|
Post by samadams10 on Dec 1, 2016 17:56:24 GMT -8
Bernie might have, we'll never know. Bernie could relate to those Rust Belt voters in ways Hillary never really could. Yes, I think he could relate on a different level than Hillary could and perhaps may have gotten more younger voters. I just think too many people saw his policies as too left wing and some of it was overkill imo. True on the policies. I think they he would not have as deficient in votes that went to the idiots what's Aleppo and stein. And man that Larry David effect would've been awesome to continue. On the current side It'll be crazy if they do away with mortgage interest deduction unless it is accompanied by a significant cut in personal income tax.
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Dec 1, 2016 20:39:11 GMT -8
Bernie might have, we'll never know. Bernie could relate to those Rust Belt voters in ways Hillary never really could. Yes, I think he could relate on a different level than Hillary could and perhaps may have gotten more younger voters. I just think too many people saw his policies as too left wing and some of it was overkill imo. People could think many things erroneously. Policies as too left? To whom? Which policies? He was New Deal Democrat seeking to do what FDR (regarded by many the greatest president of the 20th century) did as the country struggled to recover from the Great Depression. The results carried America and the economy to the height of the US empire historically speaking. It's all been a steady decline since then. His policies were not far left on any spectrum besides the United States where discourse has been completely hijacked by profiteers to make ultraconservativism the norm, a consorted effort since the early 80s. In reality, policy wise Hillary Clinton is a republican of about 30 years ago and the neocons are far off the deep end. Bernie would have won IMO. He was not politically exploitable in the same way Hillary was. You'd find no ethics issues and Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Dec 1, 2016 21:40:41 GMT -8
Yes, I think he could relate on a different level than Hillary could and perhaps may have gotten more younger voters. I just think too many people saw his policies as too left wing and some of it was overkill imo. People could think many things erroneously. Policies as too left? To whom? Which policies? He was New Deal Democrat seeking to do what FDR (regarded by many the greatest president of the 20th century) did as the country struggled to recover from the Great Depression. The results carried America and the economy to the height of the US empire historically speaking. It's all been a steady decline since then. His policies were not far left on any spectrum besides the United States where discourse has been completely hijacked by profiteers to make ultraconservativism the norm, a consorted effort since the early 80s. In reality, policy wise Hillary Clinton is a republican of about 30 years ago and the neocons are far off the deep end. Bernie would have won IMO. He was not politically exploitable in the same way Hillary was. You'd find no ethics issues and Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate. Likability factor was strongly in bernies favor. Agree - no dirt on him but they would've gone hard after him on socialism which has been marketed to be such a negative term. Even though majority of the buffoons who critics socialism don't realize that they themselves count in it and benefit from it.
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Dec 1, 2016 23:44:12 GMT -8
People could think many things erroneously. Policies as too left? To whom? Which policies? He was New Deal Democrat seeking to do what FDR (regarded by many the greatest president of the 20th century) did as the country struggled to recover from the Great Depression. The results carried America and the economy to the height of the US empire historically speaking. It's all been a steady decline since then. His policies were not far left on any spectrum besides the United States where discourse has been completely hijacked by profiteers to make ultraconservativism the norm, a consorted effort since the early 80s. In reality, policy wise Hillary Clinton is a republican of about 30 years ago and the neocons are far off the deep end. Bernie would have won IMO. He was not politically exploitable in the same way Hillary was. You'd find no ethics issues and Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate. Likability factor was strongly in bernies favor. Agree - no dirt on him but they would've gone hard after him on socialism which has been marketed to be such a negative term. Even though majority of the buffoons who critics socialism don't realize that they themselves count in it and benefit from it. Well that's sort of the hypocrisy of the whole thing to me. Anecdotally speaking my trump voting friends were friends I went to public school with and who work in some form for a government agency... Staunch anti socialists. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Dec 2, 2016 7:31:09 GMT -8
Likability factor was strongly in bernies favor. Agree - no dirt on him but they would've gone hard after him on socialism which has been marketed to be such a negative term. Even though majority of the buffoons who critics socialism don't realize that they themselves count in it and benefit from it. Well that's sort of the hypocrisy of the whole thing to me. Anecdotally speaking my trump voting friends were friends I went to public school with and who work in some form for a government agency... Staunch anti socialists. Go figure. So true. It's really weird. Do they just not get it? It's like lower mid class going all in Repub as they feel the need to protect the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Dec 2, 2016 9:43:55 GMT -8
Yes, I think he could relate on a different level than Hillary could and perhaps may have gotten more younger voters. I just think too many people saw his policies as too left wing and some of it was overkill imo. Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate. A fact-checker would have annihilated Trump in every debate. For some reason they weren't allowed to fact-check. Idiocracy is approaching documentary status.
|
|
hackashaq
::| Basketball Guru |::
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by hackashaq on Dec 2, 2016 10:37:12 GMT -8
This was as fact-free an election as I could remember from a winning candidate. And I don't mean those half truths politician make everyday, but flat out lies. Trump was just a master at it, and those desperate voters left out of the economic recovery ate it up.
I think they will be in for a rude surprise as the richest cabinet in US history starts implementing their grand government destruction plans.
This is Herbert Hoover with a dash of McCarthy. Lord help us.
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Dec 2, 2016 11:04:14 GMT -8
This was as fact-free an election as I could remember from a winning candidate. And I don't mean those half truths politician make everyday, but flat out lies. Trump was just a master at it, and those desperate voters left out of the economic recovery ate it up. I think they will be in for a rude surprise as the richest cabinet in US history starts implementing their grand government destruction plans. This is Herbert Hoover with a dash of McCarthy. Lord help us. Yes to all this but the dangerous part is that the blatant lies are lapped up by this budding army of neo fascist fucks. He can tell them whatever he wants and they'll believe. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around it, it seems, but this is the most dangerous element of his presidency.
|
|
|
Post by lakeshow on Dec 2, 2016 11:10:00 GMT -8
Yes, I think he could relate on a different level than Hillary could and perhaps may have gotten more younger voters. I just think too many people saw his policies as too left wing and some of it was overkill imo. People could think many things erroneously. Policies as too left? To whom? Which policies? He was New Deal Democrat seeking to do what FDR (regarded by many the greatest president of the 20th century) did as the country struggled to recover from the Great Depression. The results carried America and the economy to the height of the US empire historically speaking. It's all been a steady decline since then. His policies were not far left on any spectrum besides the United States where discourse has been completely hijacked by profiteers to make ultraconservativism the norm, a consorted effort since the early 80s. In reality, policy wise Hillary Clinton is a republican of about 30 years ago and the neocons are far off the deep end. Bernie would have won IMO. He was not politically exploitable in the same way Hillary was. You'd find no ethics issues and Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate. I think Bernie would of gotten more of those votes in the Rustbelt than Hillary would of for sure. I still don't think it would of been enough to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio which are historically blue states with the exception of Ohio. Would he have won? I still say no, but of course we'll never know for sure. But to your other points. FDR was a good president but overrated in many ways and although I think he should get some credit from guiding the country out of the worst economic depression ever. And while I think some of those New Deal programs were good and necessary, it was not all those New Deal programs that saved the nation. And as a side note, he is VERY OVERRATED when it comes to civil rights. Eleanor Roosevelt was largely the champion of that. It was WWII that created jobs for millions of Americans who were broke from the Great Depression. A fact many people don't know. That's not to say that I believe in strict laissez-faire capitalism to end the nation's economic problems, but I don't believe that government deficit spending for everything is the answer either. Both of these things are good I believe if done with common sense. Bernie suggesting that college should be "free" is stupid. Both you and I know nothing is free. If college is free what does that do to the value of a college degree? What does that do to class sizes at community colleges who instead of having 20-30 students in a class now having 60+ students in a class? So if you don't pay on the front end, you're going to pay for it on the back end. That dilutes the quality of education and professors who will not be as effective imo. I just think that there are ways for students who want to go to college to do that without mandating college be "free". And although I agree and respect the fact that there are minimum wage workers who work hard but who are struggling to pay the bills, I don't agree that minimum wage should be at levels that would kill small businesses and ultimately cause workers to be laid off because you have small business owners trying to keep their doors open. As far as the concept of socialism, I agree that gets thrown around and overused by many people. Many of these folks don't know that they benefit from socialist ideas. Public schools--socialist idea, the progressive income tax (16th Amendment)--socialist idea, social security--socialist idea, labor unions--socialist idea. Some of these conservative hacks who are quick to label everything "socialist" that don't fit their narrative of how things should be are the very people who often benefit from socialist ideas, go figure. That's not to say I believe in socialism or communism because I don't, but I would agree with you and Sam that there is a hypocristy from some people on the right who disparage everything "socialist" but knowingly or unknowingly benefit from socialist policies.
