Can the media dictate who wins elections?

[Force16X]

yes.

 

[snackdaddy]

Can the medial influence erections? Some of those hot reporters can. Wait, what was the question?

 

[beej]

Gonna continue to go off the tangent here with regards to minimum wage. For any of you who are against the idea of it, what alternatives do you think are a better solution to improving standard of living and reducing poverty assuming the job market remains stagnant?

well, that part that I made bold is a bit of a head scratcher. If we are going to assume the that the job market remains stagnant...

I'm gonna go scratch my head some more.

 

[RamFan503]

No such thing. That's like saying we have too many skilled workers.

Actually it's not. Training is a different story than a college education. And whether we want to face it or not or it sounds cruel, a great many people who are already getting grants and free education shouldn't be there. Sorry - it's not intended to be an insult to anyone - just a harsh bit of reality. As Ted Knight said in Caddy Shack - The world needs ditch diggers too. Sorry - but it does. And no matter how lofty someone wants to think their aspirations of educating everyone to the next higher level, there is another level. I guess everyone should be entitled and supplied a post graduate education. If you want to set benchmarks that everyone can see and vote for - GREAT. But the MANTRA that everyone should receive a college education is frankly BS and nothing akin to having skilled workers. A training wage - known these days as the minimum wage - is how people get in on the ground floor and train. Those who don't either show the aptitude or ability move on to something else. An economy absolutely cannot pay "living wages" based on what a few "intellectuals" feel is what it takes to "live" in this country.

I think if you really crunched the numbers, you would see how ridiculous things like a $15 MINIMUM wage are. Get a damn room mate. Find ways to get by. And a national minimum wage is even more ludicrous than a local minimum wage. I'd actually be kinda ok with a local minimum wage. But are you going to tell me that living in Manhattan has the same income requirement as living in Joseph, Oregon or Canandaigua, NY?

They really haven't. They blew a bunch of smoke about it and then never actually committed to doing it. It was half-assed effort at best. And Sanders isn't advocating just to throw money at the problem.

Seriously? They have been trying it since FDR and have just kept increasing the thought through failed attempt after failed attempt. The rate of giving by community and personal efforts has steadily decreased as the government "does more". There is no mystery to this correlation. But it feels better to some to just vote for an increase rather than doing something more personal.

I give to most local efforts that come through my door and also hold several fund raisers when local families fall to unforeseen catastrophe. I am not alone.

Great. Sanders isn't only advocating getting rid of Super PACs.

P.S. Sanders is an Independent.

Sanders is an independent because he feels the Democratic party isn't willing to go as far as his socialist leanings would take him. He considers Eugene Debs a hero.

Sanders has not declined union money so... Not buying his want to be true over his want to be elected.

We'll see. I have a feeling they could find a way to regulate it all without offending the Supreme Court. Plus, Supreme Court decisions aren't all that consistent. Especially when the balance of power shifts.

And yet the lack of politics and running for office is the only thing that keeps every branch from being run by special interests. And Bernie wants to change that.

Sanders is not a pure socialist.

No one is. No one is a pure Communist. No one is a pure Capitalist. No one is a pure Libertarian. The US is not a pure Democracy. Your point?

Personally, I have no interest in a long drawn out political discussion. All I have to say is that my problem with your response is that your overall message isn't, "I disagree, these are bad ideas for our country" (only a small part of your message conveyed that) instead it's mainly, "Okay, we could do this but we also have this worse problem...how does it solve that?"

Amazingly, I don't either (to the bolded part). I just don't understand what you are saying with the rest here. How about this.... I believe his ideas are bad for our country. We don't need to do any of what he advocates - in fact we could repeal some of what he suggests going further with and we would be in better shape, have more real jobs, and the middle class would be allowed to do what they do best - work, create jobs with the true small businesses that have always been by far the largest employer in this country, and spend money in their local communities while helping those that ACTUALLY have fallen on hard times.

When was the last time you saw a story on cbs or NBC about the negatives of a $15 minimum wage. Has anybody seen scott pelley give the other side or Brian holt give the other side? Maybe I've missed it. But I've been looking for it, because I honestly want to know the whole issue in an effort to vote on the subject.

