We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
I went to vocational high school for information technology. By the end of senior year I essentially ran my schools IT help desk and took on the most tickets. I was A+ and Net+ certified, and I was all trained up to take my CCNA. I 100% could be pulling down my same salary as a sys admin and not have gone to college and I'd be in a Much better financial situation.
I also think that emphasis on STEM or vocational programs ONLY devalues the arts and humanities to a truly disturbing extent, we're basically just forgetting the bulk of human experience in order to encourage young people into being not whole human beings but merely productive workers.
My vocational school included a shop called graphic arts. They learned about art as a profession. Not just how to do art, but how to leverage that skill. Every kid left that program with a full portfolio and training in how to work in a print shop.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
Do you have citations for this?
+7
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Booker has done some things that understandably turned off some voters (his comments on Bain Capital during Occupy Wall Street were the only things that really affected my opinion), but I think there’s a perception of him as inauthentic that’s unfair. He’s certainly ambitious, but I genuinely respect that he’s put in the work to get where he is. He climbed the ladder, gained experience, listened to the people in the communities he represented.
Plenty of reasons to disagree with him depending on your ideological bent, but I think he’s very much who he appears to be: earnest, guided by morality and principles, and interested in making the world better for those the world too often ignores.
Not an endorsement here, just some musings. If you like political documentaries, Street Fight is about one of his earlier (failed) campaigns, and it’s a good watch. Like many idealists, I think he’s been tempered somewhat by reality and time, but there’s a genuine outrage at inequality and a desire to help that I think he still displays.
I think the controversy related to his supposedly fabricated drug dealing friend looms fairly large in his inauthentic profile.
Another part of it is that he so often comes across as performing. Sure, he went on food stamps for a week and that's neat for a number of reasons, but he sure as shit got a lot of press out of it. Dude pulls a lot of stunts and never fails to seize the opportunity to build his image - I think enough of that is out there to warrant some incredulity.
I personally went into this primary thinking he was the Democratic version of Marco Rubio - a complete lightweight who has been overestimated in national conversation because of youth and a modicum of charisma. I've shifted on that a little bit, but not a ton. He's frankly had some stellar moments where his natural bombast has lined up nicely with the actual righteousness of whatever he's teeing off on. That he's been trying to occupy the lane of "hey primary folks let's try not to knife each other too hard, we still have Republicans to beat" has also endeared me to him.
All of that said, the things he's done well in this primary are things that, to me, are still compatible with the idea that he has a pretty good-sized opportunistic & inauthentic streak. But also, so what? That can be said for basically everyone to some degree.
The attack "do you want to pay for rich peoples college?" is just trying to turn like middleclass/lower class voters against a plan that will benefit them greatly because some people above them will also benefit. When spoiler alert I'm pretty sure I already do pay for rich kids to go to college I'm just not then also getting a benefit for my fucking kid to get to go.
It's a way to use left-wing eat-the-rich rhetoric against people on the left. Either cause your attacking them from the right and don't care about hypocrisy or because you are also on the left but want to win instead of them.
But its stupid to me. Like this is the same argument I've heard against universal healthcare. "You want to pay for Bill Gates healthcare?" Well yeah if it means we all are being covered? That's kind of what universal means.
It's not meant to speak to you then. It's supposed to, and is somewhat effective at, gripping people by that "someone is getting something they don't need/deserve" instinct and combining it with anti-rich-people rhetoric to make it more effective for certain groups that would traditionally not be as on board with saying some people don't deserve benefits.
Bland, white, clean cut, well spoken, gay in a way that's non-threatening while making people feel good about themselves, not really challenging anything or trying to shake things up, preaching that we can just elect him and all get back to normal and stop fighting in a way that is very appealing to many white people.
I'm not super surprised his bullshit works. Especially in places like Iowa.
I don't like how most candidate's education plans are just about training productive workers
I also want a world where a 55 year old electrical engineer can also go to sociology and poetry classes a few nights a week, just because they want to, for free
-Tal on
+48
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I don't like how most candidate's education plans are just about training productive workers
I also want a world where a 55 year old electrical engineer can also go to sociology and poetry classes a few nights a week, just because they want to, for free
Sure, I guess, but also there are book clubs and stuff--you don't need to be in a state-sponsored class to appreciate culture or lead an enriched life. And when it comes to competition within funding priorities, this is pretty near the bottom of my list.
I don't like how most candidate's education plans are just about training productive workers
I also want a world where a 55 year old electrical engineer can also go to sociology and poetry classes a few nights a week, just because they want to, for free
Sure, I guess, but also there are book clubs and stuff--you don't need to be in a state-sponsored class to appreciate culture or lead an enriched life. And when it comes to competition within funding priorities, this is pretty near the bottom of my list.
Government sponsored higher learning as a hobby project already exists in some areas, you just have to be old
Warren and Sanders managed to have rallies in Atlanta that looked like Atlanta today. Go team. Also Walton family funded charter school advocates protested Warren's appearance about the importance of black union movements. Which is kind of amazing.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+16
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
I'm a Warren Supporter, but due to wording ended up with Booker leading at 7 agrees. Bumps him up a notch with me, so yay quiz
Kinda curious though, apparently only Biden and Yang support being part of the TPP? How did I get on the wrong side of that issue and end up agreeing with those two?
Warren and Sanders managed to have rallies in Atlanta that looked like Atlanta today. Go team. Also Walton family funded charter school advocates protested Warren's appearance about the importance of black union movements. Which is kind of amazing.
Maybe it's my reading comprehension skills but this feels very tangled, can you re-word this?
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
I'm a Warren Supporter, but due to wording ended up with Booker leading at 7 agrees. Bumps him up a notch with me, so yay quiz
Kinda curious though, apparently only Biden and Yang support being part of the TPP? How did I get on the wrong side of that issue and end up agreeing with those two?
Edited for clarity
Because of 2016, the lame duck session went completely fucked.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
huh. Not exactly what I expected.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
Michael Tracy is an investigative journalist and author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting and the Production of Political Television.
Michael Tracy is an investigative journalist and author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting and the Production of Political Television.
Yeah, stopping to talk to the Fox News reporter after the Debate is a good thing IMO. Booking an appearance to be a guest on Fox's prime time lies, propaganda, and entertainment hours to trash the Democrats is very not good.
I get it, it's worth a chuckle seeing Kamala on "Fox News" right after going after Tulsi for going on Fox News too, but it's super disingenuous if you're being serious about it.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
I think you're kind of conflating sentiments like "we shouldn't give food stamps to welfare queens" with "we shouldn't give food stamps to Donald Trump."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
The children of the wealthy are greatly helped by being able to secure education without being dependent on daddy's money and the evil patronage societies it's tied to. A policy of free/decommoditized/federal education would create more class traitors and allow wealthy heirs to escape abusive parents.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
That's splitting hairs so fine you might be breaking the Plank limit, and isn't very firmly supported. Also, how does making college *more* accessible create an underclass? The same situation applies right now except in addition to those who can't go you have those who could but can't afford to. You're proposing keeping your underclass larger, and thus likely poorer!
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
Having authentic reasons to be against free college is unrelated to those who are specifically willing to let the idea die because they think someone who doesn't deserve it will get the benefit (Lowercase b benefit) which is what I was specifically addressing.
You've basically taken my comments on a specific facet of the topic of free college and used it as an opportunity to invoke an argument against the whole concept, which is absolutely your prerogative, but I feel like you're arguing past me at that point.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
I think you're kind of conflating sentiments like "we shouldn't give food stamps to welfare queens" with "we shouldn't give food stamps to Donald Trump."
No, I'm saying they're two sides of the same coin.
We need to, as a society, stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Stop being more concerned with who shouldn't be getting help, that we allow those who do need help to slip through the cracks.
I do not want the threat of welfare queens or Donald Trump getting foodstamps (to use your example) to be used an excuse for preventing those who need them from getting them. If that means letting them have foodstamps as well then so be it. I'd rather live in a world where we provide for everyone, than a world where we don't provide for everyone because it would require helping out the assholes too.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
painfulPleasance on
+8
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I would rather have one "undeserving" person get free college if it means a hundred more "deserving" people get it too. Same with healthcare. Because they're all human beings and we all, all of us, deserve to live with dignity.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
A free education is not even slightly the same as Free College, and it's not fair to try and suggest they are, or to drag trite moralizing into the discussion.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
A free education is not even slightly the same as Free College, and it's not fair to try and suggest they are, or to drag trite moralizing into the discussion.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
A free education is not even slightly the same as Free College, and it's not fair to try and suggest they are, or to drag trite moralizing into the discussion.
