POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY
-
@Fox said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@masonwheeler I believe what he meant was that the final chapter of The Fall of The House of Reagan begins today.
How do you know? Are you psychic?
-
@Lorne-Kates It's not going to end, just like what Carter created hasn't ended. It'll just go into hiding until people rediscover it.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Sanders is a full on socialist, government takeover of all business, type.
Nope, not really. Everything I've read about him suggests that he's a social democrat, who just called himself a socialist to appear like more of a revoluzzer.
-
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Everything I've read about him suggests that he's a social democrat
And everything I've read about (EDIT MISREAD/TYPO)
social democratdemocratic socialism, is an half-assed tacked on "democracy" that's just there to make people feel more comfortable.What's going to happen when someone says, "all this socialism is great, but we want to use our democracy to vote it out".
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
you didn't invent anything new with progressivism. Eventually you'll become the conservatives and the younger progressives will suggest things you don't like.
So you're saying I need to be even more progressive.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
And everything I've read about social democrat, is an half-assed tacked on "democracy" that's just there to make people feel more comfortable.
*sigh*
Obviously, you've never taken a closer look at European politics, otherwise you'd know that it can work quite well in practice.
What's going to happen when someone says, "all this socialism is great, but we want to use our democracy to vote it out".
What do you think will happen? The other party wins the majority, of course, and can then do whatever they want.
are you suggesting by asking this question?
-
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Obviously, you've never taken a closer look at European politics, otherwise you'd know that it can work quite well in practice.
I've looked at European politics.
You haven't looked into democratic socialism.It's not the same thing.
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
What do you think will happen? The other party wins the majority, of course, and can then do whatever they want. are you suggesting by asking this question?
If socialism is so good for us, why would a system like that give it up?
So, it's not true democracy.
Also, we're not a democracy, we're not a capitalist democracy. Democracy sucks. Founding fathers made that a pretty serious point.
Also, I notice that democratic socialists never talk about rights past rights to social programs. I don't think they understand rights. And that's my first and major problem with them.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
I've looked at European politics.
You haven't looked into democratic socialism.
It's not the same thing.I was walking about social democrats, who do not promote Chavez-style "democratic socialism". Get your facts straight!
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
If socialism is so good for us, why would a system like that give it up?
What the hell are you smoking?
Read, then reply.
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Also, I notice that democratic socialists never talk about rights past rights to social programs. I don't think they understand rights. And that's my first and major problem with them.
So… Social liberalism is not a thing, then? I strongly believe in the individual's rights, and I think that a strong social network is necessary for guaranteeing them.
-
@blakeyrat said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
The problem is merely that the drug's penalties are completely out-of-whack with its effects. Which then causes other secondary problems, like a completely overloaded justice system, overcrowded prisons, etc.
...which is a completely different problem. Drug abusers need to be treated as victims in need of help, not criminals.
Drug dealers on the other hand... yes, the penalties are completely out of whack. Any law that treats dealing as less severe a crime than murder is out of whack.
No, I'm not exaggerating or trolling. Think about it for a second.
If I murder you with a knife or a gun, it might hurt for a few moments, and then it's over.
If I murder you by torture, it might be horrible for a few hours or days, and then it's over.
If I get you hooked on addictive drugs, though, then I'm murdering you slowly and painfully for the entire rest of your life, and along the way I'm taking away everything good in your life. Your wealth? Gone. Your relationships with your family and friends? Gone. Health? Employability? Good name and reputation? Wave bye-bye! And except for the very few lucky ones that get into treatment, (comparable to the lucky few gunshot or stabbing victims that get rushed to a hospital and kept alive by competent care long enough to get there,) that is how it ends. So how is it that drug dealing is considered less bad than murder, when its actual effect is even worse?
-
You're the one conflating them, not me.
Don't bait and switch.
Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a social democrat.
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Nope, not really. Everything I've read about him suggests that he's a social democrat
“… I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly.’’
Bernie doesn't understand Democracy.
He thinks democracy means that the little man will vote for himself, but also vote fairly and wisely.
He's an ivory tower person.
And if you don't read that and read "nationalized healthcare", then I can't help you.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a social democrat.
I disagree, but if you think that's the case, why didn't you just say so? Instead, you started to base your argument on an assumption I didn't know about. From where I am standing, it looked like you were trying to put words in my mouth and arguing against a straw man.
-
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
and arguing against a straw man.
Look, just because Sanders has wild hair...
-
@asdf Then show me quotes.
I have quotes.
I have connections to the democratic socialist party which, on their own site, laments not having every company nationalized.
Even if I'm wrong, he doesn't understand Democracy, because you can't rely on democracy to accomplish his platform.
-
@xaade I don't have to show you anything. I just wanted to express that I am super annoyed that you replied to my post while completely ignoring what I actually said. It's becoming a pattern, really.
Please, in the future, reply to the actual arguments I make, and don't post replies in which you completely change the subject and then claim this somehow refutes my arguments.
-
Fine... then...
You think he's a social democrat.
He's said he's a democratic socialist. He's made statements that align with that.
I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt
Until you give me something where he's saying he's not for nationalizing those institutions or where he distances himself from that party, I'm going to keep asserting that he's full on socialist and that he doesn't understand democracy.
"Socialist" — the word is a loaded term and often a rhetorical weapon. But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., seems to proudly claim it.
"Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word," he said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that."
When he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the word itself dominated headlines. But a few readers have objected to our use of the term.
"Would you kindly clarify your statements that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a socialist?" one reader wrote, "He says 'democratic socialist.' There is a whopping difference, and your misstatement plays into the Republican candidates' demeaning statements too perfectly."If there's any news outlet that connected him to social democrat, they misunderstood him.
In social democrat, democrat refers to Democrats.
In democratic socialist, democratic refers to Democracy.Two completely different things.
And when asked if he's full on socialist, he makes it a point that he's Democratic Socialist, pointing out several times that "Democratic" refers to a system of voting.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
He's said he's a democratic socialist. He's made statements that align with that.
I think that's partly because nobody in the US knows what a social democrat even is. I don't think Sanders has much in common with Chavez unless you manage to prove the opposite.
The statements you quoted are not a proof of anything other than the fact that he incorrectly calls himself a socialist. Which is exactly what I said.
-
@blakeyrat said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
They're in favor of EVERYTHING legalization. That's the problem.
That's one of the reasons I listed them in the quixotic ideas thread. Libertarianism will never have widespread adoption because most people don't want liberty. They might for themselves, but not for other people.
The other reason is that I'm not sure it's possible to keep government limited in the long term. There's a big "who guards the guards" problem there.
-
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Libertarianism will never have widespread adoption because most people don't want liberty. They might for themselves, but not for other people.
The other reason is that I'm not sure it's possible to keep government limited in the long term. There's a big "who guards the guards" problem there.Those are two of the reasons why I am a social liberal.
-
@asdf said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
I don't think Sanders has much in common with Chavez unless you manage to prove the opposite.
Because the "Democratic Socialists of America" think they can do a better job. They assert over and over that there is no true existing Democratic Socialist countries, and that every country that claims it is subverting democracy.
They think they can do it better. And they're naive. Because they beg the question that society is going to play nice and act they way they want.
From his own site. Feelthebern.org
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): Obamacare was a small victory for the uninsured, but it is time to take the fight against inadequate coverage even further.
Medicaid: Until comprehensive universal healthcare is passed, we must expand and improve the Medicaid program.
Medicare: We must expand “Medicare for All” by creating a single-payer health-care system for every American.
Universal Healthcare: Many countries have proven that a single-payer system can work—it’s time for the U.S. to join that list.Nationalized healthcare.
There are many successful cases of worker-owned businesses, but also some failures like any other type of business. With so few worker co-ops across the country, there is not much research available, but studies so far suggest that worker co-ops are at least as productive as comparable traditional businesses. Bernie supports them because, like unions, they give employees more influence over their own work lives.
He advocates worker co-ops.
Funny, worker co-ops are the first stage of work reform on the Democratic Socialists of America site. Suggesting that worker co-ops would be a success on the path to nationalized business.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialismWhat the hell do they mean, "democratic control".
They can't mean "democracy", so they must mean government control.
If they mean democratic control, then what happens when the big rich guy pays everyone off to vote for him? You end up in a cycle of worker freedom/abuse, seesawing back and forth.
Hell, even unions manipulate their members to vote against their own favor, creating crony unions, mirroring the crony business owners.
-
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@blakeyrat said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
They're in favor of EVERYTHING legalization. That's the problem.
That's one of the reasons I listed them in the quixotic ideas thread. Libertarianism will never have widespread adoption because most people don't want liberty. They might for themselves, but not for other people.
The other reason is that I'm not sure it's possible to keep government limited in the long term. There's a big "who guards the guards" problem there.
It's the same problems that socialism faces.
Which is why anarchy always evolves to socialism, or socialism never progresses to communism.
You see, you're basically saying "Freedom for people is problematic because people don't want freedom for other people".
Authoritarianism is just, yet another group, that doesn't want freedom for people because "WE know better".
It's a vicious cycle.
The reality I've come to face is that you're really just picking between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
Left/Right is a lie. It's a smokescreen to get you to vote more authoritarian.
-
@boomzilla said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
- Racial identity politics: especially black, Hispanic
BLM as a political party? That's a sobering thought.
- Unions: which share the Klansmen/took-our-jerbs/skinhead demographic
Friedman predicted a Wall party in The World is Flat that would comprise those groups.
- Alphabet soup of sexual identities
Seems like it would be a single-issue party.
- Feminists: abortion isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing
Also seems like it would be a single-issue party. My gut says that if any of these single-issue parties gained power, they'd pull a Farage, go "I DUNNO LOL" and resign.
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@Groaner said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Skinheads/Klansmen/Birthers/took-our-jerbs-ers
I like how his shirt matches the sign in the background.
-
@masonwheeler said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
If I get you hooked on addictive drugs, though, then I'm murdering you slowly and painfully for the entire rest of your life, and along the way I'm taking away everything good in your life.
You would have a case here if 100% of their customers became addicted. But that goes back to the other question I posed that you never answered: how many people use [drug of choice] and manage not to get addicted?
-
@mott555 said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Health insurance, not health care. There is a huge difference. Not to mention that the passage of the Affordable (lololololololol) Care Act was a major reason the Congress turned Republican.
Yeah, I know the difference between health care and health insurance. And one of the provisions of the ACA is to fund affordable insurance. And other provisions are for lowering cost of health care by increasing competition and efficiency.
(It worked)
-
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
You would have a case here if 100% of their customers became addicted.
What percentage level is sufficiently acceptable to be killed in that fashion that I would no longer have a case, then?
But that goes back to the other question I posed that you never answered: how many people use [drug of choice] and manage not to get addicted?
It varies from drug to drug. As a general rule of thumb, though, the more illegal it is, the lower that percentage becomes.
-
@masonwheeler said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
As a general rule of thumb, though, the more illegal it is, the lower that percentage becomes.
There are some notable exceptions, and I think we're talking about one of the exceptions here.
@masonwheeler said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
What percentage level is sufficiently acceptable to be killed in that fashion that I would no longer have a case, then?
such that
addiction_percentage*num_customers < 1. Drugs should be made less available/more expensive proportional to their cost to the rest of us. Alcohol is taxed because drunk people break stuff and wake up hungover. Crack is illegal('taxed' with prison time, if you like) because people on crack break a lot of stuff and often ruin their lives. Caffeine isn't taxed heavily because caffeinated people mostly don't break stuff.There's math you can do on this kind of thing. We're not doing it, but you totally could. We're trying to do math with feelings, instead.
-
@masonwheeler said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
What percentage level is sufficiently acceptable to be killed in that fashion that I would no longer have a case, then?
It doesn't matter. Your argument depends on everyone who buys from the dealer getting addicted. There's a big difference between killing someone and doing something that may kill someone. We don't prosecute reckless drivers under murder laws. Even if it was 100%, you'd need to prove intent to execute under first-degree murder laws.
-
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
you'd need to prove intent to execute under first-degree murder laws
Not entirely true. If you're willfully committing some other crime, say arson, and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with murder, even though you didn't intend to kill anyone.
-
@HardwareGeek said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
you'd need to prove intent to execute under first-degree murder laws
Not entirely true. If you're willfully committing some other crime, say arson, and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with murder, even though you didn't intend to kill anyone.
Or at least some form of "negligence causing death".
-
Wankers, fear the Trump: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pledge-against-pornography_us_57a00928e4b0e2e15eb701fc
-
@xaade said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Democratic Socialists of America
You keep mentioning them and equating their views with the views of the candidate they support. Is Bernie Sanders a member of that organization? If not, why are you acting like his views are exactly the same as the organization's views?
-
@HardwareGeek said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Not entirely true. If you're willfully committing some other crime, say arson, and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with murder, even though you didn't intend to kill anyone.
Manslaughter? Probably. Murder one? Definitely not.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html
inb4
Sure, they probably could be charged with first-degree murder, but getting a conviction would be another matter.
-
@antiquarian said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Murder one? Definitely not
From the third paragraph of the article you just linked:
Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- such as arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.
So, yes, murder one.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
(It worked)
Scenario: I'm unmarried, no children. I have a sinus infection. Let me go visit a practitioner and get some medicine.
The average cost on an insured person in my area used to be $25, and they visited an MD. Their premium was < $100 a month.
Today the average cost on an insured person is $125, they visit an NP, and their premium is $200 a month.So, yes, the average cost of healthcare went down, if you disregard that people are visiting less experienced practitioners with lesser degrees, and they're spending out of pocket more for it.
Today, if I reach my deductible, my total healthcare costs (premium and invoices) is literally double.
But, hey, those unemployed 24 year olds that refuse to go to college or got kicked out of their homes can now pay just as much as I do for healthcare, meaning, they still can't afford it.
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
efficiency
???
Is the government exchange site working yet?
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@mott555 said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Health insurance, not health care. There is a huge difference. Not to mention that the passage of the Affordable (lololololololol) Care Act was a major reason the Congress turned Republican.
Yeah, I know the difference between health care and health insurance. And one of the provisions of the ACA is to fund affordable insurance. And other provisions are for lowering cost of health care by increasing competition and efficiency.
(It worked)
You have a strange definition of "worked". My insurance premiums skyrocketed, my out-of-pocket costs increased a bunch, and my insurance provider has changed about once a year since Obamacare was enacted partially because health insurance companies keep collapsing.
I don't even use my health insurance anymore, because local doctors have found out that the billing is now so convoluted it is actually cheaper for both the doctor and me to just skip insurance and let me pay directly out-of-pocket. It doesn't apply towards my deductible, but my deductible is so high I'd never reach it anyway. Why does the Affordable Care Act make it cheaper to have but not use insurance1, than it is to not have and not use insurance, or to have and use insurance?
1 Answer: Because it's just another tax, designed to make us pay for broken useless stuff that we don't want, but the penalty for not paying the tax is a much higher tax. Taxed if you do, taxed more if you don't.
-
@HardwareGeek said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Not entirely true. If you're willfully committing some other crime, say arson, and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with murder, even though you didn't intend to kill anyone.
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few arsonists got burned by those statutes.
-
My copay for a doctor's visit is $20. I pay about $140 a month.
So, if you want to compare insurance, you have to compare:
- deductible
- age
- coverage
- number of insured dependents and their ages and coverages
My insurance premiums skyrocketed, my out-of-pocket costs increased a bunch,
You're over insured. You were paying for the spike in demand in the reinsurance market (which is an ultra-competitive zero sum market). That spike is gone now, by the way.
I don't even use my health insurance anymore, because local doctors have found out that the billing is now so convoluted it is actually cheaper for both the doctor and me to just skip insurance and let me pay directly out-of-pocket.
It's always been easier to pay out of pocket. Doctors have always loved that.
It doesn't apply towards my deductible, but my deductible is so high I'd never reach it anyway. Why does the Affordable Care Act make it cheaper to have but not use insurance1, than it is to not have and not use insurance, or to have and use insurance?