The bolded: I can't recall one. Yet I live it every day. I have servers making $30 per hour including tips. More power to them except that the minimum wage - 9.25 here in Oregon - while the rest of the economy has sucked means not only do I find ways to either get people to pay more for my product but I get to pay more in payroll taxes and unemployment taxes, etc... all while my product costs go up and up and up. It is just silly to me to even fathom how anyone who was honestly informed would entertain this nonsense.

The problem with political media is there is never the second part of the story.

True words - by either side.

I'm not going to turn this into a political fight. We know that will just get ugly.

Calling your shots is not an acceptable way to say what you will without response - but ok.

You're already subsidizing Wal-Mart who pay below living wages, through welfare programs. Why should we subsidize a billion dollar company? I understand your concern about small business. But the term "small business" has been twisted as well, to include guys like the Koch Brothers. They are far from small.

Care to expound on how we are subsidizing Walmart and what this week's "living wage" means?

We already have safety nets. You want to make it where we keep the safety nets AND give people more money to dick around and buy big screen tvs while still being able to use the safety nets and of course - business and those who earn should have to pay for it all. At no point will the human psychology that relies on others to provide them with a "living wage" be satiated. Go freaking earn it. It's there.

Wages have been stagnant for years. If raising the minimum wage raises all wages--well, it's about time.

Care to show how that is the case? Or when raising the minimum wage has helped in a down economy? Also - do you really think that $10 in Manhattan or Anchorage or Miami is worth the same as it is in most of rural America.

All that raising the minimum wage does is force companies - generally the true small businesses - to figure out ways around having as many employees. But that's ok. The government gets what it wants. More people relying on the government for their check and higher taxes from those that still have jobs. It's a win win for bigger gov't.

There is already a redistribution of wealth--upward.

And it is still available to you. This is coming from someone who provides jobs that pay most of my employees more than I make.

And that flow shows no sign of changing. Trickle down? Not happening. Can one guy with a billion dollars do more for the economy or 500,000 people with an extra 2,000? He's not buying 500,000 big screen televisions. Never.

Actually, the last REAL economy showed that it worked exactly that way. And BTW - Bernie's Mantra of the top one percent is a total fabrication and patently untrue for the sound bite world to consume.

We have seen the result of years of trickle-up policies. We have seen CEO pay rise 300 times the amount of the average worker. We see people working longer hours for less real pay.

Not agreeing with CEO wages necessarily. But I think just looking at the wage itself may not fill the whole picture. Still, we may not disagree that much on this subject. However, I think their stock holders should have a say in the whole thing. But yeah - there should be some answers.

Sorry, I believe there does need to be a change.

I thought that was the mantra the last time around with this current Pres.

I like what Sanders offers in those terms.

I don't and the direction he would take the country, if he could, would be devastating and virtually irreversible as we've seen with countless social programs already. Giving him that platform alone would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

However, as I said, realistically I expect Hillary will win. And that will offer Bush, Clinton or Walker. And we'll continue down the same path we've been going.

Think I will lose my lunch if Hillary wins. I actually would rather have Bernie if it came down to it. At least he is pretty much out there and saying what he thinks. Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it ran her over.

Other than the fact 'Thordaddy' would have been all over this thread, "Like Sink on crap"! And I mean that in the most complimentary way! This thread probably should never have been started!! It's Just Too Political!!
( And for the Record, I'm as Conservative a Republican as you'll Find anywhere!)
I won't be back to this thread!

Yeah Dave - I sure miss Rich. We actually used to talk on the phone about some of this stuff. He was an evil business owner too.

 

[RamFan503]

Gonna continue to go off the tangent here with regards to minimum wage. For any of you who are against the idea of it, what alternatives do you think are a better solution to improving standard of living and reducing poverty assuming the job market remains stagnant?

The only alternative I know is decreasing cost of living (economic deflation) but that doesn't bode well for banks and people with debt unless there's deflation adjustment upon it.

Repeal the minimum wage entirely. Re-institute it as a training wage (words matter) and have the city or county - depending on where the jobs are - base a training wage on actual cost of living in THAT specific area.

Personally, I think the minimum wage is an artificial feel good move created to assuage the conscience rather than come forth with meaningful policies. It's a cruel cycle that only ends up costing the economy its small businesses and start ups and forces the employment market to all head to the large corporations where they can be treated like a number rather than an individual with talents, skills, and a personality.

 

[bluecoconuts]

While I agree that not everyone needs to go to college, I think it's a huge mistake to price out very smart people from going to college, which is what we're effectively doing now. The cost of going to college is ridiculous, it's risen much more than just simple inflation, and the result is that we have very smart people who either cannot afford it, or very smart people who cannot afford continuing their education after completing their undergraduate degree. I've seen it myself, one of my coworkers is a pretty brilliant physicist who can't afford to go to graduate school. It's not just a simple "get a job" he has a wife (who is currently going to school) and a new daughter. He has spoken repeatedly about how he wishes he could pursuing his doctorate if only he could afford it. There's plenty of others who have a similar story, and that means that the United States is missing out on tons of potential. As a country we're pretty math/science illiterate, and pricing people out of college adds to that problem.

Sure, we need ditch diggers, but there's tons of people who simply don't want to go to college. Hell most of my coworkers fall into that category, we don't need to price out people to make sure that we have an endless supply of ditch diggers.


In terms of a minimum wage, I agree a national one is very stupid. I disagree that the solution is just "get a roommate" because that incorrectly assumes that everyone has the same situation.

 

[Rmfnlt]

To a degree, they can. In Trump's case, the media are actually helping him by giving him attention. They're treating him like a serious candidate.

Trump is no dummy.

He's all too aware that outrageous statements will hit the news. I think he's leading in the polls?

Will he become a serious candidate? Not unless there's some silent majority out there that believe what he's saying is the truth.

Seems to me we get worse options every 4 years... and that's been going on for too long. The options are professional politicians. Many years ago, I really liked Bill Bradley. Clearly, he was not a professional politician. Just don't see many of those any more... or if you do, they're outliers like Trump... in there for shock value (think Perot).

I just don't like where our country is going lately.

 

[yrba1]

I just don't like where our country is going lately.

Courtesy of Citizens United.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Wants massive investment in infrastructure. 15 dollar minimum wage. Medicare for all single payer system. No tax breaks for corps who hide money in the Caymans. Public funding of elections. Overturn Citizens United. Expand social security by lifting cap. He believes that the uneven distribution of wealth is pulling down most Americans. Opposes TPP and other trade deals that only bring us lost jobs and increased trade deficets. That's some of it.

He doesn't take campaign money from Wall Street. Small donors make up most of his fund.

He believes that makes him accountable to the electorate and not money men.

He has walked the walk throughout his political career.

Sounds like he woudn't have a chance at getting elected but, if he did, he'd get eaten alive by the machine(s).

 

[Ramhusker]

While I agree that not everyone needs to go to college, I think it's a huge mistake to price out very smart people from going to college, which is what we're effectively doing now. The cost of going to college is ridiculous, it's risen much more than just simple inflation, and the result is that we have very smart people who either cannot afford it, or very smart people who cannot afford continuing their education after completing their undergraduate degree. I've seen it myself, one of my coworkers is a pretty brilliant physicist who can't afford to go to graduate school. It's not just a simple "get a job" he has a wife (who is currently going to school) and a new daughter. He has spoken repeatedly about how he wishes he could pursuing his doctorate if only he could afford it. There's plenty of others who have a similar story, and that means that the United States is missing out on tons of potential. As a country we're pretty math/science illiterate, and pricing people out of college adds to that problem.

Sure, we need ditch diggers, but there's tons of people who simply don't want to go to college. Hell most of my coworkers fall into that category, we don't need to price out people to make sure that we have an endless supply of ditch diggers.


In terms of a minimum wage, I agree a national one is very stupid. I disagree that the solution is just "get a roommate" because that incorrectly assumes that everyone has the same situation.

Ironic thing is one of the major reasons college has gotten so expensive to go to is government grants. Like stated already in this thread, everybody isn't cut out for college. But, that is what is preached in high school. The end result is kids and their parents do everything they can to get junior into college. The government, in its infinite wisdom, makes it possible to many to go to college that don't belong there. Meanwhile, the colleges, being businesses themselves, see all the government money available and open the doors to those who can't cut the mustard in that environment. The kicker is the government is footing the bill so why shouldn't the University of Don'tletagoodthinggotowaste up the tuition. You can correlate the rising cost of tuition with the increased government grants. If we would issue grants to the "smart" people only, I'm thinking the government would get more bang for their buck, tuition would stabilize, and there would be plenty of grant money left over for technical college to satisfy some skilled tradesmen of our world. Everybody can't be a doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

 

[jrry32]

Repeal the minimum wage entirely. Re-institute it as a training wage (words matter) and have the city or county - depending on where the jobs are - base a training wage on actual cost of living in THAT specific area.

Personally, I think the minimum wage is an artificial feel good move created to assuage the conscience rather than come forth with meaningful policies. It's a cruel cycle that only ends up costing the economy its small businesses and start ups and forces the employment market to all head to the large corporations where they can be treated like a number rather than an individual with talents, skills, and a personality.

The minimum wage was and still is absolutely necessary. I agree that it should be left up to the localities to institute a higher minimum wage to keep up with a living wage but I believe a floor is necessary.

Actually it's not. Training is a different story than a college education. And whether we want to face it or not or it sounds cruel, a great many people who are already getting grants and free education shouldn't be there. Sorry - it's not intended to be an insult to anyone - just a harsh bit of reality. As Ted Knight said in Caddy Shack - The world needs ditch diggers too. Sorry - but it does. And no matter how lofty someone wants to think their aspirations of educating everyone to the next higher level, there is another level. I guess everyone should be entitled and supplied a post graduate education. If you want to set benchmarks that everyone can see and vote for - GREAT. But the MANTRA that everyone should receive a college education is frankly BS and nothing akin to having skilled workers. A training wage - known these days as the minimum wage - is how people get in on the ground floor and train. Those who don't either show the aptitude or ability move on to something else. An economy absolutely cannot pay "living wages" based on what a few "intellectuals" feel is what it takes to "live" in this country.

Offering education to anyone that wants it does not stop people from accepting lesser jobs. It simply gives us a more educated population. Which is a net positive. Especially when that education doesn't come with crippling debt.

It's very much akin to having skilled workers. Because if you have too many skilled workers, it reduces the value of being skilled. It saturates the market. That appears to be your argument against having too many people with degrees. Which is why you make them affordable. Because let's be frank, that already happened. There are already too many college degrees out there. Problem is that they come with crippling debt. Too many college degrees isn't a problem when it's affordable.

No one is. No one is a pure Communist. No one is a pure Capitalist. No one is a pure Libertarian. The US is not a pure Democracy. Your point?

That the socialist label means nothing. If you have problems with his policy, you have problems with his policy. Having a problem with him because he calls himself a socialist is just lazy. It seems your problems lie with his policy. Those are the points worth making.

Amazingly, I don't either (to the bolded part). I just don't understand what you are saying with the rest here. How about this.... I believe his ideas are bad for our country. We don't need to do any of what he advocates - in fact we could repeal some of what he suggests going further with and we would be in better shape, have more real jobs, and the middle class would be allowed to do what they do best - work, create jobs with the true small businesses that have always been by far the largest employer in this country, and spend money in their local communities while helping those that ACTUALLY have fallen on hard times.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree.

 

[Mackeyser]

Ironic thing is one of the major reasons college has gotten so expensive to go to is government grants. Like stated already in this thread, everybody isn't cut out for college. But, that is what is preached in high school. The end result is kids and their parents do everything they can to get junior into college. The government, in its infinite wisdom, makes it possible to many to go to college that don't belong there. Meanwhile, the colleges, being businesses themselves, see all the government money available and open the doors to those who can't cut the mustard in that environment. The kicker is the government is footing the bill so why shouldn't the University of Don'tletagoodthinggotowaste up the tuition. You can correlate the rising cost of tuition with the increased government grants. If we would issue grants to the "smart" people only, I'm thinking the government would get more bang for their buck, tuition would stabilize, and there would be plenty of grant money left over for technical college to satisfy some skilled tradesmen of our world. Everybody can't be a doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

Actually, this is patently false.

The reason college has gotten so expensive is the marriage of College administrations and Wall Street. Since the 80s, colleges have gone on a building TEAR. With state laws in most states that Tuition can only be used for instruction, Colleges and Universities have found very creative ways to use funding like Federal grants and student loans to pay for these various "student fees" that allow them to build with avarice and then pass along the costs to students.

They mitigate the impact by marketing these costs as "services". Overindulgent Student Centers that seem to rival the nicest spas, computer labs that are far beyond what is necessary for students to learn, fitness centers for the student body that would make professional teams blush.

These buildings are paid for with BONDS. Often the College Presidents, Deans and University Presidents are "considered" by Wall Street firm in various ways. Take that as you will.

Now, are there too many Colleges and Universities? I dunno. Maybe.

However, the absolute and undeniably biggest factor towards the rising cost of a college education is that the Institutions, themselves, are demanding more money in order to get BIGGER and since they can't do it via state or federal funding directly and very few institutions are endowed like Harvard, then they pass the costs on to the students.

And because the students are guaranteed federal Pell Grants, it becomes indirect Federal funding.

Rather than go after the institutions for as an industry being shady as hell (especially the big state schools, btw), we go after students who are simply trying to improve their lot in life. Whether or not they are made for college, it doesn't take someone special to recognize that there is a linear and causal relationship between possessing a college degree and increased wealth. It's only recently with the costs of a degree eclipsing so much of any potential wealth gains that people are questioning the value. But in economies good and bad, a college degree tends to yield better wages.

How do we fix it? Well, like with SO MANY issues, we have to get beyond the bumper sticker sloganeering and realize that there's a lot of work to do and that there are a lot of wealthy people who don't want that work to be done.

Firstly, we need a much better and more coherent Vocational Education pipeline like they have in Europe. When BMW opened a plant in SC, they found they had a hard time filling certain positions due to a lack of skilled labor. The problem is that the sector is dominated by private and often very shady profiteers that return very little education and take a lot of money. This sector need massive reform because the country needs this education sector to produce and significantly more and better. Plenty of people wouldn't go to college if they had a better alternative to a better life.

We have to develop a Uniform Higher Education Building Code that addresses infrastructure for higher education and Federal Grant money can be used, and if not, if a student can be asked to pay for it with fees at all (because a school could always just mandate it and that would just increase unsubsidized student loan use which would be bad)

We have to reform the Pell Grant system such that any institution that does build something would be clear if they added a fee, if it were "Pell covered" or if it were "fee eligible". If not, a school might not build it because students would balk at taking out loans and the Administration would have to fundraise and/or pay for it out of current endowments.

The point is that this and so many other problems aren't UNsolvable, but they require tons of work on the POLICY and the abandonment of the politics because nothing gets done when politics are at play.

 

[Ramhusker]

Actually, this is patently false.

The reason college has gotten so expensive is the marriage of College administrations and Wall Street. Since the 80s, colleges have gone on a building TEAR. With state laws in most states that Tuition can only be used for instruction, Colleges and Universities have found very creative ways to use funding like Federal grants and student loans to pay for these various "student fees" that allow them to build with avarice and then pass along the costs to students.

They mitigate the impact by marketing these costs as "services". Overindulgent Student Centers that seem to rival the nicest spas, computer labs that are far beyond what is necessary for students to learn, fitness centers for the student body that would make professional teams blush.

These buildings are paid for with BONDS. Often the College Presidents, Deans and University Presidents are "considered" by Wall Street firm in various ways. Take that as you will.

Now, are there too many Colleges and Universities? I dunno. Maybe.

However, the absolute and undeniably biggest factor towards the rising cost of a college education is that the Institutions, themselves, are demanding more money in order to get BIGGER and since they can't do it via state or federal funding directly and very few institutions are endowed like Harvard, then they pass the costs on to the students.

And because the students are guaranteed federal Pell Grants, it becomes indirect Federal funding.

Rather than go after the institutions for as an industry being shady as hell (especially the big state schools, btw), we go after students who are simply trying to improve their lot in life. Whether or not they are made for college, it doesn't take someone special to recognize that there is a linear and causal relationship between possessing a college degree and increased wealth. It's only recently with the costs of a degree eclipsing so much of any potential wealth gains that people are questioning the value. But in economies good and bad, a college degree tends to yield better wages.

How do we fix it? Well, like with SO MANY issues, we have to get beyond the bumper sticker sloganeering and realize that there's a lot of work to do and that there are a lot of wealthy people who don't want that work to be done.

Firstly, we need a much better and more coherent Vocational Education pipeline like they have in Europe. When BMW opened a plant in SC, they found they had a hard time filling certain positions due to a lack of skilled labor. The problem is that the sector is dominated by private and often very shady profiteers that return very little education and take a lot of money. This sector need massive reform because the country needs this education sector to produce and significantly more and better. Plenty of people wouldn't go to college if they had a better alternative to a better life.

We have to develop a Uniform Higher Education Building Code that addresses infrastructure for higher education and Federal Grant money can be used, and if not, if a student can be asked to pay for it with fees at all (because a school could always just mandate it and that would just increase unsubsidized student loan use which would be bad)

We have to reform the Pell Grant system such that any institution that does build something would be clear if they added a fee, if it were "Pell covered" or if it were "fee eligible". If not, a school might not build it because students would balk at taking out loans and the Administration would have to fundraise and/or pay for it out of current endowments.

The point is that this and so many other problems aren't UNsolvable, but they require tons of work on the POLICY and the abandonment of the politics because nothing gets done when politics are at play.

Sounds like a roundabout way or more respectfully, a more detailed way of saying the same thing. Of course, I may be looking at it from a slightly different angle. My wife is a Dean. I hear stories just about every night. The names have been changed to protect anonymity.

 

[Mackeyser]

Sounds like a roundabout way or more respectfully, a more detailed way of saying the same thing.

In some ways. But I'm putting a big share of the responsibility on the Universities/Colleges. Their mission is to educate and the leaders of those institutions of higher learning have abdicated their responsibilities in large part to the big money interests.

The telling part?

Student debt has passed Credit Card debt as the biggest non-secured debt in this country and that's insane.

Someone's making a crapload of money on the backs of students...

It's just shady. I got 4 kids either college age or close and we've been telling them all along that because I'm a disabled vet, if they wanted to go to college, they better get scholarships!

 

[jrry32]

Ironic thing is one of the major reasons college has gotten so expensive to go to is government grants. Like stated already in this thread, everybody isn't cut out for college. But, that is what is preached in high school. The end result is kids and their parents do everything they can to get junior into college. The government, in its infinite wisdom, makes it possible to many to go to college that don't belong there. Meanwhile, the colleges, being businesses themselves, see all the government money available and open the doors to those who can't cut the mustard in that environment. The kicker is the government is footing the bill so why shouldn't the University of Don'tletagoodthinggotowaste up the tuition. You can correlate the rising cost of tuition with the increased government grants. If we would issue grants to the "smart" people only, I'm thinking the government would get more bang for their buck, tuition would stabilize, and there would be plenty of grant money left over for technical college to satisfy some skilled tradesmen of our world. Everybody can't be a doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

Who would be the one deciding which people belong in college? Who would decide who the "smart" people are?

 

[Ramhusker]

Who would be the one deciding which people belong in college? Who would decide who the "smart" people are?

I think that used to be done by the universities for decades. They had entrance exams. I'm sure there are plenty of schools that still do it, especially the top ones.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think that used to be done by the universities for decades. They had entrance exams. I'm sure there are plenty of schools that still do it, especially the top ones.

I never took the SAT or ACT and was a pretty below average student in high school. Most of those entrance exams are thrown out the door for rich families or student athletes anyway.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Other than the fact 'Thordaddy' would have been all over this thread, "Like Sink on crap"! And I mean that in the most complimentary way! This thread probably should never have been started!! It's Just Too Political!!
( And for the Record, I'm as Conservative a Republican as you'll Find anywhere!)
I won't be back to this thread!

I consider myself pretty conservative too.

But; I am enjoying the opinions I've read so far. Good discussion, IMO, without any disrespect.

 

[jrry32]

I think that used to be done by the universities for decades. They had entrance exams. I'm sure there are plenty of schools that still do it, especially the top ones.

Promoting more exclusivity for universities sounds like a terrible way to go.

You'll keep a lot of smart people from going to college. Which seems to be the opposite of your goal.

 

[CGI_Ram]

How do we get more kids educated?

I am not suggesting they need to be scholars.

Educated.

I am certain there is nothing more important to our future.