I still don't get your point.
If you can't or won't go to college whether it's free or not doesn't really have any bearing.
I don't think it'd put us in danger of having a world where non-degree holders are an underclass... we're already in that world! Handing out infinite no-credit-required loans + cutting public university funding (so they started taking all comers to get more tuition) + two generations in a row being told that college is mandatory if you don't want to be poor has put us there.
And business know it and unless you have some very specific technical experience your degree-less job application gets thrown in the trash before any human even looks at it.
Saying "well we should also have free vocational/technical school" kind of is missing the point. If we somehow crafted a law making college public technical schools would almost certainly be included anyway, but that still wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is people are going into massive amounts of debt for a shot at any job that isn't minimum wage drudgework, much less a career. The problem is a business culture that expects increasing revenue year over year, but also expects to never increase personnel costs or train new employees. I don't know how to fix the second one but it'd be nice if people didn't have to take on a house's worth of debt to get a job that pays $2 above minimum wage.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I found this article about Biden interesting. In the author's view, a big part of Biden's verbal missteps is that Biden is working around a stutter. Seems to humanize Biden a bit, I think.
His eyes fall to the floor when I ask him to describe it. We’ve been tiptoeing toward it for 45 minutes, and so far, every time he seems close, he backs away, or leads us in a new direction. There are competing theories in the press, but Joe Biden has kept mum on the subject. I want to hear him explain it. I ask him to walk me through the night he appeared to lose control of his words onstage.
“I—um—I don’t remember,” Biden says. His voice has that familiar shake, the creak and the croak. “I’d have to see it. I-I-I don’t remember.”
We’re in Biden’s mostly vacant Washington, D.C., campaign office on an overcast Tuesday at the end of the summer. Since entering the Democratic presidential-primary race in April, Biden has largely avoided in-depth interviews. When I first reached out, in late June, his press person was polite but noncommittal: Was an interview really necessary for the story?
Then came the second debate, at the end of July, in Detroit. The first one, a month earlier, had been a disaster for Biden. He was unprepared when Senator Kamala Harris criticized both his past resistance to federally mandated busing and a recent speech in which he’d waxed fondly about collaborating with segregationist senators. Some of his answers that night had been meandering and difficult to parse, feeding into the narrative that he wasn’t just prone to verbal slipups—he’s called himself a “gaffe machine”—but that his age was a problem, that he was confused and out of touch.
Detroit was Biden’s chance to regain control of the narrative. And then something else happened. The candidates were talking about health care. At first, Biden sounded strong, confident, presidential: “My plan makes a limit of co-pay to be One. Thousand. Dollars. Because we—” He stopped. He pinched his eyes closed. He lifted his hands and thrust them forward, as if trying to pull the missing sound from his mouth. “We f-f-f-f-further support—” He opened his eyes. “The uh-uh-uh-uh—” His chin dipped toward his chest. “The-uh, the ability to buy into the Obamacare plan.” Biden also stumbled when trying to say immune system.
Fox News edited these moments into a mini montage. Stifling laughter, the host Steve Hilton narrated: “As the right words struggled to make that perilous journey from Joe Biden’s brain to Joe Biden’s mouth, half the time he just seemed to give up with this somewhat tragic and limp admission of defeat.”
Several days later, Biden’s team got back in touch with me. One of his aides gingerly asked whether I’d noticed the former vice president stutter during the debate. Of course I had—I stutter, far worse than Biden. The aide said he was ready to talk about it. Last night, after Biden stumbled multiple times during the Atlanta debate, the topic became even more relevant.
The article proceeds further from there.
I'm hard supporting Warren, on account of her seeming to actually understand how capitalism is supposed to function, actually having a plan to get there, and other general progressive policy goals as well. But I think I differ from other folks here in that I'm more-or-less fine with Biden after that. I think he'd actually staff up and rebuild government more effectively than most of the other candidates on account of his time and experience in government. I'm also considering that most policy positions from anybody have to get ground through Congress as well. But, I'm not actually watching the debates, mostly just following along in these threads.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
Having authentic reasons to be against free college is unrelated to those who are specifically willing to let the idea die because they think someone who doesn't deserve it will get the benefit (Lowercase b benefit) which is what I was specifically addressing.
