• 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!

Clinton gives her take on Sanders supporters in leaked fundraising recording

Sounds like you're advertising your own ignorance with that rhetorical garbage.

That is just because you dislike the reality exposed by the academic disciplines mentioned. ;)
 
Crying strawman won't save you. The truth is in the text :

Not crying anything. I am simply pointing out what you are doing. Instead of arguing what is said you are making stuff up and arguing things I didn't
say that is pretty much the definition of a strawman.


People that get loans !?!?

yep people get loans all the time even poor people.

When rich people invest money, they're doing it for themselves. Adam Smith said that, in a just economy, people working in their own self interest will generally do what is best for society. The goal is to do what is best for society. I have explained that policies that are designed to increase income disparity will worsen wealth disparity which economists agree is bad (inefficient) for the economy. This is because pricing poor people out of the economy makes them less productive. When poor people can't afford education, they will (on the aggregate) be less productive over their lifetime as a result. These are all facts. You cannot wish them away by crying strawman.

that is usually what happens when you invest money there is usually a net positive for you sometimes it works out other times it doesn't.
yep self interest is a huge motivator in a lot of things. I had a self interest to go to college. I had self interest to go back and finish my 4 year.
I had self interest to work 12 hour nights for a long time. Now I have a great position I travel all over the world. I am getting ready to start my PMP
boot camp.

Not really because frankly you can never meet every single need of society. If individuals help themselves then the needs of society are met.
The whole income disparity thing is meaningless when it comes to how our economy runs. the only thing your policies do is prevent people
from actually gaining more wealth. the anti-prosperity ideology of the left is frankly scary.

instead of promoting wealth and success and pushing idea's to let people become more successful. they want to hit the successful and wealth
and drag them down to the point that they are the only ones left with anything. The elitist attitude of the left is disgusting.

poor people can get education for free. They qualify for plenty of grants and even loans to go to school. even if they do have to get student loans
the job they can get after they graduate will more than pay for it. They don't have to go to a big university local community colleges are just as good
and sometimes even better than major universities.

You finally presented an argument that wasn't a strawman congrats.
 
They exact tremendous costs on the parts of our economy that actually produce ****.



They exact tremendous costs on the parts of our economy that actually produce ****.



Because money doesn't grow on trees.


Gee Wiz..........
 
Yeah, forced busing. There was a time before busing when large, metropolitan school districts, such as those in Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Boston, didn't suck. Liberals thought you could integrate these schools by sending white kids from their neighborhood schools to majority black schools. Didn't work, as whites fled in droves (Why busing failed | Tampa Bay Times).



For everything? No. But for a lot of it, yeah. Five decades and more than $1 trillion of Great Society and War on Poverty spending and they still haven't learned. :doh



Yeah, that's what liberals do. They'd rather rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic than build a seaworthy boat in the first place. :shrug:

Ah, so your "forced busing" critique is really a critique on integration. Apparently, you favor segregation, because you "care" about black people ...? Is that honestly what i'm supposed to believe ?
 
That is just because you dislike the reality exposed by the academic disciplines mentioned. ;)

Not really, the fact of the matter is that taxing does take dollars out of the economy, just like spending cuts do. You are trying to counter basic facts about reality with rhetorical garbage. I've seen some terrible arguments but few reach that level.
 
Not crying anything. I am simply pointing out what you are doing. Instead of arguing what is said you are making stuff up and arguing things I didn't
say that is pretty much the definition of a strawman.




yep people get loans all the time even poor people.



that is usually what happens when you invest money there is usually a net positive for you sometimes it works out other times it doesn't.
yep self interest is a huge motivator in a lot of things. I had a self interest to go to college. I had self interest to go back and finish my 4 year.
I had self interest to work 12 hour nights for a long time. Now I have a great position I travel all over the world. I am getting ready to start my PMP
boot camp.

Not really because frankly you can never meet every single need of society. If individuals help themselves then the needs of society are met.
The whole income disparity thing is meaningless when it comes to how our economy runs. the only thing your policies do is prevent people
from actually gaining more wealth. the anti-prosperity ideology of the left is frankly scary.

instead of promoting wealth and success and pushing idea's to let people become more successful. they want to hit the successful and wealth
and drag them down to the point that they are the only ones left with anything. The elitist attitude of the left is disgusting.

poor people can get education for free. They qualify for plenty of grants and even loans to go to school. even if they do have to get student loans
the job they can get after they graduate will more than pay for it. They don't have to go to a big university local community colleges are just as good
and sometimes even better than major universities.

You finally presented an argument that wasn't a strawman congrats.

Loans don't simply become income for poor people. Moreover, we don't need any more rich people's savings to issue more loans, we're operating nowhere near capacity. The fundamental limit on the number of loans we can issue is the number of suitable borrowers that are available.

Self interest isn't a helpful sentiment. It's a great story for someone who doesn't suffer from life's complications, like having a disability, or being born into poverty. No human being can survive on their own, we are all born helpless little babies. We all need someone else to invest in us so that we can realize our productive potential.

When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, the economy suffers. When poor people decide to avoid education because of cost, that's a problem. Telling them to "do it yourselves" isn't helpful.

Look, the market works best when there's competition, yes ? Well, when the economic behemoths don't have many competitors in their industries, they become bloated and inefficient, worse yet, the little guys (small businesses) often have a hard time competing with them due to barriers to entry. When inequality is severe, the most powerful actors in the economy do not compete, they are no longer in check. That's inefficient.

The basic problem is that poor people are forced to participate in the economy before they can realize their productive potential (through education) because of the need to provide food and shelter. They need money for these things, they can't just not get a job. When the economy takes a downturn, a rich person can liquidate their investments and park their assets in bonds. They don't have to participate in the economy. They can just watch it burn, and they can afford to meet all their needs. Poor people don't have that option. They have to take whatever job they can find, and they are often brutal, low wage jobs with little upward mobility. These people often work very hard, and yet have so very little to show for it.
 
Not really, the fact of the matter is that taxing does take dollars out of the economy, just like spending cuts do. You are trying to counter basic facts about reality with rhetorical garbage. I've seen some terrible arguments but few reach that level.

While taxes do, as you correctly mention, take dollars out of the economy in a certain sense, this does not mean that that is an important factor in the equation. As a matter of fact, you can calculate optimum fiscal spending, Taxes and debt for an economy. In other words, it is necessary to extract dollars from the economy to reach the optimum solution. This is because the tax has many implications besides the payment to government and the economy is an entity, where things happen simultaneously with many acting upon the results. It is why models of the economy are built for simultaneous solution.
 
Thanks to boneheaded policies like forced busing, liberals have driven wealthier people (including a lot of liberals) out of public schools. Nonetheless, poor people get free education through the 12th grade, and yet they're dropping out in record numbers when they're not assaulting their teachers. And Bernie wants to give them free college? What an idiot. :doh

Well, they're not dropping out in record numbers, but I'm not sure if facts are the point of your comment.

01_Fig1.jpg
 
Loans don't simply become income for poor people. Moreover, we don't need any more rich people's savings to issue more loans, we're operating nowhere near capacity. The fundamental limit on the number of loans we can issue is the number of suitable borrowers that are available.
If you haven't noticed lending policies have become stricter so it is harder to businesses and people wanting to start businesses to get loans.
SO they seek other types of investments in order to help fund their businesses.


Self interest isn't a helpful sentiment. It's a great story for someone who doesn't suffer from life's complications, like having a disability, or being born into poverty. No human being can survive on their own, we are all born helpless little babies. We all need someone else to invest in us so that we can realize our productive potential.

there is self interest in supporting my family and other people have a self interest in supporting their families. the question then becomes why do you want to make it harder on them to do that?
almost every single liberal tax plan takes more money from my family. so why should I vote for people that are harming my family and their well being?

When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, the economy suffers. When poor people decide to avoid education because of cost, that's a problem. Telling them to "do it yourselves" isn't helpful.

This is what happens when you try and arbitrary try to set pay rates. the fact is they are going to be the only people that can do it. The government isn't going to help them out of poverty. in fact the governments
job is to keep them there. that is why liberals continue to want to expand social programs to outrageous levels. it has nothing to do with helping but control.

Look, the market works best when there's competition, yes ? Well, when the economic behemoths don't have many competitors in their industries, they become bloated and inefficient, worse yet, the little guys (small businesses) often have a hard time competing with them due to barriers to entry. When inequality is severe, the most powerful actors in the economy do not compete, they are no longer in check. That's inefficient.

yep which blows my mind why government more so liberals continue to hammer in policies and regulations that hurt the little guy. it makes no sense to me maybe you can explain it.
my plans involve expanding those little guys to become big guys.

