Socialism in America

From the Economist: Socialism in America

Excerpt:

BOZEMAN, MONTANA is the birthplace of Ryan Zinke, the federal secretary of the interior, and the home of Steve Daines, Montana’s Republican junior senator, and Greg Gianforte, the state’s reporter-thumping Republican congressman. But the public-comments part of Bozeman’s city commission meeting on August 20th was dominated entirely by socialists. They did not sing the Internationale, or demand public ownership of the means of production. Instead, the ten members of the Bozeman Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) thanked the commission for raising city workers’ minimum wage to $13 an hour, and urged them to raise it to $15 over the next two years.

Click to expand...

Socialism has died a well-deserved death. So, what's left? There is its evolution as found in the European Union. It's called "Social Democracy". And the differences in political definition with "Socialism" is important to understand.

Socialism denied the ownership of the means of production by any private entity. The state owned them. Which, in time, proved to be the principle reason "socialism" (small "s") proved not to work. It simply could not meet the needs of the people, so they dumped it.

A Social Democracy is defined as thus: "A political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."

Clearly, the means of production generally are kept in the hands of private entities. With some exceptions - namely Health Care and Tertiary Education. And there are good reasons for both being offered by the state at affordable costs for all comers. For example, the comparative national costs per capita of Healthcare - the EU vs the US as seen in this infographic.

Which is why the Democrats in the US are keen to emphasize how Social Democracies actually do provide some essential services that are simply prohibitive otherwise due to their higher costs.

I have sent my two kids to university in France, and for nowhere near the cost it would have been in the US. Total tuition cost for each about $500 a year and room-'n-board for six months over the period of four years for a post-secondary degree costs $400/600 a month for about 8 months. That's about $5k a year, less than half the US national average at a State Public School of Post-secondary Education in the US.

Here follows the Euro cost of tuition in France* (just divide by 0.86 to get the dollar cost):

• 170 euros for a school year in a Bachelor's degree program;
• 243 euros for a Master's degree ;
• 601 euros for a engineering degree ;
• 380 euros a year for a Doctorate level degree.

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Very well said. Those who are too ill equipped to argue against the success of democratic socialism in dozens of countries will try to write it off as Stalin-style socialism with gulags and state ownership of everything.

In reality, it's a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism that has many of the strengths of both without most of their weaknesses. Let the economy mostly be run by capitalism, but build a solid social infrastructure so that you don't have the abject poverty and despair the American people have from not being able to see / afford a doctor or get an education / job training.

Even the many Americans who harbor the "**** everyone but me" political philosophy would benefit from having cheaper healthcare and education and crime rates appropriately sink when people aren't in a desperate state. We CAN do better, America, the question is only if we want to.

RabidAlpaca said:

Very well said. Those who are too ill equipped to argue against the success of democratic socialism in dozens of countries will try to write it off as Stalin-style socialism with gulags and state ownership of everything.

In reality, it's a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism that has many of the strengths of both without most of their weaknesses. Let the economy mostly be run by capitalism, but build a solid social infrastructure so that you don't have the abject poverty and despair the American people have from not being able to see / afford a doctor or get an education / job training.

Even the many Americans who harbor the "**** everyone but me" political philosophy would benefit from having cheaper healthcare and education and crime rates appropriately sink when people aren't in a desperate state. We CAN do better, America, the question is only if we want to.

Click to expand...

My ancestors left the old world for a reason. One I agree with. Freedom. Freedom is messy. No getting around it. Not everyone is cut out for it. I don't want to be like Europe. If you like what the Europeans have got move there, they will be happy to have you. Me, I can take care of myself just fine, all I need is people to stop trying to help me.

Lafayette said:

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Click to expand...

This is something that we can actually agree on Lafayette. There is a time and place for everything under the sun. And in this day and age we NEED people that are educated enough to make it in this world. We also need people that can think critically. No, I do not mean being critical, I mean thinking critical. There's a difference. One which I think there are quite a few that are missing such a distinction that is coming from our schools both K-12 and higher. Part of the job of the government, any government, is to make the country a success. A country that will last and move forward. Education is one way that this is done.

Here is where we might disagree. What studies exactly do, or should, we allow our government to help subsidize, pay through with tax dollars? All of it? I don't think so. There are many studies that simply are not all that useful in the real world. So here's my suggestion. Studies that are hard sciences, like technology, astronomy, mechanical engineering, biology, etc etc should be payed through with tax dollars. Trades like teaching, doctors, mechanics, electricians, lawyers, computer programing etc etc should be payed through with tax dollars. Certain soft sciences like psychology, anthropology, and political science should be payed for with tax dollars.

