|
Tayter Swift posted:2009, when students were graduating into an absolutely dead economy with little hope for employment is as good a year as any imo. honestly it was quite a bit earlier, private schools were regularly saddling kids with 200k of debt as far back as ~2000 (and to some extent maybe earlier), the student debt crisis really hit full steam once state schools started costing substantially more every year, which was mid-2000s. It also was probably late 2000s (idk if it was caused by or just compounded by the financial crisis) that college graduate's earnings started to recede significantly relative to debt load. It's kinda crazy to realize just how cheap state universities used to be, people were absolutely paying for it with part time work and working full time over the summer Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Dec 14, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
^^^ 2005's bk bill was when student-loan debt became non-dischargeable through bankruptcy; that was definitely a turning point.The Sean posted:^^^ IK said the discussion was over. I welcome you to come at me in PMs. I'm not responding here. No, the IK said your aggro posting is over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
The financial crisis brought it to a head because so many people were graduating with huge debt and into an economy without the jobs all the authorities had promised them would be there to pay that debt off. Obviously that had happened to individuals before who just got bad luck whatever. E: ah yeah the financial industry was also seeing this coming since they had the foresight to make the debt practically impossible to discharge. Although they were lobbying to do that with pretty much every kind of debt besides corporate debt, see the infamous video of Senator Biden sneering at Professor Elizabeth Warren for defending 'deadbeat' families drowning in credit card debt in the hearing he couldn't wait to get through so he could tighten the screws on the poor. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
https://mynorthwest.com/3280246/sawant-recall-turnout-nearly-on-par-november-general-election/ It's official, Kshama Sawant defeats the right wing recall by roughly 250 votes in a December special election (the third ballot in four months, to boot) that saw a 55% turnout. That's just 1200 votes short of the 2020 general election turnout. We really like our voting here. Sawant's campaign had a crazy strong ground game and I couldn't go to the weed store, grocery store, or just a walk around the neighborhood without running into 3, 4, sometimes 5 separate volunteer teams driving voter awareness, getting people registered and generally just GOTV. The ground game here made all the difference
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
I cannot loving wait for a republican to advocate for child tax credits because they are so successful. And swoop potential democrat voters due to manchins coup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We should not have to internalize or tolerate a misleading framing of something that's been known for months as if it were new. I's being done intentionally by forbes, and it's being defended intentionally by posters. Neither should be conflated with a meaningful interest in discussing the subject matter. We shouldn’t and you’re right... but it also doesn’t matter. The Dems need to realize they are up against people who are shooting for revolution and thinking in revolutionary terms informed by that context. They have needed to be acting and swiftly and they aren’t. When the right things do happen they will be too late. And you’re being baited, into this: “Neither should be conflated with a meaningful interest in discussing the subject matter.” When you dismiss people reposting the problematic information in this way, you also unintentionally creating a perception that you are dismissing their real fears/concerns and the real problems they face that the article is appealing to to exploit. Honestly I’m not sure how to crack this nut of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The financial crisis brought it to a head because so many people were graduating with huge debt and into an economy without the jobs all the authorities had promised them would be there to pay that debt off. yeah everyone in my year (eg graduating in 2008/9) and people were extremely lucky to find even minimum wage work at the time. People were dropping off hundreds of resumes to retail jobs without getting calls back. People who were hiring that I talked to at the time said that they were regularly getting hundreds of resumes for literally every single job they posted imo there should just fundamentally be a limit to how much debt you're allowed to pile up on someone under 25 (or even peg it to assets) cuz someone who is 23 with zero assets, no career, and 400k of non-dischargeable debt is about as ethical as straight up loan sharking
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We should not have to internalize or tolerate a misleading framing of something that's been known for months as if it were new. I's being done intentionally by forbes, and it's being defended intentionally by posters. Neither should be conflated with a meaningful interest in discussing the subject matter. You don't seem like you're very interested in discussing it yourself, since you're completely eliding the content and casting the entire thing as misleading based on whether or not a press conference from two days ago counts as breaking news or not
