|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it.
If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong.
|
On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong.
The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo....
|
On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it.
Even if they don't brag about it, doctors do rake in money off Medicare patients (they often refuse Medicaid patients who the government pays out for at EU comparable rates), they also benefit from a government guaranteed monopoly through the AMA/7 Year education minimum predication.
Its the same for Universities. They take government guaranteed loans, that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, and have a government guarantee (through certain hiring practices legislation) that basically mandates that companies can only look at education credentials in their hiring practices. Plus the massive push to increase graduation rates which means a high school diploma or GPA does nothing to differentiate candidates.
Essentially, Bernie has identified two of the 5 most heavily regulated industries (also he talks about banks a lot, so 3 of 5) and said "There is a problem here, the solution is more government." If we had a big problem with Cola and Laptop prices his points would at least be internally consistent.
Or, maybe he should go ham and rail against high electricity prices and the big 3 car companies.
|
On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo....
The average Bachelors degree holder is doing life wrong.
|
On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo....
Really? For just a Bachelors? I will have about that much and I will have my PhD.
I guess its probably due to not being able to get a decent job off a Bachelors then.
|
On March 26 2016 16:37 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo.... Really? For just a Bachelors? I will have about that much and I will have my PhD. I guess its probably due to not being able to get a decent job off a Bachelors then.
Doesn't help that there's a ton of non-elite private liberal arts schools flooding the markets because of the current loan issues.
Somehow people think making college free won't exacerbate this.
|
On March 26 2016 16:48 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:37 Slaughter wrote:On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo.... Really? For just a Bachelors? I will have about that much and I will have my PhD. I guess its probably due to not being able to get a decent job off a Bachelors then. Doesn't help that there's a ton of non-elite private liberal arts schools flooding the markets because of the current loan issues. Somehow people think making college free won't exacerbate this.
Well what will happen is that tuition will likely fall because the government won't put up with their ridiculous costs.Hell its already happening now at the state level. A lot of smaller colleges will probably close and less people will go to college.
Free college doesn't equal everyone going to college. Some people might think that but the reality is that not everyone is suited for it. Change course on how education people in middle/high school advise students so people with more talent for trades will have resources and encouragement to go into them.
The biggest issue (in terms of numbers) would be simply bringing back more manufacturing jobs that pay well. People increasingly went to college because these types of jobs dried up. This is much harder to fix due to the nature of the global economy and also increasing automation so good luck with that one. The GOP seems to think they can magic these jobs back to the states but I think they are full of shit and corporations simply just laugh them off.
|
Not to mention it's likely to come with a civil service update. Where we can put people to work for min. of two years (massive infrastructure project to start) for civil service and they can also use it to pick up a trade, and that will be so appealing, college will need to be free to keep kids wanting to go instead of just getting a trade and make good money.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Not everyone is meant to get a university education. Those that aren't capable make up the majority of the ranks of college dropouts or "marginal graduates" who barely manage to graduate with a degree that isn't useful. Excluding those people from university would save a tremendous amount of money on teaching and infrastructure. Those people should be educated in technical or trade schools that are more in line with their capability.
Manufacturing jobs that used to be here aren't coming back, because modernization of those factories involves a lot more automation than before. We should instead focus on educating people into jobs that both need doing and are within people's capability to do.
I think Obama's move to make CC free is a good start. What should come next is to expand CC to actually be a rather complete education for skilled work, while still being free.
|
On March 26 2016 17:17 LegalLord wrote:
Not everyone is meant to get a university education. Those that aren't capable make up the majority of the ranks of college dropouts or "marginal graduates" who barely manage to graduate with a degree that isn't useful. Excluding those people from university would save a tremendous amount of money on teaching and infrastructure. Those people should be educated in technical or trade schools that are more in line with their capability.
Manufacturing jobs that used to be here aren't coming back, because modernization of those factories involves a lot more automation than before. We should instead focus on educating people into jobs that both need doing and are within people's capability to do.
To me, modernizing the US seems like the obvious solution and the federal government being the only entity large enough to take on such a massive endeavor seems like the sensible solution. Government backstops a massive infrastructure update but we use a type of contract Donald and other successful builders use which penalizes the contractor for overruns and missing due dates as opposed to the standard contracts full of fraud and abuse that reward contractors for doubling costs after they've been awarded the contract.
You can't outsource the jobs, and the work can be done right here. We can't bring back some manufacturing but we can create new manufacturing by competing where we can on proprietary and new gen tech, and we can stop feeling like a 21st century Cuba when we experience the infrastructure in other downtown areas around the world.
