Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[fattyflattie 4,631]

16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

?  He's not wrong. Once you are a felon, you're pretty much on your own to make it.  Surly af, tho. 

12 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Trying to get lifelong Republicans to admit that maybe, just maybe, they had a teensy bit of luck, good fortune, and built-in advantages that helped them get to where they are now is always so much fun.

Who is claiming they didn't have any luck?  Just having the temperament for an above average work ethic is luck.  Having a few more braincells than the next guy has some luck in it.  

24 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i appreciate both fattyflattie and TurkeyChew having actual discourse the past few pages, explaining their positions and how they reached their worldview. gave each of them a posrep for it.

Appreciate it.  You can neg rep me, but I'd rather you just engage (like you do).  

24 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Also its been my experience that many of those who become independently super wealthy without inheriting it are just much more ruthless than the next guy and display many narcissistic tendencies (not as bad as trump of course).  

Agreed 100%.  

[TurkeyChew 383]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not a roadmap for all though. See my links above. It's not even a simple case of confusing correlation and causation, the data itself is cherrypicked to sell a lie. 

 

FIFY

I've proactively acknowledged that the SS concept is ableist and also agree that if you are already poverty-stricken (read: have zero economic privilege to begin with) it doesn't make sense.

The point over and over again is that the SS is a basic table stakes approach to those who were privileged enough to a) not be born into poverty b) have adult parents with jobs and basic income/above poverty level income and c) not be born or develop disability to give themselves great odds to live a life not dependent on the government (entitlements, etc.).

Those who are born into a privileged situation but not a lot of money, ignore those three precepts at your own peril as obviously it's not scripture.

 

[TurkeyChew 383]

29 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Also its been my experience that many of those who become independently super wealthy without inheriting it are just much more ruthless than the next guy and display many narcissistic tendencies (not as bad as trump of course).  
 

Think Gordon gekko. I don’t think society should admire or reward that but in America at least we do. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[Celery Man 20,535]

some people have to make do with table hamburger helper

[washparkhorn 9,894]

The bootstrap cure-all ignores the biological manifestations of poverty. 
https://yaledistilled.sites.yale.edu/browse-issues/2020-issue/biology-poverty-trap-how-genetic-modifications-perpetuate-socioeconomic
 

 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,585]

I'm sure I missed it but has anyone identified what shit poster Bravo morphed out of? A thousand posts in 3 months across the two political boards here, most of which are mind-numbingly stupid. I'm just assuming he ran out of luck under an old handle.  

[fattyflattie 4,631]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Fun little piece on why the success sequence (the academic term for the "finish high school, get a job, get married before you have kids" thing) is total bullshit:

And from a conservative/libertarian source:

People who just mindlessly buy into bullshit like the success sequence are just looking for some sort of way to rationalize their lack of empathy for other people.

Appreciate the links.  Don't know how you could read them and come up with "total bullshit" as the descriptor, but ok. 

 

24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The bootstrap cure-all ignores the biological manifestations of poverty. 
https://yaledistilled.sites.yale.edu/browse-issues/2020-issue/biology-poverty-trap-how-genetic-modifications-perpetuate-socioeconomic
 

 

Also appreciated.  Had to dust off some biology brain cells but good read. 

[JimmyJames 12,267]

55 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

It’s ridiculous isn’t it?  We all know the 3 keys to making it in this world are, “Lord loves a working man, don’t trust whitey, and if you catch it see a doctor and get rid of it.”

I thought it was you can’t fight city hall, don’t ever trust whitey, and have a doctor look at it. I could be misremembering though. 

[TurkeyChew 383]

35 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The bootstrap cure-all ignores the biological manifestations of poverty. 
https://yaledistilled.sites.yale.edu/browse-issues/2020-issue/biology-poverty-trap-how-genetic-modifications-perpetuate-socioeconomic
 

 

All roads lead back to money.

Quote

 

A Highly anticipated research published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that direct payments to low-income families appear to significantly affect the brain development of newborns. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22893313/cash-babies-brain-development

How the experiment worked: Researchers recruited hundreds of low-income mothers of newborns and separated them into two groups:

One group of mothers received $20 a month, and the other received $333. Do some quick back-of-the-napkin math, and you’ll find the difference in income was $3,756 annually.