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The people who wrote the Constitution owned people but you seem to think that they didn't believe that people had a right to own guns. These were the same people who wrote in a provision that allowed the Congress to license people who owned ships and cannon to act as pirates on behalf of the country. These people thought nothing of the wealth raising and equipping their own troops. They were very big on personal rights. I... what? Are you just throwing a bunch of talking points in a bag, shaking it up, and posting whatever comes out? Please respond to my actual point, not the series of invented beliefs you seem to be responding to: If the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect personal rights, why did nobody behave like it did for 200 years? It's a mind-bogglingly simple question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I... what? Are you just throwing a bunch of talking points in a bag, shaking it up, and posting whatever comes out? I reject the premise of your question and you've shown nothing to support your premise. Let me turn it around on you. If the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion, why did nobody behave like it till 1973?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:33
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:We shouldn’t and you’re right... The thread had rules about posting tweets with no context for this exact reason; it opens the thread to abuse, directly and mediated. The solution is simple. Moderation.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Solid argument. How interesting that a, in your opinion, fundamental bedrock of American civics would not be referenced in an opinion of the Supreme Court until 2006. This reinterpretation was started in the 1980s by the NRA, but was considered incredibly fringe well into the 90s. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, even called the notion of individual rights stemming from the 2nd Amendment a "fraud on the American public." I gather you're just repeating that Burger quote because it was in the first paragraph of the politico (lol) piece, but the politico writer either didn't run down the quote or is deliberately misrepresenting Burger's comments. Because Burger was absolutely not arguing that the Constitution doesn't protect individual gun ownership. His argument is basically that the gun lobby was trying to assert that the Second Amendment precluded any government regulation of individual firearm ownership at all, and Burger rejects this. He makes a historical argument--in short, that the purpose of individual firearm ownership used to be military and existential and is now primarily recreational and incidental--in which he concludes the Constitution protects individual firearm ownership just as it protects individual, for example, automobile ownership, but he also asserts the State's right to regulate such ownership. Specifically he advocates for background checks, a waiting period, a record of all transfers, and a database of ballistic data to assist in solving crimes involving firearms. Warren Burger in Parade, 1990 posted:Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing — or to own automobiles. To “keep and bear arms” for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; “Saturday night specials” and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles. For the record: gently caress the gun lobby and gently caress Burger. I'm just pointing out that at the very least the Burger quote is being taken wildly out of context, to the point of being actively misleading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I reject the premise of your question and you've shown nothing to support your premise. As a matter of fact I did, you just didn't read it. In my second post, the article by a constitutional scholar posted on Politico. quote:There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” PeterCat posted:Let me turn it around on you. If the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion, why did nobody behave like it till 1973? e: SubG posted:politico (lol) Baronash fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Baronash posted:The writer is a constitutional policy expert at NYU. It's a repost from his organization's website.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
The original interpretation is that you cant just have (a dictator's, because mercenaries are very dodgy about the peaceful transfer of power thing) mercenary bands be the only military around, which was a very real concern for 17th and 18th century nations without a firm history. People owning guns was basically left up to the local government and even then was mostly to keep people from going around robbing and murdering people with concealed pistols or dueling. Of course hauling around a pistol when the country was still full of large apex predators wasn't exactly as unreasonable as the ar15 in downtown Detroit. The dumb arguments of dead people keep the world from being a better place (Constitutional conscientious objection). Again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The thread had rules about posting tweets with no context for this exact reason; it opens the thread to abuse, directly and mediated. The solution is simple. Moderation. That isn’t working. The recent runs of moderation have all been okay imo, but they’ve all caused reaction in the direction of opposition to whichever moderator turn it was in the barrel. It’s playing into the polarization. I know (and I mean this because I’ve read your posting for years) that you are a knowledgeable smart and considered person. Nothing about your posting has changed. But this makes other people not see that. It’s a feed back loop and those are real hard to stop once they get going. We also aren’t an isolated system the larger cultural