Doesn't address the long term problem of running out of jobs eventually but it can buy us some quality of life until then.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 26 2016 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 17:17 LegalLord wrote:
Not everyone is meant to get a university education. Those that aren't capable make up the majority of the ranks of college dropouts or "marginal graduates" who barely manage to graduate with a degree that isn't useful. Excluding those people from university would save a tremendous amount of money on teaching and infrastructure. Those people should be educated in technical or trade schools that are more in line with their capability.
Manufacturing jobs that used to be here aren't coming back, because modernization of those factories involves a lot more automation than before. We should instead focus on educating people into jobs that both need doing and are within people's capability to do. To me, modernizing the US seems like the obvious solution and the federal government being the only entity large enough to take on such a massive endeavor seems like the sensible solution. Government backstops a massive infrastructure update but we use a type of contract Donald and other successful builders use which penalizes the contractor for overruns and missing due dates as opposed to the standard contracts full of fraud and abuse that reward contractors for doubling costs after they've been awarded the contract. You can't outsource the jobs, and the work can be done right here. We can't bring back some manufacturing but we can create new manufacturing by competing where we can on proprietary and new gen tech, and we can stop feeling like a 21st century Cuba when we experience the infrastructure in other downtown areas around the world. Doesn't address the long term problem of running out of jobs eventually but it can buy us some quality of life until then.
Modernizing US infrastructure is an important task, and it will give people jobs, but it's not really a simple issue. One issue is the political difficulties of actually getting the money to perform a large scale upgrade that will cost trillions of dollars. Every massive government-sponsored infrastructure project in the past (e.g. railroads) has been an exercise in handing out massive amounts of money to people. Also, it's hard to actually measure what projects will be useful, since there is no direct economic benefit of building better infrastructure (usually it's measured by cost, which can overestimate the value if it's the Bridge to Nowhere or underestimate if it's an important public works project).
The way the government makes decisions by consensus, it ends up being extremely cheap and beholden to interests. They aren't very good judges of who a better contractor is, and often a shitty contractor who will do a terrible job and have massive cost overruns will be taken because they offer the lowest price at the outset. You could try to change the incentives, but the contractors will just change their strategy for fleecing money to compensate. And Senator X from Y won't exactly mind if the federal government pays for cost overruns that benefit Y, and there will be a lot of those cases.
Obviously the infrastructure needs improving, and everyone agrees, but no one wants to pay for it and no one knows how to organize it efficiently. And furthermore, what about after that? More infrastructure = more maintenance costs, and something will have to pay for that as well. You're going to need some serious economic development that actually justifies those infrastructure projects, or a recession bad enough to justify another Works Progress Administration, to make it happen.
|
On March 26 2016 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my favorite thing about this election. Did we see this coming 48 hours ago? Did we have a fucking CLUE this would be the hot shit topic? What a wild ride. I never want it to end.
I strongly disagree. Even though I'm happy that the disgrace that is the Republican primary is going to hand over the White House to Hillary, secure a progressive Supreme Court and hopefully result in the Democrats gaining seats in both the House and Senate, a healthy democracy needs healthy political parties. The GOP absolutely has had its implosion coming, and it's their systematic obstructionism and the lies and extremism they've been feeding their base that brought them where they are today. In this respect, there's a part of me that does enjoy seeing them reaping what they've sown.
Despite this, however, the broader picture is that trust in elected representatives has been falling for quite some time, and that there is a growing sentiment that politicians are all the same, crooked, liars, and only interested in securing their own power. I'm obviously not saying this sentiment appeared out of thin air -- it has some legitimate foundations that I don't think I have to develop here. Yet it remains a very inaccurate picture of politics, of the U.S. system of government, and of a majority of elected officials at all levels of government. And seeing this sentiment spread is not a good sign for the health of democracy in the country. It results in people like Donald Trump getting traction, getting votes, and getting a real chance of being elected in positions of power, in which they will do lasting harm. Trump may only be the tip of the iceberg, however. If he remains an anomaly -- great. But if he heralds a new area in which far-right and authoritarian demagogues can attract as many people as him, it'll be a serious and very dangerous development. I'm hoping it won't come to that, and two huge factors will be how the state of the economy evolves and the way the Republican party deals with him, his electorate and his message going forward.
How is this connected to Cruz' affair? Well, this is obviously a minor element with respect to the broad picture I just referred to, but if die-hard conservatives who have resisted Trump so far realize that they can't trust the guy who made trust such an integral part of his campaign, it's again going to contribute to the disillusion felt by many. I hate Cruz with a passion, I disagree with him on almost everything, and he spreads lies constantly about Obama, the Democrats, their policies, minorities, and pretty much every aspect of the world we live in. Still, he embodies a version of conservatism that appeals to many people, and I would rather see these people vote for someone like Ted Cruz than for an authoritarian out of disgust with the political system.
