Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

This begs the question of how you do you feel about how Rwanda was handled?

I do not support military interventions that have nothing to do with the US' national interests or protection. Preventing genocide has never been a national interest of the United States, and falls in the U.N.'s ballpark. Speaking of Rwanda, the United States actively worked to thwart U.N. activity there, including trying to get them to withdraw troops. We should have let the U.N. do its job.

This comes off as very patronizing and is easy to say from your armchair in the US. You clearly are ignorant about why this is all happening. If people where so better off before in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc., then why have the green revolution at all? Clearly the people who live there did not like what they had and wanted reforms. I guess it's their fault they had autocratic regimes. For all your talk of the West meddling, Assad was not backed by the West and neither was Gaddafi.

Iraq was not better off before the death of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of civilians during a decade of occupation and terror attacks? Iraq was not better off under Saddam than ISIL?

Libya is worse off, as most countries tend to be after a vacuum is created within. I'm not saying the people of these countries shouldn't rebel against oppressive governments, it's their right to do so obviously. But I want no part in another country's civil war or rebellion. We have a century of evidence to suggest it doesn't fucking work, especially in the Middle East.

Who is talking about a complete solution? Why should that define our objectives? Please spell out for me why we should sacrifice the good for the perfect.

What is our objection? Without a larger military involvement, ISIS will continue to ransack the country. They're exterminating groups of people everywhere, and will continue to do so until someone takes them out. It's not our job to take them out, and I continue to ask those advocating intervention: how far are you willing to go. Save the people on the mountain and declare victory, and pat yourselves on the back while thousands more die elsewhere?

 

[Giant Panda]

Although I will say that we actually did arm Syrian rebels, and if anything helped create ISIS it was that.

That's not true. Most of the aid was non-lethal, and weapons the US did give out were very light.

 

[Dominican Power]

How the hell is this buffoon Peter King the chairman of the house committee of homeland security? This clown David Gregory just let's him rant about how this is Obama's fault on his own fucking show. No backbone what so ever.

 

[Owzers]

How the hell is this buffoon Peter King the chairman of the house committee of homeland security? This clown David Gregory just let's him rant about how this is Obama's fault on his own fucking show. No backbone what so ever.

people say the media has a left wing bias, but come Sunday it's republican talking points time

Iraq can go **** itself if they are letting everywhere outside of Baghdad be taken over by ISIS. Talks of isis attacking south of baghdad. I admit to a limited understanding of history, but it looks like the Kurds are willing to fight and the Iraqi government has up to 100,000 security forces/army that is complacent in letting everything fall but Baghdad.

 

[speculawyer]

people say the media has a left wing bias, but come Sunday it's republican talking points time

Iraq can go **** itself if they are letting everywhere outside of Baghdad be taken over by ISIS. Talks of isis attacking south of baghdad. I admit to a limited understanding of history, but it looks like the Kurds are willing to fight and the Iraqi government has up to 100,000 security forces/army that is complacent in letting everything fall but Baghdad.

If ISIS were to start taking territory South of Baghdad then the shit could really hit the fan. That is where the main oil fields and oil terminal resides. But I doubt they'll be able to get & hold territory down there.

 

[Diablos]

If ISIS were to start taking territory South of Baghdad then the shit could really hit the fan. That is where the main oil fields and oil terminal resides. But I doubt they'll be able to get & hold territory down there.

Oh shit, I didn't even realize this.

I really hope the ISIS situation gets under control in one way or another.

 

[Devil]

Although the US is often regarded as world-police in a negative way, I'm personally really glad that at least someone is willing to do this job when necessary. It's a ****ing shame that my homecountry or rather the entire EU doesn't do anything about the situation in Iraq. I also hate how some media portray Obama's decision as hypocritical, being a "war-president" and such. Damn, there is no reason to not intervene in such a crisis except selfishsness. Myself, being half Kurd, am quite thankful for his actions. I can see why people from the US were upset about the war in Iraq, even though I'm personally happy that Hussein's genocide on the Kurds was stopped as a byproduct. But I just can't see what's wrong with the army's current actions. They're doing everyone a favor in my mind.

Btw, is this just the place to talk about US politics? Are there other threads? Because I just want to state how bad the results for the Turkish elections are. The result was predictable and the biggest alternative was probably just as bad.. But Erdogan is going to become Turkey's Putin with the changes to the constitution that are about to happen now.

 

[speculawyer]

Steven Seagal Plays Blues Gig at Crimean Bikers' Festival
The Hollywood Reporter By Nick Holdsworth
2 hours ago

Hollywood actor and singer Steven Seagal has played a gig in the Crimean city of Sevastopol in defiance of international sanctions against Russia's seizure of the Black Sea peninsula last March.

Fans waved Russian flags as the singer played guitar on a stage decked out with the black, blue and red flags of Ukrainian rebel group the Donestk People's Republic.

https://news.yahoo.com/steven-seagal-plays-blues-gig-crimean-bikers-festival-171106850.html

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Preventing genocide has never been a national interest of the United States, and falls in the U.N.'s ballpark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide As signers at this convention we have a duty to "to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime." Advocating turning a blind eye is similar to the murder of Kitty Genovese: someone else will take care of it. How can the US claim to champion righteous causes when it lets preventable evil actions to happen? If no one fears repercussions, then there is a good chance that more of these events will increase in their audacity and magnitude. Our involvement at least gives these vicious actors pause. They have to at least consider if it is worth the wrath of the US to carry out these heinous crimes.

