Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

Yeah, he must be a Mexican with a name like that

He's from the Middle East, so doesn't that make him Musiim?

[kenberg]

I have been criticized more than once, well more than twice and more than thrice, for insufficient research. I accept that this is so. I offer a link for those like myself who would like a short summary. No doubt details matter, I don't deny that.

 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm#inbox/FMfcgxwChJkxwBZkmCfLrvWRjBRWCklb

 

Here is the part I have in mind:

 

THE DIFFERENT WAYS DEMOCRATS WANT TO TACKLE HIGHER ED

By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews

Correspondent

 

Things have changed quickly for the Democratic field. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was nearly alone in his push for universal free college tuition, but now a large chunk of his fellow 2020 candidates embrace some version of tuition or debt relief.

 

But the language the Democratic presidential candidates use, and sometimes the lack of details in their plans, makes it hard to differentiate their proposals. Here is a brief 101 on the different ways Democrats would approach the cost of college.

 

• Tuition-free. This is perhaps the most important part of the debate to understand: the difference between the terms “tuition-free” and “debt-free.” Some candidates, like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would like to make tuition free for all students at public two-year and four-year schools across the country. In their plans, federal and state governments would pay those costs. Others backing “tuition-free” plans include: Julián Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Marianne Williamson.

  
  

• Debt free. In contrast, “Debt-free” plans focus on each student’s total college bill, including room and board, and how much of that bill the student and their family can pay. These plans, with some variation, generally would fund whatever portion of the total bill students can’t afford.

  
  

• Debt forgiveness. This is a close cousin of the “debt-free” plans. Debt forgiveness plans would forgive up to a certain amount of student loan debt, usually with more loan forgiveness for families with lower incomes. Warren, in addition to making tuition free at public colleges, would also forgive or pay for up to $50,000 of debt per student. Others on board with this idea in some form include: Williamson, Andrew Yang, Castro and Wayne Messam.

  
  

• Lower interest rates on student loans. Another approach taken by many candidates is calling for the student loans to get refinanced with lower interest rates. Advocating for this are: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Eric Swalwell of California, and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

  
  

• Public service in exchange for college funds. Other candidates would like to increase financial assistance for students who agree to enter public service after college.

My thoughts run in the direction of the "Tuition Free" view although I am not sure that it should be totally free. I am not at all enthusiastic, for a variety of reasons, about debt forgiveness, nor for the public service option.

[hrothgar]

Few quick thoughts about the Democratic proposals surrounding higher education...

 

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

 

2. I do believe that higher education is too expensive. I'd like to see a lot more investment in the state universities and local community colleges. 30 years ago, this is how many families afforded good solid educations at reasonable prices.

 

3. I also think that the US will need to implement some kind of Universal Basic Income scheme. It is my hope that this would provide some degree of assistance for low income folks. If folks choose to use their $$$ for tuition, great!

 

4. I am at least somewhat skeptical about the current debt forgiveness schemes. I much prefer reversing the changes that were made to the US bankruptcy laws that prevent people from declaring bankruptcy to discharge educational debt.

 

5. I like the system that Australia uses where student's debt repayment is tied to the earnings for their future professions

[kenberg]

Few quick thoughts about the Democratic proposals surrounding higher education...

 

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

 

2. I do believe that higher education is too expensive. I'd like to see a lot more investment in the state universities and local community colleges. 30 years ago, this is how many families afforded good solid educations at reasonable prices.

 

3. I also think that the US will need to implement some kind of Universal Basic Income scheme. It is my hope that this would provide some degree of assistance for low income folks. If folks choose to use their $$ for tuition, great!

 

4. I am at least somewhat skeptical about the current debt forgiveness schemes. I much prefer reversing the changes that were made to the US bankruptcy laws that prevent people from declaring bankruptcy to discharge educational debt.

 

5. I like the system that Australia uses where student's debt repayment is tied to the earnings for their future professions

 

Your first issue relates to why I said I'm not sure it should be totally free. It's not just a lack of generosity on my part. I view the ages 17-21 as critical. It's old enough to be pretty autonomous, young enough that society accepts that you can still be preparing for your adult life. I don't want some 17 year old stumbling into college because it's there and it's free. I do want him/her to be able to do this preparation for adulthood without being completely buried by the costs.

 

Young people are told a lot of stuff. "You can be anything you want to be". No, not really. A 17 year old needs to be thinking: "What are my interests?" "Where do my abilities lie?" "How important is it to have a lot of money?" "Is it important to me that my job be clearly of great public benefit?" And so on. Then I want him/her to be able to bring realistic plans to a good conclusion. Society can help with this, and it will be to everyone's benefit.

