‘lower classes overbreeding’.
Wow. Just wow. I’m sure the modest proposal is equally charming.
Psst.
Wow. And I thought I wasn’t being subtle enough.
Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway) – SATIRE.
I got the Swift reference. The ‘lower classes overbreeding’ seemed a bit much. Jonathan Swift’s proposal was that Irish babies be fattened for English tables. If he had said ‘those lower class Irish babies’ or something it would have suggested a little more than satire.
But okay. If you say it was offered completely satirically, I’ll go with that and withdraw any implied criticism. It’s always hard to read tone on the internet.
Curious that when it was put in less clear terms,
You had fuck all to say.
I didn’t even see that.
I didn’t say that they took all the money, so I’m not sure what you are getting at here.
But, you don’t have to be wealthy to do that. Since you bring it up, do you think that someone who created an unsuccessful business should be able to discharge their debt through bankruptcy?
Companies have been moving overseas for decades, and doing so has made the wealthy wealthier.
So, what you are saying is that we don’t need the wealthy in order to create successful businesses and employment.
The reason that they can’t hire enough truck drivers is because it really doesn’t pay all that well. Sure, your acquaintances may have 6 figure revenue, but how much do they pay for fuel and leasing?
Hey, that’s exactly what they said when they started up residential schools.
So, you got to participate in the time of the largest growth of wealth in this country, probably the world, due to the US being given most of the wealth of the world in order to increase its manufacturing capability for the war, and pretty much the only country that hadn’t been devastated by that war.
Well, things have changed, and the mindset that you had growing up is no longer relevant to the world we currently live in.
Melinda, but yes.
Funny how conservatives are often so quick to disparage any broadly financially beneficial measure enacted by Democrats as “vote buying”, a term they never seem to apply to similar measures enacted by Republicans.
An honest conservative who uses this kind of language would also be referring to, for example, “Trump’s vote-buying tax cuts”.
In reality, of course, spending government money in order to broadly benefit the American people is a large part of what the American government is supposed to be doing.
Puh-leeze. I was raised Scotch-Calvinist by two grandparents who also were poor during the Depression. What the hell does that have to do with anything? My grandparents were right about some things, wrong about others, and if they took your position on this issue, well, they would be wrong.
If society is broken so that some people are traumatized, the solution is never to let it remain broken in honor of those who were less traumatized than others. This is an immoral position to which I will never hold to in my heart, and it is one which guides my arguments.
We have a problem which did not exist in 1932, 1942, 1952, 1962. To look to the lessons of those eras for a solution to a problem not even considered by the best and brightest of those years is simplistic madness. Let’s do better, McGiver.
Sure, and I get that pushing adoption allows you to still be pissed off at women who can’t obtain birth control, or whose birth control fails. But if conservatives were really pro-baby (as opposed to pro-fetus) and pro-adoption and pro-kid they’d provide poor women with much better access to pre-natal care and help cover the cost of labor and delivery so those pre-adopted babies are given the best start in life. But they don’t.
And for those for whom life is all about the almighty dollar and making sure the peons can work - abortion is a hella cheaper than pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Abortion also poses less risk to the mother than a full pregnancy, and she can get back to work at her menial job sooner.
It really not about what conservatives claim it is all about - it’s about punishing poor women for having sex.
Then why didn’t he get into any of those charitable endeavors until AFTER he started a relationship with Linda?
Then why don’t conservatives lobby to have mandatory paternity tests for the male contacts of all those poor women having kids so those men can be held responsible for fathering children? How about DNA typing of all men in the country so when a baby is born to a poor women paternity can be easily and quickly identified and the sperm donor held accountable? Or are only women responsible for the results of an act that takes two people to perform? Why is that?
Why don’t conservatives lobby to have all those backlogged rape kits sitting in police evidence lockups processed so the male sexual criminals can be held to account for their actions? Along with the DNA databank to prevent irresponsible paternity a lot of crimes would be solved and the streets would be safer for half the population. Aren’t they they law and order party? Then why don’t they act like it?
