Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Raga]

Sure, but that prerogative stops at Vatican or embassy borders. They can't just decide that homosexuality is illegal in England or something.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Npk0KVBzEY

Hahahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Sinekein]

Since the Catholic Church isn't a state, it's internal stance on homosexuality is more a cultural thing than something to do with "gay rights" in a legal sense except in areas where it brushes up with explicit legally defined rights - say hiring at Catholic hospitals in areas that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or when it bumps up against adoption laws.

To that end, the answer to the question "How should the Catholic Church relate to homosexuality?" is "With consistency and without hypocrisy" which is what is their current problem. The thing is there are two ways to to do that: "embrace it" or "zero tolerance."

I think it is a bit more complex due to the status of religions which go beyond mere cultures

But I agree with the hypocrisy, the problem being that it is an issue that is right in the middle of the fight between various catholic ideologies, which means that it is a political topic within the Church. For example, going "zero tolerance" means losing countries like Ireland almost altogether, but "embrace it" is bound to be received negatively in Africa. I don't think a new schism makes sense in the XXIth century but it's not for a lack of difference between opposite aisles of the Catholic Church.

[Mazder]

Sure, but that prerogative stops at Vatican or embassy borders. They can't just decide that homosexuality is illegal in England or something.

Unless they get a sort of "embassy clause" or something where every catholic church is sacred church ground and therefor under their laws.
I mean it'd be a pretty big way to get Catholicism outlawed in some places but still, plausible if not probable.

[Raga]

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ns/563336/

Kinda something I thought would happen.

The other thing is that it seems people are trying to fast-track "People of Color" into a nebulous class like "white" which now includes people who used to be explicitly excluded like Jews, Irish, and South Italians. I wonder what PoC will mean in 100 years.

[Vol]

I had to unplug the radio right as it got going, but apparently the SCOTUS hearing was a real shitshow. Protesters and that good old fashioned political theatre all day. Meanwhile the guy himself is as safe and bland a pick as you're going to get. All I've seen of it is some ladies dressed up in Handmaid's Tale cosplay because having the legal ability to terminate pregnancies is of utmost importance to a certain kind of fiction reader, I suppose.

[Sinekein]

that good old fashioned political theatre all day

From what I understand from American politics, it is more or less retaliation for the shenanigans pulled to stop the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. Basically, whenever a nomination threatens the political balance of the SCOTUS it is met with strong opposition.

There was not much fuss when Gorsuch was nominated because he was taking the place of Justice Scalia, so that was one conservative for one conservative. Here, it replaces the most centrist judge of the court by a hardline conservative - who opposes the ACA, all forms of government regulation, all forms of control over political fundraising, net neutrality, supports private data collection, and is extremely supportive of Christian lobbyists which raises questions about whether his previous stance that "Roe v Wade is law" will survive his nomination - and with Kennedy being out the new nominee becomes the de facto swing vote.

having the legal ability to terminate pregnancies is of utmost importance

Well in many cases it is indeed a matter of survival for the mother which indeed makes it of "utmost importance".

Also, the president's opinion:

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”

I'm curious as to which "old days" he is referring to. On that continent, I assume it's the Aztec court?

[Vol]

From what I understand from American politics, it is more or less retaliation for the shenanigans pulled to stop the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. Basically, whenever a nomination threatens the political balance of the SCOTUS it is met with strong opposition.

That, and the greater spectacle of the protesters and dramatics is for the midterms. "Look how hard we fought, #resist!" There's no actual fight to have, since the process is a formality.

Well in many cases it is indeed a matter of survival for the mother which indeed makes it of "utmost importance".

It is an extremely minor percentage of abortions performed, while being the most justified reason to have one. If a person absolutely must die, better it's someone who has no consciousness yet. Only the most fanatical could deny that in the case of the mother's life, abortion should be legal. I would suspect that the ladies who dressed up like fictional slave-breeders at a SCOTUS confirmation hearing probably have a broader view of when it should be allowed.

[Raga]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opin ... -2018.html

Compltely inane line of argument.

It is an extremely minor percentage of abortions performed, while being the most justified reason to have one. If a person absolutely must die, better it's someone who has no consciousness yet. Only the most fanatical could deny that in the case of the mother's life, abortion should be legal. I would suspect that the ladies who dressed up like fictional slave-breeders at a SCOTUS confirmation hearing probably have a broader view of when it should be allowed.

