The View: Week of 4/21/2025

[falltime]

Monday, April 21 (OAD: 3/19/25) – Robert De Niro (actor, “The Alto Knights”)

Tuesday, April 22 – Eva Longoria (host/executive producer, “Eva Longoria: Searching for Spain”); Earth Day with ABC News chief meteorologist Ginger Zee from North Carolina, where she is talking to farmers about sustainable solutions

Wednesday, April 23 – Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) (author, “We’re in This Together: Leo’s Lunchbox”); Shanola Hampton (actor, “Found”)

Thursday, April 24 – Bowen Yang (actor, “The Wedding Banquet” and “Saturday Night Live”); Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong (documentary, “Cheech & Chong’s Last Movie”)

Friday, April 25 – José Andrés (author, “Change the Recipe: Because You Can’t Build a Better World Without Breaking Some Eggs”); Ezra Klein (author, “Abundance”)

[Haleth]

Looking forward to Wed and Fri. 

[KittyQ]

I think that Whoopi misspoke when she said that as a small child she saw Pope John XXIII ride by - the first Pope who visited the U.S. was Pope Paul VI, who visited in the 1960s. I think she conflated the two, because for people of a certain age, John XXIII was a significant Pope, initiating changes in the Mass, and having the Second Vatican Council, while Paul VI was Pope for many more years after John XXIII's death. 

[Blissfool]

Wow, Eva Longoria is so so beautiful! Her story about meeting the Pope and blurting out that she's divorced was funny 😆

[Haleth]

Eva seems like a fun person. 

[BuckeyeLou]

2 hours ago, Haleth said:

Eva seems like a fun person. 

I am looking forward to her Special on CNN "Searching for Spain"

[Haleth]

Wow, entitled much?  Alyssa assumes people can put their $5k baby payment into a 529 plan instead of needing it for, you know, food and diapers. Sunny is right that this is about more white babies.

I don’t know who she is listening to (sure) but Alyssa saying people still trust trump on the economy just isn’t true. Polls show he is deeply negative on that issue, especially wrt tariffs.

I adore Sen Warnock. He always makes me feel better about everything. (I bet the Pope liked him better than Vance.)

Edited April 23 by Haleth

[KittyQ]

Haha - Joy says she's an optimist. Perhaps she needs to get a dictionary, because I don't think she knows that that word means (thanks, Princess Bride!). She hasn't sounded optimistic at least since the election, and nothing she says would give anyone else a sense of hope. 

Paying some kind of bonus to people to have babies? Frankly, it seems a little weird, but I know that other countries have done similar things. There are other "benefits" for parents, such as tax credits for parents that people who don't have kids don't get. So, it isn't as though parents are completely without financial incentives. Perhaps they aren't enough, but to paraphrase Sara, why turn down money just because it isn't a higher number? I think that having kids is expensive, which is probably part of why the birth rate has dropped. 

To speak to Sunny's implication that the issue is that this is about having "white" babies, I think that is simplistic, although that is typical of Sunny. I think that the point is that Social Security and Medicare depend on having people pay into the system, and they do that by being employed and productive, regardless of race or ethnicity. Encouraging more people to have children so that there will be more people in the future contributing to society and benefits is what I think this is about. A 1% increase in births among one demographic is not likely to be sufficient to ensure that the benefits will be enough to provide for those who need them. 

The discussion with Ralph Warnock included some reasons why some people aren't having kids - reporting that 1 in 5 kids suffers from food insecurity doesn't exactly make it seem like a great idea to have kids, if the ones that are already here can't be cared for. 

[Haleth]

55 minutes ago, KittyQ said:

I think that the point is that Social Security and Medicare depend on having people pay into the system,

Or they could raise the cap above $160k. More people mean more resources needed, but the current admin doesn’t care about need. 

Edited April 23 by Haleth

[shok]

10 hours ago, KittyQ said:

I think that the point is that Social Security and Medicare depend on having people pay into the system, and they do that by being employed and productive, regardless of race or ethnicity. Encouraging more people to have children so that there will be more people in the future contributing to society and benefits is what I think this is about.

