9 ms·

>(yes, universal healthcare and free education is easy, stop spending as much on the military as the next top 10 countries combined) I think this statement fur

>(yes, universal healthcare and free education is easy, stop spending as much on the military as the next top 10 countries combined) I think this statement further reinforces the GP's point. Simply "stop funding the military" isn't "easy" - and I doubt it is something that can be done over a 4 year term. Most of the military's budget are salaries, not just soldiers but likely millions of factory workers who produce a wide range of products for the military. While the question of "are the products they produce useful" is grey, the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source. While its simple to just state "defund the military" the truth is much more complex and likely an even greater political minefield. If he does win the election, if he were to pull off that move, I doubt he would have the political strength to keep a trajectory going for a second election. As much as I believe that free education should be a thing, I believe that is also a minefield. How will schools be funded? Does the government pay the inflated tuitions, or do we solve the student loan problem first? Will we be forced to massively scale back the amount of people who attend 4-year schools (currently around 70% in the US vs. 30% in Germany)? And then to seemingly do this by "just taxing the rich"? It seems that people forget that the President just doesn't wake up one day and decide what to tax people at - it's in part decided by congress (as well as many of the other issues) - and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising. Personally, I believe Bernie to be a sound candidate, but um_ya has a point.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> While the question of "are the products they produce useful" is grey, the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many small towns that have come to depend that income source. So we get to the crux that a large portion of the US military is a jobs and rural support program. Perhaps we'll start with the albatross that is the Joint Strike Fighter, estimated at costing over a $1 trillion dollars during its lifecycle. > While its simple to just state "defund the military" the truth is much more complex and likely an even greater political minefield. The truth isn't complex, but it is a political quagmire. You need someone with a spine to get the work done. > As much as I believe that free education should be a thing, I believe that is also a minefield. How will schools be funded? Does the government pay the inflated tuitions, or do we solve the student loan problem first? Will we forced to massively scale back the amount of people who attend 4-year schools (currently around 70% in the US vs. 30% in Germany)? The cost of education has skyrocketed because the US government backs loans you can't default on, therefore schools raise their rates (which is what happens when demand is inelastic, because you've been told all your life you can't get a well-paying job without a degree, and employers can require a degree without financial cost to them). You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid. We then take a page from the Affordable Care Act and require at least 85-90% of tuition funds to go to actual teaching, and not administration, leisure activities/clubs, and other non-core expenses. > And then to seemingly do this by "just taxing the rich"? It seems that people forget that the President just doesn't wake up one day and decide what to tax people at - it's in part decided by congress (as well as many of the other issues) - and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising. Yes. I want a democratic candidate who is willing to call out Congress. Sanders is the only candidate with the character to do this. > Personally, I believe Bernie to be a sound candidate, but um_ya has a point. Of course he's a sound candidate. And no, um_ya has no point.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  >You need someone with a spine to get the work done. You are right, the issues are mostly political and I'd be ecstatic to see it get done. However, given that after Obama's 8 year legacy we got a massively watered down public healthcare plan - I'd like to see a plan other than "we are going to get free education, everyone else be damned". To me its no different than the GOPs "We are going to make abortions illegal, or we will shut down the government." I just don't see how its "easy" to defund the MI complex in 4 years. >You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid. I pulled this out specifically because it made crawl in my seat. We have tried this already, its called No Child Left Behind, and many don't consider it a success. Turns out quantifying "do your students learn" is incredibly difficult to measure, especially at the federal level. I'm well aware of why tuitions are so high - but another point that isn't addressed is that countries with free education typically have lower college entrance rates (admittedly it might be cultural, trade schools aren't attractive in America). Is it simply cheaper for Germany to send everyone to school? Are American school more expensive because they tend to be more cutting edge? Is that something we want to give up? Maybe at this point in the voting season, all we are getting is soundbites, but thats something I'd like to hear. In any case, my POV is to enact any of these issues today, will end up requiring many compromises (as did happen to ACA) with state governments, corporations, and citizens. I'd like to what he imagines these compromises to be.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I don't disagree that it's hard. I'm saying it's far and beyond what everyone else is offering, which is "Tax cuts for the rich, screw the middle class, all our problems are because of immigrants and the LGBT community, and because Millennials aren't bootstrappy."
    - nemothekid 11y ago
      No doubt, even the opposition within his party isn't at his level.
zo1 11y ago
>"and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising." This is unfortunately a big failing of democracy and the political landscape, in my opinion. You have individuals that are voted into political positions under certain "promises", and then have access to a myriad of excuses that they claim prevented them from implementing said promises. Of course, I understand that sometimes there really are stumbling blocks and active measures preventing a plan from being implemented. But can we not draw a line somewhere? And hold political figures accountable for at least trying to implement their promises. Or at least require them to present sound reasons or studies for actually wanting to enact something as law. E.g. "Study on effects of UBI on the well-being of single-parent households" Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president? I'm referring to the congress/senators there. Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)? And by accountable, I mean real consequences: prison/large-fines. Following from that, we don't all believe that we could potentially get a "crazy" or "rogue" president that abuses his power after election? E.g. creating some sort of police-state, starting wars that the public doesn't want or rewriting constitutional-law? Such that we require some sort of "checks-and-balances" entity/branch to keep him/her from doing so. Anywho, just some random rants from someone that thinks too-logically about politics, because my ideology requires me to.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president? You're confused. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The whole political philosophy of the US is that no one person gets power that somebody else can't block. > Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)? The thing you see as a problem could be solved that way, yes. But imagine that the next president is Trump rather than Sanders. Still think it's a good idea? The public makes bad decisions at the ballot box sometimes. No matter which way you lean politically, you're sure to be able to find examples in the last 20 years. Having Congress able to block some of their most stupid ideas is genius, rather than a flaw.
