2016 Election -- Part II

I do have a problem with the fact that Hill, and even my man Bernie, as far as I know, have no concrete plans for attacking the outrageous costs of universities. Socializing the cost makes sense to me, but reducing the cost is more important.

Getting private lenders out of the game should help, but it seems there's been wild negligence at the schools themselves, with bloated administrations, absurd student activity fees so they can pay stand up comedians $10k and of course text books, which were crazy even when I was in school 20 years ago.

Seems like there should be some fairly easy ways to cut through much of that. Howsabout text books are distributed as e-books? What do you have to pay an econ prof to update his Micro 101 textbook? $20k? So give him a grant, then distribute it online for free.

If the Universities are intent on bleeding students dry, we can move to more independent learning. Entire courses from Stanford, Yale and MIT are available free online. You shouldn't have to pay thousands to take inferior classes if you want a degree from UNLV, particularly for your GE and elective subjects.

i don't like any candidates stance entirely but I have a huge issue with the deficit and the prison system.: I feel Hilary may be bad for both of those issues.

I always thought I was socially moderate but you people are making me feel like an old conservative.

Have moderates disappeared or do they just not post on internet forums?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Salon: The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison system

"The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI."

Democrats have this *image* of being more liberal than they actually are.

1. Neither Bill nor Hillary have acted as leftist Democrats throughout their respective careers. They're both Moderates and always have been. They're both willing to work across party lines and have on many things.

2. Clinton Administration does not make Federal law, nor does any administration. Congress makes laws, and then separately funds their enactment and enforcement. DOJ enforces federal criminal law given them by Congress. 6 years of WJC's administration, both Houses were run by Republican majority. They passed a lot of federal law. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Add 1. to 2. In this country as it was THEN. Much sentiment for tough-on-crime and prison "reform" including relieving overcrowding. Legislate and enforce for 20 years. Look at the consequences . Some parts worked. Some parts didn't. Some parts have unintended consequences. Some things didn't become apparent until a decade of practice.

You put it on the Clinton admin. I put it on Republican Congress, with a compliant President.

Quote: DRich

I always thought I was socially moderate but you people are making me feel like an old conservative.

Have moderates disappeared or do they just not post on internet forums?

Most of right wing media is like AZDuffman; if you don't agree with their extreme right stance on everything, they label you as liberal and left. Which is how you get crap like RINO labels, running moderate Republicans out of office by primary ing them to their right, and dozens of good and more moderate leaders simply resigning out of disgust.

Democrats still have similar spectrum ; Hillary is a moderate, Bernie is the Left. Both have support. But right-wing media is pervasive, knowing that simply repeating lies and distortion makes some of it become conventional wisdom.

If you're socially moderate, fiscally conservative, think Americans (repubs and dems) should work together to solve problems, you're probably closest to Hillary. By demonstrated acts, not by how anyone from either side tries to spin them. I'm a moderate Republican myself,.and she matches me best of the 3.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I do have a problem with the fact that Hill, and even my man Bernie, as far as I know, have no concrete plans for attacking the outrageous costs of universities. Socializing the cost makes sense to me, but reducing the cost is more important.

Getting private lenders out of the game should help, but it seems there's been wild negligence at the schools themselves, with bloated administrations, absurd student activity fees so they can pay stand up comedians $10k and of course text books, which were crazy even when I was in school 20 years ago.

Seems like there should be some fairly easy ways to cut through much of that. Howsabout text books are distributed as e-books? What do you have to pay an econ prof to update his Micro 101 textbook? $20k? So give him a grant, then distribute it online for free.

If the Universities are intent on bleeding students dry, we can move to more independent learning. Entire courses from Stanford, Yale and MIT are available free online. You shouldn't have to pay thousands to take inferior classes if you want a degree from UNLV, particularly for your GE and elective subjects.

You have some good ideas here, Rig.

As to textbooks, that's been a scam for 50 years at least. Whole other subject.

There's a huge value in education. Undergrad was never meant to be job training. It was learning critical thinking, maturity, social interaction, exposure to a plethora of ideas, discovering strengths, choosing majors, then either moving into the job market or continuing to graduate studies in an area of concentration. Most of the expected value depends on physically being there, not remote studies, though.

There's a separate need for technical schools, trade schools, associate degrees, and certification for certain jobs. They were wrongly perceived as lesser choices, and colleges and universities were the only visible path to success; still true today . More job-oriented, less teaching-to-think. So I think less value lost by remote learning.

The point of most financial aid and programs was to take the cost of a student's choice from being the reason they went to one school or another. Like a lot of things, there are bloats, unintended consequences, angle-shooting, and now we have a generation with insane debt.

Most of those concepts are being disrupted and overturned by the digital revolution. All 6 of my nieces and nephews went to college; all were REQUIRED to bring a computer of a particular minimum capability to start school. (Still had to buy the books,though).

Anyway, I think many more people will be getting online degrees in the future. Study will be much more job-oriented than Undergrad traditional curricula. More people will afford it; fewer benefits will be gained, at least the intangibles.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Salon: The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison system

"The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI."

Democrats have this *image* of being more liberal than they actually are.

1. Neither Bill nor Hillary have acted as leftist Democrats throughout their respective careers. They're both Moderates and always have been. They're both willing to work across party lines and have on many things.

2. Clinton Administration does not make Federal law, nor does any administration. Congress makes laws, and then separately funds their enactment and enforcement. DOJ enforces federal criminal law given them by Congress. 6 years of WJC's administration, both Houses were run by Republican majority. They passed a lot of federal law. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Add 1. to 2. In this country as it was THEN. Much sentiment for tough-on-crime and prison "reform" including relieving overcrowding. Legislate and enforce for 20 years. Look at the consequences . Some parts worked. Some parts didn't. Some parts have unintended consequences. Some things didn't become apparent until a decade of practice.

You put it on the Clinton admin. I put it on Republican Congress, with a compliant President.

I disagree, BBB...I put it on the Clintons and the Democrats. The Republicans had not yet gained power when this bill was passed. The bill was signed in September of 1994, just before the midterm changed the power structure. The best you can argue with just this info on this bill is that he signed it to try and hold onto the House based on the timing....but I'd have to do a lot more reading on that to actually make that conclusion. The fact is that it was passed by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat.

"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers.[1] Sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and then was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

"As president, Bill Clinton and his allies embarked on a draconian punishment campaign to outflank the Republicans. “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say that I’m soft on crime,” he bragged. "

"Hillary strongly supported this legislation and stood resolutely behind her husband’s punishment campaign. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Hillary declared in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added. Elsewhere, she remarked, “We will finally be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders: three strikes and you’re out.”"

https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter

235-95-5

Democrats held House by 78 or so members...

Http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml

Senate 61-38-1

Mostly Dems voting for....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295

The Congress that passed the bill...Senate (100) D/R then House...solid Democrat majority

103rd 1993–1995 100 57 43 — — 435 258 176 1 —

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Quote: beachbumbabs

There's a huge value in education. Undergrad was never meant to be job training. It was learning critical thinking, maturity, social interaction, exposure to a plethora of ideas, discovering strengths, choosing majors, then either moving into the job market or continuing to graduate studies in an area of concentration. Most of the expected value depends on physically being there, not remote studies, though.

There is no question that education is valuable. I would argue that it is important to get a degree in something that actually has jobs related to it as opposed to just being there for the experience--part of the experience is to get you ready for the real world. Getting a degree in a discipline that has slim job choices is not necessarily a very good life decision. I think we see more of that than educators would like us to believe.

Being there is important; we are getting all of our kids on campus to live for at least a couple of years.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There's a separate need for technical schools, trade schools, associate degrees, and certification for certain jobs. They were wrongly perceived as lesser choices, and colleges and universities were the only visible path to success; still true today . More job-oriented, less teaching-to-think. So I think less value lost by remote learning.

College has been over sold to many people who would be better off in a trade based on many factors. A good plumber or A/C person can make a lot more money than many college grads. The combination of some college (business courses) and the trade may make them even better--capable of running a business and being successful. Many never attend college and run good businesses with solid backgrounds; I just think some business studies can always help, A combination of two types of education...

The reason these things were looked down upon is because people climbed those ivory towers of education and thought everything else was beneath them. That attitude caught hold and made many feel college was the only way. College is a way, and it has big potential benefits. It just isn't the only way!

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a worthless and misleading statistic, equivalent to saying that the average American is 51% female. The four-year matriculation rate for selective colleges is near 85%, and it shoots to well over 90% when extra time is considered. On the other hand, many schools have no screening whatsoever and even the worst students can enroll. Of course those schools will have more dropouts. There are solutions to college debt across that spectrum but it's a mistake to think there's a one size fits all.

The moral: don't argue using bad statistics on a math forum.

Actually you just made my point for me. Of course selective schools have a high graduation rate. It is because they take just the best students who do in fact belong in college. But this is a very small subset of the student population. For every one kid going to a CMU there are probably 10 going to a garden variety college, and I may be low at 10, it might be 20. Of the total college population you still have the dropout problem, and dropout with huge debt, I will say it again, too many just are going to 13th grade. The ones at selective and very selective schools do not figure into that group and should do well no matter what.

The moral: don't argue throwing rocks at a guy with a machine gun

Quote:

Also there's no such thing as a useless degree, and suggesting otherwise is a vicious rebuff of an entire discipline. The use one gets from an education is entirely dependent on how it is used. Someone who goes to school willing and able to learn critical thinking rarely fails. Only the closed-minded or lazy come away no better for the experience, but higher education has never been for those without the willingness to be there.

Oh, yes there are useless degrees. Lots of them. Anything with the word "studies" in it (women studies, etc) is basically useless. There are many more. What you have said in your statement is what is known as "faculty lounge talk." This is when people who never made it in the real world but got a university job discuss that they are there for some higher purpose and everything they do has meaning. It is nonsense.

College as it exists today is there for the masses to get specialized training to obtain employment. That is a fact of modern life. There are professional students to be sure. But no employer ever asked me what I learned in philosophy. They wanted to know if I had business training. Across town they will want to know what chemistry classes someone took. Across town form that they want medical training.

I was once in an online discussion with a girl who had a Women's Studies major desiring a job in the not for profit world. I told her she had a useless degree and her reasoning for wanting to be in not for profit was coming off as someone afraid of the real world. Someone should have told her 4 years and 50,000 dollars earlier.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: AZDuffman

You want someone who has executive experience running major corporations into the ground, vote for Trump.

Fixed that for you.

Yes, he had a failure, A bankruptcy, Most successful businessmen have had one or a few, Do you have a point about it?

Quote:

But there are no provisions to overleverage the national debt and then restructure it.

Oh, but there is. I guess you have never heard of inflation. $1000 that LBJ borrowed to fight his Vietnam War was only paid back at a value of $207 by Bill Clinton 30 years later when the bond matured. Might have said $1,000, but that was the buying power. You do not need a math degree to understand this concept, but I bet that fewer than 40% of even college grads really get what is going on there.