***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

Also generally, we can discuss how much socialism to interject into our economy when it comes to things that effect working age adults.

However, America should institute full blown socialism when it comes to children. Everything from the healthcare, education, housing, food, should all be subsidized or given to them as free. No parent should have hospital bill for their child, school lunches should cost zero, kids should ride robust public transportation systems for free, attend well funded schools, breath clean air, drink water free of any heavy metal of pollutants, and give them a nest egg in the form of a baby bond. And we should not even think about what it cost. I am talking from birth all the way into their early 20s.

Subsidizing kids puts them in a higher economic trajectory which means they will cost society less later in life. Basically, the long term benefits of these policies basically make these interventions free.

The American economy is all about choices about who we prioritize. Poor vs rich, white vs non-white, landlords vs renters, firms vs workers, young vs old. While I feel that in most areas we have to rebalance priorities, for the young vs old we don't have to make that choice. Working age adults should pay to give a quality standard of living to the young and old. Expand the social safety for all, but make it real plush for your children. Then they grow up and do the same for the next generation. In that setup, you are raising the level of economic security for people, and it cost society little to nothing.

Oh, and let us protect our young ones from sexual predators like Roy ****ing Moore.

I. Actually. Agree.

But the problem that I always come to when I have this discussion is sustainability.

Since there’s no regulation on the amount of children one can have. Proposals like this can seem to incentivize people to have children that they do not have the means to provide for. And then we are back to square one.

What say you in how to resolve that glaring issue? And I’m not being facetious. I have legit had this very conversation several times.

 

[dwalk31]

So Trump keeps a AG around that acts unilaterally with Trump's consent. Even though he got rid of multiple people for not doing his bidding.

And this is your best line of defense

Someone can do something that benefits you without it being at your direction.

 

[dwalk31]

Lt Col Vindman’s twin brother has reportedly just been fired as well, despite not personally testifying against Trump and his co-conspirators.
The brother worked in the WH as well.

Did the brother serve at the pleasure of the president as well?

 

[dwalk31]

So you dont support public funding of schools? I'd like to know if you think private donations can support thousands of students and their teachers in underprivileged areas.

I never said I don’t support public funding of schools.

I’m saying that all cuts aren’t the end all that some pretend they are. It is not as if there are suddenly going to be $0 going to public education.

 

[noskey]

I never said I don’t support public funding of schools.

I’m saying that all cuts aren’t the end all that some pretend they are. It is not as if there are suddenly going to be $0 going to public education.

It's not sudden. But it's happening and it's happening more dramatically to already underfunded areas. So how does cutting public funding benefit the schools? How are people going to be educated in ways that help them when theres not enough money for teachers or training? Is children being denied the education that benefits them financially, as you advocated them to be, beneficial for anybody?

 

[Belgium]

Did the brother serve at the pleasure of the president as well?

Everyone knows the answer to that question. Do you think people’s family members should face retaliation because a relative testified truthfully?

 

[spiceman80]

Still missing the link of at Trump’s direction.

Yeah, because everyone goes around putting out fires for other people even when it has no impact on their lives. Just like Michael Cohen using his own money paying off porn stars and strippers for Trump because he's such a great guy

ok buddy

 

[dwalk31]

It's not sudden. But it's happening and it's happening more dramatically to already underfunded areas. So how does cutting public funding benefit the schools? How are people going to be educated in ways that help them when theres not enough money for teachers or training? Is children being denied the education that benefits them financially, as you advocated them to be, beneficial for anybody?

I think leaning more heavily on the community is a start. I also think that builds stronger communities which resolves other issues.

I recognize that seems far fetched to many.

But it doesn’t seem any less far fetched than hoping that the public funding ends up where it should and doing what it should, to me.

 

[dwalk31]

Everyone knows the answer to that question. Do you think people’s family members should face retaliation because a relative testified truthfully?

I think that whenever you have a position where you, and your family members, serve at the pleasure of an individual you should be fully prepared for these types of scenarios.

Anyone who has been in an appointed position is well aware of this. And, he probably considered it prior to agreeing to testify. And he likely felt it was worth it, in spite of it.

To pretend this is some jaw-dropping occurrence is disingenuous.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Someone can do something that benefits you without it being at your direction.

You're serious right now too.

 

[dwalk31]

Yeah, because everyone goes around putting out fires for other people even when it has no impact on their lives. Just like Michael Cohen using his own money paying off porn stars and strippers for Trump because he's such a great guy

ok buddy

I wonder if Belgium ‘s extensive research show any other investigations that have been shut down during his tenure. My spidey sense tells me that other investigations, unrelated to Trump, have also been ended.

 

[Belgium]

I think that whenever you have a position where you, and your family members, serve at the pleasure of an individual you should be fully prepared for these types of scenarios.

Anyone who has been in an appointed position is well aware of this. And, he probably considered it prior to agreeing to testify. And he likely felt it was worth it, in spite of it.

To pretend this is some jaw-dropping occurrence is disingenuous.

