Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

[Lafayette]

Am I the only one to look at our recent historical timeline in this manner:
*1963: MLK and the March on Washington opened up a great hope that ethnic differences could be dealt with, and social fairness be installed.
*1964: LBJ lowers upper-income taxation rates and nobody says a word.
*1982: RR lowers drastically upper-income taxation rates and Income Disparity leaps to an inordinate magnitude.
*2011: The One Percent inaugurate "We are the 99%" (derived from economist Joseph Stiglitz's May 2011 article "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" in Vanity Fair) as a slogan of the Occupy Movement

Goodness, that's half a century and nothing has been really accomplished to diminish rampant Income Disparity and bring about basic Socioeconomic Fairness. (If you've not learned that lesson from recent events in Dallas, then think about it.)

Once we decided to go there, we got to the moon quicker ... !
___________________

 

[jonny5]

Am I the only one to look at our recent historical timeline in this manner:
*1963: MLK and the March on Washington opened up a great hope that ethnic differences could be dealt with, and social fairness be installed.
*1964: LBJ lowers upper-income taxation rates and nobody says a word.
*1982: RR lowers drastically upper-income taxation rates and Income Disparity leaps to an inordinate magnitude.
*2011: The One Percent inaugurate "We are the 99%" (derived from economist Joseph Stiglitz's May 2011 article "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" in Vanity Fair) as a slogan of the Occupy Movement

Goodness, that's half a century and nothing has been really accomplished to diminish rampant Income Disparity and bring about basic Socioeconomic Fairness. (If you've not learned that lesson from recent events in Dallas, then think about it.)

Once we decided to go there, we got to the moon quicker ... !
___________________

What are you doing about it? You dont even live here.

 

[Lafayette]

What are you doing about it? You dont even live here.

Silly question.

Moving right along ...
_______________________

 

[Lafayette]

And let me say truly great course designers will make education as fun as the most addictive video games or TV shows. Several options to cover most tastes and learning styles.

No doubt, no doubt ...

 

[James972]

And let me say truly great course designers will make education as fun as the most addictive video games or TV shows. Several options to cover most tastes and learning styles.

I agree but also understand that it would take a huge amount of work, time, and experimentation ,i.e., a capitalist voucher system where you survive only if you succeed better than the competition. A lazy libturd union socialist system will obviously never work.

 

[jonny5]

Silly question.

Moving right along ...
_______________________

Silly OP. You keep coming here telling us how would should become like wherever you live. You dont have a stake in it. We who do live here do so because we dont want centralized govt dictating our education or healthcare.

 

[James972]

Silly OP. You keep coming here telling us how would should become like wherever you live. You dont have a stake in it. We who do live here do so because we dont want centralized govt dictating our education or healthcare.

Despite our Founders, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao liberals feel that liberal elites know whats best for us and should impose it at gun point.

 

[eohrnberger]

We don't earn wealth. We earn Income, which is taxed. And if a country has grossly unfair upper-income taxation in the form of a flat-tax at a low rate of 30%, then, yes, Wealth is grossly unfair.

Income, once earned and not spent becomes wealth. There is nothing about wealth that is unfair, unless you want everyone to be poor, which seems to be the case with some of the legislation / regulation that some administrations and legislatures has passed. Does not everyone deserve to keep the rewards of the hard won and hard earned income / wealth?



"poor can go to hell" is leftists unfairly and inaccurately putting words into the mouth of conservatives. It's a load a BS. My view of conservatism is that earn waht you have and what you get, and for the vast majority or the people this is the case. You want to earn more, increase the value of your contribution.



Err. No.



The Watts riots didn't have anything to do with income, wealth, and wealth redistribution. Got that one wrong there sunshine.



The job and compensation market is largely color blind, in spite of what you may think. Legislating what you believe to be better or correct is only distorting the market, which the market will counter act, one way or another.

[/SIZE]

You may believe that the federal minimum wage is also the most prevalent wage, but that would be in incorrect assumption.



So a mere 4.3 percent of the entire workforce earns minimum wage (not including tips) or below.

So 95.7% of the workforce is earning above the federal minimum wage.
What's your problem with that? Do you really think that ever more government intervention is actually going to improve on that? :lamo

Face it. You are little more than a statist and / or a socialist, which to be expected, since you appear to live in France.

Mind you, unlike you, I'm not attempting to dictate to you how you and your nation should run it's economy. Just seems that you feel so privileged, so arrogant, so sure of yourself (unfounded), that the US should adopt your superior economic system. Born and raised here in the US, I don't think so.

Crickets.

 

[ksu_aviator]

This above statement is either ignorance or bad-judgment.

The historical economic facts are quite against the notion. A depression in wages, as begun in 2008 (the Great Recession), happens first and foremost at the bottom of the skills-ladder. That is, the poorest element of our society always suffer first from a recessionary economic context.

Those with higher-level jobs are also affected but not nearly comparably. And frankly, that will perhaps never change.

Come a recession, it is always the bottom rungs of the economic ladder that take the hit first and those at the top who take the hit last. The economic consequence is therefore highly disproportionate.

