Let's Talk Trump

[tarheel0910]

But for anyone that is qualified, it should be at the very least affordable, without having to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt. Coming from a wealthy family should not dictate whether or not someone can go to college without going 100k or more in debt.

College can be affordable. You don't have to go to Yale. Community colleges and many state colleges are fairly cheap.

Are you really that thick? Good luck finding teachers to work for free? Its called a tax subsidy. There is plenty of money to pay them without tuition, and plenty of other developed nations have proven that. We are one of the only developed countries in the world that does provide tuition free higher education.

You do know where a tax subsidy comes from right? That money doesn't just appear out of thin air. Subsidies are a joke anyway, but that's a different topic for a different day. Are there other countries who do that, sure. The issue is that we have over 300 million people in this country. It's not financially feasible for a country our size.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I never said that everyone needs to go to college. But for anyone that is qualified, it should be at the very least affordable, without having to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt. Coming from a wealthy family should not dictate whether or not someone can go to college without going 100k or more in debt.

Are you really that thick? Good luck finding teachers to work for free? Its called a tax subsidy. There is plenty of money to pay them without tuition, and plenty of other developed nations have proven that. We are one of the only developed countries in the world that does provide tuition free higher education.

While I do agree that many college tuition (and other) costs are ballooning at an alarming rate, there are still some very affordable options. Going to an in-state State University, paired with a moderate amount of financial aid (which we currently have in place), allows one to get a solid education at a pretty reasonable price. A price that simultaneously working part time while attending can most likely fully fund. It's the idea that every student that wants to go to Harvard, or any other non in-state state school, should be able to go on the taxpayer's dime that gets some people a little worked up (reasonably so, IMO). The "plenty of money to pay them without tuition" that you allude to is tax money, which can be used for a variety of other useful causes (or if not needed, rather than wasting it, can be returned to the tax payers).

Have you ever taken an Econ class? Subsidies are well known to be a destroyer of value in free markets.

That you should have to sell out your personal beliefs to go fight for oil in the middle east to go to college. No thanks.

Well, if the current president had fulfilled one of his main promises en route to the White House - that he would end the war in the middle east - that wouldn't be a problem now, right?

Trump has no chance of being the next POTUS. Oh well, like he said, he loves the poorly educated. And obviously they love him back...

You first complain about the state of education in the country, and then make this comment. By your description of the sad state of education in the country, it's clear you think there are a large amount uneducated people in the country (that we should pay to get educated). Then you say these people love Trump (and presumably would vote for Trump). If there's a large percentage of people voting for Trump, why does he have no chance of being the next POTUS?

 

[Heels in Space]

I don't know if single payer health care and tuition free college are the best solutions to the problems, but I'm glad that Bernie's campaign is raising the issues and starting a conversation.

Health care and higher education are both areas where costs are rising much faster than wages and have been for a while. Part of the problem is that both are so heavily insured. Private insurers can afford to pay rising health care costs, and the federal government backs student loans that pay rising college costs. This creates little incentive for either industry to operate efficiently or limit costs. The result, though, is that consumers and students are either getting squeezed out of the market or burdened with enormous debt.

Bernie's proposals may seem radical, but the status quo is unsustainable, and no one else is proposing any solutions.

 

[gunslingerdick]

.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I don't know if single payer health care and tuition free college are the best solutions to the problems, but I'm glad that Bernie's campaign is raising the issues and starting a conversation.

Health care and higher education are both areas where costs are rising much faster than wages and have been for a while. Part of the problem is that both are so heavily insured. Private insurers can afford to pay rising health care costs, and the federal government backs student loans that pay rising college costs. This creates little incentive for either industry to operate efficiently or limit costs. The result, though, is that consumers and students are either getting squeezed out of the market or burdened with enormous debt.

Bernie's proposals may seem radical, but the status quo is unsustainable, and no one else is proposing any solutions.

I agree that having the issues raised is beneficial towards getting improvements started. To anyone that doesn't fully understand the issues, a pie in the sky idea of "Free Health Care" and "Free College" seem like awesome campaign ideas. If you ask someone "Would you rather pay for college and health care, or have the government do it?" the answers you get will likely be overwhelmingly "Have the government pay for it, of course". The issues then arise when it comes time for the government to fund it, where do they get the money? They end up getting it from the tax payers, which if you aren't using the benefits of college, or using health care as much as others, means you're footing the bill for something you're not receiving proper benefit from.

It's clear most people don't fully understand the issues, as evidenced by the below chart. The below four phrases are all descriptions of Bernie's Health Care plan, but phrased in different ways, and they have remarkably different reactions from each other, considering they're all describing the same thing. Until people can get a proper understanding of the issues, it's difficult to determine what people truly want.

 

[bleeduncblue]

For me (and millions just like me) I will vote for Trump for one single reason: to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office.

It's truly that simple. He's a loud mouthed, sexist, arrogant prick - but he's not A CLINTON. Nuff said.

 

[Heels Noir]

I would recommend trying to find a nickname that not only rhymes with either Trump's first and/or last name but also describes the person and/or their politics perfectly in the same nickname

That's easy enough . . . Donald Chump.

 

[Heels in Space]

The issues then arise when it comes time for the government to fund it, where do they get the money? They end up getting it from the tax payers, which if you aren't using the benefits of college, or using health care as much as others, means you're footing the bill for something you're not receiving proper benefit from.

To be sure, paying for it is where the rubber meets the road. Bernie's plans, as they stand, are really nothing more than conversation starters because they are currently politically infeasible. Even though I'm done with school and have full health coverage through my job, I'm supporting him because he's focusing on issues that I think are important and that affect the middle class in real, tangible ways. As with any pooled resource, there would be winners and losers associated with subsidizing these industries, but the "losers" (i.e. people who can afford college or healthy people who don't need as much health care) would have to buy into the notion that an educated, healthy population and workforce benefits society as a whole. I'm not sure we're there yet, but again, I'm glad he's starting the conversation.

 

[-COUNTRY-CLUB-JOE-]

College can be affordable. You don't have to go to Yale. Community colleges and many state colleges are fairly cheap.

I'm as pro-education as they come; however, I wish we'd take a hard look at whether some colleges are legitimate or diploma mills. Schools like Southern New Hampshire University online are nothing more than a scam that sucks up low-cost government loans. People need to stop pretending that's a real education. It's one of the reasons we have thousands of students with degrees that can't land a job and default on their loans. College isn't for everyone and some degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

As with any pooled resource, there would be winners and losers associated with subsidizing these industries, but the "losers" (i.e. people who can afford college or healthy people who don't need as much health care) would have to buy into the notion that an educated, healthy population and workforce benefits society as a whole.

I don't think there's much, if any, reasonable doubt that a healthy population and workforce benefits society as a whole. However, the question that should be asked is, does that benefit outweigh the cost to achieve it? It's a macro-sized cost-benefit analysis. As it stands now, with the costs being as they appear to be in the plans, it doesn't seem that it would provide benefit over and above those costs, in my opinion.

 

[Heels in Space]

As it stands now, with the costs being as they appear to be in the plans, it doesn't seem that it would provide benefit over and above those costs, in my opinion.

This is exactly the way I feel about Trump's 2,000 mile border wall.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

This is exactly the way I feel about Trump's 2,000 mile border wall.

Fair enough. I agree that there are much more economical ways to accomplish the same task than building such a big wall. A few well placed sniper towers along the border would accomplish the same thing, for a fraction of the cost

 

[tarheel0910]

I'm as pro-education as they come; however, I wish we'd take a hard look at whether some colleges are legitimate or diploma mills. Schools like Southern New Hampshire University online are nothing more than a scam that sucks up low-cost government loans. People need to stop pretending that's a real education. It's one of the reasons we have thousands of students with degrees that can't land a job and default on their loans. College isn't for everyone and some degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I agree. I think high schools need to promote trade school just as much as college. There are a lot of manufacturing jobs out there now that are hard to fill because people don't have the skill that they are looking for.

 

[strummingram]

The fact that people in the United States of America, in the year 2016, cant tell the difference between a democratic socialist and a communist, is clear evidence that we need tuition free college in this country.

I'm just wondering what the quality of the education would be in that situation.

I think this country is much too big, too diverse, and too much opposition, to be able to actually implement the types of socialism like European countries experience.

 

[nctransplant]

I agree. I think high schools need to promote trade school just as much as college. There are a lot of manufacturing jobs out there now that are hard to fill because people don't have the skill that they are looking for.

I currently teach a class called Mixed Materials. Our school bought a house and we are remodeling it. Total gut job. Hope some of my kids enter some type of trade.

 

[uncboy10]

College can be affordable. You don't have to go to Yale. Community colleges and many state colleges are fairly cheap.


You do know where a tax subsidy comes from right? That money doesn't just appear out of thin air. Subsidies are a joke anyway, but that's a different topic for a different day. Are there other countries who do that, sure. The issue is that we have over 300 million people in this country. It's not financially feasible for a country our size.

In a job market where going to college is pretty much the equivalent that a high school degree used to be, not having the opportunity to attend the best schools without going into crippling debt can set the best and brightest back for an entire lifetime.

I love when people bring up the population argument. You do realize that when you're talking about paying for something with taxes, that having more people also means you have proportionally larger tax revenue.

I also love the condescending attitudes, as if Bernie supporters dont know where tax revenue comes from. Maybe we know damn well how taxes work, and that's why we're tired of our money going to subsidies in the oil industry, or going to a bloated defense budget. All while being told that we cant afford anything that provides any kind of real public utility.

 

[plm]

Id be very surprised if Bernie's supporters paid a big percentage of the actual taxes paid in the US

 

[tarheel0910]

In a job market where going to college is pretty much the equivalent that a high school degree used to be, not having the opportunity to attend the best schools without going into crippling debt can set the best and brightest back for an entire lifetime.

I love when people bring up the population argument. You do realize that when you're talking about paying for something with taxes, that having more people also means you have proportionally larger tax revenue.

I also love the condescending attitudes, as if Bernie supporters dont know where tax revenue comes from. Maybe we know damn well how taxes work, and that's why we're tired of our money going to subsidies in the oil industry, or going to a bloated defense budget. All while being told that we cant afford anything that provides any kind of real public utility.

How do you judge what the best schools are? What's wrong with a trade school or associates degree? Does a certified welder really need a degree? The rich and the middle class don't have enough money to pay for all of this free stuff. We can all be equal, but we would be equally poor. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[uncboy10]

You first complain about the state of education in the country, and then make this comment. By your description of the sad state of education in the country, it's clear you think there are a large amount uneducated people in the country (that we should pay to get educated). Then you say these people love Trump (and presumably would vote for Trump). If there's a large percentage of people voting for Trump, why does he have no chance of being the next POTUS?

Nowhere near the kind of numbers he would need to win a general election. And his unfavorable ratings are through the roof, meaning many republicans wont vote for him, and he will drive up the turnout for democrats and independents just to make sure he doesn't get elected.

 

[uncboy10]

How do you judge what the best schools are? What's wrong with a trade school or associates degree? Does a certified welder really need a degree? The rich and the middle class don't have enough money to pay for all of this free stuff. We can all be equal, but we would be equally poor. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I never said there was anything wrong with a trade school or associates degree. Those jobs are extremely important. Trade schools, and community colleges are a great way to get more people education. Does a certified welder need a degree? No, but for many more fields, that is not the case. So yes, for many people, community colleges, and trades schools are a perfect fit. But that doesn't mean that every person who cant afford a public university should be funneled into those programs. Its in the best interest of every American to make sure that the best and brightest have access to the resources they need to be successful.

You say the rich and middle class don't have enough money to pay for all of this "free" stuff. But the middle and lower class are already getting crushed by tuition costs, and the student loan debt that often goes along with it. Bernie doesn't want to tax the middle class to pay for this though. His plan would pay for higher education with a tax on Wall Street speculation. Considering how many trillions of dollars the American people gave to Wall Street to bail them out, this seems like a fair proposition to me.

 

[uncboy10]

I'm just wondering what the quality of the education would be in that situation.

I think this country is much too big, too diverse, and too much opposition, to be able to actually implement the types of socialism like European countries experience.

There may ultimately be too much opposition for it to be passed, but I believe it is totally feasible and in our best interest from an economic point of view.

Why would you question the quality of education in that situation? Germany and many other countries which provide higher education as a public service are doing really well in education. In many, if not most of those cases, they are providing better education for a lower cost per capita than we are.

You could also use everything I just said to support why I support Bernie's medicare for all, single player healthcare proposal.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Id be very surprised if Bernie's supporters paid a big percentage of the actual taxes paid in the US

Of course they're not. Because 20 somethings are playing cover songs at the local dive bar instead of working a real job where they're required to pay taxes. It makes perfect sense that young entitled do-nothings want Bernie to be President. They want to continue to be do-nothings yet they want the good feeling that their vote helped other do-nothings continue to be do-nothings.

 

[gunslingerdick]

 

[tarheel0910]

Because 20 somethings are playing cover songs at the local dive bar instead of working a real job where they're required to pay taxes.

What's wrong with that? I've got to have something to listen to while I'm drinking and no one has a juke box anymore.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I love when people bring up the population argument. You do realize that when you're talking about paying for something with taxes, that having more people also means you have proportionally larger tax revenue.

This is just incorrect. Do you have a larger tax revenue? Sure, but it's spread over more people. So proportionally larger? Not unless you're changing the amount people are being taxed. In a very simplified example: 100m population paying an average annual tax of $100 gets you $10B (or 100x the population size in taxes). 200m population paying an average annual tax of $100 gets you $20B (again, 100x the population size in taxes - i.e. the same proportion). And odds are if you're doubling the population size, the "extra" people aren't going to be a bunch of CEOs, lawyers, and doctors. You're going to be getting a disproportionate amount of lower income people - due to the law of diminishing returns.

Nowhere near the kind of numbers he would need to win a general election. And his unfavorable ratings are through the roof, meaning many republicans wont vote for him, and he will drive up the turnout for democrats and independents just to make sure he doesn't get elected.

So then there are nowhere near enough stupid people in the US then, right? So where is the need to pay for colleges? I don't think he's the only one that has large unfavorable ratings and would draw out the other party as well as independents in droves to vote to ensure he/she doesn't get elected. And while it's not your boy Bernie, it's the other candidate from that party that will be the one that wins the primary, which is what matters.

There may ultimately be too much opposition for it to be passed, but I believe it is totally feasible and in our best interest from an economic point of view.

No offense, but after your botched understanding of subsidies and how they work, and the above "proportionally larger" debacle - I don't think anyone should be trusting your economic point of view.

 

[strummingram]

If we could break-up the 50 states into 50 sovereign nations, or even just 10 or 20, then you could have some of the socialism you find in Europe. I think we've gone way beyond that possibility for a long time.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Russian intelligence officials have postulated for years that the US could break up into nine separate countries within the next 8-16 years if the nation doesn't get its cultural, financial and fiscal act together. The Soviet Union's demise was provided as an example. The actually broke it down based on geographical, cultural and fiscal attributes of the groups of states that would comprise these separate nations:

1) Northeast - ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, MD, DE, NJ
2) Mid-Atlantic - IN, PA, OH, WV, VA, NC
3) Deep South - SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY
4) Lower Mid-West - TX, OK, KS, MO
5) Upper Mid-West - NE, SD, ND, IA
6) Great Lakes - IL, MI, WI, MN
7) Upper Rockies - CO, WY, MT, ID, AK
8) Lower Rockies - NM, AZ, UT, NV
9) West Coast - CA, OR, WA, HI

Scary that they actually came up with something like this. When I read it, I was really shocked. Hopefully, doesn't happen...

 

[strummingram]

Chris "Surveillance State" Christie just endorsed The Don.

 

[nctransplant]

Chris "Surveillance State" Christie just endorsed The Don.

Possible Veep?

 

[strummingram]

Possible Veep?

Maybe. I'm not voting for him regardless. Christie as a VP would only make me feel better about that.

 

[Heels in Space]

Possible Veep?

Nah, they're too similar. Trump doesn't need Christie on the ticket. He's already got the "straight-talkin' angry white dude" demographic pretty much sewn up.

 

[tarheel0910]

Maybe. I'm not voting for him regardless. Christie as a VP would only make me feel better about that.

I like Christie. He is a more rational version of Trump before Trump. I think he did a good job with NJ and was able to get some bi-partisan deals done. He certainly wasn't perfect, but who is. The fact that he wasn't always politically correct was nice as well. I think had Trump not entered the race Christie would be one of the leaders right now. VP picks don't really matter to me unless the president has had health issues or has a foot in the grave.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I like Christie. He is a more rational version of Trump before Trump. I think he did a good job with NJ and was able to get some bi-partisan deals done. He certainly wasn't perfect, but who is. The fact that he wasn't always politically correct was nice as well. I think had Trump not entered the race Christie would be one of the leaders right now. VP picks don't really matter to me unless the president has had health issues or has a foot in the grave.

Sarah Palin showed that VP picks matter.

I think the best VP pick for Trump would be Rubio. He'd soften the perception that Trump is anti-latino and it would guarantee winning the swing state of FLA. Kasich would be a good pick for the same reason with Ohio. Sandoval from Nevada and Susanna Martinez from New Mexico would also be good picks in regards to battling the rhetoric from liberals that he's anti-latino. Tim Scott from SC would be another good choice.

 

[Blue2010]

I think he should kiss & make up with NBC and come out with a "VP Apprentice" show to determine his running mate. Seem like that would be more his style. Just selecting someone based on geographical pull is...bland.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I think he should kiss & make up with NBC and come out with a "VP Apprentice" show to determine his running mate. Seem like that would be more his style. Just selecting someone based on geographical pull is...bland.

Haha. I could totally see Trump doing something like that.

 

[Blue2010]

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind if he chose Christie as VP. I felt he was one of the few who weren't coached on what to say, and he seemed to be more authentic. I don't have anything other than my gut feeling watching / listening to them, but with everything I have, I believe Rubio and Cruz are just scripted. It's incredibly hard for me to trust in what they are saying or believe that they would be able to handle being president. I, personally - and I've said this before - don't give two sh*ts how articulate these guys are standing at the podium talking to a crowd -- I want someone I know without a shadow of a doubt - when the doors are closed - will get the job done. We are dealing with a world that wants us to be destroyed, in more ways than one -- this isn't a bunch of twinkle-toes prancing around having to play nicely in the sand box. Not sure how many someone lowly like me speaks for here, but just my take on it.

 

[tarheel0910]

Sarah Palin showed that VP picks matter.

I think the best VP pick for Trump would be Rubio. He'd soften the perception that Trump is anti-latino and it would guarantee winning the swing state of FLA. Kasich would be a good pick for the same reason with Ohio. Sandoval from Nevada and Susanna Martinez from New Mexico would also be good picks in regards to battling the rhetoric from liberals that he's anti-latino. Tim Scott from SC would be another good choice.

I'm not necessarily saying that they don't matter at all, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me. Sarah Palin didn't keep McCain from getting elected. The fact that he had an R next to his name is what did him end. The country wasn't going to elect a republican after Bush. Obama could have run as a republican and he would have lost.

 

[UNC71-00]

Russian intelligence officials have postulated for years that the US could break up into nine separate countries within the next 8-16 years if the nation doesn't get its cultural, financial and fiscal act together. The Soviet Union's demise was provided as an example. The actually broke it down based on geographical, cultural and fiscal attributes of the groups of states that would comprise these separate nations:

1) Northeast - ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, MD, DE, NJ
2) Mid-Atlantic - IN, PA, OH, WV, VA, NC
3) Deep South - SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY
4) Lower Mid-West - TX, OK, KS, MO
5) Upper Mid-West - NE, SD, ND, IA
6) Great Lakes - IL, MI, WI, MN
7) Upper Rockies - CO, WY, MT, ID, AK
8) Lower Rockies - NM, AZ, UT, NV
9) West Coast - CA, OR, WA, HI

Scary that they actually came up with something like this. When I read it, I was really shocked. Hopefully, doesn't happen...

If the union were to realign, I don't think it would look like that.

 

[bleeduncblue]

Megyn Kelly is gonna be his Veep.

 

[strummingram]

Let's talk Trump... but don't talk too badly about Trump.

This f*cker gets downright scary sometimes. What's even more scary are these legions that praise his every word. The GOP courted the "moral majority" 35 years ago and that has resulted into a religious-cult-like status. Now, this guy is their front-runner and he talks like a fascist. A full-blown Euro-fascist from the 1920's and 30's. And the d*pshits in this state love the guy. I think I'm starting to see why the "conservative" mouthpieces are trying to denigrate Trump and push Rubio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...atens-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-sue-newspapers


One of the comments under the article sums it up well:

"The authoritarian again comes out. This is how Trump has made money. Anyone who poses a threat, stands in his way, or even threatens him directly, gets sued. Trump may not have any intention of driving it all the way through. But with shady lawyers and billions backing him up he can drag someone through the mud, drain them dry, and/or force them to settle for financial or some other amount or item.

Trump wants this power to ultimately destroy anyone he deems as an enemy. He gave an interview years ago saying he believes in "thoroughly trashing" his enemies. Putting him in control of the Executive Branch with control of law enforcement and executive orders is thoroughly scary. This is as far removed from the Founders' intent as we have been as a nation."