Correct. We are the only country in the world that chooses to allow dollars to decide who gets a higher education. Our best and brightest aren't the ones we encourage to go to school, it's the richest. That's why we simply can't compete with the rest of the world when it comes to technology, science, and engineering.
Debt As A Weapon
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Correct. We are the only country in the world that chooses to allow dollars to decide who gets a higher education. Our best and brightest aren't the ones we encourage to go to school, it's the richest. That's why we simply can't compete with the rest of the world when it comes to technology, science, and engineering.
I agree that government has too much power - and the rich control the levers of government
where we differ, is you think you can keep the power in government, but prevent the rich from controlling the lever.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
If that were the case I would do so. But that is not the case. The super-rich wage a class war on the 99% and debt is the weapon of choice.
That is my position. If it is consistent with Democrats, that is merely a convenience. I am a Democrat because I agree with the Democratic platform.
How about yourself?
Are you a Republican because you agree with the Republican platform? (The Republican party doesn't currently have one.)
That would be somewhat difficult because the Republican platform is essentially anything Trump believes, and I don't see you standing up for Trump.
If that were the case I would do so. But that is not the case. The super-rich wage a class war on the 99% and debt is the weapon of choice.
That is my position. If it is consistent with Democrats, that is merely a convenience. I am a Democrat because I agree with the Democratic platform.
How about yourself?
Are you a Republican because you agree with the Republican platform? (The Republican party doesn't currently have one.)
That would be somewhat difficult because the Republican platform is essentially anything Trump believes, and I don't see you standing up for Trump.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Concart,
It is one of the inefficiencies of capitalism. Many very bright kids with lots of potential are never able to realize it because they can't afford it. And then , on the other hand, you have people like Tiffany Trump, who got a law degree from Georgetown, but chose to use it to be a research assistance at college.
Did she fail the bar?
It is one of the inefficiencies of capitalism. Many very bright kids with lots of potential are never able to realize it because they can't afford it. And then , on the other hand, you have people like Tiffany Trump, who got a law degree from Georgetown, but chose to use it to be a research assistance at college.
Did she fail the bar?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
The best way to convince someone of something is to show them how it's in their best interests to do so.
What's in it for Republicans to do this?
cawacko
Well-known member
It's much easier to talk about what you think your party stands for than what happens in reality. You argue home ownership is the key to wealth yet deflect when the reality show housing policies benefit the largely white well to do home owners, not the working class people looking to move up in a state where Democrats have total control.
Vote however you want but my recommendation is to focus more on ideas and less on the my party good yours bad rhetoric.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'll throw this out for you as well. Go back to the mid 20th Century and the progressive policy of slum removal in cities all across our country. Now certainly the slums were not a pretty place, there is no sugar coating that. But you know what they offered? A chance for poor, often minority, people to have ownership. You know what they were replaced with? Massive public housing projects, think Pruitt-Igo and Cabrini Greens as a couple of high profile examples. Not only did those places not offer opportunities for ownership they became massive poverty traps for minorities and with the Great Society welfare laws punished two parent households.
When it comes to housing we can get wayyy more into the weeds, but there is far more here than my political party good and yours bad.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
Part of the reason health care costs so much is because doctors are overpaid. Sure, they have a lengthy education, but so do top scientists, and they rarely earn as much as doctors. The reason doctors make so much is because of supply and demand. There are simply not enough doctors. This is by design. You know the top schools have not expanded their class sizes in proportion to the expansion of population. Yale and Harvard, despite having enormous endowments, do not expand their size nor class enrollments. Why? By not doing so, it causes them to become more and more elite over time.
We don't need more extreme elite status. What we need is more doctors. It's just knowledge. We know how to share knowledge. Why do they have to make it so difficult to become a doctor? There are lots of people in this country who have the aptitude. But they never become doctors. Number one reason is cost.
We simply need more schools that can churn out competent doctors.
An online government school could be the most economical way to teach knowledge to those willing to learn it and dedicate themselves to a program.
Yes, of course, let them pass all the rigorous tests required to ensure they are qualified. Let them do all the required labs and residency. This can all be worked out.
But we have the AMA working to throw roadblocks in place to limit the doctor supply. They are serving themselves in this, not the country.
Part of the reason health care costs so much is because doctors are overpaid. Sure, they have a lengthy education, but so do top scientists, and they rarely earn as much as doctors. The reason doctors make so much is because of supply and demand. There are simply not enough doctors. This is by design. You know the top schools have not expanded their class sizes in proportion to the expansion of population. Yale and Harvard, despite having enormous endowments, do not expand their size nor class enrollments. Why? By not doing so, it causes them to become more and more elite over time.
We don't need more extreme elite status. What we need is more doctors. It's just knowledge. We know how to share knowledge. Why do they have to make it so difficult to become a doctor? There are lots of people in this country who have the aptitude. But they never become doctors. Number one reason is cost.
We simply need more schools that can churn out competent doctors.
An online government school could be the most economical way to teach knowledge to those willing to learn it and dedicate themselves to a program.
Yes, of course, let them pass all the rigorous tests required to ensure they are qualified. Let them do all the required labs and residency. This can all be worked out.
But we have the AMA working to throw roadblocks in place to limit the doctor supply. They are serving themselves in this, not the country.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
I vote with a party because the party agrees with what I believe. I have been a Republican and an Independent in the past, but as I have learned more, I have changed my views.
I vote with a party because the party agrees with what I believe. I have been a Republican and an Independent in the past, but as I have learned more, I have changed my views.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Most scientists don't have to pay for malpractice insurance. America, compared to other nations, is "sue-happy", very litigious. The people making the money in this country aren't the doctors; it's the fucking insurance companies and fucking lawyers.
https://www.leveragerx.com/blog/medical-malpractice-insurance-cost/
The AMA report shows that obstetricians can expect to pay around $150,000 in annual premiums for malpractice insurance. If your speciality requires fewer actual procedures, you can likely get by in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $50,000. Some low-risk specialties in low-risk areas of the country will pay less than $10,000 a year for coverage.
cawacko
Well-known member
You can vote however you like, I would never tell you otherwise. What I'm saying is the policies in place speak for themselves. One can't hide behind the rhetoric of a political party because the policies expose that.
I can tell you Republicans are fiscally conservative (because of their rhetoric) but their actions belie that. You're telling me Democrats want to make housing more affordable and increase home ownership but their actions belie that.
In a market economy supply has to be allowed to keep up with demand. When you put barriers on the supply as we do we see the results. All this talk about equity, diversity and inclusion yet we 'rig' the housing market to benefit the largely white and well to do.
Depends on what you use it as. Depends if one lives within his means. I used it as a tool. I had to go into debt to buy my first few cars, my first few boats and my house. After having paid for the house (I figure this is the main expense in most people's lives) I am now basically deby free and I have been able to save up and pay cash for the last two vehicles (not new but $35k vehicles).
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
If mistakes are made in trying something new, that does not indicate the intent was bad. It may have been, but then it may not have been. If the intent is to address a problem with something that improves a situation, then that is good intent.
If a solution has unintended negative consequences, then perhaps that is a chance to learn and develop a different approach. Often it takes more than one attempt to achieve success. If at first you do not succeed, don't give up. Try, try again.
As for political party dynamics, it is quite partisan to attack another party for a failure without offering a better idea for a solution. Accepting an unacceptable situation, or advocating for simply accepting it, is no solution. It is advocating for giving up.
The thing to do with mistakes is to learn from them. It is not constructive to criticize others without offering a better idea.
Partisan political battles are inevitable. There is no political power in independence from political parties. People of like minds must act in unison to create political power. When I advocate for issues and point out party differences on those issues, I never say my party is good and your party is bad. What I am saying is that I see my party's approach to an issue is preferable to your party's approach.
It's not about the parties. It is about the issues. Parties are how issues get solved. Merely a vehicle.
If mistakes are made in trying something new, that does not indicate the intent was bad. It may have been, but then it may not have been. If the intent is to address a problem with something that improves a situation, then that is good intent.
If a solution has unintended negative consequences, then perhaps that is a chance to learn and develop a different approach. Often it takes more than one attempt to achieve success. If at first you do not succeed, don't give up. Try, try again.
As for political party dynamics, it is quite partisan to attack another party for a failure without offering a better idea for a solution. Accepting an unacceptable situation, or advocating for simply accepting it, is no solution. It is advocating for giving up.
The thing to do with mistakes is to learn from them. It is not constructive to criticize others without offering a better idea.
Partisan political battles are inevitable. There is no political power in independence from political parties. People of like minds must act in unison to create political power. When I advocate for issues and point out party differences on those issues, I never say my party is good and your party is bad. What I am saying is that I see my party's approach to an issue is preferable to your party's approach.
It's not about the parties. It is about the issues. Parties are how issues get solved. Merely a vehicle.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
Doctor income is calculated after expenses such as insurance are paid.
If America is sue-happy, is it lawyers fault for providing a service?
Lawyers are like representatives. Mine good, yours bad.
Agreed on insurance companies.
Add big pharma, too.
Doctor income is calculated after expenses such as insurance are paid.
If America is sue-happy, is it lawyers fault for providing a service?
Lawyers are like representatives. Mine good, yours bad.
Agreed on insurance companies.
Add big pharma, too.
cawacko
Well-known member
This is just my opinion, you are 100% free to disagree and tell me I am (very) wrong.
What you wrote is just a bunch of platitudes. It said nothing about housing policy, in the past or now, or addressing increasing home ownership which you equate with building wealth in America. There was absolutely nothing there.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
There has to be government regulation of capitalism. You can't just exclude government from the dynamic. That results in vulture capitalism.
There are two ways to make home ownership more affordable. You can try to affect prices or you can help people have more wealth.
Simply letting capitalism run wild leads to extreme wealth inequality, a stagnated economy, and great poverty at the low end. We are supposed to use government to promote the general welfare, not the top end welfare.
There has to be government regulation of capitalism. You can't just exclude government from the dynamic. That results in vulture capitalism.
There are two ways to make home ownership more affordable. You can try to affect prices or you can help people have more wealth.
Simply letting capitalism run wild leads to extreme wealth inequality, a stagnated economy, and great poverty at the low end. We are supposed to use government to promote the general welfare, not the top end welfare.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello leaningright,
Sounds good on the personal level, a responsible use of debt. I contend that debt is used a weapon by the super-rich class against the 99%. Great wealth is not taxed, and income from investing is hardly taxed, but income from actual labor is taxed higher. This combination of keeping the low end earners in debt, and unequal taxing results in a win for the super-rich in the class war.
Sounds good on the personal level, a responsible use of debt. I contend that debt is used a weapon by the super-rich class against the 99%. Great wealth is not taxed, and income from investing is hardly taxed, but income from actual labor is taxed higher. This combination of keeping the low end earners in debt, and unequal taxing results in a win for the super-rich in the class war.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, are using the federal debt as a political weapon.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
I'm sorry you didn't get the reply you were hoping for. I can't figure out what your position on this is. You decry partisan politics, but we are forced into it. You tried to put me on the defensive over Democratic policy, and then criticize when I give my view of it.
Why don't you offer an idea for a better solution?
What is the best way to increase home ownership?
Do you not even agree that should be a goal?
I don't see how giving up and letting capitalism create extreme wealth inequality is a good solution.
I'm sorry you didn't get the reply you were hoping for. I can't figure out what your position on this is. You decry partisan politics, but we are forced into it. You tried to put me on the defensive over Democratic policy, and then criticize when I give my view of it.
Why don't you offer an idea for a better solution?
What is the best way to increase home ownership?
Do you not even agree that should be a goal?
I don't see how giving up and letting capitalism create extreme wealth inequality is a good solution.