Nobody thinks this is jaw-dropping. Trump’s spokeswoman essentially announced retaliatory measures yesterday and Trump has made it clear from early on in his presidency that he only praises those who lie to the FBI and Congress, whereas he considers those who cooperate “rats” and thinks the whole idea of ‘flipping’ should be outlawed.

Everyone who testified was presumably prepared to face retaliation, given Trump’s history.

You also didn’t answer my question. Do you think family members should face retaliation because a relative testified truthfully?

 

[noskey]

I think leaning more heavily on the community is a start. I also think that builds stronger communities which resolves other issues.

I recognize that seems far fetched to many.

But it doesn’t seem any less far fetched than hoping that the public funding ends up where it should and doing what it should, to me.

Sorry, you avoided my questions. Let me ask again,

how does cutting public funding benefit the schools?
How are people going to be educated in ways that help them when theres not enough money for teachers or training?
Is children being denied the education that benefits them financially, as you advocated them to be, beneficial for anybody?

 

[dwalk31]

Do you think family members should face retaliation because a relative testified truthfully?

This is a false premise.

That aside, while I wouldn’t terminate someone’s family member for it, I don’t think the President of the United States is wrong to terminate someone, or their family member, that serves at his pleasure.

 

[dwalk31]

Sorry, you avoided my questions. Let me ask again,

how does cutting public funding benefit the schools?
How are people going to be educated in ways that help them when theres not enough money for teachers or training?
Is children being denied the education that benefits them financially, as you advocated them to be, beneficial for anybody?

Question 1: it does not. Same can be said of, say, courtside tickets at a Hawks game.

Question 2: Private funding

Question 3: See 2 for reason they shouldn’t be denied.

 

[Belgium]

This is a false premise.

That aside, while I wouldn’t terminate someone’s family member for it, I don’t think the President of the United States is wrong to terminate someone, or their family member, that serves at his pleasure.

How is it a false premise?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I. Actually. Agree.

But the problem that I always come to when I have this discussion is sustainability.

Since there’s no regulation on the amount of children one can have. Proposals like this can seem to incentivize people to have children that they do not have the means to provide for. And then we are back to square one.

What say you in how to resolve that glaring issue? And I’m not being facetious. I have legit had this very conversation several times.

What is the issue of people have more kids because the risk of crippling debt is gone?

Plus If you have a prosperous economy, then generally people have less kids, not more.

 

[dwalk31]

How is it a false premise?

Because it doesn’t include the “serving at the pleasure” into the analysis. I added it in my response.

 

[noskey]

Question 1: it does not. Same can be said of, say, courtside tickets at a Hawks game.

Question 2: Private funding

Question 3: See 2 for reason they shouldn’t be denied.

If your assertion is that private funding will replace public funding, dollar for dollar, can you provide studies that back this up? Otherwise the cuts to public funding is, by your confirmation, a net negative to districts and those that reside in them. Education programs suffer, children dont get educated, and a viscous circle of poverty is sustained for at least another generation.

 

[dwalk31]

What is the issue of people have more kids because the risk of crippling debt is gone?

Plus If you have a prosperous economy, then generally people have less kids, not more.

Your reasoning is circular. Someone (taxpayers) has to pay for what you’ve outlined.

If I can have 5 kids and not have to pay for housing or food, then who does pay?

You say you give the kids housing, but I’m assuming that is housing with their parents. Or are you advocating separating kids from their families?

I agree with your premise. I just don’t see the practicality.

 

[Belgium]

Because it doesn’t include the “serving at the pleasure” into the analysis. I added it in my response.

I don’t see how that changes the premise. It’s not a question about whether or not Trump has the authority to fire his aides.

 

[handullz]

Man, we can not afford any more cuts to public education.

we need more funding. Private funding just sets up haves and haves not to an extreme degree.

Imagine the quality of teacher we’d have if they were making $90k in the south... cats who were smart enough to be engineers or lawyers or businesspeople would see teaching the yoof as a viable career alternative.

it would benefit the entire country.

 

[dwalk31]

If your assertion is that private funding will replace public funding, dollar for dollar, can you provide studies that back this up? Otherwise the cuts to public funding is, by your confirmation, a net negative to districts and those that reside in them. Education programs suffer, children dont get educated, and a viscous circle of poverty is sustained for at least another generation.

My assertion is that private funding can supplement public funding. Which will diminish the net negative of the cuts.

Without cutting all of the things you outline occur. Congress doesn’t have a magic wand.

Long before Trump all of those issues existed. And will after.

Public funds to schools can’t compete with, oh, I don’t know, 400 years of slavery, mass incarceration, negative portrayal in the media, etc.

There’s a lot at play.

That’s why I think private funds, from within the community, will help strengthen those communities. Just my .02, but you can disagree.

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

I don’t see how that changes the premise. It’s not a question about whether or not Trump has the authority to fire his aides.

Generally, yes, it is problematic to fire someone’s relative for their actions.

In this situation it is well within the right of the president to do so, and was likely contemplated prior to the person testifying.

But you can’t compare the general to the narrow issue of serving at the pleasure of the president.