Over the study period (which is ongoing until the kids reach at least four years old), the researchers measured the infants’ brain waves by strapping them into a baby-friendly, brain-scanning cap.

What they found one year in: Babies whose mothers received $333/month showed a greater prevalence of higher-frequency brain activity than the $20/month cohort. That brain activity is often, but not always, associated with better cognitive skills down the line.

The researchers say this is a game changer: “This is the first study to show that money, in and of itself, has a causal impact on brain development,” study co-author and Columbia University neuroscientist Dr. Kimberly G. Noble told the NYT.

Coming to a C-SPAN broadcast near you

This study is not the kind that will be buried in the back of a dusty academic journal—it could have an immediate effect on policy debates on Capitol Hill.

It’s all about the child tax credit. Under an expanded child tax credit program, the Biden administration had been sending up to $300 per child to US households. In December, the program had reduced monthly child poverty by nearly 30%, according to an analysis by the Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy.

But that credit expired at the end of 2021. Biden and progressive Democrats wanted to extend the program through the Build Back Better Act, but…we all know what happened to that bill.

While debates around the child tax credit have mostly focused on incentives for parents, this research highlights the effect of cash transfers for children, throwing a new variable into the conversation.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[JimmyJames 12,267]

30 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

I'm sure I missed it but has anyone identified what shit poster Bravo morphed out of? A thousand posts in 3 months across the two political boards here, most of which are mind-numbingly stupid. I'm just assuming he ran out of luck under an old handle.  

Some say rocko due to his tendency to post photos to “prove” whatever it is  he’s saying. Im in Hawaii so here’s a beach photo, I went to UT so here I am flipping off my own UT diploma, I’m banging a hooker so here’s a pic of her wig, etc. I’m not convinced of that yet though. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by JimmyJames

[henrygandorf 28,618]

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not a roadmap at all though. See my links above. It's not even a simple case of confusing correlation and causation, the data itself is cherrypicked to sell a lie. 

yeah i know i was being a sarcastic prick.

[fattyflattie 4,631]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Some say rocko due to his tendency to post photos to “prove” whatever it is  he’s saying. Im in Hawaii so here’s a beach photo, I went to UT so here I am flipping off my own UT diploma, I’m banging a hooker, etc. I’m not convinced of that yet though. 

0% chance.  Rocko loved to mention he was POC, and was fairly young iirc.  And couldn't help but mention his totally bad ass C5.  Think Rocko is gone for good.  

[JimmyJames 12,267]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

0% chance.  Rocko loved to mention he was POC, and was fairly young iirc.  And couldn't help but mention his totally bad ass C5.  Think Rocko is gone for good.  

Yeah I tend to agree. 

[wildcat09 28,387]

25 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Appreciate the links.  Don't know how you could read them and come up with "total bullshit" as the descriptor, but ok. 

 

 

It's total bullshit because it's not a roadmap at all. Let's be clear about what they did. Before analyzing the total population, they immediately excluded 117.8 million Americans from their study. The people they removed were families with elderly people in them, families with disabled people in them, and families where every member is below the age of 25. In other words, they removed most of the poor people. Then they took what remained and found some common characteristics among those who were more financially successful than the others, and attributed causation to those characteristics. 

This is like if I wanted to do a similar study, and immediately excluded from the population anyone in a household with a family income below $45,000, then said all you have to do to be financially successful is buy a car before you're 25 and buy a house before you're 35. After excluding everyone from a below-average income family from the population entirely, a very high percentage of the "successful" people remaining in the study will have bought a car and a house by those ages. But buying a car and a house don't result in financial success; achieving financial success usually results in buying a car and a house. And of course, for those remaining in the population who didn't buy a car or a house by those ages, it often wasn't due to a "choice" at all but a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control. Maybe a parent or spouse got cancer, maybe they worked for Enron at the wrong time, maybe a global pandemic happened, etc. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by wildcat09

[elfenix 34,000]

it's called p-hacking and it's total bullshit.

