Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, edale said:

I'm not sure why Mr. "I'm gonna move to Canada" @KJP is posting smear videos of Bernie. Based on your posts, I'd have thought he'd be your guy, or at least someone who's ideas you support. I'd expect Ram or EVD to post that video, not you. 

 

I don't always post things because I agree or disagree with a candidate or a political point of view, but because it is interesting to me and because I think others might find it interesting. I wrote articles for the newspapers about things I didn't agree with, doesn't mean I shouldn't have written them. I wrote them because I thought they were newsworthy.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oxford19 said:

But if one is ''entitled'', and you're saying millennials are, then the credibility of saying your parents have f'd up the way things work is negated.  What you can blame your parents' for though is creating ''entitled'' and sensitive people.

 

I meant to say “I wouldn’t say we’re entitled.” That typo makes a big difference ha, my bad. Fixed it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YABO713 said:

 

I actually think the fact that the video didn't surface in 2016 is proof that Bernie wasn't as up against it as people think

Surprised Hillary's '16 campaign didn't release this video much like her '08 campaign releasing the Obama in muslim garb pic.

 

No mention here so far of the rumors that HRC is thinking of a 3rd run...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I don't understand this:

Socialism is becoming more and more popular, which is why Democrats need to stop moving in that direction if they want to defeat the GOP?

 

Yea, you're right...that's a pretty bad post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Enginerd said:

 

I meant to say “I wouldn’t say we’re entitled.” That typo makes a big difference ha, my bad. Fixed it.

well, that is a big difference then...

 

 

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

Surprised Hillary's '16 campaign didn't release this video much like her '08 campaign releasing the Obama in muslim garb pic.

 

No mention here so far of the rumors that HRC is thinking of a 3rd run...

 

LOL isn't the rule in politics if you lose twice you're done?  Doubt Hillary makes another run.  She could barely keep up in 16 with that whole fainting episode and weird metal thing falling out of her pants and hologram claims.  Completely convinced me she is a bot....at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make (maybe poorly) was that I’m not expecting the government to “coddle” me, but I think there are serious policy changes that can be made to reverse the negative effects I previously mentioned.

 

I don’t see using government policy to help people as being coddled.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I don't always post things because I agree or disagree with a candidate or a political point of view, but because it is interesting to me and because I think others might find it interesting. I wrote articles for the newspapers about things I didn't agree with, doesn't mean I shouldn't have written them. I wrote them because I thought they were newsworthy.

 

Fair enough. Appreciate the explanation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

This entire (incorrect) take relies on the premise that previous generations haven't totally and completely bankrupted the country, consolidated wealth and power to the top 0.1% leading to further income and class inequality.  Skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing costs for college tuition, a housing crisis created by previous generations who wanted to coast on an unsustainable financial model, parents who had it easier than their children (now turning into adults) precisely because they put the financial cost on their children's generation (and beyond), etc. etc.

 

I don't see a sense of entitlement or a lack of "dynamics" in millennials, Gen Z (whatever you want to call them) - and if you're talking about the participation trophy generation, who decided to give out those trophies?  It certainly wasn't the kids paying for them, asking for them - I see a generation who saw their parents grow up having it easier than they do now because they lived through a different set of circumstances in their 20's and 30's than the current generation.  I see a generation who recognizes the current inequality and consolidation of wealth is about as extreme as it has ever been.  I have friends who are grinding it out on their own because the "get a college degree and you'll be set" model didn't work for them, largely because the Financial Crisis had downstream impacts on the workforce.  In fact, nearly all of my friends and colleagues who are working in the post-Financial Crisis era are the opposite of entitled because they have seen what happens when you live an entitled life (say, their parents pre-2008). 

 

None of my friends have a pension.  None of my friends are planning to have Social Security - whether or not that will be the case, every single millennial I know is planning for a future without it.  The only people I know taking climate change seriously enough to move closer to work to avoid driving, driving electric vehicles, changing their diet, etc. are millennials.  All the boomers I know personally (I know there are some out there who take it seriously) feel entitled to drive their gas guzzlers and live in big houses in the suburb and don't feel "dynamic" enough to change anything about their personal lives to try to avoid the very environmental catastrophes coming that they helped contribute to.  I could go on and on.

 

But if we're talking about an "entitled" generation, we should be talking about the one(s) who helped get us into these economic and environmental messes largely because they punted on any real solutions for decades, both making it worse for future generations and leaving the mess to them to fix.

