General US Politics

[Johann]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Electoral college sucks, but it's not going anywhere. I just don't see any political path to getting rid of it--it would require too many states to go against their own interests in having influence in presidential elections disproportionately greater than their populations. Which they aren't going to do.

States that have enacted bills to automatically granting electoral votes to the popular vote winner have a total of 165 votes. There are 97 votes worth in states that are in the process of potentially creating such regulations, some of which are swing states or red states. All of this has occurred within the past 10 years, so I'm pretty optimistic that we could see the EC done away with before long.

[Zasplach]

4 hours ago, Slumber said:

It just happened to be that the electoral college did a better job in the past at representing the country as a whole. I believe both Al Gore and John Kerry were screwed by it, but Hillary was where the disparity was most noticeable, hence why it's a bigger talking point these days(Though if I'm remembering correctly, there was a big stink about it with Gore because it was so close and Jeb Bush in Florida). As the country gets more urbanized, and small towns in the middle of nowhere don't boom nearly as much as cities, the disparity will continue to grow, helping only the republicans.

The electoral college results and the popular vote have only ever differentiated 3 times: 1872, 2000 and 2016.  Is the disparity a problem, yeah it's a minor one, but it's a problem that is constitutionally mandated.  Considering it would take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states to change it, it won't leave.  And I can't imagine a situation where any state gives up its own agency to vote for the overall nation's choice, maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see it.  The Democrats have a clear map to what states to win and how to win them, Obama had well over 300 electoral votes only five years ago.  The electoral college only ever goes away if federalism goes away and if that goes away, might as well rewrite the system.  

In 1872 Democrats got what they wanted from the election, the end of Reconstruction was what they traded for the Presidency and 2000 was so close they had to have a supreme court decision to parse through the problem, like 2000 votes changes the whole thing.  So basically 2016 is the only year that had a large disparity because Mrs. Clinton did so poorly in middle America.  

[Lord Raven]

A point I would like to make while our fucktarded congress votes on their disastrous tax plan, in response to this country’s brain drain.

A portion of the tax bill will add tuition waivers to student’s income which will cause Graduate student taxes to go through the roof. In my situation I am making 20k/year and but I do have 50k/year of tuition waivers. I am only taxed on the 20k, but the GOP’s tax plan means I will be taxed on the full 70k.

This will literally make grad school unsustainable for graduate students and graduate students have historically been the backbone of the majority of scientific advancement. This tax bill is a disaster because it could potentially cause a majority of scientific activity to halt or make the college debt situation significantly worse because we will not be able to afford our cost of living if this passes.

Honestly congress can go eat a dick.

[Slumber]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

A point I would like to make while our fucktarded congress votes on their disastrous tax plan, in response to this country’s brain drain.

A portion of the tax bill will add tuition waivers to student’s income which will cause Graduate student taxes to go through the roof. In my situation I am making 20k/year and but I do have 50k/year of tuition waivers. I am only taxed on the 20k, but the GOP’s tax plan means I will be taxed on the full 70k.

This will literally make grad school unsustainable for graduate students and graduate students have historically been the backbone of the majority of scientific advancement. This tax bill is a disaster because it could potentially cause a majority of scientific activity to halt or make the college debt situation significantly worse because we will not be able to afford our cost of living if this passes.

Honestly congress can go eat a dick.

Republicans have made it clear for the last two decades how much they disdain higher education. It's really not surprising.

I wonder how this will affect the political views of people who have to go through grad school and weren't born with a silver spoon up their ass. I imagine that while the college educated have started leaning more and more to the left over the last few years, the people who make it through grad school probably lean a little more to the right. I can't see that being the case anymore.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Zasplach]

4 hours ago, Slumber said:

I wonder how this will affect the political views of people who have to go through grad school and weren't born with a silver spoon up their ass. I imagine that while the college educated have started leaning more and more to the left over the last few years, the people who make it through grad school probably lean a little more to the right. I can't see that being the case anymore.

