Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
kattz
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 09:31am PT
|
His high-flying declared intentions aka grabbing the money from "the rich" and sharing them among "the rest"...
in reality would turn into: grab what's left in the middle class, transfer it to the "welfare leeches"
His plan to give free US education would be a disaster even if he grabbed money to finance this only from "the rich" (which is NOT what he'd do). Even with paid education US delusional and entitled youths get worthless degress in "liberal arts" and "whatever studies", imagine what would happen with free education as there're no strict entrance exams and these are not in the plans, as no one would pass them. I had to take 6 very competitive examinations to enter undergrad engineering program overseas; in the US, people take SAT or GRE, which are a joke. Good US schools do teach well, but these are few and rare. The habitual freeloader and former welfare recepient such as Sanders himself is just not capable of comprehending this. Getting even more illegals into the classroom at the expense of Americans (Dems' dream) will not do a yota for fading US competitiveness. Alas...Wall Street sharks and H1B worker-filled tech corporations are the only things US still got going for it.
Many big US firms are sitting tight at this moment and one squeeze and they'll be laying off more US workers, both middle class and lower-paid hourly and moving even more operatoins offshore. And there's ain't nothing Sanders would be able to do to prevent this. US workers are expensive things to have, with high cost of living, poor education, all the lawsuit potential and federal labor regulations, and then expensive benefits that WOULD be required to be paid by the corporations. Sanders loves North European "socialist" countries, forgetting that these weak (and soon to be overrun by offspring of migrants) counties can only exist because US exists in its exact current form, protecting their interests.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 10:30am PT
|
Both Sanders and Trump incorporate a certain amount of neo-isolationism. Sanders is more subtle and thoughtful, largely opposing free trade. Trump is closer to xenophobia, but either would be disastrous for the world economy. You would think the Great Depression and the way trade wars exacerbated it would cause those ideas to remain in history's dustbin, but we have short memories.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 10:32am PT
|
kattz posted His plan to give free US education would be a disaster even if he grabbed money to finance this only from "the rich" (which is NOT what he'd do). Even with paid education US delusional and entitled youths get worthless degress in "liberal arts" and "whatever studies", imagine what would happen with free education as there're no strict entrance exams and these are not in the plans, as no one would pass them.
Where do people come up with this stuff? Who said anything about no entrance exams or no qualifications?
*edit*
Also, despite their maligning in conservative pop culture, liberal arts majors do very well on the whole. Way better than people who don't go to college at all. And heaven forbid we have a citizenry broadly educated in arts, literature and critical thinking. What an awful country this would be!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 11:06am PT
|
I could not agree with you more dj
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 11:53am PT
|
My freshman year at Berkeley was the last year with no tuition in the University of California system. My sophomore year, the Regents instituted a tuition of $100.00 a trimester. That rose to $150.00 my senior year, and $250.00 by the time I finished law school in 1979.
Unfortunately, the presence of tuition caused the state, beginning with the first Jerry Brown administration, and continuing through his successors - both Republican and Democrat - to continually reduce state aid to the U.C. system. Now, tuition outside U.C. professional schools is still cheaper than at a private school, but it is not the relatively modest amount it was during my tenure in the U.C. system. Instead, federal student financial assistance - particularly in the form of subsidized student loans - takes the place of direct state aid to the colleges and universities. Tuition at U.C. professional schools is at least as high as that in private schools.
Since 1969, I have been continuously involved in public higher education as a student, teacher, and parent. I was also a trustee of a private university from 1989 to 2001. In my observation, the end of tuition-free (or at least tuition-nominal) higher education in California has fostered a perpetuation of poverty and a diminution in chances for upward mobility. This has been particularly acute in areas away from the areas of the highest professional salaries. Unemployment in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego, is far lower than in the Central Valley. Those of us who don't believe that equality demands equal outcomes, but does demand equal opportunities, should be appalled at what we see now.
Yes, the end of tuition-free education resulted in fewer liberal arts majors, and more business and economics majors in the U.C. system. For that reason a return to tuition-free education will likely result in more liberal arts majors. I'm not convinced that's such a bad thing, at least if the liberal arts remain liberal, rather than closed-minded. A curriculum that exposes students to differing viewpoints and fosters critical thinking creates better citizens and, all other things being equal, better workers and owners.
I do, however, think the idea that "the rich," rather than the middle class, will pay for it remains a fantasy. Empirical studies demonstrate that increasing taxes on things such as capital gains results in less capital gains tax revenue. It also acts as a restraint on alienation, leaving assets in less productive hands. Increasing taxes on the highest incomes will result - as it did in the past - in lower reported incomes, because there will always be ways to reduce income legally through proper investment and cash management. It is, after all, a tax on incomes, not gross receipts. Thus, more succinctly, raising taxes the way Bernie proposes will result in much less additional revenue than he thinks, and not nearly enough to pay for the higher education system he proposes.
Still, I would be willing to pay more to have a fairer - and more completely accessible - public higher education system. During my time as a student in the U.C. System, that system was California's crown jewel. We've exchanged that investment in people for expenditures in consumption, and the state is poorer for the result.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 12:10pm PT
|
Those of us who don't believe that equality demands equal outcomes, but does demand equal opportunities, should be appalled at what we see now.
Even though this was buried in a "wall of text," John, LOL, it's still worth emphasis, I think.
Thank you.
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 01:15pm PT
|
I would just like to say a big "Thank You" to everyone for keeping this thread so civil.
It is one of the nicest political threads overall that I have ever seen!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 01:47pm PT
|
It is one of the nicest political threads overall that I have ever seen!
Bernie may be wrong, be he is classy. Perhaps the atmosphereon this thread reflects his classiness.
John
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 02:35pm PT
|
JEleazarian, I was very happy to read your post and find another area of overlap in our perceptions, along with Madbolter too.
I do not AT ALL believe in equal outcomes for all. I believe in expanding what we consider baseline human rights for all (e.g. some level of healthcare and education), and then people must rely on their intellect, perseverance, endurance, appetite for risk, negotiating skills, or other qualities to secure for themselves a future commensurate with the value they create.
I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with this approach. It is close to what we have today, and what lassez-faire capitalism would provide, except:
1) Today we don't provide a high enough bar for baseline human rights given the affluence of our civilization, and
2) We don't have good mechanisms to limit the use of prior wealth; that is, wealth that generates more wealth somewhat independently of what new value is being generated for society. Wealth generation should be linked to societal value creation, and when there is a discrepancy, it is up to government to introduce regulation that supports the needs of society over the needs of those who have figured a loophole through our political/legal/economic landscape.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 02:35pm PT
|
Consider Walmart for example. They have optimized supply chains and standardized the business model to offer products as cheaply as possible, and American consumers value this. Looking at America in isolation, this is great value generation for our society and the owners deserve to generate wealth from this. But, when considering the entire picture, our national values are diminished, and it makes us duplicitous in the world. Walmart has just found the most efficient way to bring us cheap international products, and even if the employees of suppliers in other countries willingly work because it is better than their alternative, it is not a win:win. We are complicit in taking advantage of people who are forced to live in circumstances that are not compatible with the minimum that we define as a human rights baseline in our country. And how does that stuff get here so cheaply? Because of what we also do to manipulate the price of oil for transporting goods?
We are lying to ourselves, or at least keeping ourselves in willful denial, while the rest of the world can see what we are: a country that supports the comfort and rights of our own citizens by being a bully in the world and pushing down other human beings. That comes with a long term cost. Why do we have to have the largest military in the world by a huge margin? Because we have to defend against the pissed off people everywhere that we have alienated for generations, and it is only at gunpoint or in the target of a missile that we can maintain their compliance in our unfair system. (edit: Sure there are also bad/mean/violent offenders in the world for which we are not to blame, and for which we can be a viable police force as part of helping to ensure a more stable world... I am not advocating the complete abandonment of our military system or a complete isolationist stance to let the weeds of the world grow out of control).
So part of the cost of the cheap Walmart stuff is a monstrously large military. We just don't connect the dots to see how cheap is not really cheap. It's like buying the razor stick for super cheap and then paying a lot for the razor blades.
