Buttigieg 2020

[henrygandorf 29,174]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

these are my favorite tweets.  let's unpack.

-"imagine taking more money from billionaires than nearly any other candidate".  so we've established he's not first.  is he second?  third?  does it matter at that point?  unless the number is zero (bernie) then you're taking money from billionaires.  is 10 ok but 15 bad?  i don't take much pride that the astros won more games than nearly any other team in mlb this year.  we've also established that billionaires have them same threshold of giving as millionaires, right?  

-this tweet says he's opposing free public college.  which, ok.  he's proposing free public college for families that need the assistance based on income.  right now, there is no "free college" plan.  people who can afford it will still pay for it, public or private, like they have for centuries.  to frame this as "opposing free college" is sloppy at best, and purposely deceptive at worst (which is far more likely).

-if you think this is framed as some "principled stand" against wealthy people, then you're a bernie supporter (maybe warren) who's looking for a fight.  pete is not doing that, and i don't think making rich people pay for their children's college would count as "a principled stand".  give me a fucking break.  if pete got on stage and said "to all the billionaires out there, we've had enough, and it's time to take a stand!" then i could possibly get on board.  but this ain't that.

-she's "honestly gobsmacked".  well there you have it.  i'm sure lower-middle class families who get free public college for their children will be less gobsmacked, but hell, what do i know?

once again, there's plenty to pick on with pete.  yes, lots of it is stupid.  but if people really have to go this far out of their way to try to make a point, they should spend their time in a more productive way.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Pete handled that better than Biden or Warren would have.

Just now, henrygandorf said:

to frame this as "opposing free college" is sloppy at best, and purposely deceptive at worst (which is far more likely).

Pete is explicitly standing in opposition to free college in support of free-for-some college. That's the whole point Pete himself is making. Like everything else from him, it's partial and pointlessly means-tested. It's not a universal program.

Quote

-if you think this is framed as some "principled stand" against wealthy people, then you're a bernie supporter (maybe warren) who's looking for a fight.

Pete Buttigieg: "Instead of providing free college tuition for the children of millionaires and billionaires, I will open doors of opportunity for Americans who choose not to go to college with massive investments in apprenticeships, workforce training, and lifelong learning programs."

What does the italicized portion mean? What is its connotation? Be honest.

[Js1 85,047]

46 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Booker isn’t gay?

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

That's a beard. VP out front of Whitehouse shoulda told ya.

[Js1 85,047]

Just now, Rougarou said:

That's a beard. VP out front of Whitehouse shoulda told ya.

I'm kind of an expert on this.  Booker ain't gay. 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete is explicitly standing in opposition to free college in support of free-for-some college. That's the whole point Pete himself is making. Like everything else from him, it's partial and pointlessly means-tested. It's not a universal program.

pete is definitely opposed to "free college for all".  he is proposing a partial program.  he is not proposing a universal program.  he is not being sneaky about it, or misrepresenting himself on it.  you are correct in this assessment.  to call him out for being not-bernie on it is totally on-brand for bernie supporters.  but doesn't make this some sort of scam.

if you're a voter, and you don't want partial/non-universal stuff, then you should find a different candidate (which obviously you have).  the tweet was framed differently, which is why i thought it was fun to pick on it.

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete Buttigieg: "Instead of providing free college tuition for the children of millionaires and billionaires, I will open doors of opportunity for Americans who choose not to go to college with massive investments in apprenticeships, workforce training, and lifelong learning programs."

What does the italicized portion mean? What is its connotation? Be honest.

once again, this is why tweets are tough, because of their spacial limitations.  this is really two parts of one broader policy.  to me, the italicized portion means free college for all would be very expensive.  so instead of "wasting" that money on college for families who can clearly afford it, pete is proposing to invest money on programs for those who choose not to go to college.  pete has been very vocal about "gig economy" workers, and how we need to realize the world is changing, and how that affects healthcare, fair pay, and so forth.

it's connotation?  that people in different wealth classes have different needs.  he's trying to thread the needle and show he wants to help the people/families that need it, while still being somewhat fiscally responsible.  you can buy it or shit on it, but taking objection to borrowing bernie's phrase is silly.  calling it dishonest is, well, dishonest.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Ballin’

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

pete is definitely opposed to "free college for all". 

So then how is it dishonest or sloppy to say he opposes free college?

He does. He opposes free college. He wants a mixture of free college and paid college.

Quote

once again, this is why tweets are tough, because of their spacial limitations. 

Isn't Pete supposed to be smart?

Quote

to me, the italicized portion means free college for all would be very expensive.  so instead of "wasting" that money on college for families who can clearly afford it, pete is proposing to invest money on programs for those who choose not to go to college.

Cool, so he's opposing free college.

And in doing so, he's making an argument that spending money on free college is a waste if the children of people making over $100k/yr get it. Well, that's his policy, his message is about millionaires and billionaires. Public and private positions, kind of.

Quote

it's connotation?  that people in different wealth classes have different needs.  he's trying to thread the needle and show he wants to help the people/families that need it, while still being somewhat fiscally responsible.

And there it is. Attacking from the right.

Quote

  you can buy it or shit on it, but taking objection to borrowing bernie's phrase is silly.  calling it dishonest is, well, dishonest.

Pete's rhetorical argument is that Bernie is going to waste hard-working middle class tax dollars on paying for the educations of rich kids, right?

(And their healthcare. And their student loans. And their medical debt. and on and on and on)

[sasquatch69 581]

Cue BT's head exploding in 3 ... 2 ...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/pete-buttigieg-iowa-frontrunner-democrats-2020.html

Quote

Tonight, as the Democratic candidates take the stage for yet another debate, Pete Buttigieg will stand at his podium as the Iowa front-runner. He has come a long way. So how did the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend get here? And how will his competitors try to knock him off his game at the debate?

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,631]

nm

Edited November 20, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Fozzz 152]

[TexEx15 17,421]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Imagine being Pete’s national press secretary and complaining about unfair coverage from the intercept with a straight face.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So then how is it dishonest or sloppy to say he opposes free college?

He does. He opposes free college. He wants a mixture of free college and paid college.

it's the framing of her garbage tweet.  you and i are being honest with each other and are agreeing for the most part.  he doesn't oppose free college.  he opposes free college for all.  it's like the m4a brand and the confusion behind actual policy proposals.

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Isn't Pete supposed to be smart?

lulz.  these twitter limitations make it a lot easier for garbage "pundits" trying to take an angle to start shit on twitter.

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool, so he's opposing free college.

And in doing so, he's making an argument that spending money on free college is a waste if the children of people making over $100k/yr get it. Well, that's his policy, his message is about millionaires and billionaires. Public and private positions, kind of.

he's opposing free college for all, yes.  he has a different policy.  i'm not saying it's better or worse.  bernie people tend to think he's right about everything, so if your policy is different, than by definition, you're wrong.  but hey, america right?

58 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And there it is. Attacking from the right.

you know what the phrase "thread the needle" means, right?  that was my take on it, and i think it's in line with his other programs.  if you're accusing me of attacking from the right, ok.  i don't know for a fact that's pete's angle.  but yeah, if you're attacking bernie, it all comes from the right, my man.

59 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's rhetorical argument is that Bernie is going to waste hard-working middle class tax dollars on paying for the educations of rich kids, right?

(And their healthcare. And their student loans. And their medical debt. and on and on and on)

i am positive that is exactly how bernie supporters view this, yes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

I’M PETE BUTTIGIEG, AND AFTER A LOT OF SOUL-SEARCHING, I’VE REALIZED THAT I AM A YOUNG JOE BIDEN

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-pete-buttigieg-and-after-a-lot-of-soul-searching-ive-realized-that-i-am-a-young-joe-biden

Quote

Sorry, progressives, but I never made you any promises. Sure, I may have endorsed the Green New Deal, single-payer healthcare, and decriminalizing border-crossings. But after a lot of soul-searching, and significantly more poll-testing, it turns out that I am a centrist in the mold of Joe Biden. Amazing timing, right?

For a while there I wasn’t sure if I was a male Liz Warren, a quiet Bernie Sanders, or maybe an articulate Steve Bullock. Nope. After looking deep in my heart, and paying a bunch of consultants gazillions of dollars, I’ve realized that I just happen to be exactly the kind of middle-of-the-road candidate so many Americans are clamoring for. Only less handsy, better at social media, and lucid.

Yup, just think of me as a young, hip, multilingual Uncle Joe, with more gun selfies, fewer teeth, and none of the baggage/experience. Biden has a bad habit of speaking from the heart, which is why he’s always rambling on about cereal. I’m far more calculating — everything I say has been run through an algorithm, focus-grouped by boomers, and rehearsed with Mark Zuckerberg. Isn’t that reassuring?

Now, it seems to rankle my opponents that I spent the past year speaking in riddles and ducking fundamental policy questions before finally generating my platform via McKinsey’s Palatable EThos Emulator (PETE)®. One of Beto O’Rourke’s aides even described me as a “human weather vane,” which is an outrageous comparison because most weather vanes are made out of steel, while I am made out of steel-cut oatmeal.

I don’t need lessons from Beto on courage — political, personal, or musical. What’s more courageous than exploiting a vulnerable 77-year-old man for the good of the country? Or accepting millions of dollars from lobbyists and bankers when I know I’ll take a little friendly fire for it? Or doing the “High Hopes” dance in public, when, again, friendly fire is imminent? (Lighten up, folks! Who doesn’t love Chaos! At the Arcade?)

Heck, I know I’ll take some heat at the debates, but not because of my policies (which barely exist), my résumé (ditto), or the fact that I’m a wealthy white guy from Harvard who feels that this moment “calls for someone like me.” No, it’s because this primary is getting to be a two-way race between myself and Elizabeth Warren. Hey, quit laughing.

Oh, you think it’s between Warren and Biden? This is Biden 2.0, baby, and it’s only a matter of time before I make the beta version obsolete. They’re not saying “Let’s go, Joe!” at the bingo halls in Iowa. They’re saying, “Peeeeeeeeeete!” and then, about me, I think, “BINGO!” I’m almost as popular in Iowa as I am in the New York Times’ Opinion section, so I must be doing something right.

If it’s easier, though, you can just think of me as an elfin Michael Bloomberg, or a Republican.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,125]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

it's the framing of her garbage tweet.  you and i are being honest with each other and are agreeing for the most part.  he doesn't oppose free college.  he opposes free college for all.  it's like the m4a brand and the confusion behind actual policy proposals.

If I were to say "Nation X has free public colleges" what would the assumption be? If a restaurant says "Free Refills" what is the assumption?

This has nothing to do with branding or catchphrases, it's about the simple meanings of words and phrases.

Quote

he's opposing free college for all, yes. 

Here's a phrase: Free College

Potential definition #1 - The tuition is free at colleges

Potential definition #2 - The tuition is free at colleges, as long as your parents make under $100k/yr

Which one makes the most sense? Be honest.

Quote

he has a different policy.  i'm not saying it's better or worse.

You should try.

Try making arguments about policy and not endlessly whining about twitter. Pretty soon we're going to be a full year into your posting in favor of Pete while offering zero analysis into real issues and subsisting solely on a diet of personality complaints.

Quote

i am positive that is exactly how bernie supporters view this, yes.

How do YOU view it?

Pete's rhetorical argument is that Bernie is going to waste hard-working middle class tax dollars on paying for the educations of rich kids, right? It's kind of a yes or no.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I were to say "Nation X has free public colleges" what would the assumption be? If a restaurant says "Free Refills" what is the assumption?

if i was to say “free public college is not available in nation x” what would the assumption be?  your problem is all based on a badly angled tweet intentionally written to mischaracterize pete’s position.  maybe take your own advice and do your own research, instead of cheerleading lazy attacks. 

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Here's a phrase: Free College

where is pete promoting this?

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Try making arguments about policy and not endlessly whining about twitter.

don’t post garbage tweets and i won’t whine about them. 

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How do YOU view it?

i’m not in favor of free college at all.  i don’t parrot the opinions of my candidate, nor do i champion tweets opposing others. 

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's rhetorical argument is that Bernie is going to waste hard-working middle class tax dollars on paying for the educations of rich kids, right? It's kind of a yes or no.

you’re demanding that i give my opinion on someone else’s argument that he’s not even making?  sure, dude. 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

If I were to say "Nation X has free public colleges" what would the assumption be? If a restaurant says "Free Refills" what is the assumption?

38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i’m not in favor of free college at all.

You don't favor free public college/university tuition for the kids of people making $100k or less per year?

Quote

you’re demanding that i give my opinion on someone else’s argument that he’s not even making?

I am trying to understand his argument and asking you whether or not my characterization is fair. Hence ", right?"

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I were to say "Nation X has free public colleges" what would the assumption be? If a restaurant says "Free Refills" what is the assumption?

except...he’s not saying “free college”. you’re as bad as the tweeter.  

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You don't favor free public college/university tuition for the kids of people making $100k or less per year?

i favor other free/forgiveness policies more. 

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am trying to understand his argument and asking you whether or not my characterization is fair. Hence ", right?"

i think he knows he has to pick and choose in regards to funding.  all his policies are like this.  he gets to take a poke at the wealthy without vilifying, and gets to offer things to lower income families, without going full socialist.  thus, threading the needle.  that’s my interpretation. 

i don’t think it has anything to do with bernie other than the familiar phrase. 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

except...he’s not saying “free college”. you’re as bad as the tweeter.  

I didn't say he was.

You said BJG was being dishonest in saying Pete opposes free college. Now I am simply trying to figure out what "free college" means so we can determine just how dishonest BJG is being.

If I were to say "Nation X has 'free college'." what would the assumption be?
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free for students who pass a means test

Which one is more likely to be the common interpretation of "free college"? 

Quote

i favor other free/forgiveness policies more. 

OK cool like what?

Quote

i think he knows he has to pick and choose in regards to funding.

Does he? Because in looking at his policies the only actual funding mechanism I see is rolling back the Trump tax cuts. Which has to fund...
- M4AWWI
- The Douglass Plan
- Various community investments
- Anything else

What are his other funding proposals?

Quote

 all his policies are like this.  he gets to take a poke at the wealthy without vilifying, and gets to offer things to lower income families, without going full socialist.  thus, threading the needle.  that’s my interpretation. 

i don’t think it has anything to do with bernie other than the familiar phrase. 

What does "full socialist" mean?

*sniff* *sniff*

I'm smelling something.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You said BJG was being dishonest in saying Pete opposes free college. Now I am simply trying to figure out what "free college" means so we can determine just how dishonest BJG is being.

my criticism (well, one of several) of the tweet was the implication that pete was being hypocritical taking all the billionaire moneys and then taking some “principled stand” against the wealthy.  he’s taken money from the wealthy like most of the other candidates. yay. his college plan is on a sliding scale, not an “opposition to free college”.  

that’s like saying he’s opposed to public healthcare.  sorry that nuance is prohibited in the twittersphere.  spinning everything down to my assumption on four word catch phrases is about the worst possible gotcha attempt since whatever hugo is about to post about pete. 

it was a lame misinterpretation via tweet, i’m moving on.

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK cool like what?

healthcare. student loan forgiveness. medical debt forgiveness. tuition should be more tax friendly. 

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "full socialist" mean?

as far left on the political spectrum as bernie. maybe i should’ve said “progressive”? 

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*sniff* *sniff*

I'm smelling something.

it’s your upper lip. 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

his college plan is on a sliding scale, not an “opposition to free college”.  

His college plan is a sliding scale because he opposes free college.

If I were to say "Nation X has 'free college'." what would the assumption be?
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free for students who pass a means test

Which one is more likely to be the common interpretation of "free college"? 

Quote

that’s like saying he’s opposed to public healthcare.  sorry that nuance is prohibited in the twittersphere.  spinning everything down to my assumption on four word catch phrases is about the worst possible gotcha attempt since whatever hugo is about to post about pete. 

I have spent months begging you for long-form thought and analysis of these issues and you never engage. Why do you spend so much time whining condescendingly about the short-form nature of Twitter only to hide and dodge when substantive discussion is offered?

Quote

healthcare. student loan forgiveness. medical debt forgiveness.

How does "healthcare. student loan forgiveness. medical debt forgiveness." address tuition affordability?

Quote

tuition should be more tax friendly. 

What the fuck does this mean for a college freshman who can't afford college?

Quote

as far left on the political spectrum as bernie. maybe i should’ve said “progressive”? 

Who is it that calls progressive politics "full socialist"?

I can't put my finger on it.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

His college plan is a sliding scale because he opposes free college.

ok.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I have spent months begging you for long-form thought and analysis of these issues and you never engage.

you say begging, i say repeatedly hurling insults at my candidate.  tomato, potato.  i'm one of the last people here that even responds to your nonsense at all.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How does "healthcare. student loan forgiveness. medical debt forgiveness." address tuition affordability?

uh, it doesn't.  you asked which programs i preferred and i listed them.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What the fuck does this mean for a college freshman who can't afford college?

so now we're starting a new conversation about college affordability?  or are you "just asking questions"?

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is it that calls progressive politics "full socialist"?

I can't put my finger on it.

jesus christ, you're officially the worst.  isn't bernie a socialist?  or a democratic socialist?  i don't think it's a bad word and have never used it that way.

he took a poke at the wealthy without shitting all over them, and he's offering free stuff to lower income families to appeal to progressives.  he was trying to thread the needle and be a people-pleaser - that's my interpretation - that his lane is in between biden and bernie/warren.

this was certainly productive.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

you say begging, i say repeatedly hurling insults at my candidate.

I promise to not hurl any insults.

If I were to say "Nation X has 'free college'." what would the assumption be?
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free for students who pass a means test

Which one is more likely to be the common interpretation of "free college"? 

Quote

so now we're starting a new conversation about college affordability?  or are you "just asking questions"?

This whole conversation is about "free college", so no that's not "new" at all. I am trying very hard to get some substantive discussion out of you about this issue that Pete brings up.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I promise to not hurl any insults.

If I were to say "Nation X has 'free college'." what would the assumption be?
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free
- Their public universities/colleges are tuition free for students who pass a means test

Which one is more likely to be the common interpretation of "free college"? 

if you were to say " sweden has free college" i would think all colleges in sweden are free to all.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This whole conversation is about "free college", so no that's not "new" at all. I am trying very hard to get some substantive discussion out of you about this issue that Pete brings up.

no, this whole conversation is about a tweet that intentionally mischaracterized pete's tweet, because he hit a nerve when he said millionaires and billionaires.  i get it, the bros have pagers that go off when that happens.  you picked 1/4 of my comments about it, asked for my interpretation, tried your hardest, and now it's over.

i think offering free college to more people is a worthy cause.  it would be great if everyone who wanted to go to college could go to college.  it is not #1 on my personal list of prioritized free/subsidized needs for this country.  that would be my opinion if pete worked in a butcher shop in ft lauderdale. 

i think if some variation of "let's make college more affordable" was on the table, then i like the idea of a sliding scale that starts with those who need it more, and might not otherwise be able to go at all.  i have zero evidence that those people are more likely to excel, flunk out, commit arson, i have no idea.  i think no matter where you draw the line, there will be arbitrary bitching, so there's no "right" answer or level.  but incremental change is still change.  

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

if you were to say " sweden has free college" i would think all colleges in sweden are free to all.

OK cool thanks

Quote

no, this whole conversation is about a tweet that intentionally mischaracterized pete's tweet, because he hit a nerve when he said millionaires and billionaires.

You just said that "free college" means "free to all". So BJG wasn't mischaracterizing Pete at all. Pete opposes free college. Pete proposes means-tested tuition support. And that's fine, but he opposes free college.

Quote

i think offering free college to more people is a worthy cause.  it would be great if everyone who wanted to go to college could go to college. 

Revenue generation aside, do you think free college is a better policy than means-tested tuition support?

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So BJG wasn't mischaracterizing Pete at all. Pete opposes free college. Pete proposes means-tested tuition support. And that's fine, but he opposes free college.

all that posturing just for this?  this is your big moment?  hilarious.

she mischaracterized him as being a hypocrite by taking the most kinda the most money from billionaires, and then taking a "principled stand" against the wealthy by not letting their kids have free college.  letting poor kids go to college for free isn't victimizing the wealthy any more than modern medicine prolonging lives is victimizing undertakers.

just because bernie is taking a stand against the wealthy, doesn't mean that anyone else mentioning rich people is doing the same thing in a shitty, less effective way.  bernie is great, but other people are allowed to have ideas too.

she opened with something vague (is pete top 3 in billionaire money taken?  top 5?  does it matter?).  she spun things in a way that would appeal to her followers (i can only assume bernie peeps), and then closed with basically saying "where does he get the fucking balls?"

i don't know if bjg is your sister-in-law or something, but you shouldn't get so offended when her shit gets called out.  i'm quite sure low-income families won't care either way. 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Revenue generation aside, do you think free college is a better policy than means-tested tuition support?

like i said, i don't like either.

[ChiTownDoc 21,090]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

If you support Pete because you're a cynical conservative who sees the current political mood? Cool, you're smart.

If you support Pete because you think he's a practical progressive who will enact structural change? You have the brain of a cockatiel.

*Phew... Relaxes*
 

Wait - what’s a cockatiel?   Shit

[bad_teammate 13,125]

8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

like i said, i don't like either.

OK, cool. In terms of making college more affordable/accessible, what do you think a good idea is? What do you like? (Well, I guess you might not think making college more affordable is something we need to address?)

8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

she mischaracterized him as being a hypocrite by taking the most kinda the most money from billionaires, and then taking a "principled stand" against the wealthy by not letting their kids have free college.

He rakes in billionaire/millionaire cash and uses anti-"billionaires and millionaires" rhetoric in his sales pitch. I think most observers would notice a profound disconnect there. Everyone who cares about campaign finance, for instance, will notice the typical major politician double-speak.

I wouldn't even argue that Pete is uniquely bad about it, he's just a typical (aspirational-)DC politician. He's kind of a perfected version of a DC politician in many ways.

Quote

i'm quite sure low-income families won't care either way. 

Given the state of Pete's campaign and their recent unethical manipulation of minority representation, maybe don't presume to speak for disadvantaged groups on Pete's behalf.

lol

Let them eat cake!

[GRHorn 105]

 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

---------

If we believe that the value of public education isn’t limited to its function as a generator of human capital or labor-force readiness — and thus, that it does not merely benefit its direct recipients but also, society as a whole — then the distributional implications of tuition-free college don’t necessarily matter. (In my own view, the growing correlation between college-degree attainment and immunity to xenophobic nationalism strengthens the case for seeing higher education as a broad social good.)

...

Now, if Pete had restricted his complaint to millionaires, he’d have something closer to a point. (Many upper-middle-class families do own more than $1 million in assets.) According to the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal, children whose parents are in the top one percent of earners would commandeer a whopping 1.4 percent of spending on tuition-free college. It’s hard to see why that sum should be a dealbreaker, especially if the policy is funded with higher taxes on the rich. Still, it isn’t literally nothing.

If Konczal restricted his estimates to billionaires however, it would be pretty darn close to zero percent. There are just over 2,000 billionaires in the entire United States, and they are not known for sending their kids to public schools. At present, the average cost of out-of-state tuition at a public university in the U.S. is $25,000. As a percentage of one’s spending power, $25,000 is for a (low-digit) billionaire what one movie ticket is for the median American household. It’s ludicrous to think that making public college tuition-free would cause billionaires to send their kids to public universities in droves, especially when one considers that once public higher education is tuition-free, a public-college diploma will be an even weaker marker of elite status than it already is.

And yet, the biggest problem with Pete’s fear of Americans’ footing the bill for the college-bound children of billionaires may be this: If it were actually true that making public college tuition-free would cause billionaire trust-fund kids to start sharing classrooms and social circles with working-class adolescents, that would make the case for tuition-free college stronger.

---------

Bad policy based on bad logic and a bad (McKinsey/corporate Dem) worldview.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Pete needed another angle to make him competitive with Warren/Sanders curious voters by creating an illusion of sticking it to the billionaires. 

Billionaires: “Yes! Pete reads me perfectly, I was totally scared I wasn’t going to be able to send my kids to college for free.  That Pete is really smart.”

[ChiTownDoc 21,090]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

---------

If we believe that the value of public education isn’t limited to its function as a generator of human capital or labor-force readiness — and thus, that it does not merely benefit its direct recipients but also, society as a whole — then the distributional implications of tuition-free college don’t necessarily matter. (In my own view, the growing correlation between college-degree attainment and immunity to xenophobic nationalism strengthens the case for seeing higher education as a broad social good.)

...

