Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

Out of those, the ones I agree with that can be 'realistically' accomplished would be 4 and 5.

---

Just no money from the gun lobby or any lobby?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

5.. I don't understand why the gun lobby would be different from any other lobby. I would agree to it if, say.. we eliminated unions from giving money to candidates.

---

I'm fine with that too. All lobbyists should go imo, as a liberal gun owner I just bear a special grudge against the NRA.

Quote:

---

8.. Some kids just don't have it in them for college. And again.. how to pay for it?

---

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I remember reading from a bunch of government sources that the amount they spend on grants and federal assistance would be similar to the amount they'd spend if they just did full tuition. Of course, that's not including room & board and book money, so it's not perfect and probably would need a tax increase (like healthcare) to cover those. And you're right that some kids just wouldn't go to college anyway - the amount of people who serve in the military and never take advantage of the GI Bill for example is something like 30%.

Quote:

---

We aren't all that dissimilar in our political views... but I think you are far closer to the center than you believe.

---

Or maybe...

you're a liberal???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

the amount of people who serve in the military and never take advantage of the GI Bill for example is something like 30%.

---

that's nuts..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

I'm fine with that too. All lobbyists should go imo, as a liberal gun owner I just bear a special grudge against the NRA.

---

What is that grudge? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I remember reading from a bunch of government sources that the amount they spend on grants and federal assistance would be similar to the amount they'd spend if they just did full tuition. Of course, that's not including room & board and book money, so it's not perfect and probably would need a tax increase (like healthcare) to cover those. And you're right that some kids just wouldn't go to college anyway - the amount of people who serve in the military and never take advantage of the GI Bill for example is something like 30%.

---

If the government started paying for college.. you don't think they tuition rates would increase?

As far as the GI bill goes: Some people just aren't school types.

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Or maybe...

you're a liberal???

---

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7a81...itemid=5388253

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

I think you're arguing something that's separate from what the rest of us are arguing. We're not talking about income inequality, we're talking about a business being forced to subsidize smaller businesses who can't compete. If you open a pizzeria in a place that has a bunch of other pizzerias, you better have some damn good pizza otherwise you'll go under. Likewise trying to open a vegan place in Satan's Butthole, AZ (population 15), or a small general store next to Walmart. If you can't compete, you go under. That's especially true in the restaurant business which has fairly small profit margins.



This is where the confusion comes in, because the sentiment of the law seems to suggest larger businesses need to support smaller, competing ones.

---

Here's the connection: tech has mastered the art of centralizing money in the hands of a few. The criticism is that the wealth isn't shared with the community, and that's a big factor in local income inequality (and all the toxic, downstream consequences that come from it).

The argument here is that we need to make sure the wealth is redistributed to the sounding areas better than it currently is. That slows inflation and helps non-tech industry people deal with the inflation that is already there.

That's the driving philosophy behind these laws. They're trying to tackle income inequality through income redistribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

that's nuts..

---

Not really. Poor social safety net and the fact that people with lower income backgrounds are highly overrepresented in the military make it extremely difficult for parents to leverage The GI Bill.

It's not the way things should be, but that's the reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardCranium

You'd be surprised. The girlfriend is all about it. I asked her how she proposed to pay for all of this. "Taxes." I told her it would take 50+% federal tax. "So?"

---

Keep in mind that during some of our country's best economic years the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Heck, up until Reagan it was in the 70s. Reagan was also the start of the ballooning deficit. It wasn't about an increase in spending, it was a HUGE decrease in revenue.

The economy actually does better when you have a strong social safety net and also curb income inequality. This myth that low taxes and low government spending are great for an economy is dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Keep in mind that during some of our country's best economic years the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Heck, up until Reagan it was in the 70s. Reagan was also the start of the ballooning deficit. It wasn't about an increase in spending, it was a HUGE decrease in revenue.

The economy actually does better when you have a strong social safety net and also curb income inequality. This myth that low taxes and low government spending are great for an economy is dead wrong.

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/3otWpL...hVQs/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Here's the connection: tech has mastered the art of centralizing money in the hands of a few. The criticism is that the wealth isn't shared with the community, and that's a big factor in local income inequality (and all the toxic, downstream consequences that come from it).

The argument here is that we need to make sure the wealth is redistributed to the sounding areas better than it currently is. That slows inflation and helps non-tech industry people deal with the inflation that is already there.

That's the driving philosophy behind these laws. They're trying to tackle income inequality through income redistribution.

---

What needs to be done is put an end to work visas, sanctuary cities and jail business owners that hire illegal aliens. Tech needs to train american high school graduates instead of expecting people to drop 10's of thousands of dollars on colleges.

Nobody that sits at a desk all day deserves to make more than "skilled labor" or what we once called tradesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Not really. Poor social safety net and the fact that people with lower income backgrounds are highly overrepresented in the military make it extremely difficult for parents to leverage The GI Bill.

It's not the way things should be, but that's the reality

---

These days the GI Bill is worth a shit ton of money, covering tuition, books, and living expenses.