[henrygandorf 28,618]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's total bullshit because it's not a roadmap at all. Let's be clear about what they did. Before analyzing the total population, they immediately excluded 117.8 million Americans from their study. The people they removed were families with elderly people in them, families with disabled people in them, and families where every member is below the age of 25. In other words, they removed most of the poor people. Then they took what remained and found some common characteristics among those who were more financially successful than the others, and attributed causation to those characteristics. 

This is like if I wanted to do a similar study, and immediately excluded from the population anyone in a household with a family income below $45,000, then said all you have to do to be financially successful is buy a car before you're 25 and buy a house before you're 35. After excluding everyone from a below-average income family from the population entirely, a very high percentage of the "successful" people remaining in the study will have bought a car and a house by those ages. But buying a car and a house don't result in financial success; achieving financial success usually results in buying a car and a house. And of course, for those remaining in the population who didn't buy a car or a house by those ages, it often wasn't due to a "choice" at all but a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control. Maybe a parent or spouse got cancer, maybe they worked for Enron at the wrong time, maybe a global pandemic happened, etc. 

without reading all the research, it seems more like, "if you are born into privilege, you will likely do well, but here are 3 potential pitfalls that could theoretically derail you."

i'm not being a sarcastic prick this time.

[TurkeyChew 383]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's total bullshit because it's not a roadmap at all. Let's be clear about what they did. Before analyzing the total population, they immediately excluded 117.8 million Americans from their study. The people they removed were families with elderly people in them, families with disabled people in them, and families where every member is below the age of 25. In other words, they removed most of the poor people. Then they took what remained and found some common characteristics among those who were more financially successful than the others, and attributed causation to those characteristics. 

This is like if I wanted to do a similar study, and immediately excluded from the population anyone in a household with a family income below $45,000, then said all you have to do to be financially successful is buy a car before you're 25 and buy a house before you're 35. After excluding everyone from a below-average income family from the population entirely, a very high percentage of the "successful" people remaining in the study will have bought a car and a house by those ages. But buying a car and a house don't result in financial success; achieving financial success usually results in buying a car and a house. And of course, for those remaining in the population who didn't buy a car or a house by those ages, it often wasn't due to a "choice" at all but a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control. Maybe a parent or spouse got cancer, maybe they worked for Enron at the wrong time, maybe a global pandemic happened, etc. 

For the literally 3rd time.

It is a roadmap to not be dependent on the government if you were born already not dependent on the government (i.e. "How Not to Backslide in America").

It's not a panacea to not being poor meant to be peanut butter'ed across all populations and it's not a "Hey poverty stricken people, here is a guide to getting out of poverty!".

I'll say it one more time really loudly for those in the back: Just because it doesn't magically solve and guarantee really poor people from staying poor, doesn't mean there isn't merit and positive outcomes to an admitted heuristic statement and should be completely discarded as irrelevant. The worst case scenario is nothing worse further happens to your poor lot, the best case is you better your station.

[Tom 2,959]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

You made a blanket statement that is verifiably untrue. Many felons get second chances. You also mentioned race, and it is also verifiably untrue that it means nothing in the realm of who gets a second chance. I am sorry to hear that story about your sister, I only browsed the last page or so. 

 

This isn't really the thread to digress down this rabbit hole, but I think the truth is a little more nuanced.  Having a felony of any kind is automatically living life on hard mode though. People don't just overlook felonies because you're white.  

Want a good job?  It's going to be at least 7 years before that felony stops showing up on most standard private corporation background checks.  Maybe at that point you can hide from it and it'll also be long enough that your name won't show up on the first couple of pages of a standard Google search.  But many HR departments at big companies will automatically throw out felony applicants without hesitation or second thought.  Many professional licenses you will be barred from permanently.