Now, if Pete had restricted his complaint to millionaires, he’d have something closer to a point. (Many upper-middle-class families do own more than $1 million in assets.) According to the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal, children whose parents are in the top one percent of earners would commandeer a whopping 1.4 percent of spending on tuition-free college. It’s hard to see why that sum should be a dealbreaker, especially if the policy is funded with higher taxes on the rich. Still, it isn’t literally nothing.

If Konczal restricted his estimates to billionaires however, it would be pretty darn close to zero percent. There are just over 2,000 billionaires in the entire United States, and they are not known for sending their kids to public schools. At present, the average cost of out-of-state tuition at a public university in the U.S. is $25,000. As a percentage of one’s spending power, $25,000 is for a (low-digit) billionaire what one movie ticket is for the median American household. It’s ludicrous to think that making public college tuition-free would cause billionaires to send their kids to public universities in droves, especially when one considers that once public higher education is tuition-free, a public-college diploma will be an even weaker marker of elite status than it already is.

And yet, the biggest problem with Pete’s fear of Americans’ footing the bill for the college-bound children of billionaires may be this: If it were actually true that making public college tuition-free would cause billionaire trust-fund kids to start sharing classrooms and social circles with working-class adolescents, that would make the case for tuition-free college stronger.

---------

Bad policy based on bad logic and a bad (McKinsey/corporate Dem) worldview.

Didn’t look at it like this and admit that’s pretty compelling.  

[Fozzz 152]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete needed another angle to make him competitive with Warren/Sanders curious voters by creating an illusion of sticking it to the billionaires. 

Billionaires: “Yes! Pete reads me perfectly, I was totally scared I wasn’t going to be able to send my kids to college for free.  That Pete is really smart.”

No, you're thinking of Liz!  Pete's Pitch is similar to Biden's except Pete has a functioning brain.  He doesn't want or need Sanders' voters.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

39 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Didn’t look at it like this and admit that’s pretty compelling.  

Yeah, it's the reason universal programs are just better in general than means-tested ones. Means-testing purposefully divides and segregates, which is terrible for social unity and social mobility.

The last 30 years of corporate Democratic rule and its adoration for means-testing should have already taught us this lesson, but some are either incapable of learning or the socioeconomic segregation of our society is a feature in their eyes, not a bug.

[bonnieblue 542]

When you means test something, the easier it is to demonize and eliminate. Also, plenty of "rich" parents don't pay their children's way through college or use the threat of withholding tuition as tool to get them to fall in line with the hopes, dreams etc. of the parents.

We're supposed to be the gold-standard of the world and want a highly-educated populace. Public tuition should be free or extremely reduced for all students regardless of parental income.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Ringing endorsement right here

Pete is being evasive on answering direct yes or no questions.  I’m sure the media will keep pressing him on this. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Fozzz 152]

He is centering the criterion of whether someone should be appointed to a particular position on whether that person is qualified and would do a good job.  Is that not eminently reasonable?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

And by qualified, I mean bundled the most cash and wants an ambassadorship.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And by qualified, I mean bundled the most cash and wants an ambassadorship.

You seem to be unfairly reading something into his statement (that bundling would not impact his analysis of whether someone would do a good job) that is simply not there.  I'd recommend taking a mental break and maybe do the Mayor Pete happy dance for an hour or two.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

I like this new Fozz

[bad_teammate 13,125]

After an hour of High Hopes and a milk enema, you are on the road to wellville!

 

[Fozzz 152]

Imagine a future where instead of a daily mandatory two minutes of hate, we have a daily mandatory two minutes of the Mayor Pete dance.  Sounds pretty awesome to me.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

45 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Imagine a future where instead of a daily mandatory two minutes of hate, we have a daily mandatory two minutes of the Mayor Pete dance.  Sounds pretty awesome to me.

u will be hearing from my lawyers, sir

[bad_teammate 13,125]

One of the 6 for Pete is Sly James.

His name rules.

His suit rules.

I have no idea what his politics are like but I like him.

 

[Hank Scorpio 17,709]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

4 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

 

The only thing that matters is beating Donald Trump!

[Fozzz 152]

Those polls are meaningless at this stage of the race.  I suspect the reason one would cite them has less to deal with their probativeness than with Pete's sexual preference if you know what i mean.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Sure thing, Al, that's what a homophobe WOULD say.