Libya is worse off, as most countries tend to be after a vacuum is created within. I'm not saying the people of these countries shouldn't rebel against oppressive governments, it's their right to do so obviously. But I want no part in another country's civil war or rebellion. We have a century of evidence to suggest it doesn't fucking work, especially in the Middle East.

What side have we picked? I don't see us involved in the Libya civil war. Same with Syria, we have not fully backed any of the rebels nor gone out of our way to depose Assad. Our main involvement in both has been to prevent mass murder. In Libya, we stopped Gaddafi from "cleansing Benghazi door by door". We even offer to let him leave by plane to South America, but he refused. We stopped Assad from further using chemical weapons on his people. Two wins if you ask me.

What is our objection? Without a larger military involvement, ISIS will continue to ransack the country. They're exterminating groups of people everywhere, and will continue to do so until someone takes them out. It's not our job to take them out, and I continue to ask those advocating intervention: how far are you willing to go.

Obama has not stated our objective is to take them out. Of course it is a lot harder to attack ISIS when it is hold up in an urban environment and commits atrocities. But we can strike them when they are in the open and not let them harm further civilians. Our objective is simply to prevent further loss of life where possible. Not to impose peace or order.

Save the people on the mountain and declare victory, and pat yourselves on the back while thousands more die elsewhere?

This argument is illogical. You sarcastically acknowledge that we are doing good by saving those on the mountain and morn those dying elsewhere. Why morn when you would have us choose saving no one at all over saving a few? Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

History is so predictable. Economic crisis and economic instability lead to fascist (or highly nationalist conservative movements) type movements.

Russia
Isis
Turkey
Egypt

Although the US is often regarded as world-police in a negative way, I'm personally really glad that at least someone is willing to do this job when necessary. It's a ****ing shame that my homecountry or rather the entire EU doesn't do anything about the situation in Iraq. I also hate how some media portray Obama's decision as hypocritical, being a "war-president" and such. Damn, there is no reason to not intervene in such a crisis except selfishsness. Myself, being half Kurd, am quite thankful for his actions. I can see why people from the US were upset about the war in Iraq, even though I'm personally happy that Hussein's genocide on the Kurds was stopped as a byproduct. But I just can't see what's wrong with the army's current actions. They're doing everyone a favor in my mind.

Btw, is this just the place to talk about US politics? Are there other threads? Because I just want to state how bad the results for the Turkish elections are. The result was predictable and the biggest alternative was probably just as bad.. But Erdogan is going to become Turkey's Putin with the changes to the constitution that are about to happen now.

Wtf happened to turkey. It always seemed so progressive. Guess erdogan really neutered the army. Atatürk has got to be shaking his head.

 

[benjipwns]

How the hell is this buffoon Peter King the chairman of the house committee of homeland security? This clown David Gregory just let's him rant about how this is Obama's fault on his own fucking show. No backbone what so ever.

Hey, that's IRA terrorism supporter AND professional buffoon Peter King.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/12/rep-peter-king-who-wants-to-arrests-jour
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09king.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030406635.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/peter-king-terrorism-problem

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide As signers at this convention we have a duty to "to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime." Advocating turning a blind eye is similar to the murder of Kitty Genovese: someone else will take care of it. How can the US claim to champion righteous causes when it lets preventable evil actions to happen? If no one fears repercussions, then there is a good chance that more of these events will increase in their audacity and magnitude. Our involvement at least gives these vicious actors pause. They have to at least consider if it is worth the wrath of the US to carry out these heinous crimes.

And yet the US turned a blind eye/tacitly supported genocide on multiple occasions after that convention, from ethnic cleansing in East Pakistan to Cambodia in the 70s, and Saddam's gassing of the Kurds; plus the initial support for Rwandan genocide. We have no high ground to stand on and I would prefer we stopped pretending otherwise.

What side have we picked? I don't see us involved in the Libya civil war. Same with Syria, we have not fully backed any of the rebels nor gone out of our way to depose Assad. Our main involvement in both has been to prevent mass murder. In Libya, we stopped Gaddafi from "cleansing Benghazi door by door". We even offer to let him leave by plane to South America, but he refused. We stopped Assad from further using chemical weapons on his people. Two wins if you ask me.

We prevented mass murder in Syria? Ridiculous. It's still going on right now. In fact our intervention in Iraq raises the question of why didn't we fully intervene in Syria. Intervention is a slippery slope that is rarely worth participating in. Clearly we calculate "wins" differently.

This argument is illogical. You sarcastically acknowledge that we are doing good by saving those on the mountain and morn those dying elsewhere. Why morn when you would have us choose saving no one at all over saving a few? Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

I'm not mourning anyone. My point is that you can't approach this situation from the "moral high ground" while advocating half measures that aren't effective overall. My view is that there should have been no intervention, the president has taken a different approach...but the question now becomes "what's next." When does the mission creep begin, because if the goal is to prevent massacres then it should be a consistent policy right? This strikes me as aimless foreign policy, which is pretty much typical Obama, six years in. I don't think there's anything illogical about pointing out hypocrisy.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

https://news.yahoo.com/steven-seagal-plays-blues-gig-crimean-bikers-festival-171106850.html

Steven Seagal is a singer...?

 

[speculawyer]

Steven Seagal is a singer...?

