Bernie's free college idea

[ABC]

1 million middle class american families are employed by health insurance companies.  You want to put all of them out of the job.

 

So I just want to hear how you can justify all of those hard working families now being jobless.  All of those children now possibly going hungry, not having the nice things they had or the comforts their parents earned for them.

 

Parents need to find a new gig. Things change. It wouldn't happen overnight so there will be ample time to find a new line of work.

 

I think you are trolling a bit with your post but it is lazy and un-American to keep an industry or company alive just for the job. Many people need to find a new line or work because of market changes. If there is no company that'll hire them in the same city then they need to move. It's a pain but families come to the US without the same level of support, language or money and make a life. Some do it very successfully. 

[nate]

What about all the families of the people that are employed by the military and the defense industry that you would so gleefully make jobless with massive cuts to the budget?

 

Nice deflection but I will bite.

 

1/3 of all of our defense contracts are awarded to foreign companies.  That should stop immediately.

We pay billions of dollars in military aid to these countries we currently fight out of, more money we could save.

We would no longer pay our troops deployment pay.  Bringing them home to work on infrastructure which would create a ton of jobs for manufacturing companies, concrete, steel workers, etc.

Our troops would spend all the money they made

We are in peace keeping mode so we already are not churning out bullets and missiles like we were say 14 years ago.  The ramp down has long since happened.

 

There, I just did it without affecting American jobs negatively.

[nate]

Parents need to find a new gig. Things change. It wouldn't happen overnight so there will be ample time to find a new line of work.

 

I think you are trolling a bit with your post but it is lazy and un-American to keep an industry or company alive just for the job. Many people need to find a new line or work because of market changes. If there is no company that'll hire them in the same city then they need to move. It's a pain but families come to the US without the same level of support, language or money and make a life. Some do it very successfully. 

 

In other words, the lazy and unamerican parasites that we are helping are more important than the hard working people you are kicking to the curb.

[mtangelsfan]

great argument.

[Angelsjunky]

1 million middle class american families are employed by health insurance companies.  You want to put all of them out of the job.

 

So I just want to hear how you can justify all of those hard working families now being jobless.  All of those children now possibly going hungry, not having the nice things they had or the comforts their parents earned for them.

 

What's the saying...if you want to make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs. No solution is perfect for everyone.

 

That said, I don't think going to single-payer automatically erases one million jobs. That sounds likes political hyperbole, like the pro-lifers ranting about 75 million murders. I'm sure many of those positions can be re-allocated in some way. Won't the single-payer system need employees or will it be run by evil socialist robots? Anyhow, there are other lines of work, and if college is free then many people can go back to school for further training in another field.

 

But with any of these issues, nothing comes for free. It is a matter of weighing two options, the pros and the cons of each. The question is whether the cost is worth the reward.

[nate]

So are you still going to pay me my six figure salary while I go back to college?

 

Is the government?

 

You are taking jobs away from hard working people so the lowest common denominator can have it easier.

 

Not to mention in Canada and the UK they have fewer doctors, office workers and hospitals than they had before they went to a single payer system.

[mtangelsfan]

What's the saying...if you want to make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs. No solution is perfect for everyone.

 

That said, I don't think going to single-payer automatically erases one million jobs. That sounds likes political hyperbole, like the pro-lifers ranting about 75 million murders. I'm sure many of those positions can be re-allocated in some way. Won't the single-payer system need employees or will it be run by evil socialist robots? Anyhow, there are other lines of work, and if college is free then many people can go back to school for further training in another field.

 

But with any of these issues, nothing comes for free. It is a matter of weighing two options, the pros and the cons of each. The question is whether the cost is worth the reward.

 

If you are going to make the dig, at least do it in the same thread so you don't derail this one.