This. Not to mention that the histrionic appeal to the impending specter of "coat-hanger" abortions is nonsensical. Most bootleg abortions are/would be performed via drugs acquired on the internet. Still dangerous? Sure. But it hardly has the emotional appeal of the circa 1953 image of a teenager bleeding to death after paying some dude to repeatedly kick her in the stomach to try to induce a miscarriage.

[Sinekein]

Buying random drugs on the net does not sound in any way better than a mechanical abortion.

Not to mention that you need to get these drugs delivered, which means that A) you know how to order them - I will hazard a guess and say that not everyone knows about how to get drugs illegally - and B) you can get those delivered to you, because it might very well be impossible depending on where you live and how thorough the postal services are with what they send.

There is also the sadly too numerous cases of post-rape pregnancies. Which might indeed not directly threaten the mother's life, but let's be serious one sec and consider that most of those women would rather not have to carry a reminder of what happened to them for nine months.

And finally, a vast number of situations - maybe even a majority - of pregnancies resulting from a deep lack of sexual education, since as far as I know Pornhub is not a proper substitute for Sex Ed. I don't know how representative of the actual situation this John Oliver segment was, but from Europe the US in general do not exactly like they are forward thinking when it comes to dealing with sex in life. I think that quite recently there was a case with a breastfeeding mother and a waiter who tried to hide her shameful activity?

And as a personal addendum - most of the time, the same people who are against abortion, are also against the various kinds of government benefits that could help single mothers raise their kids. If at least they were okay with helping the kids born from unwanted pregnancies, that would be a tad more tolerable for me.

[Raga]

I'm not arguing in favor of making abortion illegal. I'm mocking histrionics equating Kavanaugh with the legalization of sex slavery. Or implying any abortion limitations = hordes of teenagers bleeding to death in hot sheets motels. (Though I admit I don't actually care whether abortion is legal or not so long as it's not funded by the government and it's not).

[Sinekein]

It's a gross exaggeration indeed to equate Kavanaugh with THT. Histrionics, maybe.

But the last major election where they tried to be level-headed when faced against...well, against a buffoon, they lost. Sure, they could try and keep the moral high ground by being the only ones to behave decently on the scene, but apparently it's not enough to win elections anymore, you need to be crass and provocative. I find it hard to blame them, it's very much "two can play this game", and I don't think the Democrats started the trend.

[Someone With Mass]

When idiots come up with things like copyright enforcement systems like the EUCD that do nothing about the problem aside from trying to stomp it out, it almost makes me want the EU to collapse and burn.

It's not 1988 anymore. Learn how copyright should work instead of trying to preserve outdated garbage or quit your job on the basis of ineptitude.

[Mazder]

When idiots come up with things like copyright enforcement systems like the EUCD that do nothing about the problem aside from trying to stomp it out, it almost makes me want the EU to collapse and burn.

It's not 1988 anymore. Learn how copyright should work instead of trying to preserve outdated garbage or quit your job on the basis of ineptitude.

Article 13?
Guessing Article 13.

[Someone With Mass]

Article 13?
Guessing Article 13.

Something like that. All I know is that they want to outright force people to go directly to news sites instead of just reading the excerpt that comes with the link. And then there's forcing people to pay for copyright enforcement programs or some shit like that.

There's also the outright stated fact that a lot of the members of the Parliament don't know what they're voting for. Why are they allowed to vote for something they know next to nothing about? IT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB TO KNOW.

[Raga]

The amount of ineptitude shown by government officials on issues to do with technology is truly epic. Some of the questions Congress asked Zuckerberg a few months ago were just painful.

"Mr. Zuckerberg, after logging into Facebook last night, the front left tire on my car went flat. What do you have to say for yourself?"

[FrozenShadow]

The amount of ineptitude shown by government officials on issues to do with technology is truly epic. Some of the questions Congress asked Zuckerberg a few months ago were just painful.

"Mr. Zuckerberg, after logging into Facebook last night, the front left tire on my car went flat. What do you have to say for yourself?"

Is it really any wonder that there is serious technological ineptitude amongst government officials and not just in US. Lot's Congress members or politicians in general are just plain old. When they were young, computers used to be the size of the room they usually have as an office. Even for younger generation, car phones, early mobiles and very first MHz processors computers were "top of the line" stuff.

Simply said, "old elite" is helplessly useless in the matters of technology. Majority of them probably couldn't even use today tech without hiring younger people to actually use that tech for them.

