of course I do support all of those, I vote for a party that is certainly left of Sanders; and I would vote in a heartbeat for progressive candidates if I lived in the US. I am just very unimpressed by the "duuuh the democrats suck, they are totally the enemy" that seems to be the cornerstone of some people's thought here. I find the attitude of many progressives here infantile and quite the opposite of constructive. It must be difficult for you to shield yourself from all of the news that demonstrate quite clearly that they are the enemy. You might remember a few months ago we had a primary race, and when it looked like we had a shot at winning that race all of their candidates were pressured into quitting just to make it more likely that we wouldn't win. They all quit because us winning was too much of a threat for the party and told their voters not to go for us. Their candidate then ran quite distinctly on not being one of us, and now that he's won he wants to consider some republicans for his administration, rather than leftists. But, like, even if you don't follow US news, do the liberals in Norway side with the left or something, is that a thing? In Switzerland they side with the far right something like 75% of the time? In France one of their answers to islamic terrorist attacks was to blame it on the left and they did so using far right terminology? Even if you don't follow any news at all, you can check ideologies. One of the main tenets of leftist ideology is a fight against social hierarchies, we think they are generally harmful. We want to bring them down or at least limit their influence as much as possible. Liberalism, on the other hand, wants a meritocracy, where there is an existing and strong social hierarchy but it is justified by the fact that the people who are on top deserve to be on top. So to sum up, they haven't demonstrated any will to be our friends in the US, or in Europe as far as I know, and it wouldn't even make sense for them to want to be our friends based on what we and they envision for society. And yet you think it's infantile not to treat them as our friends, because... I don't know why, really.
That was my first thought too. It's nonsensical from so many angles. Biden doesn't even try to hide that he's more inclined to work with Trump enablers (has been saying it since the primary) than the left wing of his party (which he makes sure to emphasize he isn't and beat. That's after literally claiming he was "always labeled as one of the most liberal members of the United States Congress". Crap Biff should be especially aware of being nonsense (at least in the way "liberal" is used denote leftness).
I'm still not convinced that America is ready for progressives yet.
I understand why people think this, but how do people reconcile that with the climate science that says they needed to be ready a decade ago and if they aren't ready now they are dooming future generations to a practically uninhabitable planet?
I get that people think that the US isn't ready, but our ecology (nor the oppressed of society) won't wait for them to get ready and waiting seems to me to be unreasonable and unacceptable by any rational measure.
EDIT: If one's grandfather was going to knowingly burn down the house with them locked in it they wouldn't argue for patience and soft language they'd break the door down and escape.
|
Northern Ireland26784 Posts
Education is way too expensive for what you get, but you need it to do anything above washing dishes.
Simple as really. Despite that I am doing another degree, but I really feel forced into that situation.
|
Bisutopia19350 Posts
On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives.
It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down.
|
On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down.
Do you pay for insurance?
|
Stem being more valuable than humanities is a myth, that I hope we put to rest. Trump being president proves exactly how valuable the humanities side of education is, considering it is the side that teaches us about human nature and how to avoid deception.
Also, when people say STEM, they mean the TE. Science and math jobs have shit pay and worse openings. Humanities degrees frequently have higher earnings than STEM degrees.
Are there useless degrees? Sure. But it is silly to write off all humanities degrees with that brush, especially because there is no sure indication that TE degrees are going to be as super in demand 40 years from now.
|
Northern Ireland26784 Posts
On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down.
Sounds good to me. Cut out the landlord class that way.
I mean taxpayers globally have bailed out corporations who actually wield power and made catastrophic decisions if not committed outright fraud.
I have no issue bailing out people for bad decisions, especially those who are significantly straightjacketed in terms of options to begin with.
|
Bisutopia19350 Posts
On November 09 2020 09:32 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Do you pay for insurance?
I do for house, car, and health. Although for health my current company pays 100% of my personal insurance and 50% of my family insurance.
|
On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives.