[y66]

I think we spend too much time talking about the cost of education and closing the education gap and not enough talking about the goals of education for which I offer this example of the importance of taking responsibility for decisions and thinking things through from a post from 2014:

 

I believe that the best thing that I did during my adolescence to prepare me for college was to buy a car. A '47 Plymouth for $175. It often needed work, fairly often substantial work, to keep it running. I learned a lot about why you should read up on things and think things through before starting out.

In "The Lay of the Land" by Richard Ford, the protagonist says the thing he learned from sending his daughter to Harvard is that Harvard teaches kids how to fail which, in hindsight, seems obvious and something he sort of wishes he'd learned earlier.

[cherdano]

Ta-Nehisi Coates testimony in congress on reparations. 5 minutes worth of powerful poetry.

[cherdano]

Your first issue relates to why I said I'm not sure it should be totally free. It's not just a lack of generosity on my part. I view the ages 17-21 as critical. It's old enough to be pretty autonomous, young enough that society accepts that you can still be preparing for your adult life. I don't want some 17 year old stumbling into college because it's there and it's free.

But it's free for many 17-year olds (with rich parents).

[kenberg]

But it's free for many 17-year olds (with rich parents).

 

This is true, and I have been thinking about it. Often rich kids, and even those who are merely pretty well off, go to Harvard or some lesser but expensive school. But not always.

 

Perhaps some sliding scale of tuition based on need is right, but it gets tricky. A 16 year old in high school is still the responsibility of his/her parents. A 19 year old in college, maybe not. My priority is that a young person of modest means be able to afford college. Certainly some families hardly need help at all, and some need help, and some need a lot of help. I'm ok with working this fact into the plan, but I do think it gets trickier for the 19 year old than for the 9 year old. A 19 year old and his/her parents, rich or not, may have long since parted ways.

[Winstonm]

This is true, and I have been thinking about it. Often rich kids, and even those who are merely pretty well off, go to Harvard or some lesser but expensive school. But not always.

 

Perhaps some sliding scale of tuition based on need is right, but it gets tricky. A 16 year old in high school is still the responsibility of his/her parents. A 19 year old in college, maybe not. My priority is that a young person of modest means be able to afford college. Certainly some families hardly need help at all, and some need help, and some need a lot of help. I'm ok with working this fact into the plan, but I do think it gets trickier for the 19 year old than for the 9 year old. A 19 year old and his/her parents, rich or not, may have long since parted ways.

 

The effects of capitalism have to be considered: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/the-fed-just-released-a-damning-indictment-of-capitalism.html

 

In its new Distributive Financial Accounts data series, the central bank offers a granular picture of how American capitalism has been distributing the gains of economic growth over the past three decades. Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project took the Fed’s data and calculated how much the respective net worth of America’s top one percent and its bottom 50 percent has changed since 1989.

 

He found that America’s superrich have grown about $21 trillion richer since Taylor Swift was born, while those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution have grown $900 billion poorer.

 

 

Notably, this measure of wealth includes liabilities, such as student debt. And it does not include consumer goods, such as computers or refrigerators, as economists do not conventionally view such products as wealth assets. But if one did include the Fed’s data on the distribution of consumer goods, the wealth gap between the top one percent and bottom 50 would actually be even larger.

 

Instead of thinking about the cost of "American" education, it might be more accurate to consider how to educate those living in the American caste system.

[barmar]

1. I am philosophically opposed to "free tuition" plans. I've seen far too many people treat college as 4+ years of very expensive summer camp and I worry that significant subsidies would encourage this even more

I wonder how much of that there would be among people who hope to use a college education as a way to escape poverty?

 

I expect that most of those you've seen were people who were born with a silver spoon, so they're going to have a good life even if they just sleep through college.

 

That said, it seems like any higher education assistance program could have stipulations that the student actually put in the work, such as taking a certain number of credits and maintaining a minimum GPA. I think lots of scholarship programs do things like this.

[y66]

From Taoiseach and Trump had ’disagreement’ over trade by Marie O'Halleran at the Irish Times via Matt Yglesias (tweeting from Dublin):

 

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and US president Donald Trump had a “disagreement” on the balance of trade surpluses at their meeting in Shannon, Co Clare.

 

Mr Varadkar told the Dáil: “I have met President Trump three times now, so I think I have the measure of him, perhaps a little bit more than those who have not.”

 

The Taoiseach met Mr Trump when he arrived at Shannon for his visit to his golf resort at Doonbeg in early June.

 

Mr Varadkar was responding to opposition leaders about the US president’s trip to Ireland as part of his visit to mark the 75th anniversary in France of the D-Day landings in Normandy.

 

He said they discussed trade, Brexit and climate change.

 

Asked about State spending at properties owned by Mr Trump, the Taoiseach said he was not aware of any Government spending at any Trump organisation properties either in Ireland or the US.

