obama says "free college"

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The goal was never anything but a single-payer checkmate.

Oh, I get it.

But, if .GOV was so he'll bent on spending billions there were far more effective ways of actually reallocating those resources to improve actual healthcare.

I'm sick of the political elite suggesting that there were no alternative ideas floated to improve actual healthcare in this country...my suggestion would have increased the number of nurses, doctors and researchers rather than bureaucracy. My representatives could find no fault in my argument except that it would take years to graduate those folks through the system to reap the benefits...well folks...here we are years later when we'd have enjoyed more qualified doctors and nurses...and what could a medical research organization have discovered with a billion dollar grant these years later...we'll never know. But we do have Obamacare...and more bureaucracy. I could just spit.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I'm sick of the political elite suggesting that there were no alternative ideas floated to improve actual healthcare in this country...my suggestion would have increased the number of nurses, doctors and researchers rather than bureaucracy. My representatives could find no fault in my argument except that it would take years to graduate those folks through the system to reap the benefits...well folks...here we are years later when we'd have enjoyed more qualified doctors and nurses...and what could a medical research organization have discovered with a billion dollar grant these years later...we'll never know. But we do have Obamacare...and more bureaucracy. I could just spit.

What you suggested would actually help. In order to get the single-payer system instituted, Obamacare has to fail.

Wait 'til the next mandate kicks in...lol

Of course, the overall scheme relied upon a demwit Congress...

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The overhaul needed is for the commie educators to be thrown out.
As for the PS: Are you serious?

I'd agree. Principals should be able to hire & fire and unions are a big hindrance to that. If teachers are teaching a political ideology that is indoctrination and not education. Hence, they should be fired.

As to the ACA comment, I am not against universal healthcare coverage (in fact I think there is a need for that) but I contend if the debate were open and the legislation were written with complete transparency the resulting product could have been much better. My point is that whenever we get into our respective ideological boxes the debate has no good outcome and the process that created ACA is a perfect example of that.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I'd agree. Principals should be able to hire & fire and unions are a big hindrance to that. If teachers are teaching a political ideology that is indoctrination and not education. Hence, they should be fired.

As to the ACA comment, I am not against universal healthcare coverage (in fact I think there is a need for that) but I contend if the debate were open and the legislation were written with complete transparency the resulting product could have been much better. My point is that whenever we get into our respective ideological boxes the debate has no good outcome and the process that created ACA is a perfect example of that.

Let me ask you two questions:

1. Should Ward Churchill have been fired?
2. Do you believe single-payer universal health care is warranted?

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Richard

Perhaps he (and his education advisors, education-focused members of Congress, state governors, and corporations) are looking to something like the German model for promoting higher educational opportunity and attendance, as well as some form of a national 'twist' supporting a foreseeable need for a more technically trained workforce for our future.

As far as community colleges go, they provide a lot more than an academic platform to obscure degree programs - remedial ed opportunities for those who were too immature or whose lives were otherwise focused to take advantage of their secondary schooling, adult ed opportunities, workforce ed programs (e.g., fire, law enforcement, business), partnerships with communities and corporations (e.g., Caterpillar, Ford, Toyota, etc to name a few I've encountered) for specific training programs (e.g., diesel mechanics, collision repair, etc), and an energizing socialization element for those seeking the proverbial carrot of 'the American dream.'

The GI Bill was such a program and gave a HUGE 'jump start' to what and who America has become; perhaps it's time to see what can be done along those lines again - whether or not it may be possible is TBD.

When considering something like this, I'm always reminded of one of my Professor's view that politics is the art of seeking the possible, and not necessarily the probable. To that end, I'll wait and see.

MOO - and so it goes...

Richard

I understand your viewpoint Richard but the GI Bill was a benefit for your service you had done for your country. Giving away two years of college to everyone for nothing in return is just more stupidity. You have to work for what you get or you Are just another leach on the country.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Dusty

If I was a libdemon pol and wanted more votes in '16 from young 'uns, I'd promise them free college. If I wanted votes from old folks, I'd scare 'em by telling them the repubs were gonna eliminate SS and Medicare. If I wanted votes from poor minorities, I'd promise free medical care. If I wanted votes from Latinos, I'd give the illegal ones amnesty. If I wanted them from gays, I'd extol same sex marriage; from Muslims, I'd refrain from calling terrorism what it is, ad nauseum.

The dems want a single-party system. They're rendering conservatives obsolete.
What surprises me is the people who should be smart enough to know better actually buying into this baloney.

Yeah exactly otherwise intelligent people with no awareness of what it is they are buying in to and its long term impact. Libs/Dems remind me of Bizzaro World Superman who when on earth is confused understanding our Worlds thinking. I am starting to wonder if the character when compared to Superman was intended to be a reflection of the two party system. I think I am going to go read Atlas shrugged again.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

I understand your viewpoint Richard but the GI Bill was a benefit for your service you had done for your country. Giving away two years of college to everyone for nothing in return is just more stupidity. You have to work for what you get or you Are just another leach on the country.

Yeah I think after the planned and organized coup in the 30's? when the 500,000 injured, crippled and maimed WW1 veterans got together and decided to take DC by force and overthrow the government because of the injustice. They asked Smedley Butler to lead them and become the new President of course he turned it down and warned the Gov. There was a real problem upon return from the war the disabled vets had no disability, no health care per sey essentially no help from the Government who had asked them to serve then turned them away to fend for themselves broken and helpless. The Government had to give something back to a country where 10% of its able bodied men would serve in WW2 and run the risk of returning crippled and a drain on society to care for them. The GI bill was and will continue to be paid for in blood, broken bodies and shattered minds.

What will the freeloaders pay their tab with Mr President??

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The overhaul needed is for the commie educators to be thrown out.
As for the PS: Are you serious?

Do a little research and I think you will discover that the quality of public education has declined and the cost has spiked since the Feds got involved. Try the history and cost of the Dept. of Education.

Maybe student loans prior to the Federralization of the process.

I'm on Dusty's side Try to name any Federal program that has been on time on budget and delivered as promised. You might find close to 0.00%

[MR2]

Is the word "education" anywhere in the Constitution?

How about the word "democracy"?

Just sayin'

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by MR2

Is the word "education" anywhere in the Constitution?

How about the word "democracy"?

Just sayin'

Exactly.

The Federal government has no Constitutionally mandated role in education.

Or health care.

TR

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Exactly.

The Federal government has no Constitutionally mandated role in education.

Or health care.

TR

Or welfare.
Thank you LBJ and Nixon IIRC Nixon did the Department of Edu. and for being so kind as to remove all value to the currency .

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Let me ask you two questions:

1. Should Ward Churchill have been fired?
2. Do you believe single-payer universal health care is warranted?

Answer:

1. For acts of academic misconduct including plagiarism if proven - absolutely.
2. I don't equate equal access to health care (universal healthcare) to a single-payer system necessarily.

I should also say that I agree with the sentiment TR expressed in that I can't think of too many things that GOV can do efficiently.

As to MR2s point (I think): That the Constitution should state that the federal government shall provide for....(fill in the blank) does not mean that the fed gov should undertake the specific operational aspects to effect that obligation.

Neither does Constitutional silence on any given matter like education, or the interstate highway system for that matter, does not mean that the fed gov does not have a legitimate role in that matter.

You could argue that the interstate highway system is an implied authority under the commerce clause. But the federal government did not own the civil engineering firms , the trucking companies, the cement companies, etc that actually built the system. That is why it was a success. I think the same strategy can be applied to healthcare and public education as well.

As to cost of providing two years of community college, the only estimate I have seen is $60B over 10 years. The argument "Where is the money to do this?" is a legitimate one, but only half the argument. There is also the benefit side of the equation. No estimates on that yet, but my intuition says it is a huge economic benefit to society that is well justified on a ROI basis.

I think the same can be said for universal health care (not ACA).

As with most major issues it comes down to the economic cost benefit analysis. If we simply view the issues through a political lens of liberal v conservative, there can be no satisfactory outcome, or the outcome will be substandard at best (e.g. ACA).

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

Nixon IIRC Nixon did the Department of Edu. .

Like so many other good things, DOE was a gift from Jimmy
SnT

The Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Eatablished by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 4, 1980.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Exactly.

The Federal government has no Constitutionally mandated role in education.

Or health care.

TR

How about "provide for the common welfare". As I pointed out previously, the Constitution did not specifically mention an "interstate highway system" either.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Neither does Constitutional silence on any given matter like education, or the interstate highway system for that matter, does not mean that the fed gov does not have a legitimate role in that matter.

From the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

ETA: From Federalist 45 by James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Pat