What should NOT be payed for with tax dollars are studies that have no real use. For example, gender studies, sociology, art etc etc. Not that those are necessarily BAD to learn, its just that they don't have any practical use in the real world. (and yes, I'm quite sure I'm going to get flamed for my stance on those).

We need studies that are practical and useful if we are to keep up with the rest of the world where many people are taking the studies that I listed as being acceptable to use tax dollars on. We're falling behind because too many are taking useless studies that don't really advance us all that much, if any.

Kal'Stang said:

This is something that we can actually agree on Lafayette. There is a time and place for everything under the sun. And in this day and age we NEED people that are educated enough to make it in this world. We also need people that can think critically. No, I do not mean being critical, I mean thinking critical. There's a difference. One which I think there are quite a few that are missing such a distinction that is coming from our schools both K-12 and higher. Part of the job of the government, any government, is to make the country a success. A country that will last and move forward. Education is one way that this is done.

Here is where we might disagree. What studies exactly do, or should, we allow our government to help subsidize, pay through with tax dollars? All of it? I don't think so. There are many studies that simply are not all that useful in the real world. So here's my suggestion. Studies that are hard sciences, like technology, astronomy, mechanical engineering, biology, etc etc should be payed through with tax dollars. Trades like teaching, doctors, mechanics, electricians, lawyers, computer programing etc etc should be payed through with tax dollars. Certain soft sciences like psychology, anthropology, and political science should be payed for with tax dollars.

What should NOT be payed for with tax dollars are studies that have no real use. For example, gender studies, sociology, art etc etc. Not that those are necessarily BAD to learn, its just that they don't have any practical use in the real world. (and yes, I'm quite sure I'm going to get flamed for my stance on those).

We need studies that are practical and useful if we are to keep up with the rest of the world where many people are taking the studies that I listed as being acceptable to use tax dollars on. We're falling behind because too many are taking useless studies that don't really advance us all that much, if any.

Click to expand...

I Think to a certain extent we should help fund those but only if there is a need in that area. Like you mentioned lawyers, of course there is a need for them in society but right now there is too many why should the govt pay to even more over saturate the legal job market. Also the unintended effect is that we push people into things they dont have the aptitude for just because we decided to pay for it. Not to mention field specifics, like we need a bunch of primary care doctors but that doesnt pay so they all become specialists

Crovax said:

I Think to a certain extent we should help fund those but only if there is a need in that area. Like you mentioned lawyers, of course there is a need for them in society but right now there is too many why should the govt pay to even more over saturate the legal job market. Also the unintended effect is that we push people into things they dont have the aptitude for just because we decided to pay for it. Not to mention field specifics, like we need a bunch of primary care doctors but that doesnt pay so they all become specialists

Click to expand...

You reminded me...there are certain aspects of the trade skills that we shouldn't be subsidizing. I meant to list some of them but forgot. For example: elective plastic surgery. Of course, not sure how we can do that one as plastic surgery is needed for things like burn victims. Perhaps require that they only go to work in certain areas for 10 years max or they have to pay back the subsidized amount? Not sure. And yeah, I agree on the lawyers bit. We need far more lawyers for say criminal defense than we do lawsuit lawyers. Or better yet lawyers that are versed in immigration laws so that we can streamline our immigration system a bit better.

And yes, I'm aware that doing this would have the effects that you mention. I don't mind covering for those that fail though. Life is about failure after all. But aside from that I think that the benefits would outweigh the negatives in this aspect as there will be far more that succeed than fail. But to mitigate it I would suggest that we reform how K-12 is taught also. Actually use K-12 to get kids ready to learn these skills rather than just doing the most basic of teaching, which is what we have now for the most part. One thing I would suggest is shortening summer vacation. The original reason that schools got out when they do now is due to agricultural and cultural reasons. That being that the parents needed the help of the older kids to help harvest. That isn't the case so much anymore so I think we could do something along the lines of what Japan has where kids get 6 weeks out for summer, holidays off, and school days are 5-6 (depending on the school). This would give kids more time to learn before college years which means more could be taught. There are many other things that can be done also. I won't get into them just now though. I will later if needed.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Socialism in America

Excerpt:


Socialism has died a well-deserved death. So, what's left? There is its evolution as found in the European Union. It's called "Social Democracy". And the differences in political definition with "Socialism" is important to understand.

