Random political thought thread.

[Coriolis]

I don't find offloading law students debt loads onto janitors, a very smart political strategy.

That same lawyer can develop cancer and need treatment costing far in excess of what he has contributed to his health insurance in premiums. Some of the money paid by the insurance company will come from premiums paid by the janitor in his law firm, and the secretary, both covered by the same insurance plan. I suppose that is not smart, too.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

That same lawyer can develop cancer and need treatment costing far in excess of what he has contributed to his health insurance in premiums. Some of the money paid by the insurance company will come from premiums paid by the janitor in his law firm, and the secretary, both covered by the same insurance plan. I suppose that is not smart, too.

 

[The Cat]

​

​

​

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That same lawyer can develop cancer and need treatment costing far in excess of what he has contributed to his health insurance in premiums. Some of the money paid by the insurance company will come from premiums paid by the janitor in his law firm, and the secretary, both covered by the same insurance plan. I suppose that is not smart, too.

I failed to realize that needing open heart surgery and having an interest in gender focused underwater basket weaving are analogous.

This only works if the only people who can get healthcare are those that went to college.

You're smarter than this.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It not like paying taxes for roads or the military. Everyone uses the road, and everyone needs to be defended from foreign powers.

This is a giveaway to middle and upper middle class college grads who had to take out loans. A wealth transfer to the democratic base, that along with selling down the strategic oil reserve they hope will be enough to keep from losing congress.

I suspect the decision to sell down strategic reserves somehow becomes justified again before the '24 pres elections. So I guess from now on its ok for pres to raid the strategic reserve to lower gas prices in an election year.

 

[ceecee]

That same lawyer can develop cancer and need treatment costing far in excess of what he has contributed to his health insurance in premiums. Some of the money paid by the insurance company will come from premiums paid by the janitor in his law firm, and the secretary, both covered by the same insurance plan. I suppose that is not smart, too.

They don't even have an original thought - they just share one set of talking points Ted Cruz told them to use.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563604387964276737

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

With regards to the debate of whether the US populace could resist the US military, should say an assault weapons ban pass and they come to confiscate.

 

[Coriolis]

I failed to realize that needing open heart surgery and having an interest in gender focused underwater basket weaving are analogous.

This only works if the only people who can get healthcare are those that went to college.

You're smarter than this.

You are, too, or at least you used to be. You fail to acknowledge that both health care and education are broad spectra of activity, choosing to focus on the most serious need in the first, and the most frivolous whim in the second. It always comes down to cost/benefit. I thought you could appreciate that at least.

It not like paying taxes for roads or the military. Everyone uses the road, and everyone needs to be defended from foreign powers.

Everyone needs food, shelter, and health care, too. Looks like all of that can be paid out of taxes, then. Unless we don't have enough people to deliver said items, because they can't afford to get the education they need to do so.

A main fallacy at play here is that education benefits exclusively, or even primarily, the student. We all benefit from an educated populace who is not so overburdened with debt that they cannot participate fully in the economy.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You are, too, or at least you used to be. You fail to acknowledge that both health care and education are broad spectra of activity, choosing to focus on the most serious need in the first, and the most frivolous whim in the second. It always comes down to cost/benefit. I thought you could appreciate that at least.


Everyone needs food, shelter, and health care, too. Looks like all of that can be paid out of taxes, then. Unless we don't have enough people to deliver said items, because they can't afford to get the education they need to do so.

A main fallacy at play here is that education benefits exclusively, or even primarily, the student. We all benefit from an educated populace who is not so overburdened with debt that they cannot participate fully in the economy.

Did you take loans?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The only way any of this makes sense is if you raid College endowments to pay back the loans. Or allow the loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. The schools failed the kids, and the kids failed themselves. If we aren't willing to let students face the consequences of their actions. IE taking out a loan you'd never be able to pay back. Then the schools should be forced to pay.

Tuition has exploded b/c the gov't stupidly decided to subsidize college in 1965 with the Higher Education Act of 1965. Look at the chart for the explosion in the amount of admin staff from mid century onward.

With current subsidies the Universities as a class have no incentive to actually improve education. They still get the money regardless of the quality of the education provided. And with the social myth college is the only way to a good life in place, the uni's have an endless supply of clients. Nothing ever actually threatens the business of education so that business has no market pressure to improve its product.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Kephalos]

On the Durability of King and Council: The Continuum Between Dictatorship and Democracy. Roger D. Congleton.

Abstract. In practice one rarely observes pure forms of dictatorship that lack a council, or pure forms of parliament that lack an executive. Generally government policies emerge from organizations that combine an executive branch of government, “the king,” with a cabinet or parliamentary branch, “the council.” This paper provides an explanation for this regularity, and also provides an evolutionary model of the emergence of democracy that does not require a revolution. The analysis demonstrates that the bipolar “king and council” constitutional template has a number of properties that gives it great practical efficiency as a method of information processing and as a very flexible institutional arrangement for making collective decisions.

Congleton, R.D. On the Durability of King and Council: The Continuum Between Dictatorship and Democracy. Constitutional Political Economy 12, 193–215 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011605310916

Can we design an optimal constitution? Of structural ambiguity and rights clarity. Richard A. Epstein.

Excerpt: What judgments should inform the design of an optimal constitution? To flesh out this discussion, three interrelated questions have to be addressed. The first goes to an assessment of human nature: it seeks to identify the forces that drive individual and collective action. The last two go to the key issues of constitutional design. Of these last two questions, one deals with the structure of government. Does a constitution adopt a presidential or parliamentary system? How does it organize its legislature? Does it preserve judicial independence and allow for judicial review of legislation? The other question deals with the protection of individual rights such as due process of law, freedom of speech and religion, and the protection of economic liberties and private property.

Epstein, R. A. (2010). Can we design an optimal constitution? Of structural ambiguity and rights clarity. Social Philosophy and Policy, 28(01), 290–324. doi:10.1017/s0265052510000142

 

[yeghor]

Is this how an ESTJ world would look like?

Failure of Democracy (HD)

Propaganda

 

[yeghor]

Bottom quintile households (poorest 20%) is reported to earn less than 29K per year. I think only they should benefit from this loan debt cancellation.

They make about 15% of the beneficiaries of this programme. Debt cancellation is said to cancel about 500 billion USD worth loans initially. If only bottom quantile is allowed to benefit, the total cost to the government would be reduced to 15% of 500 billion = 75 billion USD only.

If the benefits are extended to the 2nd lowest quintile as well (20%-40%), that would extend the beneficiaries to 37%, the cost would be 500*0,37= 185 billion USD, instead of current total of 500 billion USD.

Starting from 2023, government can keep on subsidizing the bottommost 1st and 2nd quintile households, i.e. those earning less than 51K USD per year. Or they can make it free for everyone but that would increase the budget deficit and require increasing tax rates on products and services and corporations and would shrink the businesses, which would then lead to increased unemployment and hence poverty, and would turn into a vicious cycle.

So subsidizing those who need it the most seems to be a viable middle path.

Key points

Beneficiary household quantiles

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564236241452892160

 

[The Cat]

*regarding the florida case DeSpotis technically broke the law in trying to remove a duly elected official for not upholding a decree that goes against the state constitution.
There are of course the usual suspect peanut galleries of lying liars who lie(especially to themselves)
who seem to be in favor of a banana republic police state who will tell you differently...
but then, consider the source...
​

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

*regarding the florida case DeSpotis technically broke the law in trying to remove a duly elected official for not upholding a decree that goes against the state constitution.
There are of course the usual suspect peanut galleries of lying liars who lie(especially to themselves)
who seem to be in favor of a banana republic police state who will tell you differently...
but then, consider the source...
​

Lol The Young Turks....

Easily one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The voice change when he says "NO.... In real life" kills me.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I wonder if in the future, the folk history of places like 4chan and Tumblr will make its way into official records? Will we someday realize that that history is crucial for understanding our modern political landscape?

I'd argue that the history of this forum, while not populace enough to affect the national convo, reflected the burgeoning political discussion developing on sites like 4ch, something awful, Tumblr etc, in the late 00's and early '10s.

I remember things getting spicy here around 2010 politically. There was a period before that when everyone was new and figuring out what they believed, but once they did and the battle lines were set it was off to the races.

 

[The Cat]

BENVOLIO: By my head, here comes the Capulets.

MERCUTIO: By my heel, I care not.

I hear a voice crying in the wilderness?
Speaks like it has numbers after a name...
Something about giving permission to eat cake? ​

​

What scary times it must be for the more bigoted bourgeoisie; having to accept their own lack of standing among true powers, yet too inherently boot-licking towards their masters to be anything but scaredy cat apologists for hate crimes... Dyed in the wool "nationalists" against their own interests. Too close to the dirty poors to be anything but a servant or shill themselves...
And yet possessed of such self delusion to see themselves as standing above the mud they wallow in.
Oh well...
Walking Tragedies come in all shapes and sizes these days.
Go hence to have more talk of these sad things.
Some shall be pardon’d, and some punished,
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of MAGACult and their "Romeo".​

​

​

​

 

[Red Herring]

"The sceptic says “nothing can be known”; he is a dogmatist, though a negative one. His creed, we must admit, is paralyzing, and a nation which accepts it is doomed to defeat, since it cannot adduce adequate motives for self-defence. But the scientific attitude is quite different. It does not say “knowledge is impossible,” but “knowledge is difficult.” As against the dogmatist, it holds that nothing can count as knowledge unless it has been submitted to the tests that science has shown to be useful, and even then, it may require correction in the light of fresh evidence. As against the sceptic, it holds that what has emerged from a scientific scrutiny is more likely to be true than what has not, and that in many cases this likelihood is almost certainty; in any event, it is the best hypothesis to accept in practice. The dogmatist accepts one hypothesis regardless of the evidence; the sceptic rejects all hypotheses regardless of the evidence. Both are irrational. The rational man accepts the most probable hypothesis for the time being, while continuing to look for new evidence to confirm or confute it."

- Bertrand Russell, Scepticism and Tolerance, 1948