Quantcast
The US Politics |OT|

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

LurkerJ said:
tsogud said:

Lmao nope. I wouldn't describe that man as any of those descriptions you listed.

All I see is a supposedly "grown" ass man being selfish and throwing a temper tantrum because society is improving.

I guess we shouldn't find a cure for cancer because it wouldn't be fair to those who had died from it before.

A mature, intelligent, compassionate and empathetic person would want others to have it easier than they did especially when they know how tough it could be and how much worse other people have it.

Capitalism as we used to know it is on it's way out and it's for the better.

I disagree, we don't know his circumstances. To dismiss him as an immature person when he played by the rules and did his best to not to break the law is not fair. Especially that he lives in a country in which you never have extra money, you're one medical condition away from poverty. Spending his savings to pay off debts is commendable. 

Liz dismissed him as well when she could've acknowledged the pain debt has caused him by simply saying: "I can see that you're a hard working person, who suffered due to students loans, and sacrificed so much just to pay them off, we should definitely have a conversation about people in similar shoes as yours and see how we can help them".

It's Liz who was immature in the way she responded, dismissive and unsympathetic with no real answer to his question. 

You give the guy a pass but not Liz for having to deal with an irate man yelling at her face??? He'd catch these hands if he did that to me, as far as I'm concerned she handled it as well as she could in the moment.

I can only go by the behavior he was displaying and his behavior was immature. He says he did "all the right things" but getting duped and played by a broken, oppressive system isn't really something you should be proud of. If he really did feel he sacrificed so much he should not want others to have to do the same, that's a mature person's thinking and he displayed the opposite. He should want society to improve or if not, he isn't a productive member of society and is just selfish.

Last edited by tsogud - on 25 January 2020

 

Around the Network
RJTM1991 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Context was about Western Europe's socialistic segments. 

Considering in that context there are dozens of examples that do fine.  

Where? 

I'd really like to see an example that ends any and all anti-Socialist arguments. 

How are Norway, UK, Canada and Sweden doing?  

LurkerJ said:

Sure, I get debt forgiveness, I am all for it. But the guy in the video has every right to complain, he worked twice or three times as hard just to pay off his daughter's debt. We should discuss what to do for people like him. Where is the harm? 

Or we simply reward those who paid their debts or ensure what they did doesn't go unrewarded.

Why are people for debt forgiveness but not for reparations for people who suffered under the same exact money sucking scheme? We are already talking about "trillions" amount of money, it's already "too expensive". Might as well compensate everyone. 

>Where is the harm? 

There's no harm.  The question is where do you draw the line?  People aren't proposing to make college free, and pay off college debt just because they like free stuff.  It's about relieving burdens.  The guy who has paid off his child's debt, what burdens does he now have?  They're not burdened by debt.  

If you want to make it easier for the future, make college free.

If you want to relieve people's burdens, pay off their college debt also.  

If you want to give people a reward for not having debt, give them a refund.

Doing all the above isn't a terrible thing, but it's not the focus that any of the Democrats are going for.  The concern seems to be about fairness.  There's different dimensions of fairness, equity, equality, and a variety of others and mixes of all of them.  

Here's the famous picture that describes the two at least:

>We are already talking about "trillions" amount of money, it's already "too expensive". Might as well compensate everyone. 

This isn't a conservative argument.  College debt is less than 2 trillion dollars.  That's a huge number, but it's not "too expensive".  And if it were too expensive, compensating everyone doesn't make sense.  



the-pi-guy said:
RJTM1991 said:

Where? 

I'd really like to see an example that ends any and all anti-Socialist arguments. 

How are Norway, UK, Canada and Sweden doing?  

Kevin O'Leary explains fairly well why Canada is sucking in comparison to America. He only spends a ton of time in the states now and moved the large majority of his money and investments there as well. I wonder why, since all of us Canadians care oh so much about equality of outcome...

I wonder why my investments, as well as my family and friends, have all been removed from Canadian markets and put into American?

Morale in Canada is pretty low right now btw, because the economy ain't great. If only the U.S. would share nice with us... It's ok though, we'll just sit here and wait and do nothing about it, because eventually a far lefty will get into power there and will fix our problems for us...

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 25 January 2020

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Edit: NVM

Last edited by Moren - on 25 January 2020

the-pi-guy said:
RJTM1991 said:

Where? 