He is a dancer too!

 

[Cat]

What does PoliGAF think of this article?

Ask liberals why college is getting so expensive, and they’ll probably tell you it’s a case of government neglect. States have cut education funding. Federal Pell Grants for low-income students haven’t kept up with the cost of tuition. Regulators have failed to crack down on predatory for-profit schools that charge high prices for sometimes worthless degrees.

Ask conservatives the same question, and they’ll tell you the opposite. The real problem, they’ll say, is a pernicious case of government coddling. The unlimited supply of federal student loans has allowed schools to hike their prices to stratospheric heights without driving away undergrads

Slate: Smash the System? The dangerous plan to make college cheaper by busting “the college cartel.”

I have been under the impression college costs are out of control, as is student loan debt, but I can't say I've known why. Last I heard in general conversation was that schools were jacking up prices needlessly because of irresponsible spending.

 

[Tamanon]

Honestly, I don't think state colleges and community colleges are out of control. My costs for college itself(books included) comes out to ~$4k per semester. Most of my expenses come from living expenses.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

Btw, is this just the place to talk about US politics? Are there other threads? Because I just want to state how bad the results for the Turkish elections are. The result was predictable and the biggest alternative was probably just as bad.. But Erdogan is going to become Turkey's Putin with the changes to the constitution that are about to happen now.

It's not that easy to change the constitution. The AKP needs to have 2/3 of the parliament votes, which they don't have. Next election is somewhere in the first half of 2015 and they will lose seats and probably won't even have a majority anymore. Worse thing that could happen is that the AKP retains their majority in parliament and have to write out a referendum regarding constitual changes. Which judging from todays election they don't have a chance of winning. There was a really low turn out, which meant that around 20% of the opposition boycotted this election because of various reasons.

I don't think this is as strong of a result as Erdogan hoped it would be. As it stands now he will lose power as a President. Sure he has all the strings in his hands, but his party will go into the next elections without him. We will see how this turns out.

Biggest winner imo is the dude from the Kurdish party. I am fully Turkish and think he is awesome. He just gets it and I think he will win big next year. Only wish he would fully distance himself from anything PKK related, he does that and I would vote for him.

 

[B-Dubs]

Honestly, I don't think state colleges and community colleges are out of control. My costs for college itself(books included) comes out to ~$4k per semester. Most of my expenses come from living expenses.

State schools have seen a large increase but still aren't that bad, my entire 4 year CUNY education cost about the same as 1 year at NYU. The raise in state college costs can be attributed to the cuts in their funding, as far as the private school costs I couldn't tell you.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

We prevented mass murder in Syria? Ridiculous. It's still going on right now. In fact our intervention in Iraq raises the question of why didn't we fully intervene in Syria. Intervention is a slippery slope that is rarely worth participating in. Clearly we calculate "wins" differently.

You'll see I was referring to indiscriminate mass murder via chemical weapons. There is a reason why they are called the poor man's nuclear weapon. Their use in killing is not of the same proportion as those of more conventional nature. So yes it was a win to limit their use. Your slippery slope fallacy can apply to yourself as well. Maybe we should do nothing if China took over Taiwan. I'm sure Japan and South Korea would not pursue nuclear weapons if we let something like that slide.

Clearly you must favor some form of intervention. What makes those instances of intervention different from the ones in Iraq? Libya? Maybe you're just willing to write the Middle East off and do not care for the people there.

I'm not mourning anyone. My point is that you can't approach this situation from the "moral high ground" while advocating half measures that aren't effective overall. My view is that there should have been no intervention, the president has taken a different approach...but the question now becomes "what's next." When does the mission creep begin, because if the goal is to prevent massacres then it should be a consistent policy right? This strikes me as aimless foreign policy, which is pretty much typical Obama, six years in. I don't think there's anything illogical about pointing out hypocrisy.

You are right that Obama's foreign policy has been hypocritical and not been consistent everywhere. He does not apply the same standards at all times. You are also right that previously we have involved ourselves when it comes to genocide sparingly. So yes, to claim an absolute moral high ground is not correct. But it is still moral to save those that we can save. You are also wrong that the foreign policy is aimless. The aim has always been to do the most with the least exposure to risk. We try to achieve very limited objectives without sacrificing too much.

This of course does not please two sets of extreme people. One set, represented by you, who prefer isolation and not having a seat at the world table in determining future outcomes. The other represented by neocons who would rather shoot first and ask questions later. It also is hard to sell small ball foreign policy when you have people who believe in American exceptionalism. It's a nice middle ground like all Obama's policy that leaves not many happy.

 

[Devil]

It's not that easy to change the constitution. The AKP needs to have 2/3 of the parliament votes, which they don't have. Next election is somewhere in the first half of 2015 and they will lose seats and probably won't even have a majority anymore. Worse thing that could happen is that the AKP retains their majority in parliament and have to write out a referendum regarding constitual changes. Which judging from todays election they don't have a chance of winning. There was a really low turn out, which meant that around 20% of the opposition boycotted this election because of various reasons.

I don't think this is as strong of a result as Erdogan hoped it would be. As it stands now he will lose power as a President. Sure he has all the strings in his hands, but his party will go into the next elections without him. We will see how this turns out.

Biggest winner imo is the dude from the Kurdish party. I am fully Turkish and think he is awesome. He just gets it and I think he will win big next year. Only wish he would fully distance himself from anything PKK related, he does that and I would vote for him.

