[Winstonm]

In better news, the SCOTUS just gave a big middle finger to Paul Manafort and Individual-1 conspiring to use the pardon power to evade justice:

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed a 170-year-old exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy clause, and left the door open for state prosecutors to prosecute Trump campaign officials regardless of whether federal officials have already done so.

The state of New York is free to prosecute for the same crimes as were brought by the federal government. As New York is a separate sovereign government, double jeopardy does not apply, and a president cannot pardon state crimes.

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2019-June-17, 10:32, said:

This is exactly the problem. News, as a ratings-chaser, is no longer news but entertainment. These news programs cannot afford to permanently anger either side so they present both sides as if they had equal claims and justifications, reporting on these differences of opinions instead of pointing out how convoluted one side has become. It becomes reporting that is based on access to people to interview - not on a neutral objective report of facts.

That's the point I was trying to make..."A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I read The Washington Post and The New York Times. I seldom agree with their viewpoints, but I am interested in them. You probably watch Fox News occasionally (well maybe not), but if you do I doubt you agree with their viewpoints. And all that's fine. If we were all alike the world would be a lot duller.

[Chas_P]

View PostChas_NoDignity_TrumpStooge, on 2019-June-16, 19:39, said:

Johnboy, you really need to go find a nice quiet place to lie down, take your Ritalin, and play with your Tinkertoys.

[johnu]

Chas_NoDignity_NoHonor_NoIntegrity, on 2019-June-17, 18:28, said:

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2019-June-14, 14:36, said:

I just read about a police detective (retired) who was also a "pastor", and he was recently recorded in a sermon calling for the state to enforce the death penalty on gays, as they were animals. How could we have allowed this guy in a position of power in the first place?

You get too uptight about crap like this Winston. Fritts is a fool as is Al Sharpton (Freddy's Fashion Mart); they're just at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yesterday was Father's Day. Hopefully you got to see your kids, they gave you a hug, and told you that they love you. That's what's important....not what some halfwit is preaching from a Baptist church in Knoxville.

[johnu]

Chas_ContinuingToEmbarrassHimself, on 2019-June-17, 19:06, said:

[johnu]

Trump Lashes Out At His Once-Favorite Network: ‘Something Weird Going On At Fox’

Quote

“Something weird going on at Fox,” the president tweeted. “Our polls show us leading in all 17 Swing States.”

It’s not clear what internal polls he was referring to. However, Trump reportedly fired some of his own pollsters after leaked internal polls showed him trailing Biden in key states.

I blame Dennison's handlers for this blowup. They are the ones who told him that he was beating George Washington by 2 points and Abe Lincoln by 5 points. Another poll showed Dennison as being more popular than Jesus

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-June-18, 04:57, said:

Trump Lashes Out At His Once-Favorite Network: ‘Something Weird Going On At Fox’


I blame Dennison's handlers for this blowup. They are the ones who told him that he was beating George Washington by 2 points and Abe Lincoln by 5 points. Another poll showed Dennison as being more popular than Jesus

ICE is deporting Jesus next week.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2019-June-18, 07:36, said:

ICE is deporting Jesus next week.

Yeah, he must be a Mexican with a name like that

[Winstonm]

The realization came to me for the reason Individual-1 still has supporters.

He lies: they don't care
He is corrupt: they don't care
He is incompetent: they don't care
He is a con man: they don't care

He is pro-white: Yeah!!!

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-18, 09:33, said:

Yeah, he must be a Mexican with a name like that

He's from the Middle East, so doesn't that make him Musiim?

[kenberg]

I have been criticized more than once, well more than twice and more than thrice, for insufficient research. I accept that this is so. I offer a link for those like myself who would like a short summary. No doubt details matter, I don't deny that.

https://mail.google....CfLrvWRjBRWCklb

Here is the part I have in mind:

Quote

THE DIFFERENT WAYS DEMOCRATS WANT TO TACKLE HIGHER ED
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent

Things have changed quickly for the Democratic field. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was nearly alone in his push for universal free college tuition, but now a large chunk of his fellow 2020 candidates embrace some version of tuition or debt relief.

But the language the Democratic presidential candidates use, and sometimes the lack of details in their plans, makes it hard to differentiate their proposals. Here is a brief 101 on the different ways Democrats would approach the cost of college.

• Tuition-free. This is perhaps the most important part of the debate to understand: the difference between the terms “tuition-free” and “debt-free.” Some candidates, like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would like to make tuition free for all students at public two-year and four-year schools across the country. In their plans, federal and state governments would pay those costs. Others backing “tuition-free” plans include: Julián Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Marianne Williamson.
  
• Debt free. In contrast, “Debt-free” plans focus on each student’s total college bill, including room and board, and how much of that bill the student and their family can pay. These plans, with some variation, generally would fund whatever portion of the total bill students can’t afford.
  
• Debt forgiveness. This is a close cousin of the “debt-free” plans. Debt forgiveness plans would forgive up to a certain amount of student loan debt, usually with more loan forgiveness for families with lower incomes. Warren, in addition to making tuition free at public colleges, would also forgive or pay for up to $50,000 of debt per student. Others on board with this idea in some form include: Williamson, Andrew Yang, Castro and Wayne Messam.
  
• Lower interest rates on student loans. Another approach taken by many candidates is calling for the student loans to get refinanced with lower interest rates. Advocating for this are: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Eric Swalwell of California, and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.
  
• Public service in exchange for college funds. Other candidates would like to increase financial assistance for students who agree to enter public service after college.

My thoughts run in the direction of the "Tuition Free" view although I am not sure that it should be totally free. I am not at all enthusiastic, for a variety of reasons, about debt forgiveness, nor for the public service option.

[hrothgar]

Few quick thoughts about the Democratic proposals surrounding higher education...

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

2. I do believe that higher education is too expensive. I'd like to see a lot more investment in the state universities and local community colleges. 30 years ago, this is how many families afforded good solid educations at reasonable prices.

3. I also think that the US will need to implement some kind of Universal Basic Income scheme. It is my hope that this would provide some degree of assistance for low income folks. If folks choose to use their $$$ for tuition, great!

4. I am at least somewhat skeptical about the current debt forgiveness schemes. I much prefer reversing the changes that were made to the US bankruptcy laws that prevent people from declaring bankruptcy to discharge educational debt.

5. I like the system that Australia uses where student's debt repayment is tied to the earnings for their future professions

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2019-June-19, 09:45, said:

Few quick thoughts about the Democratic proposals surrounding higher education...

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

2. I do believe that higher education is too expensive. I'd like to see a lot more investment in the state universities and local community colleges. 30 years ago, this is how many families afforded good solid educations at reasonable prices.

3. I also think that the US will need to implement some kind of Universal Basic Income scheme. It is my hope that this would provide some degree of assistance for low income folks. If folks choose to use their $$ for tuition, great!

4. I am at least somewhat skeptical about the current debt forgiveness schemes. I much prefer reversing the changes that were made to the US bankruptcy laws that prevent people from declaring bankruptcy to discharge educational debt.

5. I like the system that Australia uses where student's debt repayment is tied to the earnings for their future professions

Your first issue relates to why I said I'm not sure it should be totally free. It's not just a lack of generosity on my part. I view the ages 17-21 as critical. It's old enough to be pretty autonomous, young enough that society accepts that you can still be preparing for your adult life. I don't want some 17 year old stumbling into college because it's there and it's free. I do want him/her to be able to do this preparation for adulthood without being completely buried by the costs.

Young people are told a lot of stuff. "You can be anything you want to be". No, not really. A 17 year old needs to be thinking: "What are my interests?" "Where do my abilities lie?" "How important is it to have a lot of money?" "Is it important to me that my job be clearly of great public benefit?" And so on. Then I want him/her to be able to bring realistic plans to a good conclusion. Society can help with this, and it will be to everyone's benefit.

