What's shocking about this? It's just Clinton being a typical neoliberal.
Meet the new boss. Same as the boss before the old boss and proud of it.
|Oscar Wildcat |
Sounds just like Bort!
I bet Jill Stein's tits are saggy as hell.
Hey Bort, did you hear George Bush recently endorsed Donald Trump? What do you think of that?
EH: I bet Jill Stein's tits ARE saggy as hell.
Say, thanks to the wonders of the internet, we can answer such frivolous questions, as so.
For the record: one sags, one does not.
Stop being sexist and give me your thoughts on the George Bush endorsement, please.
Yes, the guy who guards number six! It's like Hillary and Donald are duking it out to be the new number two.
When speaking about universal healthcare and free public education, I like it when politicians cite countries that exist, have less money than us and have managed to do it. Then follow by flippantly dismissing the possibility as if it were time travel.
So get to work voting Republicans out of Congress and maybe you'll see it happen.
But the bitchy bitchy Left seems to have this habit of staying home during midterms, so fuck them, they are a big part of the problem.
Is there an APP 4 THAT?
Once Google Jigsaw gets its automated censorship software running, sure.
And after that, I give it four years, tops, before a Google-funded tech company creates an app that gamifies going to the polls and voting for whomever the oligarchs currently favor the most.
There's a difference between something being technically feasible and being politically feasible, and with half the country's politicians pulling as hard as they can in the opposite direction, I can't understand why anyone would think it's such an outlandish thing to say. Of course the president can't just flip a switch and give European health care a try.
There is also the small matter that, even if our insurance were all non-profit (like single payer), medical providers are not. That means your bill from the hospital is going to include some measure of profit on top of the costs of providing service, which in turn involves paying other for-profit entities, and so on.
A good read in general, but I quote this part:
About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades. Whether he is in Taiwan, Cyprus, or Vermont, the process is roughly the same: meet with legislators, draw up a plan, write legislation. Only half of those bills actually become law. The part where it collapses is, inevitably, when the country has to pay for it.
In the United States, the failure rate is even higher. The California legislature has twice passed single-payer legislation, only to have the bills vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. There was also a single-payer ballot measure in California in 1994, but the insurance industry pushed back aggressively against it. And those are relative success stories: activists in Colorado failed to get enough signatures for a single-payer ballot measure this past November. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has introduced and re-introduced a bill to bring a public plan to the entire country since 2009. It has languished through three consecutive sessions of Congress.
In a way, the fact that America hasn’t taken serious steps to control health spending makes it particularly hard for the country to move to a single-payer system in the future. Our health-care system costs $2.8 trillion annually, about 17.7 percent of the entire economy. This is way more than any single-payer system anywhere in the world costs. Take Canada, where 11.2 percent of all spending goes towards medical care.
That's the irony of America's health-care system: its incredible failure to control costs makes change that much harder, because so many powerful players profit so handsomely from the status quo, and because rearranging the financing creates so many losers.
Kentucky now has exactly one insurance company on the exchange, everyone else is ditching it by middle next year.
We also just have one cable company.
Guess how that went?
Comcast makes Monsanto look like Doctors without Borders.
|Binro the Heretic |
I didn't believe Sanders could make the changes he was talking about.
What I hoped was that the other politicians s would see such ideas have popular support and maybe take a little notice.
Instead, we have a candidate who says we can't have free college educations because people need "some skin in the game" to be properly motivated which smacks of Bill Clinton's welfare policies. We can't just give people in need assistance because they need to be motivated to achieve. This, of course, is nothing but a bald-faced attempt to woo right-leaning voters.
And we don't have the option of refusing to vote for her to send a message because it would put a monster into the Oval Office.
Bernie wasn't proposing free college educations, though. He was proposing free tuition. That fails to cover housing, food, books, or any other miscellaneous fees, which can easily exceed the cost of tuition.