Socialism denied the ownership of the means of production by any private entity. The state owned them. Which, in time, proved to be the principle reason "socialism" (small "s") proved not to work. It simply could not meet the needs of the people, so they dumped it.

A Social Democracy is defined as thus: "A political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."

Clearly, the means of production generally are kept in the hands of private entities. With some exceptions - namely Health Care and Tertiary Education. And there are good reasons for both being offered by the state at affordable costs for all comers. For example, the comparative national costs per capita of Healthcare - the EU vs the US as seen in this infographic.

Which is why the Democrats in the US are keen to emphasize how Social Democracies actually do provide some essential services that are simply prohibitive otherwise due to their higher costs.

I have sent my two kids to university in France, and for nowhere near the cost it would have been in the US. Total tuition cost for each about $500 a year and room-'n-board for six months over the period of four years for a post-secondary degree costs $400/600 a month for about 8 months. That's about $5k a year, less than half the US national average at a State Public School of Post-secondary Education in the US.

Here follows the Euro cost of tuition in France* (just divide by 0.86 to get the dollar cost):

• 170 euros for a school year in a Bachelor's degree program;
• 243 euros for a Master's degree ;
• 601 euros for a engineering degree ;
• 380 euros a year for a Doctorate level degree.

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Click to expand...

Defining every mutual project designed to advance the general welfare of Americans as socialism is wrong.

America in the 21st century is becoming a fascist's field day. That has to stop, and it will.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Socialism in America

Excerpt:


Socialism has died a well-deserved death. So, what's left? There is its evolution as found in the European Union. It's called "Social Democracy". And the differences in political definition with "Socialism" is important to understand.

Socialism denied the ownership of the means of production by any private entity. The state owned them. Which, in time, proved to be the principle reason "socialism" (small "s") proved not to work. It simply could not meet the needs of the people, so they dumped it.

A Social Democracy is defined as thus: "A political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."

Clearly, the means of production generally are kept in the hands of private entities. With some exceptions - namely Health Care and Tertiary Education. And there are good reasons for both being offered by the state at affordable costs for all comers. For example, the comparative national costs per capita of Healthcare - the EU vs the US as seen in this infographic.

Which is why the Democrats in the US are keen to emphasize how Social Democracies actually do provide some essential services that are simply prohibitive otherwise due to their higher costs.

I have sent my two kids to university in France, and for nowhere near the cost it would have been in the US. Total tuition cost for each about $500 a year and room-'n-board for six months over the period of four years for a post-secondary degree costs $400/600 a month for about 8 months. That's about $5k a year, less than half the US national average at a State Public School of Post-secondary Education in the US.

Here follows the Euro cost of tuition in France* (just divide by 0.86 to get the dollar cost):

• 170 euros for a school year in a Bachelor's degree program;
• 243 euros for a Master's degree ;
• 601 euros for a engineering degree ;
• 380 euros a year for a Doctorate level degree.

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Click to expand...

'Social Democracy' is not doing so well either. Destroyed in France and Italy and led by a moronic anti-semite in the UK. Here in Sweden the Social Democrats had their worst ever election result four years ago. On Sept 8th they are set to get an even lower vote share.

RabidAlpaca said:

Very well said. Those who are too ill equipped to argue against the success of democratic socialism in dozens of countries will try to write it off as Stalin-style socialism with gulags and state ownership of everything.

In reality, it's a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism that has many of the strengths of both without most of their weaknesses. Let the economy mostly be run by capitalism, but build a solid social infrastructure so that you don't have the abject poverty and despair the American people have from not being able to see / afford a doctor or get an education / job training.

Even the many Americans who harbor the "**** everyone but me" political philosophy would benefit from having cheaper healthcare and education and crime rates appropriately sink when people aren't in a desperate state. We CAN do better, America, the question is only if we want to.

Click to expand...

People are dumb. So, they swallow the bull**** spewed by the whores of the super wealthy. They then start to believe that paying $100K out of pocket for college, plus another $1000 a month for adequate health insurance coverage and various co-pays is normal and somehow better than government sponsored and/or subsidized education and healthcare. "Dat's Sosha-LISM!"

Shake my ****ing head.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Socialism in America

Excerpt:


Socialism has died a well-deserved death. So, what's left? There is its evolution as found in the European Union. It's called "Social Democracy". And the differences in political definition with "Socialism" is important to understand.

