DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are opposed to privately property, specifically privately owned corporate property. Here are their own words:

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

DP, and I'll take you on.

I want to focus specifically on the socialistic idea, which you support, of the government (e.g., other people) providing college educations to Americans. Your reasoning is that otherwise, college graduates are left with decades of debt, which in turn has other negative consequences.

I, on the other hand, know that there are alternatives to heavy college debt that do not involve a new entitlement program,- or OPM. There are a multitude of paths by which a resourceful, motivated student can obtain an affordable education. Following are some possibilities:

1) Attend community college for the first two years, and cut total costs almost in half
2) Do well in community college and earn an academic transfer scholarship
3) Explore all sorts of scholarships, available for every group/interest under the sun. This too can cut the bill in half.
4) Get federal grants
5) Get state grants
6) Take advantage of a co-OP education program, which alternates "work semesters" with ".classroom semesters" - and graduate after five or six years with little to no debt
7) Explore tuition-free schools (yes, they exist, although very competitive)
8) Cut the time in college by taking exams for "credit" (of material one has already mastered)
9) Get a job with an employer with tuition reimbursement
10) Get a FT job with the univeristy you want to attend, as you can often take free classes on a part-time basis

I could go on, but you get the idea. There is much a student can do to make college affordable. Even if the above doesn't eliminate all debt, it reduces it to a manageable level. The point is that the answer doesn't have to be "have the government pay for college."

(Full disclosure: I've had an extensive background in higher education funding.)

My son just graduated from high school and will enter college this Fall. So, funding college has been much on our minds recently. We are doing many of the things on your list. Certainly individual students can do the things you list, but I can't imagine that even you believe these things will solve the problem for every prospective college student. There are limits to everything you listed, especially federal and state grants which you may as well not bother listing for most students.

Just like healthcare, every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college. Americans like to view themselves as exceptional, but we are exceptionally unable to do things that other countries are able to do. Just how long are we going to put up with this situation?

We offer college to all. Those other democracies people tend to laud also tend to be highly restrictive about who attends college for free-or-close-to-it.

Are you ok with being seriously restrictive about who gets free-or-close-to-it college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are opposed to privately property, specifically privately owned corporate property. Here are their own words:

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

DP, and I'll take you on.

I want to focus specifically on the socialistic idea, which you support, of the government (e.g., other people) providing college educations to Americans. Your reasoning is that otherwise, college graduates are left with decades of debt, which in turn has other negative consequences.

I, on the other hand, know that there are alternatives to heavy college debt that do not involve a new entitlement program,- or OPM. There are a multitude of paths by which a resourceful, motivated student can obtain an affordable education. Following are some possibilities:

1) Attend community college for the first two years, and cut total costs almost in half
2) Do well in community college and earn an academic transfer scholarship
3) Explore all sorts of scholarships, available for every group/interest under the sun. This too can cut the bill in half.
4) Get federal grants
5) Get state grants
6) Take advantage of a co-OP education program, which alternates "work semesters" with ".classroom semesters" - and graduate after five or six years with little to no debt
7) Explore tuition-free schools (yes, they exist, although very competitive)
8) Cut the time in college by taking exams for "credit" (of material one has already mastered)
9) Get a job with an employer with tuition reimbursement
10) Get a FT job with the univeristy you want to attend, as you can often take free classes on a part-time basis

I could go on, but you get the idea. There is much a student can do to make college affordable. Even if the above doesn't eliminate all debt, it reduces it to a manageable level. The point is that the answer doesn't have to be "have the government pay for college."

(Full disclosure: I've had an extensive background in higher education funding.)

My son just graduated from high school and will enter college this Fall. So, funding college has been much on our minds recently. We are doing many of the things on your list. Certainly individual students can do the things you list, but I can't imagine that even you believe these things will solve the problem for every prospective college student. There are limits to everything you listed, especially federal and state grants which you may as well not bother listing for most students.

Just like healthcare, every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college. Americans like to view themselves as exceptional, but we are exceptionally unable to do things that other countries are able to do. Just how long are we going to put up with this situation?

We offer college to all. Those other democracies people tend to laud also tend to be highly restrictive about who attends college for free-or-close-to-it.

Are you ok with being seriously restrictive about who gets free-or-close-to-it college?

Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

[Anonymous]

I clicked on this thinking it would be an interesting, positive, uplifting thread. Instead it’s more crap from the Rusputin Trumskyite trolls.
I miss the old pre-Trump-trolled DCUM.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

I’ve put two kids through college, next year a third. We are not poor. So we saved and invested money. The old fashioned way. Why don’t you do the same? You chose to do this site. If it doesn’t pay enough for your kids’ college, the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up that burden.

Your last statement regarding co-op is definitely a first world problem. Life is not always about what makes us happy. It’s about survival. You pick something that pays, learn that skill, and later on you have the luxury of change

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

First, let's not discount the needs of very poor people in accessing higher education. Grants serve them very well. But clearly you want to extend that to everyone, so as to avoid the necessity for middle-income students to take a loan. There is nothing wrong with taking on debt, in moderation. Education debt is one of the few forms of "good debt" and does not have to be avoided entirely.

As far as the free colleges being the public institutions, yes....true. Still, it would have to be restrictive, as you seem to acknowledge. I would venture it would have to be very restrictive, given the magnitude of the total outlay, and that would create a host of other problems as parents fume why their kids don't get the free deal.

And finally, with the co-op programs, many do not begin the work semesters until sophomore year. The first year is a traditional program and gives students a chance to choose their major. But they do have to settle into a major by sophomore year (usually). It's a trade-off: you don't have the luxury of waiting until junior year to declare a major, but look at what you gain: a college degree with minimal debt, and relevant work experience. (I'm not involved personally with any co-OP programs, but I do like them and think they are a good solution.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

I’ve put two kids through college, next year a third. We are not poor. So we saved and invested money. The old fashioned way. Why don’t you do the same? You chose to do this site. If it doesn’t pay enough for your kids’ college, the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up that burden.

Your last statement regarding co-op is definitely a first world problem. Life is not always about what makes us happy. It’s about survival. You pick something that pays, learn that skill, and later on you have the luxury of change

F you. You know nothing about my finances. We have been saving and investing. We’ve had the luxury of doing that (yes, thanks to this site). My kids won’t have college debt. Unlike so many of you assholes, I don’t spend every waking minute thinking about myself. My concern is about others who don’t share my privileges.

Why don’t you go back to patting yourself on the back and leave those of us who want to have an intelligent conversation alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

I’ve put two kids through college, next year a third. We are not poor. So we saved and invested money. The old fashioned way. Why don’t you do the same? You chose to do this site. If it doesn’t pay enough for your kids’ college, the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up that burden.

Your last statement regarding co-op is definitely a first world problem. Life is not always about what makes us happy. It’s about survival. You pick something that pays, learn that skill, and later on you have the luxury of change

This is beyond the pale hypocrisy. You have no problem using this site, the fruit of Jeff's labor, as a platform to trumpet your privileged viewpoint, and at the same time excoriate Jeff for operating it as his occupation.

Let them eat cake!

[Anonymous]

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions.

What is wrong with state institutions? A whole lot of extremely successful people graduate from state universities. And, I am sure that some of them began at community colleges.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions.

What is wrong with state institutions? A whole lot of extremely successful people graduate from state universities. And, I am sure that some of them began at community colleges.

Nothing is wrong with them. What gives you that idea? I went to both a community college and a state university.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution. Specifically, it's against private property and liberty.

At the end of the day, an individual is an individual. If people don't want to participate in your utopia, STOP FORCING THEM. All the "democratic socialist" programs you support FORCE those who don't want to participate to do so against their will. From mandatory union dues to FICA to high taxes for whatever you want and anything in-between.

Adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Not some vision where words are twisted into pretzels so you can distribute free stuff. That's all I ask. 1+1 really does equal 2.

Democratic socialism is absolutely not opposed to private property and liberty. You are wildly uniformed. Do you think that Scandinavia or most of Western Europe lack private property or liberty? Trumpsters talk about East coast liberals living in a bubble, but what kind of a bubble must you live in to believe things like this PP?

I assume that you drive to work on a public road? Why are you using that socialist infrastructure instead of paying a toll to take a privately owned road?

"Democratic Socialism" is not about building roads. It's about stuff like "universal basic income", "free health care", "free education" and everything else under the sun that you want, so you call it a "basic human right". To pay for it, you just decide you'll tax at a progressive rate and you'll institute a "death tax" because it's for "the greater good".

"Democratic Socialism" is also about instilling decision makers for central planning in federal departments that cannot be replaced, so no matter WHO is "democratically" elected, your agenda of the redistribution of income for "the greater good" goes forward. It's about a Utopian vision of cradle to grave benefits of anything you want.... and if a few eggs need to be broken to get there, so be it.

It's iron-fisted top-down rule of the economy an d the political and social narrative, so that there are equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.


You go read the ten point of the communist manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) from 1848 and THAT is the agenda of today's democrat party, word for word.

You were doing pretty good until you got to the bolded. Then you revealed yourself as just another lunatic.

There you go. Now, you look at all those points below and tell me that's not exactly what the DNC and the DSA both want. This is EXACTLY what they have been working towards for the past 100 years.

This will be good.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

I’ve put two kids through college, next year a third. We are not poor. So we saved and invested money. The old fashioned way. Why don’t you do the same? You chose to do this site. If it doesn’t pay enough for your kids’ college, the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up that burden.

Your last statement regarding co-op is definitely a first world problem. Life is not always about what makes us happy. It’s about survival. You pick something that pays, learn that skill, and later on you have the luxury of change

This is beyond the pale hypocrisy. You have no problem using this site, the fruit of Jeff's labor, as a platform to trumpet your privileged viewpoint, and at the same time excoriate Jeff for operating it as his occupation.

Let them eat cake!

The idea that a coop would not work due to the luxury of indecision is the very definition of privilege. Loans are not a bad thing either.

[Anonymous]

Loans are a debt that you owe. It's an obligation.

If they aren't "bad", then why complain about paying them?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that a coop would not work due to the luxury of indecision is the very definition of privilege. Loans are not a bad thing either.

There are lots of reasons that a coop would not work. That might be a good solution for a limited number of students, but do you really believe our job market is ready for tens of millions of employees to be entering and leaving the job market each term -- in jobs capable of providing a salary that pays a significant portion of tuition? The idea just doesn't scale.

One of the hallmarks of centrists, especially moderate Democrats, has been to come up with extremely complicated solutions to fairly simple problems. The problem of university education being extremely expensive and causing significant debt for graduates is not that complicated. Simple solutions are available.

[Anonymous]

That's right. Stop pushing university as a free basic right and demanding the tax payer fund it with .gov money and the price of it sinks like a stone.

Nothing rises in cost like an artificially subsidized product by the government.

If the demand is there, people will pay for it themselves and THEY will hold the university accountable on the cost.