Need a place to live?  Most large leasing companies that own apartment complexes will throw your application in the trash the second they find out you have a felony.  There are some second chance complexes out there, but most of those require you to be 10 years removed from the end of your probation/parole/sentencing.  So if you got mixed up in something in 2004, served an eight year sentence or probation, you would only now this year in 2022 qualify for many of those places.  Otherwise I hope you either have family or friends that will help you out with a place to live or can find a unicorn rental property either on Craigslist or through word of mouth that either doesn't run background checks or is privately owned and will work with you.  Otherwise you're probably going to be living in a shithole somewhere that is highly unsafe surrounded by other felons.

Not to mention in the case of someone like Hayden's sister or any number of people that were likely intelligent, good-hearted people that got caught up in something bad, whatever underlying trauma or issues probably led to them using and getting caught with the drugs in the first place may be unresolved or still haunting them after the fact.  Pile on the enormous burden of new hoops you have to jump through just to try to build a normal, decent life along with having the label of a felon tethered like a weight to your ankles, and there's a reason why recidivism is so high and so many people don't make it.  So do felons get second chances?  Sure.  But at a huge cost and it's easy to see why rehabilitation is not common and why so many will ultimately fail.

[fattyflattie 4,631]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's total bullshit because it's not a roadmap at all. Let's be clear about what they did. Before analyzing the total population, they immediately excluded 117.8 million Americans from their study. The people they removed were families with elderly people in them, families with disabled people in them, and families where every member is below the age of 25. In other words, they removed most of the poor people. Then they took what remained and found some common characteristics among those who were more financially successful than the others, and attributed causation to those characteristics. 

Yeah, I got that, but I guess I assumed that was always known.  The article also said, if you want to have the best chance at accomplishing this, do not bring in non-working dependents (children, wife, elderly).  I thought the point of the whole exercise is to say, if you do some of these very simple things (finish high school - article clearly states that is your control), don't have children before XXX (age shouldn't be used, maybe before you can afford them) and don't abuse substances, your chances of being below the poverty line are greatly reduced.  Pretty sure that's what everyone gleams from that, not that it is impossible to be poor if you do this, that, and the other.

 

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

without reading all the research, it seems more like, "if you are born into privilege, you will likely do well, but here are 3 potential pitfalls that could theoretically derail you."

 

  Yeah, except you don't even need to be privileged.  It gives you steps which takes no discernable talent (HS, abstaining from sex and substance) and that would *likely send you out of poverty.  No one expects you to accomplish that, and get cancer with no insurance, and still stay above the water.  The only ones taking it that literal are the folks wanting to scoff at the idea. 

[wildcat09 28,387]

I wasn't aware that poor people had a choice not to have elderly or disabled family members.

[Gourmand 7,761]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't know why i'm so mad here. but it hit a nerve.

Fwiw, it hit a nerve with me too and I don't have a story like yours, but I do have my own story and reading fatty's simplistic view about the role of government in a civilized society makes it clear that he has fully bought into decades of GOP propaganda funded by the billionaire class and doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to think past the end of his nose. 

I was lucky because when I went to UT my first semester tuition was something like FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS. Crazy how much tuition has increased for students across the country but fatty got his already so fuck them for getting a higher education if they can't afford the 50-100K it probably takes many students now. For anyone banging the drum about personal/fiscal responsibility, I encourage you to take a look here  and see how many businesses and business owners got a boat load of federal money and how many of those loans have been forgiven by the government despite those funds largely not going into the pockets of workers. The vast majority of that money went to the business owners and shareholders, but that is viewed positively by the right-wing fattys because "bidness and jobs" and the need to save the economy in the midst of a potentially catastrophic global pandemic. If we can subsidize those businesses when that money didn't even find its way to the workers, we can forgive education loans that have saddled an entire generation of students with massive cumbersome debt in the name of saving the economy as well.

 

[henrygandorf 28,618]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I wasn't aware that poor people had a choice not to have elderly or disabled family members.

it's my understanding that most poor people are born into willy wonka types of situations.  they are unavoidable.

[JimmyJames 12,267]

5 minutes ago, Bravo said:

That's nothing. Kids are fair game. Last week a few of these wonderful people went after mine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you saving up for your kid's college. You are setting them up for success in life. You don't give them everything they want but if you can deflect a ton of debt coming out of college and they work during college in the summer which I will force my kids to do towards it then I think you're a great dad. I am sure they'll appreciate it and not be silver spoon kids. 

