Bernie's free college idea

[Angelsjunky]

 

FDR's new deal only worked because of the war.  Plus, weren't you just talking about not going back to the 50's but now you want to go back to the forties?

 

My solution is that the government needs to put its big boy pants on, suck it up, cut massive amounts of spending.  Get Social Security back to where it is and   It is absolutely absurd that they keep looking to the middle class to bear the burden of their own incompetence.

 

this is what I liken it to.  You have an acquaintance that you give money to because they are down on their luck.  They use the money you gave them to buy a big screen tv instead.  So you, being the nice guy you are, give them more money to help them get out of debt and get food and clothes.  Again, the guy spends it on a new Iphone 6.  Again, being a super person, you give them more money because they swear they are going to do the right thing with the money this time.  Instead, he takes his bros to Vegas for the weekend and gambles the money away.  

 

 

At some point, I'm going to stop giving this guy money.

 

 

Note that I said "applicable to the 21st century," not a return to the 40s. In other words, the basic idea of the New Deal. Also, it was successful before the US got involved in WW2. But yeah, WW2 helped the US economy enormously. But the New Deal formed the basis of the prosperity of the decades after.

 

Your analogy is a good one, and I don't entirely disagree. It could work in some cases and generally works on an individual level, but not as much when we're talking about millions of people. While I think a chunk of those people will pull themselves up and get a job, if we really followed your plan I think we'd end up with many more homeless people, which would in turn burden the social structures further to the point of absolute collapse.

 

You know a lot of this might become a moot point eventually when automation has done away with most low income jobs. We're going to have to move to some kind of government funded "basic wage" anyhow, where basic needs are taken care of. Of course that isn't relevant quite yet, but I think it will need to happen eventually.

[nate]

Or you just keep letting the population reduce until there is not a dearth of unemployed.

[mtangelsfan]

Nobody said they were.  Problem is that if they are living off the government teat then they should expect the government to not pay for their smokes or their booze.

[Angelsjunky]

Far as smoking.  This really isn't a poor person disease either.  I know many multi-millionaires, using their medi-care for continuous prescriptions, who should have stopped smoking years ago. 

 

Vises and stupidity are not only results of poor people. 

 

I agree on the second part, but I do think that smoking has become more of a poor person's--and young person's--addiction. Or rather, it relates to poverty and education. Obviously there are lots of people who smoke of every age and income level, and you can have been loved by mommy and daddy and still be a smoker. But all of these factors add up to certain demographics, and I think we've seen a trend towards most smokers being younger and/or poorer and/or less educated.

[nate]

Yes but multi millionaires earn enough money to pay for it.  That is the point.  If you make a choice to kill yourself don't expect me to pay for it.

[Crampknees]

Nobody said they were.  Problem is that if they are living off the government teat then they should expect the government to not pay for their smokes or their booze.

I agree, I just think it is too large now to ever track properly.  Like I said, good private sector business to get into.  You can't just have a recipient send in utility bills and drug tests, they could come from anywhere.  You give me X recipients and pay me X a month each, i would be able to stay on it but nothing is foolproof.  I have been at Shell stations in certain areas of town cashing in their card for scratch offs and cartons.  

[halobob]

Here's another way of looking at the rationale behind higher tax rates for higher incomes. People with higher incomes benefit more from the system we live in, the way our economy is set up, so should give back more to supporting society and helping those who don't benefit as much.

 

It isn't so black-and-white as the standard libertarian rhetoric of "income tax is stealing from those who work hard." This is hopefully simplistic, imo. Plenty of people work hard but don't make a lot of money. Plenty of people who make a lot of money do so at the expense of others, even those that work for them and help them make money (e.g. the Walton family). In this case, the Walton's "invisible hand" is a slap in the face of millions of people. I don't have a problem with the government "forcing" the Walton family to pay more taxes to held redress the fact that they exploit their employees, because--as has been proven again and again--the market doesn't always correct itself and there are very clever people who find ways around it. Laissez-faire capitalism works for an every decreasing few, at the expense of an increasing many - in other words, it doesn't work.

 

Bernie's approach isn't perfect, but it is meant to address a moral wrong with a moral less-wrong. I see it as a kind of soft warfare - akin to fighting back aggressors with force. It isn't attacking or invading, it is fighting back the already hostile takeover. To quote Ice Cube in Higher Learning, "We're behind enemy lines, dog."

 

Anyhow, if nothing else--and whether or not he becomes president (which is unlikely)--I hope that Bernie succeeds in least one thing: getting the big money out of politics and returning the government to being by the people and for the people, rather than what it is now: a plutocracy in democratic drag.

They benefit more because they work harder and smarter.

[Angelsjunky]

Hey nate, are you voting for Trump? Not calling you out or anything, just curious as a lot of your ideas seem to line up with his.

[wopphil]

Government programs breed dependency, which actually keeps many people down. I'd argue that many social programs and the liberalism behind those programs actually hurt the very people they (supposedly) intend to help.

It really isn't much different than the parents who enable their free loading children. At some point, the best thing you can do for your kids is to make them fend for themselves.

Edited February 10, 2016 by wopphil

[nate]

I am not nor would I ever vote for Trump.

 

First of all his foreign policy is to bomb bomb bomb and offend the entire world.  Second he has not laid out any economic plans at all and I doubt they would be geared toward the middle class.  Third, like Bernie, he is all talk.  Fourth he is a buffoon.

[Angelsjunky]

Government programs breed dependency, which actually keeps many people down. I'd argue that many social programs and the liberalism behind those programs actually hurt the very people they (supposedly) intend to help.

It really isn't much different than the parents who enable their free loading children. At some point, the best thing you can do for your kids is to make them fend for themselves.

