What the "Others" Want

[Sparko]

Not everyone needs healthcare - and not everyone drives a car or uses the roads (though most do). Yet we administer roads on a socialized model. Likewise not everyone will want college. But that is not an argument for not using a socialized model. Indeed, it seems somewhat arbitrary to pay for 12 years of education and not the next 4, especially when studies clearly show that a college education increases the earning potential by an average of $1M. That also increases taxes. Indeed, some numbers out there suggest that the taxes paid on the increased income over a lifetime will more than pay for the college cost. So we end up with more people having access to colleges, an overall better educated citizenry, maintain (or restore) or leadership in technology and innovation, and make college possible for a whole host of people who have the gifts and may not have the money.

And I don't think it should be structured as a hand-out. Frankly, I'd like to see something that works similar to how I am "paying" for my children's education. Since they were born, we set aside $40/week and invested it. That's "our pot." We also put every monetary gift the kids got when they were <5 years old aside for college, and then required them to budget everything they got (allowances, gifts, etc.) after they were 5, with half of it going to the college fund. That's "their pot." The college deal is simple: pay for a semester out of "your pot." Then bring me your report card. I will reimburse 100% for an A, 75% for a B, 50% for a C, and nothing for anything below that. So if they get straight A's, they get all their money back, which is enough to pay for the next semester. If they graduate summa cum laude, at the end of their last semester, they will get their original money back and start life with a small pot of money instead of crushing debt.

So I'd like the college funding to be, at least to some degree, linked to outcomes. I'd rather not see my tax dollars go to someone's party. The problem is that the poor probably can't do what my wife and I did, so that original pot to kick everything off is missing. Somehow, that would need to be factored into the plan.



First - I have answered this already. You apparently have not seen it, or are ignoring it. No state, including Vermont, is without opposition. Second - I have emphasized your incorrect assumption. There are many liberals who reject some/all of these ideas. So when you get a large body of people, like a legislature, getting enough people to implement these sweeping changes and have them accepted by the executive is going to be difficult.

The rest of your post is simply an attempt, apparently, to be insulting, so I'll leave it unresponded to (well, except for this... ).

I love how you attempt to insult me by dismissing my post as me trying to be insulting. wow.

I wasn't being insulting. I was pointing out the things liberals keep clamoring for in this country (remember the whole 1% v 99% sit ins and protests around the country? remember Sanders campaigning on free healthcare and college?) and then pointing out the FACTS that California has the worst record in the entire country when it comes to income equality and discrepancy between the rich and the poor. That isn't insulting anyone, just pointing out facts. But rather than engage these facts, you try to change the topic and make me the subject of the questions instead of admitting the facts that California is not doing what it can to fix the problems liberals consistently point out and in fact where they live the problems are worse than anywhere else.

But please, keep on dodging and trying to change the subject and then eventually give your 'this isn't going anywhere I am done, you can have the last word' speech.

[Mountain Man]

But please, keep on dodging and trying to change the subject and then eventually give your 'this isn't going anywhere I am done, you can have the last word' speech.

I did an image search to illustrate trying to nail Jello to wall, and this was included in the search results, which I thought was more hilarious than the picture I was looking for.

fritz.jpg

[carpedm9587]

I love how you attempt to insult me by dismissing my post as me trying to be insulting. wow.

"They seem to like homeless people pooping in the streets." I'd categorize that as an attempt to be insulting - hence my response.

I wasn't being insulting. I was pointing out the things liberals keep clamoring for in this country (remember the whole 1% v 99% sit ins and protests around the country? remember Sanders campaigning on free healthcare and college?) and then pointing out the FACTS that California has the worst record in the entire country when it comes to income equality and discrepancy between the rich and the poor. That isn't insulting anyone, just pointing out facts. But rather than engage these facts, you try to change the topic and make me the subject of the questions instead of admitting the facts that California is not doing what it can to fix the problems liberals consistently point out and in fact where they live the problems are worse than anywhere else.

But please, keep on dodging and trying to change the subject and then eventually give your 'this isn't going anywhere I am done, you can have the last word' speech.

Again - I've answered this already. Repeating my answer is not going to produce much, apparently, so I'll leave you to it. You are apparently fixated on this argument and cannot see past it.

[Sparko]

"They seem to like homeless people pooping in the streets." I'd categorize that as an attempt to be insulting - hence my response.

That was a use of hyperbole to point out that they are not fixing the problem.

But please, keep on dodging and trying to change the subject and then eventually give your 'this isn't going anywhere I am done, you can have the last word' speech.

Again - I've answered this already. Repeating my answer is not going to produce much, apparently, so I'll leave you to it. You are apparently fixated on this argument and cannot see past it.

And there we are.

[carpedm9587]

That was a use of hyperbole to point out that they are not fixing the problem.

"Hyperbole" is just another word for "lie," Sparko. It creates a false impression and makes a false claim. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, stop that!

And there we are.

I don't know what you want, Sparko. I answered you at least a couple of times, and each time you basically ignored the answer and repeated the question. It's a waste of my time to keep repeating myself.

[Sparko]

"Hyperbole" is just another word for "lie," Sparko. It creates a false impression and makes a false claim. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, stop that!

no it is not a lie. There are people pooping in the streets and they have not fixed it when they can.

I don't know what you want, Sparko. I answered you at least a couple of times, and each time you basically ignored the answer and repeated the question. It's a waste of my time to keep repeating myself.

You answer was to just avoid the questions, try to turn them back on me and claim that I don't know what liberals want. Then I go and show you that they do want that, that they don't do what they can, and your response is "I already answered you"

No you did not. Again, you don't have to engage with me or my rhetoric if you don't want. But I don't like it when you do engage, then run away when you can't answer me or actually engage with what I say and make up straw men to burn. And THEN pretend you did answer me and get all passive-aggressive about it.

[carpedm9587]

no it is not a lie. There are people pooping in the streets and they have not fixed it when they can.

Which is not the same as "They seem to like homeless people pooping in the streets."

You answer was to just avoid the questions, try to turn them back on me and claim that I don't know what liberals want. Then I go and show you that they do want that, that they don't do what they can, and your response is "I already answered you"

No you did not. Again, you don't have to engage with me or my rhetoric if you don't want. But I don't like it when you do engage, then run away when you can't answer me or actually engage with what I say and make up straw men to burn. And THEN pretend you did answer me and get all passive-aggressive about it.

So - one more time. Your mistake is to assume that what some liberals want, all liberals want. It doesn't work that way. As with conservatives, liberals are not a cohesive group with a single agenda. And legislatures include members of most parties, and I know of no legislature that has no Republican representation - including Vermont and California. So getting to a consensus about solutions is not easy - and for such massive shifts, even harder. THAT is why the changes you listed have not been made: Not everyone agrees on them (i.e., there is not such thing as "the liberal dream") so getting the votes to implement those particular changes has not happened.

By the way - your argument is similar to this one:

"So, Sparko, Republicans have had two years of complete control of the House and Senate and Executive branch, yet the "Conservative Dream" has not been implemented. No major legislation to change the laws about abortion (especially in light of the shift in the court with Gorsuch and now with Kavanaugh). No laws to balance the federal budget. So apparently conservatives like dead babies and stealing money from our children and grandchildren to stuff in the pockets of modern millionaires."

Frankly, it's a ridiculous argument/question - and so is yours.

[Zymologist]

Which is not the same as "They seem to like homeless people pooping in the streets."



So - one more time. Your mistake is to assume that what some liberals want, all liberals want. It doesn't work that way. As with conservatives, liberals are not a cohesive group with a single agenda. And legislatures include members of most parties, and I know of no legislature that has no Republican representation - including Vermont and California. So getting to a consensus about solutions is not easy - and for such massive shifts, even harder. THAT is why the changes you listed have not been made: Not everyone agrees on them (i.e., there is not such thing as "the liberal dream") so getting the votes to implement those particular changes has not happened.

By the way - you argument is somewhat similar to this one:

"So, Sparko, Republicans have had two years of complete control of the House and Senate, yet the "Conservative Dream" has not been implemented. No major legislation to change the laws about abortion (especially in light of the shift in the court with Gorsuch and (now) with Kavanaugh. No laws to balance the federal budget. So apparently conservatives like dead babies and stealing money from our children and grandchildren to stuff in the pockets of modern millionaires."

Frankly, it's a ridiculous argument/question - and so is yours.

I think the Republicans' inaction WRT abortion (for example defunding Planned Parenthood) is definitely criticism-worthy.

[carpedm9587]

I think the Republicans' inaction WRT abortion (for example defunding Planned Parenthood) is definitely criticism-worthy.

I suspect that Republicans know that if they touch that rail, there will be a massive reaction from both men and women across the country, and the next election will be a wave unlike anything they have ever seen. Roe vs Wade has been the law of the land for the last half century. Any change will trigger a significant response. After all, even within the Republican party, there is significant support for Roe vs. Wade. The further right you go, the more the support softens. But urban Republicans are far more supportive.

I don't think the solution to abortion is a legal one.

[Sparko]

Which is not the same as "They seem to like homeless people pooping in the streets."

that was my personal observation based on their actions taken to stop it (none) - not a lie.

So - one more time. Your mistake is to assume that what some liberals want, all liberals want. It doesn't work that way. As with conservatives, liberals are not a cohesive group with a single agenda. And legislatures include members of most parties, and I know of no legislature that has no Republican representation - including Vermont and California. So getting to a consensus about solutions is not easy - and for such massive shifts, even harder. THAT is why the changes you listed have not been made: Not everyone agrees on them (i.e., there is not such thing as "the liberal dream") so getting the votes to implement those particular changes has not happened.

By the way - your argument is similar to this one:

"So, Sparko, Republicans have had two years of complete control of the House and Senate and Executive branch, yet the "Conservative Dream" has not been implemented. No major legislation to change the laws about abortion (especially in light of the shift in the court with Gorsuch and now with Kavanaugh). No laws to balance the federal budget. So apparently conservatives like dead babies and stealing money from our children and grandchildren to stuff in the pockets of modern millionaires."

Frankly, it's a ridiculous argument/question - and so is yours.

The conservatives have been telling us how bad Obamacare was and how they were going to fix it and then did absolutely nothing to do so. They don't want it fixed. Or they are incompetent. As far as abortion goes, they have no standing to just make it illegal. The supreme court doesn't make laws. They just judge them. And the congress is too split to come up with any such laws. Unlike in California where the democrats are in complete control and they can do anything they want to with the complete support of most of their citizens.

[carpedm9587]

that was my personal observation based on their actions taken to stop it (none) - not a lie.

I cannot know if it is a lie or not - only you know that. I DO know it is a gross misrepresentation - just as my "hypothetical" was a gross misrepresentation of conservatives.

The conservatives have been telling us how bad Obamacare was and how they were going to fix it and then did absolutely nothing to do so. They don't want it fixed. Or they are incompetent. As far as abortion goes, they have no standing to just make it illegal. The supreme court doesn't make laws. They just judge them. And the congress is too split to come up with any such laws. Unlike in California where the democrats are in complete control and they can do anything they want to with the complete support of most of their citizens.

Read the post more carefully, Sparko. I didn't say SCOTUS makes laws. As for the legislature - Republicans could ditch the fillibuster rule for all legislation (as was done for confirmations) and pass a law with a simple majority. The house only needs a simple majority. The president is Trump who would sign it in a heartbeat. The conservatives have NO excuse for not acting on their priorities...except... as with Democrats, they are not a unified entity that agrees on everything. They range from moderates to ultra conservatives with different constituents and different priorities/ideas.

That was essentially my point. This entire line of argumentation on your part is premised on the idea that there is "a liberal dream" and "liberals" function as a unified group. Neither is true, making the entire question pointless.

And I'm now done answering you - yet again. Feel free to flail away at "dismissing" and "handwaving" and "nailing jello to the wall." I'd help you with the pictures - but I'm sure you can find your own.

[Sparko]

I cannot know if it is a lie or not - only you know that. I DO know it is a gross misrepresentation - just as my "hypothetical" was a gross misrepresentation of conservatives.



Read the post more carefully, Sparko. I didn't say SCOTUS makes laws. As for the legislature - Republicans could ditch the fillibuster rule for all legislation (as was done for confirmations) and pass a law with a simple majority. The house only needs a simple majority. The president is Trump who would sign it in a heartbeat. The conservatives have NO excuse for not acting on their priorities...except... as with Democrats, they are not a unified entity that agrees on everything. They range from moderates to ultra conservatives with different constituents and different priorities/ideas.

That was essentially my point. This entire line of argumentation on your part is premised on the idea that there is "a liberal dream" and "liberals" function as a unified group. Neither is true, making the entire question pointless.

And I'm now done answering you - yet again. Feel free to flail away at "dismissing" and "handwaving" and "nailing jello to the wall." I'd help you with the pictures - but I'm sure you can find your own.

The country's government is a lot more divided than California is Carp. wow.

Your comparison is nothing of the sort. IF California was as divided then you would have a point. But my entire question is based on the fact that California is overwhelmingly liberal. The citizens, the government. and has been for a long time. Yet they don't do what they claim needs to be done to fix the poverty in their own state, or get the healthcare they claim everyone deserves. I am not talking about things liberals disagree on. These are basic liberal tenets.

[carpedm9587]

The country's government is a lot more divided than California is Carp. wow.

Your comparison is nothing of the sort. IF California was as divided then you would have a point. But my entire question is based on the fact that California is overwhelmingly liberal. The citizens, the government. and has been for a long time. Yet they don't do what they claim needs to be done to fix the poverty in their own state, or get the healthcare they claim everyone deserves. I am not talking about things liberals disagree on. These are basic liberal tenets.

If you are counting noses by party - yes. California has close to a super-majority of Democrats in both houses. But therein lies your error - the assumption that all liberals/Democrats want the same thing - and act with one voice. That is not true of any party. If it were - Republicans would have tossed out the ACA in 2017. I've pointed out this error multiple times. You keep ignoring it and just coming back to "all liberals" and "the liberal dream." You're creating two realities that don't exist - and then trying to frame an argument around it.

The entire thing is pretty ridiculous - and I've spent enough time on it. Last word to you.

[Sparko]

If you are counting noses by party - yes. California has close to a super-majority of Democrats in both houses. But therein lies your error - the assumption that all liberals/Democrats want the same thing - and act with one voice. That is not true of any party. If it were - Republicans would have tossed out the ACA in 2017. I've pointed out this error multiple times. You keep ignoring it and just coming back to "all liberals" and "the liberal dream." You're creating two realities that don't exist - and then trying to frame an argument around it.

The entire thing is pretty ridiculous - and I've spent enough time on it. Last word to you.

last word. I have answered you on your strawman claim that I am assuming all liberals want the same thing. several times now. I am taking a couple of the most basic tenets of liberalism and asking why they don't implement it. stuff the majority of liberals agree on like income equality, affordable housing, healthcare.

And you don't have an answer. So you tried to distract and change what I asked into something you could knock down and burn. A straw man version. Something you routinely do.

That is the last word.

[carpedm9587]

That is the last word.

Agreed!