Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

I've taken out a bunch in loans because I had little choice.

 

[zero shift]

So you think that you should come from a wealthy enough background to pay for college out of pocket, work a shitty minimum wage job for 20 hours a week and magically pay for thousands in tuition in addition to living expenses, or rely entirely on scholarships, otherwise you don't get to go to college?

.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to take out loans but there should be some control with this.

As I said above, I don't disagree that these kids shouldn't be taken out loans. There's a big gap between not letting them take out ANY loans at all what so ever and giving banks the ability to give kids a $25,000 with a 13% interest rate for a single year.

 

[Byakuya769]

Yep, heterosexual privilege.

With a dose of "service member" trump card. As if the public doesn't know the primary reasons why many join the service.

 

[RDreamer]

I think we've just pointed out the two conflicting things that show we need to completely overhaul the system and socialize it.

Basically with the system we have now you can either allow anyone to get a loan and thus allow poorer people to be able to get higher education, but you face the risk that you're putting an enormous burden on them that might potentially ruin a lot of lives. Alternatively, you can regulate who's taking out those loans and mitigate the bad effects, because people who won't be able to pay it won't be taking out loans... but then this means that those from poorer background won't be getting that leg up.

Or you could go the third way and just socialize the system like other countries have done. Pay for schooling for everyone. The fact is that earlier on in our country's life you only needed a high school diploma to get into the middle class and earn a working wage. Essentially all your schooling you needed was paid for by society at large, and that's a good thing. College was extra, and that's fine. Now that is not the case. You need a college degree. Thus, we need to go back to that and make sure all the schooling that you realistically need is provided for by society. It does us all good to do this. We get nothing by sticking with the shitty either or we're on right now.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

You're right I forgot the social aspect of politics. Though when you look at Occupy Wall street it was virtually solely focused on the economic area.

I think that even on economic policies there are many fundamental differences. Banks though, are where the two come closest, you're right. There's just no support for big changes and everything is largely cosmetic.

Without any context, sure, that's fair, but isn't that kind of viewpoint only reasonable when you have other options for going to school and you chose to take out a loan? A lot of kids take out student loans because they have to, because if they want a better live they have to take out a loan.

This is interesting.

 

[The Librarian]

My wife and I will have more in student loan debt than I'd like to admit publicly when we're both done with graduate school, but we still agreed to take out a loan. Context or not, regardless of circumstance, you agreed to pay back a loan. It's a horrifically shitty system, but you should still pay your debts because you knew the downsides going into it. Hoping to change how we finance higher education is fine, but wanting to absolve everyone of debt they've built up just because is unreasonable.

Eh. I think you're being unfair here, even on yourself. This'll end up being a circular argument, but you're still being forced to do it if you want a better life for yourself. Yeah, you know the downsides going in, and you agree to do it, but that doesn't make what you're being forced into a non-shitty deal. It's still a shitty deal. You should still be able to complain about it and ask for relief. And it's probably better for the economy that students don't have loan debt. They'll be able to spend their money on other stuff.

I am so very glad I don't have to worry about student loans.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So you think that you should come from a wealthy enough background to pay for college out of pocket, work a shitty minimum wage job for 20 hours a week and magically pay for thousands in tuition in addition to living expenses, or rely entirely on scholarships, otherwise you don't get to go to college?

I think we need to seriously address the costs of college education and dramatically expand federal loan and grant programs, and more aggressively regulate private loans. Federal aid given to a school should be tied to their controlling tuition rates so as to motive them to control costs. And the loan forgiveness rules we have now should also be expanded; society as a whole would benefit greatly, not to mention the ways it will help individuals.

Personally, I'm not wealthy. But I've been saving for my kids college every month since they turned 1 year old. But they will be in the vast minority of their peers.

 

[RDreamer]

This is interesting.

It's also the truth nowadays. Regardless of if it's possible to get into the middle class without going to college, that is not how we view it.

I always use this Elizabeth Warren quote to demonstrate this:

"Twice as many people in America in 2002 believe that the moon shot landing was faked... than believe you can make it into the middle class in America without a college diploma."

College diploma is a must now. There is no choice here, really, besides a choice of possibly have a better life and failure.

 

[zero shift]

I think we've just pointed out the two conflicting things that show we need to completely overhaul the system and socialize it.