And since we are all in this market-economy together, it is only fair that those who have enough who should pay (at least subsistence) for those that do not.

Furthermore, a study into the matter of "Who joins Military Service in the US?" (see here) concludes this:

The reason higher level jobs are more elastic is because they have a lower supply of qualified employees. Everything else you posted is not relevant because you didn't understand that very basic bit of information.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Has an armorsmith lost his value?
All things lose value at some point when they get outdated that is the way of the
Economy. New skills rise up to take heir place.

You still are not reading what I was responding to.
If you choose to remain informed of what I was talking about
Then that is not my problem.

I read it, that is why I responded the way I did. You lack this basic understanding of supply and demand. It is foolish to think that increased supply of college graduates will equate to more and better paying jobs. That isn't the case. Jobs won't appear out of thin air and McDonald's managers won't make more money because they have a degree in business. Since the jobs are not going to increase just because we hand out bachelor's degrees, the only other result is that the competition between degree holders will drive down the wages and benefits for the current jobs.

 

[Lafayette]

SOCIETAL EXPLOSION

The reason higher level jobs are more elastic is because they have a lower supply of qualified employees. Everything else you posted is not relevant because you didn't understand that very basic bit of information.

You are right to underline that higher-level jobs are more elastic, but they do no escape the cut-backs provoked by a recessionary period. The higher education of those within this sector allow for a quicker remedy than fellow Americans further down the societal ladder.

The "everything else" you dismiss (and I posted) is not about higher-level jobs. But about the 15% of Americans who do not have such a job due to a lack of qualifications, which you dismiss out of hand as "not relevant".

You just another liberal looking at the world through liberal-eyes wide-open but a closed-mind to the wide Income Disparity that afflicts the nation.

More progressive minds, however, are concerned about the clock-ticking the countdown to a Societal Explosion over said acute disparity. And people like you will have blood on their hands. It's already happening before our very eyes.

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock ...
____________________

 

[Lafayette]

Crickets.

M... r... a...
_______________

 

[Fenton]

Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan



Wow. So she got that idea from Bernie?

Wonder where he got that idea from?

Europe, that's where - every EU country offers free tertiary education. Every damn one, all 28 ...

NB: Next step, Universal Health Care - which will put America on a par with the EU. Finally, 22 years after "Harry and Louise". After all, why not, if Congress gets a total Health Care package free, gratis and for nothing ... ?
__________________

There's no such thing as a " Free education ", or " Free Healthcare " or free anything for that matter

The average European can't be that naive, or can they ?

 

[Lafayette]

I think you know perfectly well what is meant by "free".

But, I'll repeat it anyway. Free HealthCare means that, subsequent to treatment, the patient pays "nothing". Absolutely nothing.

So, because it's "free", does that mean people abuse it by ... uh, breaking more bones? Developing new and exotic cancers? Heart disease? No.

Does 'free" mean independent of how often you fall sick? Yes.

A "free" education means you pay an Entry-fee, that's all, right? One does not pay the true cost of the education (buildings, teachers, electricity, all that)? No.

"Free" means one can go back to school at any age? And you still don't pay anything but an Entry-fee? Yes.

Does that help ... ?
______________________________________________________

 

[clownboy]

I think you know perfectly well what is meant by "free".

But, I'll repeat it anyway. Free HealthCare means that, subsequent to treatment, the patient pays "nothing". Absolutely nothing.

So, because it's "free", does that mean people abuse it by ... uh, breaking more bones? Developing new and exotic cancers? Heart disease? No.

Does 'free" mean independent of how often you fall sick? Yes.

Does that help ... ?

You have to understand what the word "free" means to most Americans. Like candidates promising you'll get a free phone. Some actually believe that.

 

[Fenton]

I think you know perfectly well what is meant by "free".

But, I'll repeat it anyway. Free HealthCare means that, subsequent to treatment, the patient pays "nothing". Absolutely nothing.

So, because it's "free", does that mean people abuse it by ... uh, breaking more bones? Developing new and exotic cancers? Heart disease? No.

Does 'free" mean independent of how often you fall sick? Yes.

A "free" education means you pay an Entry-fee, that's all, right? One does not pay the true cost of the education (buildings, teachers, electricity, all that)? No.

"Free" means one can go back to school at any age? And you still don't pay anything but an Entry-fee? Yes.

Does that help ... ?
______________________________________________________

Lol.....you still dont get it, do you ?

Under Single Payer the patient DOES pay for care.

Subsequent and antecedent payments are rendered via tax increases, same goes for " Free College " and the patient never stops paying for those " Free services "

For example, Vermont thought it was going to be the first State in the Union to enact its own Single payer plan.

But after careful review they realized that the 160% tax increase needed to PAY for " Free Healthcare " would have tanked their local economy and driven out investment capital and businesses

So they scrapped the ridiculous idea. Again, nothing is free

 

[James972]

Lol.....you still dont get it, do you ?

Under Single Payer the patient DOES pay for care.

Subsequent and antecedent payments are rendered via tax increases, same goes for " Free College " and the patient never stops paying for those " Free services "

For example, Vermont thought it was going to be the first State in the Union to enact its own Single payer plan.

But after careful review they realized that the 160% tax increase needed to PAY for " Free Healthcare " would have tanked their local economy and driven out investment capital and businesses

So they scrapped the ridiculous idea. Again, nothing is free

not only is it not free but its 10 times more expensive because there is no Republican capitalist competition to hold prices down.
Now even a liberal can understand why the USSR and Red China had standards of living 15% of ours.

"You think its expensive now, wait till its free".-unknown genius

 

[Lafayette]

Lol.....you still dont get it, do you ?

Under Single Payer the patient DOES pay for care.

Subsequent and antecedent payments are rendered via tax increases, same goes for " Free College " and the patient never stops paying for those " Free services "

For example, Vermont thought it was going to be the first State in the Union to enact its own Single payer plan.

But after careful review they realized that the 160% tax increase needed to PAY for " Free Healthcare " would have tanked their local economy and driven out investment capital and businesses

So they scrapped the ridiculous idea. Again, nothing is free

Thick, you are really thick.

Of course, nothing is free. A NHS is paid for out of general taxation, just like at present the DoD or FBI or Pension Retirement.

So what? They aren't "free" either. But you aren't complaining about those "expenditures", are you ... !?!
_____________________

 

[jonny5]

I think you know perfectly well what is meant by "free".

But, I'll repeat it anyway. Free HealthCare means that, subsequent to treatment, the patient pays "nothing". Absolutely nothing.

So, because it's "free", does that mean people abuse it by ... uh, breaking more bones? Developing new and exotic cancers? Heart disease? No.

Does 'free" mean independent of how often you fall sick? Yes.

A "free" education means you pay an Entry-fee, that's all, right? One does not pay the true cost of the education (buildings, teachers, electricity, all that)? No.

"Free" means one can go back to school at any age? And you still don't pay anything but an Entry-fee? Yes.

Does that help ... ?
______________________________________________________

What you mean is 'free to them'. I have to pay.

 

[Lafayette]

What you mean is 'free to them'. I have to pay.

It's free to everyone, and, yes, we all pay.

Why are you so damn discombobulated by "who pays"? For as long as we all benefit?

Moreover, you have not understood we all benefit. In a National Health System, it is the state who decides how much practitioners obtain for each medical act.

Why? Because, HealthCare is not just any "market", where Supply and Demand determines the price. If that were so, why not make the policing a private-market enterprise as well?
___________________________________________

 

[ksu_aviator]

SOCIETAL EXPLOSION



[/

QUOTE]You are right to underline that higher-level jobs are more elastic, but they do no escape the cut-backs provoked by a recessionary period. The higher education of those within this sector allow for a quicker remedy than fellow Americans further down the societal ladder.

You seem to think that if someone gets a degree that a job magically appears for them. That isn't how the world works. If that bottom 15% got a degree there would still be a bottom 15% pushing brooms and flipping burgers because those jobs aren't worth more. Being a highly educated janitor doesn't get you paid.

The "everything else" you dismiss (and I posted) is not about higher-level jobs. But about the 15% of Americans who do not have such a job due to a lack of qualifications, which you dismiss out of hand as "not relevant".

You just another liberal looking at the world through liberal-eyes wide-open but a closed-mind to the wide Income Disparity that afflicts the nation.

More progressive minds, however, are concerned about the clock-ticking the countdown to a Societal Explosion over said acute disparity. And people like you will have blood on their hands. It's already happening before our very eyes.

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock ...
____________________

WTF? Liberal? You have no clue. Liberals don't want freedom and self reliance. Liberals are all about giving away freebies, restricting freedoms and limiting results to a certain set of pre-approved outcomes. I'm no liberal. I'm not advocating giving people free education. I'm against it because it is a waste of money and will prove ineffectual while at the same time reducing people's freedoms and nationalizing another portion of the economy. You call me liberal? You are delusional. The rest of that rant is so incoherent and off the wall, it doesn't need to be addressed other than to say you clearly don't have a grasp on reality and I'm not going to agitate you any further.

 

[Lafayette]

I'm not advocating giving people free education. I'm against it because it is a waste of money and will prove ineffectual while at the same time reducing people's freedoms and nationalizing another portion of the economy.

Why?

You fear that with education, people will see right through your thoughtless notions?

Darwinian are we? Survival of the fittest?

Yep, I'll bet it's that ...
______________________

 

[James972]

Darwinian are we? Survival of the fittest?

yes, but only because liberal survival of the least fit is suicidal. 1+1=2. Liberals actually lack the IQ to understand the science so are anti-science. Imagine that.

 

[James972]

Why? Because, HealthCare is not just any "market", where Supply and Demand determines the price.

if supply and demand determined price and we had capitalist health care, prices would be 20% of what they are now and life expectancy would be 10-20 years longer!!

we know this by looking a scientific examples like East/West Germany. a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know about or even heard about East/West Germany. Sad

 

[James972]

why not make the policing a private-market enterprise as well?

many communities are policed privately, and???????????????