This article doesn’t really say what the SAVE plan does so I’m reposting this here.
…the SAVE plan is coming in July 2024 to replace REPAYE, with some parts rolling out this summer and all the details here.
The department says that under the old plan, borrowers repaid $10,956 for every $10,000 they borrowed. Under the new plan, they would pay back just $6,121.
It’s more technical than direct forgiveness but will change income-based plans in the following ways according to this NPR article:
Starting Summer 2023:
floor for protected income rising from 150% to 225% of poverty line
no interest while payments are being made
Starting Summer 2024:
payments now based on 5% rather than 10% of borrowers’ remaining income
those who borrow $12,000 or less can gain full forgiveness in 10 years rather than 20 (with each additional $1000 adding another year so $13,000=11 years etc.)
It’s a start, hopefully someone sees this and saves some money.
Also want to add that these changes are not subject to Congressional approval. They could be repealed (impossible with a Dem Senate + Presidential veto) or they could be struck down by SCOTUS, but this is all being performed via powers given by the Higher Education Act and are generally on much firmer legal ground than the loan forgiveness plan SCOTUS scuttled.
Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.
Honestly, I tried pretty hard to find a good reason and other than the fact that the CDC groups data into lt;1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 age ranges there’s no real explanation. You could go up to 14, and then get individual year data up to 17/18 whatever the cutoff.
I wouldn’t say it’s totally dishonest because it is baked into the data and the CDC considers them developmentally similar, but I think it also an issue NBC wasn’t too interested in fixing because it makes the article’s argument seem more convincing.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Even so, the child firearm mortality rate in the U.S. (3.7 per 100,000 people ages 1-17) is 5.5 times the child and teen mortality rate in Canada (0.6 per 100,000 people ages 1-19).
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
If only there were other countries on earth that had both criminals AND stricter gun laws where we could see if reducing the number of guns saves children’s lives despite not eradicating criminal activity. And only if, I don’t know, social scientists had analyzed it systematically.
Among comparably large and wealthy countries, Canada has the second highest child and teen firearm death rate to the U.S. However, Canada generally has more restrictive firearm laws and regulates access to guns at the federal level.
If the child and teen firearm mortality rate in the U.S. had been brought down to rates seen in Canada, we estimate that approximately 30,000 children’s and teenagers’ lives in the U.S. would have been saved since 2010 (an average of about 2,500 lives per year). This would have reduced the total number of child and teenage deaths from all causes in the U.S. by 13%.
So even if we disregard your rampant disrespect for the lives of children, you have successfully described (at most) a little over 10% of child gun deaths, so I'm sure the families of the other 90% will totally agree with you.
Older adolescents, ages 15 to 19, accounted for 82.6% of gun-related deaths in 2021.
Poking around the CDC website adolescence is defined in multiple ways but generally includes ages 12-19, so might be better described as "teens" even though 18+ is a legal adult. I think it's being treated here as more of a developmental stage than a legal one.
Digging into it by age, from 2018-2021 firearms made up 2,149 out of 22,545 total deaths (9%) for the age range 5-14 in the US. Looking at 15-19 this increases significantly to 13,321 out of 46,323 total deaths (29%). This corresponds to increases in both homicide and suicide by firearm for older adolescents.
Quoting this just to make the point that firearms do have differing impacts on younger and older children, and that extends to race and income level as well. But whether guns are the leading cause of death for an age group or not, the end result is the same: more dead kids.
Yes, we do have federal labor laws, which you can find summarized here: https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws. They just kind of suck compared to peer nations. Here is the section most relevant to the Tesla employee story:
All states, except Montana, allow "at will" employment. This means that an employer or employee can end the employment at any time, for any reason. However, the reason for termination cannot be illegal. This includes:
Discrimination based on race, sex, age (40 and over), nation of origin, disability, or genetic information
Retaliation for reporting illegal or unsafe workplace practices
Refusing to conduct illegal activities
Like others have said, enforcement is spotty, and what state you live in / whether the job is unionized plays a huge role as well in terms of what you actually experience.
That’s totally fair. My point wasn’t that I disagreed, just that you don’t have to hope whether it is true or not, you can look at the examples from the article and decide if this is what “winning legislation” means to you.
You don’t have to hope you can look at the examples and decide for yourself.
Last year, ballot measures that would have severely curtailed abortion access were defeated by progressive activists campaigning in deep red Montana, Kansas and Kentucky. Meanwhile, in cities from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, voters approved affordable housing measures championed by local progressives.
State legislators in New York, where a bloc of progressive electeds has been built over the last few electoral cycles, passed the Build Public Renewables Act (BRPA) earlier this year. The legislation marks significant progress toward both public ownership of utilities in the state and the proliferation of renewable energy.
Meanwhile, city councilors in Somerville, where progressives have built a supermajority over several electoral cycles, have taken increasingly bold steps in enacting left-leaning policy. These efforts have culminated in the city council’s recent request to the Massachusetts state legislature to enact home rule in Somerville to address its affordable housing crisis.
Well seems like conservatives are finally saying the quiet part out loud, that women’s bodies are just a natural resource to be exploited Manifest Destiny-style.
I’m a bit of a news junkie, but I always pay attention to the link being shared. Is it a reliable source? Is it paywalled? Is it a tabloid just spreading rumors and disinfo? You’re right that a link aggregator is only as good as the links being shared.
Wake up, reach for my phone “just to wake my eyes up,” proceed to waste time and as a result rush through the rest of whatever else I have to do in the morning.
People to the left of Biden sitting the election out/voting 3rd party will have one practical outcome: helping to elect Trump, who is about to go on trial for trying to overthrow the government.
I would love to live in an America where Biden is the rightmost option instead of the leftmost. That’s not where we are, and if we want to get there we can’t let fascists near the levers of power.
Eh I think it’s more complicated than that. Neither national party is calling for it definitely. And DC Dems are suing to block it in the city. But if you look at where RCV is implemented it’s basically very Democratic cities and independent-streak states like Maine and Alaska. Both of which do have a lot of pressure from viable independent/dem-soc alternatives. It’s also completely banned in Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. So I would tip the scales slightly towards Democrats here, but I agree it primarily challenges those in power so if you’ve been elected under the current system you’re usually not crazy about it regardless of party. (To be clear I totally support RCV or really anything other that FPtP voting)
Biden admin: passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill, $400 billion in climate funding, $1.9 trillion in COVID aid that temporarily boosted unemployment aid and child tax credit, and first major gun safety legislation in decades, seen here
Demand change. Demand more from the politicians that work for you. Take Biden and all elected officials to account for expiring temporary relief for the lower class. But on many important issues for the lower class there are big differences between red and blue.
wrath-sedan @ wrath-sedan @kbin.social Posts 11Comments 232Joined 2 yr. ago
Trump: Haha jk jk… unless??