bmdrocks21

You are wrong once again, sir. UK banned guns and their homicide rates are rising. Knife crime is rising as well. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/25/homicides-in-england-and-wales-hit-highest-level-in-a-decade

So, should they ban knives? What next, hammers? Obviously, the weapons aren't the problem.

The foolish and baseless assumption that just banning something will automatically solve the problem is laughably false. How about you come back when you have some real points, okay, bud?

And handguns are also easier to defend yourself with because they are portable. 

Gibberish

"unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense."

Oh, I didn't read the article. I was trying to decipher his gibberish.

Winning*

I'll legalize tanks and jets for all citizens to show you who is in charge here. Sorry for bursting your bubble.

Yeah, ammo for AR-15s is insanely expensive. At least, if you care about your gun and get brass ammo. Steel ammo is pretty cheap, but terrible for your rifle.

There were 8,454 in 2013. 285 of them are committed with rifles. They, therefore, are not twice as likely to kill you as any other gun. The trend continues into other years.

Yeah, with any bill, there would have to be considerations with loopholes. Some colleges currently use this plan, so they will have thought through some ways to keep people from gaming the system. They probably would stay active indefinitely, so if you go back to college and finish, it would kick in. That is how I would do it. At that point, it is both of your best interest for you to finish college.

And like I said, the fund for Purdue University is run by the school. Their goal is to work in the interest of the students on this. They try to balance the interests of the funds' investors to make a profit and the interest of the student not to get taken advantage of. And I don't think they will work solely in favor of the investors, which you may be thinking. That would be terrible publicity for the school. 

That isn't to say that they are perfectly set up. Some only pay partially for college among other things. With a little tweaking, I think these could work out pretty well. 

Well, I looked more into this. It looks like multiple investors each put their money into a fund, which would most likely be managed by the school. The school would be in charge of making sure these loans aren't predatory. That fund then gives money to multiple students, which significantly lowers risk for the investors. This will make sure that any unfortunate accidents or flunking out doesn't devastate the investor. Shared risk and profit.

I'm guessing that they would still owe something back. But maybe the money is only owed back if they finish college? They will definitely look at the students' academic performance when determining the risk of the investment. If you have done poorly, they might shift the payment period around.

Well, what exactly makes 2 or 4% more reasonable? Maybe 8% is the best rate with how things are currently done based on risk and reward.

I am not sure that I would necessarily agree on the 150% paid back, either. In some cases, yes. In others, no. If it took 20 years to pay that back, when you account for inflation and the lost revenues from investment, it doesn't seem like that would be worthwhile. But, overall, not too opposed to that plan.

I would like more grants for STEM fields because they are so valuable. However, since you are lowering rates from 8%, this probably wouldn't work too well when you start forgiving loans. That would shift the costs of these loans to people who don't get them forgiven, which means higher interest rates.

I agree on pushing for life hacks and educating more people about trade schools or cheaper ways to make a living without a college degree.

Do you see any major flaws with my plan? Trying to think about how it would work as a policy.

Don't a lot of unions pay for trade school and then own you for a few years?

I put up a new forum topic. I think it would get bipartisan support and solve the problem of crippling debt. I think you should check it out. 

I find a world in which people to follow your dreams in terms of careers instead of being responsible is why we have a lot of problems. They listen. You think I want to be an accountant? Not really. Now, you have people going into debt getting worthless degrees, and they are being crippled by debt, of course. Teach more fiscal responsibility.

Not sure that you read my entire bottom point. I blamed corporations as well, saying they lobbied Congress for the immigration. I also wasn't being quasi-racist. I don't care where they are coming from. Let me ask you the economic problem about why wages are low:

Corporations can't just say that they will pay a certain amount and we have to take it. There has to be a reason they can keep it so low. Now, let us say you are in a town, trying to hire a fry cook. There are two people that are qualified and looking for that job. The wage would likely be higher than if 100 equally skilled people were looking for that same job. They will undercut each others' wages in order to get the job. The corporation takes the lowest bidder. 

But yes, people from third-world countries have lower standards of working conditions and lower standards for wages than native workers. So, what do you get when you let a lot of them in? Worse working conditions and lower wages, because now we have to compete with people who are fine with that. 

This 2020 presidential election is pushing for "free" colleges. Proponents of this system have some good points. I don't believe that it is a good idea to impose high levels of debt on students, which may take them over a decade to pay back.

I have recently learned about a system called an income share agreement. Now whether this is the schools or private individuals offering the loans is irrelevant. An income share agreement would be the school or investor agreeing to pay for the schooling of the student and in return, they would receive a portion of the income from the student for a predetermined number of months after they graduate.

For instance, they may pay for your pilot school, and then for the next 8 years, they investor would receive 6% of your monthly income. This is a great incentive because as the student succeeds, the investor succeeds as well. These investors then have a strong, vested interest in your success (unlike now, how even a bankruptcy will not forgive the debt. They will get it back sooner or later.). It is also great because, if you are unemployed, you don't have any obligation to pay a dime to the investor for that month. You won't ever have to struggle to pay them back.

This will push students towards majors that are more productive and lucrative. The investors would require a smaller percentage of the income and smaller payback periods for these more lucrative majors. If you study something that has few available jobs or low income, they will want that extra security. So, a pilot may pay for 8 years, while a teacher or someone studying performing arts may have to pay for 12 years. Currently, the government doesn't distinguish between majors as far as I know. They just treat those getting gender studies and business degrees the same way, with little regard for the risk of losing money.

I think this is the best possible system. It is better than the silence of most conservatives on the matter and the "free" college propositions of many Democrats. And since it leads people towards higher paying, productive majors, it will be much better for our economy,

Let me know what you think.

You don't need to go to college. You can go to a trade school. We have a shortage of people going into those programs, and these certifications are incredibly cheap. 

The median plumber salary is over $50,000. https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/plumber/salary 

I'm not against government grants, either. As long as they are for a major that will be valuable to the economy.

And taking on a little debt is not the end of the world, as long as you go for a valuable major, like accounting. If you get some degree in the performing arts, you brought that debt on yourself.

Bernie supporters are younger than 30 because people under 30 are generally uninformed in terms of life experience. Many of them don't understand taxes and how businesses operate yet. Many have very little job experience. They just hear about getting free sh*t and want to sign up. Older people are generally conservative because they understand all of that.

Baby Boomers did kind of screw us, I'll give you that. One instance of that:

Letting in a million immigrants each year that compete with us for jobs is likely why wages are stagnant. I think we can stand together a little bit on this. Big corporations lobby for this immigration because it drives wages down. They want low-skill, low-wage workers, which shafts the general public. So, would you agree that we need to severely cut back on immigration? That the immigrants that we do let in should be complements to our native workforce instead of substitutes, economically speaking?

*Ignored my long post addressed to you earlier*

I am not saying that you need to work 16 hours every day. Most people can't/won't, myself included. I am wording ambiguously because it all depends on personal choice. If you are a big-time accountant that gambles all the time, you will probably be worse off than a factory worker that saves most of his money. So, I said that you will probably be successful because I don't know your spending, saving, and investing habits.

It is the role of the individual to invest in themselves, not the role of the company to invest in you, unless it is worthwhile to them. (Occasionally it is, they send you back to school for an MBA or whatever). If you refuse to look for better jobs because you like being a fry cook, then it is your fault for failing. If you spend most of your money because you have little self control, it is your fault for failing. Not 'rich people', not the company, yours. Take responsibility.

Yeah, at the very least, I could see perhaps banning the 100 round drum magazine. I don't really think it should, but I could at least see where they were coming from on that. But yeah, what is the difference between 11 and 12? People are nervous when being attacked and are likely to miss a few times, so they need quite a few. Not to mention, one bullet doesn't always bring someone down.

Lol, dude. He was making a reference to cultural differences in saving. And if you work 16 hours a day and save most of it, you will most likely be pretty successful, assuming you invest in yourself and search for opportunities.

Oh man, doubling down on the personal attacks. Honestly, I'm not offended by anything you say. I am tempted to report you because it would end your annoying spamming for debates and forum topics.

Handguns are used for self defense. Most people prefer semi-automatic pistols. Why do you want to get rid of them? Shouldn't people be able to defend themselves with a weapon they are comfortable with?

I like Bill Burr, myself. Have seen some George Carlin and thought he was pretty good.

Beating up and torturing cripples, I like your style ;)

But in all seriousness, I am very sorry to hear about your childhood experience. I do believe that fixing the foster system is unfortunately a topic that has been swept under the rug and is harming thousands of children. Honestly, if we fix that, it would help all sorts of problems. Likely less crime, more people finishing at least high school, etc.    

What is the most important political issue for you?

What is your favorite kind of sandwich?

Who is your favorite comedian(other than Amy Schumer, of course)?

If you could fight one politician from all American history, who would it be?

Well, there are some limitations to that description because I am not an anarchist. Technically having a police force interferes with the natural order of things, and I support having a police force. Right-wingers don't want inequality, they recognize that, because everyone is different, they will all reach different outcomes. They tend to not want to interfere with that inequality through wealth redistribution and other similar programs. 

If you are going to give the best quality, the costs would be unimaginably high. Quality of care and price are inversely correlated. And you are proposing a plan in which I have to pay for others' bad life choices. Why is that fair? If someone doesn't exercise, smokes, and eats McDonald's every day, I will have to pay for their negligent life choices?

So, you think that the people are informed enough to think that universal healthcare is a good idea, but when they disagree and want private care it is because they are uninformed? You have to pick one. Do the polls matter or not?

Well, hospitals often lose money on Medicaid and Medicare patients. They use private companies to get that money back. That is why it is so expensive to get private insurance plans. That and all of the regulations. Perhaps if the Democrats allowed for competition, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands.

Yeah, it really confuses me how Bernie Sanders complains about the corruption in Washington..... then talks about how we need to give more power to Washington...

How about we take the power away so their corruption doesn't screw with our lives?

The lessened incentive to be corrupt is just a bonus at that point.

I saw the title. Just gonna guess the vast majority, if not all, are Democrat-run.

Edit: yup

Yeah, but it isn't like your medicare for all plan. Private and public schools teach the same things but with different quality. The way your healthcare plan would work would prevent private companies from covering the same things. It would be like Medicare choice, perhaps?

The polls say that people would like universal healthcare. They overwhelming support also having private insurance as an option.

Really? They don't go to private colleges for the education?

Then why are the top rated colleges private? 

(I stopped looking after top 13 all being private institutions, but I'm sure it goes further)

Never heard of tin-pot dictator, but I don't appreciate it lol.

I don't disagree with a lot of your reasoning. I do believe that there can be an immoral aspect to doing nothing.

I don't know if I would attack nearby nations for their immoral actions. Since I am rather nationalistic, I would only do that if it somehow prevented harm in my country. 

Why wouldn't I be a right-wing type?

I think these were my choices:

Would: get cops involved (5)

Want: beat him up without kids seeing (2)

Add:

2 + 5 = 7

Least want: Ignore it(4)

Super immoral: joining in (8)

Subtract latter from former: 4 - 8 = -4

Then subtract the second round from the first:

7 - -4 = 11

Over 8 means I am a dictator.

You better hope the mods don't see those personal attacks. Wouldn't want to get banned again, would you, billy boy?

You agree with me. When you pull the trigger once, one bullet fires. Yes, in this case, it loads another. I never said they didn't. Now, again, you do realize that most firearms are semi-automatic, especially pistols, yes? (ie my entire point)

More or less, yeah. Banning most weapons, especially pistols, is rather rude.

Mmmm, I love giving burglars a good chairing. But I need my pistols to whip people!

So, basically every weapon? Any gun that fires once when you press the trigger once would be banned?

Lol, referencing the Hindi turtle?

I know you so well now! :)

What time is it?

Do you like turtles?

What is your mother's maiden name?

Maybe back in the 1960s it seemed 'necessary'. After multiple generations of availability, the argument can hardly be made that it works or could feasibly be needed. Putting kids in colleges above their level of ability leads to plenty of drop outs.

I'll give you the point on it being enforced by the majority.

Well, I take that back. Minorities can discriminate against the majority. AfFiRmAtIvE aCtIoN

We have gone over my policy positions before. I believe in little government intervention in our lives, which seems rather incompatible with being a dictator. Perhaps a ruthless, laissez-faire dictator?

Thank you, sir!

I am double majoring in accounting and finance. Hoping to be a politician later in life :P

I am apparently a ruthless dictator. Really odd considering my choices.

Political compass tests normally get me the higher end of moderate right and very slightly authoritarian.

Fun game, though!

They decided that our right to have controversial opinions is more important than your right to not have your fee fees hurt. Would you really like Republicans deciding what YOU can and cannot say? I don't want Democrats doing that to me.

What if they say that anything attacking religion is hate speech? What if promoting socialism is considered hate speech based on the millions killed by it in the past?

And minorities can attack the majority in the same exact way that the majority can attack minorities: with words. Discrimination is not allowed by either side.

And the government allows kids over there to go to private schools, charters, or the regular government schools. Something we should do.

Mmmm.... I love me some hyperinflation. 

Ha, I'd hope not. I'm in my second year of college.

To be fair, I have a huge hindsight bias on this. I was too young to know about geopolitics when this was going on, and have recently heard about the effects of the regime change. I know he was a dictator and everything, so I'm not trying to paint him as a hero or anything.

Did that even seem like a good idea at the time?

It means that our youth have an increasingly little amount of economic knowledge.

Damn, it was a rhetorical question lol. Wanted to slam dunk on our boy here.

Yeah, culturally speaking, we Americans suck at saving. Likely due to our toxic consumer culture. Also, it is partially the result of increasing social security benefits. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/mazzocco/doc/SavingRate.pdf

The liberals manufacture yet another crisis only they can fix :/

Who knows, maybe dethroning him was inevitable. I think that taking a lot of his weapons away certainly aided and hastened it.

I don't know if we sold him weapons or anything, but I would have been in favor of similar types of passive support.

Now, would you say those unskilled, untrained laborers are rich or poor?

We still intervened in the regime change. We told him to give up his weapons. He did. Then we let him get sodomized by a bayonet, and now they have an open-air slave trade where they castrate Africans. Good job us! No wonder no one over there trusts us.