Closed Thread
Page 1466 of 1501 FirstFirst ... 466 966 1366 1416 1456 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1476 ... LastLast
Results 36,626 to 36,650 of 37508

Thread: Election 2016

  1. #36626

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Of course. How does this address my question though? Let's take education... because as an industry they are not self-motivated to reduce what are clearly runaway costs, the answer is to increase the supply of dollars given to those who elect to pursue higher education (increasing supply of funds to continue the cost increases) and then when that doesn't solve the problem, just mask it by spreading those massive and growing costs across all taxpayers?
    Isn't education mostly managed by the individual states though?

  2. #36627
    Not fooling anyone. Soriambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Because the Electoral College defends the nature of the Republic...that certain power rests with the several states, and not with the majority of the population. If we're to wrest any influence States have in the selection of the President, what benefit do we have in even HAVING individual states? If we're to divide the number of EC votes for a state by the number of citizens to claim the EC is unfair, how can we possibly justify the US Senate? Popular vote would be a sweeping move toward a Democracy, rather than a Republic, and what role do individual states play in a one-man, one-vote democracy? They'd just be useless, inefficient bureaucracies (of course, one might be able to make that argument now).
    This does not make any sense. The Electoral College is one aspect of the system. If there was a popular vote system, you can't think of a single reason why having individual states would be beneficial? Let's say an amendment was passed tomorrow that abolished the Electoral College and it could not be undone. You'd then support abolishing states entirely? Senators and Governors are elected by popular vote in each state, but those states have counties that make their own rules and laws and towns that do the same. Should we abolish counties and towns because there's no county by county electoral college in each state to elect their Governor or Senators?

    Under a popular vote scenario, the citizens of Mississippi or Oklahoma would be an oppressed minority, subject to the whims of metropolitan population centers, no? I'm just looking out for the well-being of an oppressed minority.
    No. This continues to be a very bizarre argument/point you're trying to make.
    -Kevin

    "My point is you can't compare things with statistics." Joe Morgan


    "I'd have won that trial. I've often said that." Stephen A. Smith on the OJ Simpson trial

    RIP, Pete.

  3. #36628
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Of course. How does this address my question though? Let's take education... because as an industry they are not self-motivated to reduce what are clearly runaway costs, the answer is to increase the supply of dollars given to those who elect to pursue higher education (increasing supply of funds to continue the cost increases) and then when that doesn't solve the problem, just mask it by spreading those massive and growing costs across all taxpayers?
    OK sure.

    There are affordable options in most cases. I believe they are in State, state run schools. I know for a fact that the CSU system in VERY affordable and provides a good education, both because I graduated from a CSU school and have a son currently attending one which I pay for.

    Here is a link to current in state rates for all CSU school http://www.calstate.edu/sas/costofattendance/

    I could totally see having this be "free" and spread over the cost of all tax payers as a general benefit to the public. As a better educated population tends to have better paying jobs and in turn pays more in taxes over the life of their career.

    I could not see the tax payers being hit with the bill for my daughter's private education (beyond what is funded for a state school education maybe) which I'm also paying for and is considerably more than my son's.

    But going on the the cost side.

    Why is that student loan debt is one of the very few debts that is not dischargable in bankruptcy?

    Why is it that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to refinance your student loan debt at a lower rate when interest rates drop?

    Because bank lobbies wrote the laws, thats why.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  4. #36629
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Soriambi View Post
    No. This continues to be a very bizarre argument/point you're trying to make.
    I've spent time trying to understand and self-interpret the argument for and against the electoral college vs popular vote. I'm not quite sure yet where I sit on that.

    The argument for popular vote is pretty apparent. A vote is a vote is a vote.

    And the argument for EC is a little more complex. But I'm not sure I'd agree it's bizarre or deserving of the ridicule and outright dismissal some are throwing at the one person here who has been willing to offer a detailed counter perspective.

