7 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So you don’t think the government pumping money into secondary education has anything to do with the cost doubling since they took over the loan business.

In any event, I believe we have too many non STEM collage graduates now, and I don’t see how further funding it on the backs of the taxpayers benefits the country.
 

 

All the more reason for government to fund universities directly instead of in this convoluted manner. That way the government get a say on fees. Individual Universities are of course free to reject the money (and some will, many of the elite ones). Qualifying students that want to attend those will not have government loans (because nobody will have government loans)  but can trying getting scholarships, because it’s the universities that want *them*

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

The government now funds student loans in the US, not the private sector.

Does that not embarrass you?

Northwest?

 

High fees mean Government loans are almost never enough and most have to resort to private loans as well. It’s a pretty big business.

Trump Shuttle!

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I’m not embarrassed.

You talk like the government is not already driving costs up with Medicare, mandates, regulations, subsidies and student loans.

People that can afford it in most every country with socialized medicine often go to the private sector for care, if it’s so great, why does most everyone not use it?

Same with education, people that can afford it often go private.

As more “socialized” countries are becoming more and more capitalist, the left want to make the US more socialist.

 

In terms of outcomes, Medicare is on par with private care, at a lower cost.

By bringing up the abundantly available private care, if people so choose, in countries with universal healthcare, you are undermining your own argument that universal healthcare is some evil socialism (presumably of the old Soviet type where no one an be or go to a private doctor). People may chose private care for a lot of reasons (shorter wait times for non essential procedures, etc) even when universal healthcare is available. Most won’t. And, importantly, no one suffers, dies, delays seeing a doctor, or goes bankrupt from health bills.

There will always be better off people willing to pay more for speedier appointments, swankier hospital rooms, better school facilities, smaller classes and such. They are free to do so. Proof, again, that we are not talking about Soviet style authoritarian socialism.

As more “socialized” countries are becoming more and more capitalist, the left want to make the US more socialist.

There’s no perfect system. Societies continuously tweak their systems for many reasons. Sometimes they end up making it better, sometimes worse. Most metrics tell us that the US health system is performing poorly in relation to other developed countries. It makes sense to learn from others’ success.

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

And you think government increasing its funding of universities and healthcare will drive the cost down, I don’t. I think it will drive the costs up, and the quality down even faster than it already is.
 

 

The experience in every other developed country says otherwise.

23 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

To be clear, I don’t think most Americans want socialized medicine and “free” higher education.

Of course everyone wants higher wages, lower costs and better quality, but I’m not sure a majority of Americans believe the government taking over big chunks the private sector (as the left wants) is the solution.

 

Not providing those things is not a saving to society. It is only a saving for the top 5%

I could write a lot about this, but, fear not, I will limit myself to one example.

By law, created by Congress, student loans cannot be discharged even in cases of bankruptcy. Who does this benefit? The big lenders holding—and profiting from—$1.5 trillion in student loans. Meanwhile, a billion dollar airline going bankrupt (just for fun, guess which airline I’m thinking of) can walk away from all obligations, leaving creditors and passengers high and dry. Citizens, with resulting depleted 401k’s, pay.

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

And you think government increasing its funding of universities and healthcare will drive the cost down, I don’t. I think it will drive the costs up, and the quality down even faster than it already is.
 

 

Man, you just keep bobbing and weaving, don’t you? And, in the process finding new ways to embarrass yourself.

Government, in the form of the entire economy and the majority of the population is *already* overpaying for those things (with inferior outcomes), especially healthcare to the sole benefit of the top 5%, the private healthcare and private insurance industries. Universal healthcare systems IN EVERY OTHER developed economy (and many developing economies) consistently achieve better results with lower expenditure. One of the major jobs of a government is to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens—not protect the wealthy.

Tiger had the courage to withstand the wife chasing him around the house with a four iron! He had the courage to bang hostesses at Waffle Houses! Makes millions hitting a golf ball and from branding. In Trump’s eyes, all that makes him a hero. ????

But seriously, if another president had done this, I wouldn’t have batted an eye, or even much noticed. The issue with Trump doing this and the lingering doubt as to why, is that Trump, while refusing to release his tax returns continues to run businesses that afford others the opportunity to bribe him. He continues to promote his businesses as president. How do we know when, the next time Tiger plays at one of his properties—which would bring Trump properties enormous free publicity—that it is not tit for tat?

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

It’s labeled “Socialism” because it IS socialism, which is what the left wants.

You seem to be confusing the left with classic liberalism.

 

Labels don’t make a thing what it is; what it is, is what it is. The policies I listed are the things the vast majority of Americans want, once you remove the labels and articulate the actual policies.

34 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Are you living in the USA? C'mon man.

The question you should be asking yourself is whether *you* live in the real world, or in the world of the Right Wing media bubble.

46 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The left is more vehement than the average person these days.

“The Left” *is* the average person. Once you take away the scary vilifying labels, most Americans want: universal healthcare, affordable college, livable wages, women’s right to choose, equal rights for all, sensible gun control, NOT minding other peoples’ bizwax when it came to sex, progressive taxation, and an end to corporate subsidies.

It’s like when people were asked if they liked the ACA, they said “yes,” and the same people, when asked if they liked Obamacare, said “no.” That’s because the Right Wing media machine that pretends to be the average Joe’s friend, but is really working with plutocrats to pick his pocket, labeled Obamacare “Socialism” and had already successfully labeled socialism as evil, and in turn labeled everything the plutocrats didn’t like as “socialism.”

"The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime...”

Then why the provocation? That Bolton mustache is a serious provocation, IMHO.

53 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

Cute. Stupid but cute.

I was sincerely hoping that, with your impressive GPA, the cartoon would’ve helped you figure it out without my having to embarrass you by spelling out your fallacies. 

But I may have been placing too much stock in test scores (was your high score in Home Economics?)

Anyway, here goes:

What was the cost of a college education relative to minimum wage in 1980 as compared to today?

What was the median wage of a college graduate in 1980 relative to cost of living as compared to today?

What was the interest rate on a student loan in 1980 compared to bank deposit rates (guess you already know that one), and what are those rates today?

Your heroic story of bilking the government for loans you didn’t need bears no relation to the actual situation today where young people are asking for government paid education that they do need and can’t afford.

8 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

<snip>

I worked both a full AND part-time job while attending college. All while carrying a full 16 credit hour workload. I carried a 4.0 GPA up until the last semester when I got lazy and got two "B"'s. If I could do such a thing then what can't others instead of wasting everyone's time and a lot of money. 

 

A friend kept telling me to get a student loan but I kept saying I could never fathom being in debt to anyone for anything. He finally convinced me to get the student loan but I deposited it in a Bank CD drawing over 18%. It was in 1981 when interest rates were through the roof. I actually remember asking the banking center manager if she thought the rates would be higher the following week (they were a tad over 18% when I asked). She said they probably would be so I waited a week to get the CD. I got another student loan the next year and did the same thing with it.

 

After 4 years the money had doubled and I paid off the student loans and had cash for a new car. 

<snip>

10 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Yea Right ,keep on dreaming . May lost 1000 seats because she did not give us Brexit .

Correction: May did not (and could not possibly) deliver the *fantasy* brexit the brexiters had dreamily voted for. Her duplicitousness is that she has not been honest about this.

Deleted

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Now the best that can be mustered is a lame stab at obstruction. Obstruction that has no related criminal charge. Obstruction that didnt actually happen. Mueller at no time said that his investigation was in any way impeded. 

Lemme get this straight. So, if Trump had *succeeded* in obstructing justice, he would then, and only then, be guilty of obstructing justice.

But if he had succeeded, there would *be* no case against him, because, you know, he would have...succeeded! 

But he’d be guilty because he succeeded but at the same time innocent by making sure there’d be no case.

is this some kind of Shrödinger’s Trump??

9 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

well evidently he did since he accurately told us what was in there. So do you dispute whats in the report?

“Accurately?”

If you cannot be bothered to read the Mueller Report for fear of what you might find there, read at least the short letter Mueller sent to Barr after Barr released his misleading summery. The letter is now public:

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/72509902-0d00-41e8-9795-908605cdcc03/note/643498f3-abea-4f98-a140-68032b6e80d7.pdf

In it, Mueller says that Barr (in his summery) “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work.

“Context, nature, and substance” is in fact EVERYTHING. Mueller is saying that Barr lied to the American people. 

If you Trump supporters enjoy being lied to just to claim some warped kind of “win” then have at it. But know that you are only fooling yourselves.

57 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And don't forget to look at Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation and everything else that has been investigated by republicans many, many times.

You forgot the Lincoln assassination:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/fox-new-evidence-hillary-killed-lincoln
 

Fox: New Evidence Hillary Killed Lincoln

The latest charge against Mrs. Clinton was reported by Fox host Sean Hannity, who said that the evidence of her role in the Lincoln assassination came mainly in the form of e-mails

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That stat is suspect and Ive been there, done that and am still here.

What’s suspect is your desire to have a sincere, honest discussion based on the facts. I have no personal beef with you. And even if I did, I’d say the same: If you live in America and have firearms at home, I do mean this sincerely: good luck.