Games without frontiers

[Dave's Not Here Man]

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64961958

What are the chances we all gets there at about the same time?

[k9krap]

Russia needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. Literally. But let them search. It will keep them busy and distracted. 🤣🤣

[minx]

We brought down the drone when it became unflyable.

Um, we couldn't have just blown it up in mid-air?

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Sounds to me like there was some sort of self destruct mechanism on it, going by the way the talkers are talking (saying there won't be anything useful to recover). I also hear we're supposed to be looking for it, a-la my OP.

[minx]

Yeah, something seems fishy here. Either it's totally useless (in which case why do we need it), or it's mostly intact and we'd better get it back NOW.

Either way, it's an escalation of things if you ask me.

[bobathon]

You can see here how it's totally accidental.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

There's no question it's an escalation. What did we expect though? Could've fed half the world with what we've sent to Ukraine. We're at war already this was just our second casualty.... the truth is always first.

[k9krap]

They think they scrubbed it before they lost contact. It would be best to retrieve it to remove all doubt.

[minx]

I agree that we couldn't let Russia just walk in and take over Ukraine. And we shouldn't have let them do it in Crimea either.

At the same time, I'm damn tired of being the World Police. I know that Europe depends on grain and gas from Russia, so why the hell aren't they doing more to knock Putin back and keep him in line?

And Ukraine can only hold out on their own but for so long, and I fear that limit is rapidly approaching. Meanwhile, Putin is conscripting any male who has 4 limbs and is breathing to go to the front lines. And there are more Russians than Ukrainians, so as long as Putin doesn't mind providing cannon fodder he has an advantage.

We won't discuss the cost of rebuilding the country if Ukraine wins...

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Fuel for thought.

[bobathon]

uploads.disquscdn.com/images/419687b6d39bcd1201af7e720574bb72b9b3ccffd2ffe175f91471ec82e2541f.jpg

[minx]

It's too bad that we all lack the willpower to do something about people on the edge before they become homeless.

Our society has always fostered an us vs them mindset, and those of us in the 'us' category don't want to pay the price needed to lift the 'them' to our level.

And yes, I include myself in the 'us' category. After all, I'm going to retire and use the money in my 401(k), along with the money in my spouse's TSP plan to pay the bills. Where does that money come from? Corporate investors and the stock market. And no one with those retirement plans want to look too closely at the investments made and how they are built on the back of the poor. Cause none of us want to join their ranks, right?

I do feel guilty, but at the same time not guilty enough to stop putting money into my 401(k), or move the money from our TSP into a savings account at a small bank.

[bobathon]

The poor must be punished for being poor. That's one reason why there's never funds for public welfare but always plenty for war.

[minx]

That's cause they brought it on themselves - they choose to remain poor, just like those with disabilities (well except maybe cancer, cause we all know - Fuck Cancer) brought those illnesses and injuries on themselves too. So screw them all, right?

I wonder how much Walmart's stock would go up if they said minimum starting wage was $17/hr, benefits started at 20 hours/wk and all employees would have an initial contribution to a 401(k) in the amount of 1% of salary paid for by the company, with a match of up to 5% of whatever salary percentage the employee put in. Then an additional guarantee to consumers that stores would be fully-staffed and clean, and price increases would only be done if absolutely necessary.

Granted the executive suite would have to take reduced pay so this could all take place. But I bet their stock would soar, and I also bet they'd get a lot more people through the door as well. All of which should equate to an increase in profits. But that would be a long-term thing. In the short term, it would require some willingness to accept losses while people realized that the company wasn't blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

But we can't have profits reduced! Heaven forbid!!!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I was watching a clip this morning of a man hounding Elizabeth Warren about the loan forgiveness program she is a big support of. Whittling it down a bit, he said "I saved my money and sent my daughter to school so no loans to pay back. Will I get my money back?"

I won't try to quote the short conversation as it's out there if you want to see it. It occurred to me after letting it digest for a minute or two that what this man was really pissed about was that someone was going to get something that he didn't think they deserve. In his world, the only way is his way and that it applies universally (trust me, no pun intended, I have first hand experience with that attitude). He's mad because someone got something he didn't and that he should be entitled to it, too. I think that fits pretty well with the narrative Bob and Minx just expressed about "fuck poor people".

It's unfortunate because I could agree with him/anyone arguing against the program in principal if their attitude wasn't so loaded. I feel like if you take out a loan, whatever it's for, you are bound by contract and obligated to pay it back. The issue of affordable tuition is another topic as is access to higher education being the difference between "us and them" aka haves and have nots. We all understand that's been the way of the world and it's not going to change until either everyone is a have or everyone is a have not.

I think Democrats need to take that plan off the table until there's a practical and cohesive strategy that addresses only the issues of fairness and malfeasance that has occurred on the part of the actual loan providers. Perhaps some day we will figure out how to make higher education affordable or free in an equitable fashion but in the here and now, we should be supporting rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the signed contracts, and not void them with impunity.

[minx]

I do think the plan was hastily thought up and ill-conceived.
What I'd like to see happen is for the government to force the loan companies to re-negotiate terms on these loans. There are too many people who through no fault of their own are trapped in loans that may never pay off due to the way interest was calculated.

So I would completely eliminate non-subsidized loans. These loans start the interest clock the moment the money is sent to the college, leaving students who can't afford the monthly interest charges behind when they graduate. In contrast, subsidized loans don't charge any interest until payment start 6 months after graduation. That right there is a huge amount of relief. Next, cap interest at 4% annually and raise the total amount you can borrow each year to a maximum of $10K (right now it's $7500 - what it was when I graduated 40 years ago!).

Once that is done, force loan companies to come to the table and re-negotiate outstanding loans. Calculate interest back to the original date of the loan at 4%. If the loan was an unsubsidized one, credit back interest charged while the loanee was enrolled FT. Credit goes back onto the loan towards the principal. If the credit would equal more than the loan balance, then the loanee gets a tax credit for it.

Same thing for those who have already paid off their loans, only you get a tax credit.

And if you were fortunate enough to not have to take out loans, well good for you! You got a tax credit while little Susie and Johnny were in school to the tune of $5K. Be grateful. I know I was!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Sound ideas vs political stunts? Say it ain't so!

[minx]

I think of my friend who had the embolism. She was not only upside-down in her house, but in the midst of a nasty divorce and had lost her job due to her inability to work.

Thanks to the HARP program, not only was she able to refinance down to a payment she could handle on a disability check, but the bank wrote off a nice chunk of her loan to make it all work.
Bank is getting their money, she gets to stay in her home. Total win.

The only thing that pisses me off about it was that she didn't realize she qualified for part of the loan to be written off because she was disabled and wasn't going to apply. She only found out because one of her home health aides told her about it.

Banks should have been forced to prove that they told homeowners about the HARP program before they foreclosed and either show a notarized rejection from the homeowner refusing to apply, or an application clearly showing that the homeowner didn't qualify. And the bullshit about not being able to apply if you had kept the mortgage up to date should never have been allowed.

People like John should have totally been able to get relief from that program and weren't able to.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I think I heard someone call that the American Dream.

Again, all perfectly stated.