Yeah I think we need to have more robust trade school options and remove the social stigma from them. There's so many kids in college that really don't belong or want to be there yet are paying tens of thousands for it. Our profit-seeking model of college is like the other side of the coin of our for-profit prisons. Both are losing sight of their purpose to society because of profit being the biggest goal.
|
On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering.
Im starting to see this mentality in Australia also and I'm really not a fan of it. Our system is much different to that of the USA but a lot of our current politicians who had free tertiary education now believe that all prices should be increased. Some of the public who have had to pay seem to think this is the best course forward because they had to pay.
I don't understand the not wanting thing to be better for the next generation.
|
Bisutopia19350 Posts
On November 09 2020 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Sounds good to me. Cut out the landlord class that way. I mean taxpayers globally have bailed out corporations who actually wield power and made catastrophic decisions if not committed outright fraud. I have no issue bailing out people for bad decisions, especially those who are significantly straightjacketed in terms of options to begin with.
As a fiscal conservative, I’ve been essentially against all of those bailouts. I’d probably be more for citizen bailouts if our country didn’t have such a large debt or already waste all that money on corporate bailouts. I don’t want my country spending money until they balance their big fucking checkbook and stop overspending money on all their existing programs.
|
On November 09 2020 09:35 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:32 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Do you pay for insurance? I do for house, car, and health. Although for health my current company pays 100% of my personal insurance and 50% of my family insurance.
Then you experience collectivized risk via your home and car insurance, do you feel cheated that the person whose home burns down gets paid out on their insurance while you do nothing but pay into it via your premiums?
|
On November 09 2020 09:37 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:33 WombaT wrote:On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Sounds good to me. Cut out the landlord class that way. I mean taxpayers globally have bailed out corporations who actually wield power and made catastrophic decisions if not committed outright fraud. I have no issue bailing out people for bad decisions, especially those who are significantly straightjacketed in terms of options to begin with. As a fiscal conservative, I’ve been essentially against all of those bailouts. I’d probably be more for citizen bailouts if our country didn’t have such a large debt or already waste all that money on corporate bailouts. I don’t want my country spending money until they balance their big fucking checkbook and stop overspending money on all their existing programs.
Are you rejecting MMT?
|
Bisutopia19350 Posts
On November 09 2020 09:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:35 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:32 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Do you pay for insurance? I do for house, car, and health. Although for health my current company pays 100% of my personal insurance and 50% of my family insurance. Then you experience collectivized risk via your home and car insurance, do you feel cheated that the person whose home burns down gets paid out on their insurance while you do nothing but pay into it via your premiums?
My first reaction is that I am required by law to have car insurance by my state so I don’t really get to have an opinion. Home owners insurance is required by my lender and I am okay with it because I signed the mortgage. Plus home owners insurance is privately run so I have the option once I pay off my mortgage to keep it or get rid of it. So l guess I’ll have to form an opinion on that once it’s up to me. I’m not sure where you are going with insurance and it’s relation to student loans though. Are you saying we should introduce student loan insurance?
|
On November 09 2020 09:50 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 09:40 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 09:35 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:32 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 09:27 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 09:20 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 09 2020 08:57 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2020 08:41 BisuDagger wrote:On November 09 2020 08:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
Thought:
There seems to be pretty universal support in this thread for forgiving (or ending mandatory repayments, or some version thereof) student debt. This is portrayed as a leftist or progressive proposal, however the US is one of the countries in the world with the highest wage premiums for college attendance, this feel quite jarring to me.
Focusing state resources so that the professional middle class can buy single family homes a few years earlier is certainly a vote winner but it doesn't do anything about the underlying class structure. If anything I think part of the reason the old social democratic parties in Europe fell from grace is that they forgot who they were supposed to represent.
So rather than forgiving 50-200k in debt for people who already have obtained 4 year degrees what about giving 50-200k in grants or cheaply financed loans for people _without_ college degrees. This can be used to fund adult professional education in fields that are deemed in demand, or to offset housing or health care costs, or whatever else.
Further the cash component of any welfare programs could be greatly expanded.
The goal of these policies should in my opinion be to spend resources to decrease the quality of living gap between the college educated professional middle class and the lower classes who lack college education.
And sure, I am aware that there are a _lot_ of people with college education who are struggling. That doesnt change the fact that people without college education on average struggle significantly more, and a 'left' party should be representing the working classes, not the professional ones. (Of course in truth the Democrats are primarily a liberal party representing educated professionals and workers dont really have representation in the American system but when talking 'left' or 'progressive' policy in my opinion the goal should be to change that.) There is not universal support in this thread. Some of us are just reading everyone’s opinions quietly. I took out $100k in student loans, got a computer science degree, and paid off my debt in 5 years by working hard and not spending my money on needless stuff. No cable television or phone with data plan and I still don’t have either despite doing well in life now. Before my loan I worked minimum wage full time for two years at a different college before picking a path and going all in on it. I think student loan debt is a product of the ill educated or ill prepared. Most students have no idea what an interest rate means before they get into college and take out these variable loans without thinking. It’s the same problem with home owners too. There should be classes taken by banks before even applying for a loan. People take these loans out and don’t understand their responsibilities to them. It’s not free money. I’m open to the idea of more financial government support for college level education, but when you take out a loan that’s you making a promise that you better be willing to fulfill (sans terrible or tragic luck). It’s weird to me that in one post you argue that many were insufficiently informed to understand what they were signing and practically children before concluding that they should be bound to the maximum extent of their contractual obligations. It seems the most dickish stance to take. You could have argued that they knew what they were doing and should be forced to hold up their end. You could have argued that they didn’t know what they were doing and shouldn’t be forced to hold up their end. But instead you argued that they were taken advantage of, but should still be punished for that ignorance. Adding in that you’d feel like you got a bad deal if they weren’t hurt because you paid off yours is also classic American hazing mentality. Making things better for other people is apparently bad because then they won’t have to suffer the way you did. It’s a weird flagellation where people who suffered for good things hate to see other people having them without also suffering. I'll agree with Kwark's last point, that just because you managed to pay off your debt, that loan forgiveness would cause your social standing to fall and you would be injured. In fact, that is not exactly the case, society is benefited from not haveing to pay back those enormous student loans. Do I agree with much of Bisudagger's stance that people should be more educated before the blindly go into college? Yes. I also believe that useless degrees DO EXIST, contrary to what many other people might think. Examples are things like how STEM, especially computer science these days, are more valuable to our society than things like the humanities. As a political science major, I really only have a few choices in life, become a professor, go into politics for life as a staffer/think-tank, or go to law school. I chose the last option because I believe law school is the most flexible of all those options. But people don't realize the futures they have when they jump into university and pick a major. We should do a better job of educating, and I believe strongly that high schools need to do a better job of connecting their students with real adults/alumni who are in the real world and can explain to them what it's like. I think there's a very large common trend in this thread: education is king, and more education can literally do no harm, because it pushes better, but more convoluted policies into the forefront, and it allows people to make smarter choices in just about every aspect of their lives. It’s not just that I paid it off, it’s that I signed an a agreement and upheld it. As a tax payer I shouldn’t be responsible for everyone else who failed to meet their signed agreement barring extreme circumstances in someone’s life. To ask me to help pay off everyone else’s loans feels like a slap in the face. And when does it stop? Next, everyone has a right to a home? Well I am aggressively paying off my house mortgage. What if I pay it off in 7 years and suddenly there’s support for loan forgiveness on mortgages? It feels like an endless road to go down. Do you pay for insurance? I do for house, car, and health. Although for health my current company pays 100% of my personal insurance and 50% of my family insurance. Then you experience collectivized risk via your home and car insurance, do you feel cheated that the person whose home burns down gets paid out on their insurance while you do nothing but pay into it via your premiums? My first reaction is that I am required by law to have car insurance by my state so I don’t really get to have an opinion. Home owners insurance is required by my lender and I am okay with it because I signed the mortgage. Plus home owners insurance is privately run so I have the option once I pay off my mortgage to keep it or get rid of it. So l guess I’ll have to form an opinion on that once it’s up to me. I’m not sure where you are going with insurance and it’s relation to student loans though. Are you saying we should introduce student loan insurance?