Basically with the system we have now you can either allow anyone to get a loan and thus allow poorer people to be able to get higher education, but you face the risk that you're putting an enormous burden on them that might potentially ruin a lot of lives. Alternatively, you can regulate who's taking out those loans and mitigate the bad effects, because people who won't be able to pay it won't be taking out loans... but then this means that those from poorer background won't be getting that leg up.

Or you could go the third way and just socialize the system like other countries have done. Pay for schooling for everyone. The fact is that earlier on in our country's life you only needed a high school diploma to get into the middle class and earn a working wage. Essentially all your schooling you needed was paid for by society at large, and that's a good thing. College was extra, and that's fine. Now that is not the case. You need a college degree. Thus, we need to go back to that and make sure all the schooling that you realistically need is provided for by society. It does us all good to do this. We get nothing by sticking with the shitty either or we're on right now.

The fact that we have to pay for schooling of any kind I find ridiculous. Education is a human right. Personally though I think the college fiasco is ignoring a much bigger problem of the fact that there really aren't enough middle-class jobs that pay well. I mean hell bachelor's degrees are becoming less and less useful now. Imagine in the utopian society where nearly everyone has one. What's next? Masters? Doctors? Is everyone really gifted enough for that or at least can live up to that potential in an environment of parents having 40 hour work weeks? The middle class has had it rough as we got to the latter part of transferring to an industrial economy to a service one.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Does anyone have any articles describing why the cost of education is higher to other nations and how it compares? Teachers pay, better facilities stuff like that taken into account. I'm Google-ing now myself, but if anyone remembers any good articles that would be cool.

College diploma is a must now. There is no choice here, really, besides a choice of possibly have a better life and failure.

True.

 

[Giant Panda]

Only kind of related to this point, but I'll say it anyway. Setting aside that pro-life may or may not be a legitimate viewpoint, the Pro-Life Movement in America is far more about controlling women's sex lives than it is about abortions.

Oh, I completely agree, I should've been more specific. The movement in America is largely made up of complete hypocrites. They should be the number one advocates of birth control, not its number one enemy. I understand the view that life begins before birth though.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

They should be the number one advocates of birth control, not its number one enemy.

Indeed. That's what you get when you try to force/demand abstinence in this day and age. When I think of these people I always remember the fact that my grandparents got married at an age where I was still watching cartoons all weekend. People got married so incredibly early in the old days, abstinence wasn't even a fucking issue! By the time you even really start being into the other sex and start thinking about having sex you're almost at an age to get married lol. Nowadays plenty of people don't get married until they've been to college and have a job. Who's going to wait until 30 to get their fuck on!

Spoiler

Me.

 

[Tim-E]

I think we can all agree that the education system in the United States is grade A garbage. This is the greatest problem this country faces that it seems like no one ever talks about.

 

[Hitokage]

Personally, I'm not wealthy. But I've been saving for my kids college every month since they turned 1 year old. But they will be in the vast minority of their peers.

I was pretty much cut off from the estate, so to speak.

 

[RDreamer]

Personally, I'm not wealthy. But I've been saving for my kids college every month since they turned 1 year old. But they will be in the vast minority of their peers.

I wish I could do this, but I probably can't. I'll be paying my own student loans probably until any kid I have graduates, or nearly that time.

That's the kind of shitty cycle this stuff creates. I want to help my children, but likely won't be able to, because I'll still be busy trying to pay for the help my own parents couldn't give me, etc.

 

[Manmademan]

There should never be a legitimate market for certain drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Here I have to disagree with you. There already IS a legitimate market for heroin, it's called "oxycontin" and it's available via prescription.

having ludicrious criminal penalties for illegal drugs (cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin) causes more problems than it solves. It destroys neighborhoods and families, and can render an otherwise able bodied men and women totally unemployable for decades. Get rid of these, it does no one any good. Monetary fines and/or penalties like loss of driving privileges makes way more sense.

As for distribution- legalizing/decriminalizing consumption but still slapping "distribution" with criminal penalties is better, but only slightly. What defines "distribution?" is it carrying more than enough for one person? two people? ten? fifteen? where's the line? Leaving this up to the judgement and good word of your friendly neighborhood police is a Bad Idea.

on top of that, you still create a significant black market for this (since people are still going to demand the product, but can't find it, since legally selling it is banned) and this will continue to fuel local gangs, mexican cartels, etc and so on. Regulating the substances and selling them through state run institutions (much like PA does for alcohol) at a minimal profit margin destroys the incentive for black market distributors, and the primary source of funds for gangs and cartels vanishes overnight.

