Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Plasmaster09]

So, Obama 2.0 rather than Biden 1.0. I can live with that.

It's also factually incorrect.
Although some do view it as not a big enough step (the quote is legitimate), he didn't completely abandon his promise and the guidelines he pushed out today are at least a small step in the intended direction.
Tl;dr: said guidelines effectively limit ICE arrests to immigrants that have already committed felonies and been detained thereof, or something along those lines. Basically it's a lot harder for them to toss people in jail or deport them for comically minor shit.

 

[Foxi4]

Due to a successful and decently wealthy (and by decently wealthy, I mean "not living check to check") life often being dependent on experience and degrees that can only be obtained through full college or university education, said full education itself is currently almost always a requirement to a certain "pursuit of happiness" that the Declaration of Independence states as an inalienable right.
As long as a majority of decent- or well-paying occupations hold college or uni as an effective requirement, they should by all reason be considered a right.

To be fair, the right to pursue something doesn't entail the government paying for it. People are made happy by a lot of things the government probably shouldn't pick the tab up for. Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...

...as dope as that'd would be.

It's also factually incorrect.
Although some do view it as not a big enough step (the quote is legitimate), he didn't completely abandon his promise and the guidelines he pushed out today are at least a small step in the intended direction.
Tl;dr: said guidelines effectively limit ICE arrests to immigrants that have already committed felonies and been detained thereof, or something along those lines. Basically it's a lot harder for them to toss people in jail or deport them for comically minor shit.

I don't know, man - "priority for immediate deportation" based on nothing besides date of entry seems like a departure from his previous declarations.

 

[tthousand]

"Not everybody in the community - in the Hispanic and the African American community, particularly in re', uh uh, rural areas that are distant, and/or inner city districts - know how to use - uh, know how to get online." - Biden

So, Obama 2.0 rather than Biden 1.0. I can live with that.

Or rather Banker Bot v28.0

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

Noooooooooo this isn't what I voted for!!!

 

[FAST6191]

Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...

...as dope as that'd would be.

Does that mean Switzerland is a better country than the US?

 

[g00s3y]

Does that mean Switzerland is a better country than the US?

Lots of countries are. It's only the dumb who truly think "MURICA NUMBER 1"

 

[tabzer]

Lots of countries are. It's only the dumb who truly think "MURICA NUMBER 1"

Reminds me of



Obviously many people know this. MAGA was an attempt at a revival and KAGA was premature.

 

[Plasmaster09]

View attachment 247243
Noooooooooo this isn't what I voted for!!!

congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything

To be fair, the right to pursue something doesn't entail the government paying for it. People are made happy by a lot of things the government probably shouldn't pick the tab up for. Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...

...as dope as that'd would be.
I don't know, man - "priority for immediate deportation" based on nothing besides date of entry seems like a departure from his previous declarations.

The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
However, it should NOT entail the pursuer paying for it, because that defeats the purpose and makes it no longer a right, but a privilege locked behind wealth.
Also, it's not based on date of entry AFAIK. The priority is to those that have done things (iirc either major felony or known active gang membership) that warrant being considered as legitimately dangerous.

 

[FAST6191]

Due to a successful and decently wealthy (and by decently wealthy, I mean "not living check to check") life often being dependent on experience and degrees that can only be obtained through full college or university education, said full education itself is currently almost always a requirement to a certain "pursuit of happiness" that the Declaration of Independence states as an inalienable right.
As long as a majority of decent- or well-paying occupations hold college or uni as an effective requirement, they should by all reason be considered a right.

That is quite the contrivance.

First of all there are plenty of well paying trades ( https://toptrade.school/highest-paying-careers/ https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/highest-paying-trade-jobs https://www.construct-ed.com/construction-jobs-list/ . https://www.uslearning.net/cost-of-living-by-state.html detailing cost of living, including a nice chart on wage to own a house. Outside of CA and NY you are probably OK with the two* person household there) that don't really care about a degree, and things that have historically been taught on the job even if some HR moron decided they now need one. Indeed I reckon I can teach programmers on the job, certainly have had a few do the self taught thing and computing in general has various certs as recognised concepts.
Would that not also open up the door to governments dictating which degrees are worth it? Degree in fashion design tends not to pay that well so...

