DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What the Republicans Has Turned Into

First, completely free college would more than double and maybe even triple our GDP IMHO. A highly trained/educated workforce is how we compete with other countries in the future. Our biggest competitor, China, has free college. Germany, Norway, UK, EU, and many other countries offer either free or very low cost education. Japan offers college tuition for $6500 a year at public universities.

You want to know why a lot of good American jobs go to immigrants? Well companies need educated workers for those jobs and education legal immigrants get free or next to free training for those good paying jobs then move to America legally... Think about all of the foreign born doctors here in the US; they study in their countries for next to nothing then scoop up some of the best jobs in the world because America can't or doesn't produce enough doctors to meet demand in it's own schools. Hell, years ago I remember reading about American pre med students risking life and limb by going to medical schools in 3rd world conditions to save money on education! The overlying story was about kidnapping and ransoms in south america I believe.

So as to free college, I disagree with it being too much. But I also understand how Americans who paid for college or are paying would feel like they got the shaft if others got to go for free. In order to gain a competitive advantage that other countries have had on us for years, free college is a no brainer IMHO.

The problem is that everything in America is for sale and everybody wants to profit. Information has never been more valuable than it is today and education is basically selling information as a product. This is why profit driven colleges charge so much and put out so many useless degrees.

Think about a degree for a moment. It's really nothing more than a certification by a trusted organization (accredited) that you have completed a course of study. If jobs don't require that certifying piece of paper, then it loses all value other than commemoration of the event.

Yet in the coding world coding bootcamps grads, online learning program certifications, and self taught coders compete with college CS degrees (at a tenth of the cost) everyday for some of the best jobs in America. The conundrum with the coding example is that employers hire the cream of the crop for the best jobs (including many immigrants).

This leaves the rest of the field to work in 2nd and 3rd tier jobs that pay much less. These jobs are often offered by companies with no idea what is involved in coding, how long things take to do, or what the technology is actually capable of doing. In these situations the job offers might be for as little as $25K a year and usually less than $50K.

Not only are they way undervalued but often these jobs will expect the coder to be proficient in multiple CS career paths. You may have to be the IT guy, the front and back end developer, the data analyst, the designer, copywriter, digital marketer, digital media producer, and social media manager just to land a $40K a year job. Imagine doing that with a $100K+ in high interest student loans. Even people paying $10K to $20K for coding bootcamps complain about this.

Additionally in coding, the guy with ten years of actual coding experience earned from doing the work every day is far more valuable than the kid with a fresh degree. So more often than not those CS degree holders are fighting for a 2nd or 3rd tier job until they have put in the coding time and gained the experience needed to land a higher paying job. So what good is the degree?

We as a country need to train people for jobs which will help grow productivity. A well educated workforce improves everything from R&D to GDP. Yet the massively overvalued exchange of knowledge in the name of high profits is the number one reason we do not have the most highly educated workforce in the world. Hell a third of our working population is barely capable of holding down a minimum or low wage service industry job due to lack of education. I think that is shameful, especially when you think of what they might have been capable of if getting an education was not an OBSTACLE.

BTW, one simple work around to the college costs problem would be to let colleges sell the fancy degree and the college experience BUT make them provide the exact same classes online under a job training certification program for free or very low cost. Then people incurring student debt would not be able to say there was no alternative. This is basically what MOOC classes do now but on a larger scale.

I wasn't actually trying to see things from one extreme or the other. I'm not saying it is an extreme idea per say. I'm saying it's simply the most extreme idea on the table when one suggests or proposes free college for all that's coming from one side.

What I was trying to propose is that there should be come common ground in the middle at which we could find a majority of Americans to agree on no matter their politics. I was trying to find an example where Republicans in one area of the nation actually proposed and passed laws giving free community college to its citizens and yet when it's Democrats proposing the same idea it's labeled as some liberal idea.

I think free community college and having the rest of college being funded by the prime interest rate is a great way to greatly reduce not only the cost of college but greatly reduce repaying the loans. Do I think that's the perfect solution? Not really.