Thanks for the insight! Wasn't aware that his plans aren't as set in stone as I read in a German atricle recently. And yeah, getting some distance between himself and the PKK would be a good Idea for Demirtas.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hm. This is somewhat interesting. While I understand that poligaf holds several different opinions on new US interventions on Iraq, would anyone here find anything objectionable with the US starting or promoting talks about how the UN should handle Iraq?

Obviously, the GOP would push the shitty "this is shameful, we aint leading" angle again, but whatevs, doubt anyone cares about that particular bit.

 

[benjipwns]

Hm. This is somewhat interesting. While I understand that poligaf holds several different opinions on new US interventions on Iraq, would anyone here find anything objectionable with the US starting or promoting talks about how the UN should handle Iraq?

Obviously, the GOP would push the shitty "this is shameful, we aint leading" angle again, but whatevs, doubt anyone cares about that particular bit.

I say the US sits down with ISIS/ISIL and the Iraqi government and draws up a framework for a bombing campaign on the UN's various HQ's.

After everyone's gone home of course.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You'll see I was referring to indiscriminate mass murder via chemical weapons. There is a reason why they are called the poor man's nuclear weapon. Their use in killing is not of the same proportion as those of more conventional nature. So yes it was a win to limit their use. Your slippery slope fallacy can apply to yourself as well. Maybe we should do nothing if China took over Taiwan. I'm sure Japan and South Korea would not pursue nuclear weapons if we let something like that slide.

Clearly you must favor some form of intervention. What makes those instances of intervention different from the ones in Iraq? Libya? Maybe you're just willing to write the Middle East off and do not care for the people there.

I wish we could indeed write the Middle East off after a century of making it worse. Let them deal with their problems as they see fit, especially where there is no national interest for the US.

You'd support military intervention against China, over Taiwan? I'd support international sanctions, just as I support those carried out against Russia, but nothing further. Why shouldn't Japan and South Korea pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent policy against an aggressive neighbor? Personally I think the same applies to Iran, although given their blatant support for terrorism I understand why it's frowned upon.

You are right that Obama's foreign policy has been hypocritical and not been consistent everywhere. He does not apply the same standards at all times. You are also right that previously we have involved ourselves when it comes to genocide sparingly. So yes, to claim an absolute moral high ground is not correct. But it is still moral to save those that we can save. You are also wrong that the foreign policy is aimless. The aim has always been to do the most with the least exposure to risk. We try to achieve very limited objectives without sacrificing too much.

This of course does not please two sets of extreme people. One set, represented by you, who prefer isolation and not having a seat at the world table in determining future outcomes. The other represented by neocons who would rather shoot first and ask questions later. It also is hard to sell small ball foreign policy when you have people who believe in American exceptionalism. It's a nice middle ground like all Obama's policy that leaves not many happy.

I disagree with that explanation of my opposition to interventionism. Of course the US should shape world affairs when they are directly tied to our national interests. My point is that no such interest lies in Iraq, or with ISIS, nor do I buy the argument that they pose a threat to the United States.

Ultimately Obama's ME policies are indeed aimless, and have absolutely no long term vision. I like the "idea" of limited risk incursions...but it never ends up being limited does it. There are consequences to regime change with no clear goal for the future, and there are also consequences to his fantasy land approach to Iraq - that somehow withdrawing and watching Malaki revert back to oppressing/silencing Sunnis wouldn't be a problem. Obama's behavior really doesn't make sense.

 

[thepotatoman]

What does PoliGAF think of this article?



Slate: Smash the System? The dangerous plan to make college cheaper by busting “the college cartel.”

I have been under the impression college costs are out of control, as is student loan debt, but I can't say I've known why. Last I heard in general conversation was that schools were jacking up prices needlessly because of irresponsible spending.

I would say just throwing money at the problem doesn't seem like it would fix it, even though it would help. It seems that the issue is deeper than that.

I think it would probably help if we made jobs that don't require a degree more appealing, instead of acting like everyone without a degree is less than human and doesn't deserve a decent life with basic things like a living wage and vacation time.

Honestly, I don't think state colleges and community colleges are out of control. My costs for college itself(books included) comes out to ~$4k per semester. Most of my expenses come from living expenses.

https://trends.collegeboard.org/col...r-time-1973-74-through-2013-14-selected-years

That chart shows that tuition and fees have tripled in the last 35 years after adjusting for inflation.

Even your $4k per semester would be $1.3k if costs simply kept with inflation, and for a lot of people that's the difference between being able to work your way through college, and having to get a predatory student loans to pay for college.

Plus, if the trend continues, by 2030 that will rise to $8k in 2013 dollars.

There's billions of charts and articles about this, and it's pretty damn clear there is a problem, even if you personally feel the cost of your college is acceptable where it is now.

 

[Coriolanus]

After everyone's gone home of course.

That is wonderfully surreal, as is the bravado.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I wish we could indeed write the Middle East off after a century of making it worse. Let them deal with their problems as they see fit, especially where there is no national interest for the US.

You'd support military intervention against China, over Taiwan? I'd support international sanctions, just as I support those carried out against Russia, but nothing further. Why shouldn't Japan and South Korea pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent policy against an aggressive neighbor? Personally I think the same applies to Iran, although given their blatant support for terrorism I understand why it's frowned upon.

I disagree with that explanation of my opposition to interventionism. Of course the US should shape world affairs when they are directly tied to our national interests. My point is that no such interest lies in Iraq, or with ISIS, nor do I buy the argument that they pose a threat to the United States.

Ultimately Obama's ME policies are indeed aimless, and have absolutely no long term vision. I like the "idea" of limited risk incursions...but it never ends up being limited does it. There are consequences to regime change with no clear goal for the future, and there are also consequences to his fantasy land approach to Iraq - that somehow withdrawing and watching Malaki revert back to oppressing/silencing Sunnis wouldn't be a problem. Obama's behavior really doesn't make sense.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that you have grown too cynical in that you prefer isolation to doing good when we can and preferring nuclear proliferation instead of treaty commitments. And to ignore the ME is to ignore its importance in the global oil trade, and the amount of money it can funnel to non state actors. Refusing to make choices can be worse than making bad ones.

 

[speculawyer]

What does PoliGAF think of this article?

Ask liberals why college is getting so expensive, and they’ll probably tell you it’s a case of government neglect. States have cut education funding.(1) Federal Pell Grants for low-income students haven’t kept up with the cost of tuition.(2) Regulators have failed to crack down on predatory for-profit schools that charge high prices for sometimes worthless degrees.(3)

Ask conservatives the same question, and they’ll tell you the opposite. The real problem, they’ll say, is a pernicious case of government coddling. The unlimited supply of federal student loans has allowed schools to hike their prices to stratospheric heights without driving away undergrads

Slate: Smash the System? The dangerous plan to make college cheaper by busting “the college cartel.”

I have been under the impression college costs are out of control, as is student loan debt, but I can't say I've known why. Last I heard in general conversation was that schools were jacking up prices needlessly because of irresponsible spending.

I think those are largely strawman arguments:
1) Less funding of public universities does require them to raise tuition. But that doesn't explain private unis.
2) That is completely a strawman argument as that concerns loans not prices.
3) There are crappy private schools that rip people off but again, that doesn't explain why legit private schools have had prices go up so much.

I dunno . . . I think unis have just gotten away with it. People want to go to the brand name schools and thus pay for it. The have administrators making millions . . . why? And they have massive endowments. Something is fucked up. I'm not sure what can be done. Perhaps make more public schools like the UC system that is a great education but still somewhat affordable.

It is difficult issue and I don't have any good answers.

 

[thepotatoman]

I think those are largely strawman arguments:
1) Less funding of public universities does require them to raise tuition. But that doesn't explain private unis.
2) That is completely a strawman argument as that concerns loans not prices.
3) There are crappy private schools that rip people off but again, that doesn't explain why legit private schools have had prices go up so much.

I dunno . . . I think unis have just gotten away with it. People want to go to the brand name schools and thus pay for it. The have administrators making millions . . . why? And they have massive endowments. Something is fucked up. I'm not sure what can be done. Perhaps make more public schools like the UC system that is a great education but still somewhat affordable.

It is difficult issue and I don't have any good answers.

Well, it is possible that lower public school tuitions would create lower private school tuitions through the simple principles of free market competition. Though I agree it just doesn't seem to fit that it would be the only cause for this.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's always seemed to me that education is going to work a lot like health care. If you just let the market do its thing, costs are naturally going to grow faster than inflation.

For both, it's sort of unseemly to accept a lower quality product for less money. But consumers also have no real way to tell how good the product is, other than by price and reputation (which is clearly only loosely connected to quality).

Both are fairly resistant to being made more efficient via technology. Mostly, more knowledge lets us do more health care and education rather than allowing us to spend less on what we're already doing. And they're fairly labor-intensive fields, where a lot of the money is ultimately going to smart people who have other options (though there's pressure to employ more adjuncts and to allow RNs to prescribe, etc).

A major difference between US and European universities is that US universities do a whole lot of arguably non-educational stuff for students. Many US universities are like small towns, with the administration providing very generous services compared to any other government in the country. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when the top schools are all providing students all this extra stuff, people start associating that with a good education, and other schools have to compete in kind even to attract students who are primarily concerned about getting what they might think of as a no-frills education.

 

[thepotatoman]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that you have grown too cynical in that you prefer isolation to doing good when we can and preferring nuclear proliferation instead of treaty commitments. And to ignore the ME is to ignore its importance in the global oil trade, and the amount of money it can funnel to non state actors. Refusing to make choices can be worse than making bad ones.

I could maybe get on board with this, but I still need to be sure are doing it with major lessons learned from the obvious disaster that was Iraq. And I'm not just talking about shifting blame to the WMD lies or boots on the ground operations.

We need to admit that blowback can just make the problem grow bigger, that weaponizing enemies of our enemies doesn't always work out for the best in the long run, and that civilian death needs to play a much bigger part of every military decision if we actually want to help these people instead of blindly killing them along with everyone else.

It's just hard to trust that we have learned those lessons when so many of the people that royally screwed up Iraq still have a major voice on foreign policy and it seems pretty apparent to me that we still don't give a crap about civilians given the stories we've gotten about the drone strikes.

So, until those lessons are learned, I would strongly lean toward just not risking making things worse and stay away from any type of military operation.

 

[Cat]

Thanks for the input, all. I read it, even if I'm not replying to every point made. It sounds like part of the problem is even knowing where to find it.

I think it would probably help if we made jobs that don't require a degree more appealing, instead of acting like everyone without a degree is less than human and doesn't deserve a decent life with basic things like a living wage and vacation time.