baobabaobab 11y ago
"I think this statement further reinforces the GP's point. Simply "stop funding the military" isn't "easy"" No one serious is seriously saying that the military shouldn't be funded. What people are saying is that maybe if the DOD actually kept track of where all it's money went, and made national defense a priority over enriching contractors, it could get by with a reduced budget.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > No one serious is seriously saying that the military shouldn't be funded. Sure they are - at least some elements of it. And they have been for 200 years. The constitutional specifically prohibits a standing army; one of the biggest jokes in the contemporary political condition is that the USA doesn't have one. I want the military defunded in its entirety, save the divisions of navy which protect coastal states from attack.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    I think that a conventionally-dominant global superpower suddenly becoming drastically less powerful would make for a fascinating novel or TV series. The conflicts that arise as nations rush in to fill the power vacuum and adjust to a dramatically different security situation would, in the hands of a skilled writer/director be far more interesting than Game of Thrones.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    The constitutional specifically prohibits a standing army No, it doesn't: The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; As long as Congress keeps appropriating money for it, we can have a standing army.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      That's not a "standing" army - that's the whole point. The debate raged back and forth at the CC on this point with everyone ultimately agreeing that this two-year limitation was something short of a "standing" army.
jMyles 11y ago
> the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source. They can cry me a river. Obviously it was to their (and everyone's) disadvantage for them to become economically depending on manufacturing death. They have nobody but themselves to blame. My home town is one of these, and it's already pretty depressed. We'll all be happier after the pivot to an economy based on building things that aren't destructive and idiotic. Other than this, I agree with every point you've made.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > They can cry me a river. Obviously it was to their (and everyone's) disadvantage for them to become economically depending on manufacturing death. They have nobody but themselves to blame. That's kinda bullshit. If you want to lay blame, lay it on your choice of national government/local government/the military-industrial complex for failing to provide better options/opportunities, but don't blame the little guy who took the only readily-available job so he could feed his family.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    If he chooses to 'feed his family' by building bombs to drop on a poor family on the other side of the world, I have absolutely no sympathy for him. And I don't see any point in passing the buck to whatever government claims authority over his landmass. Yes, of course I wish that the government didn't corrupt the economy by making war seem like a viable way to "feed the family," but it's obviously not. Nobody forced your hypothetical guy to take that job - and even if he's starving, he has no right to exact violence on strangers.
    - heartbreak 11y ago
      I'm amazed at how _hatefully_ non-violent some people can be.
    - justinsingh 11y ago
      Is your home town ready for those who would have to seek new employment? If so, what type of jobs would be available to them? If not, in what (as specific as possible) ways do you imagine your home town to adapt to the change of sudden unemployment so that these people can have adequate jobs to still support their families?
mgkimsal 11y ago
> the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source IF military downsizing is done mostly as a way to fund other areas - education and health, for example - there would be corresponding large increases in jobs/employment/industry around those areas, and I suspect it may spread the money around the country geographically a in a bit more balanced fashion. Cut govt backing of new student loans, guarantee immediate payment of lesser tuition amounts for students, and the market will sort itself out there. If people can primarily just afford community colleges, the larger schools will adjust themselves to whatever the market will bear.
mgkimsal 11y ago
> the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source IF military downsizing is done mostly as a way to fund other areas - education and health, for example - there would be corresponding large increases in jobs/employment/industry around those areas, and I suspect it may spread the money around the country geographically a in a bit more balanced fashion. Cut govt backing of new student loans, guarantee immediate payment of lesser tuition amounts for students, and the market will sort itself out there. If people can primarily just afford community colleges, the larger schools will adjust themselves to whatever the market will bear.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> While the question of "are the products they produce useful" is grey, the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many small towns that have come to depend that income source. So we get to the crux that a large portion of the US military is a jobs and rural support program. Perhaps we'll start with the albatross that is the Joint Strike Fighter, estimated at costing over a $1 trillion dollars during its lifecycle. > While its simple to just state "defund the military" the truth is much more complex and likely an even greater political minefield. The truth isn't complex, but it is a political quagmire. You need someone with a spine to get the work done. > As much as I believe that free education should be a thing, I believe that is also a minefield. How will schools be funded? Does the government pay the inflated tuitions, or do we solve the student loan problem first? Will we forced to massively scale back the amount of people who attend 4-year schools (currently around 70% in the US vs. 30% in Germany)? The cost of education has skyrocketed because the US government backs loans you can't default on, therefore schools raise their rates (which is what happens when demand is inelastic, because you've been told all your life you can't get a well-paying job without a degree, and employers can require a degree without financial cost to them). You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid. We then take a page from the Affordable Care Act and require at least 85-90% of tuition funds to go to actual teaching, and not administration, leisure activities/clubs, and other non-core expenses. > And then to seemingly do this by "just taxing the rich"? It seems that people forget that the President just doesn't wake up one day and decide what to tax people at - it's in part decided by congress (as well as many of the other issues) - and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising. Yes. I want a democratic candidate who is willing to call out Congress. Sanders is the only candidate with the character to do this. > Personally, I believe Bernie to be a sound candidate, but um_ya has a point. Of course he's a sound candidate. And no, um_ya has no point.

