Elizabeth warren, college for all, debt cancellation

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ketsuko

So no actual response to the countless studies that show countries where healthcare is more accessible have higher worker productivity?

Feel free to show us where it's been found that sick workers who can't afford to the doctor are better workers than healthy workers.

Stop relying on the model of other countries FFS! Why do democrats always do that? This is America, not England, not Switzerland, not Denmark. If you like their system, move. People look up to leaders, not followers.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Edumakated

A more educated populace doesn't have societal benefits?

Starting to sound more like national socialism.

There must be a plastic man convention in town with all the stretching going on in here.

Polio
Because of polio we should magically make all college debt disappear?

I'm stealing that for the 2020 cycle.
Trump will win because of polio.
The gop will take the house because of polio.

a reply to: Bluntone22

As I said before, just because higher education is now "free" doesn't mean that everyone gets accepted. Many will be forced in to trade schools, which is the exact thing we've been told needs to happen for a long time now.

a reply to: ketsuko

Or let the colleges offer loans to the students they deem fit and keep the government and tax payers out of it. Colleges make more than enough money to recruit on their own.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

This is the reality that we live in currently. So I'm working with what I got.


If you want to vote for tiny government that has far far less power then it has now. Then I am right there with you.

Government got involved with the healthcare market and as a result, prices increased because government was involved with reimbursement.

Government got involved with the education system and as a result, college tuitions increased because government was involved with reimbursement.

Government got involved with the housing market and as a result, home prices increased because government was involved with housing loans.

Now we run back to government to solve the issues they created.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Edumakated

A more educated populace doesn't have societal benefits?

Polio wasn't contagious?

I didn't say an educated populace doesn't have societal benefits. However, we are the point of diminishing returns in regards to that education. Everyone doesn't need to go to college. That is why we have k-12 education.... 75% of kids in college right now probably shouldn't be there.

All one has to do is look at how many kids need remedial classes freshman year.

We have too many kids going to college and not learning anything useful. College used to be more of a finishing school for the wealthy and educated. It never really was meant for vocational training. the lines have been blurred.

Most kids want to go college because they've been taught that is how you get a good job where you don't have to do physical labor and get your fingernails dirty. The problem is that there are only so many of those jobs to go around and most aren't smart enough for them anyway.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Government got involved with the healthcare market and as a result,

My life was saved.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

Government got involved with the healthcare market and as a result,

My life was saved.

Okay.

So you can't look at this rationally because you personally benefit from government involvement.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22

Warren wants to do to student loans what democrats did for housing loans.

It crashed the economy and led us into a decade-long recession.

Which is probably their plan. . . . .

Yep. It got them elected in 2008.

a reply to: Edumakated

Besides, a specialized and technocratic populace does not necessarily mean an educated one. One can still learn from outside the bounds of the education system.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yea, forgiving debt and restructuring for the future are two very different things.

I don't leverage the past on the future... Pretty simple.

But if we could get state funded schools to a reasonable cost for offering basic education without "the best campus in America" I'm for restructuring.

If it ends up being 10,000 a year for four years (anything after is on you).... They'll be making double or more money the rest of their lives. That's an investment. It will pay for itself IMO.

Why on earth are people more outraged for a fair trade with giving our youth a future.... But if war is taking their future at a higher cost to all tax payers....crickets.

It's a testimate to the health of our society.

a reply to: LSU2018

And the American model is falling behind in every aspect other than number of incarcerated.

So maybe it's time to get some inspiration from some successful models.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Who knew that Trump was Eisenhower in another life.

To be fair, the democrats did call Trump racist because his dad was mistakenly arrested as a KKK activist in the 1920's. It's not Brody's fault that democrats come up with off-the-wall stuff about Trump all the time.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes. And a European model would make it harder to get in to college while making trade school more accessible.

Where's the bad in that?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes. And a European model would make it harder to get in to college while making trade school more accessible.

Where's the bad in that?

So you support a system in which maybe 75% of students would not get a chance to go to college? Just want to clarify...

Our system is setup so that anyone can get a higher education regardless of class and socieo-economic status through debt. In Europe (as I understand it), not everyone can go but it is free.

This would require a huge shift in mindset from the left which right now pushes college on everyone, even kids who can barely read and write.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am looking at it rationally.

Your looking at it like there are ONLY down sides to what the government has done.

But there are upsides.

A change needs to happen. Or do you think we should just keep it as is?

One side seems to want to keep things as they are they other side wants to try new things and see what works.

I want to try new things. I don't believe that it can get more messed up than it already is. Some real good can come from a more educated and healthy society and I want to give that future a chance. Not just stay they way we are.

Like I said if we were voting for less government power including no aca, I would vote that. But that is not what any party wants.

I'd be happy if the entire government and all it's programs were a fraction of what they are now. I voted ron paul.

But I'm not going to get that. I have to see the world I live in and deal with what it is.
And from what I see letting the healthcare, education, even the economic systems continue as they are is not a viable plan. imo

You don't want me to relay on those that caused the problems in the first place but know one else is suggesting any plan of action at all.
So it's ether do nothing or hope that the one group offering some ideas can work for us.
Their ideas do not seem as crazy to me as they do to you.
Their ideas look a lot better to me than doing nothing.

If you really want to convince me not to vote for these ideas than get the repub leaders to come up with something. I'll for sure go with their plan if I think it's better.

I'm curious if older people realize how stupid they sound when they rail against debt forgiveness and free education like it's satans handiwork.

Everybody else sees it.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Then rationally speaking, name me any instance where government involvement improved a situation for everyone.

I'm curious if younger people realize how stupid they sound always asking for free sh*t like money grows on trees.

Everybody else sees it.