4 ms·

I think you are on the right track when you compare the Brexit surprise to the Trump phenomenon. There are many of us who view the main difference between the D

I think you are on the right track when you compare the Brexit surprise to the Trump phenomenon. There are many of us who view the main difference between the Democratic and Republican establishment as only the particular special interest, large donors they serve. George Bush was many things, but a fiscal conservative is NOT one. He was the one who pushed through Medicare Part D which contributed greatly to our unfunded liabilities. Every president since Johnson has raided the Social Security Trust Fund to help hide our debt. President Obama has presided over the doubling of our national debt, to over $20T. He had a lot of help from both sides of the aisle. Many of us here realize that this exponential growth in national debt supported by printing unbacked fiat currency cannot continue. We will be in especially deep trouble if other nations decide not continue to use the US dollar as the reserve currency. We cannot continue to outspend on defense the next 11 or 12 nations combined. We cannot solve every crisis in the world. We do not have a perfect choice for president. We never do. We do know that Mrs. Clinton is another one who sees more government intervention as the solution to every problem. She was not very effective as Secretary of State and I am surprised she has not been indicted for compromising national security with her private email server. Even if they had put up Sen. Sanders, his own wife's experience (shutting down the college she presided over because it was economically unsustainable, getting a nice severance package, leaving the students with debt...) shows that his plan is unworkable. At least Mr. Trump realizes that not every expenditure is possible or prudent. He seems to understand the concept of 'vital national interests' - that we must get our own house in order before we can continue to help the greater global community. Those of us who say this are often publicly vilified. We do not seem to be able to have a peaceful, rational exchange of ideas. So people will keep their mouth shut and go cast their ballot in the privacy of the voting booth, exercising their fundamental human right guaranteed by under a constitutional republic. Gee, it sounds a lot like what the voters in the UK just did.

girmad 10y ago
I'm not sure Mr. Trump is as prudent financially as he projects. There is still Gary Johnson...
humanrebar 10y ago
> At least Mr. Trump realizes that not every expenditure is possible or prudent. As evidenced by his many bankruptcies?
- WhatIsThisIm12 10y ago
  As a hacker news reader, you should understand the difference between business and personal bankruptcy. One is a business tool, the other is a statement against your financial capabilities.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    I don't know why I'm supposed to be comforted that he merely bankrupted organizations he was running and not himself personally. In some ways that seems worse and a form of double-standard. People didn't get paid. People lost jobs. But he came out OK? Is that leadership?
undersuit 10y ago
>Sen. Sanders, his own wife's experience (shutting down the college she presided over because it was economically unsustainable, getting a nice severance package, leaving the students with debt...) shows that his plan is unworkable. I'm actually going to need some more evidence on that claim vis-a-vis Jane Sanders past decisions invalidate Bernie Sander's plans for... I mean you just say plans. Would all of his plans be unworkable? That's a pretty bold claim.
- johnminter 10y ago
  College - indeed all formal educations - isn't free. It never has been. Someone has always paid. Someone always will. There needs to be a good return on investment for all parties involved. That includes the taxpayer, if she is footing the bill. The difficult truth is that not every student has the prerequisite skills, ability, and self-discipline to complete university level work. Do you really expect the taxpayer to subsidize remedial courses at the university if the student couldn't acquire the prerequisite skills at the secondary level? Here in New York, despite record per pupil primary and secondary school expenditures, student performance has continued to drop. Why should taxpayers be forced to continue to subsidize poor performers? Those who want to do so are always free to contribute to scholarships. Now let's consider student performance at the university level. Take a look at, for example, Richard Arum's book Academically Adrift. He notes that a large fraction of students graduate with very limited critical thinking and reasoning skills. This is because very little was demanded of them. As Arum so aptly put it, instead "they provided beer and circuses." The schools were paid for this... Much of this outcome was produced because schools were paid (typically because of easily-obtained government subsidized loans). These students have not been so pleased when saddled with all the debt later on. Surprise: it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Talk about the "gift that keeps on giving..." Now ask, How is "free college" going to provide return to the taxpayers if the students don't have significant "skin in the game"? How will you ensure this? Matters have been exacerbated by what we call "rampant credentialism." Those who make hiring decisions love this because it provides a way to screen candidates without getting sued. Is there really sufficient demand for workers with all these credentials to pay to produce them all? I don't think so. I have watched the "great sucking sound" predicted by Ross Perot as jobs were offshored. This now includes those STEM jobs Americans want. I know. I have one. When I started work almost 35 years ago I was in an analytical division of a major corporation that had over 300 scientists and technicians. There are 27 of us left. The major scientific societies have noted demand is weak and salaries are flat at best and appear to be declining. Are all these new graduates going to be able to find employment at a salary where their taxes repay the public investment? I don't think so. It is one thing if a system is designed where people can freely contribute to provide such education. It is another matter entirely to do this by force of tax law without regard for return on investment. What gives any of you the right to force this on another? Who died and made you despot? Finally, let me return to the one who has proposed "free college." What has Sen. Sanders really produced in his lifetime? How many such successful programs has he run? What has he really done?

girmad 10y ago

I'm not sure Mr. Trump is as prudent financially as he projects. There is still Gary Johnson...

humanrebar 10y ago

> At least Mr. Trump realizes that not every expenditure is possible or prudent. As evidenced by his many bankruptcies?

WhatIsThisIm12 10y ago
As a hacker news reader, you should understand the difference between business and personal bankruptcy. One is a business tool, the other is a statement against your financial capabilities.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  I don't know why I'm supposed to be comforted that he merely bankrupted organizations he was running and not himself personally. In some ways that seems worse and a form of double-standard. People didn't get paid. People lost jobs. But he came out OK? Is that leadership?

undersuit 10y ago

>Sen. Sanders, his own wife's experience (shutting down the college she presided over because it was economically unsustainable, getting a nice severance package, leaving the students with debt...) shows that his plan is unworkable. I'm actually going to need some more evidence on that claim vis-a-vis Jane Sanders past decisions invalidate Bernie Sander's plans for... I mean you just say plans. Would all of his plans be unworkable? That's a pretty bold claim.

johnminter 10y ago
College - indeed all formal educations - isn't free. It never has been. Someone has always paid. Someone always will. There needs to be a good return on investment for all parties involved. That includes the taxpayer, if she is footing the bill. The difficult truth is that not every student has the prerequisite skills, ability, and self-discipline to complete university level work. Do you really expect the taxpayer to subsidize remedial courses at the university if the student couldn't acquire the prerequisite skills at the secondary level? Here in New York, despite record per pupil primary and secondary school expenditures, student performance has continued to drop. Why should taxpayers be forced to continue to subsidize poor performers? Those who want to do so are always free to contribute to scholarships. Now let's consider student performance at the university level. Take a look at, for example, Richard Arum's book Academically Adrift. He notes that a large fraction of students graduate with very limited critical thinking and reasoning skills. This is because very little was demanded of them. As Arum so aptly put it, instead "they provided beer and circuses." The schools were paid for this... Much of this outcome was produced because schools were paid (typically because of easily-obtained government subsidized loans). These students have not been so pleased when saddled with all the debt later on. Surprise: it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Talk about the "gift that keeps on giving..." Now ask, How is "free college" going to provide return to the taxpayers if the students don't have significant "skin in the game"? How will you ensure this? Matters have been exacerbated by what we call "rampant credentialism." Those who make hiring decisions love this because it provides a way to screen candidates without getting sued. Is there really sufficient demand for workers with all these credentials to pay to produce them all? I don't think so. I have watched the "great sucking sound" predicted by Ross Perot as jobs were offshored. This now includes those STEM jobs Americans want. I know. I have one. When I started work almost 35 years ago I was in an analytical division of a major corporation that had over 300 scientists and technicians. There are 27 of us left. The major scientific societies have noted demand is weak and salaries are flat at best and appear to be declining. Are all these new graduates going to be able to find employment at a salary where their taxes repay the public investment? I don't think so. It is one thing if a system is designed where people can freely contribute to provide such education. It is another matter entirely to do this by force of tax law without regard for return on investment. What gives any of you the right to force this on another? Who died and made you despot? Finally, let me return to the one who has proposed "free college." What has Sen. Sanders really produced in his lifetime? How many such successful programs has he run? What has he really done?