nemothekid 11y ago
>You need someone with a spine to get the work done. You are right, the issues are mostly political and I'd be ecstatic to see it get done. However, given that after Obama's 8 year legacy we got a massively watered down public healthcare plan - I'd like to see a plan other than "we are going to get free education, everyone else be damned". To me its no different than the GOPs "We are going to make abortions illegal, or we will shut down the government." I just don't see how its "easy" to defund the MI complex in 4 years. >You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid. I pulled this out specifically because it made crawl in my seat. We have tried this already, its called No Child Left Behind, and many don't consider it a success. Turns out quantifying "do your students learn" is incredibly difficult to measure, especially at the federal level. I'm well aware of why tuitions are so high - but another point that isn't addressed is that countries with free education typically have lower college entrance rates (admittedly it might be cultural, trade schools aren't attractive in America). Is it simply cheaper for Germany to send everyone to school? Are American school more expensive because they tend to be more cutting edge? Is that something we want to give up? Maybe at this point in the voting season, all we are getting is soundbites, but thats something I'd like to hear. In any case, my POV is to enact any of these issues today, will end up requiring many compromises (as did happen to ACA) with state governments, corporations, and citizens. I'd like to what he imagines these compromises to be.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I don't disagree that it's hard. I'm saying it's far and beyond what everyone else is offering, which is "Tax cuts for the rich, screw the middle class, all our problems are because of immigrants and the LGBT community, and because Millennials aren't bootstrappy."
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    No doubt, even the opposition within his party isn't at his level.

zo1 11y ago

>"and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising." This is unfortunately a big failing of democracy and the political landscape, in my opinion. You have individuals that are voted into political positions under certain "promises", and then have access to a myriad of excuses that they claim prevented them from implementing said promises. Of course, I understand that sometimes there really are stumbling blocks and active measures preventing a plan from being implemented. But can we not draw a line somewhere? And hold political figures accountable for at least trying to implement their promises. Or at least require them to present sound reasons or studies for actually wanting to enact something as law. E.g. "Study on effects of UBI on the well-being of single-parent households" Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president? I'm referring to the congress/senators there. Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)? And by accountable, I mean real consequences: prison/large-fines. Following from that, we don't all believe that we could potentially get a "crazy" or "rogue" president that abuses his power after election? E.g. creating some sort of police-state, starting wars that the public doesn't want or rewriting constitutional-law? Such that we require some sort of "checks-and-balances" entity/branch to keep him/her from doing so. Anywho, just some random rants from someone that thinks too-logically about politics, because my ideology requires me to.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president? You're confused. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The whole political philosophy of the US is that no one person gets power that somebody else can't block. > Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)? The thing you see as a problem could be solved that way, yes. But imagine that the next president is Trump rather than Sanders. Still think it's a good idea? The public makes bad decisions at the ballot box sometimes. No matter which way you lean politically, you're sure to be able to find examples in the last 20 years. Having Congress able to block some of their most stupid ideas is genius, rather than a flaw.

baobabaobab 11y ago

"I think this statement further reinforces the GP's point. Simply "stop funding the military" isn't "easy"" No one serious is seriously saying that the military shouldn't be funded. What people are saying is that maybe if the DOD actually kept track of where all it's money went, and made national defense a priority over enriching contractors, it could get by with a reduced budget.

jMyles 11y ago
> No one serious is seriously saying that the military shouldn't be funded. Sure they are - at least some elements of it. And they have been for 200 years. The constitutional specifically prohibits a standing army; one of the biggest jokes in the contemporary political condition is that the USA doesn't have one. I want the military defunded in its entirety, save the divisions of navy which protect coastal states from attack.
- afarrell 11y ago
  I think that a conventionally-dominant global superpower suddenly becoming drastically less powerful would make for a fascinating novel or TV series. The conflicts that arise as nations rush in to fill the power vacuum and adjust to a dramatically different security situation would, in the hands of a skilled writer/director be far more interesting than Game of Thrones.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  The constitutional specifically prohibits a standing army No, it doesn't: The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; As long as Congress keeps appropriating money for it, we can have a standing army.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    That's not a "standing" army - that's the whole point. The debate raged back and forth at the CC on this point with everyone ultimately agreeing that this two-year limitation was something short of a "standing" army.

jMyles 11y ago

> the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source. They can cry me a river. Obviously it was to their (and everyone's) disadvantage for them to become economically depending on manufacturing death. They have nobody but themselves to blame. My home town is one of these, and it's already pretty depressed. We'll all be happier after the pivot to an economy based on building things that aren't destructive and idiotic. Other than this, I agree with every point you've made.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> They can cry me a river. Obviously it was to their (and everyone's) disadvantage for them to become economically depending on manufacturing death. They have nobody but themselves to blame. That's kinda bullshit. If you want to lay blame, lay it on your choice of national government/local government/the military-industrial complex for failing to provide better options/opportunities, but don't blame the little guy who took the only readily-available job so he could feed his family.
- jMyles 11y ago
  If he chooses to 'feed his family' by building bombs to drop on a poor family on the other side of the world, I have absolutely no sympathy for him. And I don't see any point in passing the buck to whatever government claims authority over his landmass. Yes, of course I wish that the government didn't corrupt the economy by making war seem like a viable way to "feed the family," but it's obviously not. Nobody forced your hypothetical guy to take that job - and even if he's starving, he has no right to exact violence on strangers.
  - heartbreak 11y ago
    I'm amazed at how _hatefully_ non-violent some people can be.
  - justinsingh 11y ago
    Is your home town ready for those who would have to seek new employment? If so, what type of jobs would be available to them? If not, in what (as specific as possible) ways do you imagine your home town to adapt to the change of sudden unemployment so that these people can have adequate jobs to still support their families?

mgkimsal 11y ago

> the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source IF military downsizing is done mostly as a way to fund other areas - education and health, for example - there would be corresponding large increases in jobs/employment/industry around those areas, and I suspect it may spread the money around the country geographically a in a bit more balanced fashion. Cut govt backing of new student loans, guarantee immediate payment of lesser tuition amounts for students, and the market will sort itself out there. If people can primarily just afford community colleges, the larger schools will adjust themselves to whatever the market will bear.

mgkimsal 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]