But at some time we need to find a starting point that most Americans can agree on with which to move forward in finding some solution to the cost of higher education. I'm not so much objecting to your proposal as I am looking for some common ground.

I know you hate that!

Ahh, I gotcha now. There's a lot to digest there and it evokes a lot of thoughts, but I'll try to corral them.

The overarching answer to your question - to me - is: Power. Politicians will classify something as liberal or leftist or "socialist" being the operative word lately. The other side will use "fascist" or other phrases as well.

The whole goal is not to get to the merits of something, like you said. If every single person actually evaluated every issue in a way that was not reactionary, people might come up with the same assessment as yours, or different ones, in which legitimate debates and conversations could take place to actually improve society through a democratic process. The goal is instead to keep people from thinking about the issue, and react, react, react.

The best way to do that is employ fear and anger, from a populace who is growing in desperation. Trevor Noah said something that I will never forget when reflecting on the problems in South Africa: "If you have just the right amount of fear mixed with desperation, you can get people to believe almost anything." I've held on to that quote for a while.

So politicians and media alike will pump out fear phrases like "socialist" or "fascist" etc., not in reference to the substance of what is actually being discussed, but in order to further self-service of the politician or the media group.

I'll never forget Ted Cruz once saying that net neutrality was the "Obamacare of the internet." I think if you objectively look at that metaphor, it's beyond dumb. However, I'm sure it riled up his base just plenty.

When it comes to things like student loans or education or business regulation, it does not serve the self interests of many Republicans on the national level, both because their donors probably don't want it, and because it's something that the Democrats do want, and more power to the Democrats means less power to the Republicans. So what do the Republican politicians do? "SoCiAlIsM!!!!!" They don't even get into what merits they might actually have to debate with.

The Democrats do it, too. More on social views in my experience. Simple, fear-mongering words or phrases to control their base and further their self-interests. It doesn't matter what the issue is or the substance behind it. You have to control your bases with simplistic phrases.

Because, what happens if you don't use these phrases and stoke fear and lob muck all over the place? Without all that anger and fear built up, your constituents might get to thinking about their lives and what you are actually doing to represent them, and how certain issues should be resolved rationally.

And the politicians and media can't have that, because then they'd actually have to act accountable.

All that aside, Florida Fan said something that resonated with me on here about all the political jabbing. It does sadden me because I see - time and time again - people acting with so much spite, anger, schadenfreude and disdain. It is disheartening because it really leads me to think the system has devolved into forcing us back to our reptilian instincts and removing a lot of our rational, human element.

Communism.

What about "Uncle" Tim Scott?

The left gets angry when a minority doesn't fall in line and stay in the field.

that's a great catch phrase for educational opportunity.

You proved my point.

The government gave me some money to go to college many years ago. It was the best investment that the government ever made. The money is paid back in the income differential between a degree person and a non degree degree person.

Of course, I selected a major with income potential. I don’t understand why the same does not apply. No sense in investing in 50K for a major that has a 30k earning potential.

Conditions have proven your point.

What do you call mandating that colleges give away their education as OCD advocates?

I believe the words were "for free or for a very low cost" and I'm not on board with that, but I'd like to flesh it out with him in a dialogue or debate before I send out one-line, fear-based words.

I believe the answer you provided is proof of the conditions I spoke of.

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but it shouldn't be applied to every degree program they have. I think a good start would be to offer some sort of intro training into the trades to arm job-market newbies with education to guide them into jobs that are very much in-demand right now. It should help companies looking for employees with the on-boarding.

See how that goes first before opening the floodgates to all of a college's degree programs. Some programs really should be done via the traditional college experience, while many could be hybrid-ized.

The GQP, along with police departments, and large corporations always put on the minority frontman to explain away their dirty deeds. Typical Corruption and greed. Nothing new.

Oh...so he is a front man in your words.