There are thousands of people who would love to have jobs and be productive but the president and his mob of madmen has put them on planes and deported them out of the country. There are also millions of people around the world who are suffering from wars and poverty and plagues who would dearly love to come to the States and get jobs and be productive but Trump doesn't like refugees. No need for him to pay members of his cult $5,000 to have babies. There are plenty of other ways to keep the entitlement kitty full.

[Haleth]

It’s insane that someone who makes $160k and someone who makes $160M pay the same amount of social security. Just ridiculous. 

[bluegirl147]

19 hours ago, KittyQ said:

I think that having kids is expensive, which is probably part of why the birth rate has dropped. 

There are a lot of reasons the birth rate has dropped. Financial insecurity is one.  There is also the fact women are waiting longer to have kids and as you get older your fertility drops. Some people are worried about climate change and don't want to bring a child into a world that will most likely be very different when they grow up.  Whatever the reason if someone has made the choice to not have kids or more kids trying to incentivize them to change their minds is not a good idea. Why not take that money and put it into programs that help the kids that are already here?

[Haleth]

lol. I always thank Alexa too. I’ve seen the dystopian movies where the machines take over so I want to stay on her good side. 

[atomic]

I do the same thing. Gotta let 'em know I was one of the nice humans just in case. 🤣

[Shrek]

Our 7-year-old grandson will randomly say "I love you Alexa" just to hear what she says so I think we're covered if they do take over.

[Sue in her 60s]

9 hours ago, Haleth said:

lol. I always thank Alexa too. I’ve seen the dystopian movies where the machines take over so I want to stay on her good side. 

A few weeks ago my Alexa (we call her Echo) finished telling me the weather and then added something like, "Would you like to know more about Alexa-Plus, a new and better version?" She was being forced to advertise for her replacement!

[Haleth]

I’m lmao that the panel took John Cena seriously. They were so earnest in their remarks about Cena expressing his feelings about being bullied. He was joking, people. Good grief. 

[debbie311]

Not a fan of Ana's dress today, looks like it is falling off, looks very sloppy.

[KittyQ]

12 minutes ago, debbie311 said:

Not a fan of Ana's dress today, looks like it is falling off, looks very sloppy.

I think so, too. Some off the shoulder styles look nice and a little sexy, but this looks like she's wearing something with a neck that's too large and it is falling off her shoulder - looks sloppy.

Sunny, while higher education, especially universities like Harvard, is very overpriced, there are reasonably priced colleges and universities (not free, but reasonable for residents) available - they are the state schools and community colleges that exist in every state. For undergraduate degrees, state schools would be a reasonable option for most people, if you aren't dazzled by the idea that you have to attend a "name" school.

Private schools (Harvard, for example) charge lots more money for tuition. Example: Tuition (not including additional fees for housing, etc.) for state residents at University of Washington is $12,973, and at Harvard (also not including housing, etc.) is $59,320. In both cases, there are extra costs for housing, food, books, supplies, fees for additional services and so on that add a lot of extra costs per year, but even then, the cost for Washington State residents per year would be about half of what they would pay at Harvard. 

[Snapdragon]

4 hours ago, KittyQ said:

I think so, too. Some off the shoulder styles look nice and a little sexy, but this looks like she's wearing something with a neck that's too large and it is falling off her shoulder - looks sloppy.

Sunny, while higher education, especially universities like Harvard, is very overpriced, there are reasonably priced colleges and universities (not free, but reasonable for residents) available - they are the state schools and community colleges that exist in every state. For undergraduate degrees, state schools would be a reasonable option for most people, if you aren't dazzled by the idea that you have to attend a "name" school.

