|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 30, 2019 14:29:39 GMT -5
My 20 yr old daughter has a very specialized major and we all agreed that it was best for her to go to a private school for her education. Her school is $200K for 4 yrs. She's working right now during her break at Great Wolf Lodge. My wife and I are both driving cars with well over 100K miles and I've got to keep cardboard under them in the garage 'cause I don't want the oil staining the cement. My car has rust in several places. We're sacrificing 'cause I don't want her to start off life in debt. I know what you're describing. We're going through it. The difference is I'm not whining about it like you are And there it is again. Insult people (sob stories, whining,) but get outraged when they bite back (OK Boomer.) You don't understand that the situation you're describing is not how it's supposed to be! We're in this together, and what you describe is absurd! I feel for you, and we need to be together to fix it rather than just throw shade at millennials who have no other legitimate way. Right. Searay shouldn't have to tap into his own wealth to keep his kid out of the hole...from which it is difficult/ impossible to escape. That's evidence of a broken system. One that needs to be overhauled in a substantial way.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 30, 2019 14:35:58 GMT -5
First of all poorer families are eligible for a lot more student aide than my kid is. They can also work like my kid is. No question that it helps to have generous families. That's a fact of life. I may very well go into debt for this but I won't make it my daughter's debt. I'll pay it off and not complain So, even if the system has become massively inequitable and unbalanced, people shouldn't complain? If they don't complain, then how will the system ever get fixed??? Just suffer in silence until they system somehow corrects itself??? Dissent is not disloyalty.
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Dec 30, 2019 14:43:47 GMT -5
First of all poorer families are eligible for a lot more student aide than my kid is. They can also work like my kid is. No question that it helps to have generous families. That's a fact of life. I may very well go into debt for this but I won't make it my daughter's debt. I'll pay it off and not complain So, even if the system has become massively inequitable and unbalanced, people shouldn't complain? If they don't complain, then how will the system ever get fixed??? Just suffer in silence until they system somehow corrects itself??? Dissent is not disloyalty. Complain all you want. Just don't whine 'cause it's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by DocDirk on Dec 30, 2019 16:27:27 GMT -5
First of all poorer families are eligible for a lot more student aide than my kid is. They can also work like my kid is. No question that it helps to have generous families. That's a fact of life. I may very well go into debt for this but I won't make it my daughter's debt. I'll pay it off and not complain Destitute families are eligible for a lot of aide and grants. The entire middle class is screwed. Rich families can send their kids without sacrifice. You're pointing directly at a problem, whether you complain or not.
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Dec 30, 2019 16:42:21 GMT -5
First of all poorer families are eligible for a lot more student aide than my kid is. They can also work like my kid is. No question that it helps to have generous families. That's a fact of life. I may very well go into debt for this but I won't make it my daughter's debt. I'll pay it off and not complain Destitute families are eligible for a lot of aide and grants. The entire middle class is screwed. Rich families can send their kids without sacrifice. You're pointing directly at a problem, whether you complain or not. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're screwed. There are advantages to being rich. I have an acquaintance that I grew up with that had all sorts of family money. Basically his family's "job" was to invest their own money. His grandfather was a broker and he was his only client. I pointed out that that kid went to a private school (whereas I went to Tennessee-Knoxville) and when he got out he had no student loans, no credit card debt and bought a brand new car. He had it much easier than me, no question about it. He now has 3 kids of his own. They all go to pricey east coast schools and he told them "your grandparents have been very good to you so you won't have student loans." I think you get the point. Rather than complaining, I'm happy for him and accept that my lot on life is different. I don't take it out on generations or the federal gov't. You'll always have "haves" and "have nots". I sure didn't consider myself screwed.
|
|
|
Post by DocDirk on Dec 30, 2019 17:01:46 GMT -5
Destitute families are eligible for a lot of aide and grants. The entire middle class is screwed. Rich families can send their kids without sacrifice. You're pointing directly at a problem, whether you complain or not. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're screwed. There are advantages to being rich. I have an acquaintance that I grew up with that had all sorts of family money. Basically his family's "job" was to invest their own money. His grandfather was a broker and he was his only client. I pointed out that that kid went to a private school (whereas I went to Tennessee-Knoxville) and when he got out he had no student loans, no credit card debt and bought a brand new car. He had it much easier than me, no question about it. He now has 3 kids of his own. They all go to pricey east coast schools and he told them "your grandparents have been very good to you so you won't have student loans." I think you get the point. Rather than complaining, I'm happy for him and accept that my lot on life is different. I don't take it out on generations or the federal gov't. You'll always have "haves" and "have nots". I sure didn't consider myself screwed. And there should always be advantages to having great jobs, having money, and using it wisely. You won't get an argument from me on that one. That and military service benefits are a couple of the reasons that I don't immediately get on board with outright free college or automatic repayment. But comparing your situation even to your daughter's - if she's gifted in her potential field, I wouldn't want her disqualified before she even had a chance. It benefits our country to have gifted people in good jobs - and college is one very common avenue. So, recapping, some potential improvements include: reducing and/or getting rid of interest attached to student loans, actually having the government be held accountable for the forgiveness programs that are already on the books (they're already cheating people that signed agreements,) trimming the fat as schellis put it and streamlining the process to shorten how long you need to be in college. So you see, it's not whining. It's proposing solutions (and before I hear any keyboard warrior nonsense, I have contacted representatives many times about all of these) and just acknowledging that there is a legitimate discrepancy in the burden.
|
|
|
Post by Millennial on Jan 7, 2020 1:31:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by breakerslim on Jan 18, 2020 10:04:21 GMT -5
parnas the final dagger?
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 18, 2020 10:46:46 GMT -5
At this point, I'm still wondering if the Republican Party has to make a choice: protect Trump from removal or hold onto the Senate? I'm not sure they can do both, but they still seem determined to do the former. Bringing this thread back to the beginning, this current version of the Republican Party isn't compatible with our system of government; something has to give and I'm still hoping that it's the Republican Party.
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Jan 20, 2020 11:58:24 GMT -5
Republicans will have a battle to hold onto the Senate regardless of impeachment. There are no impeachable offenses here so there is nothing to impeachment. The bigger issue is the WH for the next four yrs. That's what the Dems are aiming for and this whole impeachment fiasco has not helped their case
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Jan 20, 2020 12:01:15 GMT -5
As for Republicans and this system of gov't, it's the Republicans who want to preserve it. They want to uphold the 2nd Amendment, uphold the Electoral college and keep this a capitalist country. It's the socialists who want radical change
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 20, 2020 13:08:26 GMT -5
Republicans will have a battle to hold onto the Senate regardless of impeachment. There are no impeachable offenses here so there is nothing to impeachment. The bigger issue is the WH for the next four yrs. That's what the Dems are aiming for and this whole impeachment fiasco has not helped their case This is the most clear-cut case for impeachment and removal in the history of the nation. Open-and-shut. Should be a clear slamdunk.
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Jan 20, 2020 14:54:34 GMT -5
Republicans will have a battle to hold onto the Senate regardless of impeachment. There are no impeachable offenses here so there is nothing to impeachment. The bigger issue is the WH for the next four yrs. That's what the Dems are aiming for and this whole impeachment fiasco has not helped their case This is the most clear-cut case for impeachment and removal in the history of the nation. Open-and-shut. Should be a clear slamdunk. We obviously disagree on that and so do a lot of Americans. What's not debatable is this: This is the most partisan impeachment in history. Democrats are for it; Republicans are against it. That's not how impeachment is supposed to work. If it can't go past partisanship then it should be dead in the water. This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt. Professor Dershowitz frankly states, "There is no such crime of collusion in the context of an election. Collusion may entail other crimes such as election law violations or accessory to other crimes such as hacking. But collusion itself is simply not a crime" There is a treaty between the U.S and the Ukraine signed into law during the Clinton administration (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters). This Treaty provides for a broad range of mutual assistance in criminal matters (corruption) pertaining to each country. The Treaty was signed on July 22, 1998 and ratified by the Senate on October 18, 2000. Responding to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including alleged Ukraine corruption, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2019 authorizes the President to take action to counter foreign influence in the United States. Section 1043 of the Act authorizes the President to combat or “malign foreign influence and campaigns” (50 U.S.C. Section 3012 (h)). The President may exert this power by withholding or delaying funds authorized by Congress to any government reasonably suspected of exerting, directly or indirectly, unlawful foreign influence in the United States. Consequently, the President cannot be charged with an impeachable offense when he exercises his legal and Constitutional authority per Article II, Section 3, (Take Care Clause) to see that the aforementioned Laws and Treaties of the United States are faithfully executed. Notwithstanding the President’s power to withhold authorized funds to the Ukraine for defense purposes, said funds may have been delayed, but were never withheld. The “obstruction of Congress,” claim is based on the Executive Branch challenging the validity of numerous congressional subpoenas issued by the Schiff Committee based on Executive Privilege. A Privilege based in the Constitutional doctrine of "Separation of Powers". Chief Justice John Marshall held in Marbury v. Madison that questions pertaining to an abuse of Executive Privilege and controversies between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are to be decided by the courts. In their haste to issues Articles of Impeachment the House Democrats failed to lawfully challenge the President’s claim of Executive Privilege. Lower court cases have held that government witnesses blocked from responding to subpoenas by the exercise of Executive Privilege may be compelled to respond to lawful subpoenas (i.e show up). However, said court decisions do not compel said witnesses to answer every question. The witness is still entitled to assert one or more constitutional privileges to each and every question asked. Compulsion to appear does not require compulsion to waive Constitutional Privileges afforded by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution, nor to the priest-penitent, doctor-patient or husband-wife privileges against disclosure. Likewise the Senate is not obliged to rectify Democrat evidentiary malfeasance by requiring the Senate to introduce additional evidence or witnesses to substantiate the case offered by the House. The President may call witnesses in support of his defense who then would be subject to cross examination by the House Impeachment managers. If you have relied on the "main stream media", without more in depth analysis to frame your personal conclusion pertaining to the basic question "is there a constitutional evidentiary basis for impeaching President Trump", then you may have taken a wrong turn at the proverbial fork in the road.
|
|
|
Post by breakerslim on Jan 27, 2020 18:38:52 GMT -5
Bolton's got 'em scrambling
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Nov 5, 2020 10:11:43 GMT -5
I hope he doesn't get impeached, I want to see him lose by six million votes next year. After all the votes are finally tallied - from primarily states already called for Biden - like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, etc... it looks like Trump may in fact lose the popular vote by about six million votes. ---According to Nate Silver at 538 who extrapolated out a final vote total, this morning, of ~81.8M for Biden, ~74.9M for Trump, and ~2.9M for 3rd Parties utilizing NYTIMES expected turnout figures.
|
|