Abuse is still potentially a problem, but no more so than we already have from tobacco addiction, alcohol addiction, or addiction to prescription painkillers (which, again IS heroin for all intents and purposes). Contrary to what after school specials might have taught us, cocaine and heroin aren't magically addictive substances that turn you into a junkie the first time you try them. Now that the healthcare system is approaching something resembling sanity, it's feasible to fund treatment centers for when these things get out of hand.

just my two cents.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Strange, public spending on education as percentage of gdp:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS/countries/1W-US-NL-SE-FI-JP-CN?display=graph

Also, the graph can show the spending on primary, secondary and tertiary education per student. The US is in the average for primary, then drops significantly for secondary and for tertiary they're at the lower end of these countries. I should have looked up the top 7 best educated countries to compare, but eh.

That's the kind of shitty cycle this stuff creates. I want to help my children, but likely won't be able to, because I'll still be busy trying to pay for the help my own parents couldn't give me, etc.

This is a big problem.

 

[Hitokage]

Here I have to disagree with you. There already IS a legitimate market for heroin, it's called "oxycontin" and it's available via prescription.

Not the same molecule.

on top of that, you still create a significant black market for this (since people are still going to demand the product, but can't find it, since legally selling it is banned) and this will continue to fuel local gangs, mexican cartels, etc and so on. Regulating the substances and selling them through state run institutions (much like PA does for alcohol) at a minimal profit margin destroys the incentive for black market distributors, and the primary source of funds for gangs and cartels vanishes overnight.

There's a black market for ivory, but that doesn't mean we should just let elephants get killed off so there isn't a black market anymore.

 

[zero shift]

I think we can all agree that the education system in the United States is grade A garbage. This is the greatest problem this country faces that it seems like no one ever talks about.

Oh they do. Only when the solution are private schools. I mean it worked so well for Chile. Just like their social security system.

 

[The Librarian]

The fact that we have to pay for schooling of any kind I find ridiculous. Education is a human right. Personally though I think the college fiasco is ignoring a much bigger problem of the fact that there really aren't enough middle-class jobs that pay well. I mean hell bachelor's degrees are becoming less and less useful now. Imagine in the utopian society where nearly everyone has one. What's next? Masters? Doctors? Is everyone really gifted enough for that or at least can live up to that potential in an environment of parents having 40 hour work weeks? The middle class has had it rough as we got to the latter part of transferring to an industrial economy to a service one.

Stagnating wage growth has a lot to due with the decline of unions. See: Canada.

Abortion is the only one I can think of right now. No matter how you slice it, you're basically killing something that was (most likely) going to become a human being. But I wouldn't vote based on it and if I were a deciding supreme court justice or whatever, I wouldn't vote to ban it. Though I guess that's perhaps not really ''taking a conservative stance''. If you meant to imply that it's something you would vote for in a conservative way, if you were in some kind of position of power, like say supreme court justice.

Not saying men shouldn't/can't have an opinion on abortion, but it's definitely a topic I think their opinion should take a backseat, kind of like how you've stated here. I find it hard to believe we'd be debating about birth control and abortion if Congress were 50+% female. Abortion's a weird issue. It's a case that if you want less of it, you should have as much access to it as possible. Easily accessible abortion clinics and easily obtainable birth control will limit the number of abortions far better than outright banning it. It's not a case of "having no abortions at all" versus "having abortions up the wazoo." It's a case of "having a small amount of abortions" versus "having more abortions." Banning abortion doesn't limit the number of abortions, it just makes it harder for women to get abortions.

Oh, I completely agree, I should've been more specific. The movement in America is largely made up of complete hypocrites. They should be the number one advocates of birth control, not its number one enemy. I understand the view that life begins before birth though.

I think the hardest part about abortion is properly defining when's something is a life and when something isn't. Biologically, there's really no difference between a baby in the womb a week before birth and a baby right after birth. Only a month into pregnancy? Huge difference.

 

[GhaleonEB]

NM

 

[Manmademan]

Not the same molecule.

