- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,038
- Reaction score
- 14,694
- Location
- Near Seattle
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Post secondary education is already affordable for in state government funded universities. However if you want to go to an ivy league university in another state, you need wealthy parents or a scholarship. Equal outcomes are not guaranteed, nor should they be. As far as sending all kids to K thru 12, there has never been any real opposition to that.he naysayers probably argued the same thing when we started sending all kids to high school. either way, making post secondary education more affordable would be a good thing for our nation.
Perhaps not intentionally, however when you demand government guarantees of affordable healthcare, secondary education, etc, you are headed on that direction.i have never argued for any sort of autocracy.
Post secondary education is already affordable for in state government funded universities. However if you want to go to an ivy league university in another state, you need wealthy parents or a scholarship. Equal outcomes are not guaranteed, nor should they be. As far as sending all kids to K thru 12, there has never been any real opposition to that.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Perhaps not intentionally, however when you demand government guarantees of affordable healthcare, secondary education, etc, you are headed on that direction.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I respectfully disagree. Other then lab fees and books, they do not incur massive tuition fees. And the taxpayers should not be expected to cover living expenses. Scholarships help if you can qualify for them academically or athletically, however not everyone can expect to go to Harvard or Yale.Even the state run universities can cause kids to incur a lot of debt. Most of the kids I work with have some serious student loans. That's a pretty poor system unless you want a country full of uneducated people.
We are not the rest of the world. We are a capitalism based representative republic. We take pride in our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families, rather the expecting a nanny government to take care of our every needs. And those handouts in other nations do not always work out. Someone has to pay for all that free stuff and when funding for those programs does not meet needs, those governments cut or delay benefits, just like our government does with Medicare and S.S.False. Many of the programs I support have been the status quo in the rest of the first world for decades.
I respectfully disagree. Other then lab fees and books, they do not incur massive tuition fees. And the taxpayers should not be expected to cover living expenses. Scholarships help if you can qualify for them academically or athletically, however not everyone can expect to go to Harvard or Yale.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
If the government shuts down and federal employees are not getting paid... should the politicians keep getting paid?
We are not the rest of the world. We are a capitalism based representative republic. We take pride in our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families, rather the expecting a nanny government to take care of our every needs. And those handouts in other nations do not always work out. Someone has to pay for all that free stuff and when funding for those programs does not meet needs, those governments cut or delay benefits, just like our government does with Medicare and S.S.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I don't dispute those figures. My point is that you can get a good secondary education without incurring such massive debt. Like I said, not everyone can go to Harvard or Yale.Here are the statistics in real reality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/13/student-loan-debt-statistics-2018/
It's not merely about voting out naysayers. You would never accomplish that anyway. Rank and file Americans do not favor single payer schemes or ponzi schemes like Obamacare. And it would also be about coming up with the massive funding for single payer. Even if that were possible, I don't think you realize how much sticker shock you would see on your income tax.I'll go with the solutions that the rest of the first world figured out decades ago, thanks. It's a matter of voting out the naysayers now.
It's not merely about voting out naysayers. You would never accomplish that anyway. Rank and file Americans do not favor single payer schemes or ponzi schemes like Obamacare. And it would also be about coming up with the massive funding for single payer. Even if that were possible, I don't think you realize how much sticker shock you would see on your income tax.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
If the government shuts down and federal employees are not getting paid... should the politicians keep getting paid?
No. Politicians, congress I presume. No, they shouldn't. First off they failed to do their job in getting all 12 appropriations bills passed prior to the end of the fiscal year. Even before the shutdown, we were paying them for failure to do their assigned job. Then our beloved politicians let their ultra partisanship, disregard for the country as a whole to cause a government shutdown when if they were doing their jobs for all the people of this country, they would have worked something out long before the shutdown occurred.
Why should we have wealthy politicians force the hands of less wealthy politicians?
Not a bad point...
As I understand it, House already voted on a bill. WH even said they’d sign. Trump decided last minute to say no because Coulter and Hannity got in his ear.
The younger kids will certainly be suffering from Obamacare sticker shock at least when they turn 27 and can no longer remain on mommy and daddy's policy. However the smart kids will work out that single payer is not the answer either. As you know, it would just be Medicare for all. And I if Medicare went from just the seniors to everyone, it would blow up the monthly premiums. That would be the only way the government could have any chance in hell of paying for it. Right now, it costs less because the providers shift many of the costs over to those not on Medicare. If everyone goes on Medicare, who do you think those costs will shift to? And if we eliminate the profit incentive from healthcare, we get rationing as the number of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc will shrink rapidly. And again, the only reason other nations get away with it is the United States for all practical purposes are providing for their military defense. Most refuse to pay even 2% of their GDP for their own defense. And we are in effect subsidizing Canada's prescription drug market. My advice is to think in terms of what works here instead of defaulting to what you works elsewhere. Every nation's conditions are not the same. And most do not have the jackpot frivolous malpractice lawsuit system that we have.I doubt that the younger kids in the workforce are going to be happy with paying much more than anyone else in the first world for similar care. Older people are often insulated from the worst of it because of their legacy plans. My guess is that we move towards single payer in coming decades.
Sorry you lose credibility when you toss it at Trump. In my lifetime, the only president with any traits toward a dictatorship was Barack Obama, especially in his second term when he started bypassing Congress with executive orders. And from his first term, Obamacare started with two authoritarian mandates, one of which still remains.How so? I don't know anyone in America who desires a dictatorship except for Trump.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?