And sadly, this "old elite" problem doesn't just concern the technology, but the general view of the world really. World had changed more than many of the "old elite" people can fathom.

[Mobius_118]

While people were distracted by Nike the trump regime opened up the Boundary Waters to mining.

There goes our clean drinking water, fishing, hunting, and beautiful landscape.

Fuck conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt is spinning in his grave.

[Someone With Mass]

It's like those idiots are undoing the Obama administration's work just for the sake of having it gone. How about ADDING something instead? Oh right. That would require the ability to think further than three seconds into the future.

[TTTX]

It's like those idiots are undoing the Obama administration's work just for the sake of having it gone. How about ADDING something instead? Oh right. That would require the ability to think further than three seconds into the future.

Well Trump and Obama really hate each other.

[Mobius_118]

President Obama actually did great things for the nation and the world. trump is a corporate slut who fucks over everyone for any reason.

I'm pissed too that someone who was handed everything, a stable economy, good standing in the world, a strong job growth, and decided to trash it all because his russian handler told him to sabotage the country.

[Someone With Mass]

Well Trump and Obama really hate each other.

And the ones suffering because Trump is a petty cunt is the American people. I hope the next president won't have to spend his/her entire term cleaning up after that shithead.

[TTTX]

President Obama actually did great things for the nation and the world. trump is a corporate slut who fucks over everyone for any reason.

I'm pissed too that someone who was handed everything, a stable economy, good standing in the world, a strong job growth, and decided to trash it all because his russian handler told him to sabotage the country.

I'm pretty sure Trump is very capable of screwing up himself, the russian thing is just a dumb thing (that doesn't seem to exist) the left clings to at this point and it's getting really pathetic at this point especially after so long.

I just think they prepare for the next election for 2020, instead of claiming the Russians did it all the time without any proof.

[Sinekein]

Well Trump and Obama really hate each other.

I highly doubt Obama bothers hating Trump, even though he probably loathes him.

Trump probably started despising Obama out of envy - watching a black, upper-middle class man becoming POTUS while you are supposed to be "the elite of the country" and were born a millionnaire will do that - and supported the BS birther movement, but I assume it turned into hate when Obama absolutely owned his ass during the 2011 WHC dinner.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Well Trump and Obama really hate each other.

I highly doubt Obama bothers hating Trump, even though he probably loathes him.

Trump probably started despising Obama out of envy - watching a black, upper-middle class man becoming POTUS while you are supposed to be "the elite of the country" and were born a millionnaire will do that - and supported the BS birther movement, but I assume it turned into hate when Obama absolutely owned his ass during the 2011 WHC dinner.

That's kind of retarded tbh.

The man has been a billionaire for decades and always said that if he ran for president he would win.

He ran for president and won.

Also the economy has continued to grow at over 4% and unemployment especially among certain minorities is the lowest it has been in decades.

People can bitch all they want, Trump has been a successful money president.

[Mobius_118]

Really? Tell that to my smaller paycheck.

And my lesser VA healthcare.

All thanks to trumps stupidity.

[Mazder]

Really? Tell that to my smaller paycheck.

And my lesser VA healthcare.

All thanks to trumps stupidity.

I'd say it's called redistribution of wealth.

Lesser vet's healthcare might be slightly worse but if it's going towards making the lives of some civilians getting better healthcare then it'd even out.

[Mobius_118]

That's not what's going on at all, Mazder.

[Mazder]

That's not what's going on at all, Mazder.

Yeah well you can't prove it it is or isn't.
All that matters is one guy's paycheck getting smaller aint the end of the world to me so I really don't give that much of a shit.

[Mobius_118]

One guy? I'll forgive you for not being a US Citizen and not knowing, but our benefits are getting worse along with our paychecks.

Meanwhile the rich get tax breaks, undeservedly so. If they paid their fair share in taxes we'd be a much more successful nation.

[Mazder]

One guy? I'll forgive you for not being a US Citizen and not knowing, but our benefits are getting worse along with our paychecks.

Meanwhile the rich get tax breaks, undeservedly so. If they paid their fair share in taxes we'd be a much more successful nation.

Still sounds like a you problem.

Yeah and then no-one will bother wanting to get rich as rich is a concept for the greedy meaning the average rate of success will actually go down to a less than spectacular level as past a certain point they'll see no point in earning or producing any more as there would be no advantage for them to do so.
Yeah, yo might get your taxes up a bit but you'll have a lot less companies able to provide things which you're currently really good at, such as tech sector, medical research, weapons research, sciences, etc.

Benevolent rich people are a lot rarer than greedy rich people and some are a necessary evil as they encourage others to become more of a success.

But, hey, you want to stop useless people from having too much money then go after shitty celebs and sports stars, they're the worst offenders.

[Sinekein]

That's kind of retarded tbh.

The man has been a billionaire for decades and always said that if he ran for president he would win.

He ran for president and won.

Also the economy has continued to grow at over 4% and unemployment especially among certain minorities is the lowest it has been in decades.

People can bitch all they want, Trump has been a successful money president.

What's kinda retarded is to ignore economic trends before he got elected. It was already booming before he was there. He's not single-handedly responsible for putting the USA on the right track, at best he can be lauded for not successfully crashing the biggest economy in the world in less than two years - I assume that even that is beyond him, even if he is trying really hard with his utterly idiotic trade wars.

He also tried and failed to run for president twice, so it's really more like this kind of success.

I'd say it's called redistribution of wealth.

Lesser vet's healthcare might be slightly worse but if it's going towards making the lives of some civilians getting better healthcare then it'd even out.

Redistribution of wealth is used when it's the wealthy's wealth that is redistributed to the poor, not the other way around as is currently happening.

And no one's healthcare had improved under Trump AFAIK, since one of his big plans (and big failures) was to repeal Obamacare, which is a policy that helps many (lower or middle-class) Americans.

But, hey, you want to stop useless people from having too much money then go after shitty celebs and sports stars, they're the worst offenders.

Sure, like that LeBron James guy Trump hates. The guy dares to be one of the most successful athletes in the history of the US Sports, and one of the most savvy businessmen among athletes, and to use his wealth to build schools for poor communities. What a horrible human being! He really deserved to be the target of Twitter rant #2534.

[Raga]

On the tax front, I have to walk an extremely narrow line. On the one hand, I'm a government employee so I rely on tax money for my bread and butter. However, I'm also a homeowner and a very large percentage of meaningful services that people use everyday are actually derived from property taxes and property taxes are out of control in a lot of areas of the country. There is a reason that so many progressive people who are generally pro-taxation were vehemently opposed to provisions in the tax bill that would have capped exemptions for local taxes. The only way that a lot of people in high tax places like San Francisco and New York can stay in their houses given the ludicrous value of property there and their incessant demand for high levels of municipal services is by passing the bill off to the federal level by various tax exemptions.

When push comes to shove, I tend to support things that encourage and sustain home ownership over anything else. It is the path to stability and security in this country. It is telling that the principal way that black people have been kept in a systemic lower class for the last 60 years is by making home ownership hard to impossible for them. I don't really doubt that I could get some other job in the private sector if I needed to that would sustain me at this level or better. I absolutely do believe that the government will tax me out of my house without giving hardly any thought to it in an unceasing drive to provide services to the Have Nots.

I am unapologetically and vehemently petite bourgeoisie.

[Sinekein]

On the tax front, I have to walk an extremely narrow line. On the one hand, I'm a government employee so I rely on tax money for my bread and butter. However, I'm also a homeowner and a very large percentage of meaningful services that people use everyday are actually derived from property taxes and property taxes are out of control in a lot of areas of the country. There is a reason that so many progressive people who are generally pro-taxation were vehemently opposed to provisions in the tax bill that would have capped exemptions for local taxes. The only way that a lot of people in high tax places like San Francisco and New York can stay in their houses given the ludicrous value of property there and their incessant demand for high levels of municipal services is by passing the bill off to the federal level by various tax exemptions.

I have no idea how this translates in the US, but coming from the Land of Taxes© aka France, unless your local officials are unbelievably corrupt, then the (very high) property taxes always translate into something that is beneficial to all, not only the "Have Nots". The most common use of tax money is healthcare - and our health sector is still far from perfect for numerous reasons - transportation in general, public or not - whether it is train/tram/bus lines, or taking care of roads, only the big highroads between cities are private, the rest is payed for by the State - or education, as the yearly fee to go to the Uni, except for a handful of private or trade schools, is way below $1000.

There are some benefits that are limited to the "Have Nots" - like the various scholarships for students so they can pay their bills and have a home that is not Mom and/or Dad's, or some that are limited to the poor and/or the unemployed - but the vast majority profits to everyone, including the rich, who also have access to elite schools for almost nothing, and can also use the very same roads everyone drives on, and can go to the doctor or to the hospital for free.