Downsized lifestyles and a ''certification'' in something is, or should be, the new model.  Then the ''millennials'' can work on their overly sensitive personalities and lack of humor; I mean the millennials did after all create Mike Polk as the face of Cleveland comedy...ugh.

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tklg said:

 

Which is why the millennial attraction to socialism is so popular and politics realize this and are catering to it.  It's a dangerous time for US politics and the dems need to get their act together in a non socialized manner to defeat any GOP candidate. 

 

Yea, man scary stuff. God forbid we move toward a more mixed socialist/capitalist hybrid type economy. We might end up like those sh*thole countries--Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, or Switzerland. Could you imagine the horrors? The overpopulation from people living longer instead of dying of heart disease at a young age? The annoying daily grind of encountering so many smiling, happy people? The insufferable party conversations we'd have to have every weekend with people who are highly educated because university education is now free? No thank you, count me out. I'll stick to my holler in West Virginia, where the poverty rate might be sky-high and the life expectancy is rock bottom but individualism reigns and there's no BIG GUBMINT to tell me what to do. 

Edited by DEPACincy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tklg said:

Which is why the millennial attraction to socialism is so popular and politics realize this and are catering to it.  It's a dangerous time for US politics and the dems need to get their act together in a non socialized manner to defeat any GOP candidate.

 

Quit fear-mongering.  The US is far less "socialist" than it was in the 40's, and it won't reach those levels, probably ever, unless there's a world-changing depression at the hands of the .01% again.  I agree that the path to winning the presidency is through winning the suburbs, but there certainly is no reason to think a socialist revolution is underway, outside of deep blue parts of the 3 bluest states.

 

Right-wing media is trying to portray the entire D party as AOC, Bernie, and Warren, when the only reason they have the House is because they ran to the center in the 2018 midterms in red districts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, man scary stuff. God forbid we move toward a more mixed socialist/capitalist hybrid type economy. We might end up like those sh*thole countries--Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, or Switzerland. Could you imagine the horrors? The overpopulation from people living longer instead of dying of heart disease at a young age? The annoying daily grind of encountering so many smiling, happy people? The insufferable party conversations we'd have to have every weekend with people who highly educated because university education is now free? No thank you, count me out. I'll stick to my holler in West Virginia, where the poverty rate might be sky-high and the life expectancy is rock bottom but individualism reigns and there's no BIG GUBMINT to tell me what to do. 

The whole America should be like Europe thing is misplaced.  Why isn't Great Britain on your list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

FTFY

 

 

This is a bit disappointing since I thought you were one of the more level-headed conservatives, but I guess the anti-Millennial programming is hard to overcome. 

 

And that reference to communism is pretty funny. The millennial support for "socialism" is kind of a misnomer though, so I guess that must be why you think it's reasonable to bring up communism. It'd be more accurate to describe it as "social democracy" rather than socialism. Younger generations simply want social programs that will help the entire country achieve a higher standard of living. These are programs that have been working rather successfully for decades in other developed countries, such as universal healthcare, stronger environmental protections, financially accessible higher education, and strong safety nets for the poor. Can you explain why you think that countries such as France, Canada, or Finland are apparently on the verge of transforming into brutal authoritarian dictatorships with centrally planned economies, simply because they offer those social protections I mentioned? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, man scary stuff. God forbid we move toward a more mixed socialist/capitalist hybrid type economy. We might end up like those sh*thole countries--Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, or Switzerland. Could you imagine the horrors? The overpopulation from people living longer instead of dying of heart disease at a young age? The annoying daily grind of encountering so many smiling, happy people? The insufferable party conversations we'd have to have every weekend with people who highly educated because university education is now free? No thank you, count me out. I'll stick to my holler in West Virginia, where the poverty rate might be sky-high and the life expectancy is rock bottom but individualism reigns and there's no BIG GUBMINT to tell me what to do. 

 

There are way too many assumptions in this post to address.  I agree there needs to be some sort of middle ground between providing citizens with services and capitalist economy.  The way we get there does not need to include providing currently expensive education and health services for free.  A more ideal situation would be to introduce more competition to those industries driving costs down.  That is a severely overly simplified approach that is best for a different thread.

 

Also, the countries listed have their fair share of problems as well and assuming everyone is health, educated and happy because of free gov't services is a huge assumption.

 

Somebody needs to pay for those services.  Expanding gov't to cover those services will only increase taxes and reduce individual financial sovereignty.  

