All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

A reclusive tycoon named Barre Seid secretly transferred his business empire to a dark money group run by Leonard Leo, the Republican operative spearheading the conservative crusade to remake the judicial system.

I heard about this but didn't know the background.

[JB]

“Estimate”
“Up to”
“About”
“Assumptions”
“Depending on”
“Could exceed”
Not much definite information here. Just a lot of speculation and big numbers getting thrown around.
Seems like a report designed as a prop for those against the program to use in their arguments.

You'll unfortunately see a lot of this when it comes to economic analysis. Mostly people can only speculate on how any new effort will impact the economy. It's really a wait and see thing.

I had no idea there were laws that saddled prisoners with debt after their incarcerations were over and I'm livid now that I know. I don't often write my congressmen but after I see what Mass' law is like you can bet I'll be letting them know how I feel.

There's a lot of ugly, hidden truths regarding the prison system. It's big business, in a lot of ways.

[JB]

Looks like Trump might have been thrown a lifeline:

Judge plans to appoint special master in Trump records case

Will it make a difference in the investigation? Guess we'll find out.

Addendum: Just found out that said judge, Aileen Cannon was a Trump appointee. No wonder she gave him a break.

I posted about Cannon being a Trump appointee last week: https://community.cbr.com/showthread...osing/page3420

Also, the politico article I posted explained that Reinhart could rule on this first. His decision would likely have been appealed but he has the power to rule before Cannon does.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I posted about Cannon being a Trump appointee last week: https://community.cbr.com/showthread...osing/page3420

Also, the politico article I posted explained that Reinhart could rule on this first. His decision would likely have been appealed but he has the power to rule before Cannon does.

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t aware you had already mentioned Cannon. Sometimes, I lose track of all the stuff that goes on in this thread.

[JB]

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t aware you had already mentioned Cannon. Sometimes, I lose track of all the stuff that goes on in this thread.

I completely understand, there's so much information posted nevermind how much is out there across the internet to sift through.

On the topic of student loan forgiveness (not in response to anyone specific), here is a thread tweeted by Jason Furman. Furman was the chairman of Obama's council of economic advisers. So not only was he on the council but he ran it. He has major problems with the decision, from an economic standpoint.
https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/stat...t-debt-bailout

To The Cool Thatguy's question, in the thread he references another thread he posted the day before, regarding how he believes "everyone else will pay for this either in the form of higher inflation or in higher taxes or lower benefits in the future."
https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/stat...70944412016640

He also did an interview yesterday with MarketWatch out of Jackson Hole:
Absent major student-loan reforms, ‘my preference would be no relief at all’: Obama economic adviser Jason Furman
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ab...ys-11661617946

I believe he makes a lot of valid points. There's a lot of disagreement on the topic, from experts, as noted in the article so it goes back to being a "wait and see" scenario because no one will know for sure how it impacts the whole. Too many variables to factor in right now. Morally, I'm in agreement with the loan forgiveness. Economically, I'm unsure.

[Malvolio]

You'll unfortunately see a lot of this when it comes to economic analysis. Mostly people can only speculate on how any new effort will impact the economy. It's really a wait and see thing.



There's a lot of ugly, hidden truths regarding the prison system. It's big business, in a lot of ways.

Especially when a lot of states farm out their prisoners to private for-profit prisons.

[seismic-2]

Looks like Trump might have been thrown a lifeline:

Judge plans to appoint special master in Trump records case

Will it make a difference in the investigation? Guess we'll find out.

Addendum: Just found out that said judge, Aileen Cannon was a Trump appointee. No wonder she gave him a break.

I don't see how having a Special Master review the boxes of materials that were removed from Trump's closets will "throw him a lifeline". All the Special Master can do is sort through the piles of stuff, putting items that truly belong to Trump (papers related to his real estate company, letters to his personal lawyer, carry-out menus from junk-food restaurants, etc.) into a pile that is returned to Trump, all actual documents pertaining to Government activities into another pile that goes to the National Archives, and an Oh-My-God-I-Can't-Believe-What-I'm-Seeing pile that goes under armed guard to a vault in the CIA and that gets reported to the FBI and the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution. The Special Master is a filter, not a roadblock.

[worstblogever]

Especially when a lot of states farm out their prisoners to private for-profit prisons.

The capitalist end-around to try and pretend that slavery isn't still around in some form.

[Malvolio]

The capitalist end-around to try and pretend that slavery isn't still around in some form.

But they'll say that the prisoners aren't there because of the color of their skin, but because of the crimes they've been convicted of. Of course, the fact that the majority of prisoners in for-profit prisons are Black or Latino has nothing to do with it, right?

[worstblogever]

But they'll say that the prisoners aren't there because of the color of their skin, but because of the crimes they've been convicted of. Of course, the fact that the majority of prisoners in for-profit prisons are Black or Latino has nothing to do with it, right?

"There's no way they're part of a system where we deliberately fail them, leave them with no other choices but to do crimes, or just plain frame them for some for prison labor! SURELY NOT. We don't have predominantly white police departments disproportionately harass people of color to find such offenses, or predominantly white judges sentence them to longer when they're found guilty. OH NO. But it's not like we don't pay 'em! I mean, sure, it's pennies on the dollar, but they get paid SOMETHING so it's not SLAVERY. Just as legally close to it as technically possible."

[Totoro Man]

As long as we are clear, Banning things is your idea, not mine.

The Government has the EPA to monitor the environment, the CDC to deal with medical issues, OSHA to look after worker safety, no reason why the government can't monitor the education system to make sure that everyone gets a fair and solid education.

I'm not convinced that "ban" is even the best word to use here. in this context the usage indicates "too expensive, we're not going to pay for that.... so, it won't exist".

if a degree or program doesn't sell enough units, generate enough money via tuition, and isn't subsidized by an external organization, then a school won't keep it available. some districts and governments have more money... and will be able to offer more options. other places won't be able to do that.

I had friends in college where their degree was considered unprofitable. the school officially terminated their degree over a year before they graduated! the students actually had to make a personal appeal to several deans and the University Vice President to find a way to graduate with their intended degree. otherwise, they might have been forced to transfer to another school, change majors, etc. that's pretty bad PR for a university... so, they found ways to make sure each student could graduate.

I'm not sure making another federal organization to oversee and manage education would necessarily improve things.

the 10th Amendment, and the wildly differing views of what it does/should mean, will present a problem.

education, at present, is largely state-run... and some states have radically different ideas about what a good education is. then there is the problem of what resources are available to them. something that would be an affordable option for New York or California wouldn't be possible in Wyoming or Maine. a sensible compromise in Utah or Hawaii might be unacceptable in Alaska or Florida. different states have different needs and expectations.

to put it another way... just how much power do you want to be available to your most hated political enemies in regard to education? at some point in the future, they WILL have access to that power. in this case, I think it's better to leave things as they are. especially since people can -theoretically- travel freely from one state to another to suit their personal likes and dislikes.

[thwhtGuardian]

I'm not convinced that "ban" is even the best word to use here. in this context the usage indicates "too expensive, we're not going to pay for that.... so, it won't exist".

if a degree or program doesn't sell enough units, generate enough money via tuition, and isn't subsidized by an external organization, then a school won't keep it available. some districts and governments have more money... and will be able to offer more options. other places won't be able to do that.

I had friends in college where their degree was considered unprofitable. the school officially terminated their degree over a year before they graduated! the students actually had to make a personal appeal to several deans and the University Vice President to find a way to graduate with their intended degree. otherwise, they might have been forced to transfer to another school, change majors, etc. that's pretty bad PR for a university... so, they found ways to make sure each student could graduate.

