Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: Ted Cruz - A Tale of two Snowflakes

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Please explain to me why removing the obstacles to actually being able to pass shit rather than just blaming Republicans for your own ineptitude is bad politics? Sure, you can say there isn't 50 votes for abolishing the filibuster, and that is correct, but I'm not talking about. The raise in the minimum wage does effect the federal budget even with the rather bullshit , so the idea that this is just arbitrarily violating the reconciliation process is factually wrong. This is about Democrats using procedural hurdles they are choosing not to overcome as an excuse for their in actions on one of if not the most popular bi-partisan policy proposals going right now.

What the hell are you talking about?  The fact is the Dems don't have 50 votes to pass the bill with the minimum wage hike.  Admitting that fact isn't just using procedural hurdles "as an excuse."  If Harris overruled the parliamentarian, or Schumer fired and replaced her, not only would that only serve to harden Manchin and Sinema's stance, you might lose more votes that are in favor of the wage hike but not under those circumstances.  So you'd be forcing a vote you know you're gonna lose for what?  Spite?  As an attack against your own members?  Yeah, it's generally not good politics if the predominate motive is juvenile revenge.

Also, no, it's not "factually wrong" to say adding the minimum wage to reconciliation violates the intent of the Byrd rule.  This has always been pretty clear to many since Biden announced the proposal - including, eventually, Biden himself.  The minimum wage has never been an aspect of the budget process - which is what reconciliation was created for - and its inclusion is quite obviously "extraneous" in that its budgetary impact is decidedly incidental - no matter how the CBO scores the measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

According to polling, support for student loan forgiveness, has fallen in the U.S.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/less-than-half-of-americans-support-student-loan-forgiveness-poll-183840781.html

Like I tried to warn before, decent policy, bad politics. A majority of tax payers did not go to college. They aren't going to want to give people that did a bailout in their eyes, and a lot of college educated people who paid theirs debts will be less sympathetic as well. You have to fix the central point of the problem, not mitigate the side-effects.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DMC said:

What the hell are you talking about?  The fact is the Dems don't have 50 votes to pass the bill with the minimum wage hike.  Admitting that fact isn't just using procedural hurdles "as an excuse."  If Harris overruled the parliamentarian, or Schumer fired and replaced her, not only would that only serve to harden Manchin and Sinema's stance, you might lose more votes that are in favor of the wage hike but not under those circumstances.  So you'd be forcing a vote you know you're gonna lose for what?  Spite?  As an attack against your own members?  Yeah, it's generally not good politics if the predominate motive is juvenile revenge.

Also, no, it's not "factually wrong" to say adding the minimum wage to reconciliation violates the intent of the Byrd rule.  This has always been pretty clear to many since Biden announced the proposal - including, eventually, Biden himself.  The minimum wage has never been an aspect of the budget process - which is what reconciliation was created for - and its inclusion is quite obviously "extraneous" in that its budgetary impact is decidedly incidental - no matter how the CBO scores the measure.

Do you really think Dems would split apart and tank a relief bill just because of the minimum wage provision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Do you really think Dems would split apart and tank a relief bill just because of the minimum wage provision?

I really think Manchin and Sinema will vote against a reconciliation bill with the minimum wage hike included, yes.  Why?  Because they've said so - clearly, publicly, and recently.  Sinema was crystal clear about her opposition to including it in a reconciliation bill, and Manchin even told the people protesting his position that he continued to oppose a $15 hike.  I hardly think the Senate parliamentarian agreeing with them and giving them cover will change that.

Now, if you're asking if the Dem leadership will risk tanking the bill by ignoring/circumventing the parliamentarian and insisting on its inclusion anyway - no, I definitely do not.  Because they're not idiots.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, felice said:

I think the stage design has that beat.

 

I should not be surprised and yet....I am still surprised. That's some bold-ass Nazi shit from some bold-ass Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like I tried to warn before, decent policy, bad politics. A majority of tax payers did not go to college. They aren't going to want to give people that did a bailout in their eyes, and a lot of college educated people who paid theirs debts will be less sympathetic as well. You have to fix the central point of the problem, not mitigate the side-effects.  

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for people who take on debt and then start whining. I borrowed like hell to pay for my kid to go where he wanted to go, and knew every minute what I was signing up for.

This also is a slap in the face to people who saved diligently and scrimped on themselves and didn’t take on debt. Or who sent their kids to in-state schools rather than an Ivy because they didn’t want to take on debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for people who take on debt and then start whining. I borrowed like hell to pay for my kid to go where he wanted to go, and knew every minute what I was signing up for.

This also is a slap in the face to people who saved diligently and scrimped on themselves and didn’t take on debt. Or who sent their kids to in-state schools rather than an Ivy because they didn’t want to take on debt.

You should have at least some sympathy. I brought this up before, I'm someone that skimped on some personal pleasures and was happy to work long hours to pay my debt off quickly. But everyone's situation is different which makes this all tricky. To me the question isn't "should their debt be forgiven?" but "why do they have so much debt in the first place?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You should have at least some sympathy. I brought this up before, I'm someone that skimped on some personal pleasures and was happy to work long hours to pay my debt off quickly. But everyone's situation is different which makes this all tricky. To me the question isn't "should their debt be forgiven?" but "why do they have so much debt in the first place?" 

Especially if, assuming the hypothesis is true, it would be an enormous boon to the economy and lower/middle-class. That would be worth it from a macro-perspective, despite misgivings on a micro-level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You should have at least some sympathy. I brought this up before, I'm someone that skimped on some personal pleasures and was happy to work long hours to pay my debt off quickly. But everyone's situation is different which makes this all tricky. To me the question isn't "should their debt be forgiven?" but "why do they have so much debt in the first place?" 