 

If you'd like to have a socialism vs capitalism debate I'm all for it in a different thread.  There are plenty of examples of how socialism has failed over the years.

 

What we can agree on is that there needs to be some sort of a hybrid style.  How we get there is the conversation and I think it starts with a less socialized democratic candidate that can focus on individual rights while preserving some aspects of a free market, capitalist economy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

The whole America should be like Europe thing is misplaced.  Why isn't Great Britain on your list?

 

Simple: The UK has been taken over by conservatives and has moved away from those countries listed and more toward a US-style economic system. It is closer to what we have now than it is to the Nordic-style economies. And their standard of living has decreased compared to their neighbors as a result of them trying to be more like us. Isn't that interesting? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ethlaw said:

 

This is a bit disappointing since I thought you were one of the more level-headed conservatives, but I guess the anti-Millennial programming is hard to overcome. 

 

And that reference to communism is pretty funny. The millennial support for "socialism" is kind of a misnomer though, so I guess that must be why you think it's reasonable to bring up communism. It'd be more accurate to describe it as "social democracy" rather than socialism. Younger generations simply want social programs that will help the entire country achieve a higher standard of living. These are programs that have been working rather successfully for decades in other developed countries, such as universal healthcare, stronger environmental protections, financially accessible higher education, and strong safety nets for the poor. Can you explain why you think that countries such as France, Canada, or Finland are apparently on the verge of transforming into brutal authoritarian dictatorships with centrally planned economies, simply because they offer those social protections I mentioned? 

Part of that was a ''joke'' but anti-millennial programming is a big stretch there.  Why are companies hosting seminars on how to adapt to millennial workers?  There's a real sensitivity issue (this is a humor killer as well) with millennials in my experience with large doses of dullness and being a bit non-unique in the end.

 

Everyone can blame and trash boomers and gen x'ers or any other group but millennials are off the list. 

 

You can call socialism whatever you want, it's still just plain old socialism.  Don't get the France Canada part though...

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DEPACincy said:

 

Simple: The UK has been taken over by conservatives and has moved away from those countries listed and more toward a US-style economic system. It is closer to what we have now than it is to the Nordic-style economies. And their standard of living has decreased compared to their neighbors as a result of them trying to be more like us. Isn't that interesting? 

The U.S. is not a ''nordic'' country.  Do you really think the U.S. can sustain a Finnish economy.

 

Why do you think GB voted for Brexit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

What we can agree on is that there needs to be some sort of a hybrid style.  How we get there is the conversation and I think it starts with a less socialized democratic candidate that can focus on individual rights while preserving some aspects of a free market, capitalist economy.  

 

We can agree to disagree on whether universal education and healthcare are good things. But I'd like to focus on this comment. Do you really think any viable Democratic candidate really has a plan to move us toward anything other than a slightly more controlled capitalist system? Do you really believe that we are in danger of not "preserving some aspects of a free market, capitalist economy"? Every one of the countries I listed has a free market-based capitalist economy and they are all light years further into the socialist category than we'd ever be under any of the Democratic hopefuls.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

The U.S. is not a ''nordic'' country. 

 

 

 

Did I say it was?

 

Quote

Do you really think the U.S. can sustain a Finnish economy.

 

Is this a statement or a question? What makes you think that France, Germany, Canada, and Finland are so much different than us that they can sustain a strong social safety net and policies that support their populations and we can't? 

 

Quote

Why do you think GB voted for Brexit?

 

Same reason the US voted for Trump: Xenophobia. 


I'd ask you, why do you think Greater London overwhelmingly voted REMAIN? Why do you think Scotland overwhelmingly voted REMAIN? Why do you think the voters who voted LEAVE were disproportionately older and less educated? Why do you think voters who voted LEAVE were overwhelmingly white? Why do you think that young, educated people were the most likely to vote REMAIN? Why do you think that self-reported opposition to immigration was the most likely predictor of a LEAVE vote but that exposure to immigration made you more likely to vote REMAIN? Finally, why do you think there is now broad regret among those that voted LEAVE? It could have something to do with the consensus among economists that Brexit will hurt the UK economy in both the long and short run. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism has saved the US economy time and time again, every time capitalism falls apart.  It floors me there are people who still treat it as a bad word, who still believe capitalism can exist without it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ethlaw said:

 

This is a bit disappointing since I thought you were one of the more level-headed conservatives, but I guess the anti-Millennial programming is hard to overcome. 