That's essentially how it works in the UK for example. You only pay back your student loans once your income exceeds certain level. So government essentially insures people taking student loans against poor labour market outcomes. They've also had to write down the value of the student loans in government books because of how much of it will never be paid back.
Edit: don't know where Zambrah was going with this but I'll throw a wild guess there is a similar point incoming
|
On November 09 2020 09:33 Nevuk wrote:
Also, when people say STEM, they mean the TE. Science and math jobs have shit pay and worse openings. Humanities degrees frequently have higher earnings than STEM degrees.
Math majors don't really have much difficulty applying for "T" and "E" positions. The difference between a math major that can demonstrate a proficient coding background (which many do) and a CS major is pretty small as far as applying for tech jobs, especially since most "computer science" you learn in college is either a) basic development skills that can be self-taught by someone with a reasonable level of aptitude, or b) specialized applications of generalized mathematics principles that math majors will develop as part of their own major anyway. I've seen a lot of math and physics majors end up in entry-level IT or software development positions 1-2 years out of college.
The other basic sciences e.g. biology/chemistry are further away from being able to get into tech, but likewise also have inroads into medicine/healthcare (though most of those jobs like nursing/dentistry/physicians require additional schooling and therefore additional student debt).
|
On November 09 2020 08:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 08:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 09 2020 08:00 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 07:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 09 2020 04:52 Zambrah wrote:On November 09 2020 03:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 09 2020 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
What you're saying is that if enough progressives existed, Biden would suddenly shift political winds to that position except you can't admit that. I mean, I'm not Zambrah, but sure, I do believe that. The thing is though, there's a conflict between different 'types' of politicians. Should they be reactive (weathervane-type), or reformers? Myself, I believe that virtually all the 'great' politicians are reformers. They don't simply react to public opinion, they also shape it. It's not a virtue by default - while I think all great politicians are reformers, I believe it also holds true for the most abhorrent ones. Trump has not only responded to the ugly side of his electorate, he has also shaped public opinion (but from my perspective largely in a negative manner, some of it very dangerous/damaging. The entire handling of COVID is one such example, where I am confident that if Trump had backed expert opinion rather than contradicted it, it would have been more closely adhered to by the public). The weathervane politician is the 'career' politician, ones that never opine anything that does not poll well. They are the kind that opposes gay marriage publicly even if they are privately positive towards it / don't give a damn on a personal level. More likely to be technocrats, sure, and often they will provide us with some incremental improvement backed by experts. But this group is unlikely to provide society with truly meaningful change. Which type you prefer, will largely be determined by how content you are with the current direction of society. Sanders is a reformer. Yang seems like one, too - even if I agree more with Sanders than with Yang, I will give Yang credit for being the type of politician who tries to come up with solutions to problems society faces and then tries to convince people that this is the right solution, rather than checking the polls to see what his opinion should be. Clinton was absolutely an example of a weathervane politician. Biden is largely one, too, although I don't see him as being equally cynical about it. Obama, I actually think wanted to be a reformer, but he was largely neutered. (I do believe Biden is a genuinely caring human being. And I think the US needs some degree of bland , inoffensive leadership for the problem of 'increased societal division' to possibly be addressed. However, I also believe you need radical change to deal with many of the political issues you struggle with. Biden is probably as good of a unifying candidate as the US could find right now - so he checks that box, but I don't see him provide the actual change required, because I think you need changes that don't necessarily have majority support at the moment. ) The problem is that your reformers never have power. You point out that Obama wanted to be a reformer. His first reform of healthcare cost him the house and his entire presidential agenda. Your previous post pointed out that Bernie isn't a "mainstream politician" despite being in the US congress for thirty years and he was a politician in Vermont before that. I don't put any value in people having ideas. You