U.S. Politics 2016: "You Suck!!!" "No, you Suck!!!"

[Datepalm]

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Which sounds really nice, but is vague enough as to have little meaning.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, if education is a fundamental right provided by the state, then there is no legitimate argument against everyone being a full time student forever.

The devil, as always, is in the details.  The hard part is agreeing where the line is where the output by the state is surpassed by the benefit of free education.

It's also a nonsensical counterfactual. This isn't like guaranteed income where its never quite been done before and we can theorize what goes where. Plenty of places have free or very low-cost higher education, through to tertiary. Aye, capitalist democracies with free markets in the higher education sector, even. There's limitations on admissions (which the USA has right now as well, so that wouldn't change anyway,) opportunity costs and inclination. There are not hoardes of people in Germany, Finland, or for that matter Israel (2000 USD annual tuition) getting vanity degrees or being students forever.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Datepalm said:

It's also a nonsensical counterfactual. This isn't like guaranteed income where its never quite been done before and we can theorize what goes where. Plenty of places have free or very low-cost higher education, through to tertiary. Aye, capitalist democracies with free markets in the higher education sector, even. There's limitations on admissions (which the USA has right now as well, so that wouldn't change anyway,) opportunity costs and inclination. There are not hoardes of people in Germany, Finland, or for that matter Israel (2000 USD annual tuition) getting vanity degrees or being students forever.

Indeed.  I'm aware of this.  As I said, the devil is in the details.

But thank you for your response.

[Datepalm]

11 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

As I said, the devil is in the details.

So? Yes, heavens, it would be complicated. Doesn't mean it is impossible, not-crucial, or, relevantly for this discussion, somewhere outside the scope. Those details are the political debate. Retreating from the topic because its complicated - repeating 'ah, the devil is in the details' when people engage in the practical and ethical aspects of concrete policy suggestions - is nonsensical and disingenous.

[Sullen]

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

IMO the only way to [probably] guarantee TPP didn't go though was to elect Trump. A lame duck session with president elect Hillary Clinton would probably allow Obama to convince the Republican majority in congress to ratify before she got inaugurated. And the Republican congress, which largely supported TPP, may well have gone along with it to rub TPP in Hillary's eye. Though if they were smart they would probably realise Hillary was not all that committed to rejecting TPP and refuse to go along with a lame duck ratification and watch Hillary have to swallow a dead rat and axe TPP against her philosophical wishes.

I don't know, I honestly doubted Trump's honesty there. The fact that he put the rejection of the TPP as his number one priority once he becomes president genuinely shocked me.

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

For the USA TPP was always more about security and influence in Asia. Getting rid of TPP will royally screw them on that and China will fill happily the void. And no jobs will return to the USA from rejecting TPP.

Of course, it was mostly about America flexing its international muscles and dissuade China from pursuing its expansion into the South China Sea, but again, the detachment from international affair was already one of the many contradictory facets of Trump's personality. Rejecting TPP wasn't really about bringing back jobs either, but about trying to keep some home.

Honestly, as a Canadian, I'm extremely glad that you guys will opt out of the TPP, the US being part of the TPP would have had pretty ugly consequences on our own code of law when it concerns copyright law, to the point where our definition of "fair use" would be warped by your own, and would cause legal woes to many Canadian citizens due to the newly acquired ability of American companies to sue foreign citizens for file sharing and the like. Scary idea.

EDIT: That's not mentioning that it would grant big pharmaceutical companies additional tools to limit the development of cheaper, generic brands through the reinforcement of intellectual property laws, which extends to medicine as well.

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

So? Yes, heavens, it would be complicated. Doesn't mean it is impossible, not-crucial, or, relevantly for this discussion, somewhere outside the scope. Those details are the political debate. Retreating from the topic because its complicated - repeating 'ah, the devil is in the details' when people engage in the practical and ethical aspects of concrete policy suggestions is nonsensical and disingenous.

I didn't say it was impossible, not crucial, or outside of scope(primarily because there was no 'it' beyond 'education is a fundamental human right').  There was no concrete policy discussion underway in the post I responded to.

Odd also that I was not the only person to make this point, and yet you have latched onto me like an especially affectionate dog to a pair of pants with a particularly pleasing texture, no?

But thank you again for your response. If you'd like to discuss some actual concrete policy, by all means, I'm listening.

 

ETA:  Here is a link to the posts in question, should you want to review what was actually said.

 

 

[sperry]

59 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The thread is usually locked after 20 pages (maybe the mods are on vacation today?).

