Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Who will win the debate?
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Martin O'Malley
Baby Hitler
View Results
 
  • Locked thread
Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Tatum Girlparts is being intentionally misleading about Bernie's stance for support of a minimum wage increase. He said that people need money to pay for more goods and services because that's what generates demand for jobs. It was an employment issue to begin with. Acting as if poor people don't care about the availability of jobs, is the most ludicrous concern trolling I've ever seen.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

All of them were intentionally vague about foreign policy, and only Bernie had a specific proposal which is to get our Mooslim allies in the region to coalesce against ISIS. I don't think it's particularly realistic but at least it's something.

Hillary had a lot of What The gently caress moments tonight. The 9/11 thing being the most egregious. Then there was her statement of opposition to free college because taxpayers shouldn't pay to send Donald Trump's kids to school. Well, we would have paid to send them to K-12 grade if they had attended a public school too, so what difference does it make to send them to college along with everyone else? It's the exact same argument that rich people use to campaign against public funding for primary and secondary education. And what about social security benefits? Is she against rich people drawing SS as well? Universality is the whole appeal to free university. Her opposition to a 15 dollar minimum also didn't make any sense. We should only have 12 dollars because no other country has a minimum as high as 15? That's not very compelling for a country that's supposed to be exceptional.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Ok? My issue wasn't with the magic number but with shifting the discussion away from what the actual people currently not making that much need to survive and instead turning it into 'but they can BUY STUFF THEY WANT' as if there isn't a huge issue with people spinning minimum wage protests as lazy poors wanting to buy more poo poo.

No, you said that it showed Bernie doesn't care about the concerns of poor people.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Immortan posted:

Keep telling yourself that a $15MW would ever pass congress. :ssh:

It's not realistic for any kind of minimum wage increase to ever pass congress. $12 an hour is not some magical number that is perfectly triangulated to the body politic.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

College education is a civic good that benefits society on the net by having a well educated populace. There's nothing stopping somebody who pursues a Gen. Ed. degree from then turning around and learning a trade.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

I legitimately don't know how many times I have to say the $15 isn't the issue

Your issue is that you hate Bernie for no good reason.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Tigntink posted:

Can't have people getting educated. They might make their own decisions instead of just looking to the TV to tell them what to do.

Even if they drop out and don't earn a degree, it's not as if the time spent at college was wasted. It isn't as if they learned nothing or weren't at all bettered by the experience. Concerns about how many dropouts we're paying for reinforces the notion that the degree is a good in itself and not the education.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

triple sulk posted:

K-12 is absurdly more important than anything after, how about fixing that first

K-12 doesn't get fixed by opposing free college tuition.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Bob Hope can SIT ON IT!

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

My Imaginary GF posted:

How could he do that, more than what's already being done? Because unless there's a concrete answer for that, all his words are just cover for cutting and running from ISIS.

It's not as if he's been against bombing ISIS. I mean, Bernie still supports the Drone War.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

It's possible to both address K-12 education, and make college free at the same time. It's not as if one issue completely crowds out the other in terms of what's possible politically.

And besides, if you want to try to claim that free college is unrealistic, really consider what "fixing" K-12 would involve. You can't resolve the districting issue without Federalizing funding, which means you'd be facing a rabid right wing opposition which is violently opposed to any kind of Federal control over how their schools end up being run.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Skeesix posted:

Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized.

I think you're a little confused on what "nationalized" means. K-12 education is run by the states, not the Federal government, although a lot of funding does come from the Federal level. American Universities are also mostly public institutions, but they're also run by the states. Part of the reason tuition costs have been so high is because government funding of post-secondary in most states has dropped over the decades.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Skeesix posted:

Actually k-12 is run by local municipalities on (local, not state) property taxes but it's effectively nationalized in that federal money is given for conforming to certain nationwide standards so everyone takes that money.

And while of course the dropping state support of public colleges is a factor, it's a secondary one. Costs at private colleges are rising just as quickly.

Private colleges wouldn't be funded by a public plan, so that's not germane to anything.

Also, I wouldn't call the available Federal funds for public Primary-Secondary schools a real nationalization in any sense. Federal funds don't come even close to addressing the property tax gaps between districts.

  • Locked thread