Private schools (Harvard, for example) charge lots more money for tuition. Example: Tuition (not including additional fees for housing, etc.) for state residents at University of Washington is $12,973, and at Harvard (also not including housing, etc.) is $59,320. In both cases, there are extra costs for housing, food, books, supplies, fees for additional services and so on that add a lot of extra costs per year, but even then, the cost for Washington State residents per year would be about half of what they would pay at Harvard. 

I don't think you can really discuss the cost of college these days without including housing, books, etc.  I graduated from a private university in 2004.  My parents had a college fund for me ($42,000-ish) and it covered all four years (I had also gotten a scholarship that basically covered a year), including housing, books, etc..  My brother had a similar amount in his college fund and was able to cover both undergrad and graduate school at a public state school.  Now?  It's $28,000-$30,000 a year for a public state school.  My oldest will graduate high school in six years and it's going to cost us $100,000-$120,000 to send her to college.  So no, I would not say that that is reasonably priced.  

Edited April 25 by Snapdragon

[KittyQ]

22 minutes ago, Snapdragon said:

I don't think you can really discuss the cost of college these days without including housing, books, etc.  I graduated from a private university in 2004.  My parents had a college fund for me ($42,000-ish) and it covered all four years (I had also gotten a scholarship that basically covered a year), including housing, books, etc..  My brother had a similar amount in his college fund and was able to cover both undergrad and graduate school at a public state school.  Now?  It's $28,000-$30,000 a year for a public state school.  My oldest will graduate high school in six years and it's going to cost us $100,000-$120,000 to send her to college.  So no, I would not say that that is reasonably priced.  

Maybe "reasonably priced" is relative to private universities. I got the figures from the websites of each institution, so the numbers are what they are giving to potential students.

With the additional costs (books, housing, food, etc.) these are the numbers I saw for academic year 2025-2026:

UW (residents): $35,305

Harvard: $86,926

There are bound to be ways to cut costs on some of the extra fees, but without a doubt, state schools are more "affordable" than the name brand ones. All the schools have increased rates tremendously since I went to school decades ago, 

[KittyQ]

On 4/24/2025 at 5:05 AM, Haleth said:

It’s insane that someone who makes $160k and someone who makes $160M pay the same amount of social security. Just ridiculous. 

Do they collect the same amount at retirement? I can imagine that if you were to pay more beyond the cap, you'd expect to get more later. As far as I can tell, there's a maximum amount that anyone can collect at retirement. I don't know whether those that earn so much more even bother to collect Soc. Security, since they might have already got plenty of money set aside for their future needs. 

[Denize]

If they've paid into SS the same total amount over their working lives, they collect the same amount at retirement if they start collecting SS at the same age with the same number of years worked.  You cannot pay more beyond the cap into SS (if done by accident, it gets refunded) but you can put extra money into non-SS investments. 

Edited April 26 by Denize

[TheGreenKnight]

On 4/23/2025 at 1:48 PM, KittyQ said:

Haha - Joy says she's an optimist. Perhaps she needs to get a dictionary, because I don't think she knows that that word means (thanks, Princess Bride!). She hasn't sounded optimistic at least since the election, and nothing she says would give anyone else a sense of hope.

Being an optimist doesn't involve denying reality. Things can always improve, that doesn't mean it's a guarantee. 

 

On 4/25/2025 at 6:47 PM, Snapdragon said:

I don't think you can really discuss the cost of college these days without including housing, books, etc.  I graduated from a private university in 2004.  My parents had a college fund for me ($42,000-ish) and it covered all four years (I had also gotten a scholarship that basically covered a year), including housing, books, etc..  My brother had a similar amount in his college fund and was able to cover both undergrad and graduate school at a public state school.  Now?  It's $28,000-$30,000 a year for a public state school.  My oldest will graduate high school in six years and it's going to cost us $100,000-$120,000 to send her to college.  So no, I would not say that that is reasonably priced.  

I agree. I would have attended a prestigious name school myself back when rather than a state school if not for price. Even though I could have had tuition paid in full, there are all the "invisible" costs separate from tuition you don't think about that all would have been skyhigh at a school like that and I didn't think it was worth the risk.