Since you are a known liar and troll who exactly are you claiming went after your kids? 

[Bullneck 18,617]

 

 

[elfenix 34,000]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it's my understanding that most poor people are born into willy wonka types of situations.  they are unavoidable.

being poor literally leads to worse health

[JimmyJames 12,267]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

Bravo clams he has me on ignore. I bet he’s lying about that too but it couldn’t hurt if you asked him what poster was allegedly going after his kids. The guy is almost always totally full of shit. 

[fattyflattie 4,631]

12 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I was lucky because when I went to UT my first semester tuition was something like FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS. Crazy how much tuition has increased for students across the country but fatty got his already so fuck them for getting a higher education if they can't afford the 50-100K it probably takes many students now.

So I paid over 10x what you did for a lesser education from a lesser institution.  But was still able to pay it off without issue.  

13 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

we can forgive education loans that have saddled an entire generation of students with massive cumbersome debt in the name of saving the economy as well.

Yes, let's immediately bump an entire generation ahead of the last because they took out bad debt and life's not fair and reasons.  Sounds reasonable.  I'll give the Dems credit, they are fucking outstanding at trying to purchase lifelong voters on the backs of the taxpayer.  Can only imagine what my portfolios would look like if I was able to load them up at 23 in lieu of paying off my college debt.   

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I wasn't aware that poor people had a choice not to have elderly or disabled family members.

They have the same choice as anyone else.  

[wildcat09 28,387]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.”

- fattyflattie, not ironically

[fattyflattie 4,631]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.”

- fattyflattie, not ironically

I really do cherish discussions with you, it is a great opportunity to learn.  

[Bullneck 18,617]

13 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So I paid over 10x what you did for a lesser education from a lesser institution.  But was still able to pay it off without issue.  

Yes, let's immediately bump an entire generation ahead of the last because they took out bad debt and life's not fair and reasons.  Sounds reasonable.  I'll give the Dems credit, they are fucking outstanding at trying to purchase lifelong voters on the backs of the taxpayer.  Can only imagine what my portfolios would look like if I was able to load them up at 23 in lieu of paying off my college debt.   

They have the same choice as anyone else.  

We can tell.  

[henrygandorf 28,618]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, let's immediately bump an entire generation ahead of the last because they took out bad debt and life's not fair and reasons.  Sounds reasonable.  I'll give the Dems credit, they are fucking outstanding at trying to purchase lifelong voters on the backs of the taxpayer. 

that must be why the dems always explode the deficit when in office.

if you really want to know what "both sides" are about, read past the headlines, soundbites, and bold type.

[Born to Run 6,186]

How about the America that doesn’t support violent overthrow of our republic based on an insane set of lies told my a megalomaniacal narcissist shitbag?

Join me as a one issue voter: I vote against the party that supports those things. All the time, every time. If that party ever decides to declare treason off limits again, then we can start talking about other policies. Until then, I’m sticking with my rule of “always take care of the existential threat first.”

Yeah but Demoncrats want to give free stuff to poors.

[fattyflattie 4,631]

3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

We can tell.  

Man, what real ball buster.  Think of that one all by yourself, did you?  With that big, educated brain of yours?   

I can find inspiration for others in my journey, and it shaped me in the same way as everyone else commenting here.  But it leads to some low hanging fruit, so be it. 

[Snake Diggity 4,545]

9 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

We can tell.  

Uncalled for.  He may be misguided, but it is pretty clear he is debating in good faith.

['stache 21,490]

No way I'm clicking on a link called Obamaphone.com. For anyone who did, is it meat spin or lemon party? Or something even grosser? It better not be fucking Rick Astley, although that would have been somewhat more relevant at the time the Obamaphone memes started.

[fattyflattie 4,631]

12 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Uncalled for.  He may be misguided, but it is pretty clear he is debating in good faith.

I fully recognize there are far more intelligent and better educated posters here.  I could easily hang out on Texaggy and be a savant, but like it here with the smart kids.