Eh, those who have post-graduate degrees have never been a significant percentage of the electorate so alienating them isn't any great concern for the Republican party and like you stated, those with a college education have increasingly voted Democrat and those who get post-graduate degrees divide into two camps, those with considerable financial packing from their family who likely hold conservative views and ergo they remain conservative and those need either scholarships or loans or have to work or some combination of the 3 and those people tend to lean liberal anyway.  

And @Lord Raven, I'm sorry you're at the mercy of our wonderful Congress and illustrious commander-in-chief, but whenever I'm worried they may pass something I think will sink the country, I remember how it's been with this gentleman in the White House and I take solace in that they have been ineffectual, partly due to his lack of discipline.  Besides that gentleman has been MIA for almost two weeks, he's brimming with enthusiasm to display his character, I hope you can take solace in that.

Besides with the madness that is the senate adding a partial repeal to Obamacare in their bill and the mess that is the Al Franken groping picture and ethics investigation and Bob Menendez's ethics investigation for bribery and the whole Alabama senator election I don't see how the congressional body can function.  The weight of their own inertia will be too great.

[Slumber]

8 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Eh, those who have post-graduate degrees have never been a significant percentage of the electorate so alienating them isn't any great concern for the Republican party and like you stated, those with a college education have increasingly voted Democrat and those who get post-graduate degrees divide into two camps, those with considerable financial packing from their family who likely hold conservative views and ergo they remain conservative and those need either scholarships or loans or have to work or some combination of the 3 and those people tend to lean liberal anyway.  

I didn't so much mean that their numbers might be an issue, but post-graduates tend to have more power and influence. 

[Zasplach]

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

I didn't so much mean that their numbers might be an issue, but post-graduates tend to have more power and influence. 

Where and with whom?  Those with post-graduate degrees are only really influential with those who have post-graduate degrees.  For the vast majority of people, those who have influence with them are their friends and family and maybe celebrities or sport stars, maybe their spiritual leader. I don't see those with a post-graduate degree having  vastly greater access to the bully-pulpit.  

[Lord Raven]

43 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

And @Lord Raven, I'm sorry you're at the mercy of our wonderful Congress and illustrious commander-in-chief, but whenever I'm worried they may pass something I think will sink the country, I remember how it's been with this gentleman in the White House and I take solace in that they have been ineffectual, partly due to his lack of discipline.  Besides that gentleman has been MIA for almost two weeks, he's brimming with enthusiasm to display his character, I hope you can take solace in that.

That's what I'm hoping and that's been a trend this entire past year, but it is something worth pointing out.

It's a disastrous tax plan all around, though. It's very easy to have a view of "no" until you're governing, and that's what the Republican party is showing. I'm hoping that 2018 and 2020 shows a Democratic party with charisma as well as strongly pushing policies...  because the purpose should not be to rake your opponent over the coals but to inspire people to vote from the Democratic side. The Republicans have their demographic in lockstep.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Slumber]

29 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Where and with whom?  Those with post-graduate degrees are only really influential with those who have post-graduate degrees.  For the vast majority of people, those who have influence with them are their friends and family and maybe celebrities or sport stars, maybe their spiritual leader. I don't see those with a post-graduate degree having  vastly greater access to the bully-pulpit.  

Lawyers. Doctors. Politicians. CEOs, CTOs, CFOs, COOs and most any other letter you can think of. Most people in the science world who are allowed to do anything beyond working in a lab. 

Obviously having your doctorate or masters isn't the only way to gain power, nor does it mean they'll have direct power over your average Joe. But it does basically mean a much larger world of opportunities is open, and these are the people managing most things that our society deems "important". Plus, a lot of people who make lateral moves into politics come from these sorts of backgrounds. 

