What is Bernie Sanders

ksu_aviator said:

Power or not, he was part of the Socialist party here in the US. His end game is to move us on to the door step of socialism.




Ha! You don't actually think that free education is for people that qualify? The point is to give everyone a degree. They won't let admissions standards get in the way of that.


Nope. You pay for all those things whether or not you go to college.



No one is denied college. But people will be denied their desires to make give that free college. Why in the world would you want to take from others to give to someone else? Especially since the proposed income would come from people's retirement.



Take a look here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...en-sanders-post1065603693.html#post1065603693

Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy.

Yes, you have to apply to college, so "free" college would be based solely on merit, decoupling educational potential from inherited wealth.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is so stupid so as to be unable to appreciate the difference between "free tuition" and "free tuition, food, room and board."

People are denied college financially right now. It sounds like you want to continue that practice so that economic potential is limited by reducing the pool of available students so as to artificially provide advantage on the basis of inherited wealth. I'd rather base it on individual merit.

Absentglare said:

Slippery slope fallacy.

Click to expand...

It is only a fallacy if it is not reality. If I plan to get to D by going through A, B and C, we have a predictable path. Then, if I do A and B, it is reasonable to assume that C and D will follow. Just saying something is a fallacy when it is not, is also a fallacy.

Yes, you have to apply to college, so "free" college would be based solely on merit, decoupling educational potential from inherited wealth.

Click to expand...

Who needs inherited wealth to go to college? Work. Take more than 4 years. Don't go to big universities. Seriously, it isn't that damn expensive.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is so stupid so as to be unable to appreciate the difference between "free tuition" and "free tuition, food, room and board."

Click to expand...

Is that all you have? Personal attacks? Seems to be a theme from the left lately. I don't know why you think it is important to distinguish between free tuition and the rest. No one has ever claimed that the rest would be free. You just threw that into the debate with no provocation.

People are denied college financially right now. It sounds like you want to continue that practice so that economic potential is limited by reducing the pool of available students so as to artificially provide advantage on the basis of inherited wealth. I'd rather base it on individual merit.

Click to expand...

Your entire argument in this last quote is based solely on your mischaracterization of my comments. You clearly don't want to debate me on my merits. You'd rather create your own straw-men.

Let's see if you can understand this. In order for the government to give, it must first take away. It is a simple concept. To give free tuition, we must take away from other people. If people can't go to college because of their circumstances that are not controlled by the government, that is more fair than taking money away from people who earned it to give it to people that did nothing to earn it.

The government's purpose is not to make people equal at death, but equal at birth. What we do with it from birth is up to us.

ksu_aviator said:

It is only a fallacy if it is not reality. If I plan to get to D by going through A, B and C, we have a predictable path. Then, if I do A and B, it is reasonable to assume that C and D will follow. Just saying something is a fallacy when it is not, is also a fallacy.



Who needs inherited wealth to go to college? Work. Take more than 4 years. Don't go to big universities. Seriously, it isn't that damn expensive.



Is that all you have? Personal attacks? Seems to be a theme from the left lately. I don't know why you think it is important to distinguish between free tuition and the rest. No one has ever claimed that the rest would be free. You just threw that into the debate with no provocation.



Your entire argument in this last quote is based solely on your mischaracterization of my comments. You clearly don't want to debate me on my merits. You'd rather create your own straw-men.

Let's see if you can understand this. In order for the government to give, it must first take away. It is a simple concept. To give free tuition, we must take away from other people. If people can't go to college because of their circumstances that are not controlled by the government, that is more fair than taking money away from people who earned it to give it to people that did nothing to earn it.

The government's purpose is not to make people equal at death, but equal at birth. What we do with it from birth is up to us.

Click to expand...

It is a fallacy. You claim he wants us on socialism's doorstep, but all his democratic socialism would simply be small but meaningful changes to existing policies.

Virtually everyone needs inherited wealth to go to college nowadays. 50 years ago, it might have been feasible. Now, just paying to live in a college town requires a full time job, much less going to class full time and paying for books/tuition.

No personal attack, i was attacking your argument and giving your intelligence the benefit of the doubt. You appeared to claim there was no difference. I did not throw it into the debate, i criticized your response.

Strawman ? Do you agree that college tuition should be paid by the government ? It stands to reason that all of your statements here are consistent with a resounding NO to that question, so that is not a strawman. Perhaps you should google strawman before you inappropriately apply it in a debate.

We don't take tuition from some people to give it to others. The government can and should encourage the education of the public, it is in our own economic interest.

Your contention that people earned money that was already paid in taxes is false by definition. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how society functions.

I can acknowledge that there are many people who harbor prejudice against the poor, who would be happy to systematically subjugate lower class citizens. I think those people are elitists who cripple our country so that they can be lazy, so they can increase their own personal wealth and their children's wealth without actually having to earn it.

ksu_aviator said:

There is a huge difference between regulations and control. To equate the two is intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

I'd say the dishonesty lies with the attempt to call regulations/control some sort of dictatorship... :roll:

You seem to think a managed economy is somehow a dictatorship. Historic examples of a dictatorship begs to differ... eace

notquiteright said:

I'd say the dishonesty lies with the attempt to call regulations/control some sort of dictatorship... :roll:

You seem to think a managed economy is somehow a dictatorship. Historic examples of a dictatorship begs to differ... eace

Click to expand...

No, it is not dishonest to use commonly known terms in illustration of similarities.

He is not a Democrat.

Absentglare said:

It is a fallacy. You claim he wants us on socialism's doorstep, but all his democratic socialism would simply be small but meaningful changes to existing policies.

Virtually everyone needs inherited wealth to go to college nowadays. 50 years ago, it might have been feasible. Now, just paying to live in a college town requires a full time job, much less going to class full time and paying for books/tuition.

Click to expand...

I worked 2 jobs and took 22 hours of school. I have no sympathy for this argument.

No personal attack, i was attacking your argument and giving your intelligence the benefit of the doubt. You appeared to claim there was no difference. I did not throw it into the debate, i criticized your response.

Strawman ? Do you agree that college tuition should be paid by the government ? It stands to reason that all of your statements here are consistent with a resounding NO to that question, so that is not a strawman. Perhaps you should google strawman before you inappropriately apply it in a debate.

Click to expand...

The straw-man is the assumed desire to prevent people from going to college. :smh

We don't take tuition from some people to give it to others. The government can and should encourage the education of the public, it is in our own economic interest.

Click to expand...

Of for crying out loud. Do you not know how he plans to pay for this? He plans on taxing "Wall Street", which really means he plans on taxing people's savings and retirement accounts.

Your contention that people earned money that was already paid in taxes is false by definition. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how society functions.

Click to expand...

I'm the one that doesn't understand? Enlighten us oh wise one. Who earned the money that was taxed?

I can acknowledge that there are many people who harbor prejudice against the poor, who would be happy to systematically subjugate lower class citizens. I think those people are elitists who cripple our country so that they can be lazy, so they can increase their own personal wealth and their children's wealth without actually having to earn it.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about prejudice against the poor? I was poor for a large portion of my life. As I said above, free tuition/college will lead to suppressed wages and more poor, not less.

ksu_aviator said:

I worked 2 jobs and took 22 hours of school. I have no sympathy for this argument.



The straw-man is the assumed desire to prevent people from going to college. :smh



Of for crying out loud. Do you not know how he plans to pay for this? He plans on taxing "Wall Street", which really means he plans on taxing people's savings and retirement accounts.



I'm the one that doesn't understand? Enlighten us oh wise one. Who earned the money that was taxed?



Who said anything about prejudice against the poor? I was poor for a large portion of my life. As I said above, free tuition/college will lead to suppressed wages and more poor, not less.

Click to expand...

I don't really care about your sympathy. It is a fact that poorer people are priced out of higher education. If you want to deny that fact, then i'm wasting my time since reasoning will not sway you from your belief.

You admit you want people to fund their own education, therefore, it is no strawman.

No, he plans on a small transactional tax that will not significantly impact ordinary traders. Sanders has not proposed a tax on wealth like your hyperbolic strawman here purports.

The government is owed taxes. It is the public's money, and if the will of the public is to spend it on college, then that is what we should do.

Why do you think public college will lead to suppressed wages and more poor ? Tell me, if we completely unfunded public education k-12, do you seriously believe that would help the poor ??!!!??!?!?!!

Absentglare said:

I don't really care about your sympathy. It is a fact that poorer people are priced out of higher education. If you want to deny that fact, then i'm wasting my time since reasoning will not sway you from your belief.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. Work hard and you can pay for school and an apartment without help. It is doable.

You admit you want people to fund their own education, therefore, it is no strawman.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

No, he plans on a small transactional tax that will not significantly impact ordinary traders. Sanders has not proposed a tax on wealth like your hyperbolic strawman here purports.

Click to expand...

Yes it will. All taxes are passed on to the end consumer. Fees for retirement and savings accounts will just go up.

The government is owed taxes. It is the public's money, and if the will of the public is to spend it on college, then that is what we should do.

Click to expand...

We are not socialist and it is not the public's money.

Why do you think public college will lead to suppressed wages and more poor ? Tell me, if we completely unfunded public education k-12, do you seriously believe that would help the poor ??!!!??!?!?!!

Click to expand...

I've explained this at multiple points in multiple threads. More college graduates = more supply. More supply without increased demand = lower price = lower wages.

ksu_aviator said:

No they aren't. Work hard and you can pay for school and an apartment without help. It is doable.



You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.



Yes it will. All taxes are passed on to the end consumer. Fees for retirement and savings accounts will just go up.



We are not socialist and it is not the public's money.



I've explained this at multiple points in multiple threads. More college graduates = more supply. More supply without increased demand = lower price = lower wages.

Click to expand...

You can successfully wipe your ass with sandpaper, but that doesn't mean that you should. You're speaking like someone who has endured great privilege that they've taken for granted. Your unrealistic budgetary analysis is meaningless.

No, taxes are not "all passed to the end consumer," that is a miserably false claim. The inheritance tax unequivocally proves your bizarre claim completely wrong.

I never said we are socialist, but by this comment it has become apparent that you don't understand the difference between taxes and socialism.

Higher education generally means higher wages. I'm not interested in your circular logic.