have to get them implemented for them to have any meaning. What has Sanders reformed besides getting more pork for Vermont? The most interesting thing about the election to me was Florida voting for a $15 minimum wage and Republican. That would be a reform I could point out that Sanders champions. The logical thing to happen is that your reformer's ideas become main stream enough to get them elected. Not this, they don't have majority support but we're going to force them through anyway that you're posting. Popular policies are regularly shot down as "pie in the sky" despite a majority of Americans wanting them, at the end of the day, when it came to the ACA its an issue of Obama playing Republican games and winning Republican prizes. He let it burn him out politically for a long time, he had the power to have run through something damn near European, but Democrats dont sieze on power like Republicans do. Thats the issue, Democrats rarely get power but when they do they strive to be as ineffectual as they can, so any change they do manages to irritate advocates of change for being Republicanized and irritate conservatives because change. They need to study the Republican playbook, not to learn how to play nice, but how to copy how they wield power (or obstruct the use of power, really.) Its a really, really sad state, its crap that we have a government that exists for one side to brute force the other via the system, but its what we have and pretending we can all play nice with each other just enables the bad actors to act badly and get their way. We also need to stop being god damned dictated at by weather vanes. MAKE THE POLICY POPULAR! I believe our ideas are good, progressives have to sell their ideas to the American people! Weathervane politicians have normalized forcing the public to decide whats good for them so that they can bandwagon alongside the public, but we need to work on actually SELLING our policy ideas to them, convincing the average American why what we want to do is good for them. Thats obviously hard, Americans are ignorant, sometimes willfully ignorant, but at the end of the day if we're going to be organizing anyways, getting out there, talking to people, talking about why our policy is good for people will be key to making our policy more popular, assuming they arent literally already popular enough. TL is special, people like Biff and Jimmi already generally seem to agree with progressive policy, and people who dont like Danglars and Wegandi aren't ever going to agree with it even if it they were on their deathbed and the progressive policy would literally save their life. We should work to appeal not to the Wegandis and Danglars, but first to the stereotypical Trump demographics, frame it similar to how Kwark does but... like... not so... horribly. Americans do love a fight, I sincerely believe framing it as a fight is the right way there. Fighting the billionaires, and the like. But poor, uneducated working class people should be a priority demographic as they're the people who are most likely to be impacted positively by progressive change. People in the middle and upper classes are already comfortable, they're cagey, the Republican ones are almost unwinnable imo, they're too fearful of change. The ones like Jimmi and Biff are doable, the barrier I see with that would be one of convincing that we are viable winners, the tough part of that is the DNC is very, very, VERY interested in keeping progressives as "the problem" faction of the party, they fight us all the time, the blame-the-progressive shit has begun and its going to be a hard media battle to fight. Rambling incoherency... ending? I hope its ending. Look, my Bidenesque ranting concludes with; We have to make our policy popular/make people understand its popular. In particular for the traditional stereotypical Trump demographics. We have to keep primarying Democrats until they respect that progressives can be winners. We need to put aside our idealized idea of how gov't should function in the US because its not how power is wielded here. EDIT: Also a Trump related note, We're in a stage of American politics where our business as usual shitshow is creating and incentivizing Donald Trumps. The Proof of Concept has won an election, he drove absurd turnout for his side in this election even if he lost. This is NOT the time to be weak and timid because the next Donald Trump is not going to be hampered by a pandemic, they might not be a daft moron with infinite scandal. This is a thing I keep seeing and it frightens me. BIDENS ELECTION DIDNT DEFEAT FASCISM IN THE US. We're still teetering on that precipice, ready to start falling down. Could happen as soon as next election, I get people want to be relieved about Biden but FUCK, GUYS, WE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP AND WE ALMOST ELECTED HIM TWICE. Be scared. Understand that Democrats and Republicans as we know them have brought the conditions to bring him to power, and their preferred nonsense will bring more and more forward, we need to nip this in the bud, this isn't the time to go soft, fascism in the US is still alive, stamp it out, don't get complacent, please