Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Your AntiChrist- Kim Vladimir Trump vs The Trump Slayer or Sacrifice?

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

My concern is what will it cost when we no longer have the ability for public colleges to offset their operational costs and it all gets dumped on the government to fill that void.

the way it looked before states started reducing their subsidies to colleges.

 

The problem is we don't tax the wealthy.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden waxing poetically about working with segregationists.

 

Buttigieg's local issues with black people made the national stage.

 

Beto said, "hold my beer."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I hope they dont softball these candidates because of how much the media wants to be Trump.    The herd needs to thinned as quickly as possible, this is already setting up to feel like a clown show with maybe a couple bright spots. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he can **** all the way off with that. Make it part of the already gargantuan defense budget.

 

As for the education thing, I teach at a public university in NC and a vast, vast amount of what we're seeing across the country in peer institutions is the bloat of middle manager in college admin combined with slashing funding from state legislatures. They chip away at "boutique" subjects (read: humanities) and hike the tuition. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

the way it looked before states started reducing their subsidies to colleges.

 

The problem is we don't tax the wealthy.

 

I'd have to really look at the numbers, based on last couple articles that have been posted in this thread, paying off the debts will cost $1.6 trillion and paid for with $2 trillion in revenue collected over a 10 year period. 

 

Does that mean we pay off student loans over a ten year period by starting with absorbing all of them at the same time?  What's the tax revenue proposal for the department of education costing about $1 trillion dollars over ten years with the proposal for free public college? 

 

I agree we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, but we should be careful how much we raise taxes and what for.  Nobody wants a runaway spending train that needs higher and higher taxes to keep up with, want to stay efficient. 

 

If were going to have a serious discussion about balancing the budget and even paying towards our current national debt, having people pay less for college versus none at all should be what we do, imo.  Our payments on our interest rates are already almost $400 billion a year and will be more that double then in 10 years.  It's out of control.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Then why has state college tuition tripled in the last 30 years and private colleges doubled?  Is it really as simple as cuts to education funding?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

 

More people are going to college, including state schools.  Funding has not kept up with inflation when taking into account the increase in the number of students.

 

There have been other increases too.  Unlike most other industries, public higher education has not massively out sourced jobs.  If students need help with scheduling or bill paying, in most places they still talk to somebody in the US that is an employee of the college and certainly teaching jobs haven't been out sourced.  So increases in health care have impacted the education field (really at all levels) more so than most other industries.

 

There also have been some increases in administrative costs.  Things like greater EPA restrictions, sexual harassment, and Title IX have all increased administrative costs.

 

(The "Common Rule" for working human subjects was recently updated causing a change in NIH policy for being able to work with human cell lines, which caused a host of rule changes for people doing research with human cells and an increase in the training students need to work with human cells.  The training has to created by somebody, reviewed by somebody, and somebody has to keep record of it which all falls in increases in administrative costs.

 

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Guidelines_for_the_Review_of_the_Human_Subjects.pdf

).

 

Public colleges never did nor were ever intended to return a profit onto themselves.

 

I'm generally not for completely free college for all.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

it’s a shame we don’t have more of a “hey we should try things” style of government. 

 

It seems like everything has to be sweeping and radical and overhaul an entire system, or we do nothing. And often we do nothing, until enough people are pissed off enough that we do something sweeping, because doing nothing won’t be tolerated any longer and sweeping is the only other option. 

 

Its quite frustrating because the implication is that If we do try something new and it doesn’t work we’ll be stuck with it until things get so bad someone can win by proposing something else - that will also be sweeping, radical, and overhaul the entire system. 

 

In my life I can think of relatively few things that were fixed by making a sweeping change to me or my life. There’s too many to list that were improved with incremental changes. 

