(02-12-2016, 03:11 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-12-2016, 02:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It was a good debate

Thanks, HotD, I'm glad I took the time to listen.

I like Bernie, just not as POTUS material.

Hillary is smart, so smart. That's what runs through my mind when I listen to her speak. I think she'd make a great Prez, it's not like there are any other (better) options. I like the attitude of the guy whose name begins with a K. It's horrible that I can't recall it right now.

There's nothing in the world that could ever make me want that job. Nothing. You can't make everyone happy & satisfied...ever.

Kasich

Bernie is annoying with wanting to give everyone free shit on the taxpayers dime. That's why he's popular with youngsters, so they can work at McDonalds for 15 bucks an hour while receiving free college tuition while the rest of us who had to struggle to get we are have to pay for it.

The free tuition would be paid-for by a per-transaction tax on Wall Street street speculation not individual tax-payers, according to Sanders' plan.

I really like the idea of encouraging/affording more Americans to be better educated by putting a cost on speculative traders who hurt their investors with perpetual high-risk trades and losses. The tax-payers bailed out Wall Street when it drove itself into the ground with that bullshit and screwed our economy.

A very small tax on all speculative trades could generate massive revenues to cover tuition and reduce existing student loan debt. Seems more than fair to me, based on what I know about it.

Ref: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/...at-is-that

Why not just extend high school 2 more years? It's not like they would "have" to go. But if not go to trade school. I'm sure Bernie could relate to that, or as I like to call him "B.S." .......the system is already there. How much could it cost? Hell, they went the other way so that they could go as soon as they could wipe their own ass already.

That's it! I'm running for President!!!.............I've always thought "Huma" was kinda cute. I would pardon her for free.

I think students are ready for a more independent course of study by age 18 and extending high school by 2 years would be a very bad idea. It would hold back elective adult study focus, probably result in lower high school graduation rates as adults would be bored with such tight structure for six years, and the idea of 20 years olds and 14 year olds running around on the same campus rubs me wrong.

I think academic and trade education for young (and old) adults is beneficial to society, like you feel about firearms education for children. We don't have to agree, my friend.

I'd rather not see tuition-free public college be unlimited and create a 'life-long student who never works" subculture, however. I think there should be reasonable terms and limits. But, making higher education more accessible to everyone, regardless of family income, is a laudible goal in my opinion.

They wouldn't be mixed in with 9-12 grade just like grammar school is not mixed with H.S. silly.

If you're proposing to extend high school by two years but have a separate campus for the last two years, your suggestion makes even less sense, knucklehead.

Is the air different out west? Use the box Luke...........use the box.

“Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy. But it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders," Tapper said.

“What do you tell voters who are new to the process, who says this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked Wasserman-Schultz.
*******************************************
If the Republicans did this the people would string them up.

They are in such dis-array its almost comical

More sad news.............
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 (UPI) -- The Democratic National Committee decided Friday to start accepting contributions from lobbyists and PACs, undoing a policy adopted in 2008.

The policy, adopted when Barack Obama became the party's presumptive nominee, is the last of the committee's restrictions on such donations.

linky

I'm not sure if the Republicans do this or that the Dems just used it as a selling pitch in previous elections.

Mags...I don't share your penchant for stereotyping all people from California or any specific states, and all people from the east or west, and all people who don't worship guns, and all people who live in urban areas, and black criminals vs white criminals, and people who have assumed conservative or liberal views, etc.

But, I like you and that's a big part of what you do. So, it's not a problem other than this white, urban, female, religiously and politically unaffiliated, middle class, middle aged, Californian often has no reaction or response other than to shrug and smile when you toss those stereotypes at me yet again.

I'm not for free tuition on anyone's dime, not even wall street. First of all it's not going to work because they'll get around it, and it's going to create even more self entitled little pricks then we already have. I think it's perfectly fine to let the younger folks make it the same way we did.

I agree with true universal healthcare (not Obama Care), however. I think the speculation tax on wall street should be put towards that and putting a stop to the insurance companies. To me that is a bigger agenda than sending a bunch of snot nosed kids to college.

I understand that view. And, I wouldn't support unlimited free tuition; there would need to be reasonable terms attached to minimize abuses to the system.