You've basically taken my comments on a specific facet of the topic of free college and used it as an opportunity to invoke an argument against the whole concept, which is absolutely your prerogative, but I feel like you're arguing past me at that point.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
I think you're kind of conflating sentiments like "we shouldn't give food stamps to welfare queens" with "we shouldn't give food stamps to Donald Trump."
No, I'm saying they're two sides of the same coin.
We need to, as a society, stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Stop being more concerned with who shouldn't be getting help, that we allow those who do need help to slip through the cracks.
I do not want the threat of welfare queens or Donald Trump getting foodstamps (to use your example) to be used an excuse for preventing those who need them from getting them. If that means letting them have foodstamps as well then so be it. I'd rather live in a world where we provide for everyone, than a world where we don't provide for everyone because it would require helping out the assholes too.
I mean, I am fine accepting that, perhaps, the only way to give something to those who need it is to also give it to those who don't. I'm not convinced it's the case, but I'm not going to stand in the way of progress because of my skepticism.
My point is that there is a difference between "you don't deserve this thing" and "you don't need the government to provide this thing." Not giving food stamps to a class of poor people means they don't get food. Not giving food stamps to rich people means... pretty much nothing to them, honestly. They're not equivalent situations, and acknowledging this isn't class warfare any more than progressive tax rates or wealth taxes are class warfare.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, I am fine accepting that, perhaps, the only way to give something to those who need it is to also give it to those who don't. I'm not convinced it's the case, but I'm not going to stand in the way of progress because of my skepticism.
My point is that there is a difference between "you don't deserve this thing" and "you don't need the government to provide this thing." Not giving food stamps to a class of poor people means they don't get food. Not giving food stamps to rich people means... pretty much nothing to them, honestly.
I'm not disputing they're different (heads is different from tails, after all), I'm saying they're both used as scare tactics to frighten people away from providing those things to a greater number of people, and I'd really like that to stop.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited November 2019
If you are talking about the post high school education system and how to fix it outside the specific context of the 2020 Primaries, get back on topic now.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Hey guys, don't post if all you've got is someone else's tweet. What you're doing is retweeting, and you can do that on Twitter. Add your own content or don't post.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
A free education is not even slightly the same as Free College, and it's not fair to try and suggest they are, or to drag trite moralizing into the discussion.
College is education, so what you're actually calling for is a limit to the amount of free education that someone should be able to get. And since a college degree is a requirement for all sorts of better paying jobs, even ones it really shouldn't be required for, the end result is that for a lot of people who are looking to maintain or improve their position (economically) in society they either need rich parents, a scholarship, or a crapton of debt that will cripple their choices going forward.
Which, to tie it back to the primary, is why I like Sanders' and to a lesser extent Warren's plans, since they both work to maximize the number of people who will be able to try and improve their lot in life by going to college (or a tech school, there's education and skills to be found there too) and not having to sacrifice their financial future in order to do so. This is in strong contrast to Harris' plan which was both limited in scope and required the applicants take on additional risk in order to get their debts cleared.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
A college degree is, on practical terms, an instrument of upward social mobility first and foremost, which is why telling people that they can't improve their own situation without becoming debt serfs doesn't go well.
Hell, Chile is having massive protests in a major part because of that.
A college degree is, on practical terms, an instrument of upward social mobility first and foremost, which is why telling people that they can't improve their own situation without becoming debt serfs doesn't go well.
Hell, Chile is having massive protests in a major part because of that.
If we let conservatives draw the hard lines between what should and shouldn't be a right, we'd still have slavery. The one bright spot in this shitty time is that some of the Democrats running for president realize this and are trying to advance society rather than worry about what conservatives have decided is or isn't a right this week.
Posts
I went to vocational high school for information technology. By the end of senior year I essentially ran my schools IT help desk and took on the most tickets. I was A+ and Net+ certified, and I was all trained up to take my CCNA. I 100% could be pulling down my same salary as a sys admin and not have gone to college and I'd be in a Much better financial situation.
My vocational school included a shop called graphic arts. They learned about art as a profession. Not just how to do art, but how to leverage that skill. Every kid left that program with a full portfolio and training in how to work in a print shop.
I think the controversy related to his supposedly fabricated drug dealing friend looms fairly large in his inauthentic profile.
