Originally Posted by woj (Post 20709065)

I don't think that is the right question... I think it should be established if it's even desirable to have tax payers pay for higher ed of others in the first place... and I'm far from convinced that it actually would be a good idea...

what's so desirable about forcing one person to pay for higher education of someone else? what's wrong with paying for your own higher ed?

How do you feel about government getting involved in "venture capital" type of activities? Someone wants to start a business, should government be involved in funding companies? After all, if they succeed we will all benefit?

How is getting higher ed different from starting a business? you are proposing funding a student for many 10s of thousands of $$... would you be as open to fund anyone that wants to start a business for similar amounts?

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 20709239)

Exactly! A bachelor's degree is hardly worth the parchment its printed on. Now imagine the worth of it when they start giving them away for free. Companies these days won't even schedule an interview unless you have a Masters.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20709284)

My point is about your comment that socialism = big government. not the efficacy of any one social program.

again, my point is thus: America has a long and rich history of embracing social programs, they are woven into the fabric of the USA. A social program does not necessarily require huge/bloated bureaucracies to administer.

i'm not the guy championing social security here, i used it as an example of the USA embracing big social programs

i'm not the guy championing free higher ed here, i used it as en example of how a social program wouldn't neccesarily require an accompanying big bureacracy.

i'm not a socialist. I specifically cited what i like most about Bernie and that's his promise to reform campaign finance and his view of ISIS/foreign policy.

Originally Posted by woj (Post 20709299)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1902_2010.png

where do you think one should draw the line? 50%? 75%? or do you think there is no point where it gets excessive?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20709181)

So I could have landed in the US before my 65th birthday and claimed a pension?

Can you explain how someone can suddenly get Social Security and Medicare without being part of the system?

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 20709336)

We should really bring back the policies of the 1800s, those were simplier times. If everyone just died at 55 we wouldn't have to worry about social security!

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20709337)

There were no social "policies" in the 1800's. Or the 1900's up until 1935.

The govt. was never meant to be involved in those things. Our society decided to get the govt. involved as a means to better people's lives when the great depression hit.
Older people got along just fine before that. Families took care of their parents when they retired back in those times.
The great depression hit so hard that nobody could take care of themselves.

Social Security was a way to make sure that never happened again. As I said...it was sold to the people as the govt. taking YOUR money and paying it out to YOU in retirement.

And that's a lie. It's nothing more now than just another tax... and welfare for anyone over 65.

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 20709338)

I agree, with all that slavery and child labor, really can't beat those times. Now if only we can get rid of these pesky vaccines and modern medicine. At the very least we can stop washing our hands

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 20709347)

Ok so what's the plan when automation (self driving cars etc) puts a giant chunk of the work force out of work. Sorry man, government is going to have to keep stepping in and continually try to work against market forces to keep the country stable.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20709355)

The debate comes down to this:

Do you want a society where everyone fends for themselves (fuck everyone else) or do you want to live in a society with a social safety net so we don't see seniors, the handicapped and the mentally ill living on the streets?

For those who advocate RICH RICH RICH and fuck everyone else take a look at history. That doesn't work. Neither does Communism (everyone owns everything/nothing). We need a BALANCE of the two extremes; a social safety net that also provides incentive to those who can get off the dole. For those who cannot work (the handicap, the elderly) tough titties. We pay for them in a civilized society. Deal with it or move to Russia. LOL

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 20709364)

I don't believe that's accurate at all. I have no problem helping seniors, the handicapped, the mentally ill, homeless, or children in need. I'll gladly do my part to help. And I believe this statement is exactly what's wrong with the entire political landscape. It's either you're for helping EVERYONE or you're all about FUCKING EVERYONE therefore an advocate for the rich. It's all black and white, no gray area. And that's doing nothing but polarizing the sides. Things are not absolute, and they shouldn't be defined as such.

Why can't I be for the little guy? Help seniors, single moms, and mentally ill, but be against moochers and leeches of society? If someone is able bodied but flat out refuses to work because they're lazy, why should I be responsible for them? Why should I wake up at 6am and be responsible for someone who isn't? For those who lack the ability to take care of themselves, it's our responsibility to assist them. But laziness is not a lack of ability, it's a self inflicted ailment with handouts only enabling said sickness.

I lean more right, I'm a registered Republican, but I am pro-choice. I'm pro-marijuana legalization. I'm for gay rights, and think homosexuals should be able to get married. I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination. But if I were to go into a room and state, "I'm a Republican", people would automatically assume none of this was true. That's because there is no in-between. Either you're all in, or all out...and that's not a proper way to approach the issues we currently have in this country.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20709369)

Well maybe you missed the end part where I said we need a BALANCE between the two extremes. Help the elderly, handicapped, etc (as you said) but ALSO try and give incentives for those who DO have the ability to contribute to society and work but instead prefer to be lazy and taken care of.

So we are actualy in agreement here. LOL

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20709369)

Well maybe you missed the end part where I said we need a BALANCE between the two extremes. Help the elderly, handicapped, etc (as you said) but ALSO try and give incentives for those who DO have the ability to contribute to society and work but instead prefer to be lazy and taken care of.

So we are actualy in agreement here. LOL

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20709355)

The debate comes down to this:

Do you want a society where everyone fends for themselves (fuck everyone else) or do you want to live in a society with a social safety net so we don't see seniors, the handicapped and the mentally ill living on the streets?

For those who advocate RICH RICH RICH and fuck everyone else take a look at history. That doesn't work. Neither does Communism (everyone owns everything/nothing). We need a BALANCE of the two extremes; a social safety net that also provides incentive to those who can get off the dole. For those who cannot work (the handicap, the elderly) tough titties. We pay for them in a civilized society. Deal with it or move to Russia. LOL

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20709405)

That's kind of what I said in an earlier post: There is a "sweet spot" between the 2 extremes. I think the govt. went too far in the wrong direction a few decades back and it's time for the pendulum to swing back somewhat.

A staggering 43% of the American workforce is unemployed.
46 million people are on foodstamps.
The national debt is heading for 20 TRILLION dollars.

The govt. is no longer just "helping" older people. It's trying to control far more than that. And the results are the same as always when the govt. gets involved too far.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20709405)

That's kind of what I said in an earlier post: There is a "sweet spot" between the 2 extremes. I think the govt. went too far in the wrong direction a few decades back and it's time for the pendulum to swing back somewhat.

A staggering 43% of the American workforce is unemployed.
46 million people are on foodstamps.
The national debt is heading for 20 TRILLION dollars.

The govt. is no longer just "helping" older people. It's trying to control far more than that. And the results are the same as always when the govt. gets involved too far.

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 20709231)

Half the 18 year olds should be nowhere near a college - they enroll in programs acquiring knowledge that will only be useful shooting their mouths off on Internet forums, most don't even get an undergraduate degree, meanwhile they are now 20 and already in debt with college loans. Donald Trump promises that when he becomes President he will somehow force Apple to manufacture the iPhone and its other products in the USA - industry experts say even if Apple wanted to manufacture in the US they couldn't, a major reason why is the US doesn't have the number of skilled people qualified to do the job - our people are either overqualified/too expensive or underqualified to do the work required. Kids should be in tech/trade schools/community colleges after high school to get the skills to do those kind of jobs.

As for the kids who really are mature enough and have the motivation to go to school and get a degree, here's a list of hundreds of damn good universities in the US with tuition fees between $5-10K a year 2015 US State Colleges and University Tuition Costs Comparison Table - what's the fucking problem with that? There is no reason in the 4 months of summer vacation a kid can't make $5,000 - if the kid wants to live on campus or his own apartment, get a part-time job or Mom and Dad can help out or get a loan. Don't be looking at strangers for handouts, try doing it yourself with some help from those who brought you into this world. If I had my way I'd sterilize everybody over 12, white black and every other color in between, until they are self supporting human beings capable of supporting a child.

Anyway there's not a chance in hell Bernie Sanders will become President of the United States but 20 years from now most of his plan will have come to pass - the US was never the capitalist utopia conservatives like to harken back to, look at the income tax rates in the 1950's - the top marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. There were a ton of loopholes but even so the top tax rate was 50-60%. The US has been on a steady path of increasing socialism since the Great Depression, like the rest of the world's democracies. Reagan and Clinton let the bankers and the very rich get richer and richer without paying their fair share but socialism continued, the national debt is testament to that. As long as the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency I say just keep borrowing and printing money - who's coming to collect on it?

The US needs a flat tax with every loophole the richest and largest corporations and individuals use to avoid paying their fair share wiped out. Trump has railed many times against corporate tax inversions, he's railed against the medical insurance companies, would be very interesting to see if he came through on promises to do something about those.

Bernie would be a complete mess because he'd deliver on the higher taxes for everybody but he'd never be able to pull off most of his plan to pay for his promises while hurting small businesses, costing more jobs, putting more people on the public dole.

Trump isn't the ogre and moron he's playing in this campaign, if he were to get into the White House, he'd reveal himself to be what he really is - a New Yorker, more liberal than conservative, he'd appease the right who got him elected by being tough on immigration, supporting the 2nd Amendment to the hilt, and just good old fashioned American patriotism/jingoism.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 20709459)

Read the book rise of the robots and you will understand how you are being played.

Originally Posted by ITraffic (Post 20709697)

lol i seriously hope you don't believe the current drive towards automation and ai is because of a min wage increase avoidance.

if you do you truly have been brainwashed buy your propaganda system there.

Why Robots Mean Interest Rates Could Go Even Lower In The Future - Bloomberg Business

but don't worry as more and more of the population is made useless and extraneous over the next decade there will be plenty of political extremism for you to get behind as well.