Yeah, politicians do in a way bribe older folk for votes, so in a way I guess it is a way to even things up.
It also may just be good policy to give incoming young professionals some form of breathing room in a space where real wages have stayed flat, housing and rent both cost significantly more than they used to, and people are putting off kids because they don't have the income to sustain it. MAYBE JUST MAYBE after years of screwing over the young for the old, it makes sense to actually try to help those coming into the workforce, those coming into the middle class, in a meaningful way.
Wait what? During tonight’s #DemDebate, a GOP congressman threatened to shoot a presidential candidate, and a new GOP PAC ran an ad that opened with @AOC’s face being burned off. The GOP clearly sees inflicting terror as the only path to victory. Don’t underestimate what they’ll do.— Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) September 13, 2019
Those people aren't young anymore. Indeed millenials are easily the most powerful consumer group. Why this matters is wealth redistribution, just like healthcare
Yes - because Gen X is getting old and their parents are dying out. We need to transfer wealth to the most important consumer group which is the millennial group. The idea there people are young is nonsense
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES This has been Elizabeth Warren's work. The old have systematically screwed the young for 40 years now. Has been mostly a Republican thing but the Dems have played their part too. It is long, long past time that practice ends. For the good of the entire country. I am hoping that Warren can make that case eloquently and constructively. I would date the start of the Old Takeover to June 6th, 1978 -- the day that California's Proposition 13 passed. That effectively transferred assets from school children to (mostly old) property owners. It's been all downhill for the young since then.
Yeah, some days I just feel like we should nakedly expropriate everything from the rich. They've been redistributing wealth from the 99.99% to the .01% for decades and if we don't seize government and start taking it back, it will just continue forever. Turnabout is fair play after all.
Like everything there would have to be a lot of details to see who gets money. For example paying for an upper middle class person in private college that took a semester study abroad to go to Barcelona seems kind of fvcked up (studying abroad can be good for people). While POC do have on average more debt than white people and are more likely to have college debt, in other ways this proposal may be racially regressive as on average a smaller percentage of POC go to college. So I am not sure, it does help minorities that went to college more, so it is racially progressive that way, but fewer POC (excludes Asians) actually go to college. Also people that did not go to college for what ever reason, bad grades, family issues, needed to work, ect. get the shaft, then again those people don't vote (vote in lower rates), so perhaps they deserve to get the shaft. https://studentloanhero.com/featured/study-student-loans-weigh-heaviest-black-hispanic/ https://www.insidehighered.com/news...on-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds Edit: Also Pre-K spending would be more progressive and in theory do a lot more to close the wealth gap, racial inequality than money for college, currently gaps start occurring very early in the schooling process, so by the time people get to college there is already a big racial/income inequality with in students. Obviously some posters will argue, why not both? Well if you can raise taxes high enough then sure we can do both.
The selection process is random, applicants are not required to have had donated to his campaign nor are they required to vote for him. The funds are also apparently coming from his personal bank account so what legalities are you concerned about? I did a quick look into campaign rules and can't seem to find anything that validates your concerns so...
Oh, our new "favorite" Texas State Representative, Briscoe Cain III, aka the "foetus in the sweater" I am not reposting the tweets, but here is the text of the exchange: On September 12, 2019, Beto O'Rourke's said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" during a Democratic presidential primary debate. In response, Cain tweeted: "My AR is ready for you Robert Francis." O'Rourke: "This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else." Twitter removed the tweet, saying it was against the site's rules, which prohibit violent threats. Cain then posted, "You are a child Robert Francis." https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...wn-texas-gop-lawmakers-ar-tweet-about-orourke [that last sentence has now been removed from Cain's wikipedia page]
Some GOP rep said that his AR was ready for Beto. I guess Beto's campaign contacted the FBI about the tweet.
Recap of the debate. At the third round of 2020 Democratic debates in Houston, the moderators play hardball, Andrew Yang plays Oprah, and Castro comes after Biden. pic.twitter.com/hKgbclbJ1E— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) September 13, 2019
Ok, so some Democrats are taking issue with Castro regarding the exchange about Bidden forgetting what he said 2 minutes ago. But come the fvck on, I guess people talking about the Gorilla in the Room on how the DNC Dauphin may not be totally up to par up there is bad news. What the Fvck do you all think the Trump campaign is going to do. If Bidden wins we may have debates with two rambling fools talking nonsense past each other. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...359a6c-d576-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html
I mean, yeah. The Democratic electorate, particularly the older voters who appear to be Joe's base, don't want to hear it, but it's a problem.
It's deeply ironic that The Big concern about democracy is that the (presumably undeserving) masses would use their numerical superiority to cheat the (presumably deserving) wealthy, but actually the opposite is occurring. Every year, the wealthy take more of the masses' chips. They take and take and take, and the masses are bewildered, sensing that somehow they are being wronged but incapable of righting that wrong.
Would this be the first time in history that a fetus aborted after birth stands his ground? I can see the Republicans and Evangelicals vaping about it...
My problem with that exchange is that Castro didn't have a very good leg to stand on. He was mischaracterizing what Biden said.
If Beto wins, I fully expect some low level civil war. I was shocked to hear that he plans on literally confiscating every legally purchased AR15 in the country by government force. This is mind boggling. Imagine if the GOP did that to something liberals cared about. Actually threatening to confiscate something you bought legally with your hard earned money. This goes way beyond banning future sales. This is retroactive retribution. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't have any constitutional authority to do this. Does he plan on doing it by executive order? This is in my top 3 worst Democratic policies on the table today: 1) Taking away private insurance from 150 million Americans by force 2) Gun confiscation by force. 3) Federal Job Guarantee Remember when we used to joke on the left that Republicans are overreacting with the "they're taking our guns" schtick? Well it's not a joke anymore. Those Republicans actually turned out to be right.
Call me an out of touch white suburban liberal but I'd be surprised if there was any significant portion of the population willing to die for their right to own their AR-15s.
You'd be surprised. Anyways. Confiscation is poor policy if the goal is to decrease mass shootings. That will just feed the self radicalization loop. It will prove to a lot of people that the government really is using authoritarian methods. Which could actually create more mass shooters. The smarter policy is to focus on policies regarding future gun sales. Retroactively the best you can do is a voluntary buyback program.
This data is fairly interesting on the debate. Cliff's Notes: 1. Castro was a decisive loser here. By far the largest movement of the night was towards a less favourable outlook for Castro. Pretty clear that the perception of ganging up on or targeting Biden/Biden's age doesn't work in your favor. 2. If there was a winner, it was Warren. Boosted her favorables, people perceived her as the best debater of the night, pretty solid all around. 3. Marginal losses for Biden, Sanders, Harris in the aftermath of the debate, marginal gains for Warren, Booker, Beto, Yang, Klobuchar, and Buttgieg. 4. Overall relatively little changed.