[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

The Supreme Court has invalidated the ban on 'immoral or scandalous' trademarks on First Amendment grounds. 'FUCT' will now been trademarked (in the context of clothing)....

'The case had been closely watched because activists had challenged the trademark of the Washington Redskins football team on basis of the same law.'

... so the Christian conservatives on the court are finally willing to allow 'scandalous' trademarks... in order to permit racist trademarks? Will there be a 'gold rush' on obscenities and jocular allusions to violent racism/homophobia/etc.?

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 24 June 2019 - 03:52 PM

[worry]

Like this comic, though this isn't meant super snarky towards Cause, but I think the logic of means-testing benefits -- which can sometimes seem sensible at first glance -- is worth deflating. It just winds up not helping the people in most need of help, in a cut off your nose to spite your face kind of way.




In terms of striking at the root cause of amassing student debt, before treating the symptoms -- I will say that Bernie has already been leading on this issue for a long time, and Warren's plan is good too. Neither is neglecting the cause. I just don't necessarily think that has to come before this. Do them both, in whatever order you can get them done (and if you can't get either done yet, obviously pulling the whole conversation leftward is in itself a worthy goal, and getting everyone on record clarifies things too).

[QuickTidal]

Aptorian, on 24 June 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

Not an American and the Danish system is very different but I think a core problem lies in the thinking: "I had to pay so why don't they"? You shouldn't deny future generations a freedom or benefit just because you didn't have it yourself.

A tad off topic, but I see this type of comment from Conservative-voting/Ford supporting friends on my FB timeline when I talked about him cutting Daycare help...with them saying "I don't have kids, so I why should I have to pay for someone else's kids to be looked after?"...and no amount of arguing the fact that "you don't get to only pay for the social services you use and benefit from in a working society" is going to change their minds sadly. The funny thing is that this same person is super duper overweight (like unhealthily so) and has constant health issues that stem from this, which our taxes for health care pay for...and she doesn't remotely see the irony...I can't even.

Universal free education would 100% benefit society, but it's super scary to some...even when (and Morgoth could probably correct me if I'm wrong) in places like Norway I think it's free all the way up to the end of post-secondary?

[worry]

Thought Spartacus died a couple millennia ago, but speaking of Beto, yah, I agree, he needs to get out of the race and do something productive instead. Wth is this?!

[Cause]

worry, on 24 June 2019 - 05:37 PM, said:

Like this comic, though this isn't meant super snarky towards Cause, but I think the logic of means-testing benefits -- which can sometimes seem sensible at first glance -- is worth deflating. It just winds up not helping the people in most need of help, in a cut off your nose to spite your face kind of way.




In terms of striking at the root cause of amassing student debt, before treating the symptoms -- I will say that Bernie has already been leading on this issue for a long time, and Warren's plan is good too. Neither is neglecting the cause. I just don't necessarily think that has to come before this. Do them both, in whatever order you can get them done (and if you can't get either done yet, obviously pulling the whole conversation leftward is in itself a worthy goal, and getting everyone on record clarifies things too).

I don't think a means test is necessary. Especially because America has a progressive tax scheme, so the rich people fund social services to a greater degree, I see no problem with them also getting the benefits.

However my own countires problems and recent foray into free education are colouring my view. My country has a progressive tax system, so the rich people fund most of the social services but we also have means testing so the rich don't benefit from them. This means the rich are taxed on both eends so to speak, they fund education for the poor but still need to pay for their kids university. Not to mention that more people receive social services in my country (approx. 16 million) than are registred tax payers (approx. 6 million). Now for a host of reasons, including that my countried goverrment is incompetent, inept and highly corrupt, we recently made university education free for the poor. However we have no made primary or secondary school free, I don't think we made technical schools for plumbing and eleictrians etc free. Its a balls up because we made tertiary education free above more immediate needs like say primary school and it was rushed through as a kind of bribe for support so many details were not ironed out. Such as can someone who barely passed high svhool qualify for free ducation in a tertiary course he may very well not pass, how many times can he try repeat the course for free? If someone drops out do they owe the money back?

This is what is bothering me about the student debt amnesty. I think America can, and should fund free education and health care. They don't have South Africas tax problem. I find it amazing / frightening that America one of the most economically powerful nations in the world has no social safety net. Social Services is insurance, I don't ever want the free chemo but I'm willing to pay 100 dollars a year for a stranger to get it, so if I do get cancer I don't pay the 100 thousand dollars for me all at once.

However the current debt amnest seems to be light on details, or I haven't heard the specifics at any rate. I could understand giving everyone a once off amnesty of X dollars. But to give everyone however much they need seems to benefit those who took out the most debt. Going forward it seems again that the free education should cover X dollars, not however much any university wants to charge and since America has private universities which can teach anything they want Id assume they need a list of approved universities that qualify. Maybe all this is fleshed out but all I saw on CNN is that Bernie wants to pay of debt with a tax on wall street.

[worry]

I think I see what you mean better, but it doesn't bother me and in the long run I don't think it should really bother anybody else. The goal is total student debt relief. A clean break ushering us into a new, exponentially better system. There are a lot of reasons student debt is particularly pernicious in the US compared to other types of debt -- not least of which are the labyrinthine transfers of debt ownership, and the permanent-even-unto-immunity-to-bankruptcy nature of student debt -- but 'irresponsibilty' in terms of choosing expensive schools is pretty low on that list.