11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

No way I'm clicking on a link called Obamaphone.com

I'm pretty sure it's a legit site.  It had nothing but links on where to access your phones, reach out to all the carriers (they seemed to all be smaller carriers?) and even went into some discount broadband deal they were doing at the time.  I actually learned a little about the whole deal reading that page, but it did not detail that smartphones were not included in the plan.    No meatspin, no lemon party, no Rick roll.  

Eta: I'm quickly learning my shaggy/surlyness is wearing off by linking actual links in lieu of, well, more inappropriate things.

Edited January 25, 2022 by fattyflattie

[mchookem 15,432]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

that must be why the dems always explode the deficit when in office.

if you really want to know what "both sides" are about, read past the headlines, soundbites, and bold type.

i mean there are charts and data on this very thread (i think, this or another one) that CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY show that D in office = deficit reduced and R in office = deficit explosion. 

i mean, it's numbers. recorded permanently. publicly available. published everywhere. it's FACT. 

and yet...it's completely ignored by those on the right. just like 'nah, i'm looking right at it but i just don't see what i'm looking directly at'. 

i just don't get it. i don't understand it. 

[Gourmand 7,761]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So I paid over 10x what you did for a lesser education from a lesser institution.  But was still able to pay it off without issue.  

Good for you, just as it was good for me that UT was cheap enough in the early 90's for my family to be able to afford my tuition (along with me working as well to pay for living expenses). That dynamic has shifted massively since we were in college and our individual experiences do not mitigate the absolute crippling debt students are taking on for higher education nor does your "i paid mine off" petulance address the root causes of our inefficient higher ed profit scheme. I think Beantown has it right, you're kind of a simpleton.....

 

19 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, let's immediately bump an entire generation ahead of the last because they took out bad debt and life's not fair and reasons.  Sounds reasonable.  I'll give the Dems credit, they are fucking outstanding at trying to purchase lifelong voters on the backs of the taxpayer.  Can only imagine what my portfolios would look like if I was able to load them up at 23 in lieu of paying off my college debt.   

That is not bumping anyone ahead, that is just common fiscal economic sense that will pay for itself in the form of an expanded economy boosted from lifting that financial weight off the backs of an entire generation of students and workers. Why the fuck do you care anyway if those people facing a lifetime of debt get help from the government? How is that any different than the massive government subsidies regularly afforded businesses in your sector or, for example, the PPP loans I cited? I was laid off from my job after the pandemic hit because of my piece of shit owner cutting my salary and then he received close to 1.5 million in PPP loans, a healthy chunk of which has since been "forgiven." This motherfucker did not use that money to hire more employees or increase pay, he used it to pay off his debts. But go on about letting an entire generation get ahead on the backs of the taxpayer. Don't be a rube. You don't grasp the importance a functioning government with a sound fiscal/social policy plays in protecting a civilized society. All you can think of is yourself and your perception that someone else got something you didn't. Forgiving student debts is an investment in our economy by putting money in the pockets of the working and middle classes. You aren't seeing clearly. 

 

[henrygandorf 28,618]

8 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i mean there are charts and data on this very thread (i think, this or another one) that CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY show that D in office = deficit reduced and R in office = deficit explosion. 

i mean, it's numbers. recorded permanently. publicly available. published everywhere. it's FACT. 

and yet...it's completely ignored by those on the right. just like 'nah, i'm looking right at it but i just don't see what i'm looking directly at'. 

i just don't get it. i don't understand it. 

dems are labeled and judged by the most progressive ideas anyone in the party puts forth - even stuff that's meant as the starting point of a negotiation.

republicans are not labeled and judged at all by their ideas, mostly because they don't have any.  it's the party of obstruction and grievance.

[Homercles 10,162]

A couple of y’all need to watch The Wire and tell us what you think about opportunity really means.  
 

Wallace and D tried to live by morals and ended up murdered // Dukie misses the mark in school and ends up a drug addict // Naymond grows up hood-rich due to his father, gets adopted by Bunny, makes some poor choices but in the end he excels…
 

Everything in nature, from quantum tunneling to the creation of supermassive black holes, comes down to probability…not black/white ‘3 rules to achieve get a head start on success’ or stupid bootstraps conversations. 
 