    I do think that echo chambers, particularly in this day and age, create pockets where your geographical location, and who you surround yourself with physically, influence your politics, your ideology, etc. So naturally, huge population centers have rather large majorities in that regard, which can completely overwhelm the needs and priorities for citizens that live in less densely populated states. So just flipping to popular vote does, in my mind, create the concern that Maynerd has tried to express. All the political focus goes to the handful of cities (not even states) that drive the popular vote, and the voice and needs and concerns of people outside those very small geographic footprints gets ignored.

    Maybe there's a hybrid? Some weighted combination of popular vote and EC to determine outcome?

  5. #36630
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Election 2016

    But if this is true...
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    There are affordable options in most cases. I believe they are in State, state run schools. I know for a fact that the CSU system in VERY affordable and provides a good education, both because I graduated from a CSU school and have a son currently attending one which I pay for.
    ...why is this necessary?
    I could totally see having this be "free" and spread over the cost of all tax payers as a general benefit to the public. As a better educated population tends to have better paying jobs and in turn pays more in taxes over the life of their career.
    Why is that student loan debt is one of the very few debts that is not dischargable in bankruptcy?

    Why is it that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to refinance your student loan debt at a lower rate when interest rates drop?

    Because bank lobbies wrote the laws, thats why.
    Good questions; I'd think there would be more focus on addressing questions like these than asking the public to cover debts are excessive, cannot be discharged and hard to refinance.

  6. #36631

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Of course. How does this address my question though? Let's take education... because as an industry they are not self-motivated to reduce what are clearly runaway costs, the answer is to increase the supply of dollars given to those who elect to pursue higher education (increasing supply of funds to continue the cost increases) and then when that doesn't solve the problem, just mask it by spreading those massive and growing costs across all taxpayers?

    With education, it does seem to me that we provided an incentive (loans for everyone) to drive people toward a good (college education) that wasn't really necessary or a good idea for everyone and didn't recognize (or maybe some did but didn't care) that people would overextend themselves.

    Same with mortgages. We allowed people to make dumb financial decisions in pursuit of the homeownership dream.

    Bad policies, bad approaches, won't argue that.

    I think the difference with health care (for me, you may not see it this way) is that everyone should have it. It's simply a cost that society should bear for the benefit of all.

    Our taxes pay for fire trucks, but everyone needs to pay in for it to work or you'll have; otherwise, you'll have three dudes and a watering can running around. You may never need a fire fighter in your life, but nearly everyone agrees that society benefits when we all pay to ensure it's there if we need it. I don't understand why people don't view health care the same way. I may never get cancer or have an accident where I'm rushed to the ER, but I am happy to pay into a pool that ensures I'm covered if that happens.

    It would hopefully operate like medicare, where the government is a bulk buyer and can negotiate good deals. Crutch manufacturers are happy to give a discount when they're the source for the entire nation. So cost isn't as much of a concern compared to what we have now. Wait times may increase.

    And I definitely would be on board with incentives for lifestyles choices that impact health care. If you get yearly checkups, you get a cookie. (If you throw away the cookie and eat some broccoli instead, you get another cookie.) I do want to see something to address the externalities caused by people who don't take care of their health. There are smart ways to make it work and we have models from other countries to steal from.


  7. #36632
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    I've spent time trying to understand and self-interpret the argument for and against the electoral college vs popular vote. I'm not quite sure yet where I sit on that.

    The argument for popular vote is pretty apparent. A vote is a vote is a vote.
    Yes this is the simple argument.

    And the argument for EC is a little more complex. But I'm not sure I'd agree it's bizarre or deserving of the ridicule and outright dismissal some are throwing at the one person here who has been willing to offer a detailed counter perspective.

    I do think that echo chambers, particularly in this day and age, create pockets where your geographical location, and who you surround yourself with physically, influence your politics, your ideology, etc. So naturally, huge population centers have rather large majorities in that regard, which can completely overwhelm the needs and priorities for citizens that live in less densely populated states. So just flipping to popular vote does, in my mind, create the concern that Maynerd has tried to express. All the political focus goes to the handful of cities (not even states) that drive the popular vote, and the voice and needs and concerns of people outside those very small geographic footprints gets ignored.
    Which is what your local representative in the House and your senator in the Senate represent to ensure your voice is still heard.

    Maybe there's a hybrid? Some weighted combination of popular vote and EC to determine outcome?
    Why? The EC is the hybrid. And it was because the White, Male, Land Owners who wrote the constitution didn't want the people to be able to elect someone by majority who might take control form them. I think we've moved beyond that just like we moved beyond the 3/5th compromise. One has already been amended out of the constitution, time for another archaic tradition to go as well
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  8. #36633
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    B
    ...why is this necessary?
    Because I feel an educated population is good for all of us and the cost we spend now on education will be repaid through higher taxes collected down the road.

    I think if a "free" option was available to all, more who think they "can't afford it" would go and we be better off as a society.

    It's a philosophical difference I suppose.

    Just like I think tax payer funded education through HS is great and should continue, I'd just like to see it extended to post-secondary education as well.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  9. #36634

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Why? The EC is the hybrid. And it was because the White, Male, Land Owners who wrote the constitution didn't want the people to be able to elect someone by majority who might take control form them. I think we've moved beyond that just like we moved beyond the 3/5th compromise. One has already been amended out of the constitution, time for another archaic tradition to go as well
    Ehh, the white male landowners had control on lock. I think it was more of a protection against direct democracy, mob rule of "lesser" white male landowners.


  10. #36635
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    With education, it does seem to me that we provided an incentive (loans for everyone) to drive people toward a good (college education) that wasn't really necessary or a good idea for everyone and didn't recognize (or maybe some did but didn't care) that people would overextend themselves.

    Same with mortgages. We allowed people to make dumb financial decisions in pursuit of the homeownership dream.

    Bad policies, bad approaches, won't argue that.

    I think the difference with health care (for me, you may not see it this way) is that everyone should have it. It's simply a cost that society should bear for the benefit of all.

    Our taxes pay for fire trucks, but everyone needs to pay in for it to work or you'll have; otherwise, you'll have three dudes and a watering can running around. You may never need a fire fighter in your life, but nearly everyone agrees that society benefits when we all pay to ensure it's there if we need it. I don't understand why people don't view health care the same way. I may never get cancer or have an accident where I'm rushed to the ER, but I am happy to pay into a pool that ensures I'm covered if that happens.

    It would hopefully operate like medicare, where the government is a bulk buyer and can negotiate good deals. Crutch manufacturers are happy to give a discount when they're the source for the entire nation. So cost isn't as much of a concern compared to what we have now. Wait times may increase.

    And I definitely would be on board with incentives for lifestyles choices that impact health care. If you get yearly checkups, you get a cookie. (If you throw away the cookie and eat some broccoli instead, you get another cookie.) I do want to see something to address the externalities caused by people who don't take care of their health. There are smart ways to make it work and we have models from other countries to steal from.
    Actually, I do see it that way. I wholly agree with the sound bite political figure heads like to drop, that healthcare is a right. In fact, I'd extend that to say it is a right and a responsibility. But again, I don't think the solution is to allow runaway costs increases year over year over year and just regulate people into paying those runaway costs.

  11. #36636
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Ehh, the white male landowners had control on lock. I think it was more of a protection against direct democracy, mob rule of "lesser" white male landowners.
    And we sure got "lesser" in this election.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  12. #36637
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Actually, I do see it that way. I wholly agree with the sound bite political figure heads like to drop, that healthcare is a right. In fact, I'd extend that to say it is a right and a responsibility. But again, I don't think the solution is to allow runaway costs increases year over year over year and just regulate people into paying those runaway costs.
    Medicare sets what they will pay.

    A single payer system would be largely the same.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  13. #36638

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

    Just like I think tax payer funded education through HS is great and should continue, I'd just like to see it extended to post-secondary education as well.
    I think too many people treat college as a 4-year spring break already. Imagine if it was free.

    Not that you'd disagree, but I'd definitely want to see some restrictions. I don't want to see a terrible high school student who didn't take learning seriously get a free ride. And I don't want a college student rocking a 1.5 GPA continue to get that subsidized education.

    And I really liked Clinton's work subsidy idea.


  14. #36639
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Which is what your local representative in the House and your senator in the Senate represent to ensure your voice is still heard.
    If that makes who gets elected president irrelevant, then what's the big deal? People that live in California that voted for Clinton still have their local representatives to make their voice heard, no?


    Why? The EC is the hybrid. And it was because the White, Male, Land Owners who wrote the constitution didn't want the people to be able to elect someone by majority who might take control form them. I think we've moved beyond that just like we moved beyond the 3/5th compromise. One has already been amended out of the constitution, time for another archaic tradition to go as well
    I gave my raw thoughts on the why in the post you replied to. I don't think Maynerd is calling upon the original rationale for the EC; I think he has stated a current rationale that merits inspection versus simple dismissal.

  15. #36640
    NYYF Legend

    JDPNYY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Still under the unfinished breezeway

    Re: Election 2016

    I'm starting to think we're all the main characters of the Truman Show.
    There's a fat old lady outside the saloon, laying out the credit cards she plays Fortune.
    The deck is uneven right from the start, and all of their hands are playing apart

  16. #36641
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Only if you're unwilling to classify "Iowans" as a group.
    Now that you mention it, I am. There is no social construct corresponding to "Iowans," now or historically, other than an arbitrary geopolitical border. There is nothing that distinguishes Iowans except that they happen, right at this moment, to be living in Iowa.


    And don't even try to make the comparison with race, unless you're unwilling to acknowledge that history had anything at all to do with shaping society.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  17. #36642

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Actually, I do see it that way. I wholly agree with the sound bite political figure heads like to drop, that healthcare is a right. In fact, I'd extend that to say it is a right and a responsibility. But again, I don't think the solution is to allow runaway costs increases year over year over year and just regulate people into paying those runaway costs.
    Costs are typically lower in countries with single payer. The tradeoff is usually longer wait times for non-emergencies.

    25% of our healthcare costs are administrative because we've got so many layers of payers. Medicare overhead is ~3%. Overhead and profits for insurers are 5 times that.


  18. #36643

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    I've spent time trying to understand and self-interpret the argument for and against the electoral college vs popular vote. I'm not quite sure yet where I sit on that.

    The argument for popular vote is pretty apparent. A vote is a vote is a vote.

    And the argument for EC is a little more complex. But I'm not sure I'd agree it's bizarre or deserving of the ridicule and outright dismissal some are throwing at the one person here who has been willing to offer a detailed counter perspective.

    I do think that echo chambers, particularly in this day and age, create pockets where your geographical location, and who you surround yourself with physically, influence your politics, your ideology, etc. So naturally, huge population centers have rather large majorities in that regard, which can completely overwhelm the needs and priorities for citizens that live in less densely populated states. So just flipping to popular vote does, in my mind, create the concern that Maynerd has tried to express. All the political focus goes to the handful of cities (not even states) that drive the popular vote, and the voice and needs and concerns of people outside those very small geographic footprints gets ignored.

    Maybe there's a hybrid? Some weighted combination of popular vote and EC to determine outcome?
    I posted many pages back that I've always been intrigued by the National Bonus Plan. It seems like it would address issues from both sides of the argument.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/17/opinion/op-1069

    I would favor instead the retention and reform of the electoral college. For there is a simple and effective way to guard against the possibility that the popular-vote winner might be the electoral college loser. The solution is to award the popular-vote winner a bonus of two electoral votes per state plus the District of Columbia.

    With an automatic 102 electoral votes, the popular-vote winner would almost certainly win the electoral college. The national bonus plan would balance the existing federal bonus--the two electoral votes conferred by the Constitution on each state--regardless of votes on a winner-take-all basis, and would preserve both the constitutional and practical role of the states in the presidential election process.

    The plan, by encouraging parties to maximize their vote in states they have no hope of winning, would stimulate turnout, reinvigorate state parties, enhance voter equality and contribute to the vitality of federalism.

  19. #36644
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Because I feel an educated population is good for all of us and the cost we spend now on education will be repaid through higher taxes collected down the road.

    I think if a "free" option was available to all, more who think they "can't afford it" would go and we be better off as a society.

    It's a philosophical difference I suppose.

    Just like I think tax payer funded education through HS is great and should continue, I'd just like to see it extended to post-secondary education as well.
    But if you start with the premise of...
    There are affordable options in most cases
    ...then should the effort be around educating people on those affordable options? I mean, if you can't put forth the basic level of effort to identify what you can/can't do when it comes to further education in an environment where these affordable options exist, how hard are you going to work when you're handed that Wonka Golden Education Ticket?

    Also, if you focus on cost containment and mitigation, you could educate people on these options being even MORE affordable.

  20. #36645
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    I think too many people treat college as a 4-year spring break already. Imagine if it was free.

    Not that you'd disagree, but I'd definitely want to see some restrictions. I don't want to see a terrible high school student who didn't take learning seriously get a free ride. And I don't want a college student rocking a 1.5 GPA continue to get that subsidized education.

    And I really liked Clinton's work subsidy idea.
    Yeah sure set some standards. But have a vocational/technical school alternative as well.

    Also require some minimum GPA to continue "free".

    And how it is structured is a detail.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  21. #36646
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JDPNYY View Post
    I'm starting to think we're all the main characters of the Truman Show.
    You're trying to get me and GC fighting over Laura Linney again, aren't you?
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  22. #36647
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Same with mortgages. We allowed people to make dumb financial decisions in pursuit of the homeownership dream.

    Well, we really didn't give black people the option until 1968.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  23. #36648
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    If that makes who gets elected president irrelevant, then what's the big deal? People that live in California that voted for Clinton still have their local representatives to make their voice heard, no?
    In a word, no. We have 3 branches of government, all are relevent.

    I gave my raw thoughts on the why in the post you replied to. I don't think Maynerd is calling upon the original rationale for the EC; I think he has stated a current rationale that merits inspection versus simple dismissal.
    And I was responding. Maynerd always cycles back to the original "Republic" aspect.

    1 person, 1 vote. Simple straightforward, fair for every American regardless of where they live.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  24. #36649
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    I could totally see having this be "free" and spread over the cost of all tax payers as a general benefit to the public. As a better educated population tends to have better paying jobs and in turn pays more in taxes over the life of their career.
    So, should we eliminate corporate income tax? Leaving more money in the hands of corporations would create better paying jobs and in turn more in individual income taxes.


    We've long decided that K-12 was the appropriate level of education to require society to fund the process for the public good. What happened that we should extend this through an Undergraduate Degree? Will we also pay for those who opt to go to a trade school? Plumbers and cooks are also a benefit to the public. Where do we draw the line? If we pay for everyone to get a BA/BS, will we then need to have "free" Masters Degrees as a general benefit to the public?


    My Undergraduate Degree was paid for in its entirety by US taxpayers. I'm humbled and deeply appreciative of that. However, I owed five years of service to my country in exchange for that education. Wouldn't our society benefit much more if there was a similar requirement for students receiving tax dollars to further their education?

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  25. #36650

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Yeah sure set some standards. But have a vocational/technical school alternative as well.

    Also require some minimum GPA to continue "free".

    And how it is structured is a detail.
    The minimum GPA should be passing. The kid that works his rear off to maintain a 1.85 GPA should not be penalized for not learning as easily as someone else.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts