Bernie's free college idea

[Adam]

And we view theft and force and violence as wrong. 

[Angelsjunky]

Yes, I get that. To me it is a matter of what is more wrong, what the cost-vs-benefit is. To put it another way, is it more wrong...

 

1) ...to watch while people toil away in poverty and not be able to afford healthcare, but keep tax rates low for wealthier folks? Or,

2) ...we "steal" from wealthier people, but the quality of life for millions improves.

 

Those that answer 1 are fiscally conservative. Those that answer 2 are fiscally liberal.

 

I'm not saying that 2 doesn't have problems, but it is the lesser of two wrongs, imo.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Came across an article that I thought was pertinent to the discussion at hand:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/15/why-so-many-millennials-are-socialists/

[Angelsjunky]

It might also be because college-age millenials are the recipients of the broken system older generations have created, so want change.

 

Anyhow, from only a quick skim of that article it seems that the author doesn't know the difference between socialism and democratic socialism, which is less extreme. Bernie is not a true socialist, he's a democratic socialist. Its just another strawman argument of "Soviet socialism" vs. "free market capitalism." If its one or the other, I'd choose the latter - but I think the point is, and what some countries in Europe have proved, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

[Adam]

Yes, I get that. To me it is a matter of what is more wrong, what the cost-vs-benefit is. To put it another way, is it more wrong...

 

1) ...to watch while people toil away in poverty and not be able to afford healthcare, but keep tax rates low for wealthier folks? Or,

2) ...we "steal" from wealthier people, but the quality of life for millions improves.

 

Those that answer 1 are fiscally conservative. Those that answer 2 are fiscally liberal.

 

I'm not saying that 2 doesn't have problems, but it is the lesser of two wrongs, imo.

 

I think that is a wee bit overly simplistic. I have more faith in the human spirit than you. 

 

Even if those were the only scenarios, I'd still go for #1. I personal liberty trumps everything in my mind. 

[Angelsjunky]

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.

 

Sorry, I missed this part. Yeah, all of this is well said and I agree. But it doesn't mean that we cannot incorporate the basic ideas of what the Scandinavian countries do and adjust it the US.

 

But the latter part is why I emphasize education, but not just free college but ground-level stuff. It is a culture of impoverishment that has been partially created because of income inequality and the myth of equal opportunity. A lot of this is the shadow of free market capitalism, because the poor are partially kept poor (or keep themselves poor) through buying into consumerism, which in turn makes the wealthy wealthier.

[Angelsjunky]

I think that is a wee bit overly simplistic. I have more faith in the human spirit than you. 

 

Even if those were the only scenarios, I'd still go for #1. I personal liberty trumps everything in my mind. 

 

Yes, it is overly simplistic but it makes a point, and the two views do roughly equate with "conservative" and "liberal."

 

But I don't think it has to be a choice between liberty and equality. This is the basic crux of the matter, and the debate of capitalism vs. socialism. I think it is possible to integrate both.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

It might also be because college-age millenials are the recipients of the broken system older generations have created, so want change.

 

Anyhow, from only a quick skim of that article it seems that the author doesn't know the difference between socialism and democratic socialism, which is less extreme. Bernie is not a true socialist, he's a democratic socialist. Its just another strawman argument of "Soviet socialism" vs. "free market capitalism." If its one or the other, I'd choose the latter - but I think the point is, and what some countries in Europe have proved, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

The system still works but you have to actually work, make wise choices and be responsible for your actions.  Socialism in whatever form you want to call it and everything Bern is promising that he won't deliver if elected is just to buy votes from people who'd rather have something handed to them then actually work for it.

[Angelsjunky]

The system still works but you have to actually work, make wise choices and be responsible for your actions.  Socialism in whatever form you want to call it and everything Bern is promising that he won't deliver if elected is just to buy votes from people who'd rather have something handed to them then actually work for it.

 

I disagree

[nate]

1) there are tons of free programs to help inner city people (both private and publicly funded) , they do not choose to take part in them.

2) we do tons to help people in poverty, you continue to act like being poor in this country is awful, it isn't and compared to most countries it is a dream.  Why do you think so many people try to immigrate here?

3) it is easy for you to suggest income redistribution when you are not the one paying for it

4) the people earning 10s of millions worked hard for that money and have every  right to do what they want with it.  Many of them like Bill Gates donate those millions to good causes to help others.  They also keep it for their future generations to be comfortable.  Income redistribution is just another way of saying stealing money from hard working people.  This isn't Robin Hood, these people haven't been wronged by the rich.  Just because someone is smarter, more aggressive, etc doesn't make them evil.  Many of the richest people in the world now had the same opportunities that the person collecting welfare has right now.