|
|
|
Post by lakeshow on Dec 2, 2016 12:05:09 GMT -8
This was as fact-free an election as I could remember from a winning candidate. And I don't mean those half truths politician make everyday, but flat out lies. Trump was just a master at it, and those desperate voters left out of the economic recovery ate it up. I think they will be in for a rude surprise as the richest cabinet in US history starts implementing their grand government destruction plans. This is Herbert Hoover with a dash of McCarthy. Lord help us. Hoover publicly gassed WWI veterans in who were starving during the Great Depression when they protested in DC because they wanted their money the government promised them. Trump is already suggesting people who burn American flags should be put in jail even though it's their 1st Amendment right. Yes, similar attitudes towards people who they see are "beneath" them, except Hoover just didn't have the crazy rhetoric Trump does.
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Dec 2, 2016 12:35:19 GMT -8
People could think many things erroneously. Policies as too left? To whom? Which policies? He was New Deal Democrat seeking to do what FDR (regarded by many the greatest president of the 20th century) did as the country struggled to recover from the Great Depression. The results carried America and the economy to the height of the US empire historically speaking. It's all been a steady decline since then. His policies were not far left on any spectrum besides the United States where discourse has been completely hijacked by profiteers to make ultraconservativism the norm, a consorted effort since the early 80s. In reality, policy wise Hillary Clinton is a republican of about 30 years ago and the neocons are far off the deep end. Bernie would have won IMO. He was not politically exploitable in the same way Hillary was. You'd find no ethics issues and Bernie would have annihilated Trump in any debate. I think Bernie would of gotten more of those votes in the Rustbelt than Hillary would of for sure. I still don't think it would of been enough to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio which are historically blue states with the exception of Ohio. Would he have won? I still say no, but of course we'll never know for sure. But to your other points. FDR was a good president but overrated in many ways and although I think he should get some credit from guiding the country out of the worst economic depression ever. And while I think some of those New Deal programs were good and necessary, it was not all those New Deal programs that saved the nation. And as a side note, he is VERY OVERRATED when it comes to civil rights. Eleanor Roosevelt was largely the champion of that. It was WWII that created jobs for millions of Americans who were broke from the Great Depression. A fact many people don't know. That's not to say that I believe in strict laissez-faire capitalism to end the nation's economic problems, but I don't believe that government deficit spending for everything is the answer either. Both of these things are good I believe if done with common sense. Bernie suggesting that college should be "free" is stupid. Both you and I know nothing is free. If college is free what does that do to the value of a college degree? What does that do to class sizes at community colleges who instead of having 20-30 students in a class now having 60+ students in a class? So if you don't pay on the front end, you're going to pay for it on the back end. That dilutes the quality of education and professors who will not be as effective imo. I just think that there are ways for students who want to go to college to do that without mandating college be "free". And although I agree and respect the fact that there are minimum wage workers who work hard but who are struggling to pay the bills, I don't agree that minimum wage should be at levels that would kill small businesses and ultimately cause workers to be laid off because you have small business owners trying to keep their doors open. As far as the concept of socialism, I agree that gets thrown around and overused by many people. Many of these folks don't know that they benefit from socialist ideas. Public schools--socialist idea, the progressive income tax (16th Amendment)--socialist idea, social security--socialist idea, labor unions--socialist idea. Some of these conservative hacks who are quick to label everything "socialist" that don't fit their narrative of how things should be are the very people