2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[cobl04]

A fucking brain surgeon said the words "health care is not a right" in all fucking seriousness.

I mean, I just do not get it. Of everything, that seems borderline evil to me and I can't believe there are people who would support that. What the fuck do they do if they get sick? Masturbate to the bald eagle and pray they get better?

Fuck, even Trump showed he's a better human being than all of them on this issue (bar Kasich). He was like "I'm not going to leave someone to die in the street." And then Cruz took that as an opportunity to abuse him and the crowd went wild. Am I fucking insane? What the ever-loving fuck is wrong with America?!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What the fuck do they do if they get sick?

Simple. They just don't go to the hospital. Even when they really need to. Because by going to the hospital, all that'll do is rack up their bills even further, and they don't want to put that burden on their family.

Like I said, this particular issue pisses me off SO much-I've mentioned in the past the situation with my dad that we went through in 2009/2010, and I seriously wish like hell I could take all the idiot Republican candidates who are so deeply against universal healthcare back in time and show them what my family had to go through and deal with back then. I'd LOVE to see them try and tell my family then that healthcare "isn't a right" after that.

The part that kills me the most about this? These politicians who are SO deeply against government healthcare work for the fucking federal government and are therefore getting the very sort of healthcare they don't think we average citizens deserve (it's kind of like with the Social Security issue. I sure hope the politicians who always harp on about getting rid of that aren't going to sit there and collect THEIR own precious Social Security when they hit that age, 'cause otherwise...)!

Fuck, even Trump showed he's a better human being than all of them on this issue (bar Kasich). He was like "I'm not going to leave someone to die in the street." And then Cruz took that as an opportunity to abuse him and the crowd went wild. Am I fucking insane? What the ever-loving fuck is wrong with America?!

Wasn't there a political debate back in 2011 where this issue was being discussed, and a moderator asked the Republican candidates if they'd let someone die if they didn't have decent healthcare, and the audience cheered at that, too? Sadly, this is nothing new. They've got theirs, so who cares about anyone else? If someone can't afford healthcare, in their eyes, they're just "not working hard enough" or they're "lazy moochers who want nothing but handouts".

It's complete and total, flat out insulting as hell, bullshit, and one of the many, many, MANY reasons I am staying the hell away from voting for a Republican candidate.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I think it's an extreme manifestation of a sort of frontier ethos 'I got mine', 'every man for himself', total independence, each citizen a sort of frigging quasi-independent statelet. It's the complete denial of and antithesis of society (except maybe at the most basic, immediate level of family and close associates).

It is, in short, a hyper-steroidised endgame to the old classic liberal/libertarian vision of 'freedom to'. 'Freedom from' (want, hunger, sickness, illiteracy) don't even enter into it.

 

[cobl04]

Neither does the plumage.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I agree - basic education is a right, higher education is not. Health care really should be.

None of those are actually rights, as per our constitution. You know, like, free speech is a right. Basic education is something we've set up, but it's not guaranteed to you as a citizen. Virtually, it's a right.

I think that these things should all be rights. We sort of have to make them rights first. Legally. Constitutional protections.

And that's inclusive of higher education. If a nation is willing to educate its people, it is capable of systematically solving so many more of its problems.

 

[Axver]

Just a question that hopefully doesn't offend anyone...but here goes; is free tuition a basic human right?

Whether or not it's a right, there are good arguments both ways regarding free higher education tuition. On the side for making it free, a society enjoys an economic boost through a highly educated workforce. If the economic gain is higher than the cost of providing the tuition, it makes sense to subsidise it to encourage as many as possible to study and generate further economic growth. There is also another aspect, that undertaking higher education in the short term is a cost to the student. I don't mean in the sense of fees and charges, but that for the duration of their higher education, they will be earning less (often much less) than their peers who go directly into the workforce, and may not reach the same income level for some years after graduation. Hence there is a case that if a highly educated workforce is beneficial to a society, it should support those people who choose to forego immediate economic gain.

On the other hand, in the long run those who earn a university degree enjoy considerable private gains. I don't know the current statistics, but I recall old Australian figures that suggested, in the course of a person's working life, an individual with a university education will earn roughly $1 million more than a person without (so about $20k more per year). Hence they should pay for - or at least make a contribution to the cost of - this education. Higher education is also something more commonly pursued by the middle and upper classes than the working classes, which has made some labour movements sceptical of free tertiary education. They ask whether it really delivers the gains for the poorest groups that it purports to. Australia had free uni for about 15 years across the 1970s-80s and in theory it was meant to open up the system to working class people but in practice those who benefited most were mature-age middle class people.