 

And that reference to communism is pretty funny. The millennial support for "socialism" is kind of a misnomer though, so I guess that must be why you think it's reasonable to bring up communism. It'd be more accurate to describe it as "social democracy" rather than socialism. Younger generations simply want social programs that will help the entire country achieve a higher standard of living. These are programs that have been working rather successfully for decades in other developed countries, such as universal healthcare, stronger environmental protections, financially accessible higher education, and strong safety nets for the poor. Can you explain why you think that countries such as France, Canada, or Finland are apparently on the verge of transforming into brutal authoritarian dictatorships with centrally planned economies, simply because they offer those social protections I mentioned? 

 

I am a millenial. We are unbelievably unfairly criticized. We are incredibly capable and pull more than our fair share after having been dealt the worst debt burden in modern economics. 

 

Secondly, I am a Conservative, and I'm sorry to disappoint you. As far as environmental regulations, however, I am as liberal as they come - environmental advocacy is near and dear to my heart. 

 

I don't think any of the aforementioned countries are on the verge of anything close to that. I do think, however, that the French economy is a prime example of how social welfare can slow down economic growth in a country, effectively stifling opportunity for other lower class citizens. France's unemployment rate runs at about 9.8%. The workplace participation rate is about 72%, meaning 28% of France are still eligible for government benefits for a period of at least two years, with employment application processes and part time work stretching those out indefinitely in some situations. Unsurprisingly, unemployment rates are high among youth in the country as a result of these policies, with females under the age of 25 seeing a 20% unemployment rate. THIS IS NOT FISCALLY SOUND POLITICS. You bring up Finland, which has done a fantastic job implementing it's social democratic policies in a country with 1/2 the population of Ohio - and I will grant you that, sure. This might be best for another thread, but the Scandinavian countries everyone references are largely homogenous and, with the exception of Swedens remarkable willingness to help with Somali and North African refugees, is still homogenous. I personally do not want to live in a homogenous society - I love the vision that is America to immigrants, I love the idea of immigrants coming here, starting businesses, and thriving. However, immigration means population increase, population increase means more strain on social programs, which causes the need to tax businesses at a higher rate, taxing businesses at a higher rate results in decreased capital spending. I am and likely always will be a believer in "a high tide rises all boats", do I believe that it's ridiculous that the wealthiest country in earth's history cannot provide health care for everyone? You bet ya. Do I think closing private health care providers permanently and putting that all in the hands of the Federal government - which just CLOSED FOR FOUR WEEKS because of its severe dysfunction - is a good idea? HELL No. 

 

I'm sorry if I believe my generation is entitled. We are great, we are innovative, we are hardworking, but we are entitled - If I had a dollar for every millenial that wrote in their own "plus one" for my wedding, I'd have $6 - which is ridiculous and a conversation for another day... but yeah. 

 

Free markets capitalism has been the strongest upward mobilizer of impoverished people in Earth's history. If you want to attack pharmaceutical companies for gouging prices, I'll be right there with you. If you want to criticize states for failing to provide affordable higher education and trade programs, I'll be right there with you. If you think handing those things over to currently the most inefficient and dysfunctional part of our country is a good idea, I have a bridge to sell you. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Do I think closing private health care providers permanently and putting that all in the hands of the Federal government - which just CLOSED FOR FOUR WEEKS because of its severe dysfunction Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the rest of the GOP- is a good idea? HELL No. 

 

 

 

FTFY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤣

 

..... and they would be the ones in charge of universal healthcare if we had it right now, and that was the only source of health care for everyone to rely on? Viper bites handler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

You bring up Finland, which has done a fantastic job implementing it's social democratic policies in a country with 1/2 the population of Ohio - and I will grant you that, sure. This might be best for another thread, but the Scandinavian countries everyone references are largely homogenous and, with the exception of Swedens remarkable willingness to help with Somali and North African refugees, is still homogenous. I personally do not want to live in a homogenous society - I love the vision that is America to immigrants, I love the idea of immigrants coming here, starting businesses, and thriving.

 

We agree that a heterogeneous society is a positive thing. But the cry of "Scandinavian countries are homogeneous!" is completely overblown. 15% of Swedish residents are immigrants, as are 14% of Norwegian residents. That's higher than the US. There is also greater linguistic and religious diversity in most of the Scandinavian countries than in the US. Also, I didn't just mention Scandinavian countries. I also mentioned multiple countries that are even more diverse and have larger populations. There is no actual evidence that the policies of these countries could not be done at a scale as large as the US. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tklg said:

Needing to feel coddled fits naturally fits within a socialized political system where gov't is designed to "take care of people". 