Now, although this is much more of an issue on the right than on the left, I have to say that the way Sanders' campaign has evolved also makes me quite uneasy, albeit on a much smaller scale (I am NOT equating the two in any way). I've mentioned already that the way he promises policies that simply cannot be achieved in the time frame he mentions, or uses numbers that have no solid basis in reality, is something I strongly dislike (even though I do agree with many of his objectives and with the said policies -- only he's not being honest with regards to how to get to them). I've also argued that his increased attacks on Hillary's character have been dishonest and could do some damage to the Democrats' chances in the general election (probably not much, but still). But the larger issue is that Sanders and his campaign (mostly his campaign, but him as well) have started to indulge in populism, demagoguery, and even sometimes conspiratorial discourse.
This began by demonizing "the establishment" as a monolithic block, then by characterizing as "part of the establishment" every progressive official and organization who dared endorse Hillary or criticize aspects of Sanders' platform, such as Planned Parenthood (even though Sanders eventually walked back from his comments on the organization). It continued by painting Clinton (and, logically, many officials beyond her) as a puppet of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" for receiving donations from people and organizations in the finance and pharmaceutical industries. Do those donations exist? Sure. Do they make her a puppet, or corrupt? No they don't, just like Obama was never a puppet of Wall Street. Now, Sanders is completely dishonestly claiming that the Democratic party is currently not interested in the working class and the young, is not a 50-state party (this one is especially rich given how it is his campaign which basically left the South to Clinton), and is instead "to a significant degree" "a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors". Now, can the DNC, and people in the Democratic party be criticized for plenty of things? Of course. Yet the picture that Sanders is painting is not only fundamentally dishonest and wrong (in addition to being completely ignorant of the work, efforts and policies of many Democrats at all levels of government, including at the local and state levels), but it is also dangerous, because it simultaneously feeds into and nourishes the exact same kind of sentiment that I described earlier: "politicians don't care about us in the slightest". I hope that the reasonable Sanders supporters that post in this thread (farvacola and plenty of others) recognize this for what it is: dangerous rhetoric which reinforces disillusion with the political system and turns people away from the political process once their favorite candidate is no longer in the race.
Again, does this mean that one can't legitimately and rightly denounce the role of money in U.S. politics, want to overturn Citizens United, fight the corruption that does exist, criticize the policies who hurt the most vulnerable, etc.? Absolutely not -- I subscribe to all of that, and I subscribe to a progressive agenda that goes significantly beyond maintaining the status quo; I am myself very critical of plenty of policies that a majority of Democrats in Congress have supported in the past. But there's a difference between holding those positions, and pretending that all politicians are completely disconnected from the people, only care about donations and power, and that only a single enlightened figure can change all this. This is dangerous rhetoric, and although it is currently much more of a problem on the right with regards to its effects, we shouldn't be blind to the damage that such populist messages can result in when they come from the left.
|
On March 26 2016 18:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 17:17 LegalLord wrote:
Not everyone is meant to get a university education. Those that aren't capable make up the majority of the ranks of college dropouts or "marginal graduates" who barely manage to graduate with a degree that isn't useful. Excluding those people from university would save a tremendous amount of money on teaching and infrastructure. Those people should be educated in technical or trade schools that are more in line with their capability.
Manufacturing jobs that used to be here aren't coming back, because modernization of those factories involves a lot more automation than before. We should instead focus on educating people into jobs that both need doing and are within people's capability to do. To me, modernizing the US seems like the obvious solution and the federal government being the only entity large enough to take on such a massive endeavor seems like the sensible solution. Government backstops a massive infrastructure update but we use a type of contract Donald and other successful builders use which penalizes the contractor for overruns and missing due dates as opposed to the standard contracts full of fraud and abuse that reward contractors for doubling costs after they've been awarded the contract. You can't outsource the jobs, and the work can be done right here. We can't bring back some manufacturing but we can create new manufacturing by competing where we can on proprietary and new gen tech, and we can stop feeling like a 21st century Cuba when we experience the infrastructure in other downtown areas around the world. Doesn't address the long term problem of running out of jobs eventually but it can buy us some quality of life until then. Modernizing US infrastructure is an important task, and it will give people jobs, but it's not really a simple issue. One issue is the political difficulties of actually getting the money to perform a large scale upgrade that will cost trillions of dollars. Every massive government-sponsored infrastructure project in the past (e.g. railroads) has been an exercise in handing out massive amounts of money to people. Also, it's hard to actually measure what projects will be useful, since there is no direct economic benefit of building better infrastructure (usually it's measured by cost, which can overestimate the value if it's the Bridge to Nowhere or underestimate if it's an important public works project). The way the government makes decisions by consensus, it ends up being extremely cheap and beholden to interests. They aren't very good judges of who a better contractor is, and often a shitty contractor who will do a terrible job and have massive cost overruns will be taken because they offer the lowest price at the outset. You could try to change the incentives, but the contractors will just change their strategy for fleecing money to compensate. And Senator X from Y won't exactly mind if the federal government pays for cost overruns that benefit Y, and there will be a lot of those cases. Obviously the infrastructure needs improving, and everyone agrees, but no one wants to pay for it and no one knows how to organize it efficiently. And furthermore, what about after that? More infrastructure = more maintenance costs, and something will have to pay for that as well. You're going to need some serious economic development that actually justifies those infrastructure projects, or a recession bad enough to justify another Works Progress Administration, to make it happen.
We'll just call it an invasion liberation and money will come out of the wood works. These contracts I'm describing aren't myths. There are contracts that effectively deal with the practices commonly used by contractors to exploit his type of work. We can leave many states control over their own projects but there will need to be additional checks on politicians.
It's not as simple as paint by numbers but it's not the quagmire you seem to be making it sound like. We've talked ourselves into spending plenty on much dumber things. Give us a couple modern world wonders and people will consider it money well spent.
|
On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition.
Which is where America needs to overcome its fear of the big bad government.
They are the one that should step in and tell a University it will receive X dollars for every student (and that it is not allowed to charge for random stuff in an attempt to rake in more) and that is it.
Now ofcourse that amount has to be one where the University can realistically function but it would be lower then what it is today.
If the government is the one paying the bill (and they are already with the student loans) they should be the ones setting the price as well as ensuring a certain level of quality in the education provided.
Private Universities could keep charging whatever they want but then they cant make use of the governments subsidies either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wait how is hillary dishonest what. this is some special kind of whataboutism
|
my goodness, have been out of the loop for a bit, but damn - thanks for the last couple pages lol.
#CubanMistressCrisis
#BirdieSanders
#etal
Trump was right at the beginning of his campaign. the american dream is dead, he will simply lay it to rest once in office.
|
On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo....
Really? That's higher than I expected. I'd also say that the average student often feels locked into a certain college-bound-right-after-high-school-trajectory-even-if-they-have-no-money mindset that can screw them over for at least 5-10 years after they graduate, between not necessarily landing a decent job even with a college degree, plus any loans that they need to pay back before seriously starting to save for future adult prospects (apartment/ house, marriage, family, etc.).
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AXvfF01.png)
Bernie doing his best to spread ignorance by making people think GMO is some kinda additional ingredient chemical bullshit
|
On March 26 2016 21:58 Mohdoo wrote:Bernie doing his best to spread ignorance by making people think GMO is some kinda additional ingredient chemical bullshit
There are many reasons to be against GMO. Personally, I want to know if the food I buy is genetically ingeneered, just to have the possibility to chose. I don't believe it's a horrible poison or anything, I just believe it's a really bad idea for farmers and the future of agriculture, and don't want to be part of it.
Sanders is right. There is simply no reason why consumers shouldn't be informed of what they are eating.
|
On March 26 2016 16:48 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 16:37 Slaughter wrote:On March 26 2016 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 16:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 26 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2016 15:36 cLutZ wrote:On March 26 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Would still be easily worth it though if he's going to implement free education and healthcare
The 3k to 6k that middle class families seem to lose would be regained even if he only halfs tuition for two kids Just like in healthcare, the problem with expensive education is refusing to crush certain special interests under the government thumb, while simultaneously providing them with massive subsidies. The Sanders plan is just a free check for Universities to lock in super high tuition. Yeah doctors are always bragging about how much money they rake in off of serving medicare patients. Education is next, someone save the children from being able to go to college without getting 10-20 years worth of a debt penalty for having parents who couldn't pay for it. If you're getting into 10 to 20 years debt from college, you're doing college wrong. The average Bachelors degree holder takes about 21 years sooo.... Really? For just a Bachelors? I will have about that much and I will have my PhD. I guess its probably due to not being able to get a decent job off a Bachelors then. Doesn't help that there's a ton of non-elite private liberal arts schools flooding the markets because of the current loan issues. Somehow people think making college free won't exacerbate this.
I went to a free european art college, received an elite education I wouldn't have been able to afford and now have an amazing job in one of the world top symphony orchestras. What's the problem with art education and how is it better that people end up with decades of debts after their studies??
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