It's just that those benefits are part of everyday lives, instead of being written on a check, so people tend to ignore them. But they exist.

In front of my mother's house, there is an administrative oddity that exists in some cities, a "private street", in which it is not the State (or in that case, City Hall) that takes care of public commodities, but the owners of the houses in the street. And, "surprisingly", the road looks like a stone quarry, and they all put their garbage bins in my mom's street so that garbage men can gather them - because the road is so bad the truck can't even drive there. That's basically what happens when you trust individual people to take care of something that is not only about themselves.

[Raga]

It's not roads that are the problem. Texas actually has quite good roads for the most part, way better generally than California in any event. It's also not income taxes that are the problem, and it's income taxes that pay for healthcare. Public parks and libraries also don't really take that much to fund. Its funding schools and municipal administration, particularly employee pensions, that drives most of the bloat. Look up a city in the US that has had financial difficulties in the last 20 or so years, that has had chronic and severe budget shortfalls, or filed for bankruptcy, and you will pretty much invariably see that the chief problem is unfunded pension obligations driven from municipal administrative bloat.

A lot of people's issues with high levels of unskilled immigration are directly tied to this by the way. My opposition to chain migration is certainly rooted in it because I live in a city that attracts high numbers of immigrants. Double-digit percentages of the population is foreign-born. And sure a lot of them are highly paid Asian immigrants working in the oil and gas industry, but more are broke-ass people from Latin America (many here illegally) who can't afford houses and thus don't pay property taxes but who send their kids to public schools.

[Raga]

An addendum to the above. Rich people don't pay for this stuff because there is only a finite amount of residential property that even the most Gatsby like fat cat can or will maintain. Most of it comes from commercial taxes, but given how much of that can be squirreled away by giant transnationals in offshore accounts and various tax havens and the tax benefits that many cities use to attract big employers, the people you have left footing the bill are middle class homeowners and small to medium business owners.

Wealth redistribution as you were saying is currently not flowing from the super rich to the poor. It's currently flowing from the middle class to both the super rich and the poor. I pay the rich via 30 years of income stagnation and I pay the poor by rates of property tax increases of at least 10% a year.

[Sinekein]

Its funding schools and municipal administration, particularly employee pensions, that drives most of the bloat.

There's a pretty obvious way to fix that: just remove private schools altogether. When the rich are forced to put their kids in the very same schools all kids (including the poor) go, then you'll see that suddenly funding public schools is much less of an issue. At least, solutions will be found.

The existence of this two-gears education systems is a vicious circle that leads to constant criticism of the public sector for "not being good enough", while more and more of those who can afford it put their children in private schools, which in turns logically (because wealth and education are not independent factors - you are better in school if you have your own room to sleep instead of sharing it, if your parents have time to teach you, if you have books at home, and so on) widens the gap between private and public sectors. And because education is absolutely key in every single society on Earth, the more it widens the gap between lower and middle-upper classes.

So you reach a point where funding public schools looks like a waste of money, because the numbers don't lie, almost no one who goes through them does something great with their life. And it will only get worse, especially when you put some kind of living human garbage like Betsy DeVos in charge of education all over the country.

Funnily enough, the US have the same problem with Latin America than France has with Africa. They both have to manage immigration waves coming from countries they royally screwed over by manipulating local politics for decades to get some economical or trade advantage, and now they complain that "these people are poor and uneducated and coming in our home". Well, duh, when your pillage their countries, or put in charge people who will do the pillaging for you, strangely enough, populations can't get wealthier and good education systems have a hard time developing.

Wealth redistribution as you were saying is currently not flowing from the super rich to the poor. It's currently flowing from the middle class to both the super rich and the poor. I pay the rich via 30 years of income stagnation and I pay the poor by rates of property tax increases of at least 10% a year.

It is true, but the utter hypocrisy is that conservatives or libertarians will say that flowing from the MC to the poor is unfair and should be fought, but flowing from the MC to the super-rich is acceptable because that's how capitalism works and "it will benefit you somehow". Even when it obviously does not.

[Raga]

There's a pretty obvious way to fix that: just remove private schools altogether. When the rich are forced to put their kids in the very same schools all kids (including the poor) go, then you'll see that suddenly funding public schools is much less of an issue. At least, solutions will be found.

