rgio wrote:
Agreed.  Student loan money is some of the softest loan money available.    Nobody has yet to explain to me why working folks with no college or university education should pay for the education of college and university graduates. 

Many of us worked hard and lived very frugally during our university years and kept living frugally after we graduated in order to pay off the student loans as quickly as possible.  Not sure why this kind of student should cross-subsidize people who partied their way through school and racked up huge debts. 

 rgio wrote:

another bad idea (this should be in the Election thread)
p.s., and this is from someone who's kids will benefit. 

Does this reverse the inflation reduction act from last week? Seesaw

Biden is canceling up to $10K in student loans, $20K for Pell Grant recipients

 Steely_D wrote:

Hysterical. Best thing I've seen today.
https://twitter.com/potus/stat...

 Steely_D wrote:
Pretty sure that ship has sailed but would have been a good response.

Totally love someone's suggestion that the President should sign the bills with a giant "LET'S GO BRANDON!" banner behind him. That would immediately tank all the opposition's signs.

And it would be evil, which is my primary reason for liking it.

 VV wrote: 
Yep, his inability to acknowledge that small nations have any agency is kind of hilarious, given that he usually champions the rights of minorities and the undertrodden. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I would really love to hear his view on Finland & Sweden joining NATO and who was responsible for that. 
 
I'm guessing he will spin it as aggressive NATO expansionism forced on those two countries... instead of what it really is... to try and protect the sovereignty of those nations from a nation that demonstrates it clearly doesn't respect that. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I don't think he was being sarcastic. I am pretty sure Westslope sees Russia as the victim of US warmongering / NATO expansionism and thinks Russia is completely innocent of any aggressive intent towards its neighbours. 

Not sure how he can think that, given the historical evidence, but I am pretty sure that is what he thinks.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
But is it really sarcasm... if you have to stop and wonder if it's sarcasm?

 VV wrote:

he was being sarcastic, me thinks

 westslope wrote:
WTF? Where is the lie and what anti-data are you even talking about?

 Lazy8 wrote:
Yes, I did not address at all the issue of  the United States’ share of the tab nor its implications. SFW’s post referenced a Trump proposal/suggestion that the US leave NATO.  I do not think it should. NATO is not obsolete, as Trump then claimed (Trump later claimed he was just trying to get the Europeans to pay more for their defense)

It is abundantly clear that the US cannot continue to attempt to serve as kind of a global police force, not in Europe, not in Asia, not in the Middle East, not anywhere. Just from a financial standpoint, this is the reality. 

For good or ill, a big part of US foreign policy post-WWII has been to “fight them over there.” That is why Bin Laden thought it important to bring the war home to America. He also foresaw a draining of America’s money and patience. That was part of his strategy. Some of that is coming to fruition.

Big questions are confronting us. Dynamics have changed. Shouting “America First,” will not begin to provide any solutions. One thing I believe to be obvious is that Americans need to learn to accept that America is not always going to be a top dog. We cannot just impose our will, politically, socially, militarily. We will need to work and play well with others.

 VV wrote:
That is a lie and you know it. 

Stop being anti-data like Trump supporters.

 steeler wrote:
There is more to that than "NATO good." NATO being necessary to defend a free Europe doesn't imply that the US should pay for it.

If the Ukraine war demonstrates anything it's that Europe needs to take responsibility for its own defense. Decades of relying on Uncle Sugar has left it unprepared to deal with a threat like Putin—not just militarily but politically and socially.

The US would be essential in a shooting war, but we don't face most of the consequences of one. The reprisals don't fall on our cities, we don't shiver thru a winter with no heat, the refugees don't stream across our borders, and we don't have to live with a belligerent neighbor after.

I don't think the US funding NATO thru the 20th century was a mistake; it lead to a mostly-free, peaceful, and prosperous Europe after a disastrous half-century of war. European dependency on the US in the 21st century is now pretty clearly a mistake, and one that Europe needs to fix.

 black321 wrote:

Sounds like something HITLER would say!

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
The importance of peace in Europe is once again being demonstrated. I would say the Russian invasion of Ukraine has underscored the need for NATO.

 VV wrote:

Upsides and downsides to NATO but when Trump was saying we should leave, a lot of people hadn't thought about it in years and were hard pressed to immediately specify why he was wrong. Myself included. 

 westslope wrote:
It’s only because of NATO membership that the Baltic States haven’t been smashed by the Russian military and annexed by Russia so thank God for that. And thank God for Finland and Sweden for deciding to become a part of NATO as well.

So yea, if Ukraine had been granted full membership earlier we more than likely would not be seeing this Russian military aggression.

I love how you act as if independent countries are not independent and not allowed/capable of making their own decisions in terms of their global associations. No one is forcing anyone to join NATO. Did NATO force Finland & Sweden to join? The only dark age morality and warrior attitude that I am seeing is coming from the Russian side. NATO was probably the weakest it had been in years but thanks to Russia that has all changed.