Regarding Sanders' ideas on education: I don't think they have been all the way thought through. Education by itself is not enough. Suppose you had a magic wand which could make it so that everybody had a post-graduate degree and the associated knowledge and skill in the discipline that best suits them by choice and inclination. That is, you can't make somebody great at something they have no talent for, but you can give them the effects of education instantly and for free. What would all of these highly educated people do? There aren't enough high-quality jobs to employ many educated people according to their qualifications today, imagine what it would be like if there were suddenly many more of them.

Of course, it may be that Sanders has thought the idea all the way through... but that would only make sense if he is a genuine revolutionary rather than a Scandinavian socialist.

 

It's mainly the "American dream" of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, of anybody can become something if they work hard enough. That starts with access to education.  It's a lot easier to say the "cream rises to the top" when everyone has access to quality education, then when most poor children have access to shit education that puts them behind the 8 ball of life at an age earlier than we legally allow them to make decisions for themselves.

[The Anti-Targ]

27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't understand your comment here. Are you under the impression that because you make higher education free (or cheap) everyone gets a post-graduate degree? Because that's not how it works (that's not how any of this works).
Also, education is not necessarily a qualification. In a country where education is free, some people take a degree in whatever they're interested in and then go to work in a totally unrelated field. So your gardener could have a master's degree in theology for instance.
It all boils down to not seeing education as merchandise but as a fundamental right.

I don't see education as a fundamental right, but as an obligation, and the fulfilment of a social need. Firstly as a parental obligation, but if for whatever reason the parent can't do it then the obligation transfers to the state. But then at some point the obligation transfers to the individual. Should education be free to the undergrad degree level? Hard to say. I think it should be tax payer funded and universal to a basic high school level for sure. University education perhaps doesn't warrant being fully tax payer funded. But I don't think the cost of a degree should be a barrier for people going to university, so IMO taxes should fund the vast majority of the cost of university education, but the student (or his/her family) should contribute a financially meaningful amount. My son's engineering degree is going to cost him about $32K, but he's going to end up with a student loan of approximately double that because of having to borrow for living costs. We are committed to paying for his education, but because of the interest structure for student loans it's better for him to have a loan and pay it off later than to pay for the education and living expenses up front. We see it as our parental duty to ensure he gets at least an undergraduate degree, and that is the for us the extent of our formal educational responsibility as parents.

I think for an engineering degree $32K is a reasonable amount to pay. But I would like for there to be a universal student living allowance (at the moment it's means tested based on parental income), mostly because out of town students are financially penalised. My son can't live at home to do engineering because our local university doesn't offer that degree. So people who have the good fortune of living in a city where the university (or other tertiary institution) offers the qualification they want have the financial advantage of at least having the option of living at home and thus coming out of the system with a smaller loan simply because of where their family lives. And the differential loan burden has nothing to do with financial means of the family. 

[Rippounet]

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think the confusion comes in when you make education a "fundamental right" does that give people the "right" to remain students as long as it takes to earn their desired degree, or, does the State then determine who may and may not have that opportunity?

42 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Taken to it's logical conclusion, if education is a fundamental right provided by the state, then there is no legitimate argument against everyone being a full time student forever.

I can't help but smile. Don't take this the wrong way guys, but you are very sweet.

Even when education is free, housing and food are not. Even in countries that provide financial help to students, they will either live in small apartments (the best case scenario, but not the most frequent, unless they have a part-time job), in dorms or at their parents'. And the longer you are a student and the longer it takes for you to have the means to buy a house, or even a decent car. Pretty much no one wants to spend their whole life like this.

Also Scott, you are correct. In many fields of study, the ministry of education sets either a competitive exam or a maximum number of years to get your degree in order to eliminate those who are not serious about their studies.

42 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, I guess I disagree that education beyond what is minimally necessary to be a producing member of the society in question is any kind of "right."    

Which is the heart of the problem.
If the point of higher education is only to train people for a specific job, then society can only stagnate, or even regress. If you want progress (not just technological, but human as well), a civilisation worthy of the name, and a functioning democracy, then you have to be ready to literally pay the price for it.

If you're not, then you get Drumpf.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

It's mainly the "American dream" of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, of anybody can become something if they work hard enough. That starts with access to education.  It's a lot easier to say the "cream rises to the top" when everyone has access to quality education, then when most poor children have access to shit education that puts them behind the 8 ball of life at an age earlier than we legally allow them to make decisions for themselves.