And then there's the wider question of whether it is even desirable to encourage wider and wider participation in higher education through schemes such as free tuition. This gets to the heart of bigger issues about what universities should teach, whether they should offer purely vocational courses, etc. I think the horse has bolted on this one; higher education is now such a large industry that as much as many people may lament "you shouldn't need a degree to get a career in X", not much is going to change.

I agree - basic education is a right, higher education is not.

I'm not sure about this, partly for reasons connected to my last paragraph above. If access to most professions (and, indeed, some trades) is now dependent on a university education when even forty years ago it was not, has university become so significant that it should be seen as a central part of education rather than an optional extra? Remember, a hundred years ago a similar view was taken about secondary school; most people left school by their early or mid-teens, with only the wealthy, academically gifted, highly motivated, and fortunate completing a secondary education. Many did not need one; if you were going to be a shearer or a potter or a blacksmith or whatever, you didn't need to stay in school, you needed to learn hands-on. Gradually secondary education came to be seen as just as essential as primary education. Is tertiary education now coming to occupy a similar importance?

---

As a final thought on university funding, I think Australia's HECS system is a very elegant response. The government funds courses, but students are expected to make a contribution to the cost - they can either pay it up front and receive a discount, or defer payment until they receive the private gains that accrue from a university education, defined in this case as earning the average wage or above. The deferred cost is a loan that is indexed to inflation but on which no interest is charged, and repayment occurs through the tax system. So if you go to uni and never see any financial gain from it, you basically got your course for free.

 

[Axver]

I think it's an extreme manifestation of a sort of frontier ethos 'I got mine', 'every man for himself', total independence, each citizen a sort of frigging quasi-independent statelet.

I find it interesting that both America and the Australasian colonies were experiencing rapid frontier expansion at the same time yet developed very different cultures. At both fringes, of course, individuals had to be highly self-sufficient, but in a broader sense in the Australasian colonies there was an expectation the government would provide a wide range of public works and other services to promote economic and social growth. This isn't to say the US frontier didn't have a level of public encouragement, but it was usually undertaken in conjunction with private enterprise, e.g. the state granting land to railways that would in turn promote settlement of the area and accrue profits from the traffic, as opposed to the Australasian colonies building the railways themselves to open the land.

I suppose part of the explanation for this is that the eastern US states were already well developed, while the Australasian colonies were young and small and lacked the necessary private capital. There were, in some colonies, attempts to provide these services privately, but these were rarely successful and passed quickly into public hands. So America developed a sort of ethos of total independence driven by private investment and wealth, while Australia and New Zealand developed a cultural expectation that there would be a broader sphere of government participation.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I find it interesting that both America and the Australasian colonies were experiencing rapid frontier expansion at the same time yet developed very different cultures. At both fringes, of course, individuals had to be highly self-sufficient, but in a broader sense in the Australasian colonies there was an expectation the government would provide a wide range of public works and other services to promote economic and social growth. This isn't to say the US frontier didn't have a level of public encouragement, but it was usually undertaken in conjunction with private enterprise, e.g. the state granting land to railways that would in turn promote settlement of the area and accrue profits from the traffic, as opposed to the Australasian colonies building the railways themselves to open the land.

I suppose part of the explanation for this is that the eastern US states were already well developed, while the Australasian colonies were young and small and lacked the necessary private capital. There were, in some colonies, attempts to provide these services privately, but these were rarely successful and passed quickly into public hands. So America developed a sort of ethos of total independence driven by private investment and wealth, while Australia and New Zealand developed a cultural expectation that there would be a broader sphere of government participation.

I think there were probably all sorts of differences, starting with the very different groups of people who began the (white) American project in the east, way back when. They were, most of them, on the run from something back in Europe. Ok, not all of them. Though I read a very interesting essay once that traced a straight line between the protestant Scots-Irish and Jerry Falwell and that whole conservative culture. People go on about the Founders and 1776 and all that, but I think the fundamental culture must be traced back to the formative centuries prior to that.

Australia was a project of the nineteenth century British empire. Also, I dunno, small population base, a much less bountiful or amenable country once you get out of the eastern coast watershed... it doesn't really lend itself to a nation of independent private entepreneurs, each for himself.

 

[Axver]

Though I read a very interesting essay once that traced a straight line between the protestant Scots-Irish and Jerry Falwell and that whole conservative culture.

I'd be interested in reading that, because surely there are parallels down here too. Look at Otago, founded by highly religious Scots, some of them almost theocratic in nature (especially Thomas Burns, cousin of Robert).

it doesn't really lend itself to a nation of independent private entepreneurs, each for himself.

Though its frontier sure lent itself to independent murderous racist pastoralists...!

 

[cobl04]

Don't reply to my Monty Python reference then, cunt.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'd be interested in reading that, because surely there are parallels down here too. Look at Otago, founded by highly religious Scots, some of them almost theocratic in nature (especially Thomas Burns, cousin of Robert).

It was a blog, long defunct, by that Billmon fellow (think that was the nom de plume) who was active in the Bush years with his 'Whiskey Jar' site. Might still exist in archived form somewhere.

Though its frontier sure lent itself to independent murderous racist pastoralists...!

Aka, the squatters. First in, best dressed.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Don't reply to my Monty Python reference then, cunt.

I actually had no idea what you were talking about, or even who you were talking to... but then the penny dropped. Very good!

 

[DaveC]

Neither does the plumage.

 

[Mack_Again]

well i thought of this and I am really terrible person.

 

[digitize]

If we just revamp our bullshit higher education system, free tuition wouldn't be as big a deal

How would you revamp it?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[trojanchick99]

So, ahead of Super Tuesday, Donald Trump fails to condemn the KKK because he needs more information on them. Seriously.



Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How would you revamp it?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I can think of a couple of things:

- charging of interest on subsidized loans
- charge for the actual cost of tuition, not the immense college bureaucracy that supplies for stuff like athletics fees, campus prettification, SGA, etc.
- better government support of college institutions
- promote interstate education by means of removing the "out of state tuition" rate for public state universities (in the EU, all EU citizens/residents are charged the same rates, whereas international non-EU students are charged more)
- actually have the federal government fund higher education (given that most states have reversed course on caring)
- have universities held to a standard of allocation of funds (having worked for two different branches of my university, I can tell you that very often they spend money 'because they have to')
- the investment in Greek life (yup, you pay for this...)
- how about those NFL stadiums sprouting up at each university? How about 'fuck college sports' in general
- athletic scholarships, the NCAA


We had it made in Florida, just ten years ago. A little program called Florida Bright Futures. Did okay in high school? They comp'd you 75% of tuition on 130 credits. Did good in high school? 100%. All funded by the Florida lottery, it made college costs very reasonable (you'd pay the $700 a semester for books and stupid fees and whatnot). Then, the state government started to dip into things. Not only does the 75/100 model lie nowadays (they just comp a per credit hour that's nowhere near the real cost), but the state government of Rick Scott decided to defund education further (over a billion) to fulfill his "conservative" agenda, forcing tuition to spike 15% two years in a row. It now costs roughly $6000 a year to go to a Florida state institution. Six years ago, when I was a freshman, it was $4000. And that $4000 used to be virtually covered, if you weren't a total idiot.


The cost of a 4 year degree has tremendously outpaced inflation. It didn't come from out of nowhere. Quasi-free tuition isn't as crazy as one might think. There's just a huge system of bureaucracy and government that drive the prices up.

 

[corianderstem]

Trump

Who?

Trump

Never heard of him.

Trump

Need more information.

 

[digitize]

I can think of a couple of things:

- charging of interest on subsidized loans
- charge for the actual cost of tuition, not the immense college bureaucracy that supplies for stuff like athletics fees, campus prettification, SGA, etc.
- better government support of college institutions
- promote interstate education by means of removing the "out of state tuition" rate for public state universities (in the EU, all EU citizens/residents are charged the same rates, whereas international non-EU students are charged more)
- actually have the federal government fund higher education (given that most states have reversed course on caring)
- have universities held to a standard of allocation of funds (having worked for two different branches of my university, I can tell you that very often they spend money 'because they have to')
- the investment in Greek life (yup, you pay for this...)
- how about those NFL stadiums sprouting up at each university? How about 'fuck college sports' in general
- athletic scholarships, the NCAA


We had it made in Florida, just ten years ago. A little program called Florida Bright Futures. Did okay in high school? They comp'd you 75% of tuition on 130 credits. Did good in high school? 100%. All funded by the Florida lottery, it made college costs very reasonable (you'd pay the $700 a semester for books and stupid fees and whatnot). Then, the state government started to dip into things. Not only does the 75/100 model lie nowadays (they just comp a per credit hour that's nowhere near the real cost), but the state government of Rick Scott decided to defund education further (over a billion) to fulfill his "conservative" agenda, forcing tuition to spike 15% two years in a row. It now costs roughly $6000 a year to go to a Florida state institution. Six years ago, when I was a freshman, it was $4000. And that $4000 used to be virtually covered, if you weren't a total idiot.


The cost of a 4 year degree has tremendously outpaced inflation. It didn't come from out of nowhere. Quasi-free tuition isn't as crazy as one might think. There's just a huge system of bureaucracy and government that drive the prices up.

So, are you just suggesting that the government should pick up more of the tab on education (in other words, redistributing the costs away from college students to society as a whole) or that there's substantial way to actually cut what college costs? You mention sports (although my school is one of the few lucky ones that profits from sports and sends some of that profit over to academics) and bureaucracy as places to cut. I'm honesty not sure how much that accounts for the explosion in college costs. A lot of professors here at UT like to attack the bureaucracy (and in doing so tend to make subtle jabs at millennial-focused institutions like the Gender and Sexuality Center); I'd be curious to know how much that has actually contributed to things.

If you're mainly interested in redistributing the cost of college, not actually reducing it, I've not made my mind up there yet. Government completely picking up the tab for higher education is actually probably a pretty regressive wealth transfer, insofar as it would still likely to be relatively well-off people who would attend college under such a scheme. There's a good question about whether it's a good idea for the government to be regressively subsidizing what still amounts to positive-ROI investments for relatively well-off people. As far as negative-ROI degrees (e.g. what happens with a lot of liberal arts degrees nowadays), that's where things get interesting. There's probably a good argument that there are enough positive externalities for society resulting from such degrees to warrant some degree of government subsidization, although I'm not sure what the right amount is (more or less than there is now).

Of course, any reasonable person can agree that some of the most egregious examples of negative-ROI degrees have causes that can and should be stopped. Most prominently, it's obscene for government-subsidized loans to be flowing to predatory useless for-profit colleges.

If the government spigot is going to start flowing more to education, though, I'm much more inclined to see it flow to K-12, especially to poorer students. That's where the real inequality happens.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

Trump beating Hillary in New York 41-38 according to new Sienna poll. If this is true, it can be argued PA and Michigan go Trump. Maybe more. I'm interested to see these state breakdowns as we get further into the election cycle. Initially I'd be shocked to see Trump within Five points of Hillary in NY. I think the Blue Wall Rust Belt would be in play from PA to MN. There is less Hispanic population in these states. Plenty of Blue Collar Dems that may crossover to Trump. These are areas that have had their manufacturing bases decimated in the past 30 years.

I live outside Wilkes-Barre Scranton metro PA. A lot of legacy Democrats whose parents loved FDR and passed the affiliation down. My step-dad has voted Democrat his whole life and is now switching his affiliation to vote for Trump. Several other coworkers doing the same thing. I know it's anecdotal by that's my report on the ground from what I'm witnessing.

The Union vote is fairly well educated when it comes to to livelihood of their businesses. Trump's acknowledgement of Trade imbalances is going a long way with these voters.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Trump tweets Mussolini quote and won't condemn KKK, yet still has the blind that are willing to let this country burn. Yay


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Hewson]

Trump beating Hillary in New York 41-38 according to new Sienna poll. If this is true, it can be argued PA and Michigan go Trump. Maybe more.

Could also just be due to the fact that NY is Trump's home state. (And merely Billary's adopted state)

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Trump tweets Mussolini quote and won't condemn KKK, yet still has the blind that are willing to let this country burn. Yay


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

At least he doesn't support letting people die in the streets. Cruz is a champ.

 

[Irvine511]

Trump beating Hillary in New York 41-38 according to new Sienna poll. If this is true, it can be argued PA and Michigan go Trump. Maybe more. I'm interested to see these state breakdowns as we get further into the election cycle. Initially I'd be shocked to see Trump within Five points of Hillary in NY. I think the Blue Wall Rust Belt would be in play from PA to MN. There is less Hispanic population in these states. Plenty of Blue Collar Dems that may crossover to Trump. These are areas that have had their manufacturing bases decimated in the past 30 years.

I live outside Wilkes-Barre Scranton metro PA. A lot of legacy Democrats whose parents loved FDR and passed the affiliation down. My step-dad has voted Democrat his whole life and is now switching his affiliation to vote for Trump. Several other coworkers doing the same thing. I know it's anecdotal by that's my report on the ground from what I'm witnessing.

The Union vote is fairly well educated when it comes to to livelihood of their businesses. Trump's acknowledgement of Trade imbalances is going a long way with these voters.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Every election cycle, the GOP thinks it's possible to win Pennsylvania.

Every election cycle they are wrong.

This year will be no different. Urban voters from Philly and Pittsburgh will overwhelm the rest of the state, as Mrs Clinton appears to get African-American women as inspired as Barack Obama did.

If a black candidate can win working class whites twice, what's going to stop a white lady from doing the same?

Mrs Clinton does not possess the same political skills of her husband or Obama, but Mr Trump is a vastly weaker candidate than the Republicans that were soundly beaten in PA.

 

[corianderstem]

The Mussolini tweet has something to do with a Gawker Twitter bot ... or something. I'm not going to pretend to understand, but it sounds like it wasn't actually a thing Trump did.

Or something.

He is, however, guilty of everything else, including being a giant orange turd.

 

[Mack_Again]

So, ahead of Super Tuesday, Donald Trump fails to condemn the KKK because he needs more information on them. Seriously.



Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

I hope I know well enough about KKK. or something.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

So, are you just suggesting that the government should pick up more of the tab on education (in other words, redistributing the costs away from college students to society as a whole) or that there's substantial way to actually cut what college costs? You mention sports (although my school is one of the few lucky ones that profits from sports and sends some of that profit over to academics) and bureaucracy as places to cut. I'm honesty not sure how much that accounts for the explosion in college costs. A lot of professors here at UT like to attack the bureaucracy (and in doing so tend to make subtle jabs at millennial-focused institutions like the Gender and Sexuality Center); I'd be curious to know how much that has actually contributed to things.

If you're mainly interested in redistributing the cost of college, not actually reducing it, I've not made my mind up there yet. Government completely picking up the tab for higher education is actually probably a pretty regressive wealth transfer, insofar as it would still likely to be relatively well-off people who would attend college under such a scheme. There's a good question about whether it's a good idea for the government to be regressively subsidizing what still amounts to positive-ROI investments for relatively well-off people. As far as negative-ROI degrees (e.g. what happens with a lot of liberal arts degrees nowadays), that's where things get interesting. There's probably a good argument that there are enough positive externalities for society resulting from such degrees to warrant some degree of government subsidization, although I'm not sure what the right amount is (more or less than there is now).

Of course, any reasonable person can agree that some of the most egregious examples of negative-ROI degrees have causes that can and should be stopped. Most prominently, it's obscene for government-subsidized loans to be flowing to predatory useless for-profit colleges.

If the government spigot is going to start flowing more to education, though, I'm much more inclined to see it flow to K-12, especially to poorer students. That's where the real inequality happens.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I'm suggesting a combination of cutting internal costs, supplying federal funding, and restoring state funding.

I would venture to say that the bureaucracy of colleges is significant, if not necessarily a huge difference. I cannot tell you why it costs $12,000 a year (or however much) to go to a state school in PA versus $6000 in Florida -- that much I just don't quite understand. I'm not fully involved in the national picture, but I am involved in my state particularly. I know for sure that the reason tuition has inflated in Florida is because the state cut funding. I think I used my state's particular example because I wanted to paint the picture to suggest quasi-free education isn't *that* difficult to achieve, and that's without actual federal funding. In regards to how much the bureaucracy actually costs... you're usually able to see that from a higher level. Sometimes, that stuff is donation based. I'd venture to say that each individual piece isn't a big deal (saving tens of dollars per student), but the ultimate cost might be on the order of hundreds of dollars. I mean, gym fees alone cost ~$150-200 at my school.

I would also agree that a K-12 focus is more important than a higher education focus. That is, of course, where you make or break someone before adulthood. I'm currently having this very same argument on another forum with someone. I suggested that support of education systematically reduces incarceration -- only to be met with the response "so you're suggesting we should send criminals to college for free?"

 

[BVS]

The Mussolini tweet has something to do with a Gawker Twitter bot ... or something. I'm not going to pretend to understand, but it sounds like it wasn't actually a thing Trump did.

Or something.

He is, however, guilty of everything else, including being a giant orange turd.

Gawker set up a Twitter account to try and prove that Trump will retweet anything that sounds complimentary to him. His ego fell for it and he retweeted the quote.

Just one of the 1000 reasons he's a dangerous asshole. The first time his ego is bruised what is he going to do with his new power? Lock someone up, shoot someone up?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Anyone who thinks a Republican will take New York State is diluting themselves.

 

[BVS]

http://youtu.be/Ixi9_cciy8w

THIS used to be the Republican Party, nothing like the cess pool it is today. Like I've said before, I really hope this election makes the GOP rethink their messaging, catering to the ignorant for so long has given you the likes of Cruz and Trump. If you don't learn from this election, then you've made yourself obsolete.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference