Politics: 2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread

[92tide]

It me

[tweet]1090055156543062016[/tweet]

his product roll-out doesn't seem to be that well received

 

[MattinBama]

Have seen some stories starting to pop up on Twitter from people that have dealt with Schultz and his generosity of giving out "loose teabags and a custom fancy made gift card that ended up having $5 on it" as a gift after a million dollar deal, as well as $3 gift cards (when the lowest you can even buy is $5) that are custom made that he gave out to someone else.

 

[rjtide]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

I agree that "free college for all" is downright counter-productive and is really just a campaign tool. One thing this country badly needs is to get away from the idea that college is even appropriate for all. I'm just as proud of my granddaughter who's studying marine welding as I am of the one who graduated SCL in political science from Clark University...

 

[rjtide]

I agree that "free college for all" is downright counter-productive and is really just a campaign tool. One thing this country badly needs is to get away from the idea that college is even appropriate for all. I'm just as proud of my granddaughter who's studying marine welding as I am of the one who graduated SCL in political science from Clark University...

agree re: free college being a campaign tool. at the risk of hijacking the thread (not by intent tho) many would argue so is 'medicare for all' and 'climate change is our greatest short- and long term threat as far as national security' etc. again, my point in all of this is the federal gov't is intertwined in our lives so much that to try to unravel it/cut back on that gov't dependency will be extremely difficult, not only from a regulatory perspective but, i would argue more from a monetary perspective. the concern i have, and have always had, is that a government bureaucracy tends to be a self sustaining and an ever growing entity itself......it exists to get bigger and to continue to use more resources (ie tax dollars) by its very design which leads to inevitable inefficiency. improving that inherent inefficiency would go a long way towards reducing our national debt. good luck in trying to get that done is all i'm saying. the federal gov't shutdown, albeit an extreme example, showed us just how tough it will be.......and before anyone accuses me of being an advocate of shutting down DC......please, save the drama. i'm not at all for that. quite the contrary we need a solid, reliable gov't in order for the country to function. what i'm saying is at its current size and spending levels its completely inefficient.

 

[twofbyc]

Again, a huge discrepancy between perception and reality.
I don’t think college should be “free”; I just think those who benefit MOST should foot the tuition bill and not the students. (How quickly some forget the 50s and 60s.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CharminTide]

Have seen some stories starting to pop up on Twitter from people that have dealt with Schultz and his generosity of giving out "loose teabags and a custom fancy made gift card that ended up having $5 on it" as a gift after a million dollar deal, as well as $3 gift cards (when the lowest you can even buy is $5) that are custom made that he gave out to someone else.

So Dems start talking about taxing the super rich and limiting the influence of corporate money in politics and then suddenly this guy waltzes in with no ideas and says he's running as an independent? Nope, Schultz can screw right off. Nothing would make him happier than to siphon away enough Democratic votes to keep the GOP in power.

 

[92tide]

So Dems start talking about taxing the super rich and limiting the influence of corporate money in politics and then suddenly this guy waltzes in with no ideas and says he's running as an independent? Nope, Schultz can screw right off. Nothing would make him happier than to siphon away enough Democratic votes to keep the GOP in power.

this tweet from nate silver sort of gets at whats going on and explains a lot more than schultz' vanity campaign

Schultz's answer here reminds me of when you get stuck on a plane, or at a party, talking with a guy* who learns you cover politics for a living and thinks he's knows his [crap] when he's just spouting cliches.

*Always a guy. Often older and wealthy, but not always.

 

[rjtide]

Again, a huge discrepancy between perception and reality.
I don’t think college should be “free”; I just think those who benefit MOST should foot the tuition bill and not the students. (How quickly some forget the 50s and 60s.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.

 

[jthomas666]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

Few politicians on either side are willing to get down in the weeds to trim out said waste, and few voters care--they've been conditioned to hear "cut govt spending" and don't care about the details.

The primary problem with free college for all is that there are a lot of people out there who have no business going to college. Not a knock on them, just a statement of fact.

Now, if you want to roll trade academies into that, you might have something. Some kind of junior college program that combines trade skills with classes on managing small business would be a godsend.

We need to get these proposals away from pie in the sky fluff to things that will address specific needs (see our nation's crumbling infrastructure for a prime example).

 

[TIDE-HSV]

agree re: free college being a campaign tool. at the risk of hijacking the thread (not by intent tho) many would argue so is 'medicare for all' and 'climate change is our greatest short- and long term threat as far as national security' etc. again, my point in all of this is the federal gov't is intertwined in our lives so much that to try to unravel it/cut back on that gov't dependency will be extremely difficult, not only from a regulatory perspective but, i would argue more from a monetary perspective. the concern i have, and have always had, is that a government bureaucracy tends to be a self sustaining and an ever growing entity itself......it exists to get bigger and to continue to use more resources (ie tax dollars) by its very design which leads to inevitable inefficiency. improving that inherent inefficiency would go a long way towards reducing our national debt. good luck in trying to get that done is all i'm saying. the federal gov't shutdown, albeit an extreme example, showed us just how tough it will be.......and before anyone accuses me of being an advocate of shutting down DC......please, save the drama. i'm not at all for that. quite the contrary we need a solid, reliable gov't in order for the country to function. what i'm saying is at its current size and spending levels its completely inefficient.

For curiosity, would you favor a single payer system (no matter what it's called)?

 

[Chukker Veteran]

cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.

I see your capitalization button is in working order. There's no penalty for using it, and it can make it a little easier for oldtimers like myself to understand what we are reading. An occasional paragraph break can be a poster's friend too.

You make solid points & I enjoy reading your point of view.

 

[92tide]

I see your capitalization button is in working order. There's no penalty for using it, and it can make it a little easier for oldtimers like myself to understand what we are reading. An occasional paragraph break can be a poster's friend too.

You make solid points & I enjoy reading your point of view.

hey now. you need to slow your roll here a little bit.

 

[Bamaro]

cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.

I think it would be a great idea except for the fact that we are already 21 trillion in debt and adding a trillion more every year thanks to the tax cuts. This idea of promising more and more without the balls to fund it is ridiculous.:mad2: This includes tax cuts which will 'pay for themselves'.

 

[rjtide]

For curiosity, would you favor a single payer system (no matter what it's called)?

dual system probably. let me explain: i think 'medicare for all' is eventually going to happen.....and actually would be helpful as a 'bare bones' health insurance offering which would cover the basics like annual wellness exams or 3-4 periodic doctor visits per year for those who are diabetic, hypertensive, have COPD etc. for those that want something over and above it, i'm sure they'll have the option to purchase a policy via blue cross/blue shield, aetna, united healthcare, kaiser permanente etc. sort of like what we in the game now call dual eligible......those patients have medicare and medicaid. except for the 'medicare for all' those individuals would have very basic medicare and would be free to purchase 'supplemental' commercial health insurance. and, certainly, i would favor this option. for those who dont have the means to purchase a supplemental commercial policy they could be shifted over to the current 'dual eligible' medicare-medicaid pathway with the caveat that strict monitoring be instituted so as to cut down on individuals trying to get on this option via fraudulent/dishonest means.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

hey now. you need to slow your roll here a little bit.

I thought of that...but you do have the edge with your brevity, which nicely counters the lack of punctuation.

 

[92tide]

I thought of that...but you do have the edge with your brevity, which nicely counters the lack of punctuation.

my punctuation is usually spot on:

 

[jthomas666]

cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.

The individual should definitely have some skin in the game, but it's just not realistic for most individuals to cover the cost of education, simply because the cost of college has increased so far in excess of the increases in middle and lower class income.

 

[rjtide]

The individual should definitely have some skin in the game, but it's just not realistic for most individuals to cover the cost of education, simply because the cost of college has increased so far in excess of the increases in middle and lower class income.

agree completely. and as many others in this thread have said higher education is not for everyone. why cant we have a more robust technical program in this country which could come with job placement guarantees and some sort of tuition subsidy? perhaps in the form of a pell grant, or something similar, where an individual who decided to use that option to help pay for his or her career training would then work for the government for a year for each year of financial support with a minimal basic salary of $35k per year.....or something to that effect

 

[rgw]

I don't think free college for all is really necessary but it is the only conception of post-secondary professional training most people born in the 1980s or later have due to the decline of secondary and post-secondary technical education academies. We do need to spend more money on education but in service of overhauling the system to become a two-track model. Nobody should be getting a "standard diploma" in this country anymore. You're either getting a high school diploma w/ technical/professional certification or a college preparatory diploma.

There is a lot of fault in the the federal money cash grab created by subsidized loans and GI Bill that spurred on this college-as-professional-training model and it is bad for people going to college just for a professional career therefore employers too.

So you want to be a software engineer? Great, go to college and spend maybe 24 credit hours in computer science classes. When you're done you'll know how to write your own binary tree and how to convert decimal to hexadecimal in your head now but you can't build a useable piece of production software!

If you want to go be a software engineer there ought to be post-secondary academies that certify you as such that are worth as much if not more than a bachelor in computer science to employers. If you spent two years just focusing on what you were going to do in your career, I reckon it would be almost like hiring someone who has 3-5 years experience who came directly out of college with a CS bachelor degree.