Nay made the most of his opportunities, but he was born successfully stealing second and thus had a much higher chance at making it home…unlike the other characters, some of whom didn’t even have running water and were forced into situations with no good choices due to circumstance.  

[Gourmand 7,761]

Bootstrapper conservatives: Your student loans are your own fault, maybe you should've gotten a job instead!

Also bootstrapper conservatives: If you're stuck in a low wage job, that's your own fault, maybe you should've gone to school.

[wildcat09 28,387]

Also bootstrapper conservatives: “How dare you leave your low-wage job for another job offering more money!”

[fattyflattie 4,631]

17 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

That is not bumping anyone ahead

Yes it is.  Relieve me of 100k worth of debt, and tell me it isn't bumping me ahead of someone you do not do the same for.  

18 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

address the root causes of our inefficient higher ed profit scheme. I think Beantown has it right, you're kind of a simpleton.....

Paying off everyone's student debt is going to fix the root cause of our inefficient higher ed profit scheme?  I don't believe that is how that works, however I am but a simpleton. 

19 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

How is that any different than the massive government subsidies regularly afforded businesses in your sector or, for example, the PPP loans I cited?

Weren't (nearly) all small businesses available to receive it?  As long as they promised to use it for payroll?  That would be my first difference I would point to, I'm not eligible to be paid for outstanding debt, because I did the responsible thing and paid it back. I put off investments, a house, and a family until my debt was sorted.  I agreed to pay it back when I took it out, and did so.  Because of that I paid an enormous opportunity cost, but was what I had agreed to. 

23 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I was laid off from my job after the pandemic hit because of my piece of shit owner cutting my salary and then he received close to 1.5 million in PPP loans, a healthy chunk of which has since been "forgiven." This motherfucker did not use that money to hire more employees or increase pay, he used it to pay off his debts.

Your boss sounds like a POS. 

23 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

You don't grasp the importance a functioning government with a sound fiscal/social policy plays in protecting a civilized society. All you can think of is yourself and your perception that someone else got something you didn't.

I do grasp it, and if we are trying to lift people up, there are a helluva lot more people in dire need than those with a college education and some debt.  It goes deeper than that, even. Not only would I have paid my dues, now I get to pay them again, for who?  Some fucking guy who signed his name then welched?  That sounds like the gift that just keeps on fucking.  

26 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Forgiving student debts is an investment in our economy by putting money in the pockets of the working and middle classes.

*some.  Some of the middle class.  While taking from others in the middle class to fund it.  

[Biff Tannen 44,921]

3 hours ago, Bravo said:

It may have not been any different. I was just posting Biden saying under his presidency this would not be happening because he was going to stand up to him. You think Biden saying maybe if it's just the tip it won't be that bad was good? You think the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan helped? Is this the bUt tRuMp thread or Biden thread? 

It's the but trump thread for the rest of fucking history.  You voted for (and still support, by all measures) the worst president in the history of this country and now you get to reap it forever.

[aggie08 20,212]

52 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Man, what real ball buster.  Think of that one all by yourself, did you?  With that big, educated brain of yours?   

I can find inspiration for others in my journey, and it shaped me in the same way as everyone else commenting here.  But it leads to some low hanging fruit, so be it. 

...this from the dude who made the easiest of the easy "dumbass aggy" jokes when we were having a relatively civil discussion last night. BoTh SiDeS!!! 

(just giving you a hard time)

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18,303]

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,695]

oh shit, is this the biden thread?

[mchookem 15,432]

"...Matt Gaetz looks like Axe bodyspray sponsored a DUI attorney" 🤣

[Anastasis 23,191]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

*some.  Some of the middle class.  While taking from others in the middle class to fund it.  

I've slow played one of my loans just so that I can have some skin in the game if they ever do a blanket forgiveness thing. 

[Biff Tannen 44,921]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you saving up for your kid's college.

Yeah, because that's what everyone was saying.  You fucking dunce.