Socialism denied the ownership of the means of production by any private entity. The state owned them. Which, in time, proved to be the principle reason "socialism" (small "s") proved not to work. It simply could not meet the needs of the people, so they dumped it.

A Social Democracy is defined as thus: "A political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."

Clearly, the means of production generally are kept in the hands of private entities. With some exceptions - namely Health Care and Tertiary Education. And there are good reasons for both being offered by the state at affordable costs for all comers. For example, the comparative national costs per capita of Healthcare - the EU vs the US as seen in this infographic.

Which is why the Democrats in the US are keen to emphasize how Social Democracies actually do provide some essential services that are simply prohibitive otherwise due to their higher costs.

I have sent my two kids to university in France, and for nowhere near the cost it would have been in the US. Total tuition cost for each about $500 a year and room-'n-board for six months over the period of four years for a post-secondary degree costs $400/600 a month for about 8 months. That's about $5k a year, less than half the US national average at a State Public School of Post-secondary Education in the US.

Here follows the Euro cost of tuition in France* (just divide by 0.86 to get the dollar cost):

• 170 euros for a school year in a Bachelor's degree program;
• 243 euros for a Master's degree ;
• 601 euros for a engineering degree ;
• 380 euros a year for a Doctorate level degree.

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Click to expand...

Why you Republican you, thinking that people can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. What about all of those on the lower end of the totem pole who just can't do extended education for several different reasons, even if the government paid the majority of it? Well, back to socialism I guess. Take from the rich and give to the poor because those rich are nothing but pure evil who use the poor to make themselves rich. In any economy there are Chiefs and Indians (how racist of me to say) so, if everyone gets extended education, there will be no Indians to do Indian work. By the way, France has many problems. What's their unemployment rate?

"Socialism" coming out of the mouths of people like Trump is a dirty buzz word. It's been used against liberal politicians at least since Franklin Roosevelt. The average voter, even among Democrats, would be at a loss to give the word its proper definition. But it raises hackles on the Right, because to them it means, among other things, the government coming to take your guns.

Socialism is fully incompatible with our constitution. and don't start on "social security" and the other socialist programs that were thrust upon us by progressives...fdr threatened to load the sc with lefties, increasing the number of justices to 12 so that he could get ss passed. The gop capitulated. I wish to god that fdr would have been killed by polio before this maniac had the power to do the things that he did to wreck America forever.

JackA said:

"Socialism" coming out of the mouths of people like Trump is a dirty buzz word. It's been used against liberal politicians at least since Franklin Roosevelt. The average voter, even among Democrats, would be at a loss to give the word its proper definition. But it raises hackles on the Right, because to them it means, among other things, the government coming to take your guns.

Click to expand...

I am a American and I am a Social Democrat since the 1990's. I never supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential election because I feared he would get Trump elected president of the United States of America. My wife is from Canada, and we think of ourselves as members of the New Democratic Party of Canada. The goal is to make the people better educated, improve critical thinking skills, have a better education, and increase human lifespans.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Socialism in America

Excerpt:


Socialism has died a well-deserved death. So, what's left? There is its evolution as found in the European Union. It's called "Social Democracy". And the differences in political definition with "Socialism" is important to understand.

Socialism denied the ownership of the means of production by any private entity. The state owned them. Which, in time, proved to be the principle reason "socialism" (small "s") proved not to work. It simply could not meet the needs of the people, so they dumped it.

A Social Democracy is defined as thus: "A political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."

Clearly, the means of production generally are kept in the hands of private entities. With some exceptions - namely Health Care and Tertiary Education. And there are good reasons for both being offered by the state at affordable costs for all comers. For example, the comparative national costs per capita of Healthcare - the EU vs the US as seen in this infographic.

Which is why the Democrats in the US are keen to emphasize how Social Democracies actually do provide some essential services that are simply prohibitive otherwise due to their higher costs.

I have sent my two kids to university in France, and for nowhere near the cost it would have been in the US. Total tuition cost for each about $500 a year and room-'n-board for six months over the period of four years for a post-secondary degree costs $400/600 a month for about 8 months. That's about $5k a year, less than half the US national average at a State Public School of Post-secondary Education in the US.

Here follows the Euro cost of tuition in France* (just divide by 0.86 to get the dollar cost):

• 170 euros for a school year in a Bachelor's degree program;
• 243 euros for a Master's degree ;
• 601 euros for a engineering degree ;
• 380 euros a year for a Doctorate level degree.

My Point? Tertiary-education is a prime necessity in this day-and-age for anyone to be able to provide adequately for their family. The US is backward to provide (at state schools) post-secondary degrees that cost on average $21K a year.

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States, by institution type 2013-2018 (in U.S. dollars)

The tuition-fees in the US are way out of reach for a good percentage of our students. Only about 45% of those graduating from high-school in the US go on to obtain a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) ...

*From here, if your French is up to understanding the text.

Click to expand...

I had a very similar discussion with someone just this week. I am a product of the City University of New York. At the time both I and my sister went to school our tuition was essentially free. The most I paid for college was $35/semester. It was a commuter school so no room and board.

There was a catch however. If you wanted to go to any of the four year colleges, good grades and SAT scores were required. So in a city with a ton of first and second generation Americans there was a ton of competition. I still think that having a free university (no longer the case) gave New York a large advantage.

Atheist 2020 said:

I am a American and I am a Social Democrat since the 1990's. I never supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential election because I feared he would get Trump elected president of the United States of America. My wife is from Canada, and we think of ourselves as members of the New Democratic Party of Canada. The goal is to make the people better educated, improve critical thinking skills, have a better education, and increase human lifespans.

Click to expand...

You guessed wrong, obviously. Hillary lost in part because she failed to excite her base. Sanders would have excited the base. The campaign against Trump would have given him time to
convince voters that he is by no means a "socialist" notwithstanding his own loose identification with the term. I think he would have completely befuddled Trump in the debates.

JackA said:

You guessed wrong, obviously. Hillary lost in part because she failed to excite her base. Sanders would have excited the base. The campaign against Trump would have given him time to convince voters that he is by no means a "socialist" notwithstanding his own loose identification with the term. I think he would have completely befuddled Trump in the debates.

Click to expand...

If Bernie was the Dem hopeful the Russian bots would have been attacking him relentlessly instead of Hillary. The Russians were willing to invest a lot to get their man elected POTUS, and it's not difficult to understand why. YUGE win for Putin, YUGE loss for the USA. And as it turns out, judging by the TShirts a lot of Americans are wearing, Russia winning and America losing is a good thing, so long as Trump is in charge.

American socialism is alive and well.

America boasts the richest socialists in the world. Bankers, farmers and corp welfare and handouts.

Why is it we can have single-payer, govt.-run health insurance for banks, farmers, overseas investors plus milk price supports

...BUT we can't have the same for people ?

American socialism for the rich...is immoral.

America has socialism the debate is really about how much socialism it will have going forward

JackA said:

You guessed wrong, obviously. Hillary lost in part because she failed to excite her base. Sanders would have excited the base. The campaign against Trump would have given him time to convince voters that he is by no means a "socialist" notwithstanding his own loose identification with the term. I think he would have completely befuddled Trump in the debates.

Click to expand...

Whoever won the 2016 presidential election was going to become a one term president. Clinton was running a campaign to be reelected in the 2020 presidential election, without having silly goals and agenda that could not be past with a Republican Congress. After Sanders lost, they marched to Gary Johnson that was clueless about foreign policy, and from a political party that nominated one of the Koch brothers as their Vice President in 1980. Sanders supporters marched to a party that had a billionaire as there 1980 Vice President. Sanders supporters were so blinded with free college education, they went to a political party that supported a billionaire. Senator Sanders, just looked at it as not my problem.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of transportation, communication, production. Government usually operates 'em too. We don't have socialism in the United States. Nor will we have it. That's the good news. The bad news is that the Right is so far right out there everything looks like socialism. Except for their fascism.

Bernie Sanders says he's socialist but he's not. Education for instance is not a means of production and neither is health care. Taxpayer supported education and health care is not government ownership of transportation, communication, production. It's taxpayer funding of services -- certain services and at at limited scale relative to all components of the economy. A major aspect of the modern economy is bureaucracy, which means, as bad as bureaucracy can be, it is essential and we'd be in Trumpville Chaos eternally without it. We do manage our bureaucracy reasonably well over time. We could do better. For example, the Chinese have an old rule of seven in, eight out. Whatever it is.

Pedestrian said:

American socialism is alive and well.

America boasts the richest socialists in the world. Bankers, farmers and corp welfare and handouts.

Why is it we can have single-payer, govt.-run health insurance for banks, farmers, overseas investors plus milk price supports

...BUT we can't have the same for people ?

American socialism for the rich...is immoral.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I believe that all subsidies to "key industries" and bail-outs for "industries too important or big to fail" should be ended. Handing out taxpayer money to the profligate does not work on any level, large or small, as it creates and encourages moral hazard.