I'd really like to see an example that ends any and all anti-Socialist arguments. 

How are Norway, UK, Canada and Sweden doing?  

LurkerJ said:

Sure, I get debt forgiveness, I am all for it. But the guy in the video has every right to complain, he worked twice or three times as hard just to pay off his daughter's debt. We should discuss what to do for people like him. Where is the harm? 

Or we simply reward those who paid their debts or ensure what they did doesn't go unrewarded.

Why are people for debt forgiveness but not for reparations for people who suffered under the same exact money sucking scheme? We are already talking about "trillions" amount of money, it's already "too expensive". Might as well compensate everyone. 

>Where is the harm? 

There's no harm.  The question is where do you draw the line?  People aren't proposing to make college free, and pay off college debt just because they like free stuff.  It's about relieving burdens.  The guy who has paid off his child's debt, what burdens does he now have?  They're not burdened by debt.  

If you want to make it easier for the future, make college free.

If you want to relieve people's burdens, pay off their college debt also.  

If you want to give people a reward for not having debt, give them a refund.

Doing all the above isn't a terrible thing, but it's not the focus that any of the Democrats are going for.  The concern seems to be about fairness.  There's different dimensions of fairness, equity, equality, and a variety of others and mixes of all of them.  

Here's the famous picture that describes the two at least:

>We are already talking about "trillions" amount of money, it's already "too expensive". Might as well compensate everyone. 

This isn't a conservative argument.  College debt is less than 2 trillion dollars.  That's a huge number, but it's not "too expensive".  And if it were too expensive, compensating everyone doesn't make sense.  

The UK isn't Socialist. Matter of fact, the country voted in droves against Socialism in the last election.

Norway and Sweden aren't Socialist either. A quick Google search ends that one. "Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics with socialist values, representing an alternative to American-style capitalism."

Thanks to the wonders of Wikipedia, we have a list of actual Socialist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

I wouldn't like to live in either to be honest.



Around the Network
RJTM1991 said:

The UK isn't Socialist. Matter of fact, the country voted in droves against Socialism in the last election.

Norway and Sweden aren't Socialist either. A quick Google search ends that one. "Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics with socialist values, representing an alternative to American-style capitalism."

Thanks to the wonders of Wikipedia, we have a list of actual Socialist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

I wouldn't like to live in either to be honest.

The relevant picture was posted a few pages back.

You're right none of those countries are socialist.  They're capitalist countries with strong welfare systems, and socialistic healthcare and education policies.  

The issue at hand is that in America those kinds of policies and the people who advocate for them get decried as socialist, even when the people are no where near being actual socialists.  



tsogud said:

You give the guy a pass but not Liz for having to deal with an irate man yelling at her face??? He'd catch these hands if he did that to me, as far as I'm concerned she handled it as well as she could in the moment.

I can only go by the behavior he was displaying and his behavior was immature. He says he did "all the right things" but getting duped and played by a broken, oppressive system isn't really something you should be proud of. If he really did feel he sacrificed so much he should not want others to have to do the same, that's a mature person's thinking and he displayed the opposite. He should want society to improve or if not, he isn't a productive member of society and is just selfish.

She has shown much higher levels of emotional intelligence in other occasions, it was lacking in this situation. But you're right, she did what she could in that very moment. However, she didn't really address his question.

A lot of what we do involves getting played by the system, including paying taxes that funds foreign wars. You know who else got played by the system? those who ended up in debt with a useless degree on top, yet, they're allowed to ask for help and their demands are being taken seriously. 

This guy is upholding the rules of law, which is essential for any society to not to devolve into chaos. If you believe he got played by the system then he's no different than those with useless degrees. Both are equally harmed yet we are supposed to only listen to one of them?

Also, he didn't argue against debt forgiveness, he's arguing for a compensation, which is totally reasonable. He suffered as much as anyone else paying his hard earned money. A progressive movement that is willing to entertain ideas like UBI, healthcare for all, free college, shouldn't oppose a one time payment to those were chained by the debt for a considerable period of time. Being debt free doesn't mean being suffering-free, it takes a lot physical, emotional, personal, financial sacrifices to work hard enough to afford living expenses and paying off debts simultaneously. Not everyone who's debt free was born into a wealthy family. 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 26 January 2020

the-pi-guy said:

>Where is the harm? 

