Raider5678

Aren't those usually of "registered/likely" voters?

What if they have kids? What if they can't put food on the table now because they don't have a job, and you want them to go take tests in order to be worthy to get money? Yet, they can't study for said tests because they have kids? And they were able to have a job before, because their kids were in school, but can't study now, because their kids aren't? Also, $30-$50 a day? That's less then minimum wage.

Welcome to the forum!

If I'm not wrong, this only applies to the reporting and monitoring obligations, correct? I.E, A company doesn't have to hire an independent assessment contractor to evaluate their processes every 90 some days, and report to the EPA that everything is good, due to a lot of these companies temporarily suspending operations. Which makes it hard to abide by said rules. Additionally, when things return to normal, they need to prove that the virus caused aforementioned environmental breaches if there are any. Which seems like it'd be hard to do.

I didn't think so. I thought Influenza was the name of the virus that causes the flu.

Yeah, tell me about it. My brother got back from Egypt and everyone was freaking out he had the corona since he started getting sick. Turns out it was just Influenza.

Agreed we're off topic, and I agree with the point you made here. I didn't say whether I agreed with our military, I commented on what seemed like a misunderstanding as to the power of the American Military. Anyways, back on topic, it appears that Biden is likely to win South Carolina. If that happens, then at least 3 individual candidates won a primary state. During super Tuesday, it's predicted that both Mike and Amy are likely to pick up a state as well, putting that number at 5 individual candidates.

Protect you from whom? The American military isn't about defense. It's mostly about deterrence. A lot of nations know that the USA is unlikely to just randomly unleash nuclear weapons.(Even Trump didn't, despite listening to hours and hours of doom and gloom predictions from my more liberal friends, who at this point likely owe me millions of dollars from saying "I'd bet a thousand dollars....."). They're less sure of the idea of us Americans showing up with a hundred million pounds of explosives and rendering their military a smoking pile of garbage in a matter of weeks. And we have to keep upgrading our planes because with the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea selling terrorists and other nations high tech anti aircraft technology. We need to constantly get better to maintain that appearance of being "untouchable". (Also, how would Lockheed Martin stay in business without hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars🙄)

And an alleged rapist apparently. https://www.inquirer.com/news/kobe-bryant-death-basketball-helicopter-alleged-rape-20200130.html

I can agree that many Trump supporters hold double standards.

This is a ridiculous accusation to level at JC. JC Macswell pointed out that Democrats and Republicans are lobbing insults at each other during the impeachment trial. The Senators are doing it via twitter and news conferences, the house managers and the white house lawyers are doing it during the impeachment trial. You however, in the same breath, dismiss what Democrat's are saying as not insults and prejudice, but take what the Republicans are saying as insults and prejudice. However upon examining what's being said by both sides, I find that JC Macswell is correct. Both sides are lobbing insults at each other. In fact, even Judge Roberts the Chief Justice admonished both sides and told them to remember exactly they're speaking to. According to you, pointing out that both sides are doing it, is holding one side to a different standard than the other. However, claiming that one side is doing it, while flat out dismissing what the other side is doing, is the fair and correct way to do that. Yet you have yet to prove how JC is applying a different standard to Republicans than he is to Democrats. Let's take the example of what Adam Schiff actually said, versus how you perceived it. Real words: "Now I don't know if that's true. But we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch." How you took it: "I’m unsure that’s true, but speaks to the broader theme here of Trump seeing himself like a monarch. " It is a bigger stretch to say that Adam meant what you're claiming he meant, then it is to look at it and say Adam was saying Trump would make himself a monarch. Clearly, the biased approach here is yours. We cannot prove that Trump would make himself a monarch. Period. Yet Adam says it as a certainty. That is prejudice, a preconceived opinion that is not actually based on evidence. That means that what JC said is not holding people to a different standard, but rather the same standard he is using to say the Republicans are doing the same thing. It's easy to look at both sides and realize that they're clearly insulting each other. Yet you're making an outlandish claim that only the Republicans are doing it, and that any suggestion that Democrats are doing it is just holding them to a totally different standard. The irony is that statement is insane.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems like you're saying that tuition would not go up since enrollment is declining. Is this correct? I explained why I think tuition would go up as well. " the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. " In capitalism, there is supply and demand. Demand for higher priced degrees would increase, because more people are willing to take loans out of that amount. Then, in concurrence with that increased demand, prices would rise. This cause and effect is a well proven concept. Increased demand, with no increase in supply, results in higher prices. Demand will increase far faster than supply will increase. This will result in higher prices. If you're arguing whether or demand would increase or not, that's something I think we could discuss. If you're arguing whether or not demand actually increases prices when supply doesn't grow, you need to provide mathematics to prove that it doesn't. (I'm presuming the burden of proof is on you here, because it's a well established rule of economics: https://www3.nd.edu/~cwilber/econ504/504book/outln3b.html)

Hey, I've met that guy! I'd agree to statement one. For statement 2, it can mean other things. If you don't want a fair trial, it could be because you know the person is not guilty. (To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind.)

Touche...... +1

No, but I will argue to kill the idea because I believe it'll cause more harm then good.

I'm assuming you have a point here, but I don't see it. Why does this make debt forgiveness a good idea? BTW, only about 4% of the savings for the loan forgiveness plan would actually help the bottom 20% who need it the most. 96% of the loan repayment would go to people who are having no issues paying their loans at the moment.[1] (This next statement is sarcasm about the general state of politics, and is not aimed at you iNow.(unless you were aware of these statistics already)) But don't let statistics and math get in the way of a good election promise. Additionally, let's not forget what happens if, as all too often happens in politics, Warren only delivers on half of her promise. That half being debt forgiveness. College tuition would sky rocket, because the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. And now we're all worse off, except those that got their debt forgiven. A one time benefit bill. In my mind, equivalent to an unspoken bribe, that wrecks everybody else's future for the selfishness of those currently here.

Earlier, you said you didn't care how people who don't get their debt forgiven feel. It doesn't matter to you. Likewise however, I don't feel obligated to pay off the debt that these people signed up for. I do feel obligated however, that if we're paying one group of people's debt, we should repay those who already paid their debt. That is fair. Because believe it or not, to most of us $70,000 is a lot of money.

That "somehow" is because they haven't been paying their student loans for the entire 20 years...... They skipped a portion of it. The topic of fairness regarding debt forgiveness? How does this directly relate to that?

This is a red herring though. Again, neither MigL nor I are against free education. Debt forgiveness does not affect these people.

Point being? We're against the first one.

Minimizing the inequity is expanding college education from K-12 to K-16. That's fair enough. It benefits all future people equally, and equally doesn't benefit people in the past. The medical advancement analogy works here.

Them taking the loan happened at the same time. The analogy was a bit off, let me rephrase it a little. Take #2 Imagine two people. They walk into a hospital(Take student loans) at the same time, with the same condition(Student debt). Person A goes to one reception desk(Pays minimum payment on loan), Person B goes to another reception desk(Pays loan off as fast as they could.). They get their treatment. Except, Person A get's the best treatment they have to offer and is cured(Debt forgiven), while Person B gets some pain medication and has to wait it out(Pays debt them self). Going in, both desks should have been the same. Nothing was inherently wrong with going to either desk. But why does Patient A get cured and Patient B does not? I meant in addition to, rather then separately. My bad. I.E. "Profit skews it like this too."

This analogy is flawed, in a subtle but important way. You're presuming 2 people go to get medical treatment at different times. Sure. If that's the case, then that's fine. Things change. This is 2 people going to the same hospital, at the same time, with the same condition. Except one person get's expert level treatment, the other person get's told to fix it themselves. Why? Because person #1 walked into the hospital and put his left foot through the door first. Person #2 put his right foot through the door first. If a hospital did that, I don't think iNow nor you would argue with "At least some people get expert level treatment, even though not everyone does. Let's not give up the good in the pursuit of the perfect." It's clear why it's unfair. Profit skews it separately. Colleges make you pay per credit. Then they say you need 120 credits. Many of those credits totally unrelated to the major you're looking for. For a "Well rounded education.". I call bull. Well rounded pocket book, obviously. Either way, off topic. Just wanted to mention that. Edit: This post seems to come off a little more aggressive then I thought it would, looking back at it. My apologies.

This needs to be proven. Why is it the right thing to do?

I'm all in for making things a level playing field. But take Bob and John. Both took their loans out at the same time, etc. Bob pays his off, John does not. Government eventually pays Johns debt. 40 years later, the money that John saved from not paying his student debt has been sitting in the stock market. $70,000 initial investment for 10 years after college, he's got a little over $2 million dollars sitting in his retirement fund. Bob? He paid his debt. He doesn't have a retirement fund, because he spent those valuable 10 years after college paying his student loans. But Bob shouldn't feel cheated. He should feel happy for John while he's scratching a living off of social security, while John is traveling the world doing who knows what. (Obviously, this is implying both John and Bob make smart financial decisions with the exception of John paying the minimum on his student loans. Also obviously, this is an extreme example. But I think it helps serve the point I'm trying to make.) Would you feel cheated if we both took a mortgage out, you paid yours off, and then later the government paid off mine since I didn't pay mine off yet?