I definitely agree with this idea.

 

[benjipwns]

It's always seemed to me that education is going to work a lot like health care. If you just let the market do its thing, costs are naturally going to grow faster than inflation.

For both, it's sort of unseemly to accept a lower quality product for less money. But consumers also have no real way to tell how good the product is, other than by price and reputation (which is clearly only loosely connected to quality).

I don't understand why the former is the case, when the latter is almost universally tried to a government backed system infused from top to bottom with third party payer systems AND intentional obfuscation of the costs. Loans are paid back later, not at the point of sale. And they often cover far more than the cost of education. And since they're not dischargable in bankruptcy... Meanwhile insurance isn't insurance but a pre-payment system for routine care.

If you ask how much a procedure costs, nobody can tell you because it's different for every person mostly not for reasons related to the procedure itself. At least at a university you can still get the credit hour price even if it's not tied to anything of value at all and the same for all classes across the board. So they're kinda at opposite ends of a spectrum of knowledge availability.

A major difference between US and European universities is that US universities do a whole lot of arguably non-educational stuff for students. Many US universities are like small towns, with the administration providing very generous services compared to any other government in the country.

Universities aren't the only ones, how many high/middle/elementary schools in Yurop offer sports and so on like U.S. schools do.

Health care and education both have something else in common not listed here. A exponential growth of bureaucracy. Much of it unrelated to the core task. It may be the two areas, especially education, where we're beating the Yuropeans at their own game.

And the most brilliant thing about the bureaucracies is that they're both hyper-vigilant in "innovation" AND stagnation. Hospitals and universities are constantly opening new buildings or touting new programs they've spent millions on. While at the same time universities and schools put caps and quotas on educators when there's none on administrators. And in many U.S. states the insane certificate of need system operates, and underlying the price of everything is what's decided at HHS for Medicare/Medicaid.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't understand why the former is the case, when the latter is almost universally tried to a government backed system infused from top to bottom with third party payer systems AND intentional obfuscation of the costs. Loans are paid back later, not at the point of sale. And they often cover far more than the cost of education. And since they're not dischargable in bankruptcy... Meanwhile insurance isn't insurance but a pre-payment system for routine care.

If you ask how much a procedure costs, nobody can tell you because it's different for every person mostly not for reasons related to the procedure itself. At least at a university you can still get the credit hour price even if it's not tied to anything of value at all and the same for all classes across the board. So they're kinda at opposite ends of a spectrum of knowledge availability.


Universities aren't the only ones, how many high/middle/elementary schools in Yurop offer sports and so on like U.S. schools do.

Health care and education both have something else in common not listed here. A exponential growth of bureaucracy. Much of it unrelated to the core task. It may be the two areas, especially education, where we're beating the Yuropeans at their own game.

And the most brilliant thing about the bureaucracies is that they're both hyper-vigilant in "innovation" AND stagnation. Hospitals and universities are constantly opening new buildings or touting new programs they've spent millions on. While at the same time universities and schools put caps and quotas on educators when there's none on administrators. And in many U.S. states the insane certificate of need system operates, and underlying the price of everything is what's decided at HHS for Medicare/Medicaid.

I'm kind of tired of the standard complaining about bureaucracy for the sake of complaining. Bureaucracy has increased because complexity has increased. Schools have to teach so much more hospitals have so many more advancements and technology and doctors needed. You can't have the old systems just transplanted without running into problems. Maybe its not matched one to one and bureaucracy has outpaced complexity but I don't think simplistic comparisons to number of 1st liners vs bureaucrats reveals that.

There are probably ways of streamlining things but bureaucracies exist for a reason and many, not all, complaints seem to be overwrought.

Nobody had yet to explain how you cut bureaucracy with out cutting services and if the answer is cut services it runs in to the problem that people still want them and were now dealing with a private bureaucracy. I can hear the crys of "free market" and "compitition" with horrible comparisions to the consumer goods market but that clearly hasn't worked in things like education, infrastructure health care and social safety nets that they government is most concerned with.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Yes, it's a good thing there are no bureaucracies in large private institutions. Now, try to get a hold of a human being to talk about your cable bill. Good luck. And that's not even a huge shot against Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Large complex institutions are going to have a lot of bureaucracy, public or private.

As for college, the main reason why even private colleges have gone up, aside from administrative costs and so on is pretty simple. If public school costs 10k, then why should anybody go to a private college that costs 12k? Jack it up to 20k and all of the sudden, you look like a prestige school again.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm kind of tired of the standard complaining about bureaucracy for the sake of complaining.

It's not complaining for the sake of complaining. We're talking about increasing costs. And the administration of education is the bulk of those costs by far. There's been something like a 900% increase in school administrators over the past decades compared to a 30% increase in teachers or just 15% increase in students. And administrators are paid much more than teachers. Let alone students.

Bureaucracy has increased because complexity has increased. Schools have to teach so much more hospitals have so many more advancements and technology and doctors needed.

That's not what the majority of the health care and education bureaucracies do. They deal with compliance and paperwork established by other bureaucracies. Same in most institutions because of the process obsession. Hence, why once a hospital gets through its own bureaucracy to decide on getting a PET scanner, it still has to go through the insurance bureaucracies at state, federal and corporate level to determine usages, and then through the CON process to get rejected.

Bureaucracies don't proliferate because of the complexity of life, they've existed for time immemorial, they proliferate because they bring an incredible advantage in socializing the costs of failures. Like how our President has to learn things from the media because the massive bureaucratic state doesn't want to preempt mistakes because that preempts power and funding.

Process provides protection and plausible deniability. And they expand as that's their entire purpose: to perpetuate themselves.

I can hear the crys of "free market" and "compitition" with horrible comparisions to the consumer goods market but that clearly hasn't worked in things like education, infrastructure health care and social safety nets that they government is most concerned with.

You say it "clearly hasn't worked" when it's not even being tried. Your presumption is that only monopolies can work because "another exception to the rule" unlike everywhere else in goods and services where monopolies perpetuate all sorts of horrible effects.

Yes, it's a good thing there are no bureaucracies in large private institutions.

Look at the straw man burn.

 

[benjipwns]

Since I just made up my numbers:

America’s K-12 public education system has experienced tremendous historical growth in employment, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Between fiscal year (FY) 1950 and FY 2009, the number of K-12 public school students in the United States increased by 96 percent, while the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) school employees grew 386 percent. Public schools grew staffing at a rate four times faster than the increase in students over that time period. Of those personnel, teachers’ numbers increased 252 percent, while administrators and other non-teaching staff experienced growth of 702 percent, more than seven times the increase in students.

That hiring pattern has persisted in more recent years as well. Between FY 1992 and FY 2009, the number of K-12 public school students nationwide grew 17 percent, while the number of FTE school employees increased 39 percent. Among school personnel, teachers’ staffing numbers rose 32 percent, while administrators and other non-teaching staff experienced growth of 46 percent, 2.3 times greater than the increase in students over that 18-year period; the growth in the number of teachers was almost twice that of students.

Twenty-one “Top-Heavy States” employed fewer teachers than other non-teaching personnel in 2009. Thus, those 21 states have more administrators and other non-teaching staff on the public payroll than teachers. Virginia “leads the way” with 60,737 more administrators and other non-teaching staff than teachers in its public schools.

http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/...rowth-in-America-s-Public-Schools--Part-2.pdf

This is public schools, but it also applies to universities and hospitals too. (And cable companies and welfare programs and...)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not complaining for the sake of complaining. We're talking about increasing costs. And the administration of education is the bulk of those costs by far. There's been something like a 900% increase in school administrators over the past decades compared to a 30% increase in teachers or just 15% increase in students. And administrators are paid much more than teachers. Let alone students.


That's not what the majority of the health care and education bureaucracies do. They deal with compliance and paperwork established by other bureaucracies. Same in most institutions because of the process obsession. Hence, why once a hospital gets through its own bureaucracy to decide on getting a PET scanner, it still has to go through the insurance bureaucracies at state, federal and corporate level to determine usages, and then through the CON process to get rejected.

Bureaucracies don't proliferate because of the complexity of life, they've existed for time immemorial, they proliferate because they bring an incredible advantage in socializing the costs of failures. Like how our President has to learn things from the media because the massive bureaucratic state doesn't want to preempt mistakes because that preempts power and funding.

Process provides protection and plausible deniability. And they expand as that's their entire purpose: to perpetuate themselves.

You say it "clearly hasn't worked" when it's not even being tried. Your presumption is that only monopolies can work because "another exception to the rule" unlike everywhere else in goods and services where monopolies perpetuate all sorts of horrible effects.


Look at the straw man burn.

It wasn't specifically aimed at you. You just sparked it but this is hilarious

You say it "clearly hasn't worked" when it's not even being tried. Your presumption is that only monopolies can work because "another exception to the rule" unlike everywhere else in goods and services where monopolies perpetuate all sorts of horrible effects.

This is the same thing all socialists and libertarians rely on. If only we'd tried it properly! But then again if you ascribe to an axiomatic belief system, it makes sense because you can't challenge it!

BTW there was a free market for health care and education it flamed out in the 19th century because it didn't work. We socialized a lot of that stuff because its the only way to get to people who can't afford it.

 

[benjipwns]

BTW there was a free market for health care and education it flamed out in the 19th century because it didn't work. We socialized a lot of that stuff because its the only way to get to people who can't afford it.

Smartphones didn't work in the 19th century either. It's a good thing we didn't try them now days.

And "we" didn't socialize stuff because it didn't work. The public schools wave originated in trying to fix Catholics and other morally degenerate ethnicities and classes. (The fact that they were able to establish a monopoly and then conscript their students helped quite a bit in their current reach.) The AMA started pushing for limits on doctors way back in 1910. States started requiring licensing and regulation in the 1860s that barred competition across state lines by doctors and insurance because it was in the interest of the doctors and insurance companies in those states. The FDA came about due to an alliance of doctors and pharmacists lobbying organizations and state regulators (and social gospel womens clubs) that wanted greater power to punish the offenders of societies mores who just also happened to be competition of theirs.

Regulatory bureaucracy isn't inherently wise, just and goodhearted nor are the reasons it comes about.

 

[B-Dubs]

Smartphones didn't work in the 19th century either. It's a good thing we didn't try them now days.

