The CNN Democrat Debate Thread

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The "adult" adjective was applied by me to the debates. Not, methinks, to the members of this forum....although those calling democrats traitors in another thread is said behind the safety of a keyboard and wouldn't be advisable in front of some of us.

I paid for my education as well. And it took the GI Bill along with working 20 hours or so a week to help afford some of it. We can argue about it til the cows come home, but education is how we win in the long run. I think scholarship is more important than sports, but it seems that most folks don't have a problem throwing a ton of cash and taxes at sports venues.

This is a much different world than it was in the 70's. I don't know when it changed to "I got mine, go get yours" from a sense of community, but I think it stinks and I also believe that attitude will be the ruin of this nation.

Making stuff worth working for free will be ruin of this nation, much like free room and board has been the ruination of many a family. College educations are already so cheaply viewed, many jobs that used to be had with a high school education now "require" a degree. This is education inflation. When I was starting out, I knew engineers, damned smart ones, that didn't have a college degree. Now, I know electrical engineers that can't figure out why their Christmas lights start blowing fuses when they string too many of them together. Not everybody needs college to do the jobs that need to be done. People are wasting their money and enslaving themselves. It needs to stop. Making it "free" will only exacerbate the problem.

 

[Jludo]

Exactly, and I really wouldn't call this a debate at all, more of a circle jerk and shoulder patting. All major issues facing us today were punted, while they remained focused on climatology and their favorite scape goat, Bush.

You're kidding right? Look at it from a non biased position and you're really going to tell me the republican debate was more substantive? "I'll negotiate so hard"- Donald trump

 

[Jludo]

Making stuff worth working for free will be ruin of this nation, much like free room and board has been the ruination of many a family. College educations are already so cheaply viewed, many jobs that used to be had with a high school education now "require" a degree. This is education inflation. When I was starting out, I knew engineers, damned smart ones, that didn't have a college degree. Now, I know electrical engineers that can't figure out why their Christmas lights start blowing fuses when they string too many of them together. Not everybody needs college to do the jobs that need to be done. People are wasting their money and enslaving themselves. It needs to stop. Making it "free" will only exacerbate the problem.

I agree here. College degree has to stop being conflated with education. They are often correlated but by no means are they the same.

 

[Bartman]

At least take the time to read his position, no where does he call for gun confiscation.
Bernie Sanders on Gun Control

He does, however, call for banning semiautomatcs and makes a point that he voted to ban them.

 

[Jludo]

He does, however, call for banning semiautomatcs and makes a point that he voted to ban them.

That he does, and if congress is ever on the verge of passing that legislation I'll be the first to advocate stock piling ar s. But no where is he calling for confiscation, which is what was implied.

 

[jamil]

The "adult" adjective was applied by me to the debates. Not, methinks, to the members of this forum....although those calling democrats traitors in another thread is said behind the safety of a keyboard and wouldn't be advisable in front of some of us.

I paid for my education as well. And it took the GI Bill along with working 20 hours or so a week to help afford some of it. We can argue about it til the cows come home, but education is how we win in the long run. I think scholarship is more important than sports, but it seems that most folks don't have a problem throwing a ton of cash and taxes at sports venues.

This is a much different world than it was in the 70's. I don't know when it changed to "I got mine, go get yours" from a sense of community, but I think it stinks and I also believe that attitude will be the ruin of this nation.

You clearly said Republicans weren't serious about their race and intimated it was because they believe as I do, that personal responsibility is not served by giving people free ****. You're still defining "adult" conversation as discussing those things that you find ideologically appealing. That's not how I would characterize an adult conversation. From what I saw of the Democratic debates, Bernie played the angry sugar daddy. He does that well. Hilary played smarmy innocence--and the gender card as often as possible. Web played I-don't-think-I-can-seriously-win-amonst-the-Demogressives. And the others? Why the **** did they even bother to show up? They clearly didn't belong there.

And I don't see where you this "I got mine" thing has anything to do with this conversation. The 80s were the decade of "I've got mine" that was the transition. I wasn't into that **** then and I'm not now. What I said is not from an attitude of selfishness. If you think so, you're surely just projecting. What I said comes from a sense of personal responsibility. I think it is immoral to expect others to pay for my college. I think it is immoral seek candidates who will take the most from others to give the most to me. That's what "democratic socialism" is. To me THAT's selfishness. But I'll not project my morals on you.

 

[Bartman]

That he does, and if congress is ever on the verge of passing that legislation I'll be the first to advocate stock piling ar s. But no where is he calling for confiscation, which is what was implied.

Vote as you will. That distinction does not convince me that my 2A rights are safe on Bernie's watch.

 

[jamil]

That he does, and if congress is ever on the verge of passing that legislation I'll be the first to advocate stock piling ar s. But no where is he calling for confiscation, which is what was implied.

They have to start somewhere. You make it sound like it's very unlikely. When what Australia did is offered as a model of what we should do, it's pretty clear what's on their minds. Democrats are no longer afraid to come out anti-gun. The next Democrat majority with a Democrat president will at least get a ban on "assault rifles" and will probably get more "common sense" gun control passed. I have no doubt that Bernie would sign it.

 

[Twangbanger]

If you are observing that I will vote for Hillary, you are forgiven for not seeing my prior comments on other threads. I wouldn't vote for Hillary is she was the only person running for president. I'll take a chance on Bernie because I believe him to be a man of personal integrity. Even though I don't agree with him on many things, I do believe he understands that "We the people" does not mean corporations.

...While I don't agree with "free college" per se, the plan would cost a little less than $50 billion per year...So, you tell me that education of our young is not adult thinking. I'd say that maybe you haven't thought it through at all.

On the topic of Bernie and higher education: have you put a calculator to any of these numbers you're reeling off? You said 50 Billion for free college. Even the most perfunctory examination shows, that just does not work out. If you use the California public education system as a likely model for free college in America, and assume 8% utilization on a US population of 320~330 Million (counting 2-year community colleges, which will have the highest enrollment), your 50 Billion estimate comes out to $1,900 per student, per year. Do you really think Universities in America are going to educate students for that amount? If you do, you either don't pay much attention to higher education in America, can't run a calculator, or both. The last I checked, the student-paid portion of a California "free education" was that much or more.

And you cannot assume "cost control" will be part of the equation, either. Nobody is talking about that. Why would they? This plan is designed to be a bone to educators. The "cost control" will be just like Health Care - they will increase demand, while doing nothing to control costs. Everybody will get what they want, nobody will be forced to settle...except the folks paying the bill. And those costs will go up, and up, and up. We do not have to theorize about this; we can simply look at reality and facts in California, right here in America. Going back to the California example, they already have a basically 10% state income tax to fund the "free college" (sic) system they already have. And it still doesn't cover the costs; education availability is having to be cut, and Moonbeam will raise taxes every bit the voters will let him.

Anybody who says $50 Billion for Free College in America, either just does not know what they are talking about, or is a flat-out charlatan trying to get elected. You simply have not thought this through at all. Get out a calculator, and examine the crap politicians are telling you.

 

[Jludo]

Vote as you will. That distinction does not convince me that my 2A rights are safe on Bernie's watch.

I'm voting straight libertarian, doesn't stop me from wanting the facts accurate on both sides.

 

[Alpo]

On the topic of Bernie and higher education: have you put a calculator to any of these numbers you're reeling off? You said 50 Billion for free college. Even the most perfunctory examination shows, that just does not work out. If you use the California public education system as a likely model for free college in America, and assume 8% utilization on a US population of 320~330 Million (counting 2-year community colleges, which will have the highest enrollment), your 50 Billion estimate comes out to $1,900 per student, per year. Do you really think Universities in America are going to educate students for that amount? If you do, you either don't pay much attention to higher education in America, can't run a calculator, or both. The last I checked, the student-paid portion of a California "free education" was that much or more.

And you cannot assume "cost control" will be part of the equation, either. Nobody is talking about that. And why would they? This plan is partially designed to be a bone to educators. It will be just like Health Care - they will increase demand, while doing nothing to control costs. Everybody will get what they want, nobody will be forced to settle...except the folks paying the bill. And those costs will go up, and up, and up. We do not have to theorize about this; we can simply look at reality and facts in California, right here in America. Going back to the California example, they already have a basically 10% state income tax to fund the "free college" (sic) system they already have. And it still doesn't cover the costs; education funding is having to be cut, and Moonbeam will raise taxes every bit the voters will let him.

Anybody who says $50 Billion for Free College in America, either just does not know what they are talking about, or is a flat-out charlatan trying to get elected. You simply have not thought this through at all.

That's a quoted number in many articles.

Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the “College for All Act,” the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.
Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% — $47 billion dollars each year — of the costs.

Bernie Sanders issues bill to make 4-year colleges tuition-free | USA TODAY College

 

[Twangbanger]

That's a quoted number in many articles.



Bernie Sanders issues bill to make 4-year colleges tuition-free | USA TODAY College

But have you analyzed it critically, yourself? It passes an unfunded mandate to the states. It's a full-employment bill for teachers. It's the complete opposite of cost-control. It's designed to immunize the education industry against any kind of cost control. We will pay, and pay, and pay...with a decreasing likelihood the graduates will find jobs.

 

[Alpo]

Making stuff worth working for free will be ruin of this nation, much like free room and board has been the ruination of many a family. College educations are already so cheaply viewed, many jobs that used to be had with a high school education now "require" a degree. This is education inflation. When I was starting out, I knew engineers, damned smart ones, that didn't have a college degree. Now, I know electrical engineers that can't figure out why their Christmas lights start blowing fuses when they string too many of them together. Not everybody needs college to do the jobs that need to be done. People are wasting their money and enslaving themselves. It needs to stop. Making it "free" will only exacerbate the problem.

I've heard this line of reasoning throughout my career. I've had techs without a formal degree do excellent work. But, given the equivalent limited work experience of a high school graduate and a kid with a BS, I'd probably take the college grad. It shows a level of commitment to finish an advanced program and if you think engineering courses are easier today than they were 20 years ago, you are mistaken. Just the advanced math would kill most kids coming out of high school unless they were in an advanced placement program and supplemented that with independent study.

 

[Alpo]

But have you analyzed it critically, yourself? It passes an unfunded mandate to the states. It's a full-employment bill for teachers. It's the complete opposite of cost-control. It's designed to immunize the education industry against any kind of cost control. We will pay, and pay, and pay...with a decreasing likelihood the graduates will find jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office reviews and approves all estimates during the legislative process. I've worked with some of the members of that group back a few years ago and they are very good at what they do. Almost all of them are PhD's.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Who in the Hillary camp looked at this Maoist stuff and said, "Yeah, that works."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've heard this line of reasoning throughout my career. I've had techs without a formal degree do excellent work. But, given the equivalent limited work experience of a high school graduate and a kid with a BS, I'd probably take the college grad. It shows a level of commitment to finish an advanced program and if you think engineering courses are easier today than they were 20 years ago, you are mistaken. Just the advanced math would kill most kids coming out of high school unless they were in an advanced placement program and supplemented that with independent study.

Yeah...high school education sucks. But I'm telling you most of the "engineering" jobs that I'm familiar with seldomly requires more than being able to solve quadratic equations and trigonometry.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

On the topic of Bernie and higher education: have you put a calculator to any of these numbers you're reeling off? You said 50 Billion for free college. Even the most perfunctory examination shows, that just does not work out. If you use the California public education system as a likely model for free college in America, and assume 8% utilization on a US population of 320~330 Million (counting 2-year community colleges, which will have the highest enrollment), your 50 Billion estimate comes out to $1,900 per student, per year. Do you really think Universities in America are going to educate students for that amount? If you do, you either don't pay much attention to higher education in America, can't run a calculator, or both. The last I checked, the student-paid portion of a California "free education" was that much or more.

And you cannot assume "cost control" will be part of the equation, either. Nobody is talking about that. Why would they? This plan is designed to be a bone to educators. The "cost control" will be just like Health Care - they will increase demand, while doing nothing to control costs. Everybody will get what they want, nobody will be forced to settle...except the folks paying the bill. And those costs will go up, and up, and up. We do not have to theorize about this; we can simply look at reality and facts in California, right here in America. Going back to the California example, they already have a basically 10% state income tax to fund the "free college" (sic) system they already have. And it still doesn't cover the costs; education availability is having to be cut, and Moonbeam will raise taxes every bit the voters will let him.

Anybody who says $50 Billion for Free College in America, either just does not know what they are talking about, or is a flat-out charlatan trying to get elected. You simply have not thought this through at all. Get out a calculator, and examine the crap politicians are telling you.

At $50B, it doesn't even pass the laugh test...unless by "free" they mean, we'll give every college student a check to pay a pittance and claim we've given them a free college education. Plus, notice they're only claiming free tuition. What about books, fees, room, board, transportation, rental equipment, etc.?

 

[MisterChester]

They have to start somewhere. You make it sound like it's very unlikely. When what Australia did is offered as a model of what we should do, it's pretty clear what's on their minds. Democrats are no longer afraid to come out anti-gun. The next Democrat majority with a Democrat president will at least get a ban on "assault rifles" and will probably get more "common sense" gun control passed. I have no doubt that Bernie would sign it.

If it didn't happen when Obama had congress in his pocket, I don't think it'll happen at all. They knew the background check legislation was going to fail but pushed it anyway to look good to the democrats.

 

[MisterChester]

At $50B, it doesn't even pass the laugh test...unless by "free" they mean, we'll give every college student a check to pay a pittance and claim we've given them a free college education. Plus, notice they're only claiming free tuition. What about books, fees, room, board, transportation, rental equipment, etc.?

If it paid for college textbooks they'd need at least $2 trillion for them

 

[bwframe]

I'm voting straight libertarian, doesn't stop me from wanting the facts accurate on both sides.

When is the libraltarian debate?