 

It is again my biggest problem with Bernie, he makes out rich people to be evil people who are stealing from poor people.  It is slanderous and mirrors the same things you blast Republican candidates for as far as xenophobia, homophobia, etc.

[Angelsjunky]

1. Yeah, its a problem. How do we motivate these folks to take charge of their lives? I hate to say it, but many of them are lost causes. Some aren't, though. And of course, you and are speaking of a life that neither of us has, presumably, experienced (inner city poverty).

2. Depends upon what you are comparing it to, as well as what part of the country. Some Indian reservations are basically Third World countries.

3. This is a red herring. First, you don't know how much money I make; related to that, many wealthy people support Bernie even though they'll lose tons of money. Second, you don't know whether or not I'll be impacted--or to what degree--by Bernie's plan (neither do I).

4. Many of them, some of them didn't (work hard for their money). But here is where there is a fundamental disagreement, and it relates to Bernie's "rigged economy." The economy is set up to support the rich getting richer, for the rich to manipulate it and--in many cases--by taking advantage of the poor, many of whom have been wronged by the rich. I think another part of the problem is the emphasis we put on material wealth. In my mind, how wealthy a person says nothing about how smart they are, how aware, compassionate, or who they are as human beings. We're a culture obsessed with material wealth - but that's probably a different discussion.

 

So yeah. Some--not all--rich people essentially steal from the poor, or at least take advantage of them. And yes, some--not all--Republicans are xenophobic and homophobic.

[nate]

Have you ever considered that maybe the rich get richer for the same reason they got rich in the first place?  Because they are smart, hard working, creative, clever, and relentless in their pursuit of money?

 

I already told you how we motivate these people.  Put them in a position where they need to get their shit together or they go hungry and die in a gutter.

[Angelsjunky]

OK nate. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think the rich only get richer because they are "smart, hard working, creative, clever and relentless in their pursuit of money." I think that is part of it, but it is also sometimes--even often--due to working the system, manipulation, paying for politicians, etc - Bernie's "rigged economy."

 

Free market capitalism works if people play fair, if people don't take advantage of others, and if politicians aren't bought by corporations and big business. But it doesn't work that way.

[Stradling]

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.

What total bullshit. Sorry but it's not Trout or anyone else responsibility to provide for people who refuse to do what it takes to provide for themselves. I don't believe it's a governments job either.

[Make Angels Great Again]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-thrifty-living/top-10-reasons-people-go-_b_6887642.html

 

 

"1. Medical Expenses

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses."

 

 

Nate, accept the fact that your industry sucks at what it does.

[nate]

You are doing the same thing Bernie does, AJ.  The characterization of rich people as these people who cheat the system is BS.  Most of the 1% pay their taxes, live upstanding lives, etc.  It is slanderous to say what you are saying.  The biggest cop out of all is how people are blaming the rich for their problems.

 

Remember how Hitler blamed the Jews for the financial issues in Germany?  The people he pointed to were the Jewish elite.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

How does that prove insurance sucks at what it does?  Costs associated with it are an issue but it's a service that costs money just like anything else in life.  I'm guessing if the people going BK survive because of the service provided or it gives them a better quality of life that beats the alternative.  

Edited February 16, 2016 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[nate]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-thrifty-living/top-10-reasons-people-go-_b_6887642.html

 

 

"1. Medical Expenses

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses."

 

 

Nate, accept the fact that your industry sucks at what it does.

 

That has nothing to do with my industry but thanks.

 

Why don't you talk to the doctors and hospitals that work at 90% profit margins instead of the health insurance companies that work at 5%.

 

I know you won't because your ignorance comes out in your original post, you obviously have no understanding how health insurance works.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Why do you think hospitals work at such high margins?

[nate]

Because the government has so heavily mandated insurance companies to cover these things that they can get away with it.  When you require insurance companies to pay for everything, hospitals will charge for everything and they will choose their rate.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Isn't part of the insurance companies responsibilities to negotiate with the hospitals?

[nate]

Who do you think has all the negotiating leverage, the company required to pay for it, or the company charging for the services?

[Make Angels Great Again]

Obviously if that's all true then it's a screwed up system.

 

More reason to change it.

[Make Angels Great Again]

I'm pretty sure other countries put limits on what can be charged for certain procedures or services.

[nate]

The cost of healthcare and health insurance has gone up significantly with the number of mandates that have been added to health insurance plans.  It was much cheaper when people could choose the plan that best suited them.

 

But then the RX Lobby and Physicians lobby got involved and started adding mandates for brand name RX, viagra, birth control, psychiatric visits, xrays, etc.  Now your health insurance plan is required to cover hundreds of things that you will never need in your lifetime.