 

Alright, since Social Security will become insolvent soon, let's just cut all benefits now and see which generation reacts with a sense of entitlement and expecting to be taken care of by the government.

Edited by DarkandStormy
  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

🤣

 

..... and they would be the ones in charge of universal healthcare if we had it right now, and that was the only source of health care for everyone to rely on? Viper bites handler. 

 

A good point, except I don't think many (any?) of the Dem candidates for President want to eliminate private insurers completely. Most are pushing for a public option. But either way, Medicare and Medicaid have continued to function under the current horrible administration. If they sabotaged the hypothetical universal healthcare system completely they'd be voted out of office and would remain in the desert for many years. It's the same reason they don't just end Medicare and Medicaid completely. They're too popular. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

France's unemployment rate runs at about 9.8%. The workplace participation rate is about 72%,

 

Hmm...what's the workplace participation rate in the U.S.? 🤔


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DarkandStormy said:

 

Alright, since Social Security will become insolvent soon, let's just cut all benefits now and see which generation reacts with a sense of entitlement and expecting to be taken care of by the government.

The generation you are referring to (current retirees or those close to it) are entitled and expecting the benefits they paid into the SSA system.  So, yeah, there would be a reaction.

 

Now the SSA ''disability'' abuse is another story...

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

If you think handing those things over to currently the most inefficient and dysfunctional part of our country is a good idea, I have a bridge to sell you. 

 

This is a conflation of federal workers and Congress.  Yes, Congress is inefficient and dysfunctional.  I would not say federal workers - the FDA, the national weather service, the FAA, etc. - are "the most inefficient and dysfunctional part of our country."  They happen to need to be funded through a body (Congress) that is dysfunctional.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Do you really think any viable Democratic candidate really has a plan to move us toward anything other than a slightly more controlled capitalist system?

 

Unfortunately no, which is why I'm voicing some dissent in this thread in the hopes it inspires something in the future.  I don't feel like dems have a chance against GOP unless there are some changes in the status quo.  If the same committee is selecting a candidate as 16, I don't think dems stand a chance...unless it were Bernie who is pro socialism.

 

Quote

Do you really believe that we are in danger of not "preserving some aspects of a free market, capitalist economy"?

 

I moreso believe the dems have us on a slippery slope into a more controlled, bait and switch, state capitalist model.  With education and healthcare, the trend has been to astronomically increase the prices to the extent that 99% (or whatever the actual percentage is) of people cannot afford without increasingly more expensive insurance policies or student loans.  The solution has been to expand gov't to cover those areas which is pushing the economy into a state capitalist system.

 

Quote

Every one of the countries I listed has a free market-based capitalist economy and they are all light years further into the socialist category than we'd ever be under any of the Democratic hopefuls

 

I don't know much about the nordic system to say how much of a free market economy it is, but does at least claim to be.  The main disagreement I have with nordic system is creating a system of dependance on the gov't.

Edited by tklg
formatting
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the thread (2020), I can understand the reaction to Howard Schultz, though it's overblow in my view.  He's a guy who got rich peddling overpriced sugary lattes, has no legislative or executive experience in politics, and who largely has ideas that are accepted within the Democratic Party.  He does want to cut entitlements to pay down the debt - a position to the right of Trump even.

 

I'll wait to see if he does run - this could all be part of his book hype.  Virtually no one except Howard Schultz thinks Howard Schultz should run for President - and Trump because he knows he'd siphon off votes.  But the real issue with a self-funded indy run by Schultz is that he's a lifelong Democrat with mostly mainstream Democratic views and policy positions who doesn't want to make his case to the ~50% of the electorate who will decide on the major non-Trump candidate.  If he thinks he's the voice that is missing in the Democratic Party, by all means jump into the primary race, make your case to the voters, and see if you're compelling enough to win the nomination.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tklg said:

I don't know much about the nordic system to say how much of a free market economy it is, but does at least claim to be.  The main disagreement I have with nordic system is creating a system of dependance on the gov't.

 

Having visited Finland, I didn't get the sense that they have a system of dependence.  They view everyone as part of a society - from the CEO down to the janitor.  Everybody has a role and sure, people get paid at varying levels, but I got more of a sense of community when I was there than dependence.