Another part of it is that he so often comes across as performing. Sure, he went on food stamps for a week and that's neat for a number of reasons, but he sure as shit got a lot of press out of it. Dude pulls a lot of stunts and never fails to seize the opportunity to build his image - I think enough of that is out there to warrant some incredulity.
I personally went into this primary thinking he was the Democratic version of Marco Rubio - a complete lightweight who has been overestimated in national conversation because of youth and a modicum of charisma. I've shifted on that a little bit, but not a ton. He's frankly had some stellar moments where his natural bombast has lined up nicely with the actual righteousness of whatever he's teeing off on. That he's been trying to occupy the lane of "hey primary folks let's try not to knife each other too hard, we still have Republicans to beat" has also endeared me to him.
All of that said, the things he's done well in this primary are things that, to me, are still compatible with the idea that he has a pretty good-sized opportunistic & inauthentic streak. But also, so what? That can be said for basically everyone to some degree.
It's not meant to speak to you then. It's supposed to, and is somewhat effective at, gripping people by that "someone is getting something they don't need/deserve" instinct and combining it with anti-rich-people rhetoric to make it more effective for certain groups that would traditionally not be as on board with saying some people don't deserve benefits.
Bland, white, clean cut, well spoken, gay in a way that's non-threatening while making people feel good about themselves, not really challenging anything or trying to shake things up, preaching that we can just elect him and all get back to normal and stop fighting in a way that is very appealing to many white people.
I'm not super surprised his bullshit works. Especially in places like Iowa.
I also want a world where a 55 year old electrical engineer can also go to sociology and poetry classes a few nights a week, just because they want to, for free
Sure, I guess, but also there are book clubs and stuff--you don't need to be in a state-sponsored class to appreciate culture or lead an enriched life. And when it comes to competition within funding priorities, this is pretty near the bottom of my list.
Government sponsored higher learning as a hobby project already exists in some areas, you just have to be old
I'm a Warren Supporter, but due to wording ended up with Booker leading at 7 agrees. Bumps him up a notch with me, so yay quiz
Kinda curious though, apparently only Biden and Yang support being part of the TPP? How did I get on the wrong side of that issue and end up agreeing with those two?
Edited for clarity
Maybe it's my reading comprehension skills but this feels very tangled, can you re-word this?
Because of 2016, the lame duck session went completely fucked.
huh. Not exactly what I expected.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's a notable shift in conception. I'm talking about a Capital B Benefit, and that isn't the sort of thing we generally provide to people just because it's nice to have. College doesn't benefit everyone, making it free without offering options for those who can't or don't want to go creates an underclass who are permanently locked out of success. Mainly though, benefits are usually the sort of thing one needs.
This is certainly something that would benefit me - I'd love to have two kids' worth of Parental Plus loans deleted. It'd be like offering me a free car! My youngest, though, it's like offering him a free spaceship. It doesn't feel great to have some of the candidates trying to offer the least to the child who needs the most help.
Michael Tracy is an investigative journalist and author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting and the Production of Political Television.
Kyle Kulinski is a talk show host.
Is that her being interviewed by a Fox News reporter at the event? Cause that's what it looks like to me.
Which is a wee bit different then booking an appearance on Tucker Carlson.
I get it, it's worth a chuckle seeing Kamala on "Fox News" right after going after Tulsi for going on Fox News too, but it's super disingenuous if you're being serious about it.
How is that relevant to my point? (That people have a habit of being against programs that can help them, in order to ensure they don't help people who they think don't deserve it.)
No one deserves it. It's not a benefit, it's a giveaway.
That's entirely beside the point of whether it's a good idea or not, though. It might be! But your idea that people don't have authentic reasons for disagreeing is off base. There are good reasons not to support free college, especially free college with no thought for those who wouldn't be helped by it.
I think you're kind of conflating sentiments like "we shouldn't give food stamps to welfare queens" with "we shouldn't give food stamps to Donald Trump."
The children of the wealthy are greatly helped by being able to secure education without being dependent on daddy's money and the evil patronage societies it's tied to. A policy of free/decommoditized/federal education would create more class traitors and allow wealthy heirs to escape abusive parents.
That's splitting hairs so fine you might be breaking the Plank limit, and isn't very firmly supported. Also, how does making college *more* accessible create an underclass? The same situation applies right now except in addition to those who can't go you have those who could but can't afford to. You're proposing keeping your underclass larger, and thus likely poorer!