Hillary's plan, of course, is smarter because it's designed to solve problems rather than provide sound bites. Her site speaks of "debt-free education", which would include making state universities and community colleges tuition free, and would ALSO work on keeping college debt manageable (lower interest rates, renegotiating debt, forgiving debt in exchange for AmeriCorps service, etc) so people aren't crushed by student loans forever and ever. Plus Pell grants would be expanded to cover non-tuition expenses, which means a person could really clean up by staying at home and going to local public institutions, and using the loans for costs other than tuition. Still wouldn't be free, but that gets us back to how Hillary isn't overpromising.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/06/ hillary-clintons-commitment-a-debt-free-future-for-americas-gradua tes/
"Skin in the game" is bullshit.
I tried working while going to school and it was next to impossible so I worked like hell during my four months off and saved up enough to carry me through. Lots of Kraft Dinner and vegetarian subs, let me tell you.
If someone else (like my parents) had paid my way it would not have changed how hard I studied, but I sure would have eaten a lot better.
I'd just like to point out, as the child of an Italian immigrant, the European model covers all but housing in 90% of the EU.
They all also have universal health care.
BUT THAT COULD NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN HERE, AMIRITE???
"Easily exceeds the cost of tuition" in fantasy-land.
Also, KingArthur: Chertoff endorsed her? Augh. I send him a fresh batch of psychic hate every time I fly, which ain't often but which was recent.
I'll probably do my usual schtick: be principled all season and in the end be so terrified that I vote from fear, i.e. for Clinton (and truly, Stein seems like a dummy, and who else is left at this point?), because W's DHS taught us all that the wings of the Corporatist Party are still distinguishable, and then I'll probably shoot myself or something. j/k omg #lifeisbutadream
Though to be fair, it looks like Sanders' plan looks like Hillary's in a lot of ways; they've both borrowed from one another and met in the middle (even with the HBCU funding):
So bitching about Hillary's plan means bitching about Bernie's plan too. If you're smarter than, say, Gmork or dogshit, that should put the matter to rest.
exy - are you saying that Cleveland State University is fantasy-land? Because dude, we need to get you some better fantasies.
Tuition and Fees - In-state: $9,696
Room and Board: $12,500
Books and Supplies: $800
Other Expenses: $4,860
Those round numbers are obviously intended to reflect typical figures, and I'm not sure how they were compiled. But collegedata.com would have to be pulling some real shenanigans to get this qualitatively wrong: as much as tuition has gone up in recent decades, in-state tuition at state universities is still much cheaper than out-of-state or private institutions.
Hillary's plan (and Bernie's too I guess) encourages people to use public institutions, especially ones that do not require living on campus. Go that route and that knocks out the two biggest entries altogether; your Pell grant might go to books and supplies and other expenses, which are a small fraction of the total current expenses. Yeah, Hillary's a fucking monster.
If Hillary were to implement such a plan, it would almost be worth the vote. There's still a number of problems: it would largely leave the rural poor high and dry on behalf of the DNC (again), but there's precedent in Europe to pay for everything but room and board. My other concerns about it are what do you do if you drop out or flunk or have mitigating circumstances like a severe illness or disaster because right now you keep all the debt, do you implement public transportation initiatives and block grants to get the rural and urban poor to and from school, and how do you engage people for jobs that will actually be there without doing something about the massive neoliberal offshoring of jobs to cheaper countries?
Also: How do you address her hawkishness on the war front, though?
I'm seriously asking because the only reason I'm voting Stein, and I've said this many times before, is to secure ballot access for a viable third party decades down the road. Stein is not an ideal candidate and if she were ever within a hope of actually being elected, I'd think the Greens could come up with a more viable candidate by then who didn't court 9-11 trutherism. BUT: the name of the game right now for the Greens is getting eyeballs and ballot signatures, so this is how the game is played and Stein is remarkably good at that game. Leading a complex country without down ticket support from her own party? (Yes, the Greens run in down ticket races at all levels of government every election it's just that the news often ignores them) Not so much. But if you don't start changing it now, when do you start to change it? The D's and R's certainly aren't going to voluntarily change the election rules to allow for third parties.
The issue I've got with Hillary is her pronounced neoliberal voting record and those economic policies don't do me and mine any good. So I'm hoping she's committed to changing them. The college tuition revisions and student loan revisions would be a good start. Making it universal, along with health care, would be better but the Dems don't seem to want that (or their donors don't seem to want that) even when they have a super majority.