If you’re a boomer then you grew up in an era where the the rich were taxed to pay for the roads your parents drove on, the public education you received, the police and fire protection you enjoyed. But hey, why should the rich be expected to pay for anything these days? Paying the bills is for the poor, not the aristocracy.
Yeah, funny that - in all of those cases the founders could make use of their parents’ or their own garage. They had a single family home. The sort that are being priced out of the market for middle class families, much less the poor. It’s a hell of a lot harder to start a business in homeless shelter or a tent.
I very much doubt Gates or Jobs or Wozniak or Bezos would have been able to get their start without access to a garage or an equivalent space, which a lot of poor folks just don’t have. Those guys were not poor, they were middle class and had access to resources my neighbors working two jobs and barely making rent while paying on student loans that never seem to get smaller just don’t have. And, as I’ve pointed out, the middle class has been shrinking since the days of Reagan.
As for the truck drivers - there has been steady downward pressure on their wages for decades. I knew someone who made the career change to truck driver a couple years before covid. This guy had a master’s degree in civil engineering, he’d worked as an airline pilot, and ran a successful business for a couple decades. He clearly is not a slacker, and not unfamilar with work that took him on the road for extended periods of time. He quit a year later saying the money wasn’t worth the risk. That’s not the wonderful job you think it is, which is why they can’t keep the drivers they have nor recruit new ones. First, new drivers don’t start at six figures, that takes years to get to that level of pay. Second, independent operators are getting to be rarer, most of the jobs are working for someone else and there are a lot of shady companies cutting corners on safety and maintenance and using any and every excuse to trim driver pay. Not to mention pushing them into situations where drivers are chronically exhausted.
If you can’t get people to do a job then it’s NOT the fault of the would-be workers who are staying away, it’s the fault of the people setting up the conditions of the job. If you’re offering big bucks and STILL no one is taking the offer then it’s not about the money, it’s about the working conditions. To which the corporate bigwigs whining about how hard they work sitting around table in meetings all day or pushing paper at their desks say everyone works hard but it just shows how clueless they are. The CEO isn’t forced to ask permission to take a piss, or have to relieve himself into a 2-liter coke bottle at his desk because he’s not allowed bathroom breaks like drivers for Amazon.
Since this thread is ostensibly about student loan debt, I came across an interesting option for those who paid on their loans during the Covid shutdown.
Under Covid relief legislation, student loan repayments could be stopped, and no interest accrued. More importantly, you can get a refund of any money you’ve paid toward your loans during this pause.
That refund, of course, gets added back to your loans as money owed. But, it doesn’t accrue interest.
And now (presuming you don’t make over $125k, and your refund is capped at the $10k/$20k level), you get that balance forgiven.
I fit under this scenario. If I do it right, I could get a check for $10,000.
This entire thread is nothing but Democratic whataboutism where they cry “What about tax breaks for the wealthy? What about wars?” or attempts to gaslight opponents into thinking they actually supported it all along. “You’re Christian, so you actually love debt forgiveness” 250+ posts, and not a single real defense of why the Feds should give money to people who don’t need it for nothing in return.
Explain your reasons why they shouldn’t.
To me it’s simple: you cannot have a functioning, free, capitalist society geared towards human improvement if you purposely burden the needed managerial and intellectual classes with a debt load which effectively makes them serfs.
Instead of having the means to accumulate capital like my parents, my grandparents, myself, todays students are placed in a situation where their prime capital accumulation years has been perverted to accumulating capital for others, with a gravely profound impact on their financial futures. If you understand compound interest, then you understand the problem.
Hence my “don’t look to 1932 solutions to 2022 problems” quote earlier.
I swear to God, the people who are like ‘I want to get back to the fifties’ are the same people who do not understand that Reagan destroyed the economic and societal underpinnings which made 1950s life possible.
Thank you. This codifies the argument I’m trying to make in several threads in MSN comments section.
On a side note… my favorite counter-meme to cons’ arguments about how this is insulting to people who paid off their student loans:
“Jesus’ miracle with the loaves and fishes is such a slap in the face to those who brought their lunch.”
I would like for you to elaborate.
Once again, her name is Melinda. But yes, you’re right about the rest.