This is an excellent point.  With all the focus on higher education, there has not been enough focus on primary education and the fact that it is failing so many students.  Truly to give all access to good outcomes, the educational parity needs to start at the nursery/pre-K level.  (In case it isn't clear, let me be explicit, I am totally FOR universal pre-K, and would expand to nursery).  Even high performing students at less advantaged schools won't end up with the same outcomes because they don't have the same access to opportunity - many haven't even heard of, e.g., small liberal arts colleges that would love to give them money.  Ironically, a low income person could probably go for free to the best universities in the country, but they don't even know to apply.

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Which is the heart of the problem.
If the point of higher education is only to train people for a specific job, then society can only stagnate, or even regress. If you want progress (not just technological, but human as well), a civilisation worthy of the name, and a functioning democracy, then you have to be ready to literally pay the price for it.

If you're not, then you get Drumpf.

I actually am a firm believer in a liberal arts education.  I have one.  That said, it isn't for everyone, and it is sold as such in the US.  We don't ahve a balance of educational opportunities for students and students don't know what opportunities are available.

[Swordfish]

Quote

I can't help but smile. Don't take this the wrong way guys, but you are very sweet.

Even when education is free, housing and food are not. Even in countries that provide financial help to students, they will either live in small apartments (the best case scenario, but not the most frequent, unless they have a part-time job), in dorms or at their parents'. And the longer you are a student and the longer it takes for you to have the means to buy a house, or even a decent car. Pretty much no one wants to spend their whole life like this.

I think some people do actually enjoy this kind of lifestyle, and more power to them.My SO is one of them.  She would gladly spend her life as a full time student if it were free.

I think we got a little high centered on the concept of 'fundamental human right', which was probably not the best approach, but the point is still worth discussion, because the line must be drawn somewhere.

 

Quote

Which is the heart of the problem.
If the point of higher education is only to train people for a specific job, then society can only stagnate, or even regress. If you want progress (not just technological, but human as well), a civilisation worthy of the name, and a functioning democracy, then you have to be ready to literally pay the price for it.

This is the cost benefit I alluded to earlier.  How do we quantify the non 'prepare for a job' benefits of higher education in terms of benefit to society?  I don't know the answer to this, and so it is difficult to determine appropriate policy. 

What does the competitive exam you mention consist of?  Is this essentially a requirement of entry into a program?

I also don't necessarily think that limiting this kind of assistance to STEM programs and programs where there are gaps in the labor pool inherently detracts from those 'non job training' benefits.

[Castel]

Anyone following this Kellyanne/Mitt Romney drama? Any chance she gets fired? Please?

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I think some people do actually enjoy this kind of lifestyle, and more power to them.My SO is one of them.  She would gladly spend her life as a full time student if it were free.

I think we got a little high centered on the concept of 'fundamental human right', which was probably not the best approach, but the point is still worth discussion, because the line must be drawn somewhere.

 

This is the cost benefit I alluded to earlier.  How do we quantify the non 'prepare for a job' benefits of higher education in terms of benefit to society?  I don't know the answer to this, and so it is difficult to determine appropriate policy. 

What does the competitive exam you mention consist of?  Is this essentially a requirement of entry into a program?

I also don't necessarily think that limiting this kind of assistance to STEM programs and programs where there are gaps in the labor pool inherently detracts from those 'non job training' benefits.

There is nothing to quantify. If it doesn't make you employable, it is of no worth, as someone else's tax money will just have to end up supporting you, either wholly or partially.

If you want to study liberal arts or some similar field that's your right, but then you better be independently wealthy, or be willing to starve. But my tax money should not be supporting your lifestyle choice. It is fundamentally unfair.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Sullen said:

I don't know, I honestly doubted Trump's honesty there. The fact that he put the rejection of the TPP as his number one priority once he becomes president genuinely shocked me.

Of course, it was mostly about America flexing its international muscles and dissuade China from pursuing its expansion into the South China Sea, but again, the detachment from international affair was already one of the many contradictory facets of Trump's personality. Rejecting TPP wasn't really about bringing back jobs either, but about trying to keep some home.

Honestly, as a Canadian, I'm extremely glad that you guys will opt out of the TPP, the US being part of the TPP would have had pretty ugly consequences on our own code of law when it concerns copyright law, to the point where our definition of "fair use" would be warped by your own, and would cause legal woes to many Canadian citizens due to the newly acquired ability of American companies to sue foreign citizens for file sharing and the like. Scary idea.

I have a feeling that once certain interests get in Trump's ear that he's going to try to weasel around his promise to rid the USA of TPP and look to do more or less the same thing, but perhaps with a different name.

IMO Canada was at risk of not ratifying TPP anyway, because some of its grossly protectionists practices would have to be discontinued. Though if TPP was ratified by the USA I think Canada would have had to meekly follow.

For US the major downside of TPP was copyright and also drug buying policy. We have a single payer drug buying agency which makes pharmaceuticals very cheap and of course means we can screw big pharma down on price, which they don't like. The US was forcing us to swallow a bigger bill for pharmaceuticals as part of TPP, but we were able to retain a single buyer model so the cost increase was going to be modest fortunately.

I don't think axing TPP is even necessarily going to retain jobs. TPP was probably going to shift the employment balance in favour of US exporting sectors, the net effect would probably be neutral on jobs at worst. But the optics could be spun as negative for political reasons because some sectors would lose jobs. End of the day, the USA would have had improved and lower cost access for goods and services to a population base of about 350 million people in countries that have comparable affluence or a growing middle class. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Castel said:

Anyone following this Kellyanne/Mitt Romney drama? Any chance she gets fired? Please?

Does she have a cabinet position? If not I'm not even sure why she's still around.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is nothing to quantify. If it doesn't make you employable, it is of no worth, as someone else's tax money will just have to end up supporting you, either wholly or partially.

If you want to study liberal arts or some similar field that's your right, but then you better be independently wealthy, or be willing to starve. But my tax money should not be supporting your lifestyle choice. It is fundamentally unfair.

Well, I would beg to differ - I think people with liberal arts degrees are highly employable, but maybe not in the field that their official degree is in.

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Does she have a cabinet position? If not I'm not even sure why she's still around.

Fun fact, her husband George is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Look him/them up!

[Castel]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Does she have a cabinet position? If not I'm not even sure why she's still around.

She apparently doesn't, she's probably looking for one. 

Might not get one now though. Interesting to see the fallout

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

Stress the side is about adding rights for all people, because whether it is true or not there needs to be avoidance of even the semblance that we want to take things away from people, only get the same privileges for all that only some have.

This election was not, in any reasonable way, about the issues. 

Clinton's campaign was very big on giving a lot of people regardless of background major benefits and help. Her pre-K schooling benefits everyone, for instance. Her paid family leave benefits everyone. Her medical care expansion helps everyone. If the message was that these were things that were only going to help certain people or going to help minorities, I think that is either a bad misinterpretation or (more likely) that the policy views were never well-articulated in favor of attacking the other candidate and making it all about personality.

This election drove it very clearly that policy issues have nothing to do with how people as a whole vote. Otherwise, why would so many middle-class families vote for a tax increase to themselves so that rich people could get an insanely large tax cut? Why would so many vote to remove their medical coverage? 

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, Castel said:

She apparently doesn't, she's probably looking for one. 

Might not get one now though. Interesting to see the fallout

Do campaign managers typically get (or even want) to become Cabinet members? 

That's certainly not what happened with either David Plouffe or JIm Messina, the managers of Obama's two presidential campaigns. People who  enjoy being campaign managers would, I think, rather have titles like Presidential Advisor and White House Chief of Staff than be stuck actually having to manage a governmental department as Cabinet secretaries do. 

[LongRider]

27 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

33 minutes ago, Castel said:

Anyone following this Kellyanne/Mitt Romney drama? Any chance she gets fired? Please?

Does she have a cabinet position? If not I'm not even sure why she's still around.

Oh my, delicious....

Quote

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump is "irritated" with top aide Kellyanne Conway's public campaign against Mitt Romney's potential nomination as Secretary of State, according to a source.

The Trump source, who is familiar with the President-elect's thinking, acknowledged the existence of an internal feud between Conway and chief of staff Reince Priebus, specifically about the choice between Romney and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for the nation's top diplomatic position.

To paraphrase Trump from a couple of days ago 'Stop it!  Stop reporting that my transition team is in disarray, it isn't!  It isn't I tell you!  Stop it!'

[MerenthaClone]

31 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you want to study liberal arts or some similar field that's your right, but then you better be independently wealthy, or be willing to starve. But my tax money should not be supporting your lifestyle choice. It is fundamentally unfair.

Yeah, history and psychology are utterly worthless and nobody should ever look at those.  I certainly hate having an ethicist on staff at my hospital, or social workers because I never get a use from them either.   You're on a goddamn book forum decrying the value of literature, for fuck's sake.  I want to help pay for art and film and history and whatever-the-fuck-else "pointless" degree someone wants to get because I like living in a society that isn't populated entirely by STEMlords who masturbate over how much productivity they made for their employer today because they have absolutely nothing else of value in their bleak lives.