Bitch about Biden thread

[Emily Lake]

Most people in the world have children and don’t have life insurance, so I fail to see what your point is.

We are talking in the US, not "in the world". In the US, life insurance is cheap for youngish, healthy people and can ensure your dependents are provided for.

Exactly.

What we are seeing here is a big gap in what we consider responsible behavior.

The left seems to feel that any misfortune should be borne by society. The right seems to feel any misfortune should be borne by the individuals. Neither is right, the real question should be to what degree we expect people to prepare for misfortune.

As I see it, insurance to provide for dependents you choose to take on is part of the cost of choosing them. Reproduction is an economic decision!

The idea that reproduction is an economic decision is clearly rebutted by the real world. Expecting people to behave in a particular manner when they clearly don't is rather silly.

I also find it interesting that childless people give advice about the responsible reproduction. However, it is comforting to know that they are childless.

But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.

Yeah, those careless women who didn't take all of the responsibility and had the arrogance to assume that the male who helped impregnate them would bear some of the burden. You're not really making your point any better, you get that right?

 

[laughing dog]

Most people in the world have children and don’t have life insurance, so I fail to see what your point is.

We are talking in the US, not "in the world". In the US, life insurance is cheap for youngish, healthy people and can ensure your dependents are provided for.

Exactly.

What we are seeing here is a big gap in what we consider responsible behavior.

The left seems to feel that any misfortune should be borne by society. The right seems to feel any misfortune should be borne by the individuals. Neither is right, the real question should be to what degree we expect people to prepare for misfortune.

As I see it, insurance to provide for dependents you choose to take on is part of the cost of choosing them. Reproduction is an economic decision!

The idea that reproduction is an economic decision is clearly rebutted by the real world. Expecting people to behave in a particular manner when they clearly don't is rather silly.

I also find it interesting that childless people give advice about the responsible reproduction. However, it is comforting to know that they are childless.

But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having expectations (met or unmet) or helping others out of holes (either as an individual or as a society), so I take your response as a declaration of selfishness.

 

[Emily Lake]

And I have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the person who was careful and bad things happened anyway vs someone who didn't take care.

At the very highest level, I mostly agree with you. But when you get below a shallow statement about it, it can get a lot more complicated. Realistically, I'm also primed by having been an actuary for 25+ years and actually having made a living out of managing, mitigating, and avoiding risk.

Some risks are easily foreseeable, and it's reasonable to expect that people should take actions to minimize their own risk exposure. Like don't leave exposed wires out in the open right next to highly flammable drapes, or don't store the rat poison on the counter right next to the similarly shaped container of powdered non-dairy creamer. To me, these mostly fall into the category of "Darwin is Real", and my sympathy is limited.

Other risks are foreseeable and also have negative consequences for both the actor and others around them, and in those cases it's reasonable to see that as a risk they're obligated to avoid. Like not driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. I have zero sympathy for these. For some I have whatever the polar opposite of sympathy is.

Some risks are not particularly foreseeable, and there's no reasonable way to avoid those risks or even to minimize them - that's where insurance and similar financial structures come into play. For the most part, nobody can foresee that they're going to get cancer, or that a piano is going to fall on them from a five story building, or that some idiot on their phone is going to pull out of a parking lot and ram them while they're minding their own business driving down the road.

But there are also risks that are reasonably foreseeable, but cannot be reasonably avoided or minimized... and sometimes the cost to mitigate those risks is too high. Those get a lot trickier. And sure, at the very highest level "don't have kids unless you can afford them" seems like good advice, but it's rarely as cut and dried as you make it seem. Perhaps they could afford the kids when they had them... and then covid broke the economy and they lost their income along with the life insurance that their employer provided. What do you expect them to do? Kill the kids? Give up their ten year old to an orphanage?

Different types of risks are best managed in different ways. Some are best managed by pooling the risk and spreading the impact of isolated risks across a large number of people. Others are best managed by exclusionary approaches that minimize moral hazard. Some are best managed by actively punishing people who voluntarily partake in risky activities, or by waiving liability for everyone else so that the individual is solely responsible for their own exposure.

Good risk management strategies use multiple approaches that are fit-to-purpose and efficient. And even so, there's still likely to be just plain old bad luck sometimes, and charity has value too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why does mom have two kids before she was able to take care of herself reasonably?

Oh ffs, can you shove your woman-blaming for a while?

Mom used to be a stay at home parent while dad worked, then dad died. Sheesh, that was pretty fucking obvious from the post, but nope, you jumped straight to some veiled "silly whore should have kept her legs shut" jibe.

Had kids without having life insurance.

Most people in the world have children and don’t have life insurance, so I fail to see what your point is.

The point clearly is that that stupid woman didn't have the sense to take out a ginormous life insurance policy on her husband before she spread her legs... Because apparently it's her responsibility alone to ensure the financial security of herself and her family and dad has no role in that.

Alternatively, Loren feels like an asshat for being so transparent about his assumptions, and fell back on the first thing that came to mind that didn't seem sexist on the surface. But even then he didn't really think it all the way through, so we're kind of back to square one.

Where do you get that notion?

Both should have life insurance before they have a baby.

It's "her" because the stated scenario was that she was a widow. I didn't make the scenario.

Are we back to this life insurance thing? Can we live in the real world for a moment, where we aren't ever going to be walking around with whoops a baby insurance?

Is it fair for people to pay assistance to help raise children by people that can't afford to raise a child or children? Not particularly. But without enacting some draconian measures that are not fit for civil society or create a ridiculous insurance program that I doubt insurance companies would go with as the risk of people acting too reproductively will sky rocket premium,, we need to accept that this will happen. People have a hard time accepting that the world isn't ideal.

So we need to skip the ridiculous or draconian necessities required to manage this in some fantastical fantasy and get right to the actual solutions which include ensuring children have a roof, food, and a generalized minimal standard of living our nation doesn't need to be ashamed of. Is it fair? No, does it matter that it isn't "fair"? Life isn't fair. We are a collection of psychotic apes that evolved a long way, but no where near as far as people like to pretend. We need to be rational for a moment and accept the limitations inherent with a population of 350 million people! We should encourage wise life choices, but we should expect some won't make them and be prepared to manage that humanely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.

Yeah, those careless women who didn't take all of the responsibility and had the arrogance to assume that the male who helped impregnate them would bear some of the burden. You're not really making your point any better, you get that right?

Why are you making this about the woman? It works both ways--nobody should choose parenthood until they are in a position to provide for the child. Both sides are responsible--in this case it's actually the guy's fault because he created a child he wasn't prepared to provide for if something happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some risks are not particularly foreseeable, and there's no reasonable way to avoid those risks or even to minimize them - that's where insurance and similar financial structures come into play. For the most part, nobody can foresee that they're going to get cancer, or that a piano is going to fall on them from a five story building, or that some idiot on their phone is going to pull out of a parking lot and ram them while they're minding their own business driving down the road.

Yes, life insurance.

But there are also risks that are reasonably foreseeable, but cannot be reasonably avoided or minimized... and sometimes the cost to mitigate those risks is too high. Those get a lot trickier. And sure, at the very highest level "don't have kids unless you can afford them" seems like good advice, but it's rarely as cut and dried as you make it seem. Perhaps they could afford the kids when they had them... and then covid broke the economy and they lost their income along with the life insurance that their employer provided. What do you expect them to do? Kill the kids? Give up their ten year old to an orphanage?

The vast majority of people aren't in this situation. Fundamentally, live a bit below your means makes the bits of nasty that life throws at you far less likely to actually hurt you. But most people live at their means which means pretty much no safety margin. And I have a problem with expecting society to cover when you work without a safety margin.

 

[Emily Lake]

But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.

Yeah, those careless women who didn't take all of the responsibility and had the arrogance to assume that the male who helped impregnate them would bear some of the burden. You're not really making your point any better, you get that right?

Why are you making this about the woman? It works both ways--nobody should choose parenthood until they are in a position to provide for the child. Both sides are responsible--in this case it's actually the guy's fault because he created a child he wasn't prepared to provide for if something happened.

It didn't work both ways in your post that kicked this off. You made it all about the woman when you said this:

Why does mom have two kids before she was able to take care of herself reasonably?

 

[lpetrich]

The border was totally mishandled.

Was it?
Dems were stabbed in the back by the Republicans who pretended to help create the bi-partisan infrastructure bill.
Would the border still have been mishandled if they hadn’t cowered before Trump and voted against it to preserve the political issue?

And also by the two latest rotating villains, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Looking at her personal history, pre-Congress KS would consider recent KS a sellout who lets herself be bought by big-money lobbies.

 

[southernhybrid]

Can I bitch about this thread, instead of bitching about Biden? WTF! Imo, this thread belongs in the toilet. It's a lot of bitching about each other. Ironically, the political forum is supposed to be the academic discussion of world issues and politics. What a joke! Or is this what has happened to academia?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can I bitch about this thread, instead of bitching about Biden? WTF! Imo, this thread belongs in the toilet. It's a lot of bitching about each other. Ironically, the political forum is supposed to be the academic discussion of world issues and politics. What a joke! Or is this what has happened to academia?

There goes SoHy again... trying to be all bossy.

And as a reminder, PD is not in the Academia set of forums. We did try that once though when we split it.

Now where was I? Oh yes. *troll*

 

[Politesse]

Can I bitch about this thread, instead of bitching about Biden? WTF! Imo, this thread belongs in the toilet. It's a lot of bitching about each other. Ironically, the political forum is supposed to be the academic discussion of world issues and politics. What a joke! Or is this what has happened to academia?

I don't see how I could possibly "bitch about Biden" without reference to Gaza, I had very few objections to the rest of his tenure, and most of the rest would be no less "controversial". Did you?

 

[bilby]

The problem here is that you have swallowed the Hamas propaganda that the conflict is about Israeli actions.

1) As I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring: it's the money that's driving it.

So, you're saying that the conflict is about US actions, as the source of Israeli funding? If so, I expect you are right.

Though my guess is that you were unaware that you were making that argument.

The conflict is a proxy war between the USA and Iran. But not all (or even most) Gazans are pawns of Iran, via Hamas; And not all Israelis are pawns of the USA, via Likud.

The difference being that persuading enough Israelis to oppose Likud is a practical path to a change of national policy, while persuading Gazans to oppose Hamas is futile, as Gazans won't get to vote for any other ruling party any time soon.

What you see as people unfairly blaming Jews but not Muslims is, for the most part, not people blaming anyone at all; Rather it is a recognition that changing anything is far easier to initiate on the democratic side of the conflict, coupled with an understanding that something's gotta change.

 

[Emily Lake]

Can I bitch about this thread, instead of bitching about Biden? WTF! Imo, this thread belongs in the toilet. It's a lot of bitching about each other.

You're not wrong.

Ironically, the political forum is supposed to be the academic discussion of world issues and politics. What a joke! Or is this what has happened to academia?

Yes. This *is* what has happened to academia.

 

[lpetrich]

Joe Biden is just American Boris Yeltsin - YouTube by Russian vlogger NFKRZ

He mentioned Joe Biden slurring his words and stumbling and acting confused, like he does not know which way to go, and he then got into how Russia once had a leader like that: Boris Yeltsin. The same slurring, the same stumbling, the same confusion. He also mentioned that both leaders sometimes did the same blank stare, and that one can see the deterioration when one compares to what these leaders were like when they were younger.

But in fairness to JB, he notes, JB is not an alcoholic, as BY was.

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like Joe Biden has made the same big mistake that LBJ made. Like LBJ, he had a very good domestic agenda, even if he was not nearly as successful with it as LBJ was. But both of them supported a very nasty war that many people disliked, and both of them dropped out during a Presidential election year. Their Vice Presidents campaigned to succeed them, those VP's both supported those wars, and both VP's were defeated.

In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned as wanted peace in Vietnam, but behind the scenes, Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show - The New York Times

Likewise, Donald Trump avoided saying much about Israel's attacks on Gaza, while he was in touch with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

[southernhybrid]

Can I bitch about this thread, instead of bitching about Biden? WTF! Imo, this thread belongs in the toilet. It's a lot of bitching about each other. Ironically, the political forum is supposed to be the academic discussion of world issues and politics. What a joke! Or is this what has happened to academia?

There goes SoHy again... trying to be all bossy.

And as a reminder, PD is not in the Academia set of forums. We did try that once though when we split it.

Now where was I? Oh yes. *troll*

I was just quoting that line that said it was an academic discussion. Maybe that should be changed to it's a political discussion where were freely attack each other without any attempt to follow the rules of the board. What cha think bout that?

Political Discussions​

Post thread
The academic discussion of world issues and politics.

 

[Derec]

Seems like Joe Biden has made the same big mistake that LBJ made. Like LBJ, he had a very good domestic agenda, even if he was not nearly as successful with it as LBJ was. But both of them supported a very nasty war that many people disliked, and both of them dropped out during a Presidential election year. Their Vice Presidents campaigned to succeed them, those VP's both supported those wars, and both VP's were defeated.

The big difference is that US was directly involved in Vietnam, and there was US soldiers, including draftees, who were dying facedown in the muck, to quote Walter Sobchak.

Gaza ranked very low on the list of issues voters cared about.

But yes, Biden stepping down when he did put the Dems behind the 8-ball. Not that the Dem leadership was innocent here, as they protected Biden for months even as it became increasingly clear that he was not up for the job.

 

[Derec]

What you see as people unfairly blaming Jews but not Muslims is, for the most part, not people blaming anyone at all; Rather it is a recognition that changing anything is far easier to initiate on the democratic side of the conflict, coupled with an understanding that something's gotta change.

Netanyahu may lose the next election, but a would be PM who is fundamentally opposed to fighting Hamas militarily will not find a majority. And neither should it. In 2000, Israel offered a generous deal at Camp David. It got the Second Intifada. In 2005, Israel removed soldiers and settlers from Gaza. It got thousands of rockets launched from Gaza and Hamas taking over. It's like with Charlie Brown and Lucy, except far more deadly.
You can't just demand Israel change without giving them a reason to change. And letting Palestinians off the hook is never going to Israel that reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A twelve year old feels no more empowered than an eight year old to refuse when their father holds them a gun and tells them to guard a door.

I am not talking about 12 year olds "guarding a door" (where did you even get that scenario?) I am talking about teenagers recruited into Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

I forgot to address that part of it. Their age is completely irrelevant in this case. If they're guarding a door they're a combatant. Perhaps conscript rather than by choice, but conscripts are still valid targets.

 

[Emily Lake]

But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.

Yeah, those careless women who didn't take all of the responsibility and had the arrogance to assume that the male who helped impregnate them would bear some of the burden. You're not really making your point any better, you get that right?

Why are you making this about the woman? It works both ways--nobody should choose parenthood until they are in a position to provide for the child. Both sides are responsible--in this case it's actually the guy's fault because he created a child he wasn't prepared to provide for if something happened.

It didn't work both ways in your post that kicked this off. You made it all about the woman when you said this:

Why does mom have two kids before she was able to take care of herself reasonably?

She chose to have children she wasn't in a position to raise and without having life insurance on the person she was counting on to help.

And this is exactly why I am calling it out as sexist, Loren. YOU have framed the entirety of it around a failing on the part of the woman. You have not once made any statements that assign responsibility to the man.

It takes two to make a kid. So why aren't you slandering the father for choosing to have kids that he wasn't in a position to raise without having life insurance on himself? Why is it only the woman's responsibility and the woman's failing that you see?