ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
Besides it being just what we have been doing, what reason is there for them not to be allowed to vote? I can see not allowing someone to vote who is committed to a mental or state institution, but beyond that, why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? Millions of people who have done much worse deeds than some of the incarcerated individuals you are referring to are still voting. I think the rule that felons not be allowed to vote doesn't make any sense anymore. It's too generic.
I think if they served their time they should be able to vote but not while they are incarcerated.
This is my belief as well. Why would we let someone vote that doesn't even get to decide when they can eat, sleep, etc. Allowing inmates to vote seems pretty crazy to me. But if someone has an interesting point as to why I'd like to hear it.
Because it is seen as a fundamental right of every citizen. Fundamental. Are people in prison also revoked of their citizenship?
There you have one point.
No, but they have rights taken away. They are not living in society while incarcerated. It seems reasonable to me that they lose their voting rights while in prison and not a part of society at large and the regain them when they are released and rejoin society.
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
Besides it being just what we have been doing, what reason is there for them not to be allowed to vote? I can see not allowing someone to vote who is committed to a mental or state institution, but beyond that, why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? Millions of people who have done much worse deeds than some of the incarcerated individuals you are referring to are still voting. I think the rule that felons not be allowed to vote doesn't make any sense anymore. It's too generic.
I think if they served their time they should be able to vote but not while they are incarcerated.
This is my belief as well. Why would we let someone vote that doesn't even get to decide when they can eat, sleep, etc. Allowing inmates to vote seems pretty crazy to me. But if someone has an interesting point as to why I'd like to hear it.
Because it is seen as a fundamental right of every citizen. Fundamental. Are people in prison also revoked of their citizenship?
There you have one point.
No, but they have rights taken away. They are not living in society while incarcerated. It seems reasonable to me that they lose their voting rights while in prison and not a part of society at large and the regain them when they are released and rejoin society.
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
Well the risk is they are voting on matters that they aren’t participating in. They are not living in society.
Its a good question you ask. I’ll have to think on it more.
ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
Besides it being just what we have been doing, what reason is there for them not to be allowed to vote? I can see not allowing someone to vote who is committed to a mental or state institution, but beyond that, why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? Millions of people who have done much worse deeds than some of the incarcerated individuals you are referring to are still voting. I think the rule that felons not be allowed to vote doesn't make any sense anymore. It's too generic.
I think if they served their time they should be able to vote but not while they are incarcerated.
This is my belief as well. Why would we let someone vote that doesn't even get to decide when they can eat, sleep, etc. Allowing inmates to vote seems pretty crazy to me. But if someone has an interesting point as to why I'd like to hear it.
Because it is seen as a fundamental right of every citizen. Fundamental. Are people in prison also revoked of their citizenship?
There you have one point.
No, but they have rights taken away. They are not living in society while incarcerated. It seems reasonable to me that they lose their voting rights while in prison and not a part of society at large and the regain them when they are released and rejoin society.
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
Well the risk is they are voting on matters that they aren’t participating in. They are not living in society.
Its a good question you ask. I’ll have to think on it more.
The vast majority will be living “in society” again, and if not, their friends and family still do. But it’s worth remembering that prisons exist in society, too, and are affected by policy and law, and not just those strictly relating to corrections policy, but issues related to the economy, the environment, and so much more.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
Besides it being just what we have been doing, what reason is there for them not to be allowed to vote? I can see not allowing someone to vote who is committed to a mental or state institution, but beyond that, why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? Millions of people who have done much worse deeds than some of the incarcerated individuals you are referring to are still voting. I think the rule that felons not be allowed to vote doesn't make any sense anymore. It's too generic.
I think if they served their time they should be able to vote but not while they are incarcerated.
This is my belief as well. Why would we let someone vote that doesn't even get to decide when they can eat, sleep, etc. Allowing inmates to vote seems pretty crazy to me. But if someone has an interesting point as to why I'd like to hear it.
Because it is seen as a fundamental right of every citizen. Fundamental. Are people in prison also revoked of their citizenship?
There you have one point.
No, but they have rights taken away. They are not living in society while incarcerated. It seems reasonable to me that they lose their voting rights while in prison and not a part of society at large and the regain them when they are released and rejoin society.
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
Well the risk is they are voting on matters that they aren’t participating in. They are not living in society.
Its a good question you ask. I’ll have to think on it more.
The vast majority will be living “in society” again, and if not, their friends and family still do. But it’s worth remembering that prisons exist in society, too, and are affected by policy and law, and not just those strictly relating to corrections policy, but issues related to the economy, the environment, and so much more.
As as an aside, I have lots of thoughts on how prisons work, thanks to the bold.
Anyway...I'm starting to move toward "let 'em vote." Hell, if they cannot vote, that leaves "throwing blacks in jail for marijuana charges" incentivized.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
Besides it being just what we have been doing, what reason is there for them not to be allowed to vote? I can see not allowing someone to vote who is committed to a mental or state institution, but beyond that, why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? Millions of people who have done much worse deeds than some of the incarcerated individuals you are referring to are still voting. I think the rule that felons not be allowed to vote doesn't make any sense anymore. It's too generic.
I think if they served their time they should be able to vote but not while they are incarcerated.
This is my belief as well. Why would we let someone vote that doesn't even get to decide when they can eat, sleep, etc. Allowing inmates to vote seems pretty crazy to me. But if someone has an interesting point as to why I'd like to hear it.
Because it is seen as a fundamental right of every citizen. Fundamental. Are people in prison also revoked of their citizenship?
There you have one point.
No, but they have rights taken away. They are not living in society while incarcerated. It seems reasonable to me that they lose their voting rights while in prison and not a part of society at large and the regain them when they are released and rejoin society.
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
Well the risk is they are voting on matters that they aren’t participating in. They are not living in society.
Its a good question you ask. I’ll have to think on it more.
The vast majority will be living “in society” again, and if not, their friends and family still do. But it’s worth remembering that prisons exist in society, too, and are affected by policy and law, and not just those strictly relating to corrections policy, but issues related to the economy, the environment, and so much more.
As as an aside, I have lots of thoughts on how prisons work, thanks to the bold.
Anyway...I'm starting to move toward "let 'em vote." Hell, if they cannot vote, that leaves "throwing blacks in jail for marijuana charges" incentivized.
I’m still in the “no vote in jail” but no problem voting once released camp at this moment. But could still move. I appreciate often’s response.
ugh. Bernie Sanders is starting to wear thin on me. He just said he would be in favor of felons having the right to vote while IN prison.
In a functional democracy, that is not an uncommon right or an uncommon stance to have. Don't see how that can be seen as outrageous by someone in a functional democracy. Agree or not.
I do understand though, you have never experienced a functional democracy.
I can’t give a rats ass what you and your high horse are saying, felons should not vote. Period.
why so judgey? what do you care? it's so statistically insignificant..
Once again, the greatest country that ever was....is in the minority here
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison) 14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
10 Countries - Complete Ban on Voting While in Prison (felons can vote upon release from prison)
4 Countries (incl. USA) - Post release Restrictions (felons are banned from voting even after release from prison)
-Belgium bans felons from voting after release if sentence was over seven years. -Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-Iceland bans from voting those felons whose prison sentence is at least four years. -The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Once again, the greatest country that ever was....is in the minority here
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison) 14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
10 Countries - Complete Ban on Voting While in Prison (felons can vote upon release from prison)
4 Countries (incl. USA) - Post release Restrictions (felons are banned from voting even after release from prison)
-Belgium bans felons from voting after release if sentence was over seven years. -Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-Iceland bans from voting those felons whose prison sentence is at least four years. -The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
Yeah it's a state issue, no 1 rule of law for the greatest country that ever was....
And regardless, why do you think this is a black mark on the US? Why when different do you assume that the US is in the wrong? Or really that some states are?
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Read he was Gonna push the date?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Once again, the greatest country that ever was....is in the minority here
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison) 14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
10 Countries - Complete Ban on Voting While in Prison (felons can vote upon release from prison)
4 Countries (incl. USA) - Post release Restrictions (felons are banned from voting even after release from prison)
-Belgium bans felons from voting after release if sentence was over seven years. -Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-Iceland bans from voting those felons whose prison sentence is at least four years. -The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
Yeah it's a state issue, no 1 rule of law for the greatest country that ever was....
And regardless, why do you think this is a black mark on the US? Why when different do you assume that the US is in the wrong? Or really that some states are?
Typical conservative. You want to take away a constitutional right, suddenly it's a state issue.
States want to regulate guns and it's all "omfgwtfbbq 2A".
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Once again, the greatest country that ever was....is in the minority here
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison) 14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
10 Countries - Complete Ban on Voting While in Prison (felons can vote upon release from prison)
4 Countries (incl. USA) - Post release Restrictions (felons are banned from voting even after release from prison)
-Belgium bans felons from voting after release if sentence was over seven years. -Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-Iceland bans from voting those felons whose prison sentence is at least four years. -The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
Yeah it's a state issue, no 1 rule of law for the greatest country that ever was....
And regardless, why do you think this is a black mark on the US? Why when different do you assume that the US is in the wrong? Or really that some states are?
Typical conservative. You want to take away a constitutional right, suddenly it's a state issue.
States want to regulate guns and it's all "omfgwtfbbq 2A".
You picked the wrong conservative for that analogy.
That said, voting does seem like the kind of thing that should be universal. When states decide, we have to come up with constitutional amendments so women and blacks can vote.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Who accused him of sexual assault?
No one. The article was about Luke Walton as I said...but I would believe creepy how would do that
Once again, the greatest country that ever was....is in the minority here
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison) 14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
10 Countries - Complete Ban on Voting While in Prison (felons can vote upon release from prison)
4 Countries (incl. USA) - Post release Restrictions (felons are banned from voting even after release from prison)
-Belgium bans felons from voting after release if sentence was over seven years. -Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-Iceland bans from voting those felons whose prison sentence is at least four years. -The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
Yeah it's a state issue, no 1 rule of law for the greatest country that ever was....
And regardless, why do you think this is a black mark on the US? Why when different do you assume that the US is in the wrong? Or really that some states are?
Typical conservative. You want to take away a constitutional right, suddenly it's a state issue.
States want to regulate guns and it's all "omfgwtfbbq 2A".
Hahahahahah
1) I’m for very strict gun laws and bans. Vocal in the fun thread here and is one of my biggest reasons I have voted almost entirely Democrats for several years now. 2) I was mentioning the states because they all are setting their own rules on this matter. Was just stating the fact that it’s not a US thing, it’s individual by state.
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Who accused him of sexual assault?
No one. The article was about Luke Walton as I said...but I would believe creepy how would do that
CNN reporting Biden announcing his run on Thursday. Ironically the story just under it is the Luke walton Sexual assault story. At first I read them together..
Biden running for president - no duh Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Who accused him of sexual assault?
No one. The article was about Luke Walton as I said...but I would believe creepy how would do that
In English please..
Phone changed "joe" to "how"...not sure Joe that happened
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,763
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
So dealing with cost curve and how it's outpacing inflation is something that has to be dealt with. But it's interesting that you bring up medical degrees and attorneys, specifically. Those degrees are such high paying jobs, that the investment in loans, even at these inflated rates, pays off.
Other degrees, non advanced degrees, like teaching, nursing, etc., are an issue. My position is that I support substantial aid for those in need, for degrees that are in demand for society. I would have no issue paying higher taxes for lower middle class and below, receiving free or substantially reduced community college, then 2 year state degrees for those types of professions.
The average income for a family practitioner is 240k. A specialist is about 350. These are averages. 100k in medical school debt is not a death sentence and none of us should subsidize that.
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
We do not need more lawyers of any kind
I know there's got to be a good lawyer job couched in what you say somewhere, Cincy, haha!
But seriously, it depends on what you mean. Sure there are scummy lawyers. But there are lawyers who charge little or work pro bono for just causes and we can never have too much justice. I've known a number of good lawyers. I have friends and one relative who are lawyers and they are fine, fine people. They do good work. We can never have too much good work.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,763
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
So dealing with cost curve and how it's outpacing inflation is something that has to be dealt with. But it's interesting that you bring up medical degrees and attorneys, specifically. Those degrees are such high paying jobs, that the investment in loans, even at these inflated rates, pays off.
Other degrees, non advanced degrees, like teaching, nursing, etc., are an issue. My position is that I support substantial aid for those in need, for degrees that are in demand for society. I would have no issue paying higher taxes for lower middle class and below, receiving free or substantially reduced community college, then 2 year state degrees for those types of professions.
The average income for a family practitioner is 240k. A specialist is about 350. These are averages. 100k in medical school debt is not a death sentence and none of us should subsidize that.
But M, I said health care practitioners, not doctors. Not all health care workers are doctors. Oh, I agree we don't need to subsidize people who are going to get stinking rich off other people misery. But not all health care workers and/or doctors are out to rip people off. My brother in law (now deceased) worked with doctors without borders in south America. He was not at all a wealthy man.
As for lawyers, see above.
And I'm not just talking about lawyers and doctors. We need good, qualified fire fighters, police men and women, teachers, counselors, educated journalists and editors, archivists, librarians, fundraisers, graphic designers, recording engineers and on and on. Anyone with a college degree is far more apt to get jobs like these- skilled jons that offer services many of us depend on- and be better trained to do them well. I'm all for finding ways to get more people into and through college.
I think Mayor Pet's comment was a bit of a gross oversight and not conducive to garnering my vote.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
So dealing with cost curve and how it's outpacing inflation is something that has to be dealt with. But it's interesting that you bring up medical degrees and attorneys, specifically. Those degrees are such high paying jobs, that the investment in loans, even at these inflated rates, pays off.
Other degrees, non advanced degrees, like teaching, nursing, etc., are an issue. My position is that I support substantial aid for those in need, for degrees that are in demand for society. I would have no issue paying higher taxes for lower middle class and below, receiving free or substantially reduced community college, then 2 year state degrees for those types of professions.
The average income for a family practitioner is 240k. A specialist is about 350. These are averages. 100k in medical school debt is not a death sentence and none of us should subsidize that.
But M, I said health care practitioners, not doctors. Not all health care workers are doctors. Oh, I agree we don't need to subsidize people who are going to get stinking rich off other people misery. But not all health care workers and/or doctors are out to rip people off. My brother in law (now deceased) worked with doctors without borders in south America. He was not at all a wealthy man.
As for lawyers, see above.
And I'm not just talking about lawyers and doctors. We need good, qualified fire fighters, police men and women, teachers, counselors, educated journalists and editors, archivists, librarians, fundraisers, graphic designers, recording engineers and on and on. Anyone with a college degree is far more apt to get jobs like these- skilled jons that offer services many of us depend on- and be better trained to do them well. I'm all for finding ways to get more people into and through college.
I think Mayor Pet's comment was a bit of a gross oversight and not conducive to garnering my vote.
Brian,
Im with you all the way. My comments about the govt helping lower income people with "in need" careers applies to what you're saying. I agree that Pete's comments are overstated. But Warren talking about forgiving all student debt and make college free regardless of need or income level are overstated on the other side. Im a bug believer in means testing, in general, and when you talk about subsidized tuition, then I add "public need of the career" to the equation.
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
I kind of see his point but then how do we make it more affordable for people to go to college so more people can be better off?
You see, other than receiving some support from my folks the first couple years, my college years were never subsidized by the public- all totaled about 7 years, two degrees, a teaching credential in three states, one certificate in California and about 220 college credits. If I were young and starting today, no way could I ever afford to do that, let alone a simple two year AA or 4 your degree.
And what happens if we don't have enough health care practitioners because not enough people could afford to go to med school? Or environmental lawyers? Or alternative energy engineers? Etc.
We do not need more lawyers of any kind
I know there's got to be a good lawyer job couched in what you say somewhere, Cincy, haha!
But seriously, it depends on what you mean. Sure there are scummy lawyers. But there are lawyers who charge little or work pro bono for just causes and we can never have too much justice. I've known a number of good lawyers. I have friends and one relative who are lawyers and they are fine, fine people. They do good work. We can never have too much good work.
Lawyers are easily one of the top 5 awful professions...a law licence give them a licence to print money.
Along with:
Politician Insurance (insurance agents/brokers, have no soul...hell anyone in the insurance industry has no soul). Ministers and most CEO's of companies that did not found the company... and an honourable mention most bankers
Comments
They have some rights taken away, not all rights. Thus, there is a decision to make about which rights are taken away. For that to happen, there should be good reasons for it. The rationale for incarceration is generally related to risk to the public. What is the rationale for disenfranchisement? What risk to society does it pose if people in prison vote?
Its a good question you ask. I’ll have to think on it more.
Anyway...I'm starting to move toward "let 'em vote." Hell, if they cannot vote, that leaves "throwing blacks in jail for marijuana charges" incentivized.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
it's so statistically insignificant..
21 Countries- No Restriction (felons can vote even while in prison)
14 Countries- Selective Restriction (some felons may be banned from voting while in prison)
-Germany bans felons from voting only in rare cases if ordered by the court.
-The United States bans felons from voting in some states but not in others. Two states (Maine and Vermont) permit felons to vote while in prison.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000289
And regardless, why do you think this is a black mark on the US? Why when different do you assume that the US is in the wrong? Or really that some states are?
Biden running for president - no duh
Biden accused of sexual assault - makes sense too
Typical conservative. You want to take away a constitutional right, suddenly it's a state issue.
States want to regulate guns and it's all "omfgwtfbbq 2A".
That said, voting does seem like the kind of thing that should be universal. When states decide, we have to come up with constitutional amendments so women and blacks can vote.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
1) I’m for very strict gun laws and bans. Vocal in the fun thread here and is one of my biggest reasons I have voted almost entirely Democrats for several years now.
2) I was mentioning the states because they all are setting their own rules on this matter. Was just stating the fact that it’s not a US thing, it’s individual by state.
Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.
I might be all in on this guy...
But it's interesting that you bring up medical degrees and attorneys, specifically. Those degrees are such high paying jobs, that the investment in loans, even at these inflated rates, pays off.
Other degrees, non advanced degrees, like teaching, nursing, etc., are an issue. My position is that I support substantial aid for those in need, for degrees that are in demand for society. I would have no issue paying higher taxes for lower middle class and below, receiving free or substantially reduced community college, then 2 year state degrees for those types of professions.
The average income for a family practitioner is 240k. A specialist is about 350. These are averages. 100k in medical school debt is not a death sentence and none of us should subsidize that.
Im with you all the way. My comments about the govt helping lower income people with "in need" careers applies to what you're saying. I agree that Pete's comments are overstated. But Warren talking about forgiving all student debt and make college free regardless of need or income level are overstated on the other side. Im a bug believer in means testing, in general, and when you talk about subsidized tuition, then I add "public need of the career" to the equation.
Along with:
Politician
Insurance (insurance agents/brokers, have no soul...hell anyone in the insurance industry has no soul).
Ministers
and most CEO's of companies that did not found the company...
and an honourable mention most bankers
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7T7m/usaa-generation-to-generation
EARNED sad.
we know that they're always gonna take care of us...