• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US election 2020: Obama issues warning to 'revolutionary' Democrats

Nalu said:
If some parents want to use alternative forms of education, that's up to them, but to allow people to opt out of funding public education would mean the end of it.
Click to expand...

That is my entire point. An inferior product is being forced upon the masses in an effort to ensure that the poorest do not end up with nothing. I also do not believe that people having a choice would end up killing public education. Some people would still stick with public education. And, if children are our greatest resource, why on Earth would want to force an inferior education on them just to keep it alive?
 
Nalu said:
I would still need to think longer for a comprehensive definition of the greater good. In general, though, I think that policies and programs that promote commerce, health, safety, community, and prosperity can serve the greater good. I support government road plowing because it makes travel safer and helps businesses stay open in bad weather. I support public libraries because I believe that literacy is the most important tool a person can have. I support public gathering places because communities are safer and more successful when their members know each other. I don't support drug laws because they created a dangerous black market. I don't support a lot of land use regulations because private property should be enjoyed and used as freely as possible. So it's difficult for me to come up with a catch all. These answers will vary from person to person. That's why I asked you your thoughts.
Click to expand...

I gave you my thoughts on what the greater good is. I look no further than the phrase itself. To me serving the greater good would be hamstringing the government when they try to make a play for any more control over the citizenry. It would be fighting every time the government tries to engineer some artificial equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Greater good would be promoting people to succeed on their own rather than at the expense of anyone else.
 
Crossfire said:
That is my entire point. An inferior product is being forced upon the masses in an effort to ensure that the poorest do not end up with nothing. I also do not believe that people having a choice would end up killing public education. Some people would still stick with public education. And, if children are our greatest resource, why on Earth would want to force an inferior education on them just to keep it alive?
Click to expand...

Because private schools are profit centers and not everyone can afford them.
 
Crossfire said:
I gave you my thoughts on what the greater good is. I look no further than the phrase itself. To me serving the greater good would be hamstringing the government when they try to make a play for any more control over the citizenry. It would be fighting every time the government tries to engineer some artificial equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Greater good would be promoting people to succeed on their own rather than at the expense of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll accept that.
 
Nalu said:
Because private schools are profit centers and not everyone can afford them.
Click to expand...

So what? Not everyone can afford Harvard either. That does not mean it should not exist, or that there should be an extra government imposed hurdle to be able to attend.
 
Crossfire said:
You really believe that public education with terrible policies, such as no child left behind is allowing children to achieve their intellectual potential?
Click to expand...
No, but eliminating it is not the answer. Changing policies and improving it is, but with the bimbo Voss it is not likely any time soon.

I did not say that privatization was the best solution. I did not say that public education should be abolished. I did say that there should be competition with government run and mandated education. Fair competition, not you have to pay for public AND private if you want to use private schools.
Click to expand...
In this case competition will only eliminate that which desperately needs improvement and which privatization can not help.
 
Crossfire said:
So what? Not everyone can afford Harvard either. That does not mean it should not exist, or that there should be an extra government imposed hurdle to be able to attend.
Click to expand...

Post-secondary education isn't provided for "free" in the US.

Do you think that you shouldn't have to pay for subsidized housing if you don't live in it? Do you think that you shouldn't have to pay for the TSA if you never fly in your life? In my opinion, the government owes education to its citizens. If you don't want or need it, you don't get a tax refund for it.
 
Nalu said:
Post-secondary education isn't provided for "free" in the US.

Do you think that you shouldn't have to pay for subsidized housing if you don't live in it? Do you think that you shouldn't have to pay for the TSA if you never fly in your life? In my opinion, the government owes education to its citizens. If you don't want or need it, you don't get a tax refund for it.
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe in being forced to pay for that which I do not use. That is a principle of mine. Eliminate 90% of the bureaucracy and make programs more efficient and actually helpful, and I would gladly donate, but I do not believe in being forced under threat from the government to pay for that which I do not use. Yes, I know that it the way things are, but I do not have to agree with it.
 
Crossfire said:
No, I do not believe in being forced to pay for that which I do not use. That is a principle of mine. Eliminate 90% of the bureaucracy and make programs more efficient and actually helpful, and I would gladly donate, but I do not believe in being forced under threat from the government to pay for that which I do not use. Yes, I know that it the way things are, but I do not have to agree with it.
Click to expand...

Nope, you sure don't. That's what I've been trying to coax out of you this whole time. Your argument (essentially what's mine is mine) has merit. I just don't fully agree with it.
 
Dans La Lune said:
It looks like Obama has learned a great deal from the Republican party, and rather than being a 'Yes We Can!', he's a 'No you can't!' or 'Maybe you shouldn't!' voice within the Democratic party. Very sad. This is what happens when to people when politics puts them through the meat-grinder. Did you know that Nancy Pelosi was once an advocate for single-payer? This is why Trump won in 2016. Democrats stand for nothing. That's why they're sending in Duvel Patrick to tag out Biden.
Click to expand...

I am afraid Biden is running the same campaign against Trump as Hillary. The media and establishment love him, because he is for the status quo and elites. He is not running on anything other than, I am not Trump and he is unfit.

I also question his ability to look like an anti corruption candidate. Trump is totally corrupt but that will not stop him and his base from chanting to lock up him the Biden family. I would prefer an actual hardline, anti corruption candidate, especially one determined to get money out of politics
 
Fenton said:
It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to predict the outcome of Warren's or Bernie's wealth tax. You just have to be informed.I know exactly how Warren's wealth tax will play out.