Sending your kid to private school does not exempt you from property taxes. You can't write these off in most places. There is no tax exemption. So the reason the schools suck is not because they are starved for the funding that private school goers would otherwise be paying them. Also I'm a product of public schools and I have no problem with public schools as an institution up to the point where maintaining them means the lower middle class gets taxed out of home ownership.

Funnily enough, the US have the same problem with Latin America than France has with Africa. They both have to manage immigration waves coming from countries they royally screwed over by manipulating local politics for decades to get some economical or trade advantage, and now they complain that "these people are poor and uneducated and coming in our home". Well, duh, when your pillage their countries, or put in charge people who will do the pillaging for you, strangely enough, populations can't get wealthier and good education systems have a hard time developing.

This is such a specious line of argument, the assumption that every single place's welfare and outcomes is dictated by how the West sneezed in some country's general direction or didn't. Western interference is certainly non-neutral and is a meaningful component in ascertaining how the world is in the state it's in, but it does nothing to explain why some "postcolonial" countries are doing just fine to excellent and some have remained backward, violent dunghills for years. Why Columbia has improved wholesale but Venezuela is a capsizing fuckfest. Why Ethiopia is modernizing and Sudan is rife with a bunch of tribes murdering each other.

It's right up there with that line of argument that suggest that we are obligated to take people fleeing violent gangs in Latin America because we exported violent foreign mobsters back to their home countries in the 80s and thus are singularly responsible for the spread of MS-13 and all the havoc they cause.

[Sinekein]

It's right up there with that line of argument that suggest that we are obligated to take people fleeing violent gangs in Latin America because we exported violent foreign mobsters back to their home countries in the 80s and thus are singularly responsible for the spread of MS-13 and all the havoc they cause.

Not obligated, but at least forced to have a critical eye on what happened, and acknowledging that society does not exist in an instantaneous vacuum and that past actions can still have consequences.

Sending violent mobsters back to Salvador or Honduras led to the rise of several current cartels that are terrorizing the region. Does it mean that all of those countries' issues can be tied back to the US, no, but saying "we have nothing to do with it" is equally false. It is impossible to quantify the influence of foreign interference, especially several decades later, but it is equally as bad to say "it's all the US/France/the UK's fault" than it is to say "The US/France/the UK has/ve nothing to do with what is happening right now".

The fact that some former colonial nations are doing better than others do not mean that Western countries should ignore what they did in the past "because look, those guys managed to get over it, so anyone can".

It's the same reasoning behind education issues, using the success of a handful of people coming from the lower class to say "everyone's got a chance, see, so the system works perfectly well". Because one person, or one country, can overcome odds stacked against itself, does not mean that anyone can, or that a system where people/countries have to overcome those odds to have a shot at normality (let alone greatness) is working well.

Sending your kid to private school does not exempt you from property taxes. You can't write these off in most places. There is no tax exemption. So the reason the schools suck is not because they are starved for the funding that private school goers would otherwise be paying them.

The point is that, indeed, everyone pays those property taxes. And many find it unfair because it pays for public schools their kids don't go to. If all kids went to public schools, tend everyone's taxes would go towards funding something that actually profits them.

And if public schools were still underfunded, I am 100% sure that budget increases would happen. Because all politicians, and lawmakers, and wealthy donors, would thus directly improve the situation of their own kids or grandkids, they would have a direct stake in what is happening. So instead of helping "the poor", ie, for Parliament members, "others", it would help "them" directly.

It is always easier to find money and actually enact improvements when your own kids' education is on the line.

[Raga]

The line of argument that US schools are severely underfunded is not true. We actually spend more per student than almost any country in the world https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

In as much as our school suck, the answer is not just because we don't pay for things.

And as for all the stuff about colonialism, I'm not making the argument that we have no obligations for crappy things we've done. But we owe more for tangible, measurable modern things we've done then for nebulous indirect things that we did 40 or more years ago. For instance, I actually think we have an obligation to accept refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan because we are directly responsible for a lot of the mess there and for that reason I am generally opposed to the idea of a "Muslim ban" and I am especially appalled when we fail to give legal status in the US to Iraqi civilians who assisted our Armed Forces. I also think we have an obligation to accept refugees fleeing persecution and oppression simply because we are a democracy that should be standing by our values. To that end, I would absolutely support allowing in Rohingya refugees or people fleeing mass barrel bombing in Syria, with proper vetting of course.