 

They had a disagreement about trade and Mr Trump “counts the merchandise surplus but doesn’t have regard to the services and that is very much how he sees things, in terms of physical goods and not services.

 

“So we had a disagreement as you can imagine on that, with me pointing out that in the modern economy it is more about services than it is about merchandise and that the US has a very significant services surplus over us which more than balance out the merchandise surplus we have over them.

 

“I also pointed out that measurements are distorted by the fact we have such large US companies here in Ireland.”

 

He said he also explained “why EU membership is good for Ireland, why Brexit is bad for the UK, why I think Brexit is bad for Ireland and why I think Brexit is bad for the EU, and also have explained the peace process - a hard border and what that would mean and why we are doing all we can to avoid it”.

 

He did not have any private discussions with anyone in the Trump delegation “just an exchange of pleasantries, but the time and opportunity wasn’t there to have any one-to-one conversations with any of his delegation”.

Apparently, the Taoiseach does not play golf.

[y66]

I watched some of the reparation hearing yesterday. I enjoyed Coates' rebuttal of McConnell's comments. Not sure where Coleman Hughes is coming from but his thinking is a lot closer to mine than Coates'.

[kenberg]

I wonder how much of that there would be among people who hope to use a college education as a way to escape poverty?

 

I expect that most of those you've seen were people who were born with a silver spoon, so they're going to have a good life even if they just sleep through college.

 

That said, it seems like any higher education assistance program could have stipulations that the student actually put in the work, such as taking a certain number of credits and maintaining a minimum GPA. I think lots of scholarship programs do things like this.

 

I assumed that the silver spoon kids were largely what Richard was thinking of when he was expressing his dissatisfaction with free tuition, and I agree that it's a problem.

[hrothgar]

 

I expect that most of those you've seen were people who were born with a silver spoon, so they're going to have a good life even if they just sleep through college.

 

 

Some of them did, many of them didn't

[johnu]

Sick SOB's infest White House and government agencies

 

Trump Administration Argues Detained Migrant Children Don't Need Toothbrushes, Soap

 

The Trump administration went to court this week to argue that migrant children detained at the United States-Mexico border do not require basic hygiene products like soap and toothbrushes in order to be in held in "safe and sanitary" conditions. Trump's team also argued that requiring minors to sleep on cold concrete floors in crowded cells with low temperatures similarly fulfilled that requirement.

"You're really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn't a question of safe and sanitary conditions?" U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon asked Fabian.

 

Other judges also expressed outrage.

 

"Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you've got an aluminum foil blanket?" U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher asked Fabian. "I find that inconceivable that the government would say that that is safe and sanitary."

Presumably Dennison appointed judges would have agreed with the government position.

 

The next time one of the Confederate states makes waves about wanting to secede from the Union (again), the Blue states should do everything in their power to make that happen.

[PassedOut]

Sick SOB's infest White House and government agencies

 

Trump Administration Argues Detained Migrant Children Don't Need Toothbrushes, Soap

 

Presumably Dennison appointed judges would have agreed with the government position.

 

The next time one of the Confederate states makes waves about wanting to secede from the Union (again), the Blue states should do everything in their power to make that happen.

Brings into focus the fact that Trump and his followers are truly evil, through and through.

[Winstonm]

Sick SOB's infest White House and government agencies

 

Trump Administration Argues Detained Migrant Children Don't Need Toothbrushes, Soap

 

 

 

Presumably Dennison appointed judges would have agreed with the government position.

 

The next time one of the Confederate states makes waves about wanting to secede from the Union (again), the Blue states should do everything in their power to make that happen.

 

The sickest SOB is in the office of Attorney General, making the DOJ the enforcement arm of the president. How do you like them apples?

[barmar]

It's kind of easy to understand the administration's position on this. They've said all along that family separation is intended as a deterrant to illegal immigration. The worse they make it, the more the potential migrants should be deterred. They'll just say "You don't want your kids living in crappy conditions like this? Don't cross the border."

 

it's the same kind of evil that dropping atomic bombs on innocent civilians was.

[Winstonm]

 

 

You cannot possibly believe this. I deleted it so you could have a chance to rethink and possibly delete your original.

 

You might want to consider first things like Pearl Harbor before making any comparisons.

[hrothgar]

For a change, looks like Trump actually got one right

 

(I'm referring to his decision to stop the planned military strikes against Iran this AM)

[y66]

From Bobby Ghosh at Bloomberg:

 

What we’re seeing unfold in the Persian Gulf is a confrontation between a U.S. president who doesn’t know when he’s winning, and a Supreme Leader who doesn’t know when he’s losing. If Donald Trump changes his mind again and orders an attack on Iranian targets, he will have played into Ali Khamenei’s hands.

 

It’s too early to exhale after Trump’s decision to cancel a military strike last night. If he could order the jets scrambled once – without giving Congress or American allies much time to consult and advise – he can do so again. The next time, he may not call it off.

 

But that would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump seems to have lost sight of the fact that his “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against the Islamic Republic is working: Iran’s economy is feeling great pain, and its isolation is deepening. For all of its proclamations of resistance and resilience, the regime in Tehran is plainly alarmed.

 

In its panic, it has started to lash out in ways that hurt its own interests, and erode the sympathy it has enjoyed in international circles since Trump pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear deal last year. The threat to resume uranium enrichment, and to exceed agreed limits, is already losing Iran the support of the Europeans, as are the attacks on neutral shipping near the Persian Gulf. Khamenei’s humiliation of the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who made a good-faith effort to mediate an end to the confrontation, has cost Iran more goodwill. The shooting down of an American drone was yet another demonstration of the regime’s capacity for self-harm.

 

And Trump was, for once, playing his cards reasonably well. He stated his openness to negotiations and his desire to avoid war. He dismissed the tanker attacks as “very minor” and attributed the downing of the drone as the work of a “loose and stupid” individual. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also let the Iranians know that if their future actions caused the death of an American service member, it would trigger reprisals.

 

This is exactly the right response to Iran’s provocations: To brush them off and allow the regime to damage itself in the court of world opinion, even as it is continually weakened by sanctions. For the first time since Trump torched the nuclear deal, it was just conceivable that he would be able to show the Iranian regime up for what it is: A danger to its neighbors and the wider world.

[johnu]

For a change, looks like Trump actually got one right

 

(I'm referring to his decision to stop the planned military strikes against Iran this AM)

 

Seems even more frightening to me. Why did he sign the attack order in the first place? Presumably because Chickenshithawks Bolton and Pompeo temporarily convinced Dennison to attack like they've been trying to do for months. And why did Dennison change his mind? It is well documented that Dennison can't make up his mind, or more precisely, makes up his mind for minutes at a time before being influenced by the last person he talks to to change his mind again. The likely reason is that somebody(s) with moderate views on Iran managed to get his attention in the hours before the strike and get him to change his mind. What if these last minute arguments were unsuccessful? We could be in a shooting war with Iran right now.

[Winstonm]

For a change, looks like Trump actually got one right

 

(I'm referring to his decision to stop the planned military strikes against Iran this AM)

 

I'm betting someone at Fox News called it off.

[hrothgar]

Seems even more frightening to me. Why did he sign the attack order in the first place? Presumably because Chickenshithawks Bolton and Pompeo temporarily convinced Dennison to attack like they've been trying to do for months. And why did Dennison change his mind? It is well documented that Dennison can't make up his mind, or more precisely, makes up his mind for minutes at a time before being influenced by the last person he talks to to change his mind again. The likely reason is that somebody(s) with moderate views on Iran managed to get his attention in the hours before the strike and get him to change his mind. What if these last minute arguments were unsuccessful? We could be in a shooting war with Iran right now.

 

Yes, the process is terrible, but I am still thankful that things ended up where they did

[kenberg]

I realize that talking of Trump is largely a waste of breath, but the Iran non-strike brings me to comment. Here is a quoted tweet from WaPo:

 

"We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die," Trump wrote Friday on Twitter, embellishing several of the events in question. "150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it."

 

 

Sure, it's the Post so just dismiss it as fake news but I suppose others saw the tweet as well. So where are we?

 

If we take this literally, it seems that ten minutes before the strike it occurred to DT that a military strike on Iran might lead to some deaths. A normally intelligent ten year old would understand that a military strike might lead to some deaths. It is really not possible that this occurred to Trump just ten minutes before the actual strike. Is it?

 

Ah yes, but in the 2016 campaign we were frequently told by supporters that it is a mistake to take Trump literally. Well, that has turned out to be very true, and perhaps even beyond anyone's wildest dreams or nightmares. The world watches as we move toward what would be a horrific war and our president announces that ten minutes before the strike he realized that someone might get killed so he called it off. If taken at his word he sounds like a moron, but of course no one takes him at his word at all, not on this, not on anything. Maybe the drone was in international waters, maybe not, the one thing that is clear is that nobody is going to form an opinion on this matter by listening to Donald Trump. The man's words on any matter at all are simply irrelevant.

 

Trump supporters love this, for reasons I cannot imagine. Trump Derangement Syndrome they call it. People getting upset simply because, at a time of national peril, our president lies with a straight face and them lies some more.

 

This is where we are. Whether the issue is what day of the week it is, or a matter of grave national importance, nobody with an ounce of sense believes anything that our president says. I realize his supporters see this as one of Trump's strengths. I don't.