In 2012 France implemented its 75% wealth tax. Economist predicted that the tax would lead to large gains in revenue, spur economic growth and combat wealth disparity
Hollande's 75% 'Supertax' Failure A Blow To Piketty's Economics

Well of-course, none of that happened, and after two years of stagnant GDP, no economic growth and revenue short falls, France was forced to abandon it's wealth tax in 2014.

All it did was drive billions of dollars in wealth and capital out of France. Foreign investment capital also dried up. The people that suffered were not the Rich. It was the poor and middle class.

It was tax policy predicated on social justice talking points, of-course it was going to fail. The same thing will happen if Warren, or Bernie gets their way.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to Warren's or Bernie's wealth tax....I was referring to Trumps lack of wealth tax. I don't agree with the extent of their wealth tax and I believe it will stifle the economic growth and prosperity of the US.

In reference to France I don't believe the 75% wealth was justifiable, I also don't believe a 21% corporate tax rate is justifiable on the Presidents behalf. It was unprecedented with no previous declines like it, not even under any republican party or president. Additionally Trump is a primary individual who will benefit from such tax breaks....it is simply wrong and unjustified.
 
SheWolf said:
I am afraid Biden is running the same campaign against Trump as Hillary. The media and establishment love him, because he is for the status quo and elites. He is not running on anything other than, I am not Trump and he is unfit.

I also question his ability to look like an anti corruption candidate. Trump is totally corrupt but that will not stop him and his base from chanting to lock up him the Biden family. I would prefer an actual hardline, anti corruption candidate, especially one determined to get money out of politics
Click to expand...

IMO, the first ballot of the DNC will produce a brokered convention. The 2nd ballot allows superdelegates to vote. It also will allow a candidate not currently running to be drafted. That is my hope, as my favorite candidate is currently not running.
 
prometeus said:
No, but eliminating it is not the answer. Changing policies and improving it is, but with the bimbo Voss it is not likely any time soon.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons why socialist institutions are such disasters. No matter how poorly they perform or how much money they waste, abolishing it is never an option.

Under capitalism, a firm that doesn't satisfy its customers for a price they are willing to pay is quickly killed by the market.
 
Nalu said:
Healthy living isn't a liberal agenda. I don't trust the government to run my health care either but for different reasons.
Click to expand...

Healthy living in the abstract is not.

Forced conformity to a centralized vision of healthy living is certainly among a liberal agenda though
 
A man who knows something about being elected is issuing a concern about how much the left has nestled itself in an assurance everyone wants crazy socialist over corrupt businessman and there is even debate? Get the hell out of here

He is trying to say that if you ever want to see success, stop assuming everyone is dumb enough to think socialism (whether you pretend democratic or whatever is ANY different) is better than the opposite form of corruption so that there might be some difference and actual progress

Here we sit with no choice right now except how whether we prefer to burn or freeze and he's saying "Maybe offer some idea of moderation" and no one is listening
 
aociswundumho said:
No, they're claims which support the idea that universal healthcare is not going to happen in the US anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I suspect not this election cycle, but as more boomers die off...
 
Ikari said:
That's a nice straw man. Did I make the argument that China wasn't a real problem? Maybe quit making things up in order to make partisan hack statements.
Click to expand...

well if you can't get or support politicians who will take action against big problems, then how do you intend to solve them?

the previous democrat only wanted to give them favored nation status and keep on rolling. the current democrats seem no better on the subject, at the very least so they can keep cheap toys for their supporters, sooo...?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Healthy living in the abstract is not.

Forced conformity to a centralized vision of healthy living is certainly among a liberal agenda though
Click to expand...

Maybe you mean that forced conformity to a centralized vision of healthy living is part of the agenda of some liberals. It certainly isn't a cornerstone of liberal thought nor is it part of every liberals' agenda. In that light, your comment could be directed at anyone. Do conservatives or libertarians or moderates or independents object to tobacco regulations, prenatal care, and seatbelt laws? (To be fair, libertarians are supposed to protest seatbelt laws.) There is an unending question as to what extent the government should go to promote public health and wellbeing. Promoting healthy, well balanced school meals, just as an example, is not a fascist plot.
 
Ikari said:
I don't really go for the platform of Sanders and AOC...but I would love to see the Trumpeteer cultists' heads explode if they really got into power. Almost worth the price of admission...almost
Click to expand...

If they get in power not much will change.

Just like it always doesn't.

And then there'll be a backlash election 2 years later.

Just like there always is.
 
Crossfire said:
You really believe that public education with terrible policies, such as no child left behind is allowing children to achieve their intellectual potential? I did not say that privatization was the best solution. I did not say that public education should be abolished. I did say that there should be competition with government run and mandated education. Fair competition, not you have to pay for public AND private if you want to use private schools.
Click to expand...

Privatization or a voucher system is a terrible way to determine access to education. It's an elitist strategy designed not to help low income children. True equity means the ability for every child to attend a good school in the neighborhood. Schools that are struggling don't need new threats. They need help. Privatization or a voucher system would only serve to encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification. America's success has been built upon the melting pot concept. The unification of our diverse population. Also 85% of the private schools in the US are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction. So as Gump would say that's is all I have to say about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom