Printable View
Apparently the thing about the job part is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan255
And yes, education should be free for specific fields for those whom show the capabilities for it. It's an investment in our country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qyx...w#action=share
No, education shouldn’t be free.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
It’s ridiculous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How much did you pay for your K-12 education?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan255
Forcing people into decades of debt in order to be a functioning member of society is what's *** backwards. The economy and country is better off the more educated it's people are.
I assume we all understand that in a profound sense education is not really free — like nothing is free.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
What is meant here I think is that it (K-12) is accessible to all, regardless of financial status. Of course, our system also allows those with the resources to purchase an alternative education should they so choose.
The question at hand is whether post secondary school education should likewise be accessible to all, regardless of financial status — perhaps with the same caveat (those who can afford it can choose alternatives).
Many progressives would say yes. That’s about the size of it.
Correct, I think we do all understand that. Higher education should still be paid for through taxes, much like K-12. So long as the people meet the requirements for the spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Now because higher education branches out into specified fields I wouldn't be opposed to targeted funding by fields, but I don't think that is entirely necessary either (I'd have to see more specific figures). Now the costs would need to be reigned in and governed appropriately or those schools who don't abide by this would not get the funding. But as I mentioned in the gun thread, we've seen this concept in action in many European countries. We know it can be done, and done successfully. It's not just some theory.
Finally got a chance to look over a lot of the green new deal. I have some thoughts but they are kinda just jumbled as I probably don't know everything about it yet and much of it seemed vague anyways...
1. This is too vague as is and will need to get much more specific over time in order to reach the goals, show how they will be paid for, what is actually possible with technology we have and so on.
2. It is clearly just not climate change but an overall reform mixed into the climate change debate/ideas. We can talk about how in general these need to be separated but I actually think it is impressive because look at how many right wing people are finally talking about a climate change policy in the open. It forces the issue into all areas of discussion so it can't be as easily ignored so there is a positive aspect to this in that sense.
3. Some of the ideas just seem unfeasible and even a bit ridiculous given what it would cost/take to pull off. It doesn't mean every idea that can't be finished is bad but it definitely means we need specifics on these ideas too.
4. Much of what I see in the bill appear to be good "goals" for our government and things I think we should actually be striving to do. This is important because as my issues above point out there needs to be a plan in place and now everyone can kind of be part of that process/coming up with ideas/making steps realistic over time. There is actually a plan laid out for at least some democrats of an idea of where to head now policy wise as opposed to... well simply opposing the other side.
5. I think overall the good outweighs the bad here and we should focus on how to make some of these ideas more feasible when they look like good "goals" than argue over how possible it is to get good things done because we don't wanna try. This goes for more than just this plan but generally speaking it applies here.
Too many people go to college, but also colleges have increased prices at an incredible rate. State universities should not be so incredibly expensive, but free is too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
I don't really understand the proposed taking planes out of the sky and investing in high speed rail instead. Electric planes are feasible, they just need to be researched and developed more. Before that happens SpaceX's BFR can transport people around the globe faster anyways.
OTOH, you'd think all the conspiracy theorists would welcome getting planes out of the sky so that there was no more chem trails lol.
Like I said earlier though, the outrage over the Green Deal is funny because of the two party system, where in any other western country Ocasio-Cortez would be a Green Party member and get zero coverage or endorsements from major parties. You really need to expand the party system and allow the fringes to operate in their own domain where they won't get enough votes to effect any policy.
The thing with planes was not to take them out of the sky but make other options of travel more feasible and efficient so people aren’t as dependent on planes as they are today.Quote:
Originally Posted by statquo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh lol... well I guess that's why I should've read it myself. What's wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
High speed rail in the North America is embarassing. I can't believe we don't invest in that in Canada.
Do any of you fools actually take Donkey Chick seriously?
Relative to your post?Quote:
Originally Posted by gogo
CA has been trying to build a high speed rail from south to north since the 90s. Some estimates have it at near $100B and it's nowhere near being done. So, somehow there are going to be high speed rail setup all over the country within 10 years? There is simply no way to pay for it let alone get anything done on the schedule. It's fantasyland.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
WTF is a "donkey chick"?Quote:
Originally Posted by gogo
He's probably referring to her toothy smileQuote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087