who often benefit from socialist ideas, go figure. That's not to say I believe in socialism or communism because I don't, but I would agree with you and Sam that there is a hypocristy from some people on the right who disparage everything "socialist" but knowingly or unknowingly benefit from socialist policies. I think it's a fair criticism against FDR regarding civil rights. White America was still decades away from being able to have those conversations. Even so, if he's overrated as a president I don't think many others rate at all. I could go down the list and viciously critique every president and their actions all the way up thru Obama. WWII absolutely benefitted this country economically but that is not the sole reason and I wouldn't overlook all the social programs that the New Deal implemented into society including social security, a program still thriving today. The infrastructure program is why we have public highways that connect the country, something everyone in this country benefits from to this day. In regards to Bernie and college, I don't think it's nearly as challenging as you seem to think. Aside from the countless number of countries with considerably less wealth than our country who do it quite efficiently, I think when people think of it in the context of American politics it becomes an economic conversation. But Im quick to point out that it is a "short term gain" ecomonic conversation. What is the net value of offering an education to millions of people who would have never attended due to cost? Just continue down the path of privatizing cost thru loans? Does burdening students with tens even hundreds of thousands in debt affect the economy in ways that aren't apart of the "short term gain" conversation? I think it's worth investing in but if it were up to me I'd reform the entire educational system from K-college, modernizing curriculum, emphasizing math and science etc. Even so, I'd never leave it in the state that it is in today.
|
|
LookAway
::| Basketball Guru |::
Camera man, Zoom it ! !
Posts: 3,953
|
Post by LookAway on Dec 4, 2016 14:10:56 GMT -8
Idealogues can't govern because they are too caught up in their hate of everything. Once they get into power, they realize just being anti isnt really governing a country as diverse and complicated as the US. The USA may be the most diverse country in the world, and you are going to antagonize more than 50% of the population? Although it might hurt the US....the incompetence of the alt....Trump's apparent lack of interest in actually being president, and his idealogue cronies will be exposed. And no one will be more angry than the rust belt voters who finally realized they voted an incompetent rich dude who had no ones interest than his own into power who had no intention in helping them out. Those same idiots voted for Bush Jr. twice and after he destroyed the economy they blamed the black guy who actually got things moving in the right direction. I see no hope for our country. I wish the coast of the country could secede from the middle. The middle of the Country is like a cavity and it will destroy the rest with stupidity
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Dec 4, 2016 14:51:39 GMT -8
Idealogues can't govern because they are too caught up in their hate of everything. Once they get into power, they realize just being anti isnt really governing a country as diverse and complicated as the US. The USA may be the most diverse country in the world, and you are going to antagonize more than 50% of the population? Although it might hurt the US....the incompetence of the alt....Trump's apparent lack of interest in actually being president, and his idealogue cronies will be exposed. And no one will be more angry than the rust belt voters who finally realized they voted an incompetent rich dude who had no ones interest than his own into power who had no intention in helping them out. Those same idiots voted for Bush Jr. twice and after he destroyed the economy they blamed the black guy who actually got things moving in the right direction. I see no hope for our country. I wish the coast of the country could secede from the middle. The middle of the Country is like a cavity and it will destroy the rest with stupidity You mean the same administration that instigated an unjust war on false premises in 2003? But wait Donald Trump said that was a disaster. The wrong move. Now he's leading the same people who've spent the last 13 years rationalizing why it was the right move.
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Dec 5, 2016 7:42:47 GMT -8
Bernie suggesting that college should be "free" is stupid. Both you and I know nothing is free. If college is free what does that do to the value of a college degree? What does that do to class sizes at community colleges who instead of having 20-30 students in a class now having 60+ students in a class? So if you don't pay on the front end, you're going to pay for it on the back end. That dilutes the quality of education and professors who will not be as effective imo. I just think that there are ways for students who want to go to college to do that without mandating college be "free". And although I agree and respect the fact that there are minimum wage workers who work hard but who are struggling to pay the bills, I don't agree that minimum wage should be at levels that would kill small businesses and ultimately cause workers to be laid off because you have small business owners trying to keep their doors open. Two points here that I don't get. Let's go with the minimum wage issue first. Minimum wage should be the minimum amount that can support at least a single person to live within normal means. Housing, food, used transportation, utilities. Unfortunately, it has become the minimum amount that business will agree to pay. The less than minimum hourly wages given for jobs like waiting tables should also not be allowed. Minimum wage has fallen far behind the rate of inflation and a correction needs to be made. To make that point even worse, most lower paying jobs do not offer benefits, often by limiting an employee's hours just short of 40 per week. Dirty pool, and regulations should be made to control this as well. Of course, the economic problems of this country go far beyond minimum wage, as decisions that affect the lower class workers are frequently made just for the benefit of the upper 1%. Constant growth of profits and stock values "trump" even cost of living raises for the working class. Trump may promise to bring jobs back from China (or at least stem the flow of jobs out of the country), which in theory sounds great until you actually try to figure out how, but even if those jobs come back, they will be paying as little as possible unless you're an executive. The value of education is not the price, but the knowledge gained. The diploma means little other than you attended classes and didn't fail. There are plenty of majors that have little useful value in today's job market, no matter how much you spend. Knowledge gained but unused is often lost. If more people attend college, then more teachers get hired to keep the class sizes reasonable. In fact, that job flow could come from within the colleges themselves within a decade. In fact, that increased demand for teachers might add value of those lesser valued degrees that don't apply to the general job market as professorial jobs. Of course, how to pay for free college is a problem of scale for this country, but the costs need to be at least reduced. The average in-state public college costs nearly $100K for four years, while a moderate private college costs almost double that. The rate of college tuition increases has far exceeded salary increases, so who can pay for college? Without a job market to absorb these graduates, how can they pay off that debt? How can parents get their graduated children out on their own? Let's face it, a more educated general population would generate far better political candidates, and at least would hopefully be less swayed by political tricks to "earn" their votes.
|
|
|
Post by lakeshow on Dec 5, 2016 23:14:46 GMT -8
I think Bernie would of gotten more of those votes in the Rustbelt than Hillary would of for sure. I still don't think it would of been enough to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio which are historically blue states with the exception of Ohio. Would he have won? I still say no, but of course we'll never know for sure. But to your other points. FDR was a good president but overrated in many ways and although I think he should get some credit from guiding the country out of the worst economic depression ever. And while I think some of those New Deal programs were good and necessary, it was not all those New Deal programs that saved the nation. And as a side note, he is VERY OVERRATED when it comes to civil rights. Eleanor Roosevelt was largely the champion of that. It was WWII that created jobs for millions of Americans who were broke from the Great Depression. A fact many people don't know. That's not to say that I believe in strict laissez-faire capitalism to end the nation's economic problems, but I don't believe that government deficit spending for everything is the answer either. Both of these things are good I believe if done with common sense. Bernie suggesting that college should be "free" is stupid. Both you and I know nothing is free. If college is free what does that do to the value of a college degree? What does that do to class sizes at community colleges who instead of having 20-30 students in a class now having 60+ students in a class? So if you don't pay on the front end, you're going to pay for it on the back end. That dilutes the quality of education and professors who will not be as effective imo. I just think that there are ways for students who want to go to college to do that without mandating college be "free". And although I agree and respect the fact that there are minimum wage workers who work hard but who are struggling to pay the bills, I don't agree that minimum wage should be at levels that would kill small businesses and ultimately cause workers to be laid off because you have small business owners trying to keep their doors open. As far as the concept of socialism, I agree that gets thrown around and overused by many people. Many of these folks don't know that they benefit from socialist ideas. Public schools--socialist idea, the progressive income tax (16th Amendment)--socialist idea, social security--socialist idea, labor unions--socialist idea. Some of these conservative hacks who are quick to label everything "socialist" that don't fit their narrative of how things should be are the very people who often benefit from socialist ideas, go figure. That's not to say I believe in socialism or communism because I don't, but I would agree