A good chunk of these people are now going to have a chip on their shoulder over Republicans essentially taxing their best means at paying tuition. I can't see it being a good long term plan for the Republicans, not that they really ever plan beyond 4 years. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Lord Raven]

A graduate student strike is being suggested for this purpose -- the universities would basically shut down without grad students, given that they do the majority of teaching and grading.

[Zasplach]

17 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

That's what I'm hoping and that's been a trend this entire past year, but it is something worth pointing out.

It's a disastrous tax plan all around, though. It's very easy to have a view of "no" until you're governing, and that's what the Republican party is showing. I'm hoping that 2018 and 2020 shows a Democratic party with charisma as well as strongly pushing policies...  because the purpose should not be to rake your opponent over the coals but to inspire people to vote from the Democratic side. The Republicans have their demographic in lockstep.

Fair enough, knowledge is power, but it doesn't much matter.  Despite the fact that information is available to everyone, most people just listen to their echo chamber, so Republicans are going to spin this the best they can as a HUGE tax cut for everyone and it will save the country etc..

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

A graduate student strike is being suggested for this purpose -- the universities would basically shut down without grad students, given that they do the majority of teaching and grading.

Strikes can be successful, just be mindful of the spin that a "bunch of 'spoiled brats' who already have a degree (something lots of people don't have for a variety of reasons) are crying about their already cushy lives", obviously the truth doesn't much matter with spin.

 

14 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Lawyers. Doctors. Politicians. CEOs, CTOs, CFOs, COOs and most any other letter you can think of. Most people in the science world who are allowed to do anything beyond working in a lab. 

Obviously having your doctorate or masters isn't the only way to gain power, nor does it mean they'll have direct power over your average Joe. But it does basically mean a much larger world of opportunities is open, and these are the people managing most things that our society deems "important". Plus, a lot of people who make lateral moves into politics come from these sorts of backgrounds. 

A good chunk of these people are now going to have a chip on their shoulder over Republicans essentially taxing their best means at paying tuition. I can't see it being a good long term plan for the Republicans, not that they really ever plan beyond 4 years. 

Politics is basically all about the now, planning for a nebulous future is fruitless.  Not having any data in front of me, I can only speak in generalities, but I don't know many people in grad school are really in Raven's situation, maybe I'm wrong, but people who are in higher economic brackets don't tend to have tuition waivers (am I wrong?) and lots of people in grad-school come from families who are either comfortably in the middle class or upper-middle class. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Zasplach
grammar fix

[Slumber]

16 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Politics is basically all about the now, planning for a nebulous future is fruitless.  Not having any data in front of me, I can only speak in generalities, but I don't know many people in grad school are really in Raven's situation, maybe I'm wrong, but people who are in higher economic brackets don't tend to have tuition waivers (am I wrong?) and lots of people in grad-school come from families who are either comfortably in the middle class or upper-middle class. 

Given how expensive grad school is, even being in the upper-middle class wouldn't really be a sustainable background for it. 2-7 years of schooling that's pretty much in the ball park of $50k/yr? Even if my parents made 5x what they make, I wouldn't feel right asking for $350k for school. Or even low-balling it, $250k. I'm pretty smack-dab in the middle class, too. 

All of my friends(Which at the moment, is actually ALL of my friends) are going to grad and med school on their own money. I think maybe one or two are getting help from parents, and they're definitely not getting full backing for grad school. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of them came home or postponed their plans because of this. And this isn't an obscure or small group of friends going to college on nothing but their hopes and dreams. I went to a pricey university(Which was already a strain on a good chunk of them) and I was in a pre-med field. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Zasplach]

8 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Given how expensive grad school is, even being in the upper-middle class wouldn't really be a sustainable background for it. 2-7 years of schooling that's pretty much in the ball park of $50k/yr? Even if my parents made 5x what they make, I wouldn't feel right asking for $350k for school. Or even low-balling it, $250k. I'm pretty smack-dab in the middle class, too. 

All of my friends(Which at the moment, is actually ALL of my friends) are going to grad and med school on their own money. I think maybe one or two are getting help from parents, and they're definitely not getting full backing for grad school. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of them came home or postponed their plans because of this. And this isn't an obscure or small group of friends going to college on nothing but their hopes and dreams. I went to a pricey university(Which was already a strain on a good chunk of them) and I was in a pre-med field. 

I understand that grad school is expensive, I think that is part of the whole student debt crisis issue the country has, but are you even eligible for tuition waivers if your family has take home income in the 80k's? I understand most people take out massive loans to offset the cost, but I don't think the loans are taxable in that they aren't actually making the money.  I think what is affecting @Lord Raven is that they are counting the waiver of the tuition he doesn't have to pay as income.  Am I wrong about that? Is the way the tax law is being rewritten make it so that loans taken out for college will be taxed like income, because if so, that sounds even more unreasonable 

[Slumber]

31 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

I understand that grad school is expensive, I think that is part of the whole student debt crisis issue the country has, but are you even eligible for tuition waivers if your family has take home income in the 80k's? I understand most people take out massive loans to offset the cost, but I don't think the loans are taxable in that they aren't actually making the money.  I think what is affecting @Lord Raven is that they are counting the waiver of the tuition he doesn't have to pay as income.  Am I wrong about that? Is the way the tax law is being rewritten make it so that loans taken out for college will be taxed like income, because if so, that sounds even more unreasonable 

They're not loans that are being taxed, but they're help for costs. The waivers are essentially the school paying you as a TA or assist on campus in some other way(I think one of my old lab partners is getting waivers to be a lab assistant at the University of Colorado). These waivers are essentially being taxed as income, and it's something a LOT of grad students do to pay for grad school, meaning they'll essentially have to pay what's being taxed out of pocket or through loans. 

Keep in mind, these waivers pretty much only count towards tuition. Cost of living and everything else? Still on you, on top of these dozens of thousands of dollars you now have to pay for school for the next 2-7 years. You're now basically forced to work two jobs, go to school, and still probably end up 100k in debt at the end of it all while also burdened with a higher income tax. 

If I am understanding correctly. 

It's not like I'm suggesting that they're taxing loans, but they're taxing a resource that keeps many students in grad school, and they're taxing it HEAVILY. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Zasplach]

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

They're not loans that are being taxed, but they're help for costs. The waivers are essentially the school paying you as a TA or assist on campus in some other way(I think one of my lab partners got waivers to be a lab assistant at the University of Colorado). These waivers are essentially being taxed as income, and it's something a LOT of grad students do to pay for grad school, meaning they'll essentially have to pay what's being taxed out of pocket or through loans. 

Keep in mind, these waivers pretty much only count towards tuition. Cost of living and everything else? Still on you, on top of these dozens of thousands of dollars you now have to pay for school for the next 2-7 years. You're now basically forced to work two jobs, go to school, and still probably end up 100k in debt at the end of it all. 

If I am understanding correctly. 

It's not like I'm suggesting that they're taxing loans, but they're taxing a resource that keeps many students in grad school, and they're taxing it HEAVILY. 

Not inditing you, just trying to understand the situation.  I see, so those who are getting a waiver for tuition based on rendering services to university will be getting taxed like that service is an income, rather than a scholarship.  I agree that is pretty heavy handed; the nice thing about the legislative process is that people tend to get to air out their problems with the content of the bill.  I can't imagine something like this making it out of conference, taxing something like income that isn't income seems rather punitive.   

[Tryhard]

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/13/what-else-could-tax-cut-richest-1-buy

Inequality in America has been growing for decades, stymying our national potential and contributing to the growing political rift in the country. According to estimates by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introduced in the House of Representatives would disproportionately benefit the richest 1 percent of Americans.

The ITEP estimates reveal that nationwide, the richest 1 percent of earners would receive a 31 percent share of the tax cuts in 2018 – and by 2027, the richest 1 percent would receive a 48 percent share, leaving the remaining 99 percent to share roughly half the tax benefits.

For example: in the United States, the richest one percent – with average incomes of $2 million – will collectively get $72 billion in tax cuts in 2018 under the Trump plan. That money is enough to cover individual health insurance premiums for more than 12.6 million adults. Or, that $72 billion could cover Pell grants for 12.3 million low-income, and often first generation, college students. Or, that same $72 billion could create 689,900 jobs through infrastructure investment.

 

Trickle down or supply side economics at it again.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

14 hours ago, Zasplach said:

Not inditing you, just trying to understand the situation.  I see, so those who are getting a waiver for tuition based on rendering services to university will be getting taxed like that service is an income, rather than a scholarship.  I agree that is pretty heavy handed; the nice thing about the legislative process is that people tend to get to air out their problems with the content of the bill.  I can't imagine something like this making it out of conference, taxing something like income that isn't income seems rather punitive.   

I'm going to point out that Slumber has described it perfectly. (Also, I go to U of A, incidentally enough).

FYI -- this is why it's a disaster.

https://www.taxformcalculator.com/tax/70000.html

https://www.taxformcalculator.com/tax/20000.html

EDIT: That's for California (Arizona isn't too different in numbers though), but if you leave in just the federal, that's 7k less per year for someone to live on. Stipend, in my case, would go from 20k/year to 13k/year with significantly less in refunds. 20k/year is relatively comfortable living in Tucson; 13k/year is pretty much like 40 dollars a month for food.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Johann]

When do you guys finish up your masterseses? I wrapped mine up in March and was doing lab tech work and teaching at the college that I got mine at, and they paid for almost all of it. I'm pretty fortunate it's worked out for me and that I won't be affected, but it's infuriating to see these kinds of tax changes all the same.

[Lord Raven]

I'm in my fourth year of a PhD program, and my oral exam is in two weeks so I'll officially have my masters then. Right now it's pretty much unofficial but I could get my Masters whenever I wanted for the past year and a half.

EDIT: I think my resume and references will be good enough if I quit after my Master's. I'm thinking of taking some sort of leave with my Masters (hopefully so it won't be terminal) if this bill passes, or just wait and see what the U of A does.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Elibean Spaceman]

FCC just announced plans to get rid of net neutrality.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/fcc-chief-plans-to-ditch-u-s-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN1DL21A

[Elibean Spaceman]

This was an accidental double post, someone delete this please

Edited November 21, 2017 by Larverto

[Tryhard]

Agit Pai's bogus excuses for why net neutrality is a bad thing really is pathetic.

[Time the Crestfallen]

14 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Agit Pai's bogus excuses for why net neutrality is a bad thing really is pathetic.

Wouldn't you think that someone would realise that trying to sneak the announcement through by doing it so close to Thanksgiving is a sign that what they're doing is wrong? You'd think someone would realise making an effort to hide this from the public would be demonstrative how how shit the policy is.

Regardless, the whole thing is so full of crap that it's almost funny. 'Restoring Internet Freedom Order'? What a joke.

[Just call me AL]

I feel like the Internet Neutrality thing should be its own topic. Especially since it's a serious issue. One that shouldn't be left ignored.

Where's the voices rallied against SOPA and PIPA? We NEED those voices again, NOW.

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, Just call me AL said:

I feel like the Internet Neutrality thing should be its own topic. Especially since it's a serious issue. One that shouldn't be left ignored.

Where's the voices rallied against SOPA and PIPA? We NEED those voices again, NOW.

There's almost no chance of this not passing, and it's been that way since Ajit Pai took over.

Congress doesn't have any say in this, it's entirely in the hands of the commission. Congress could probably do something to soften the blow, but since Obama was in favour of net neutrality and their overwhelmingly crony-capitalist views, you can expect the GOP to do nothing about this.

It's an issue of damage control until an actually competent government comes into power and hopefully un-fucks everything, although it might be too late by that point.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Archer of Red