"pronounced neoliberal voting record"
Yeah the one that matches Sanders 93% of the time. What a fucking monster. Quick, tell me what "neoliberal" means without looking it up.
I admit Hillary has been more inclined to military solutions than I like, but as Secretary of State under Obama, she has seen negotiation work over and over where military action would be the obvious go-to. I think she's smart enough to learn from what works. Of course, she's going to run into what Obama did: any time she uses the military for any reason, the Left is going to scream bloody murder, as they did with Libya. (Most of the critics of Libya have no idea that there was a civil war underway before the US even got involved, and the US got involved because the United Nations mandated a no-fly zone, to keep Qadaffi from launching reprisals against his own citizens.)
Jill Stein is not good at anything except promoting her brand name every now and again. I know her fans loved how she spray-painted a bulldozer that time, but why didn't she use her prominence to, you know, talk to some people in Washington? Right there you see how fundamentally unsuited to the presidency she is: she may have a talent for yelling at the system, but it doesn't even dawn on her to try to use the system. The other possibility, of course, is that she simply doesn't give a shit about helping people, and this is a huge narcissistic exercise on her part.
Up above, you and EH were going on about how some life-long Republicans were endorsing Hillary, and I imagine the message you took away from that was, they love Hillary. The more likely message is, they see what a fucking lunatic Trump is, and he scares them so much that they'd rather make sure Hillary beats him. For all their many faults, they still care enough about the country to keep Trump out of office. You know who doesn't care if the country burns just so long as she can collect some portion of the vote? Jill Stein. She has less interest in the public good than Chertoff. Think on that for a while.
Binro the Heretic
It's not the plan itself that upsets me. It's the attitude. The Clintons are from a generation of Democrats who witnessed Carter's loss to Reagan and said, "Never again."
Their only goal is to put people who call themselves Democrats in office. Of course, the definition of what a Democrat is has changed over the decades, but their whole point is to provide an alternative to the Republican party and they're just not doing that any more.
Most modern Democrats try to be as moderate as possible, hoping to attract just enough right-leaning voters to put them over the top. It doesn't matter that Bernie wouldn't have been able to get everything we wanted. The important thing was to show them that there are enough of us who are passionate about those things. That's the only way we'll see some compromise and progress.
And as someone who DOES have free tuition (thanks, government!) I can tell you firsthand that once tuition is covered, the rest is pretty easy.
Mr Bort, you cite a number of figures, but you fail to take into account the fact that "room & board" is a non-negotiable, baseline expense. Unless you'd like to be a crustie, you have to live SOMEWHERE - the question is whether, "while living somewhere", you go to college, or do something else.
I'm pretty sure you understand this, as you made reference to "cleaning up" by "living at home" earlier. Eliminate the 12k room&board expense, plus a large chunk of the vague Other expense category, and you're left with the actual cost -of the schooling itself- 10k in tuition, versus maybe 1.5k in books and incidentals. (as you've failed to provide private-school figures, I will assume we can agree that these figures are representative of the whole)
So no, directly school-related expenses do NOT exceed the cost of tuition.
Also, by your continued inability to answer my simple, straightforward question about George Bush, am I right in assuming you don't HAVE a satisfactory answer?
You're clearly aware of this issue by now - and given that you usually default to careful rationalizations rather than childish brain-shutdowns, it's obviously an issue you feel threatened by.
"Most modern Democrats try to be as moderate as possible, hoping to attract just enough right-leaning voters to put them over the top."
They go where the votes are. Can you honestly blame them for that? Going where the votes aren't just means losing elections and being in no position to implement anything at all.
"It doesn't matter that Bernie wouldn't have been able to get everything we wanted."
Or ANYthing for that matter.
"The important thing was to show them that there are enough of us who are passionate about those things. That's the only way we'll see some compromise and progress."
Bernie lost, though. The lesson of this campaign was that the votes are to be found not among white Lefties but among minority voters, the same people who brought Obama victory, twice. The Democratic Party is paying increasing attention to them, and good for the Democrats for doing that. It's overdue and I like to see electoral reliability rewarded.