with you and Sam that there is a hypocristy from some people on the right who disparage everything "socialist" but knowingly or unknowingly benefit from socialist policies. I think it's a fair criticism against FDR regarding civil rights. White America was still decades away from being able to have those conversations. Even so, if he's overrated as a president I don't think many others rate at all. I could go down the list and viciously critique every president and their actions all the way up thru Obama. WWII absolutely benefitted this country economically but that is not the sole reason and I wouldn't overlook all the social programs that the New Deal implemented into society including social security, a program still thriving today. The infrastructure program is why we have public highways that connect the country, something everyone in this country benefits from to this day. In regards to Bernie and college, I don't think it's nearly as challenging as you seem to think. Aside from the countless number of countries with considerably less wealth than our country who do it quite efficiently, I think when people think of it in the context of American politics it becomes an economic conversation. But Im quick to point out that it is a "short term gain" ecomonic conversation. What is the net value of offering an education to millions of people who would have never attended due to cost? Just continue down the path of privatizing cost thru loans? Does burdening students with tens even hundreds of thousands in debt affect the economy in ways that aren't apart of the "short term gain" conversation? I think it's worth investing in but if it were up to me I'd reform the entire educational system from K-college, modernizing curriculum, emphasizing math and science etc. Even so, I'd never leave it in the state that it is in today. Which is why I said, I don't think all his New Deal programs were bad. I just think his New Deal programs in general are given more credit than they ought to. The highway system was more of a product of Truman and Eisenhower's policies in the early 50's. As for a college education, I sure would like to know who offers it for "free" and yet provides it with the quality Americans get. I agree that the amount of debt students are leaving college with is crazy which is why I'm a big proponent of community colleges that provides students an opportunity to get through a good portion of their undergraduate work without incurring thousands of dollars of unnecessary debt.
|
|
|
Post by lakeshow on Dec 6, 2016 0:11:54 GMT -8
Bernie suggesting that college should be "free" is stupid. Both you and I know nothing is free. If college is free what does that do to the value of a college degree? What does that do to class sizes at community colleges who instead of having 20-30 students in a class now having 60+ students in a class? So if you don't pay on the front end, you're going to pay for it on the back end. That dilutes the quality of education and professors who will not be as effective imo. I just think that there are ways for students who want to go to college to do that without mandating college be "free". And although I agree and respect the fact that there are minimum wage workers who work hard but who are struggling to pay the bills, I don't agree that minimum wage should be at levels that would kill small businesses and ultimately cause workers to be laid off because you have small business owners trying to keep their doors open. Two points here that I don't get. Let's go with the minimum wage issue first. Minimum wage should be the minimum amount that can support at least a single person to live within normal means. Housing, food, used transportation, utilities. Unfortunately, it has become the minimum amount that business will agree to pay. The less than minimum hourly wages given for jobs like waiting tables should also not be allowed. Minimum wage has fallen far behind the rate of inflation and a correction needs to be made. To make that point even worse, most lower paying jobs do not offer benefits, often by limiting an employee's hours just short of 40 per week. Dirty pool, and regulations should be made to control this as well. Of course, the economic problems of this country go far beyond minimum wage, as decisions that affect the lower class workers are frequently made just for the benefit of the upper 1%. Constant growth of profits and stock values "trump" even cost of living raises for the working class. Trump may promise to bring jobs back from China (or at least stem the flow of jobs out of the country), which in theory sounds great until you actually try to figure out how, but even if those jobs come back, they will be paying as little as possible unless you're an executive. The value of education is not the price, but the knowledge gained. The diploma means little other than you attended classes and didn't fail. There are plenty of majors that have little useful value in today's job market, no matter how much you spend. Knowledge gained but unused is often lost. If more people attend college, then more teachers get hired to keep the class sizes reasonable. In fact, that job flow could come from within the colleges themselves within a decade. In fact, that increased demand for teachers might add value of those lesser valued degrees that don't apply to the general job market as professorial jobs. Of course, how to pay for free college is a problem of scale for this country, but the costs need to be at least reduced. The average in-state public college costs nearly $100K for four years, while a moderate private college costs almost double that. The rate of college tuition increases has far exceeded salary increases, so who can pay for college? Without a job market to absorb these graduates, how can they pay off that debt? How can parents get their graduated children out on their own? Let's face it, a more educated general population would generate far better political candidates, and at least would hopefully be less swayed by political tricks to "earn" their votes. The minimum wage should support a single worker but the problem is you have minimum wage workers who have families to feed. Unless they are going to work 2 or 3 jobs, they need an hourly wage that will keep food on the table. I get that. At the same time, I don't believe that small