[y66]

I think we spend too much time talking about the cost of education and closing the education gap and not enough talking about the goals of education for which I offer this example of the importance of taking responsibility for decisions and thinking things through from a post from 2014:

Quote

I believe that the best thing that I did during my adolescence to prepare me for college was to buy a car. A '47 Plymouth for $175. It often needed work, fairly often substantial work, to keep it running. I learned a lot about why you should read up on things and think things through before starting out.

In "The Lay of the Land" by Richard Ford, the protagonist says the thing he learned from sending his daughter to Harvard is that Harvard teaches kids how to fail which, in hindsight, seems obvious and something he sort of wishes he'd learned earlier.

[cherdano]

Ta-Nehisi Coates testimony in congress on reparations. 5 minutes worth of powerful poetry.
https://youtu.be/kcCnQ3iRkys

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2019-June-19, 12:39, said:

Your first issue relates to why I said I'm not sure it should be totally free. It's not just a lack of generosity on my part. I view the ages 17-21 as critical. It's old enough to be pretty autonomous, young enough that society accepts that you can still be preparing for your adult life. I don't want some 17 year old stumbling into college because it's there and it's free.

But it's free for many 17-year olds (with rich parents).

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2019-June-20, 00:39, said:

But it's free for many 17-year olds (with rich parents).

This is true, and I have been thinking about it. Often rich kids, and even those who are merely pretty well off, go to Harvard or some lesser but expensive school. But not always.

Perhaps some sliding scale of tuition based on need is right, but it gets tricky. A 16 year old in high school is still the responsibility of his/her parents. A 19 year old in college, maybe not. My priority is that a young person of modest means be able to afford college. Certainly some families hardly need help at all, and some need help, and some need a lot of help. I'm ok with working this fact into the plan, but I do think it gets trickier for the 19 year old than for the 9 year old. A 19 year old and his/her parents, rich or not, may have long since parted ways.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-June-20, 06:38, said:

This is true, and I have been thinking about it. Often rich kids, and even those who are merely pretty well off, go to Harvard or some lesser but expensive school. But not always.

Perhaps some sliding scale of tuition based on need is right, but it gets tricky. A 16 year old in high school is still the responsibility of his/her parents. A 19 year old in college, maybe not. My priority is that a young person of modest means be able to afford college. Certainly some families hardly need help at all, and some need help, and some need a lot of help. I'm ok with working this fact into the plan, but I do think it gets trickier for the 19 year old than for the 9 year old. A 19 year old and his/her parents, rich or not, may have long since parted ways.

The effects of capitalism have to be considered: http://nymag.com/int...capitalism.html

Quote

In its new Distributive Financial Accounts data series, the central bank offers a granular picture of how American capitalism has been distributing the gains of economic growth over the past three decades. Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project took the Fed’s data and calculated how much the respective net worth of America’s top one percent and its bottom 50 percent has changed since 1989.

He found that America’s superrich have grown about $21 trillion richer since Taylor Swift was born, while those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution have grown $900 billion poorer.


Notably, this measure of wealth includes liabilities, such as student debt. And it does not include consumer goods, such as computers or refrigerators, as economists do not conventionally view such products as wealth assets. But if one did include the Fed’s data on the distribution of consumer goods, the wealth gap between the top one percent and bottom 50 would actually be even larger.

Instead of thinking about the cost of "American" education, it might be more accurate to consider how to educate those living in the American caste system.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2019-June-19, 09:45, said:

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

I wonder how much of that there would be among people who hope to use a college education as a way to escape poverty?

I expect that most of those you've seen were people who were born with a silver spoon, so they're going to have a good life even if they just sleep through college.

That said, it seems like any higher education assistance program could have stipulations that the student actually put in the work, such as taking a certain number of credits and maintaining a minimum GPA. I think lots of scholarship programs do things like this.