And you make like the Democrats aren't already on your side. Even I get sick of bringing this up, but the Democrats were one Senator short of getting you a public option. The correct answer was to vote hard in 2010 to increase the number of Democratic Senators, not hand Congress over to the Republicans like the dumbfuck Left did. Talk about a demographic that deserves nothing.
Binro the Heretic
Sanders didn't lose, Bort. He just wasn't picked by the Democratic party to be their candidate.
Fewer people voted for Sanders than for Clinton. That's called "losing".
If only whites had voted, Sanders would have won, no doubt about it. But fortunately, minorities vote and they could see right through Sanders. The same coalition that worked for Obama, worked for Hillary.
Binro blindly blaming everything on old white men being in power while being an adamant Bernie over Hillary (and Obama?) supporter is my favorite cognitive disconnect on this site.
"Tuition and Fees - In-state: $9,696
Room and Board: $12,500
Books and Supplies: $800
Other Expenses: $4,860"
Are you seriously saying that roughly $30,000 per year is in any way reasonable or even achievable for the majority?
If I have isread that page and we are talking about the toal cost of attendence for a four year program that's more reasonable but still
A) Not representative
B) Significantly higher than attending most state schools 20 years ago, not at all proportionate with inflation.
C) disregarding the above, also demonstrates that the typically much hihger cost of a college education could be lower.
You do realize that tuitions are artificially inflated as part of a broad based marketing strategy to create an image of exclusivity, right?
OZ, that's definitely the cost of a calendar year. Which is two semesters. Most people go during the summer as well to make graduating in 4 years plausible.
I just recently enrolled at public university and entered as a "junior." Thankfully a good amount of my tuition is subsidized. That said, I'll graduate roughly 30-50k in the hole for "2 years."
What's shocking or revealing about this?
It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that user Bort is in real life Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton! So pleased you spend your downtime here with us. Don't worry, we won't tell a soul.
If Bort really were Hillary I'd vote for her just on principle. For she is a master heel and game recognize game.
We established a looooooong time ago that Waugh is Hillary.
|The God of Biscuits |
"Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.” So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing. So I think we should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals. But to take what we can achieve now and try to present them as bigger goals."
I can't find anything wrong with this
Mmmmm that's condescending.
It's condescending but I think that's more a product of a few conflating issues:
1. Her upbringing.
2. Her political history as a near-conservative and economic neoliberal.
3. Her number of years in the beltway echo chamber where reality is not a concern and people are sheltered from most of America.
That said, it's condescending, yes, but I think it's about as sympathetic as we could expect her to be given 1 through 3 above. To me, it says she's not tone deaf to what the problem we have with her is, at least on some level. So, that's a slight glimmer of hope, maybe?
She kinda changed her stance on legalizing pot.
It's about as close to an admission of guilt her generation is likely to produce. Young people need to get their heads out of the plastic electronic consumer hologram and start acting out in the real world. The structures have never been weaker, the tiger never more stuffed with paper mache. We've seen some promising signs of recent, but thanks to the divisions of identify politics ( as carefully tended by both parties ) the young are still struggling.
This is hardly the same revelation as the leaked Scott Walker phone call.
At this point I honestly can't tell who's more desperate to find something to demonize Hillary: Republicans or Bern victims.
Yeah, this is just more of the same "we can turn the economy around (never mind the fact that the entire economic system is secularized Protestant predestination theology propped up on demonstrably false models that require a perpetual underclass and unlimited resources to maintain the illusion) rhetoric.
This stuff isn't even cynical, this is what Democratic politicians actually believe, because they are among the chosen.
But still better than the alternatives currently available (in no large part because they've spent quite a few generations securing their position and making sure no better alternatives are possible).
I thought it was perfectly status quo too, to be honest. If this is an example of what Hillary says for a quarter million dollars, she's been ripping the oligarchy off hard. Anyone can insult the voters at the rich, even Mitt Romney.
Politics aside, 'Bern Victim' is a top shelf pun.
Not an inspiring politician.
|That guy |
too Bort; didn't read
|Spaceman Africa |
oh so THIS is why her polls with young voters are doing so well
| Register or login To Post a Comment|