Having authentic reasons to be against free college is unrelated to those who are specifically willing to let the idea die because they think someone who doesn't deserve it will get the benefit (Lowercase b benefit) which is what I was specifically addressing.
You've basically taken my comments on a specific facet of the topic of free college and used it as an opportunity to invoke an argument against the whole concept, which is absolutely your prerogative, but I feel like you're arguing past me at that point.
No, I'm saying they're two sides of the same coin.
We need to, as a society, stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Stop being more concerned with who shouldn't be getting help, that we allow those who do need help to slip through the cracks.
I do not want the threat of welfare queens or Donald Trump getting foodstamps (to use your example) to be used an excuse for preventing those who need them from getting them. If that means letting them have foodstamps as well then so be it. I'd rather live in a world where we provide for everyone, than a world where we don't provide for everyone because it would require helping out the assholes too.
People deserve the social mobility and opportunity to better themselves that education provides. The search for the deserving poor is evil.
A free education is not even slightly the same as Free College, and it's not fair to try and suggest they are, or to drag trite moralizing into the discussion.
What's the difference?
I still don't get your point.
If you can't or won't go to college whether it's free or not doesn't really have any bearing.
I don't think it'd put us in danger of having a world where non-degree holders are an underclass... we're already in that world! Handing out infinite no-credit-required loans + cutting public university funding (so they started taking all comers to get more tuition) + two generations in a row being told that college is mandatory if you don't want to be poor has put us there.
And business know it and unless you have some very specific technical experience your degree-less job application gets thrown in the trash before any human even looks at it.
Saying "well we should also have free vocational/technical school" kind of is missing the point. If we somehow crafted a law making college public technical schools would almost certainly be included anyway, but that still wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is people are going into massive amounts of debt for a shot at any job that isn't minimum wage drudgework, much less a career. The problem is a business culture that expects increasing revenue year over year, but also expects to never increase personnel costs or train new employees. I don't know how to fix the second one but it'd be nice if people didn't have to take on a house's worth of debt to get a job that pays $2 above minimum wage.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/
The article proceeds further from there.
I'm hard supporting Warren, on account of her seeming to actually understand how capitalism is supposed to function, actually having a plan to get there, and other general progressive policy goals as well. But I think I differ from other folks here in that I'm more-or-less fine with Biden after that. I think he'd actually staff up and rebuild government more effectively than most of the other candidates on account of his time and experience in government. I'm also considering that most policy positions from anybody have to get ground through Congress as well. But, I'm not actually watching the debates, mostly just following along in these threads.
I mean, I am fine accepting that, perhaps, the only way to give something to those who need it is to also give it to those who don't. I'm not convinced it's the case, but I'm not going to stand in the way of progress because of my skepticism.
My point is that there is a difference between "you don't deserve this thing" and "you don't need the government to provide this thing." Not giving food stamps to a class of poor people means they don't get food. Not giving food stamps to rich people means... pretty much nothing to them, honestly. They're not equivalent situations, and acknowledging this isn't class warfare any more than progressive tax rates or wealth taxes are class warfare.
I'm not disputing they're different (heads is different from tails, after all), I'm saying they're both used as scare tactics to frighten people away from providing those things to a greater number of people, and I'd really like that to stop.
the government is already subsidizing rich people's college, because none of them pay any taxes
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
College is education, so what you're actually calling for is a limit to the amount of free education that someone should be able to get. And since a college degree is a requirement for all sorts of better paying jobs, even ones it really shouldn't be required for, the end result is that for a lot of people who are looking to maintain or improve their position (economically) in society they either need rich parents, a scholarship, or a crapton of debt that will cripple their choices going forward.
Which, to tie it back to the primary, is why I like Sanders' and to a lesser extent Warren's plans, since they both work to maximize the number of people who will be able to try and improve their lot in life by going to college (or a tech school, there's education and skills to be found there too) and not having to sacrifice their financial future in order to do so. This is in strong contrast to Harris' plan which was both limited in scope and required the applicants take on additional risk in order to get their debts cleared.
Hell, Chile is having massive protests in a major part because of that.
If we let conservatives draw the hard lines between what should and shouldn't be a right, we'd still have slavery. The one bright spot in this shitty time is that some of the Democrats running for president realize this and are trying to advance society rather than worry about what conservatives have decided is or isn't a right this week.