So to be a "real" minority you have to meet some sort of standard? Or maybe it is a person needs to lack some sort of standard? I don't think President Obama was a front man. Am I wrong?

Would you be kind enough to explain that to me?

I think it's fair to say that minorities are under represented overall within leading positions of the GOP. However when it comes to the media - their minority supporters always get front and center stage and are included and present in some fashion. Some might see that as blatant manipulation and using these people as 'front men' to make it appear that the GOP has more support from minorities than they actually do.

Another factor is the 15 minutes of fame ... I'm sure some of these individuals have strong beliefs. I am sure there are many who use a contrarian position to garner the media spotlight. They are politicians after all. And I am not saying it's better or worse than the Dems.

I know you love nothing less than a one word, "communism!" response to everything that doesn't fit into your little box. But I'm going to try anyway.

First let's get the facts straight on how state colleges are funded. State colleges are in part funded by the state and in some cases the federal government. Tax dollars. In return students within the state get a break on tuition.

Now let's get to the cost and choices and why the cost is so high. I call it "Club Med Universities". They are no longer just a college campus. Every bell and whistle has been built in and that cost is passed on to the student. The students don't have the choice to pay tuition à la carte based only on what they choose to use on campus.

Now let's get to why this is important. We both know that a degree from Ohio State or Florida State carries more weight in the job market than Phoenix University. Having the ability to get a degree from a highly desirable college could easily make a huge difference in income.

So why would you consider it communism for a student who isn't even on that campus be forced to pay the same rate as a student who is on campus having all of their amenities? Why would an online student not be given a huge discount in tuition?

Here's what it seems you are saying. Tax payer dollars given to these universities should come without strings. Give them the money and let them refuse to provide an affordable, sensible option to the students of their state. Let them charge online students the same tuition they would those living on campus without the benefit of any of the amenities be charged the same.

It's like staying at Motel 6 and paying Hilton prices.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Don't worry, I have no expectation you will actually enter into the discussion. Anything less than unbridled capitalism that takes advantage of people simply trying to get an education is communism to you.

To emphasize one point you made further is that it would just be a mandate for state universities, based upon the taxpayer dollars, not private universities, which can still do as they please and rely on the market to determine if their models work or not.

That was my point exactly. While I do think business and corporations need to have a measure in standards that prevent abuse of consumers, I do not believe they should be duly burdened with a heavy dose of regulations. Consumers should always be protected from unscrupulous business practices but there should certainly be a limit. Sitting back and allowing the market to determine the price for private universities certainly isn't something I would be in opposition to.

But when tax dollars are being used to subsidize a university there should be a great measure of responsibility placed on receiving a fair return on that investment for the people helping to pay that bill.

Democrats put their minority members out front.

At any rate, it doesn't matter. I find it offensive the guy was called Uncle Tim. I know, or hope, you aren't saying it is OK to call someone that because they aren't a member of the the "correct" party. I find it repugnant that Perfect calls in a front man. I am pretty sure a few weeks ago he called them the token, but I could have the poster wrong. i am not going to go back to find the comment nor do I "collect receipts" as one poster put it.

Free for all or free for nobody who can't earn some sort of scholarship.

You know as well as I do that Jr. College in Tennessee is free for all that qualify. I am not sure what the GPA might be...3.0? 2.5? I know it isn't reserved for only students making a 3.8 or up.

I don't have a problem with that. That is largely funded through lottery proceeds.

Diamond and Silk.

I'm not saying they aren't black or black enough.

I am saying they are a couple of bizarre idiots with a semi popular Youtube channel, yet because they supported Trump they were hoisted to much greater stardom for "15 minutes" or whatever. Then they must have either fallen out of grace or something because they've all but disappeared from the limelight now and I never hear them mentioned by GOPers anymore. They were minority "Front Men" for the moment in the 2016 race. Where were they during the 2020 race?

I can't say I even know who you are talking about. Most of us don't watch the fringe crap you hold up as something the majority favor.

That segues into something i see a lot in my job with DoD contractors. We obviously subsidize a lot of their R&D which leads to massive production profits for them down the road. Since we fund a lot of their R&D, we should be able to reap the benefits on the back end when the item is ready for production, but they - of course - don't see it that way.

If you rely on the Government substantially to run your business, then you should be more beholden to the tax payers. If you do it completely independently, more power to you.

You once again dodged pretty much the entire thing.

Do you think when a state subsidizes a university with tax payer and lottery dollars, that it's a communist idea to, as a condition for those tax payer dollars, require them to give a huge discount for online classes since those people get none of the benefits with being on campus?

Because that's pretty much what you said before. We're not talking about community college here.

First, lottery dollars aren't tax dollars.

Tax dollars go to fund SNAP and I am not allowed to participate.

Everybody who wants to get a loan can get a loan.

I will amend to say nearly everybody. I am sure there are some disqualifiers.

I agree with you 100%. I've been saying the exact same thing in regards to big pharmaceutical companies for many years now. A lot of their R&D is funded with tax payer dollars and our reward is having the highest prescription drug prices on the planet.

And then those on the other side of the aisle say we should leave our healthcare just as it is. Many other democracies negotiate the prices of their prescription drugs and medical procedures saving their citizens billions upon billions of dollars and greatly decreasing the average cost of healthcare for their citizens.

When business uses competitive bidding those same people call it a sound business practice. When you suggest our government follow those same sound business practices they call it socialism or communism.

It's not about the practice of competitive bidding they object to. It's about who is suggesting it be used. In this case it would help all Americans and that's when it suddenly becomes a terrible idea.

Why do you insist on trying to put up a golden calf?

Are you unaware that the lottery in no way pays the majority of education costs? Seriously? Property taxes pay the bulk of educations costs.

And of course you still didn't answer the question. Of course an honest answer wouldn't fit your stated opinion.

And you ignore that community college is basically free for all that have at least a fairly decent GPA.

If you want education past that, pay for it.

You (deliberately one assumes because your not dim) missed and avoided the point. GOP = minorities are literally the minority. Democrats = minorities share an equal footing throughout the party. So putting them "out front" is natural because they are where they belong. That is NOT the case for the GOP. But whatever - we know it doesn't matter and you will try to skew the debate.

FACTS CAN BE FOUND HERE IF YOU WERE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THEM - Pew is reliable and independent to my knowledge.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...117th-congress/

Among today’s senators and representatives, the overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic minority members are Democrats (83%), while 17% are Republicans.

So in your view students should be charged the same thing if they take their courses online as they do on campus in a state funded school. It just goes to show how out of touch you are with most of America.

I wasn't suggesting it be free. I was suggesting that online classes should be much cheaper than having all of the amenities you have on campus.

In your world paying for more means getting much less for the same price is the right thing.

And besides, Tennessee is one of the only states that has free community college. I guess students everywhere else should just pound sand.

I am not trying to skew the debate. No doubt minorities make up a minority of the GOP. Maybe we are trying to attract more.

As more and more minorities are now a part of the system and attaining the fruits it has to offer, more and more are joining.

I have said for a long time I don't understand why the black community as an example stick by the democrats. Look what good it has done.

Republicans aren't out to screw people of color. We embrace success and affording everybody opportunity. As more and more minorities enjoy that success, more and more will see Tim Scott and others and begin to see themselves in that position as member of the party.

I don't know how old you are or if you are black, white, yellow, or red. I don't really care. I just sincerely believe the left is eager to keep people where they are and more or less keep them on the payroll.
Generations of minorities have been conditioned to public housing, public food, and health. The dems keep promising that but what has really changed for the black person in that situation?

Some have broken away and good for them. Far more are stuck in the system and politics of poverty. That is institutional racism. It isn't the white guy down the street.

By the way, I have noticed a willingness in you to actually try and talk rather than throw barbs like a few around here are eager to do, or they just bicker to bicker. I just wanted to say I have noticed that and appreciate that. I reciprocate in kind.