I don't see how this is relevant. Crack isn't "the same molecule" as powder cocaine either, as it's usually cut with all kinds of additional nonsense. Random Ecstasy pills and pure MDMA? same deal. Functionally, it's the same thing. Oxy isn't the "same molecule" as heroin, but the effect is largely the same when you crush it and snort it. One can even argue that oxycontin abuse is a much, much larger problem than heroin is at this point, and it's totally legal to buy.

There's a black market for ivory, but that doesn't mean we should just let elephants get killed off so there isn't a black market anymore.

The ivory black market has the downside of oh, torturing and needlessly killing endangered animals. drug abuse only hurts the user. It's not anywhere near equivalent. Come on man, you're better than this.

 

[RDreamer]

I think the hardest part about abortion is properly defining when's something is a life and when something isn't. Biologically, there's really no difference between a baby in the womb a week before birth and a baby right after birth. Only a month into pregnancy? Huge difference.

That's why I don't think we should as a whole properly define it. It's a scaling process from one extreme to the other. At one end it's almost nothing, and at the other it's a baby. That's a large reason why I think we should stay out of it politically. It should be up to the individual where they feel comfortable drawing the line given whatever circumstances they're faced with. Not only life in this process a sliding scale, but so are the circumstances leading up to such a choice.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

The ivory black market has the downside of oh, torturing and needlessly killing endangered animals. drug abuse only hurts the user. It's not anywhere near equivalent. Come on man, you're better than this.

Lots of crimes are the result of various addictions to incredibly damaging and addictive drugs. There are external victims too.

 

[Manmademan]

Lots of crimes are the result of various addictions to incredibly damaging and addictive drugs. There are external victims too.

and I attempted to address this.

Let's look back at when alcohol was illegal. The black market sale and distribution did more harm than good by providing a revenue stream for organized crime. quick and dirty from wikipedia:

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition had transformed the cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs. In a study of over 30 major U.S cities during the prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicide by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6% and police department costs rose by 11.4%. This was largely the result of “black-market violence” as well as the diverting of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the hope of the prohibitionist movement that the outlawing of alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[69]

we can see the exact same effect as a result of the war on drugs, most notably in the inner cities. It's a long conversation and worth having, but I don't think I could do it justice in the limited time I have to post this afternoon.

Legalizing/Decriminalizing these things will do a lot more to lower and eliminate crime than keeping it illegal will. For the record, i'm also for legalizing and regulating prostitution, and eliminating the age to buy tobacco and alcohol entirely.

 

[Hitokage]

I don't see how this is relevant. Crack isn't "the same molecule" as powder cocaine either, as it's usually cut with all kinds of additional nonsense. Functionally, it's the same thing. Oxy isn't the "same molecule" as heroin, but the effect is largely the same when you crush it and snort it. One can even argue that oxycontin abuse is a much, much larger problem than heroin is at this point, and it's totally legal to buy.

Why are you going off on a tangent? You expect me to think that since two different opiates are abused that I shouldn't worry as much as if only one was?

The ivory black market has the downside of oh, torturing and needlessly killing endangered animals. drug abuse only hurts the user. It's not anywhere near equivalent. Come on man, you're better than this.

Absolutely false. I'm not even going to bother explaining why.

Let's look back at when alcohol was illegal.

Alcohol has the key distinction of being especially entrenched in western society. The mere fact it was made illegal does not explain the impacts of Prohibition by itself.

 

[Jack Remington]

You guys have to remember DADT in context. It was actually a step forward for gay rights at the time it was enacted, because gays would no longer be actively investigated.

 

[Tim-E]

drug abuse only hurts the user.

This is so incredibly wrong. I've seen families ravaged by someone using drugs. I've seen situations in which the livelihood of children be in jeopardy because of the drug use from their parents. I've been drug users lose their jobs, leaving them unemployable while having to feed children. It's factually wrong to say that drug users only impact themselves.

 

[Manmademan]

Why are you going off on a tangent? You expect me to think that since two different opiates are abused that I shouldn't worry as much as if only one was?

I'm not going off on a tangent. I stated that oxycontin (as an opiate) was functionally equivalent to heroin (also an opiate) based on potential for abuse and effect on the user. since a legal and regulated marketplace for oxycontin as an opiate already exists, saying that there is never a good reason for a legal and regulated marketplace for heroin is false.

replying that "it's not the same molecule!" is entirely irrelevant when we're in a conversation about drug abuse.