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, man scary stuff. God forbid we move toward a more mixed socialist/capitalist hybrid type economy. We might end up like those sh*thole countries--Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, or Switzerland. Could you imagine the horrors? The overpopulation from people living longer instead of dying of heart disease at a young age? The annoying daily grind of encountering so many smiling, happy people? The insufferable party conversations we'd have to have every weekend with people who are highly educated because university education is now free? No thank you, count me out. I'll stick to my holler in West Virginia, where the poverty rate might be sky-high and the life expectancy is rock bottom but individualism reigns and there's no BIG GUBMINT to tell me what to do. 

You really want free university/college?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Having visited Finland, I didn't get the sense that they have a system of dependence.  They view everyone as part of a society - from the CEO down to the janitor.  Everybody has a role and sure, people get paid at varying levels, but I got more of a sense of community when I was there than dependence.

 

There is thin line between community and dependance.  It's one thing to depend on your neighbors and fellow citizens for general well being and friendliness and other non-economic assets.  The problem is designing a system where people's individual needs are controlled by a select few people, committees, governments, etc.  Continuing down that road puts a society back into feudalism.  

 

So from a philosophical standpoint, I can't really get behind a system where the gov't controls my access to healthcare and/or education or other things aligning with my pursuit of happiness or whatever you want to call it.  I don't believe a gov't can know more about what is best for me and certainly do not want a gov't to control my access to what I believe is best for me.

 

So if you want to call it community or whatever, that's fine but it's still a gov't controlling access to individual needs.

Edited by tklg
added guardian link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

You really want free university/college?

 

I already have my degrees so I wouldn't get free anything, but yes I believe our youth should be able to get a university education for free, similar to the way they do in Denmark. Up to six years of funded education as long as you are making adequate progress and are attending a state-supported institution. Numerous studies have shown that there are great economic benefits to be had from such a plan and that the affordability problem we have for higher education is hurting our economy badly. Plus, as someone who grew up very poor in Appalachia and relied on scholarships and loans to go to college and grad school, I believe it is the right and moral thing to do. No one should be denied the ability to pursue an education, whether your daddy is Donald Trump or a coal miner in Eastern Kentucky. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I already have my degrees so I wouldn't get free anything, but yes I believe our youth should be able to get a university education for free, similar to the way they do in Denmark. Up to six years of funded education as long as you are making adequate progress and are attending a state-supported institution. Numerous studies have shown that there are great economic benefits to be had from such a plan and that the affordability problem we have for higher education is hurting our economy badly. Plus, as someone who grew up very poor in Appalachia and relied on scholarships and loans to go to college and grad school, I believe it is the right and moral thing to do. No one should be denied the ability to pursue an education, whether your daddy is Donald Trump or a coal miner in Eastern Kentucky. 

Nobody is being denied an education, from grade to high school to college.  College isn't for everybody; also, what about those that don't complete these free college degrees?

 

I'm assuming the attendance in a state-supported institution is also a local one.

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

College isn't for everybody

The # of times I've heard this is laughable...

 

Yes, college isn't for everybody, but the determining factor should have nothing to do with whether you are able to afford to go, but rather your academic merits.

 

And it's fine if people don't complete their degrees, the opportunity cost of not getting one will make not completing college a tough pill to swallow. You'll see graduation rates rise as it becomes a more standard requirement in the job market (as high school graduation rates have risen since it became standard).

 

One final note for people worried about finances:  Investing in your citizens tends to produce a great return on investment for the budget, as these people are less likely to fall into the social safety net and pay taxes instead.

Edited by 10albersa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Back to the thread (2020), I can understand the reaction to Howard Schultz, though it's overblow in my view.  He's a guy who got rich peddling overpriced sugary lattes, has no legislative or executive experience in politics, and who largely has ideas that are accepted within the Democratic Party.  He does want to cut entitlements to pay down the debt - a position to the right of Trump even.

 

I'll wait to see if he does run - this could all be part of his book hype.  Virtually no one except Howard Schultz thinks Howard Schultz should run for President - and Trump because he knows he'd siphon off votes.  But the real issue with a self-funded indy run by Schultz is that he's a lifelong Democrat with mostly mainstream Democratic views and policy positions who doesn't want to make his case to the ~50% of the electorate who will decide on the major non-Trump candidate.  If he thinks he's the voice that is missing in the Democratic Party, by all means jump into the primary race, make your case to the voters, and see if you're compelling enough to win the nomination.

He will not run. He cant really win. The only hope he has is to pull someone like Kasich in as an additional independent on the right and split the vote 4 ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...