[Stradling]

AJ is "Pro Lazy" or "Pro Parasite"

[Angelsjunky]

Again, some will suffer. No offense, but I don't see insurance as this hallowed line of work that must be protected at all costs. Every civilization needs doctors and teachers and craftsmen, but not all civilizations need insurance salesmen. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people working in insurance didn't say, when they were young, "I want to work in insurance when I grow up!" Maybe with better social services to support them, at least some of these folks can re-orient their lives to a career that they'd find more meaningful.

 

For those that do really enjoy the work, I'm sure there will still be some jobs. It isn't going from 1,000,000 to 0. Again, that is hyperbole.

 

But yeah, you probably won't make as much. That kind of blows. But it also blows that tens of millions don't have health care and many more can't afford what they are paying via Obamacare, that millions don't get adequate education, that the roads and water systems are falling apart, on and on...it is a matter of priorities.

[nate]

Again, many more millions do have healthcare they can afford because they have jobs, worked hard, went to college etc.

 

Your system penalizes the people who work hard to satisfy those that don't.

 

Despite all your hyperbole, the US ranks well in life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc.  So clearly our system is not destroying the country.

 

Obamacare doesn't work because it was a stupid system that only made things more expensive.  It was your people that pushed it through in the first place without knowing anything about what they were proposing.

[Angelsjunky]

AJ is "Pro Lazy" or "Pro Parasite"

 

Not really. Come on Stradling, you're better than that.

 

I disagree with the rather typical conservative view that all poor people are "parasites" and "lazy." The vast majority are in the situation they are because of things that we should be working to improve in this country: education and poverty, for instance. It isn't like they are people that have intrinsic moral character defects. They are "lazy" because they were raised in such a way, perhaps they never were inspired in school or had a teacher that believed in them or helped them find their passions and drive. It is a matter of impoverished culture and poor education.

 

So I see a two-pronged approach: On one hand, improve social services so no one is without affordable healthcare and education. On the other, improve education, which in turn improves cultural impoverishment and stuff like "laziness" that cons dislike so much. It isn't either/or.

 

See, Republicans generally want to say, "**** you, poor people, pull yourself out of your hole," and liberals want to say, "Poor things it isn't your fault - here, have some free stuff that you don't have to work for." I think both are wrong, although if I had to choose I choose the latter - at least it is kinder. But it is enormously problematic, which is why I think we need to emphasize education. But it is a long-term process. No quick fixes.

[nate]

At what point is it too much, AJ.  Do you really think poor people have it hard in this country?

 

There will always be an income gap, there will always be rich people and poor people.  The majority of the people - the middle class, they are the heart of the country and they are the ones that get hurt by your policies.  You refuse to acknowledge that.

 

Explain to me, what is so wrong with education?  If everyone in the country could afford college, do you really think that would fix education?  Make it better?

 

As it is, if you are going to a college outside of the top 100 in the country you are largely wasting your time.  Putting Southern Missouri State on your resume is not going to get you hired, it is not going to get you a bigger salary.

 

Also, explain to me why the person collecting trash, building a house, mowing the lawn, running the desk at the local hotel, selling fast food, etc needs a college education.

 

Then you could also explain how economically it will  work with you delaying everyone's entrance into the workforce by four years so they can get a $50k education paid for by the middle class only to go to work at the local Footlocker.

 

All of Bernie's fairy tales are just that, they are sound bites in order to get the vote of liberal college kids who have no idea how the world really works.

Edited February 16, 2016 by nate

[Angelsjunky]

Again, many more millions do have healthcare they can afford because they have jobs, worked hard, went to college etc.

 

Your system penalizes the people who work hard to satisfy those that don't.

 

Despite all your hyperbole, the US ranks well in life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc.  So clearly our system is not destroying the country.

 

Obamacare doesn't work because it was a stupid system that only made things more expensive.  It was your people that pushed it through in the first place without knowing anything about what they were proposing.

 

First of all, what is "my system"? Are you talking about Bernie's proposals or some abstract socialist agenda that you associate with me? I don't actually have a proposed system of my own. And who are "my people?" Are you talking about Democrats? Liberals? Do you really need to be so simplistic and us vs. them?