businesses should be forced to carry that burden. If a small business owner has to pay an unskilled worker $15-$20/hr, that's going to have a dramatic effect on the prices of goods and services and in the labor market. This is economics 101. I'm not a pro-business at all costs guy, but I am a realist and I have friends who own small businesses who care for their employees but who are also struggling to keep their doors open because of over regulation. They have had to cut hours of their employees just to keep all of them employed. I think certain state minimum wages should absolutely be increased in certain parts of the nation, but I think this is something that should be given careful thought before imposing any economic burdens on an important sector of the economy. As far as your point on college degrees, I think you're partially correct. Knowledge and experience do matter, but it also comes down to the type of degrees. Degrees in the hard sciences for instance do matter and yes they are valuable. On the other hand, degrees that are in social work and services tend to be less valuable and here is where you see people working jobs that are completely different from their college degree. And more people going to college because it's "free" may increase the demand for instructors but of course that just depresses salary wages for professors. Sure a more educated society is beneficial and I agree that college is getting more and more difficult to afford, but is subsidizing a college education by tax payers the answer? I don't think so. I'm all for exploring ways to make college more affordable which again is why I'm a proponent of community colleges until there are other realistic alternatives found.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Dec 7, 2016 7:09:10 GMT -8
T - question - how does the rest of the developed world make college education heavily subsidized? I agree nothing is free but college education and healthcare - is it not a citizens right? Why do we expect free roads and infrastructure? Free social security, free k-12 education? I don't consider any of this free, it's all paid for by the citizens and their production and taxes. A better educated society would be in everyone's benefit imo. We like to think we're the best and be stuck in false pride and hubris but the truth of the matter is we behind in sciences and math and engineering. It's highly unfortunate if deserving and capable students are unable to get education because of financing or walk out of university campuses starting a new life mired in debt. That can not be good for the future of the country. If community colleges are the solution, why not expand the concept more broadly and make it more mainstream to full four years instead of two.
With taxation through the roof - you pay tax on every item or service that you consume in sales tax, pay fed and state income tax, propert tax, county tax. Why do we call anything free and not look for better value and return on the taxpayer dollar? I'll tell you why. Because plunder is the norm and it's unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Dec 7, 2016 9:32:47 GMT -8
The minimum wage should support a single worker but the problem is you have minimum wage workers who have families to feed. Unless they are going to work 2 or 3 jobs, they need an hourly wage that will keep food on the table. I get that. At the same time, I don't believe that small businesses should be forced to carry that burden. If a small business owner has to pay an unskilled worker $15-$20/hr, that's going to have a dramatic effect on the prices of goods and services and in the labor market. This is economics 101. I'm not a pro-business at all costs guy, but I am a realist and I have friends who own small businesses who care for their employees but who are also struggling to keep their doors open because of over regulation. They have had to cut hours of their employees just to keep all of them employed. I think certain state minimum wages should absolutely be increased in certain parts of the nation, but I think this is something that should be given careful thought before imposing any economic burdens on an important sector of the economy. Full time employees should earn a living wage. Anything less in the richest country in the world is pathetic. Businesses that can't survive aren't meant to be. Sucks for some, but survival of the fittest. Plus, giving the bottom rung of the employed more income will allow them to afford price increases on products. As far as single workers with families, there's a way to avoid that in most cases. Don't start a family you can't afford. $15/hour is $2400/month gross, and probably about half of that once taxes/ss (about 25%) and medical are taken out (especially for small businesses that can't afford to absorb a large percentage of medical coverage). How far will $1200/month get a single person? Rent will be at least half of that, leaving $150/week for food, transportation, utilities, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lakeshow on Dec 7, 2016 20:58:00 GMT -8
T - question - how does the rest of the developed world make college education heavily subsidized? I agree nothing is free but college education and healthcare - is it not a citizens right? Why do we expect free roads and infrastructure? Free social security, free k-12 education? I don't consider any of this free, it's all paid for by the citizens and their production and taxes. A better educated society would be in everyone's benefit imo. We like to think we're the best and be stuck in false pride and hubris but the truth of the matter is we behind in sciences and math and engineering. It's highly unfortunate if deserving and capable students are unable to get education because of financing or walk out of university campuses starting a new life mired in debt. That can not be good for the future of the country. If community colleges are the solution, why not expand the concept more broadly and make it more mainstream to full four years instead of two. With taxation through the roof - you pay tax on every item or service that you consume in sales tax, pay fed and state income tax, propert tax, county tax. Why do we call anything free and not look for better value and return on the taxpayer dollar? I'll tell you why. Because plunder is the norm and it's unfortunate.
1. To tell you the truth Sam, I don't know because I haven't studied how the most industrialized nations in the world handle higher education costs for students. I haven't studied it or looked at it so I can't answer that question. I don't know what the quality of a higher education is in those countries is either. I wouldn't mind knowing though. But what I do know is that an education in one place, doesn't mean it's the same in another.
2. Is a college education a right? No. It is a priviledge. Healthcare, at least that's debatable. If a college education is a RIGHT, why shouldn't owning a home be a right, why shouldn't owning a car be a right, why shouldn't having a job be a right. I mean we can go and on about what we think people should have a right to. I believe that people who work hard and do things the right way shouldn't be living below the poverty line, at the same time it cuts both ways Sam. Just because we live in a wealthy nation, doesn't and shouldn't entitle people to a "right" to everything.
3. As for everything else you said, I've already agreed that I believe a more educated society benefits everyone including the nation. I don't have all the answers to making a college education more affordable, but I hope there will soon be more realistic options for people who do want to go to college.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Dec 7, 2016 21:14:54 GMT -8
T - question - how does the rest of the developed world make college education heavily subsidized? I agree nothing is free but college education and healthcare - is it not a citizens right? Why do we expect free roads and infrastructure? Free social security, free k-12 education? I don't consider any of this free, it's all paid for by the citizens and their production and taxes. A better educated society would be in everyone's benefit imo. We like to think we're the best and be stuck in false pride and hubris but the truth of the matter is we behind in sciences and math and engineering. It's highly unfortunate if deserving and capable students are unable to get education because of financing or walk out of university campuses starting a new life mired in debt. That can not be good for the future of the country. If community colleges are the solution, why not expand the concept more broadly and make it more mainstream to full four years instead of two. With taxation through the roof - you pay tax on every item or service that you consume in sales tax, pay fed and state income tax, propert tax, county tax. Why do we call anything free and not look for better value and return on the taxpayer dollar? I'll tell you why. Because plunder is the norm and it's unfortunate.
1. To tell you the truth Sam, I don't know because I haven't studied how the most industrialized nations in the world handle higher education costs for students. I haven't studied it or looked at it so I can't answer that question. I don't know what the quality of a higher education is in those countries is either. I wouldn't mind knowing though. But what I do know is that an education in one place, doesn't mean it's the same in another.
2. Is a college education a right? No. It is a priviledge. Healthcare, at least that's debatable. If a college education is a RIGHT, why shouldn't owning a home be a right, why shouldn't owning a car be a right, why shouldn't having a job be a right. I mean we can go and on about what we think people should have a right to. I believe that people who work hard and do things the right way shouldn't be living below the poverty line, at the same time it cuts both ways Sam. Just because we live in a wealthy nation, doesn't and shouldn't entitle people to a "right" to everything.
3. As for everything else you said, I've already agreed that I believe a more educated society benefits everyone including the nation. I don't have all the answers to making a college education more affordable, but I hope there will soon be more realistic options for people who do want to go to college.
There's strong evidence that education levels in Scandinavian countries is pretty strong. Std of living high too. If education is not a right for those who want it, why not eliminate the public school system and give the rich some tax breaks? Why is a ged so important that it's free? Definitely does cut both ways. Problem with education is two fold. One it's treated as a privilege - for the wealthy and 2 college costs are out of control. That's just not investing in the future. Whereas a high school diploma was a basic necessity a few decades ago, it's a 4 year college education today for the most part.
|
|