Plus the stimulus effects of the overall plan will be so broadly beneficial that nickel and diming everybody's school choices just doesn't rate. Frankly, it'd be worth it for the psychological/morale effect it would have on so many people alone.

At the same time, it's part and parcel to Sanders' overall college financing plan, which does focus on free public (and a small number of private, but zero for-profit) schools, so hopefully that allays your worries on that front. And the plan involves the much needed, long overdue Wall Street transaction tax which has been an insane omission in our tax system.

[worry]

To be clear, if we had something like you suggest, it would still be (a lot) better than what we have now. Warren's debt relief idea has a graduated nature (based on a few pretty reasonable annual income thresholds, rather than school tuition disparities) and I wouldn't hate on that either. I just prefer Sanders' all-in approach above that.

[worry]

Also, sorry to give Sanders such exclusive credit above for this...he's been great on the forward-thinking free public college tip, but for this specific thing:



Ilhan Omar best person in all of Congress for every-day-since-being-sworn-in days straight.

[amphibian]

I believe that if they can hold their districts through the remapping, Omar, Tlaib, Katie Porter, and AOC will be the stars of Congress for a full generation to come. They are astounding at their jobs.

Odd thing - the chief architect of Beto's war tax plan for veterans healthcare is Jeremy Botter, a dumb butt I know tangentially through my MMA writer days. He's a liberal leaning conservative in general, so this seems exactly on brand for him and Beto. Just out and out dumbassery all around.

[amphibian]

Also - why do huge insurance companies get trillions in bailout funds and not college or post-graduate students?

[EmperorMagus]

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

Just make it universal healthcare. Troops first is a dumb idea for something as massive as a healthcare specific tax.

[EmperorMagus]

amphibian, on 25 June 2019 - 03:23 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

Just make it universal healthcare. Troops first is a dumb idea for something as massive as a healthcare specific tax.

Fair.

[worry]

In addition to that, it does nothing to dissuade the people who profit from (and own the people who 'decide' if we go to) war, and puts the burden of the fallout on regular people. I understand the romantic notion of making America at large 'have skin in the game' when it comes to going to war, but they're just not that far-sighted come election time, to some extent because politicians constantly lie about their warlike ways (GWB compassionate conservative, DJT ran as a literal anti-war isolationist), and that's largely the only time they have influence on this issue. The decision to go to war is just so divorced from the average American's ability to influence it that this policy will never work its intended purpose. So its dissuasive properties are nil and it buffers war profiteers even more from the consequences of their hawkishness. In my opinion.

[Aptorian]

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

Now I haven't read the fine print but it sounds like blatant fascism. The people who will not shed their blood for the flag will be taxed so that the brave sons and daughters of the American Empire can be provided for. Maybe the state could confiscate some land as well, so that the Soldiers can retire after 20 years and provide for themselves.

[worry]

That's downright Jeffersonian.

[EmperorMagus]

Aptorian, on 25 June 2019 - 06:11 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

Now I haven't read the fine print but it sounds like blatant fascism. The people who will not shed their blood for the flag will be taxed so that the brave sons and daughters of the American Empire can be provided for. Maybe the state could confiscate some land as well, so that the Soldiers can retire after 20 years and provide for themselves.

You are framing this in a horrible way. It can also be re-stated as: "there is a large number of citizens who are suffering from serious health issues as a result of the government's policies. In order to assist those citizens, we will tax the general public and use the revenue to provide them with healthcare."

I still don't think it's a terrible policy proposal on it's face. Specially when considered from the POV of "I need 2000 votes in that specific riding to vote Democrat rather than Conservative next year. Those 2000 voters have conservative leanings, so I need something to mollify them which won't enrage my left flank.Hey, what about a policy to help the veterans?"

Now, considered from the POV that these guys are trying to run against Trump, yeah it's a stupid proposal.

[Macros]

No, universal health care is the answer for the vets. Wars are actioned by the rich to benefit the rich, and the poor do the dying. if you want a war Tax Tax the wankers who order the men into combat, or Haliburton et all, the people who get fat off of it, not the people who basically have no say in whether war happens or not.

[Tsundoku]

Macros, on 25 June 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:

No, universal health care is the answer for the vets. Wars are actioned by the rich to benefit the rich, and the poor do the dying. if you want a war Tax Tax the wankers who order the men into combat, or Haliburton et all, the people who get fat off of it, not the people who basically have no say in whether war happens or not.

Even better - those who vote for war must either serve in the military in a war zone, or if unable themselves (bone spurs maybe?) supply at least one blood family member to do the same.

[Silencer]

Tsundoku, on 25 June 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

Macros, on 25 June 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:

No, universal health care is the answer for the vets. Wars are actioned by the rich to benefit the rich, and the poor do the dying. if you want a war Tax Tax the wankers who order the men into combat, or Haliburton et all, the people who get fat off of it, not the people who basically have no say in whether war happens or not.

Even better - those who vote for war must either serve in the military in a war zone, or if unable themselves (bone spurs maybe?) supply at least one blood family member to do the same.

They'd do the latter pretty easily. No, they would need to forfeit all assets and income for the duration of the war and a decade after. That'd actually make them think about it.