But, I love the idea that teens from families that couldn't afford college would have the opportunity to pursue higher education, and people whose industries were dying could learn new trades... I have zero problem with it being paid for by a small tax on Wall Street speculative trades.

It might create some more entitled pricks, IDK. But, I think it would probably create a more informed and educated America overall. That would be a very good thing, in my view. So, I'm really open to the concept.

They're not free but what's the cost of a community college? I haven't looked lately but I seem to recall the're pretty damn cheap. Instead of making "free" colleges (I'm with Sally...I think free is over-the-top, why not just continue the community college model and make them 4 year? As far as I know, they're all two year, associate degree institutions.

Donald Trump used to advocate for a single payer health care system like I think you're suggesting, sally....same as Bernie. That was before Trump became a Republican candidate. I don't know if he still advocates for it and I don't remember seeing a plan for how the cost would be covered.

I don't know how much community colleges are elsewhere, user. But I paid $750 this semester for my niece's 5 class itinerary at city college. Books were about $300. I think 'cheap' is subjective. Anyway, Hilary's tuition proposal is probably closer to your suggestion. It makes 2 year community college free. 4 year public college tuition would be lowered and supplemented by grants, with existing student debt being open to low interest refinancing. Her plan would be financed by increased tax on high income earners.

As compared to the CSU or UC programs, I find that very cheap and reasonable even for those near the bottom of the income scale. It's not a surprise expense...summer jobs (and/or working through school like your niece), the parent(s) putting aside $40/month.

I find that very inexpensive and doable and I know some trade schools cost far more than that.

I've heard Bernie talk about equality in regards to standard of living. In theory, that's a lovely thought but the reality is, people work for their standard of living. In my mind, it comes down to choices people have made in their life that have led them where they are today and determines what they have in life. Someone's poor choices are not my responsibility.

Bernie talks about a lot about income inequality and a rigged economy; that's true. Hillary now talks a lot about those topics as well and has made them top focus points in her platform.

Unless you don't believe that generational poverty exists in the U.S. and you do believe that all billionaires (many of whom inherited generational wealth) work harder than everyone else so they should continue to be able to buy politicians and be rewarded with policies, tax breaks, and bail outs at the expense of most everyone else, they're both right.

I don't think kids from poor families/areas have the same opportunities to pursue higher education as kids from middle and high income families. I don't think that kids born to families with a lower standard of living are therefore inherently lazier. There are only so many scholarships, and financial aid loans are currently double the interest rate of auto loans; resulting in a lot of debt for college grads and billions of dollars a year in profit for the federal government. And, I'm sure that over $1,000 a semester out of pocket for community college is unreasonable and not doable for a lot of high school grads, single working parents, people who have been laid off....

Up until the 80s, tuition was free at many colleges in California and some in New York. Recently, Oregon and Tennessee adopted policies to make community colleges free, to help end generational poverty and move closer to equal opportunity. Vocational courses are offered at many such institutions; not everyone is interested in structured higher education and there's nothing wrong with that. But, some of them would be very interested in the programs to become certified home health aides, LVNs, forensic technicians, mechanics, etc...

Bernie's, and now Hillary's, tuition plans include work/study requirements, so those getting tuition-free or low cost 4-year public college are also gaining work experience and contributing to the cost of their education. I think that's important. Anyway, even if Bernie's and Hillary's current tuition plans/goals are too aggressive in the short term and the first step is making all or most community colleges tuition free across the country, it's a big step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned and I'm really glad there's a national conversation underway about it.

I agree with sally that access to all types of health care for all citizens, regardless of standard of living, is equally or more important than access to higher education and vocational programs. However, that's a bigger expense that's attached to people of all ages for life. I don't believe health care could or should be financed by a fraction of a percent tax on speculative Wall Street trades. I think Sanders' plan for universal health care has some pros and cons and would have a much greater impact (or possibly render extinct?) private health/insurance companies and providers. The hit to Wall Street in order to finance tuition-free public college is small and fair, in my opinion. The hit to the existing health care industry and some employers to move to single-payer (Medicare for all), on the other hand, would likely be huge. Here's Sanders' universal health care plan: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/.