Kal'Stang said:

This is something that we can actually agree on Lafayette. There is a time and place for everything under the sun. And in this day and age we NEED people that are educated enough to make it in this world. We also need people that can think critically. No, I do not mean being critical, I mean thinking critical. There's a difference. One which I think there are quite a few that are missing such a distinction that is coming from our schools both K-12 and higher. Part of the job of the government, any government, is to make the country a success. A country that will last and move forward. Education is one way that this is done.

Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree. Part of the reason college tuition is largely unaffordable without taking out massive loans is precisely because of government intervention and subsidy, which is something policy wonks on the political right and political left actually agree upon.

Student loans funded with tax-dollars and privately-backed are presently non-dischargeable in bankruptcy in the United States, save through an incredibly lengthy, trying, and often-costly procedure known as adversary proceedings by which a debtor needs to meet the factors of the Brunner Test. Therefore, lenders see little risk in handing out loans to people as they are essentially collectable until the borrower's death (and longer if the borrower had loved ones foolish enough to to co-sign for them). Because people have access to these relatively-easy-to-obtain-impossible-to-get-rid-of loans, more and more students have the financial means with which to easily pay for their tuition and living costs in college when going to school full-time. It seems like a good thing on its face. However, giving more people the ability to borrow massive amounts of money on the front end creates two major problems on the back end:

First, it artificially stimulates demand, i.e., the ability for people to pay for a scarce good or service. In the case of student loans, more potential students are able to afford college with borrowed money. However, this drives up the cost as universities have raised their tuition rates higher and higher because universities only have so much space, seats, classrooms and professors to meet the demand of those wishing to be educated, which in turn leads students to borrow more non-dischargeable debt to meet the rising costs. The number of schools where it is affordable to work part-time (or even full time) and pay one's way through college while meeting living expenses seems to be dwindling with the exception of junior and community colleges.

Second, and more obvious, it forces students to remain in debt for years and years. I know fellow attorneys who have been practicing well over a decade who are still paying their students loans and will continue to pay their student loans for years and years to come.

In short, I do not think higher education tuition should be subsidized by the Federal government because it has already proven to be a money-pit from one end, i.e., forcing young men and women to shoulder huge loans in order to get an education, and forcing the American taxpayer to back upwards of $1.5 trillion dollars in the event that those loans are defaulted upon. The debt makes indentured servants of both the student and of the taxpayer simultaneously. Whenever the government tries to intervene to make something more affordable for more people in any way other than ending subsidies and regulations, it almost always ends up shooting itself and the people it is trying to help in the foot because the people in charge of making policy care more about political realities than they do about economic realities.

The only way to make college more affordable is to force them to compete for students, and cut their prices in order to compete for those students' dollars, rather than subsidizing those colleges so they have no incentive whatsoever to cut prices and every incentive to raise costs to the heavens. The only way to do that is to (1) end Student Loans special status as non-dischargeable debt under the bankruptcy code (extremely hard, as there is a great deal of political pressure on Congress to prevent that from happening), or (2) end student loan subsidies by the federal government (also hard). Those are my thoughts anyway.

JackA said:

You guessed wrong, obviously. Hillary lost in part because she failed to excite her base. Sanders would have excited the base. The campaign against Trump would have given him time to
convince voters that he is by no means a "socialist" notwithstanding his own loose identification with the term. I think he would have completely befuddled Trump in the debates.

Click to expand...

I have voted in every federal general election since 1984. If it was between Sanders and Trump, I would have just stayed home on election day.

Atheist 2020 said:

I have voted in every federal general election since 1984. If it was between Sanders and Trump, I would have just stayed home on election day.

Click to expand...

That would have shown them.

On a side note, and possible fodder for a separate thread, who the hell is anyone to say College education is essential to a good life/living? That crap has been pushed on us since the late 1970s and especially since the demise of heavy manufacturing in the US. People, especially on the Left, forget that building trades, vocational trades, and transportation are the most in demand jobs now. Reason being is that people don't want to work with their hands. A couple of examples: (1) Transportation, especially passenger transport (bus driving) can earn a very good living, especially with a Transit Authority, is basically in crisis mode with recruitment and retention of good drivers. (2) the IBEW local I tried out for back in 2006 offers a five year apprenticeship and after completion, Journeymen electricians can earn major money with benefits on top of that. But again, it's the lack of work ethic.