his product roll-out doesn't seem to be that well received
his product roll-out doesn't seem to be that well received
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...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.
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.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...
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.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.
this tweet from nate silver sort of gets at whats going on and explains a lot more than schultz' vanity campaignSo 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.
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.
cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.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
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.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.
For curiosity, would you favor a single payer system (no matter what it's called)?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.
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.cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.
hey now. you need to slow your roll here a little bit.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.
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'.cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.
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.For curiosity, would you favor a single payer system (no matter what it's called)?
I thought of that...but you do have the edge with your brevity, which nicely counters the lack of punctuation.hey now. you need to slow your roll here a little bit.
my punctuation is usually spot on:I thought of that...but you do have the edge with your brevity, which nicely counters the lack of punctuation.
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.cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.
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 effectThe 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.