discussion pours over into here and I’m not sure that moderation would do unless how to address the polarization in the larger societal discussion gets solved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why restart student loan payments when sentiments are so terrible https://twitter.com/BChappatta/status/1470427816613359619 They really do think that $1400 made a difference to people and don't understand that they needed that monthly in perpetuity. The CTC is partially that, but enacted so poorly that many still aren't enrolled, and it doesn't help people that don't have kids. This is just so frustrating when the answer to so many of these problems comes down to "give poor people money and don't ask any questions beyond how much more do you need?" While taking it from the people that have it. The casus belli is there in the form of low consumer confidence, documented price gouging by various manufacturing and distribution companies, and the number of people leaving the job force forever. Instead we're going to amputate our own foot using the deadly idiotic shotgun that is liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
SubG posted:Which doesn't change the fact that claim that he "called the notion of individual rights stemming from the 2nd Amendment a 'fraud on the American public'" is false. That is unambiguously not what he was calling a fraud, as I explained at length. I was just responding to you laughing at the source. The Burger quote is kind of window dressing to the point, but I appreciate the extra context to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I cannot loving wait for a republican to advocate for child tax credits because they are so successful. And swoop potential democrat voters due to manchins coup. You'll be waiting a long time, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:The dumb arguments of dead people keep the world from being a better place (Constitutional conscientious objection). Again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:There's nothing inherently evil about people who were born during particular years, and it's frustrating that a trope developed to distract from class issues has taken hold as Truth, thanks to the elites who've perpetuated it. Hopefully I can ask this in a way that doesn't turn into a poo poo show, or come across as an attack. I genuinely don't intend to do either. I have an issue with the "nothing but class matters" approach. Race, sex, LGBT issues are incredibly intertwined with how this country and our culture operates. How can you make a purely class based argument to people who are affected by those things? Full disclosure: I'm trans, and have seen a huge amount of progress in trans rights in my lifetime. I have also seen backlashes against that on the left calling it identity politics, and a distraction from class struggle. I have trouble seeing how the "class issues first" does anything but say that the progress I've seen doesn't matter, or was a mistake to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:It sounds like Forbes had caused no end of problems to you and this thread. I hope you win what you’re fighting for. Do you have complaints about what the Biden administration is or isn’t doing or are you only offended by the timing of the post not matching the definition of “breaking?” I think his only complaint is with being a backseat mod instead of being an actual mod. :awaits Greyjoy's punishment:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Hopefully I can ask this in a way that doesn't turn into a poo poo show, or come across as an attack. I genuinely don't intend to do either. I'm not saying "nothing but class matters" nor making any "purely class-based arguments"; I'm calling attention to the legit reasons that generational warfare is substituted for class warfare, which reasons almost always benefit capital. Does bestowing trans people the human rights they deserve threaten capital in any way? Not that I know of (but I'm open to educating myself if you can point out how). Does fomenting generational warfare serve capital? Most definitely, especially when capital wants to eradicate or means-test benefits programs for elders, like social security & medicare, or when we go from a norm of rock-solid pensions to 401(k)s that are at the whim of markets & accrue fees paid to finance. Having gone on medicare myself in the past couple years, I can see how it's been diced & sliced and the costs offloaded to olds through privatization over the past few decades, a process accelerated under elected Republicans & then perpetuated by elected Democrats. As a socialist, I want to see student loans eradicated & free college as the norm. I want to see medical debt eradicated & single payer as the norm. I want to see richies taxed for social security & medicare according to the same percentages as those making $15k/year. And I want to see all Americans given the social & financial protections that are now only given to the wealthy. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Does bestowing trans people the human rights they deserve threaten capital in any way? Not that I know of (but I'm open to educating myself if you can point out how). A focus on "identity politics" is a criticism laid at the feet of the Democratic party when they lose elections. The famous "hire more female guards" joke line is somewhat along those lines: liberals are focusing on idpol over the issues that really matter. I'm worried that in a rush to appeal to the folks with the red hats who think I'm less than human, I'll end up seeing the progress I've observed rapidly reverse. Willa Rogers posted:Does fomenting generational warfare serve capital? Most definitely, especially when capital wants to eradicate or means-test benefits programs for elders, like social security & medicare, or when we go from a norm of rock-solid pensions to 401(k)s that are at the whim of markets & accrue fees paid to finance. The party pushing these things the hardest is not the one that gets the majority of the criticism in this thread. That's why the "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans" gets such a rise out of me. If I look at progress for people like me the difference is stark. Willa Rogers posted:As a socialist, I want to see student loans eradicated & free college as the norm. I want to see medical debt eradicated & single payer as the norm. I want to see richies taxed for social security & medicare according to the same percentages as those making $15k/year. And I want to see all Americans with the social & financial protections that are now only given to the wealthy. All those things are reasonable, and I'm for them. My concern is getting left behind to make it happen. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Baronash posted:As a matter of fact I did, you just didn't read it. In my second post, the article by a constitutional scholar posted on Politico. Because the whole reason we're having this discussion is Gavin newsom pulling some shenanigans equating gun control with the Texas apportion law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:A focus on "identity politics" is a criticism laid at the feet of the Democratic party when they lose elections. I don't think that's actually what that punchline is aiming at, though. The whole point of the "more women prison guards!!!" tweet is that hiring more women prison guards wouldn't really do anything concrete for women as a group, or prisoners. Its only purpose would be paying lip service to equality and the most surface-level understandings of feminism. And it's not hard to see real-world examples of the Democratic establishment playing into this pattern; the party leadership's response to the killing of George Floyd was to wear kente cloth, take a knee in a cringeworthy photo-op, and then raise every law enforcement budget they could get their hands on. The criticism of the Democrats isn't so much that they focus on identity politics, as it is that they cynically weaponize idpol to shout down demands for economic justice, without actually doing very much of substance for idpol issues anyway. It reminds me of when Republicans claim that they want to get government out of the voters' private life - anyone with more than a couple brain cells to rub together can see how blatant of a lie that is. The same is true of the Democratic assurances that Woke/Rainbow Capitalism will solve really any of the ills that marginalized groups face. quote:All those things are reasonable, and I'm for them. My concern is getting left behind to make it happen. I understand this, especially in light of how obnoxiously loud a lot of the more "post-left" anti-woke types can be online. The good news is, those dinguses really don't have much of a constituency among the revolutionary left. While Communist and other rev left groups always need to do a better job of centering and amplifying non-cishet, non-white, non-male voices, there is a growing awareness that an anti-capitalist revolution isn't going to succeed without those voices. The working class today is not majority-white cishet males as it was in decades past. It's majority non-white, non-cishet, and/or non-male. So it's not going to be a red-brown alliance that breaks neoliberal's hegemonic stranglehold, largely because the "brown" part of that equation has no interest in actually upending capitalism. The only way there is going to be enough of a critical mass to pose an actual challenge to capital will be with a true rainbow coalition of working-class people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
Pretty sure the establishment party line has already reversed on this, that sensible moderate Democrats keep losing elections because of those leftists not shutting up about their crazy social issues and scaring the red hats with their dyed hair and pronouns and critical race theory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
eh dems consist of several significantly different factions so anything speaking about them monolithically is intrinsically going to miss the mark that's the line among probably the blue dogs, but they're not an especially significant faction beyond their current ability to sabotage progress also idk if any significant part of the democratic party particularly gives a poo poo about leftists or even considers them significant enough to blame for anything. Like the dsa is still under 100,000 members, that's utterly tiny and people far to the left of the dsa don't even register as potential voters from any establishment perspective. insofar as the left (capital L left, to be clear) is present in the minds of the various factions of the democratic establishment a lot of it is surprisingly positive, given that the most left dems generally fundraise extremely well, have good physical and digital operations, and they seem more willing to play ball than the blue dogs/center-right factions. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:
I am also trans class war is perhaps not the only war but it is the most important war and the war that need be won. At the end of the day capital is willing to accept minorities as long as they don't upset the apple cart. And as long as people can lose a tremendous amount capital will find endless ways to divide minorities. IE Blair White's definition of who is allowed to be trans is coincidentally at her exact level of ability to pass and fit into a gender binary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I am also trans class war is perhaps not the only war but it is the most important war and the war that need be won. I have no idea who Blair White is, but LGBT folks being *just* accepting enough for their own level of queerness is not a new thing. I have a hard time seeing how that has anything to do with capital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 07:26
|
|
|
Capital is also happy to platform and radicalise the far right for clicks because they make good obsessive consumers and allow minorities to be exterminated after making money off the advertising campaign for it. And you say that like the 'left' being a tiny minority has ever stopped anyone from using them as a scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I have no idea who Blair White is, but LGBT folks being *just* accepting enough for their own level of queerness is not a new thing. I have a hard time seeing how that has anything to do with capital. Capital being okay with rich trans people is an inevitability. Capital will not ever be okay with poor trans people since government services and universal care cut the bottom line. So they happily chuck money at "acceptable" trans people that are willing to say fygm. The line of how to be trans and accepted will always be fuzzy and be subject to reactionaries yanking away rights as long as this dichotomy exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 07:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even if you accept the premise that every member of a certain age group will react the exact same way collectively to a certain situation, then the idea of a generational reckoning or collective lesson being learned still falls apart when you consider that 99% of boomers are not going to die from covid, that more than 4 out of 5 Millennials and Zoomers have 0 student loan debt - let alone crippling generational debt slavery - and that 99.9% of American boomers and millennials are not going to die from the direct result of climate change. 1 in 100 Americana aged 65 or older have already died from rona lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:1 in 100 Americana aged 65 or older have already died from rona lol Yeah, and there are boomers in their 50s. Like 57? is the cutoff. The vast majority of boomers aren't going to die of corona or corona related illnesses. The oldest and most compromised will, but nobody gives a gently caress about them. Not even other boomers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:09
|
|
|
Boomers don't care about each other, let alone anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Capital being okay with rich trans people is an inevitability. Citation, or at least a lot of definition, needed. I don't think anyone (rich people or poor people) being okay with any trans people is an inevitably. The level of acceptance/tolerance/whatever you want to call it has been fought for, and all the political gains I'm aware of have been due to Democratic politicians. Hell, Hillary Clinton of all people made getting correct gender markers on a passport *way* easier. Sedisp posted:Capital will not ever be okay with poor trans people since government services and universal care cut the bottom line. So they happily chuck money at "acceptable" trans people that are willing to say fygm. The line of how to be trans and accepted will always be fuzzy and be subject to reactionaries yanking away rights as long as this dichotomy exists. I have a hard time seeing how socialism as I understand it, or communism would solve this problem. I guess what it boils down to is that I think the social or cultural progress, in addition to economic progress, matters to me. I think the discourse here can be very dismissive of that. Ghost Leviathan posted:Boomers don't care about each other, let alone anyone else. I think people are just trolling Willia at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I have a hard time seeing how socialism as I understand it, or communism would solve this problem. Uh Free loving healthcare and free access to gender affirming resources??? Dismantling of the reactionary forces that target trans people for violence??
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Uh It has to be paired with a society that thinks that's of value, regardless of economic system, is my point. Communism = Free gender affirming resources reflects an ignorance of history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It has to be paired with a society that thinks that's of value, regardless of economic system, is my point. quote:After the Revolution, the position regarding homosexuality continued to be negative, and some LGBT people chose to emigrate, since homosexuality was linked to US imperialism. However, the law that criminalized homosexuality was repealed in 1979. It was illegal to be gay in Cuba until 1979? That's despicable, we must have beaten them by hmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas quote:Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It has to be paired with a society that thinks that's of value, regardless of economic system, is my point. Are you loving insane do you have any idea how loving huge free gender affirming surgery/hrt/etc would be for trans people? I would be beyond loving ecstatic if I could never worry about having to do a GoFundMe to overcome dysphoria also that's not what communism means e: like I am genuinely baffled that you just waived off free healthcare as no big deal. How many trans/enby/gender fluid people do you know that don't struggle to afford things they need for their transition? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:35
|
|