Yeah, the government should be able to leverage its buying power far, far more. The problem is those that we buy from put lots of money in the campaign coffers of the people who run the government, and get to write the laws in exchange for said money.

The last time I remember a stand alone bill coming up to negotiate drug prices, W was still president. It was done in the middle of the night with little to no fanfare and it failed. As far as I know a bill such as that hasn't come up since. Once again we agree that it's corporate lobbyists that prevent a lot of things that are good for the America people. Yet one side seems to promote such measures while the other side seems to obstruct them.

The only thing that changes is who is in favor and who is obstructing, depending on the issue.

Would enjoy a thread dedicated to this to discuss how we approach it. You can start by going to a site called coursera and looking at it's structure for free college courses and certifications. Some certifications cost a small fee. The courses are from major colleges and are all available as MOOC classes.



I have shared these before on here.

Then on coursera you can also see the coursera plus option to pay $399 a year for unlimited access to 3000+ courses, specializations, and professional certifications at no additional cost. FYI, the free option often has fees for certificates.

So many major colleges are already doing what I suggest at least in part. All I am saying is to take this model and go all the way with it by having all college courses and certs be free or very low cost online. This will not deter those who want to be part of the greek life on campus or who want the traditional college experience including a formal degree. Colleges could still sell that and do very well, but this would also provide a low cost alternative for those who need continuing education, certified training, or who simply want to acquire the knowledge being held hostage without paying a huge ransom for access.

OF COURSE PEEN THINKS IT'S COMMUNISM. Anything that diminishes profits or creates progressive change is communism or socialism to Peen. He's not a bad guy, he's just stuck in a 50s mentality politically. I don't think Peen is racist but I've seen him say things that would make you think that on here. This, IMHO, is his 50s political mentality because the things he says and claims to think were more widespread and socially acceptable in the 50s than they are today. None of this implies anything negative about him other than me personally thinking his political thought process is outdated. I honestly think that about most conservatives, especially those who claim to be centrist but never want to do ANYTHING to progress beyond what most see as critical issues that need reform/adjustment/re thought.

My argument for making sure everyone has equal access to the information they need to improve themselves and be the most productive they can be is fairly straight forward:

1) A highly trained/educated workforce would provide more hiring options for employers.

2) It would keep/create more jobs in America for Americans.

3) People would be less stressed, more willing to train/educate themselves, better prepared for life in general, and not restricted to unsuitable low wage work or life on welfare (entitlement programs) due to lack of education opportunities.

4) The GDP, stock market, number of employed Americans, and wealth per capita should all increase as a by-product of educating the workforce. Crime and other poverty issues would lesson also IMHO. All of this would easily offset any government costs IMHO.

That's a start.

To be fair and honest in discussing this, anyone can prepare and present or pitch a bill to their representative. Most of them have local offices they work out of during breaks. Never actually tried tp meet with one myself but imagine there is an appointment system in place for people to talk to them. Activist approach them all the time with their issues.

I think we need a law that restricts bills/laws (acts?) to a single issue AND if the bill is longer than say 10 pages, that it must also create a true and accurate and very abbreviated summary (in layman's terms) detailing exactly what and how the bill/law works and the precise issue it is meant to resolve or alleviate. Even if we did not limit what the bill/law can contain, the summary along with some penalty for falsification or omittance within the summary would go a long way toward solving a lot of issues.

Amen to that.

I'm all in favor of that. So many times a bill is written based on an issue of grave importance. By the time all of the riders are added it's nothing more than a jumble of items that totally water down and muddy the intent of the bill in the first place.

I agree with that. Too often you have a issue nearly everybody agrees with, then it gets bogged down because 5 other garbage amendments are added, or it get passed with a bunch of garbage included...and both sides do this.

We have been dorking around with a roads bill for 6-7 years now. Everybody agrees we need a roads bill, but invariably it gets killed because of other items one side or the other can't agree on.