 

To me, our current philosophy on governing is completely broke.  I’m left with choices of an incompetent admin, a guy that’ll probably do nothing of significance for 4 years (biden), or someone that wants to turn everything upside down. These are not choices I would consider “good”

 

 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

1.  There's never been an expectation for state schools to turn a profit.

 

2.  No publicly funded transportation system turns a profit either (i.e. roads don't pay for themselves directly).

 

3. It's hard to monetize getting people off the road (or places faster). But that absolutely has to be factored in when talking about transportation projects. I'd suspect monetizing sending extra people to advanced education and/or allowing them to incur less student debt has an equivalent too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Biden waxing poetically about working with segregationists.

 

Buttigieg's local issues with black people made the national stage.

 

Beto said, "hold my beer."

 

 

 

Maybe I'm crazy but i'm not seeing a huge problem with this.

 

The idea is to prevent reckless warmongering and get everyone to do their part. It is predicated on ending Iraq and Afghan wars first and would only be valid when Congress authorizes the US to enter a new war. This hopefully puts more emphasis on getting a collective buy-in to go to war and will tax those that do not have any stake in the game rather than just the poor and uneducated being funneled off to die for the rich or everyone else. Now we all have a tax ($25/yr for families making under $30k and scaling upward) with the money going into a fund for veterans healthcare in addition to restoring healthcare rights for veterans with OTH discharges. 

 

It's basically a way to set up a fund so that those who go off to war have a guarantee that they will be taken care of when they get home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Maybe I'm crazy but i'm not seeing a huge problem with this.

 

The idea is to prevent reckless warmongering and get everyone to do their part. It is predicated on ending Iraq and Afghan wars first and would only be valid when Congress authorizes the US to enter a new war. This hopefully puts more emphasis on getting a collective buy-in to go to war and will tax those that do not have any stake in the game rather than just the poor and uneducated being funneled off to die for the rich or everyone else. Now we all have a tax ($25/yr for families making under $30k and scaling upward) with the money going into a fund for veterans healthcare in addition to restoring healthcare rights for veterans with OTH discharges. 

 

It's basically a way to set up a fund so that those who go off to war have a guarantee that they will be taken care of when they get home. 

 

The issue for me is that it doesn't target the people who want to pursue those wars (military contractors and companies).

 

If you want to stop a reckless war, go for the pockets of people/companies who benefit.

 

For some reason, the government is afraid to make the wealthy pay.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Maybe I'm crazy but i'm not seeing a huge problem with this.

 

The idea is to prevent reckless warmongering and get everyone to do their part. It is predicated on ending Iraq and Afghan wars first and would only be valid when Congress authorizes the US to enter a new war. This hopefully puts more emphasis on getting a collective buy-in to go to war and will tax those that do not have any stake in the game rather than just the poor and uneducated being funneled off to die for the rich or everyone else. Now we all have a tax ($25/yr for families making under $30k and scaling upward) with the money going into a fund for veterans healthcare in addition to restoring healthcare rights for veterans with OTH discharges. 

 

It's basically a way to set up a fund so that those who go off to war have a guarantee that they will be taken care of when they get home. 

 

I dont know, man, I think it sends the wrong message.  93% of the population never served, VA budget is $200 billion a year and we spend $45 billion in Afghastain by choosing to stay there. I dont remember agreeing to stay there longer then any other war we been in after 9/11 happened.  The war mongering is coming from Boeing and Congressmembers that like bragging about their dick size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

The issue for me is that it doesn't target the people who want to pursue those wars (military contractors and companies).

 

If you want to stop a reckless war, go for the pockets of people/companies who benefit.

 

For some reason, the government is afraid to make the wealthy pay.

 

I get that and I don't disagree that those people should be the focus of increased taxes, pressure and public scrutiny but that doesn't mean I have a problem with this.

 

We all want to help our veterans and this gets us all to do so. I'm ok with it, but yes would like to see other plans to address the military-industrial complex and blatant war profiteering that leads us into war. 

 

 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I get that and I don't disagree that those people should be the focus of increased taxes, pressure and public scrutiny but that doesn't mean I have a problem with this.

 

We all want to help our veterans and this gets us all to do so. I'm ok with it, but yes would like to see other plans to address the military-industrial complex and blatant war profiteering that leads us into war. 

 

 

My thing is why put that burden on regular people? We are already paying for their healthcare and these wars.

 

This proposal makes it appear that it is the non-military affiliated families that caused these wars.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I understand that and agree. As long as the taxes on the top levels are significant enough, I think this is a step in the right direction. Beto already has endorsed wealth tax (assets, offshore etc) and higher income tax percentages for the rich. 

 

I don't know what you do to specifically target war contractors. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

3. It's hard to monetize getting people off the road (or places faster). But that absolutely has to be factored in when talking about transportation projects. I'd suspect monetizing sending extra people to advanced education and/or allowing them to incur less student debt has an equivalent too.

 

It is, but you also don't want to create situations where people travel needlessly or without thinking about the best uses of resources because that creates a hard to monetize waste of money.

 

When people need to move, you want them to be able to move quickly and easily, but often times by doing that, we also encourage people to travel needlessly, which just waste resources.

 

We want to enable people that can and should get advanced educations to get advanced educations, but we also don't want people wasting resources and going to college simply because they can, and they don't want to worry about what they are going to do with the rest of their lives (i.e. people going to college simply to delay their entrance into adulthood). 

 

We also don't need/want everybody going to college (I believe there is good data out there that shows the largest current issue with US economy is not the lack of people with advanced educations, but actually the lack of people in the high skilled trades).

 

(As such, I'm not for free college for all (I suspect that will encourage people to waste resources), but also think we need to greatly reduce in state tuition at public schools, while maintaining the ability to get a good education at such schools (i.e. we need to massively increase our funding of the public higher education system).)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Yeah I understand that and agree. As long as the taxes on the top levels are significant enough, I think this is a step in the right direction. Beto already has endorsed wealth tax (assets, offshore etc) and higher income tax percentages for the rich. 

 

I don't know what you do to specifically target war contractors. Any ideas?

 

Theres probably some really good ideas out there, if I was to start with one it'd be addressing the nearly $100 million in lobbying efforts every year.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

She has a proposal, tbf.

 

This bill claims we will get more money than hers.

I don't think this is the solution either.

 

You put money in trade schools, inevitably those will go up in prices because of demand.

 

The issue is why does post-secondary education cost so much? Then figure out how to get these clown shoe banks out of the exploitation business. Find the answer to that question and then start to peel it back. But sitting back and saying, "we don't need to wipe student loan debt" is not close to the answer.

I meant to say , I don't think Lizzie's plan is same as Bernie's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dem voter base off to a swell start then

 

 blue ripple

 

Edit: lol @ that chart of what excites them 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


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

 

Unless you're a party activist, why would you pay that much attention now.  Some people don't even pay attention until the 

general election debates.  February is still more than 7 months away.

 

This may require an amendment but I think presidential campaigns should've be allowed to start until 1 year before the general election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Unless you're a party activist, why would you pay that much attention now.  

 

Because theres 20+ people competing to represent the other option in the general. 

 

I would argue people not paying attention now is what has led to our system being so screwed up. If only the extremes participate in the primaries then we will only get candidates that appeal to the extremes 

 

same for local politics

 

The lax nature we have around participating the political system is unacceptable. We deserve the government we have. All these people whining about how bad the current admin is and they’re not even participating in creating the other option?

 

if trump wins again because the dems produce a bad candidate and can’t get people to even show up and vote, are they going to finally realize they have some responsibility in that outcome?

 

because many of them have finally admitted Clinton was an awful candidate, but they still blame their base not voting for her on everyone else. Which fits nicely into their platform of everything being the fault of others 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If only the extremes participate in the primaries then we will only get candidates that appeal to the extremes 

 

Preach brother!  Been saying this for a while.  

 

36 minutes ago, tshile said:

are they going to finally realize they have some responsibility in that outcome?

 

No.  Because......

36 minutes ago, tshile said:

Which fits nicely into their platform of everything being the fault of others 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.