*if such things are a metric then do we get to contemplate the fantasy 50s thing wherein single salary would often do it and set that as a baseline if we are making fairly arbitrary moves. We also have https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-savings-account-balance/ to contemplate in this.
Paycheque to paycheque, despite being somewhat arbitrary, is one thing. There are also those that might only be able to skip three, indeed that might even form the basis of a decent chunk of middle class.

Secondary to that is if companies and whatnot do still want people with bits of paper then they will either pay for it (any number offer do this and come work for us for 5 years type deals) or relax requirements. I am not necessarily a great fan of the former as they tend to lock people in -- I am seeing it with mechanics now (the idea that you need to be brand specific is one I never heard before about 5 years ago), and all the various sponsored courses from Dell, Google et al tend to be rather that company centric so might want some push there (most medic and engineering and science courses in the UK have to be overseen by their respective councils and are more generalist by their very nature. That sort of thing works for me).

I would also return to the idea that the costs are ridiculously high because they can get away with charging them -- everywhere else in the world manages just fine to crank out people that do all the same things*, also do a fine line in research, and often in places where you can't just have 40 acres of flat ground somewhere near a city be magically made available to build such a thing and generally would have to pay the staff more.

*nowhere is clamouring for US educated peeps and likewise the US is not clamouring for those educated elsewhere beyond general shortages. Most places have reciprocal standards as well so those can wander any which way and pick up where they left off or maybe have to do a very short conversion course. That would speak to generally similar standards and qualities of output.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I would also return to the idea that the costs are ridiculously high because they can get away with charging them -- everywhere else in the world manages just fine to crank out people that do all the same things*, also do a fine line in research, and often in places where you can't just have 40 acres of flat ground somewhere near a city be magically made available to build such a thing and generally would have to pay the staff more.

*nowhere is clamouring for US educated peeps and likewise the US is not clamouring for those educated elsewhere beyond general shortages. Most places have reciprocal standards as well so those can wander any which way and pick up where they left off or maybe have to do a very short conversion course. That would speak to generally similar standards and qualities of output.

Yeah, this is the main reason it's so fucked up.
IIRC (probably a bit off, correct me if and about how I'm wrong) it amounts to:
tl;dr: Boomers basically got education on the gov's dime, but that meant the schools could ramp up prices to unfathomably greedy amounts and said gov would still fund them... but when that changed, the prices didn't.

"Not everybody in the community - in the Hispanic and the African American community, particularly in re', uh uh, rural areas that are distant, and/or inner city districts - know how to use - uh, know how to get online." - Biden

You people do realize that Biden's infamous gaffes and flubs... are likely due to his stutter, which he's struggled with since childhood? (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/)
Which is to say, a literal neurological disability? (No, I'm serious. Stuttering isn't just the r-r-repeating bits when you're nervous thing, it's also an actual serious disability that can basically be described as a glitch in the processes related to speech and has more effects than just simple, no-meaning-changed repeating. Basically imagine if your own vocal cords and speech processes fought against you as actively as the Republican Congress minority is fighting against Biden's every breath.)
Now combine that with the sheer amount of stress and responsibility placed on the President, as well as just how often he has to give entire speeches on live television.
Suddenly, using Biden's gaffes as a common trick to paint him as irresponsible or unfit goes from mocking someone for their age and trying to use their slip-ups to portray them as mentally unstable (already pretty messed up) to mocking someone for their disability and trying to use that to portray them as mentally unstable (which, if I really have to say this, is absolutely fucking horrible and is on par with a particularly vicious school bully trying to slander his victim to the rest of the school).
It may be funny, I will admit... but using it as a primary tactic to paint him in a negative light is unacceptable.

 

[Foxi4]

congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything


The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
However, it should NOT entail the pursuer paying for it, because that defeats the purpose and makes it no longer a right, but a privilege locked behind wealth.
Also, it's not based on date of entry AFAIK. The priority is to those that have done things (iirc either major felony or known active gang membership) that warrant being considered as legitimately dangerous.

I disagree with your definition of a pursuit. A pursuit is a process - you designate a goal X and, in order to achieve it, you put Z into it - this usually means an investment of time, effort and money. This is applicable to any pursuit, including a pursuit of happiness. What you're describing is the nonsensical "positive rights" definition - rights are negative. For instance, your right to free speech doesn't mean that the government will put you in a position wherein you can effectively exercise it, like a news anchor spot - that right means it won't get in your way of exercising it. Your right to bear arms doesn't mean that you'll get a free gun, it means that you will not be prohibited from owning one. Your pursuit of happiness is not something the government is supposed to enable, it's something it's not allowed to impede. Moreover, any life pursuit does not come with a guarantee of success, otherwise it wouldn't be a pursuit, or even a right - it would be an entitlement.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything


The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
However, it should NOT entail the pursuer paying for it, because that defeats the purpose and makes it no longer a right, but a privilege locked behind wealth.
Also, it's not based on date of entry AFAIK. The priority is to those that have done things (iirc either major felony or known active gang membership) that warrant being considered as legitimately dangerous.

Have you any proof everything in that image is misrepresented? Proof?

 

[Plasmaster09]

I disagree with your definition of a pursuit. A pursuit is a process - you designate a goal X and, in order to achieve it, you put Z into it - this usually means an investment of time, effort and money. This is applicable to any pursuit, including a pursuit of happiness. What you're describing is the nonsensical "positive rights" definition - rights are negative. For instance, your right to free speech doesn't mean that the government will put you in a position wherein you can effectively exercise it, like a news anchor spot - that right means it won't get in your way of exercising it. Your right to bear arms doesn't mean that you'll get a free gun, it means that you will not be prohibited from owning one. Your pursuit of happiness is not something the government is supposed to enable, it's something it's not allowed to impede. Moreover, any life pursuit does not come with a guarantee of success, otherwise it wouldn't be a pursuit, or even a right - it would be an entitlement.

Technically speaking, due to government funding cuts to education at various levels being the primary cause of the batshit insane fees causing this entire problem (by forcing schools to dig deeper and deeper into students' wallets), the government is by proxy impeding people's access to college education. This is basically the only case where by not directly enabling it, the government IS impeding it. "Not part of the solution -> part of the problem" applies to education funding.

Have you any proof everything in that image is misrepresented? Proof?

Have you any proof for the claims made in said image?
You posted it, you prove it.

 

[Foxi4]

Technically speaking, due to government funding cuts to education at various levels being the primary cause of the batshit insane fees causing this entire problem (by forcing schools to dig deeper and deeper into students' wallets), the government is by proxy impeding people's access to college education. This is basically the only case where by not directly enabling it, the government IS impeding it. "Not part of the solution -> part of the problem" applies to education funding.

I would argue that by funding private education institutions the government created the problem in the first place - student loans with a cap that's sky high means a school can also charge sky high since everybody is spending virtual money, until it's not virtual a few years down the line. The value proposition here went out of whack and the former students were left holding the bag. The way government-backed student loans work in the UK is that if after graduating you are unable to find a job that gives you X income in return, the school has failed in its obligation to provide you marketable education, which is a failure to render service, and the debt is forfeit (to be more specific, your post-graduate student loan is subject to a write-off if you have failed to find employment that generates an income of £27,295 within 30 years of graduating, Plan 1 loans are written off after 25 years). It's not the best solution, but it's better than wholesale debt forgiveness. Schools must be incentivised to provide education that sells, otherwise they will teach nonsense to maximise profit and minimise expenses, like every business does. That's not cruel, that's sensible. Alternatively, pending government review, some majors should be government-backed while others should not. This changes all the time due to market forces deciding demand, so it would be up to the department of education to decide. It's a complicated subject with no one primary cause of chaos, saying that "lack of funding" is the root cause is too broad.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I would argue that by funding private education institutions the government created the problem in the first place - student loans with a cap that's sky high means a school can also charge sky high since everybody is spending virtual money, until it's not virtual a few years down the line. The value proposition here went out of whack and the former students were left holding the bag. The way government-backed student loans work in the UK is that, if after graduating you are unable to find a job that gives you X income in return, the school has failed in its obligation to provide you marketable education, which is a failure to render service, and the debt is forfeit (to be more specific, your post-graduate student loan is subject to a write-off if you have failed to find employment that generates an income of £27,295 within 30 years of graduating, Plan 1 loans are written off after 25 years). It's not the best solution, but it's better than wholesale debt forgiveness. Schools must be incentivised to provide education that sells, otherwise they will teach nonsense to maximise profit and minimise expenses, like every business does. That's not cruel, that's sensible. Alternatively, pending government review, some majors should be government-backed while others should not. This changes all the time due to market forces deciding demand, so it would be up to the department of education to decide. It's a complicated subject with no one primary cause of chaos, saying that "lack of funding" is the root cause is too broad.

Fair point.
But either way, the overall cause is at some point or points in this sequence of events:
-Gov't shoves so much funding up private schools' asses that the students at the time (iirc Boomers considering the timing, which would explain the general Boomer consensus on student loans being one of ignorance and entitlement) basically didn't have to pay a cent
-Said private schools become reliant on that high level of funding, with the gov't basically being their life support
-Funding cuts result in them either decreasing quality, shrinking or clamping down on students' wallets for as long as possible, and of course they pick the latter
The fault lies both with the government and with the institutions- the former for funding the latter so hard they became reliant and then Lucy's Footballing a ton of it away, and the latter with picking the greediest possible solution (and in effect prioritizing maintaining their prior conditions over, you know, any of their non-filthy-rich students plausibly NOT BEING BURIED IN LIFE DEBT).
And yeah, the UK debt forfeit thing you mentioned seems like a good thing to implement in some fashion and proportion (though IDK from the wording if you mean "if you find a job that pays X per year by then" or "if you manage to make X total income by then", because the latter seems like a pretty damn low number to reach). Though, adjusting for 'Murica's batshit economy aside, I must say: 30 years is an awful long time to be drowning in student loan debt. Let's (low-quality-approximately) say that John Smith graduates at age 20. By the time he escapes from the pits of debt, he's 50. He's already past the average median age almost everywhere, and is probably going to have an awfully difficult time picking up a successful and well-paying job now if he couldn't before.
I'd say that if a similar system were to be implemented here, I'd lower that quite a bit.

 

[Foxi4]

Fair point.
But either way, the overall cause is at some point or points in this sequence of events:
-Gov't shoves so much funding up private schools' asses that the students at the time (iirc Boomers considering the timing, which would explain the general Boomer consensus on student loans being one of ignorance and entitlement) basically didn't have to pay a cent
-Said private schools become reliant on that high level of funding, with the gov't basically being their life support
-Funding cuts result in them either decreasing quality, shrinking or clamping down on students' wallets for as long as possible, and of course they pick the latter
The fault lies both with the government and with the institutions- the former for funding the latter so hard they became reliant and then Lucy's Footballing a ton of it away, and the latter with picking the greediest possible solution (and in effect prioritizing maintaining their prior conditions over, you know, any of their non-filthy-rich students plausibly NOT BEING BURIED IN LIFE DEBT).
And yeah, the UK debt forfeit thing you mentioned seems like a good thing to implement in some fashion and proportion (though IDK from the wording if you mean "if you find a job that pays X per year by then" or "if you manage to make X total income by then", because the latter seems like a pretty damn low number to reach). Though, adjusting for 'Murica's batshit economy aside, I must say: 30 years is an awful long time to be drowning in student loan debt. Let's (low-quality-approximately) say that John Smith graduates at age 20. By the time he escapes from the pits of debt, he's 50. He's already past the average median age almost everywhere, and is probably going to have an awfully difficult time picking up a successful and well-paying job now if he couldn't before.
I'd say that if a similar system were to be implemented here, I'd lower that quite a bit.

We're talking about annual income here. With inflation in mind and over the course of 30 years it is plausible that you could reach this level of income in the absence of a degree, which means it was worthless and the money was wasted. Moreover, if that's your level of income after spending your "best years" in an educational institution, it's fair to say that paying monthly installments on the debt is not feasible for you - at that point you're presumably in your late 40's/early 50's and have to support a family, at least statistically. Even just the income bar alone is good - you don't pay until you earn enough to cover living expenses, that way people with student loans hanging over their heads don't have to worry about them *until* they generate income that enables them to pay. That makes the difference between paying a loan off, just a little bit later down the line, or not paying it off at all. Ideally a financial institution would like to see the debt paid rather than not paid - banks are going to be around for much longer than the student will, so the time frame when they're paid off is of lesser importance.

 

[Plasmaster09]

We're talking about annual income here. With inflation in mind and over the course of 30 years it is plausible that you could reach this level of income in the absence of a degree, which means it was worthless and the money was wasted. Moreover, if that's your level of income after spending your "best years" in an educational institution, it's fair to say that paying monthly installments on the debt is not feasible for you - at thst point you're presumably in your late 40's/early 50's and have to support a family, at least statistically. Even just the income bar alone is good - you don't pay until you earn enough to cover living expenses, that way people with student loans hanging over their heads don't have to worry about them *untip* they generate income. That makes a difference between paying a loan off, just a little bit later down the line, or not paying it off at all. Ideally a financial institution would like to see the debt paid rather than not paid - banks are going to be around for much longer than the student will, so the time frame when they're paid off is of lesser importance.

So yeah, far too long and far too easy.
The bar should be set high enough that it's statistically not feasible for someone to achieve the level of income required to keep the student loan debt legitimate without any degree.
System's good in terms of the idea, basically useless in terms of the numbers.
insert "rookie numbers" meme joke thing here but 100% serious

 

[Foxi4]

So yeah, far too long and far too easy.
The bar should be set high enough that it's statistically not feasible for someone to achieve the level of income required to keep the student loan debt legitimate without any degree.
System's good in terms of the idea, basically useless in terms of the numbers.
insert "rookie numbers" meme joke thing here but 100% serious

I don't agree. If you're making approximately 30K a year, which is double the full-time national minimum wage in the country, it is perfectly feasible for you to dedicate a hundred or two on paying off a debt per month. If you're not making that and you've made an earnest effort in finding well-paid employment, the service you received was inadequate - you were sold a degree that you can't monetise, so the university sold you a lemon and the money they charged you was charged in bad faith. You don't have to pay anything at all until you reach the payment threshold, so the debt is not holding you back and it may as well not exist at all.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I don't agree. If you're making approximately 30K a year, which is double the full-time national minimum wage in the country, it is perfectly feasible for you to dedicate a hundred or two on paying off a debt per month. If you're not making that and you've made an earnest effort in finding well-paid employment, the service you received was inadequate - you were sold a degree that you can't monetise, so the university sold you a lemon and the money they charged you was charged in bad faith. You don't have to pay anything at all until you reach the payment threshold, so the debt is not holding you back and it may as well not exist at all.

I mean...
if you're given THIRTY YEARS, and the best paying job you can find is low enough that you could have plausibly gotten something as good as it WITHOUT college and thus student loans...
Isn't that also a sign that the education was inadequate? Shouldn't that also make the debt forfeit, since the 'service' did jack all?

 

[Foxi4]

I mean...
if you're given THIRTY YEARS, and the best paying job you can find is low enough that you could have plausibly gotten something as good as it WITHOUT college and thus student loans...
Isn't that also a sign that the education was inadequate? Shouldn't that also make the debt forfeit, since the 'service' did jack all?

No matter what level you set, there will always be a point on the axis where you cross between plausible and implausible. In a vacuum you could theoretically start a business with no degree at all and make income far in excess of that number. On the flip side, you could also get a degree and make significantly less. We're interested in the latter situation, and *double* of what the government considers to be the bare minimum seems appropriate to me. £30K is no chump change - that's $42K and puts you in the middle class earnings range. It's certainly a lot of money for someone who, presumably, needed assistance in getting a degree in the first place.