The basic problem is that poor people are forced to participate in the economy before they can realize their productive potential (through education) because of the need to provide food and shelter. They need money for these things, they can't just not get a job. When the economy takes a downturn, a rich person can liquidate their investments and park their assets in bonds. They don't have to participate in the economy. They can just watch it burn, and they can afford to meet all their needs. Poor people don't have that option. They have to take whatever job they can find, and they are often brutal, low wage jobs with little upward mobility. These people often work very hard, and yet have so very little to show for it.

everyone is forced to participate in the economy this is just a given. Unless you live on a farm even the most self sufficient farmer still relies on the economy.
so that really isn't an argument.

yes they can get a job. anyone can get a job. actually rich people do participate in the economy. more so than what you think.
actually they can't but I don't expect you do know this.

well that is where education and training comes into play. if you think you are going to get really far working for mcdonalds then well you are mistaken.
however with training and education you can improve yourself.

my first job was running wire in a building and installing cat5e. I did it for about 3 years.
I was paid 5.15 and hour.

my next job after I graduated was a call center job. it paid 12.45 an hour.
I had to move and I did home automation making 11 bucks an hour.

then I finished my 4 year and got a job with the company I have now.
I started off working 12 hour night shifts for 6 years. then I learned everything I could
and I got a promotion. now I travel all over the world for my company. I make good money
and just got another promotion.

next month I am going for my PMP bootcamp. I will pass the PMP exam and then I will be able to
bump my salary and probably double it.
 
Does it change anything about what Hillary Clinton said? If you suddenly have a different opinion of Clinton after what Bernie said, as opposed to before... then I've got news for you! And you're not going to like it. It means you're gullible and highly-susceptible to being manipulated.

I think the problem you and some other posters are having is that "living in your parent's basement" is often used as an insult. I got this version of it one time

You spend your days masturbating in your parent's basement using the internet they pay for.

In Hillary's case she was simply describing where a lot of millennials seem to have to live. Bernie said he had the same opinion. This is simply not another "47%" comment.
 
Ah, so your "forced busing" critique is really a critique on integration.

No, it's really a critique of a failed liberal experiment in social engineering.

Apparently, you favor segregation, because you "care" about black people ...? Is that honestly what i'm supposed to believe ?

So I point out how liberals sold blacks a bill of goods and that means I don't care about black people? Is that your argument? Assuming you can prove that, how is it even relevant to this discussion? For the record, I wish for a society in which everyone lives in peace, with no racial divides, no one wants for anything, and life is just one big party. I also wish a leprechaun would deposit a huge pot of gold on my front porch. Alas, I'm resigned to the fact that it won't happen.
 
Well, they're not dropping out in record numbers, but I'm not sure if facts are the point of your comment.

01_Fig1.jpg

I thought we were talking about poverty. Are things really that ducky for poor kids? I wonder. And how many of these kids attend so-called "dropout factories" or receive substandard diplomas in order to goose the numbers for states under pressure by the federal government to demonstrate improvement in graduation rates?

The High School Graduation Rate Is Great, Unless You're Poor - The Atlantic

High School Graduation Rates: The Good, The Bad And The Ambiguous : NPR Ed : NPR
 
I thought we were talking about poverty. Are things really that ducky for poor kids? I wonder. And how many of these kids attend so-called "dropout factories" or receive substandard diplomas in order to goose the numbers for states under pressure by the federal government to demonstrate improvement in graduation rates?

The High School Graduation Rate Is Great, Unless You're Poor - The Atlantic

High School Graduation Rates: The Good, The Bad And The Ambiguous : NPR Ed : NPR

OK, you made a claim, it was false, so you're moving the goal posts on me. I'll pass.
 
I don't see why anyone should be offended by this. She essentially said that a lot of Bernie's millennial support is due to the impact of the recession, and the inability of a lot of people to get decent jobs and move out on their own. It is true. Where is the offensive part?

I don't know if it's been posted here or not, but here's the text of her commentary in question:

CLINTON: Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.” So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing.

She wasn't putting down millennials. She was summarizing the plight many of them are going through after attending 4-years of college and not being able to find that high paying job their degree should afford them of the job they'd envisioned for themselves.

You can listen to the audio for yourself here.
 
I don't know if it's been posted here or not, but here's the text of her commentary in question:



She wasn't putting down millennials. She was summarizing the plight many of them are going through after attending 4-years of college and not being able to find that high paying job their degree should afford them of the job they'd envisioned for themselves.

You can listen to the audio for yourself here.
I did listen to the audio. I think a lot of the people who were offended by this didn't bother to listen. It's really a shame because it's honestly a humanizing moment for Hillary.
 
I did listen to the audio. I think a lot of the people who were offended by this didn't bother to listen. It's really a shame because it's honestly a humanizing moment for Hillary.

Yeah, in context it really doesn't seem like an insult.
 
OK, you made a claim, it was false, so you're moving the goal posts on me. I'll pass.

Look at my quote again:

Thanks to boneheaded policies like forced busing, liberals have driven wealthier people :shock: (including a lot of liberals) out of public schools. Nonetheless, poor people :shock: get free education through the 12th grade, and yet they're dropping out in record numbers when they're not assaulting their teachers. And Bernie wants to give them free college? What an idiot.

As you can see, the discussion concerns how Bernie's free education plan will help poor people. (I was under the assumption Bernie wants to help all poor people, regardless of race.) Instead of actually addressing my point (how poor high school dropouts will attend college), you inject a chart breaking down dropout rates by race and accuse me of moving the goal post. :shrug: And since the criteria of what constitutes a "high school graduate" have been bastardized over the years, that's a perfectly legitimate bone to pick with your chart in any case.
 
Look at my quote again:

As you can see, the discussion concerns how Bernie's free education plan will help poor people. (I was under the assumption Bernie wants to help all poor people, regardless of race.) Instead of actually addressing my point (how poor high school dropouts will attend college), you inject a chart breaking down dropout rates by race and accuse me of moving the goal post. :shrug: And since the criteria of what constitutes a "high school graduate" have been bastardized over the years, that's a perfectly legitimate bone to pick with your chart in any case.

First of all, you said poor kids were dropping out in record numbers - they're not, dropout rates for blacks and hispanics have dropped by 2/3 or so over the past few decades. No matter what else is true, we're well down from 'record' levels. Now you're saying POOR people graduate at lower rates than others, and that lots of them who do get a diploma don't earn them. Those are true, although you have shown no trends over time.

Finally, your point was to laugh at the idea of Bernie giving some "they" who are "dropping out in record numbers when they're not assaulting their teachers" free college. Well, not sure who they are who are dropping out and/or assaulting teachers, but it's safe to say it's a tiny minority of poor kids - we have lots of poor kids around here and assaults on teachers are rare - and it's also safe to say HS dropouts who assault their teachers are poor candidates for higher education. And it makes no sense to deny some benefit to a group of people because there is some other very small group who behave improperly. Is college aid contingent on 100% grad rates by the poor and no poor kids beating up teachers?

Etc. You weren't really trying to make a serious point, which is sort of what I said in my first response.
 
First of all, you said poor kids were dropping out in record numbers - they're not, dropout rates for blacks and hispanics have dropped by 2/3 or so over the past few decades. No matter what else is true, we're well down from 'record' levels.

Okay. I'll grant you that. Can we move on?

Now you're saying POOR people graduate at lower rates than others, and that lots of them who do get a diploma don't earn them. Those are true, although you have shown no trends over time.

Correct, because it's marginal to my main point, which is: We know that income tends to increase with educational attainment, so someone who is a high school dropout is likely to have a difficult time of it relative to someone with, say, a graduate or professional degree. As far as I can tell, Bernie's plan does nothing for them the non-achievers or slow starters.

Is college aid contingent on 100% grad rates by the poor and no poor kids beating up teachers?

No, but, nonetheless, Bernie's nuts. That's not "ha! ha!" funny. It's more like a tragedy. Have you noticed how the cost of things government subsidizes goes up? Healthcare, housing, post-secondary education, for example? And now Bernie wants to give colleges even more money? Personally, I think we need more vocational training through community colleges and less money just handed to four-year colleges, which are already in a race to hire star faculty and administrators with corresponding executive salaries and perks and to build the next "gee wiz" sports arena.
 
Back
Top Bottom