I'm not sure making another federal organization to oversee and manage education would necessarily improve things.

the 10th Amendment, and the wildly differing views of what it does/should mean, will present a problem.

education, at present, is largely state-run... and some states have radically different ideas about what a good education is. then there is the problem of what resources are available to them. something that would be an affordable option for New York or California wouldn't be possible in Wyoming or Maine. a sensible compromise in Utah or Hawaii might be unacceptable in Alaska or Florida. different states have different needs and expectations.

to put it another way... just how much power do you want to be available to your most hated political enemies in regard to education? at some point in the future, they WILL have access to that power. in this case, I think it's better to leave things as they are. especially since people can -theoretically- travel freely from one state to another to suit their personal likes and dislikes.

And yet plenty of other countries have standards of education that are uniform throughout their borders. That there are kids in the US who legitimately believe the Confederacy wasn't that wrong because that's what they were taught in school is a travesty. And it goes beyond that, the literacy levels required to pass in some states are laughably low and places where Math and Science are practically dirty words.

Our educational system is a joke.

[Tami]

I'm not convinced that "ban" is even the best word to use here. in this context the usage indicates "too expensive, we're not going to pay for that.... so, it won't exist".

if a degree or program doesn't sell enough units, generate enough money via tuition, and isn't subsidized by an external organization, then a school won't keep it available. some districts and governments have more money... and will be able to offer more options. other places won't be able to do that.

I had friends in college where their degree was considered unprofitable. the school officially terminated their degree over a year before they graduated! the students actually had to make a personal appeal to several deans and the University Vice President to find a way to graduate with their intended degree. otherwise, they might have been forced to transfer to another school, change majors, etc. that's pretty bad PR for a university... so, they found ways to make sure each student could graduate.

I'm not sure making another federal organization to oversee and manage education would necessarily improve things.

the 10th Amendment, and the wildly differing views of what it does/should mean, will present a problem.

education, at present, is largely state-run... and some states have radically different ideas about what a good education is. then there is the problem of what resources are available to them. something that would be an affordable option for New York or California wouldn't be possible in Wyoming or Maine. a sensible compromise in Utah or Hawaii might be unacceptable in Alaska or Florida. different states have different needs and expectations.

to put it another way... just how much power do you want to be available to your most hated political enemies in regard to education? at some point in the future, they WILL have access to that power. in this case, I think it's better to leave things as they are. especially since people can -theoretically- travel freely from one state to another to suit their personal likes and dislikes.

Actually something like that happened to my brother. He got accepted into a University on the western side of Pennsylvania. Our dad drove him there, I heard it was quite a trip from NJ.

A year later, he was back home. They shut down the degree program he was in. It worked out since there was a place in NJ that had an even better program at a fraction of the cost.

TBH, I'd rather that education be left in the hands of education professionals instead of local, state, or federal govt or even parents who don't always have the best interest of their children at heart.

Still, even the medical profession has oversight. As well as the legal profession. There has to be balance.

[Tami]

"hello, dr. oz campaign? i'd like THREE yard signs."

[Tami]

‘The US could lose the right to vote within months’: Top official warns on threat to democracy

Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, is warning anyone who will listen that the fate of free and fair elections in the United States hangs in the balance in this November’s midterm contests.

In many of the most competitive races for offices with authority over US elections, Republicans nominated candidates who have embraced or echoed Donald Trump’s myth of a stolen election in 2020.

Griswold, who chairs the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State (Dass) and is running for re-election, is urging Americans to pay attention to the once-sleepy down-ballot contests for secretary of state – lest they lose their democracy.

“What we can expect from the extreme Republicans running across this country is to undermine free and fair elections for the American people, strip Americans of the right to vote, refuse to address security breaches and, unfortunately, be more beholden to Mar-a-Lago than the American people,” Griswold, 37, said in an interview with the Guardian.

She added: “For us, we are trying to save democracy.”

It’s a daunting task, especially in a political environment that has historically favored the party out of power in Washington. But the primary results so far have laid bare the stakes, she said: “The country could lose the right to vote in less than three months.”