There's no harm.  The question is where do you draw the line?  People aren't proposing to make college free, and pay off college debt just because they like free stuff.  It's about relieving burdens.  The guy who has paid off his child's debt, what burdens does he now have?  They're not burdened by debt.  

If you want to make it easier for the future, make college free.

If you want to relieve people's burdens, pay off their college debt also.  

If you want to give people a reward for not having debt, give them a refund.

Doing all the above isn't a terrible thing, but it's not the focus that any of the Democrats are going for.  The concern seems to be about fairness.  There's different dimensions of fairness, equity, equality, and a variety of others and mixes of all of them.  

Here's the famous picture that describes the two at least:

>We are already talking about "trillions" amount of money, it's already "too expensive". Might as well compensate everyone. 

This isn't a conservative argument.  College debt is less than 2 trillion dollars.  That's a huge number, but it's not "too expensive".  And if it were too expensive, compensating everyone doesn't make sense.  

"What burdens does he now have?  They're not burdened by debt."

It burdened him for years. He could've invested the paid debts into something else. Like a house for his family or a small business, or stocks, or whatever. It is stressing to live pay check to pay check and for the years to go by without investing for your future. It is burdening to live knowing you have paid money that you could've kept for himself. A wealthy guy wouldn't go to such events asking for a compensation, it's humiliating. It is unsympathetic to believe that those who paid off their students debts have done so because of extreme wealth. A lot of them have worked extra hours, extra shifts just to get done, this doesn't come without an ever lasting sacrifice, just because the debt is gone, it doesn't mean there were no negative lasting consequences. This should be taken into consideration. 

"t's not "too expensive".  And if it were too expensive, compensating everyone doesn't make sense."

Let me rephrase, those who oppose debt forgiveness complain that it's either "too expensive" or "it's not fair for those paid their debts". The "too expensive" argument doesn't hold water because the government is spending a lot more on destructive wars, if you're looking to stop unnecessary spendings, then go after wars & patching the taxing system and you'll be able to afford a lot more than forgiving the debt. Those issues are actually hindering the potential the country has to grow, unlike debt forgiveness, which will push the country forward. 

On other hand, the "I paid my debt and I should be compensated" crowd does have a better argument, and they earned the right to voice their opinion and their demands should be taken into consideration. Paying compensations and forgiving the debts combined wouldn't affect the economy, no more than solely forgiving the debt. 



Why people keep mentioning those European capitalist countries when talking about socialism? I just don't get it. Why?
- they actually don't know what socialism is?
- they do know what it is but for some reason don't know those countries are capitalist to their bone?
- they think US is the only capitalist country in the world therefore the rest must be socialist?
- they know exactly what they are talking about but use socialism in conjunction to those countries in a plot to make people believe that is actually socialism so people will vote for it when they hear "socialism"?

All capitalist countries are socialist to ascertain extent. Police, schools and firefighters are an example. Government provided services with the taxpayer money where it doesn't matter how rich you are you are going to get the same service. Canada, Denmark and UK (gosh people even mention UK which is the cradle of capitalism) just take it to the next level socialising other services like health, pensions and etc with more regulations.



EnricoPallazzo said:
Why people keep mentioning those European capitalist countries when talking about socialism? I just don't get it. Why?
- they actually don't know what socialism is?
- they do know what it is but for some reason don't know those countries are capitalist to their bone?
- they think US is the only capitalist country in the world therefore the rest must be socialist?
- they know exactly what they are talking about but use socialism in conjunction to those countries in a plot to make people believe that is actually socialism so people will vote for it when they hear "socialism"?

All capitalist countries are socialist to ascertain extent. Police, schools and firefighters are an example. Government provided services with the taxpayer money where it doesn't matter how rich you are you are going to get the same service. Canada, Denmark and UK (gosh people even mention UK which is the cradle of capitalism) just take it to the next level socialising other services like health, pensions and etc with more regulations.

When you live in a country that hates socialism and attacks even conservative policies as socialist, it becomes necessary to talk about it.  

Policies get attacked for being socialist, then it gets pointed out that capitalist countries have implemented those policies.  Then it gets followed up by the other individual that these countries must actually be socialist.  

Calling policies socialist is an attempt to get people to vote against the policy.  And recently some have been trying to reclaim some of that language.