ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
College tuition cost is simple supply and demand. Elite schools accept less than 10% of the people who apply seeking the privilege of paying those exorbitant costs. How do so many people have the money to pay? Student loan availablity. If you could get a car loan as easily as a student loan, each of us would be driving luxury cars.


It’s not simply supply and demand. If it was, the issue would fix itself.

Unfortunately, as with all industries where we see uncontrollable runaway costs, far outpacing inflation, the federal government is heavily involved in distorting the supply and or demand.

If the federal government prevented auto loans from being dischargeable in bankruptcy and meddled in a large part of the market, you’d see 16 year olds driving Lamborghinis.
 
It’s not simply supply and demand. If it was, the issue would fix itself.

Unfortunately, as with all industries where we see uncontrollable runaway costs, far outpacing inflation, the federal government is heavily involved in distorting the supply and or demand.

If the federal government prevented auto loans from being dischargeable in bankruptcy and meddled in a large part of the market, you’d see 16 year olds driving Lamborghinis.
That was my point - if student loans were the same as other loans, college would cost less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
We’ve been over this ad nauseam but fetal homicide laws illustrate exactly how a fetus is not legally considered a person. If it was you wouldn’t need them, it would already be covered under regular homicide. But it isn’t, so a special fetal homicide law is required.
This ignores the central premise: no prosecution could happen if a human life hadn't been taken.

Thus the disgust at the moral contradictions that pro-abortion advocates must embrace.
 
This ignores the central premise: no prosecution could happen if a human life hadn't been taken.

Thus the disgust at the moral contradictions that pro-abortion advocates must embrace.
Yes it could, as designated in the specific law. Just like it’s illegal to kill endangered animals and they aren’t “human life”.
 
Lies, lies and more lies.

No doubt we are living in Satan’s world. Corruption and lies everywhere.
When you scratch deep enough on any of these conspiracy people it’s always Christianity under there. I guess when you believe in an all-powerful and all-benevolent god you have to invent reasons why the world is so messed up just to square it in your head.
 

FnQZDtoWQAAcfL1
 
Sure it is. Even in whacko Cali, feticide occurs at around 7-8 weeks. Please explain.
Explain what? If a fetus was already legally a person you wouldn’t need those feticide laws at all as it’d already be covered under homicide. For instance what about those first 7-8 weeks?
 
College tuition cost is simple supply and demand. Elite schools accept less than 10% of the people who apply seeking the privilege of paying those exorbitant costs. How do so many people have the money to pay? Student loan availablity. If you could get a car loan as easily as a student loan, each of us would be driving luxury cars.
So, it’s not simple supply and demand. It is, as you point out, colleges escalating tuition and costs because people can get the government backed loans to pay. It’s government assisting the colleges’ raping of the students.
 
Lmao 😍

They're just finding these everywhere, huh? LOL These lawyers and aides are just randomly finding these and then running to the D.C. cabal and press?

Totally not odd at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
Explain what? If a fetus was already legally a person you wouldn’t need those feticide laws at all as it’d already be covered under homicide. For instance what about those first 7-8 weeks?
To me every unborn child is a person but I understand waiting until a certain point of development to recognize it as such. The law in Cali specifically excludes abortions by the mother. Why would they need to do that, it isn't a person yet. The left spins in circles on this subject. There is little reason for us to debate it. An unborn child is a child to me. I doubt that you care if it is aborted up until full-term. Is that correct?
 
To me every unborn child is a person but I understand waiting until a certain point of development to recognize it as such. The law in Cali specifically excludes abortions by the mother. Why would they need to do that, it isn't a person yet. The left spins in circles on this subject. There is little reason for us to debate it. An unborn child is a child to me. I doubt that you care if it is aborted up until full-term. Is that correct?
Because it's a fetus and it's a feticide law. They don't make an exception in the homicide law for a mother's abortion choice, they make it in the feticide law. You understand now?

My personal position is irrelevant to the debate other than giving my opinion. The abortion debate is about when a fetus becomes a person with legal rights. Like that of not being murdered. Currently that line is at birth. You can endeavor to move that line but at the moment it is where it is.
 
When you scratch deep enough on any of these conspiracy people it’s always Christianity under there. I guess when you believe in an all-powerful and all-benevolent god you have to invent reasons why the world is so messed up just to square it in your head.
False. Your obsession with Christians has reached TDS levels. Watch out, you might be put back on my Karens list.
 
Many associate Marxism with an abolition of private property and normalization of compensation. Soviets confiscating mansions and giving a room to every family. Paying doctors the same as ditch diggers. I catch heat here for associating myself with Marx and not rejecting that rhetoric out-of-hand, but I do not and have not advocated for any of that.

What I advocate for is simply a floor and a ceiling. Most advanced nations on earth have a social safety net floor to support those who fall through the cracks. It varies from country to country, but it is a generally agreed upon economic benefit to support the least fortunate so that they can have a stable platform to use to become more productive. America does it. The issue with ours is that there are many bureaucratic hoops to jump through to qualify, which just wastes time for the person involved managing their benefits instead of improving their skill set for working. Combine that with the loss of benefits when you pass a certain income threshold and it means you actually do worse for more effort, creating a ‘welfare trap’.

I believe the answer to this is normalization of benefits. Give everyone a basic minimal sum. No hoops to jump through and so no giant government bureaucracies to monitor them. Everyone has enough for basic low-income housing and potatoes. Now people have no excuse. If they squander that all of society knows they did and they have no one to blame but themselves. But the real working poor don’t have to worry as much about putting food on the table or navigating complicated government programs. They can put time into improving their skill set for society and their personal lives for themselves.

How do we pay for that? Well that’s always the rub, but the short answer is two ways. The first being the massive cutting in unelected government workers that currently administer all these disparate programs. We piss away so much money and time monitoring compliance for no benefit. I mean in most countries you don’t even have to file your stupid taxes, it’s done automatically.

The second source of funding being the aforementioned ceiling. The median net worth in America is about 120k. If you have a million dollars in personal wealth you’re doing pretty well. Not struggling. A million dollars is a lot of money. Now compare that to Bill Gates. He has around 100 billion roughly. The Staircase Analogy:

We’re on step one. A millionaire is on step ten less than halfway to the second floor. Bill Gates is on the 47,600th floor. Everyone should agree that is completely absurd and not an efficient distribution of resources. That money should be reinvested in society to allow others to prosper like he did. No one person, regardless of what they do or make, is worth that much more than another.
First, what is the criteria for that "safety net floor" you say everybody gets their UBI, does that include everybody, even those who don't need it? Or is there an income cutoff before the UBI goes away? Then what incentive do those getting this "safety net" have to get out from under that safety net? Why should a lazy but able bodied schmuck, content with his UBI, be allowed to just be a mooch on the system without some sort of work requirement?
Then there's that "ceiling" what floor is that ceiling? 3rd floor? 5th floor? 100th floor? need to define that. because what's going to be anyone's incentive to continue to innovate, create jobs, and invest in the overall economy of the country once they reach their ceiling?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT