Random Politics & Religion #00

lol, being " anti deportation" is not the same as believing we should have an open border, not even close. Keep repeating your lies tho.

When you actually articulate a point and want to make a stand for something, I'd be more than happy to debate about it. Until then have fun trolling.

I'm gonna repeat this one more time cuz I think you keep missing it: Bernie's plan for "free" college just removes the tuition costs (but not other fees like food, room and board, etc) from public colleges (state and community colleges).

This is roughly 66% off of the total cost for going to an out-of-state college for a 4 year degree, or more like 50% off for in-state college for the same degree. This also doesn't apply at all to private colleges (which are easily the most expensive).

That is the definition "free college".

So you still have to pay, for (lack of a better term) Being Alive! smh..

So "discount college" just doesn't have the same appeal.

Nope. You got that backwards, sorry.

I just flat out don't like the word "free" when it comes to stuff like this. If it's coming out of my paycheck in the form of taxes, then I'm paying for it. There's nothing "free" about it. We can argue all day about whether or not it's a good thing, but call a spade a spade. Socialized tuition, socialized healthcare, etc.

Let me list off some of the other fees that a state college would charge that are not tuition or living expenses:

- General fee
- Health services fee
- Technology fee
- Lab fees
- Student Government fees
- Acceptance fee

And who knows what else depending on the college. This is also disregarding course materials like books. Room and board and food are different since you can just commute instead, but they're still something financial aid can cover.

By "missing it", I implied that this thread gets spammy and you may have straight up not noticed my posts. You really oughta stop adding in the unprovoked insults, it's pretty much the main problem with this part of the forum.

I'll grant you that. I'm of the mind that we are ultimately investing in something. With lower taxes, we're investing more in business, and with higher taxes, it's more in stuff like education. Of course both of these depend on what either we or the government is actually doing with that money.

If someone in the middle class has fewer taxes, what are they spending on? Ideally, this money would be spent on something practical, like an investment, an education, or a useful product that they can improve their quality of life (technically all of these are "investments"). In this regard, the argument for Bernie's plans is that the slight increases to taxes you'd be paying are offset by savings to your other costs, like health care. Of course, that is going to vary by person, but if done properly it should be a net gain. I guess it relies on your faith in the government to implement it properly.

What is your thought on higher taxes for wealthier brackets? Does that bother you as well? I think there's more than enough evidence that trickle-down effect doesn't work, or at least certainly not if there's no major innovations and pioneering being done in the business world. With Bernie's plan, their investments would go towards education via taxes. So I see it a matter of which you think is a better investment: businesses or education?

Things that should be looked at instead of a blanket "lets make it free" approach.


This I could understand. If it wasn't for this.
Considering "missing it" sounds provoking and that is all everyone does around here, you can see the problem. Also, I have not insulted you unless you have insulted me.

Show us something Government has not royally screwed up on and I'll show you 20 things they have.

It is their money that they earned, none of anyone's business.

Looked at how? Also bear in mind that these fees are to cover the costs of operation. The plan is hardly a blanket approach when it quite clearly establishes certain criteria.

Either way we should both drop it and move on.

Pretty subjective, what efforts by the government do you consider successes then?

Honestly, I think on a fundamental level, an income tax is dumb, and it would be more logical to shift that tax burden onto other things, like sales on items with negative externalities.

Is this the antivax equivalent of screaming "MURDER!!" when we talk about abortion? lol

I liked how on the previous page the post was like, I don't have a proper argument so I'll just throw in a bunch of stuff that people might or might not have said!

I intentionally take the opposite position on some things, deliberately to obfuscate my actual politics. I don't want either side thinking they have the mods/administration "on their side".

So, yeah. More reports. Guys/gals come on now. You are making my push for getting P&R permanently removed so easy. I mean at least try to make it so there might be a glimmer of hope for this place.

So in news that no one cares abuot Carson gives his delegates to Trump. I mean, they're only 8.

These guys getting behind Trump are killing their political career most likely. First Jesus Christie, now Carson.

Also anyone knows what came out of the conclave summoned by J Bush? I read he called Kasich, Rubio and Cruz for a secret meeting.

I bet you support Vermin Supreme, like us normal people do.

I'm still not entirely clear on how someone is against vaccination (or, at least, supportive of people's "right" to not vaccinate), for the death penalty, and so staunchly against abortion that they think women should be clinically raped with a probe to try to guilt them out of doing what they want with their own bodies.

Oh, and to carry rape children which were...oh, hey, literally force-injected into their bodies.

Meanwhile on the left putting a rapist-murderer to death is somehow a terrible thing even though they're all about using those heinous crimes as a validations for arguments for things they do want to see done.

Consistency from either side of the political spectrum?

Nope.

And don't get me started how both sides claim to value Constitutional rights while trying to nitpick what they actually want to defend and not.

Left? Gotta control guns! (Because *** you, second Amendment.)

Right? Burn in hell, sinner! This is a Christian nation! (Bend over, Establishment Clause.)

I continue to identify more liberally than conservative, but Republican and Democrat?

Ugh. *** off.

Edit: Also, not to backtrack too far, but Nausi, it doesn't surprise me that you can't understand how the pledge is a form of both nationalistic and, ever since they wedged "under God" into it, religious indoctrination.

Clearly he's voting Elder Party.

What is your solution then?

Probably has something to do with general education level, but to be fair I can only draw the correlation.

Just let what happens happen. Facilitate the rise of the lizard men.

Or cat men.

Whatever.

I'll be over here smoking my cigar watching the world burn.

Somewhat paradoxically, it's really more of an instance where one of Nausi's own theories about liberals is playing out but he's too busy worrying about other aspects of the argument to even realize it and gloat.

It's liberalism in the literal sense, not the political. We've engendered such a hunger for freedom -- and mistrust of the establishment -- that some people think that vaccines are a problem because they're part of the establishment.

It's one of the few rare example of the societal downsides of letting people be themselves to too great an extent; when it starts to endanger others.

Also, Nausi, many jobs public and private require flu shots, including many of those that require you to be in proximity to children, the elderly, and others that are immunocompromised.

3 of my past 4 jobs have required the flu shot, current one also required TB.

healthcare, yo.

The bolded is the part that drives my political views on taxation more than anything else. If I could depend on the government to implement things properly, I'd be wearing a Bernie Sanders hat, t-shirt, and campaign button every day.

As it stands, I have to look at taxation vs. reward on a scale because it's not a 1:1 ratio. If you take X billion dollars away from businesses through taxes to support education, you're not getting X billion dollars in education benefits.

People look at socialism like Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. That would only be true if Robin Hood had a committee paid and appointed to figure out how to distribute the funds. That committee also has overhead costs for operations as well as HR, accounting, and legal departments. Don't forget the sweet job benefits! It's also going to need several months to develop the multi-page forms for the peasants to fill out. If they're lucky, they'll get a modest fraction of what's left.

Clearly we can't function as a society without taxes, as going without them would be hugely disruptive. But how much am I willing to dent an important aspect of our economy to marginally benefit (if we're lucky) another one? Not much.

I can also attest that if you work in the service industry you should not only get a flu shot that is highly probable to be beneficial, you should also consider vitamins, necromancy, and any other even maybe useful tool for warding off illness.

You never really realize how much working in proximity to people makes you sick until you stop.

Back when I was in school, then working retail, I would get colds 3-4 times a year, minimum. That's just how it was throughout high school, college, and my early working years.

Now that I work in an office and don't encounter the general public I've had one serious cold/flu in three years and a couple of brief bouts with a scratchy throat.

Flu shots and not being around people ftw.

With our current government, the general public can't even get 40% of "benefits" vs. what is taxed

Now, if we got rid of the interest payments on the notes we have outstanding alone, the general benefit to the public would go up to an outstanding 53.554%.

Also, I'm asking a serious question about solutions to the "anti-vax" problem. Anyone with reasonable ideas, besides the obvious 2?

Nah, it's all about libs feeling superior to everyone else.

"OMG didn't you know that you're injecting your kids with poison? I DID (I'm better than you etc)."

The same self righteous attitude is reflected in the forced vaccination crowd.

"I know better than you so I get to tell you what to do!"

I can't link it right this second but I saw recently that a study funded entirely by an anti-vax group and intended specifically to find a link between autism and vaccines concluded its report and ended up saying they've research the ***out of it and simply can't find any link between the two.

At this point it's just a matter of people wanting to believe something regardless of facts and we all know how that argument plays out.

What can you do short of turning it into a mandated thing? =\