 

But yeah, our system is actually pretty good - especially for people making a good living. But it doesn't work for everyone and I don't think the trajectory is a good one. The middle class continues to shrink, the cost of living goes up.

 

Also, I think your basic fallacy is that you have this simplistic model of "lazy people" vs. "hard working people," as if how hard you work is the only thing that matters. This is old-school thinking, sort of like saying IQ is a good indicator of intelligence when it is only one type of intelligence (see, for instance, Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences).

 

I would also add that there are plenty of folks who love what they do, work hard, but have trouble making ends meet because of rising cost of living and plateaued wages. What do you say to them? Get a job in insurance?  A lot of those people are teachers and social workers and counselors and artists - people that contribute to society, to culture, to caring for others, to inspiring and teaching. We want those people in our civilization, don't we?

[nate]

Teachers have excellent health insurance and pay, wtf are you talking about?  Social workers have a government job so they get amazing benefits.  Successful artists make more than enough money to pay for health insurance.  If they don't then they should get a well paying job to augment their artist aspirations.

 

AJ, what you do in life is your choice.  If you choose not to work hard, not to get a good job with health benefits, then it is what it is.  Again, I have never met a hard working person with aspirations that didn't get some modicum of what they were shooting for.

 

I have met plenty of people who have worked five retail jobs in the last three years that complain about their managers being lazy and how they should be paid more if they are expected to work harder.

[Stradling]

I just have a big problem with wealth distribution. I was using nates words to come at you the way you come at mt with "pro-lifers". Like its a bad thing to be Christian and believe abortion is wrong. Do I understand your points of view, sure that part is easy. Do I think it's logical to take people who were born to lazy people give them more free stuff and it will result in a more functioning self sufficient person, no not really. The government is incapable of solving social issues like this and honestly they shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility to begin with.

[Angelsjunky]

The World According to Nate is not the real world or only world, I hope you realize. "How the world really works" is vast and complex and beyond any of our comprehensions.

 

Anyhow, I don't have a problem with a gap between the poor and rich - I'm not a communist. In my view, the problem is how big the gap is and the fact that it is getting wider and wider, and that the US is become more and more like a big corporation.

[Angelsjunky]

I have never met a hard working person with aspirations that didn't get some modicum of what they were shooting for.

 

 

Let's take this one line here. I agree with this. But two questions:

 

1) How to get people to be both hard working and have aspirations?

2) What do we do about people who aren't hard working and/or have aspirations?

 

The point being, we agree with your statement. But what we disagree on is what to do about it.

[nate]

1) it is generational and genetic for the most part

 

2) for one thing stop making it so comfortable for them, definitely don't make it even more comfortable for them.  Think about the affluenza kid, he is a total shitbag because he went through his life without any consequences, he got everything he wanted.  All the socialist proposals of Bernie and the left do nothing but make it easier for people to live a comfortable life without contributing anything to the country.

[Angelsjunky]

I just have a big problem with wealth distribution. I was using nates words to come at you the way you come at mt with "pro-lifers". Like its a bad thing to be Christian and believe abortion is wrong. Do I understand your points of view, sure that part is easy. Do I think it's logical to take people who were born to lazy people give them more free stuff and it will result in a more functioning self sufficient person, no not really. The government is incapable of solving social issues like this and honestly they shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility to begin with.

 

I don't think it is a bad thing to be a Christian and believe abortion is wrong. I can tell you that I'm not a Christian but have serious reservations about abortion, although don't think it should be illegal and that it is a necessary evil.

 

What conservatives never seem to offer is what to do about poverty. Their solution seems to be, "Let them rot in their own filth."

[Angelsjunky]

1) it is generational and genetic for the most part

 

2) for one thing stop making it so comfortable for them, definitely don't make it even more comfortable for them.  Think about the affluenza kid, he is a total shitbag because he went through his life without any consequences, he got everything he wanted.  All the socialist proposals of Bernie and the left do nothing but make it easier for people to live a comfortable life without contributing anything to the country.

 

1. OK, but you didn't offer any suggestions on how to improve the situation. You basically just said, "It is how it is."

2. Fair enough, but for one thing Bernie is also including free college education, which increases opportunity. Of course that doesn't solve the "ground-level" problem of cultural impoverishment.

 

I don't think we're ever going to eradicate poverty or make everyone a well-educated citizen with aspiration. But what I do think we can and should do is, as a society, provide basic necessities: health and education, for starts. We can learn a lot from Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Obviously we're different, and we don't need to copy their systems, but we can and should learn from how they've provided for people without the kind of cultural decay that you seem to think is entwined with social programs. It isn't like those countries having wandering socialist zombies.

[Stradling]

I don't think it is a bad thing to be a Christian and believe abortion is wrong. I can tell you that I'm not a Christian but have serious reservations about abortion, although don't think it should be illegal and that it is a necessary evil.

What conservatives never seem to offer is what to do about poverty. Their solution seems to be, "Let them rot in their own filth."

Rot in their own filth is the hyperbole you've been scolding Nate about.

[nate]

I did offer suggestions for improvement.  Stop making it so easy for them.

 

Do you think that Mike Trout should subsidize the life of Zach Hartman?  After all, Mike Trout makes tens of millions of dollars and Hartman doesn't.  Never mind that Mike Trout is the most gifted player in baseball, we should penalize him and make him pay for all the fringe rookie ball kids.

 

The Scandinavian countries have nowhere near the population density we do in the US, they are far more responsible about how many kids they have, etc.  They have a much bigger sense of community and they make education a priority.  None of the liberal programs have fixed the fact that inner city kids don't give two shits about their education, safe sex, ect.  They grow up watching their parents chain smoke and binge drink and not hold down a job and get away with it.  Then they turn 18 and vote for whoever says they can continue with that life.

[Glen]

1 million middle class american families are employed by health insurance companies. You want to put all of them out of the job.

So I just want to hear how you can justify all of those hard working families now being jobless. All of those children now possibly going hungry, not having the nice things they had or the comforts their parents earned for them.

You want to put a bunch of middle-class government workers out of a job, with cuts to the military and its attendant services. Is that any different?

[nate]

I already covered that.

 

Also, do you think it is wrong when a company that is losing money lays people off?  The government is far in the red, shouldn't they have to cut?

[Angelsjunky]

I did offer suggestions for improvement.  Stop making it so easy for them.

 

Do you think that Mike Trout should subsidize the life of Zach Hartman?  After all, Mike Trout makes tens of millions of dollars and Hartman doesn't.  Never mind that Mike Trout is the most gifted player in baseball, we should penalize him and make him pay for all the fringe rookie ball kids.

 

The Scandinavian countries have nowhere near the population density we do in the US, they are far more responsible about how many kids they have, etc.  They have a much bigger sense of community and they make education a priority.  None of the liberal programs have fixed the fact that inner city kids don't give two shits about their education, safe sex, ect.  They grow up watching their parents chain smoke and binge drink and not hold down a job and get away with it.  Then they turn 18 and vote for whoever says they can continue with that life.

 

I see something fundamentally wrong about a country that has people making tens of millions - no matter what they do - while there are homeless people, poor people, Indian reservations, etc. It is just a more modern version of the Roman Empire.

 

So I don't see it as a matter of "penalizing" Trout, but making an adjustment to his income that redistributes wealth, as a way to attempt to redress the "rigged economy," as Bernie puts it. Let's say Bernie is in office and raises the max tax rate to 60%. If Trout is making $40M a year, his "real" salary is actually $16M a year. Hardly chump change. That $24M in taxes is returned to the system to adjust for income inequality and the rigged economy that is completely out of wack.