 

You might be surprised to hear this, but I agree. But again, there's a difference between letting your kids fend for themselves and removing social programs for millions of people who have come to rely upon them.

 

The bottom line: It is a messy, messy situation and I'm not sure what the "right" idea is, if there is one. But we all have our biases towards what we think might work. I'd like to see Bernie give it a go.

 

I am not nor would I ever vote for Trump.

 

First of all his foreign policy is to bomb bomb bomb and offend the entire world.  Second he has not laid out any economic plans at all and I doubt they would be geared toward the middle class.  Third, like Bernie, he is all talk.  Fourth he is a buffoon.

 

OK, fair enough.

[Crampknees]

Yes but multi millionaires earn enough money to pay for it.  That is the point.  If you make a choice to kill yourself don't expect me to pay for it.

I know my sample size is small but I am talking about people who thought they had enough money and frowned upon any insurance coming out of their wallets. Now they are on midi-care or medi-caid, etc. which they paid into but also their monthly med costs are over those benefits and they're knock knock knocking on govts. door. 

 

All fine and dandy and like I said a small sample size but at the same time these people will call Obama the N, M, S word and really every alphabet word, then hit govt. assistance because they didn't plan well.

 

My point is Joe Murica just thinks it is colored skinned people who only knock knock knock on governments door.  

[wopphil]

But again, there's a difference between letting your kids fend for themselves and removing social programs for millions of people who have come to rely upon them.

That makes little sense AJ. Are you saying that because welfare recipients have become dependent upon handouts, we should just keep providing them handouts indefinitely?

[nate]

No, he is saying we should give them even more handouts.

[Angelsjunky]

That makes little sense AJ. Are you saying that because welfare recipients have become dependent upon handouts, we should just keep providing them handouts indefinitely?

 

Not really. I'm saying that you can't just take it away en masse. If you're going to take that approach, there has to be a weening program.

 

Anyhow, I don't agree with that approach and would prefer stronger, wiser social programs. But clearly I have very different ideas about the "good society" than a lot of you guys. I personally would like to see us try to integrate the best of both socialist and capitalist ideals, rather than this ongoing war between the two. Both ideologies are flawed, but both have an important part of the picture.

[Adam]

The New Deal has had terrible repercussions for our country. 

[Schildog]

go on

[Adam]

Read a book. Draw your own conclusions.

 

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980966/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1596980966&linkCode=as2&tag=thomacom-20

[wopphil]

AJ, people can be helped best by fiscal policies that promote education, public safety, and wage and job growth. Raising taxes and enlarging the government isn't the answer.

I am a big believer in birth control. Since the poor communities create many of their own problems simply by procreating, I'd be all for providing them as much free birth control as they'd like. (Of course, I realize they may be too dumb to actually use it.) If you reduce teen pregnancies, hopefully you reduce the number of welfare recipients and the amount of gang-related crime.

Next, get tougher on immigration. Eliminate all but emergency benefits for illegals and seal the border. This should result in job growth and hopefully wage growth for Americans, without a big cost to the government.

Finally, make all schools open 6:00 am to 6:00 pm and, for people who are actually working and can't afford to pay the after hours cost, make that extra time "free" of charge. This keeps kids off the street and hopefully gives them more educational opportunities.

[Jay]

Did Sanders vote in favor of Obamacare?

[Tank]

This is ridiculous. My opinion is not valid because you think you know how much I make? You know jack about me, calscuf.

 

 

maybe now you understand a bit better how some of us feel when you make some of your goofy statements and generalizations.

[Tank]

Nobody said they were.  Problem is that if they are living off the government teat then they should expect the government to not pay for their smokes or their booze.

 

agreed, mt.

 

i think the goal should be for as many people as possible to no longer need gov't to provide for them. while there will always be people who require gov't help for various reasons, this cycle of depending only on the gov't to give you money and services is being abused at an alarming rate. 

 

because bernie seems to only want to raise taxes and not cut any gov't spending, he's increasing this cycle of dependence. i can't support that.

[Make Angels Great Again]

I have two kids, and me and my wife make about 90k gross between the two of us working constantly.

 

I'm pretty sure at this rate i'm never going to be able to afford a house (not a chance in hell in california), nor send my kids to college, and i'm doing pretty damn well for myself at my age.

 

Baby boomers lived in a dream world economy and then screwed it up for future generations, so they can go **** themselves.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Angels For Life

[AngelsLongBall]

Government programs breed dependency, which actually keeps many people down. I'd argue that many social programs and the liberalism behind those programs actually hurt the very people they (supposedly) intend to help.

It really isn't much different than the parents who enable their free loading children. At some point, the best thing you can do for your kids is to make them fend for themselves.

One could argue that they're securing a voting base. 

[OregonLAA]

I make about $45k a year working in a warehouse that didn't require any kind of degree. I work my ass off at this job like I have at any other job. My wife went to Oregon State and got her masters at Pepperdine. Maybe going out of state for her masters wasn't the most amazing idea, but now we have lots of school debt. I'm not complaining and we will eventually pay it off but right now she makes just a little more than me. So my wife who is incredibly bright and ambitious makes as much as me who didn't go to school. Meanwhile we have to hold off on buying a house until the school debt goes down quite a ways. I'm not wealthy, but I'm not poor. The money we make is decent for where we live. Two hard working people who have a long way to go to achieve their goals in the current system. Sorry if Sanders isn't scaring me off.

And I love how people act as if the parasites only reside in the lower class. How about the assholes who lay off thousands of workers them give themselves a $10 million bonus. Those aren't just criminals. Those are parasites and people who have the money to control politics. And who do they control? The conservative side who doesn't want to tax them. Sorry that I see them as being the bigger evil