Absolutely false. I'm not even going to bother explaining why.

not going to bother? or can't? I've already pointed out how keeping it illegal spikes crime rates. Its not true that there are NO effects to family members and communities from drug abuse (there are, as there are from alcohol abuse, and prescription pain killer abuse) but these negative effects are VASTLY outweighed by effect of the war on drugs.

Alcohol has the key distinction of being especially entrenched in western society. The mere fact it was made illegal does not explain the impacts of Prohibition by itself.

I think you might find that marijuana (which is on its way to being legal) cocaine, opiates, and prostitution are also very well entrenched. someone determined to find either illegally can do so VERY quickly.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

we can see the exact same effect as a result of the war on drugs, most notably in the inner cities. It's a long conversation and worth having, but I don't think I could do it justice in the limited time I have to post this afternoon.

Legalizing/Decriminalizing these things will do a lot more to lower and eliminate crime than keeping it illegal will. For the record, i'm also for legalizing and regulating prostitution, and eliminating the age to buy tobacco and alcohol entirely.

Legalizing drugs that could be considered equal to alcohol is fine, but there's a whole list of drugs that cannot be considered equal in any way whatsoever and shouldn't be legal. The war on drugs is bad because it's a war on all drugs.

 

[Hitokage]

replying that "it's not the same molecule!" is entirely irrelevant when we're in a conversation about drug abuse.

Actually, it's a discussion rooted in chemistry so handwaving this part isn't a good idea.

not going to bother? or can't?

Stopped reading. I'm done here.

 

[Manmademan]

Actually, it's a discussion rooted in chemistry so handwaving this part isn't a good idea.

Stopped reading. I'm done here.

bye. nice speaking to you.

Legalizing drugs that could be considered equal to alcohol is fine, but there's a whole list of drugs that cannot be considered equal in any way whatsoever and shouldn't be legal. The war on drugs is bad because it's a war on all drugs.

Now we're talking about what's "equivalent" to alcohol. There's a lot of different ways you could do this, but the effect of alcoholism on the human body is far, far worse than the effect of cocaine addiction on the body. Cocaine withdrawal is just unpleasant. Alcohol withdrawal can kill you.

I think the prevalence of alcohol in society has done a lot to obscure just how damaging alcohol actually is to the body when used in excess. It's really, REALLY nasty.

 

[besada]

I think we talk about how fucked up the U.S. educational system is all the time. We just don't do much about it. As usual, we have any number of studies that show what we're doing is counter-productive, and we do it anyway.

Of course, as a liberal, I think college tuition should be free to those who desire an education, while simultaneously setting up trade colleges for those who want to work in a trade. And I think your loans should be forgiven. I'd rather have you dumping your cash into the economy than sending it to a bank who's too afraid to loan it out.

 

[Jack Remington]

So you think that you should come from a wealthy enough background to pay for college out of pocket, work a shitty minimum wage job for 20 hours a week and magically pay for thousands in tuition in addition to living expenses, or rely entirely on scholarships, otherwise you don't get to go to college?

I've got to address this topic.

If I were designing the system from scratch, I'd have publicly-funded university or trade-school education, with your destination dependent on your high school performance. I'd implement strict cost controls, and put some highly skilled accountants in charge of the audits, doing absolutely everything possible to prevent waste and keep costs low.

That system doesn't fly in "OMG Socialism!" America, so we finance a lot of stuff privately. But just because we finance something privately does not mean that our public objective (in this case, having an educated population) ceases to exist. Education is still a societal function; we just finance it privately, because for whatever reason we believe that that's more efficient or moral.

There's an implicit social contract that states that you take out loans for college because you'll get a job and contribute to society afterwards. If there are no jobs, society has broken its social contract with you. Why should you have to start paying your loans if that's the case? I'm not talking about isolated instances, but the aggregate. When a significant percentage of college graduates can't find jobs after graduation, their society has failed them, and they should be absolved from their part in the implicit social contract.

I'm not saying the loans should never be repaid, but at the very least:

- Interest should not accrue while the student is unemployed. This is a big one, and it's absolutely criminal that we don't do this.
- The principal should also be decreased by some amount each year of unemployment to reflect the lowered value of the degree.

Then once the economy improves, and the student finds a job, he/she could resume making payments as usual.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Now we're talking about what's "equivalent" to alcohol. There's a lot of different ways you could do this, but the effect of alcoholism on the human body is far, far worse than the effect of cocaine addiction on the body. Cocaine withdrawal is just unpleasant. Alcohol withdrawal can kill you.

I think the prevalence of alcohol in society has done a lot to obscure just how damaging alcohol actually is to the body when used in excess. It's really, REALLY nasty.

It is absolutely very damaging and the fact that it's so entrenched in society - to the point that if you don't drink you can't even go to parties (according to Gaf!) and are looked at weirdly - is worrying. The question of what is more damaging and how damaging, but also how many users suffer from the most damaging effects should be considered before we can determine which drugs can or can't be ''accepted''.

 

[Manmademan]

I think we talk about how fucked up the U.S. educational system is all the time. We just don't do much about it. As usual, we have any number of studies that show what we're doing is counter-productive, and we do it anyway.

Of course, as a liberal, I think college tuition should be free to those who desire an education, while simultaneously setting up trade colleges for those who want to work in a trade. And I think your loans should be forgiven. I'd rather have you dumping your cash into the economy than sending it to a bank who's too afraid to loan it out.

I'd agree here. I'm not sure where you'd start to fix it though. Is it purely a funding issue? a bureaucracy issue? Does it go back to parental involvement? There are studies all over the place that argue for any of these, or all of these.

The only thing i'm SURE of is that voucher programs are absolutely not the right way to fix it. Anyone opposing these schemes (and to a lesser extent charter schools) has my vote.

It is absolutely very damaging and the fact that it's so entrenched in society - to the point that if you don't drink you can't even go to parties (according to Gaf!) and are looked at weirdly - is worrying. The question of what is more damaging and how damaging, but also how many users suffer from the most damaging effects should be considered before we can determine which drugs can or can't be ''accepted''.

Alcohol use IS entrenched, and is is extremely damaging. far more so than cocaine or opiates, which would include heroin. Again, withdrawal from cocaine or heroin addiction is uncomfortable and unpleasant, but it isn't usually fatal. Withdrawal from alcohol addiction can easily be fatal- and that's not getting into long term effects like your liver shutting down, etc. So, the MOST damaging effects of alcohol are equivalent to, or a lot worse than the most damaging effects of cocaine and opiates.

we can mitigate the damaging physical effects of cocaine and opiate addiction when they happen with treatment, as we do with prescription painkillers when they get out of hand. funding such centers would cost a fraction of what we spend trying to keep them illegal.

 

[Diablos]

Already posted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/scott-walker-electoral-vote_n_2558362.html

WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) did not rule out allocating the state's electoral votes proportionally Saturday.

"It's an interesting idea," he told a Newsmax interviewer at the National Review Institute Summit in Washington after speaking at a lunch. "I haven't committed one way or the other to it. For me, and I think any other state considering this, you should really look at not just the short-term but the long-term implications. Is it better or worse for the electorate?

Said Walker, "Some might argue that it would give more opportunity for candidates to jump in; others suggest it might reduce it."

"I think we have to very careful in changes like that. But I think it's worth looking at," he said.

A Huffington Post analysis showed that if the electoral college allocated its votes proportionally by congressional district, then former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election. In the 2012 election, Republicans retained a majority in the House but lost the House popular vote, thanks to gerrymandered districts in several states. Nebraska and Maine currently allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and two to the winner statewide.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus backs changing Wisconsin and other mostly blue states' electoral votes. Such a plan would likely give Republicans more electoral votes in national elections because blue states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan have substantially red districts. Walker has previously expressed interest in the idea.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) came out against a similar plan percolating in his state's legislature Friday, with a spokeswoman saying the governor believes the state's system works "just fine."

Fuckin' hell.

 

[Jack Remington]

The good news is that it would probably only work once. Can you imagine Romney winning the presidency after losing the popular election by 5 million votes? The backlash would be enough to destroy the electoral college and probably get rid of gerrymandering at the same time.

 

[Diablos]

The good news is that it would probably only work once. Can you imagine Romney winning the presidency after losing the popular election by 5 million votes? The backlash would be enough to destroy the electoral college and probably get rid of gerrymandering at the same time.

I don't know, 2000 was pretty bad and you'd think it would have been enough to demonstrate that we have a semi-flawed method of running elections, but no one really gave a shit until it was too late.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm writing a fun post for dHP now, all about Glenn Grothman, the guy I was talking about yesterday. It's kind of fun to let loose on someone.

There's an implicit social contract that states that you take out loans for college because you'll get a job and contribute to society afterwards. If there are no jobs, society has broken its social contract with you. Why should you have to start paying your loans if that's the case? I'm not talking about isolated instances, but the aggregate. When a significant percentage of college graduates can't find jobs after graduation, their society has failed them, and they should be absolved from their part in the implicit social contract.

This is definitely a great way of wording things. I've tried to say it in the past, but I think you hit it on the head here.

Personal responsibility is fine on the individual level, but when you start seeing large macro changes throughout society then at least a certain percentage of that, especially if it's failure, isn't on the individual, and certainly the problems resulting from those failures need to be addressed by the aggregate.

 

[Manmademan]

The good news is that it would probably only work once. Can you imagine Romney winning the presidency after losing the popular election by 5 million votes? The backlash would be enough to destroy the electoral college and probably get rid of gerrymandering at the same time.

The problem is that gerrymandering has made it extremely difficult to remove the representatives that are FOR these things.

I live in PA, and even though democrats outnumber republicans here we're all concentrated into a small number of districts, and republicans control both houses. Backlash in blue or purple counties would have almost no effect on this.

maybe a backlash on such a wide scale that it resulted in a constitutional amendment might work, but i wouldn't hold my breath on that- we're simply too polarized.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Great post Squirrel, thanks for the insight. Did you work on any campaigns last year?

Volunteered on one and served as a party precinct chair (but never was asked to do anything because of that.)

Interesting meeting yesterday, I actually had an education lobbyist refer in non-negative terms to a Republican governor's budget. Not that that will win him an support from that special interest.

 

[Jack Remington]

I don't know, 2000 was pretty bad and you'd think it would have been enough to demonstrate that we have a semi-flawed method of running elections, but no one really gave a shit until it was too late.

Gore won by only half a million votes, and people were still pretty pissed.

Romney squeaking out a victory despite Obama's 2012 margin would be intolerable to the majority of the public, IMO.

 

[Nert]

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

Interesting question. I'm very socially liberal and I've become more liberal on other sorts of policies over time. For example, I'm comfortable with robust spending programs that have high returns on investment, like early childhood care and education. I think that "liberals" (which I'm assuming are people to the left of the Democratic party) get the economics wrong on some issues, however.

1) Free trade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember a pretty strong liberal backlash against NAFTA, to the point where Obama sort of ran against it in the primaries before embracing it again. I'm a strong supporter of lowering barriers to trade, migration, and investment around the world, because such actions lead to higher national output and more choices for individuals. One of my biggest foreign policy gripes with the current administration is that they're not putting any real effort into reviving the DOHA trade talks.

2) Energy subsidies. I believe in climate change (and I think it's sad that that can't be taken as a given in this political climate), but I don't think that subsidizing currently existing technology is the way to address it. A carbon tax will do far more to realign the incentives of energy producers towards finding long term solutions. Subsidies, on the other hand, often go to things with little merit beyond their political popularity. See: "clean coal."

3) Immigration. Liberals are certainly better about this than Republicans, but I'm familiar with the sentiment that only "high skilled" workers should be let in while low skilled workers should be kept out. I disagree with this and think that more immigration for individuals of all skill levels should be encouraged. The demographic benefits of more immigration in general should be obvious when you consider our aging population, but in addition to that, an influx of immigrants of all skill levels doesn't significantly affect the wages or employment prospects of low skilled native workers.

I'm also not concerned about low skilled immigrants being "exploited" under less restrictive immigration policies. It would be much better for them to be legal citizens earning at least minimum wage than it is for the illegal immigrants currently filling the market's demand for low skilled labor to continue to earn far less than minimum wage.

4) Misc. tax policies: High corporate tax rates are not a good thing; there are far more effective ways to reduce inequality that are less damaging to economic activity. Sales taxes, however, are generally fine. You guys have already discussed this over the past few days, but sales taxes have relatively small dead weight losses and their regressive aspects can be addressed by targeted spending programs. Most of the countries that are more progressive than the United States use sales taxes to a larger degree than we do.

 

[The Librarian]

That's why I don't think we should as a whole properly define it. It's a scaling process from one extreme to the other. At one end it's almost nothing, and at the other it's a baby. That's a large reason why I think we should stay out of it politically. It should be up to the individual where they feel comfortable drawing the line given whatever circumstances they're faced with. Not only life in this process a sliding scale, but so are the circumstances leading up to such a choice.

Poor choice of words on my part, but on the whole I agree with you. I was trying to say that's the main sticking point in discussions rightly or wrongly, because policy-wise, it's clear from statistics and comparisons of different policies among countries what we should be doing.

 

[Jack Remington]

Nert, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. You sound like a liberal who really studied the micro-econ side of policies.

 

[Tim-E]

Interesting question. I'm very socially liberal and I've become more liberal on other sorts of policies over time. For example, I'm comfortable with robust spending programs that have high returns on investment, like early childhood care and education. I think that "liberals" (which I'm assuming are people to the left of the Democratic party) get the economics wrong on some issues, however.

1) Free trade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember a pretty strong liberal backlash against NAFTA, to the point where Obama sort of ran against it in the primaries before embracing it again. I'm a strong supporter of lowering barriers to trade, migration, and investment around the world, because such actions lead to higher national output and more choices for individuals. One of my biggest foreign policy gripes with the current administration is that they're not putting any real effort into reviving the DOHA trade talks.

2) Energy subsidies. I believe in climate change (and I think it's sad that that can't be taken as a given in this political climate), but I don't think that subsidizing currently existing technology is the way to address it. A carbon tax will do far more to realign the incentives of energy producers towards finding long term solutions. Subsidies, on the other hand, often go to things with little merit beyond their political popularity. See: "clean coal."

3) Immigration. Liberals are certainly better about this than Republicans, but I'm familiar with the sentiment that only "high skilled" workers should be let in while low skilled workers should be kept out. I disagree with this and think that more immigration for individuals of all skill levels should be encouraged. The demographic benefits of more immigration in general should be obvious when you consider our aging population, but in addition to that, an influx of immigrants of all skill levels doesn't significantly affect the wages or employment prospects of low skilled native workers.

I'm also not concerned about low skilled immigrants being "exploited" under less restrictive immigration policies. It would be much better for them to be legal citizens earning at least minimum wage than it is for the illegal immigrants currently filling the market's demand for low skilled labor to continue to earn far less than minimum wage.

4) Misc. tax policies: High corporate tax rates are not a good thing; there are far more effective ways to reduce inequality that are less damaging to economic activity. Sales taxes, however, are generally fine. You guys have already discussed this over the past few days, but sales taxes have relatively small dead weight losses and their regressive aspects can be addressed by targeted spending programs. Most of the countries that are more progressive than the United States use sales taxes to a larger degree than we do.

I agree with a lot of what you've said.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think we talk about how fucked up the U.S. educational system is all the time. We just don't do much about it. As usual, we have any number of studies that show what we're doing is counter-productive, and we do it anyway.

Of course, as a liberal, I think college tuition should be free to those who desire an education, while simultaneously setting up trade colleges for those who want to work in a trade. And I think your loans should be forgiven. I'd rather have you dumping your cash into the economy than sending it to a bank who's too afraid to loan it out.

I think part of the problem is that High School is worthless these days, either we make it relevant again or like you said we make College free (schools like Columbia can becomes the equivalent of a private school) and just make it semi-mandatory, for example you'd have a choice of a trade school or a university but you have to do something. As it is a Master's degree is starting to take the place of what a four year degree used to be.

 

[Diablos]

The problem is that gerrymandering has made it extremely difficult to remove the representatives that are FOR these things.

I live in PA, and even though democrats outnumber republicans here we're all concentrated into a small number of districts, and republicans control both houses. Backlash in blue or purple counties would have almost no effect on this.

maybe a backlash on such a wide scale that it resulted in a constitutional amendment might work, but i wouldn't hold my breath on that- we're simply too polarized.

Our best bet is that Corbett is denied a second term in 2014 and we get a Democratic Governor who would not allow this kind of thing. Really hoping this happens. But I can't think of anyone who is strong enough to win. Maybe Nutter? If he can secure the turnout in Philly it's a done deal. Being that he is from there he should hopefully have no trouble. Onorato sucked so bad, being from Pittsburgh I knew that as soon as he won the primary, given the climate was bad for Dems to begin with, he didn't have a chance in hell.

Corbett is awful. He's worse than Tom Ridge. He's easily the worst governor we've had in decades. A true embarrassment.

 

[ezekial45]

When does the Obama/Clinton joint interview supposed to come on?