Because insurance is supposed to pay for emergencies. If you have regularly scheduled "maintenance" checkups and the like, pay for them out of a regular account. Otherwise, you're using an insurance company (and all of the expensive analysis work that it takes to make one run) to have a health service account. Health service accounts are great! But insurance companies don't make the best HSA providers. (Again, because a HSA is like a normal bank account -- you can't pull out more money than you have put in. This is very very much unlike an insurance "account")
Answer: Because it's just another tax, designed to make us pay for broken useless stuff that we don't want, but the penalty for not paying the tax is a much higher tax. Taxed if you do, taxed more if you don't.
It's insurance. You can call it a "tax" if you want, but who are you paying it to? You're paying your insurance company for a service they render. And there is stiff competition in the health insurance market. You might not like it that insurance is mandatory now, but because of the way insurance works, making it mandatory improves economic efficiency.
-
@Captain I had emergency surgery last year. Insurance paid $0. I paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. I don't know who I'm paying or why but they aren't providing any services to me, and there's no competition so I can't switch even if I wanted to. That's hardly what I call overinsured.
If they want to improve "economic efficiency", they should quit charging me for stuff they won't let me use.
-
@mott555 How much was the surgery, and how much is the deductible? (I'm not trying to argue with you here)
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
You're paying your insurance company for a service they refuse to render when it's needed most.
When it comes to the medical variety, the term 'insurance fraud' is essentially a redundancy, and Elizabeth Warren was exactly right when she compared it to "an umbrella that melts in the rain."
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@mott555 How much was the surgery, and how much is the deductible? (I'm not trying to argue with you here)
The surgery was somewhere between $4 - 5k. I don't even know what my deductible is anymore because it keeps changing, nor do I know how to look it up without spending an hour on hold, but I know that pre-ACA my deductible was $1500/yr and right after that it went to $3000/yr and now it's apparently more than $5000/yr.
-
@masonwheeler Uffda that's a complicated topic. I worked as a statistical analyst in a firm that investigates medical billing and insurance fraud. The billing fraud was worse. Doctors would over-charge patients and simultaneously spam insurance companies with separate bills (meaning 10 times the paperwork), and insurance companies just couldn't keep up. So they paid a lot out on billing fraud.
I'm not saying insurance companies are saints (they're not). But there's another side to why they reject claims on statistical grounds. You might just have a shitty doctor who's been stealing.
-
@Groaner said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few arsonists got burned by those statutes.
Paging @Groan... Uh, wait....
-
@mott555 Yeah, well, there's a reason why we're all supposed to have 6 months pay stashed away in a money market account...
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
Yeah, well, there's a reason why we're all supposed to have 6 months pay stashed away in a money market account...
Yes, it's in case you lose your job. So now we need 12 months stashed away.
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
@mott555 Yeah, well, there's a reason why we're all supposed to have 6 months pay stashed away in a money market account...
There's that, but that takes time I haven't had yet since I'm only 5 years out of college while paying off student loans and already laid off from one job because of the ACA.
-
@antiquarian How many emergencies do you have in a year? I know I can pay for 5 $4000 emergencies this year without any drop in my standard of living.
-
@Captain said in POLITICS The Collapse of the RNC BEGINS TODAY:
I'm not saying insurance companies are saints (they're not). But there's another side to why they reject claims on statistical grounds. You might just have a shitty doctor who's been stealing.
I don't. I'm ridiculously healthy and I might have seen a doctor 5 times in the last 15 years. But for people without my constitution, dealing with insurance tends to be a nightmare far more often than not.
I think the biggest factor is that it's not insurance, not in the way we think of it. If car insurance was like health insurance, I'd be filing a claim every time I filled up the tank or sent it to the dealership for routine maintenance. If homeowner's insurance was like health insurance, my parents would have to be very careful when they did some remodeling work, because Home Depot is in-network for them but Lowe's isn't. (Or was it the other way around?)
Health insurance, in its current state, is a massive scam that needs to die, the quicker, the better.
-
@mott555 There's that, but that takes time
It does. Life isn't easy.
When I was your age, I was working in a factory, earning minimum wage. I had no insurance or health care.
You can put off your student loans for a while if you "consolidate" (i.e., refinance) your loans. Interest rates are stupid low now. I put off my student loans and am capitalizing business number two with it. Still cheaper than a bank loan.
Social democracy - Wikipedia