sweet jesus. What did I just read, rofl. Bro, don't talk about the "Biff and the Jimmy", you just clearly have no clue what I stand for. To clarify, you DONT believe in things like European style healthcare in the US, proactive climate change action, and other US progressive ideology? I think you really haven't followed, which is fine but why do you mention me then? Of course I do support all of those, I vote for a party that is certainly left of Sanders; and I would vote in a heartbeat for progressive candidates if I lived in the US. I am just very unimpressed by the "duuuh the democrats suck, they are totally the enemy" that seems to be the cornerstone of some people's thought here. I find the attitude of many progressives here infantile and quite the opposite of constructive. It must be difficult for you to shield yourself from all of the news that demonstrate quite clearly that they are the enemy. You might remember a few months ago we had a primary race, and when it looked like we had a shot at winning that race all of their candidates were pressured into quitting just to make it more likely that we wouldn't win. They all quit because us winning was too much of a threat for the party and told their voters not to go for us. Their candidate then ran quite distinctly on not being one of us, and now that he's won he wants to consider some republicans for his administration, rather than leftists. But, like, even if you don't follow US news, do the liberals in Norway side with the left or something, is that a thing? In Switzerland they side with the far right something like 75% of the time? In France one of their answers to islamic terrorist attacks was to blame it on the left and they did so using far right terminology?Even if you don't follow any news at all, you can check ideologies. One of the main tenets of leftist ideology is a fight against social hierarchies, we think they are generally harmful. We want to bring them down or at least limit their influence as much as possible. Liberalism, on the other hand, wants a meritocracy, where there is an existing and strong social hierarchy but it is justified by the fact that the people who are on top deserve to be on top. So to sum up, they haven't demonstrated any will to be our friends in the US, or in Europe as far as I know, and it wouldn't even make sense for them to want to be our friends based on what we and they envision for society. And yet you think it's infantile not to treat them as our friends, because... I don't know why, really.
They are center-right and very open to immigrants. Except having focus on freedom of individual choice, they are very focused on environmentalism. Currently a governing party. Due to their focus on environmentalism and their focus on the well being of anyone, they are known to cooperate with the left on several cases.
There were a party which were called "Anders Langes parti" that later transformed into FRP (progress party). It used to be a governing party until last year. They used to label themself as national-liberal, which in the 80s-90s were very hostile towards immigrants and other cultures (not that they have stopped now, they have just toned down the rhetoric). These days, with exception of a few cases, they aren't very liberalistic anymore and are considered a semi-conservative party while also being the most right-wing party in our parliament.
|
Is that true in FL? I know in VA I have the option of playing a flat fee to forgo any car insurance.
My point is that the system that your insurance uses is the cause of exactly what I hear you say about student loans, "why am I paying for other people's claims," because we live within a society where we believe that its important to care for one another. I do believe everyone has the right to have somewhere to live, I believe everyone has the right to healthcare, I believe people have the right to a quality of life.
You experience collectivization via your insurance, its similar to student loans in that it is draining you of money for literally no gain, you're paying to help other people (and line some jerkass CEO's pockets) without gaining anything yourself (until you file a claim, and given what I know of FL, your insurance is probably NOT cheap, so if you dont file a claim youre feeling it way more than someone in VA)
Im not sure theres really much a point to arguing though, I'm pretty sure we fundamentally disagree on whether or not collectivization of things like education and housing are good things, I imagine you'd probably think it best if we weren't required to have car insurance/home insurance and were expected to make the decision to shoulder the risks associated with driving/home ownership respectively. Do correct me if I'm wrong though, lol.
Incidentally, I am legit curious what you pay for homeowners insurance, in VA its not hard to get ~450USD per year for Homeowners insurance, and Florida was the only state I wasnt licensed for. Due to the particular disaster prone nature of Florida it had its own specialized department since the primary partners we used for the rest of the country didnt want to touch Florida, lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