I thoroughly reject the line of argument that we are obligated to allow in millions and millions of economic migrants because Reagan muckety-mucked with some scheme 30 years ago to fund certain rebel groups in already war-torn countries or because some robber barons from the United Fruit Company screwed with the economy of Costa Rica 70 years ago.

[Sinekein]

But if you look at the part of education in the US GDP, it is ranked below 80th at 4.9%.

The United States are the richest country on Earth. So if you look at per capita spending, of course it is huge, because for teachers (or other employees) to get decent wages to live there, you need to spend quite a bit of money.

But it does not mean it is sufficient. The best education systems in the world are significantly above that - Norway is at 6.9%, Sweden at 7.7%, Finland at 6.8%, Denmark at 8.7%...

And then there's the matter of how to spend your money. Tied with the US at 4.9% you have Poland which is one of the worst countries in the OECD when it comes to paying teachers, with a significant gender gap ($1000 difference a year between male and female teachers) on top of that.

I also think we have an obligation to accept refugees fleeing persecution and oppression simply because we are a democracy that should be standing by our values. To that end, I would absolutely support allowing in Rohingya refugees or people fleeing mass barrel bombing in Syria, with proper vetting of course.

I thoroughly reject the line of argument that we are obligated to allow in millions and millions of economic migrants because Reagan muckety-mucked with some scheme 30 years ago to fund certain rebel groups in already war-torn countries or because some robber barons from the United Fruit Company screwed with the economy of Costa Rica 70 years ago.

Not obligated, again.

And migrants from Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria - because the war there is a direct consequence from the 2003 Iraqi war and Saddam Hussein's fall - mostly don't go to the US anyway. They barely make it through the Mediterranean sea, so the number that will get a plane ticket to the US is ridiculously low. I assume the number of Rohingya who might eventually ask for asylum on the US soil is not going to be counted in the millions.

As for "economic migrant", I despise that phrasing, because it makes it sound like the elderly British people buying a house in Corrèze or in the Périgord because the taxes are lower and the weather is nice. Many of those economic migrants are either fleeing gang violence, or starvation, as is currently the case in Venezuela. They don't come to the US to get a bigger house and a shinier car, and they definitely are not escaping from a life of comfort. They're basically like the "economic migrants" who funded the US, except this time, the people who are already here have guns.

[Mobius_118]

One guy? I'll forgive you for not being a US Citizen and not knowing, but our benefits are getting worse along with our paychecks.

Meanwhile the rich get tax breaks, undeservedly so. If they paid their fair share in taxes we'd be a much more successful nation.

Still sounds like a you problem.

Yeah and then no-one will bother wanting to get rich as rich is a concept for the greedy meaning the average rate of success will actually go down to a less than spectacular level as past a certain point they'll see no point in earning or producing any more as there would be no advantage for them to do so.
Yeah, yo might get your taxes up a bit but you'll have a lot less companies able to provide things which you're currently really good at, such as tech sector, medical research, weapons research, sciences, etc.

Benevolent rich people are a lot rarer than greedy rich people and some are a necessary evil as they encourage others to become more of a success.

But, hey, you want to stop useless people from having too much money then go after shitty celebs and sports stars, they're the worst offenders.

Ah yes. Blame the poor. Surely it's their fault for living paycheck to paycheck along with government assistance.

Nevermind that, as a Federal employee, since the start of trumps fiscal policy I've seen my paychecks go from liveable to unsustainable.

But that's my fault.

[Mazder]

Ah yes. Blame the poor. Surely it's their fault for living paycheck to paycheck along with government assistance.

Nevermind that, as a Federal employee, since the start of trumps fiscal policy I've seen my paychecks go from liveable to unsustainable.

But that's my fault.

Not sure I blamed the poor for anything there, all I'm saying is you make it so no-one wants to get to that top point because the incentives start to get outweighed by problems then they're not going to want to do it.
It's the same with my work right now. I have been there 6 years, I am pretty much qualified to go for a supervisors position, but the pay is minimally better, the work hours double and my employee incentives (store discounts, holidays, etc) do not change. So why should I honestly bother climbing the ladder when the ladder is only 2 rungs long and full of splinters?
It's much better for me to look for work elsewhere and potentially get more for myself.
The same principle eventually applies on the "rich people" standpoint.

I never even said it was your fault, cut the victim complex bullshit right now, I'm not buying it. I said it was a you problem, as in it's all down to you, your situation, your shit, you deal with it. Vent all you like but don't for one second start a tirade on how hard it is for yourself when the economy differs from state to state. You hate Federal pay then look elsewhere for better. I am sure many private firms would hire a guy like you for good security work.

[Mobius_118]

Well since you're too dense to get the point, I'll leave it alone. You're getting as bad as GAC and Theo.

[Mazder]

Well since you're too dense to get the point, I'll leave it alone. You're getting as bad as GAC and Theo.

Or it's more the fact I don't give a fuck about the world's sole superpower bitching about it's own internal affairs when I got shit in Europe to worry abut first.
I'm sorry if your paycheck is getting cut an ickle bit but you've still got far more resources and opportunities than I do, so get it done.

[Raga]

The United States are the richest country on Earth. So if you look at per capita spending, of course it is huge, because for teachers (or other employees) to get decent wages to live there, you need to spend quite a bit of money.

It's not per capita spending. Our per capita spending is probably trivial. This is spending per student. Why would a measure of GDP percentage be a better reflection of how much money is going to education than money per student? Especially considering it's actually cheaper to live in much of the US than a lot of Europe and the money actually goes further.

By this measure we should have stellar healthcare because we spend like 17% of GDP on it, which is way higher than most other countries.

And migrants from Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria - because the war there is a direct consequence from the 2003 Iraqi war and Saddam Hussein's fall - mostly don't go to the US anyway. They barely make it through the Mediterranean sea, so the number that will get a plane ticket to the US is ridiculously low. I assume the number of Rohingya who might eventually ask for asylum on the US soil is not going to be counted in the millions.

I'm saying we should specifically court them, not wait for them to randomly wander here on their own.[/quote]

As for "economic migrant", I despise that phrasing

Take it up with the UN. There is a difference: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/ ... right.html

[Sinekein]

I meant per student - per capita among those who receive education. Looking at GDP shows how much a country actually invests in education considering the resources it can use.

And cost of life in the US is overall higher than in Germany, which ranks very high in Europe. So saying that it's cheaper to live in much of the US than in Europe is factually false, as in Europe you also have wide variations depending on how attractive a place is.

And the UN do not use the term "economic migrant". Only "migrant", which is fine by me. Even though it leaves people who run away from starvation, like in Venezuela, in a limbo.

"Economic migrants" used to be people seeking to improve their lot by moving to countries where the cost of life is lower. Now conservatives have decided that it also applies to people who are looking for a decent life they cannot hope for at home in a developed country.

[Raga]

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/r ... ountry.jsp

Also, the reason so many virulently pro-immigration people dislike the term "economic migrant" even though it does nothing but specify what specific kind of migrant we are talking about is because such explicitness frustrates attempts to deliberately obfuscate the difference between migrants and refugees thereby validating the claim of anybody who shows up at the border and claims refugee status.

[Raga]

Also, a solid half of asylum claims or more get rejected a year even back during Obama's Pro immigration phase in the last half of his presidency.

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/

It's also pretty telling that many of the people denied status here run up and try to apply in Canada and then get rejected there too.

I don't know if it helps any to point out that I'm not a conservative so this is not an attempted defense of everything that Trump's done on the immigration front. In as much as you could put a Paleo conservative and Bernie Sanders in a blender and get something coherent out of it, that's what I'd be.

A leftist populist Circa 1945 basically.

[Sinekein]

Cost of Living Index doesn't include accommodation expenses such as rent or mortgage.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

7 European coutries above the US. 2 are not part of the EU.

That's not "much of Europe", especially since it includes such geographical giants as Denmark, Switzerland and Luxemburg. And health costs are not covered.

I simply refuse to put in the same category middle-upper class Europeans who want to enjoy a higher living style during their golden days, and people running away from starvation as is the case with millions of Venezuelians at the moment. The former are economic migrants, and I have absolutely nothing against them. The latter are migrants.

As for the asylum claims, they are working as intended, to separate who should get it and who should not. Even though apparently some of the courts who take decisions are a wee bit farcical in the way they function, what with interrogating toddlers. I have nothing against that either and I do not consider that everyone should be welcomed. It's just that the current conservative movements in the EU or US are all going towards less and less empathy, which I find sickening especially as they often mix it with more and more racism, including towards former migrants or sons of who are absolutely legally here.

Which is hypocritical both in the US, a country of economic migrants, and in the EU, like France where the far-right vote is extremely high in areas where a large part of the population comes from Italian migrants from the early XXth century.