We also pay through increased risk of violence in our country (and for our sons and daughters who join the military) as a retaliation for our past and current transgressions. And we pay because it contributes to the other countries of the world reacting to our example, and beholden to the rules of game theory, to compete with similar tactics that diminish our global civilization.
Am I blaming Walmart for our terrorism and global security problems? No. But they and many companies like them, and us consumers, are a part of the problem. It all ties together, and the sooner we have honest national conversations about it, the sooner we can move toward elevating our society.
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
"opposing free trade"
Free trade requires popular sovereignty and popular resource sovereignty....neither of which, to varying degrees, are the status quo in a great many of our trading partners.
Free trade requires, at least, these basic conditions to be met. And where they are not met it is absolutely the correct response to put restrictions in place.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 04:15pm PT
|
I do not AT ALL believe in equal outcomes for all. I believe in expanding what we consider baseline human rights for all (e.g. some level of healthcare and education), and then people must rely on their intellect, perseverance, endurance, appetite for risk, negotiating skills, or other qualities to secure for themselves a future commensurate with the value they create.
In other words, you're a Marxist.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 04:24pm PT
|
If we don't win, I think it will be because of .. people just not being informed about which candidate best fits what they personally want.
Spot on Bernie-splaining for the overwhelming number of African-Americans who don't support him.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 05:11pm PT
|
Hey Gary, it may be obvious to you, but I and perhaps others too need some help connecting the dots between my statements and your labeling it Marxism. I do agree that subsistence should not be defined as a point barely above starvation, that it should be correlated with the "we hold these truths to self-evident" founding concepts of America. Perhaps that is what you are latching onto as Marxism.
Or is it the labor theory of value? I do not consider the output of workers to be a simple commodity, except perhaps in the simplest circumstances of a worker on an assembly line or someone shoveling a pile of coal. I do agree that techology can reduce the value of manual labor, but I think the economic value of labor should be measured by what is the actual output of a person's productivity, which is a complex function of their training and early life circumstances and present motivations, and available resources and supporting technology, and the present or future value to society for what is produced, etc. So I don't see my direct connection to Marxism here. I'll admit to not having studied Marxism, so I welcome honest wisdom that you might be willing to share.
Or are you just projecting your own feelings of shame in relation to Marxism onto me, and hoping that I will feel shame that suppresses my rational thought? Or maybe you just hope most readers will feel the same shame as you when the word Marxism is mentioned, so just simply saying that word you will magically instill fear in readers that what I have logically presented might somehow be connected to Marxism, or more generally, "something bad"?
Your choice of imagery to include with your post would seem to indicate this last motivation. Is it your intention to symbolize that you are the woman in the image, and you are mocking that you could be emotionally or intellectually moved by the concepts previously presented? Or are you obliquely "calling me names" by referencing that I am emotionally brittle like the person appears to be? Or is it just a non-sequitur because you didn't have rational content but felt the need to respond?
Or maybe the joke just flew over my head and I'm taking this stuff more seriously than you, because I have the courage to honestly state what I want and take a stand for something? Because I'm the kid who builds a castle while you are the kid who runs around knocking over other kids' castles?
Let's keep this closer to a Charlie Rose type of discussion, and less like the World Wrestling Federation. But I guess a little comic relief doesn't hurt though to keep moods from getting ugly ;)
|
|
Lurkingtard
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 05:11pm PT
|
Hillary is the best republican candidate.
It's like the NBA this year. The western finals will be the real championship.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 06:06pm PT
|
Great video HFCS.
She is hard not to like.
Edit; Keep posting Nut.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2016 - 06:22pm PT
|
Hillary vs Bernie .........
bottom line - it does not matter which one of those two is elected vs Trump
the reason should be obvious - because the Republicans have a huge majority control of the House of Representatives and they will have that control of the House after Nov 7 regardless
no legislation can become law without the House voting in favor of it
therefore, None of Hillary's or Bernie's legislative desires can or will become law
and that goes for Trump's big talk also, he would need both the House and Senate
to pass what he wants, and no Democratic Clinton or Sanders would sign it
look for nothing but dinner parties to come out of the Presidency for the next 8 years
just as President Obama has been unable to pass any legislation since the Republicans took over the House back in 2010 - divided government will continue
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!