Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well I think it devalues college.  As it stands right now, we have too many college graduates and not enough jobs for them.  Thus, a massive college debt problem.  

 

Well that and that public universities probably cost 10-20x more than they should.

 

Agree on the vo-tech schools. They need to be promoted and not seen as a fallback option. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yang had an okay performance but said his mics were being cut by NBC. 

I just laugh when Bernie speaks now because he just gets fired up and starts rambling like an old man, kind of like me. And then yall just tune him out. He doesn't provide much of substance anymore, it's like "Hey is this old man rambling again it's past ya bedtime gramps"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Well that and that public universities probably cost 10-20x more than they should.

 

Agree on the vo-tech schools. They need to be promoted and not seen as a fallback option. 

 

I don’t know how to fix the cost of university but yes I think that’s a huge issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like it should be pointed out that even with the costs of college, the average college graduate is still doing better than the average high school graduate.

 

One of the reasons college costs have gone up is because the number of people going to college have gone up, and more people aren't going to college with it on average being a losing economic decision.

 

(Supply and demand.  Demand has been up over the last 40 years and supply has not kept up (i.e. state funding for colleges has not kept up).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Public college costs have also likely gone up due to states cutting essentially billions in funding for higher ed.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions

 

A lot of costs are essentially being transferred to students. 

 

Quote

 

This is true despite the fact that state budget cuts for higher education translate into higher tuition. State appropriations per full-time student have fallen from an inflation-adjusted $8,489 in 2007 to $7,642 in 2017, the last period for which the figures are available, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, of SHEEO. That has pushed upthe portion of university budgets that come from students to $6,572 from $4,817 over the same 10 years.

Ten years ago, students and their families paid for about a third of university operating costs, says SHEEO. Now they pay for nearly half.

 

 

We could probably incentivize students to make more judicious choices about career and educational paths, but having a well funded and financially accessible higher education system should be a top priority for any country that wants to sustain a vibrant middle and upper middle class. 

 

I suspect that even people who don’t attend college would benefit from improving the purchasing power and financial situation of college educated workers. The trickle down economy doesn’t go from a small share billionaires to the rest of the population, but rather from an expansive middle class that spends on everyday goods and services, from which people working in the service industry or manufacturing benefit.

 

Not to mention that a well educated populace is a necessity for a thriving democracy that makes informed choices.

 

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

Kinda a WTF answer, but I suppose it IS better than "I'm going to invite the Russian ambassador to the White House, with his own electronics team, but banning all American press, and impress him with what great classified information I have now, by giving him the most important secret I retained."  

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Williamson quickly goes back to doing the grassroots good stuff (like Project Angel Food) that she's good at.

 

Her HIV/AIDS advocacy was top notch. Some people just need to stick to that level of help.

 

Kind of like some doctors needed to stay doctors (well hello Jill Stein).

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, StillUnknown said:

 

kinda wished Marianne didn't jump in there, Swalwell got to him. His response may not have been rehearsed


Man to be honest, that steel gaze made me like Pete more in a way. I ain't never really seen him get angry like that and I know that look. That's a killer's move in silence kind of look.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Public college costs have also likely gone up due to states cutting essentially billions in funding for higher ed.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions

 

A lot of costs are essentially being transferred to students. 

 

 

We could probably incentivize students to make more judicious choices about career and educational paths, but having a well funded and financially accessible higher education system should be a top priority for any country that wants to sustain a vibrant middle and upper middle class. 

 

I suspect that even people who don’t attend college would benefit from improving the purchasing power and financial situation of college educated workers. The trickle down economy doesn’t go from a small share billionaires to the rest of the population, but rather from an expansive middle class that spends on everyday goods and services, from which people working in the service industry or manufacturing benefit.

 

Not to mention that a well educated populace is a necessity for a thriving democracy that makes informed choices.

 

 

Your post seems to imply a connection to people going to college and the health of the middle class.  That seems hard to reconcile with the fact that the middle class has been shrinking since 1979, but the number of people with college degrees is going up.

 

The facts are more consistent with the idea that more people going to college has actually hurt the standing of the middle class (though, I wouldn't actually make that argument).

 

Your post also would seem to imply that in previous generations when fewer people went to college the US democracy was less good or less stable, which also seems unlikely given our current situation.

 

I suspect you have fallen into the idea of college = good based on personal biases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of college and reducing the cost, why not find a way to reduce what is actually required of a degree as far as classes go?  In essence unless you are going to college for something very specialized where you need to take a lot of beginner classes and slowly advance, why not cater to certain degrees the way a trade school does, where you enroll in classes that give you the specific tools/training needed for specific jobs and cut out all the rest of the "well rounded education" requirements?

 

My read on Kamala Harris is that she is similar to Obama in that she will campaign as a progressive but govern closer center-left.  I do enjoy the idea of her on a debate stage with Trump though.  We already know just about anyone could out-debate Trump on the actual issues, but she has that specific presence that could out-bully a bully on national TV in front of the world. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Citation needed

 

34 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

She's not just crazy, her statements on vaccinations make her a nonstarter for me

 

 

We don't need vaccines. Just get some of that divine light in you and everything will be fine.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Your post seems to imply a connection to people going to college and the health of the middle class.  That seems hard to reconcile with the fact that the middle class has been shrinking since 1979, but the number of people with college degrees is going up. 

 

The middle class shrink has gone both ways towards the upper class and lower class: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/

 

Quote

But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.

 

And as for:

 

Quote

Your post also would seem to imply that in previous generations when fewer people went to college the US democracy was less good or less stable, which also seems unlikely given our current situation.

 

It was absolutely less "good" in previous generations when a huge chunk of the population was disenfranchised (and to an extent, still remains disenfranchised today).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher Education leads to conflict in democracies that are fundamentally unstable.  A democracy controlled by oligarchs will be destabilized by the electorate reaching a tipping point in education.  And this is a good process for a society to undergo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

On the topic of college and reducing the cost, why not find a way to reduce what is actually required of a degree as far as classes go?  In essence unless you are going to college for something very specialized where you need to take a lot of beginner classes and slowly advance, why not cater to certain degrees the way a trade school does, where you enroll in classes that give you the specific tools/training needed for specific jobs and cut out all the rest of the "well rounded education" requirements?

 

Because there is a general value in having a broad based liberal arts education (students with a liberal arts degree tend to volunteer and contribute more, but also have a better sense of what they don't know (many of the "scientists" that are anti-climate change and evolution come from an engineering background and don't have a liberal arts background))..

 

Because given the fluidity of careers today and the increasing intersectional nature of technologies and work many people end up working in fields outside of what they expect to work in having a broad based education makes a lot of sense.

 

There's an inter-relationship between the departments at most universities.  Large class sizes in the arts and humanities support the equipment needed to support the sciences and small class sizes needed to teach people to use said equipment.  Making science majors take arts and humanities classes cause large class sizes in those subjects.

 

(I will point out that many Nursing schools and Engineering schools do cut out much of the gen ed requirements and so do something similar to trade schools, but that doesn't tend to be any cheaper, but they are also generally connected to liberal arts institutions and so get the support or are even more expensive.  Many engineers don't have a liberal arts education.)

 

Were I work we looked in making a 2 year AD program in what we'd call pharmaceutical sciences.  There were two issues:

 

1.  Would the students get jobs (would they be competitive with people with 4 year degrees).

2.  Is it long term viable for the institution because those students wouldn't be taking much in the humanities and arts.  To make it viable, we'd likely have to charge those students more per a credit hour, which then sort of negates the idea of not having them take the humanities and arts.

 

The economic model for most universities is a complex thing.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The middle class shrink has gone both ways towards the upper class and lower class: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/

 

 

And as for:

 

 

It was absolutely less "good" in previous generations when a huge chunk of the population was disenfranchised (and to an extent, still remains disenfranchised today).

 

Okay, but that's not an argument for a robust middle class.

 

As I've already said, people going to college on average even with the debt do better than people that don't.  But that doesn't create a robust middle class.

 

The middle class is becoming less vibrant, and we're creating a biphasic income population in the process.  You could have just said vibrant upper class.

 

I'm not sure that disenfranchisement had much to do with college, and today, we also have Trump (and a Supreme Court full of college graduates that just okayed gerrymandering, which is practically going disenfranchise a whole bunch of people.)  Fewer and fewer people were becoming disenfranchised before rates of college education really started going up (women and african americans being given the right to vote).

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mooka said:

Based solely on yesterday's debate I'd vote for crazy lady over some senators, congressmen, governors... 

 

"Vote Marianna Williamson - a Chicken in Every Pot Aromatherapy Candle in Every Boudoir"

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Well then wonder away. If you’d rather try to read into my posts and make stuff up than just take what I say as what I mean then have at it. 

 

Not making anything up, just thinking out loud.  Like I told Buzz, the nominee is veering to the left, I'm not going to hold you to vote for them, I already know you won't vote for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not sure that disenfranchisement had much to do with college, and today, we also have Trump (and a Supreme Court full of college graduates that just okayed gerrymandering, which is going disenfranchise a whole bunch of people.)  Fewer and fewer people were becoming disenfranchised before rates of college education really started going up (women and african americans being given the right to vote). 

 

Our electoral system is disproportionately slanted towards giving a greater voice in politics to largely rural, less-educated parts of the country that consistently have been voting for candidates who have advanced anti-democratic agendas. Six of the last seven national elections had a liberal candidate, who would have upheld or advanced stronger and more robust democratic voting laws, win the overall popular vote.

 

So it's a super faulty premise to say that more college educated workers hasn't led to a healthier democracy, when the electoral system of this country is designed in a way to give greater electoral power to areas and people who largely fall outside of this category. If the vote share of college educated workers increases, it stands to reason that we likely start seeing candidates elected to public office who uphold stronger democratic laws and values. We consistently see a trend that college educated voters (both white and non-white) are largely rejecting the GOP and its anti-democracy agenda anyways: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/

Edited by No Excuses
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Our electoral system is disproportionately slanted towards giving a greater voice in politics to largely rural, less-educated parts of the country that consistently have been voting for candidates who have advanced anti-democratic agendas. Six of the last seven national elections had a liberal candidate, who would have upheld stronger and more robust democratic voting laws in place, win the overall popular vote.

 

So it's a super faulty premise to say that more college educated workers hasn't led to a healthier democracy, when the electoral system of this country is designed in a way to give greater electoral power to areas and people who largely fall outside of this category. We consistently see a trend that college educated voters (both white and non-white) are largely rejecting the GOP and its anti-democracy agenda anyways: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/

 

I agree plus the largely rural areas are electing people like themselves who have advanced degrees but aren't educated and that hold "biblical" views that aren't scientifically based. Example: Noah's ark, humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and that the Earth is only six thousand years old. That kind of drivel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Not making anything up, just thinking out loud.  Like I told Buzz, the nominee is veering to the left, I'm not going to hold you to vote for them, I already know you won't vote for Trump.

 

Do you know that? Because at this point I have no idea anymore. 

 

I want trump out. But if that means turning multiple sectors of the economy upside down, that’s a problem. The left is using the dislike for Trump as an opportunity to push a very progressive agenda. I think this is a mistake

 

at this point I’m inclined to stay away from the dem primary stuff because it’s a race to the left. I’m holding out hope that whoever makes it through the primary backtracks to the middle a bit. But even if they do, does that mean anything? They’ll have been on record about what they want, and many of them are putting together actual policy framework and some already have. 

 

Theyre pitching very big changes across the board. Simply hating trump isn’t good enough, they’re asking us to be on board with these huge changes. 

 

Ive found myself without a party I agree with on solutions, and both parties have shown they don’t care enough about where I stand on things to appeal to me on any policy. And I’m expected to pick one. I think this is an under appreciated issue. Either by people thinking it doesn’t exist/matter, or (and quite a few people here fall into this later category) they just don’t care and feel confident they can win without people like me (or would rather lose than alter their policy ideas)

 

this is the main reason I’m not watching the debates. For me, they only serve to drive me away from the candidates. I’m hoping there’s a course correction for the eventual nominee but I’m not sure there will be, because I think the core of the left doesn’t want that. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Do you know that? Because at this point I have no idea anymore. 

 

 

this is the main reason I’m not watching the debates. For me, they only serve to drive me away from the candidates. I’m hoping there’s a course correction for the eventual nominee but I’m not sure there will be, because I think the core of the left doesn’t want that. 

 

 

 

If I'm not mistaken you voted third party last time instead of Trump, and even though got crap for it, you didn't get crap from me.  You don't sound like you'd change course and vote for Trump, and no, I don't believe the left is ignoring conservatives. 

 

I keep trying to find details on their plans and it comes across as them believing its better then what we're doing and people will like it even if they didn't agree with it (sort of like how parts of ACA got to point GOP couldn't repeal them without backlash from their own voters on certain topics).

 

But you know what, yea, I can see some of these plans as your going to get it whether you like it or not.  Couple nominees I support are either not touching that or going all in.  It's tough because somethings like our reaction to climate change and rising health care prices, an approach that everyone philosophically agrees and gets the results we need might not exist.  Like with Maryland, they tried a middle ground and their health insurance prices are growing faster then anywhere in the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Rdskns2000 changed the title to Presidential Election: 11/3/20- Joe Biden WILL BEAT Donald Trump. Yes he will, U-watch. Friday or Saturday, Joe will win!
  • Jumbo changed the title to Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...