The question of why do they have so much debt in the first place has a fairly uncontroversial set of answers. College tuition has risen much faster than inflation driven in part by easily available student loans. The common wisdom was (and mostly still is) that people with a college degree will, on average make more money than those without over the course of their lifetimes. This has led students (and to some extent parents) to believe that despite the high cost, college is a worthwhile investment. Of course, some people are not really well suited for college and drop out (thus ending up with a loan but no degree) and other get a degree either at a school that is not very good or in a field that does not pay well -- note the sneaky "on average" in the common wisdom! And of course there are the various edge cases of people who have health and/or family issues, people who just couldn't stand their chosen profession and so on and so forth.

The question of what to do about it is a whole lot more controversial. The idea of simply waving the debt away is only popular among a certain subset of Democrats, probably because it has a few immediately obvious problems. As far as I can tell, the Biden administration has decided to punt the issue to Congress which means that nothing will happen in the short term unless they can somehow stuff this into the reconciliation bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for people who take on debt and then start whining. I borrowed like hell to pay for my kid to go where he wanted to go, and knew every minute what I was signing up for.

This also is a slap in the face to people who saved diligently and scrimped on themselves and didn’t take on debt. Or who sent their kids to in-state schools rather than an Ivy because they didn’t want to take on debt.

Most of the debt problem has nothing to do with Ivy league schools. A very large % of the college debt problem is from working class and poor people who were encouraged to take on debt by for-profit schools, many of whom did not even finish their programs. The average person with a college debt problem is not some  overspending Ivy league graduate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they have so much debt?  Because it costs so much to go to college.  Also for a lot of disciplines, you can't just go to any college and be qualified for the chosen profession.  Librarianship, for instance.  Accredited library schools are not at 4 year colleges, for instance, but at large, highly regarded universities.  They are very expensive programs that involved ever more hands on expertise with ever more varieties of technology and devices. To start with, these aren't Bachelor degree programs, but graduate programs.  Most library students chose a specialty such as medical, legal, art, etc.  These are by definition, already, like law school, medical school, veterinary school, really expensive too.  BTW, it costs even more to qualify as a veterinarian than an M.D.   And there are specialties with that as well.

Do you know how much tuition alone is for the dental school at NYU?  My dentists teaches there -- as an adjunct.  So much talent at NYU as adjuncts!  He's all about staying up-to-date with the latest progress in the field at all levels, including what he doesn't do himself.  This is so he can guide the students, influence the method and what is taught according to his very exacting standards, and have first dibs at hiring the best and brightest for his practice.

So, you know, how are you going to find a vet for your beloved kitties or help for your rotten teeth without students taking on debt?  You could say, well, then, choose something that's cheap for accreditation.  Again, then, I ask, where will you find a vet or a dentist?

P.S.  My dentist and his crew are just THE BEST.  They are pricey, but they do such terrific work and they are genius at pain management, always shooting for 'painless.'

P.P.S Medical and dental school in Cuba is free for Cubans.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Most of the debt problem has nothing to do with Ivy league schools. A very large % of the college debt problem is from working class and poor people who were encouraged to take on debt by for-profit schools, many of whom did not even finish their programs. The average person with a college debt problem is not some  overspending Ivy league graduate.   

Those places should seriously be shut down. 
 

And those are the people I do have sympathy for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for people who take on debt and then start whining.

 

16 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

And those are the people I do have sympathy for.

Liar! Stop it with the mind games!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the loansharking. Let the people who want to pay through the nose do it( capitalism). Make it more clear what the consumer is paying for( tennis courts or what-have-you.)Have I.Q. contests between graduates. The very best way to get a graduate degree would be to obtain knowledge and interest in a specialty on your own...by research and reading. Find a professor that is interested in you being their assistant. Do that! Get a stipend for your labor. Continue with your studies. I’m probably out of date. I was recruited more than once, but I didn’t want or need it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

The very best way to get a graduate degree would be to obtain knowledge and interest in a specialty on your own...by research and reading.

So you want someone to perform dentistry on you who got all her execution from reading a book?  Or a pharmacist who got her expertise from reading a book?  Who never formally studied and practiced the techniques and was tested on them in real life?  You want a kid castrating you favorite puppy who knows how to do it from a book?

We already have internships -- and these the student PAYS for.  Sheesh, get into the real world out there.  Very few people are seeking higher education degrees in liberal education these days.  And ya, only people who can afford that elitism, as it is perceived now, are the ones who have legacy places at Ivy Leagues and so on.

But if you want to keep the hospitals and courts still populated with competent, talented people, they are going to come from the 'lower classes' at whom you're sneering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperbole,  Zorral. If I wanted to get into dentistry, I would start carving shapes out of chalk. I would read about dentition. I would make sure that I did well at school, and study up for qualifying exams. I might talk to my own dentist and ask questions. If I could not succeed at that, I would change my goals. I have been offered graduate positions. For me, it was not cost effective and if the prof had a book, I could happily read it. Perhaps for free. Some people do get payed in stipends and free classes. Is this quaint? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Biden should start with $10000 debt relief (although it appears he is loath to do it via executive order). Like I mentioned before, dont want this to become ACA 2.0 where the already assumed losses in 2022 become far worse because of an unpopular idea. I think this initial amount can act as a test balloon, and wont be as unpopular as $50000 debt forgiveness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...