And "we" didn't socialize stuff because it didn't work. The public schools wave originated in trying to fix Catholics and other morally degenerate ethnicities and classes. (The fact that they were able to establish a monopoly and then conscript their students helped quite a bit.) The AMA started pushing for limits on doctors way back in 1910. States started requiring licensing and regulation in the 1860s that barred competition across state lines by doctors and insurance because it was in the interest of the doctors and insurance companies in those states. The FDA came about due to an alliance of doctors and pharmacists lobbying organizations and state regulators (and social gospel womens clubs) that wanted greater power to punish the offenders of societies mores who just also happened to be competition of theirs.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[benjipwns]

Where do you get this stuff?

There's this neat thing called history, where people research and write down stuff that happened in the past. It's really cool to study.

 

[B-Dubs]

There's this neat thing called history, where people research and write down stuff that happened in the past. It's really cool to study.

Well that's not how I remember the FDA coming about at all.

 

[benjipwns]

Well that's not how I remember the FDA coming about at all.

Is it some form of Upton Sinclair wrote and published The Jungle, America was shocked and didn't know and a wave of readers pressed the government into passing the laws that created what eventually was renamed the FDA?

Yeah, that's the nice clean version of history. But it ignores the years of the pure food movement (which Sinclair being a diet weirdo probably spent time around), the lobbying of pharmacist organizations to put them on equal footing with doctors, Harvey Wiley's personal crusade, state regulators wanting to pass costs off to the feds, etc. that happened for 25 years beforehand. Also that Roosevelt's love of flitting from action to action enacting arbitrary regulation was nearly equal to his later cousins.

Sinclair being a rather smart socialist saw the acts of Congress for what they really were, a shifting of costs onto taxpayers, benefiting the largest corporations.

(And that nice history tends to ignore it was the start of the federal drug war; one of another of huge costs that are never added to the cost-benefit analysis of the FDA.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is it some form of Upton Sinclair wrote and published The Jungle, America was shocked and didn't know and a wave of readers pressed the government into passing the laws that created what eventually was renamed the FDA?

Yeah, that's the nice clean version of history. But it ignores the years of the pure food movement (which Sinclair being a diet weirdo probably spent time around), the lobbying of pharmacist organizations to put them on equal footing with doctors, Harvey Wiley's personal crusade, state regulators wanting to pass costs off to the feds, etc. that happened for 25 years beforehand. Also that Roosevelt's love of flitting from action to action enacting arbitrary regulation was nearly equal to his later cousins.

Sinclair being a rather smart socialist saw the acts of Congress for what they really were, a shifting of costs onto taxpayers, benefiting the largest corporations.

(And that nice history tends to ignore it was the start of the federal drug war; one of another of huge costs that are never added to the cost-benefit analysis of the FDA.)

I love the secret 'real' history that's peddled by libertarian.

Smartphones didn't work in the 19th century either. It's a good thing we didn't try them now days.

And "we" didn't socialize stuff because it didn't work. The public schools wave originated in trying to fix Catholics and other morally degenerate ethnicities and classes. (The fact that they were able to establish a monopoly and then conscript their students helped quite a bit in their current reach.) The AMA started pushing for limits on doctors way back in 1910. States started requiring licensing and regulation in the 1860s that barred competition across state lines by doctors and insurance because it was in the interest of the doctors and insurance companies in those states. The FDA came about due to an alliance of doctors and pharmacists lobbying organizations and state regulators (and social gospel womens clubs) that wanted greater power to punish the offenders of societies mores who just also happened to be competition of theirs.

Regulatory bureaucracy isn't inherently wise, just and goodhearted nor are the reasons it comes about.

I never said it was but there aren't these secret groups sitting out there trying to pass the buck to the feds or secret cartels trying to prevent real compition behind every regulation. You can parade all the 'bet you didn't know' facts you want but it doesn't make your alternate history correct, but by all means continue with your inveighs against monopolies and the 'corporation of the state'.

I wish I was a libertarian because I could live in a world were I could just sit back throw criticisms, provide no real reforms or solutions and pretend my alternate world that has no basis in history is a practical alternative.

 

[benjipwns]

It's not a secret history, it's just overlooked because people don't like messy history especially about things they identify with. (Just look at the A People's History and the response of A Patriot's History kerfuffle.)

It's why Black History Month got started for example.

Plus, most people don't read a lot of history. History classes and textbooks skim history because of time and size constraints which does more to under serve important information than deliberate bias.

EDIT: Feel free to point out that I'm probably putting an anti-state spin on things, but don't perpetuate the idea that these aren't actual facts related to the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Especially the pure food movement and the Social Gospel, Harvey Wiley, and the pharmacists interest in passing off responsibility.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not a secret history, it's just overlooked because people don't like messy history especially about things they identify with. (Just look at the A People's History and the response of A Patriot's History kerfuffle.)

It's why Black History Month got started for example.

Plus, most people don't read a lot of history. History classes and textbooks skim history because of time and size constraints which does more to under serve important information than deliberate bias.

I'm not saying your making it up but your tone and from others like you pretends your amazing factoids changes everything! The previous assumptions are clearly wrong.

My biggest problem is that you can point out movements that existed but pretend they're the 'real reason' something happened. Its like saying code pink forced Obama to remove Iraq troops in 2011 instead of the expiration of the status of forces agreement

 

[benjipwns]

I never said it was but there aren't these secret groups sitting out there trying to pass the buck to the feds or secret cartels trying to prevent real compition behind every regulation.

Not behind every regulation no, some are perpetuated by true believers for example, others are to cover previous fuck ups. But people like the Koch Brothers and Mattel and GE and BP spend a lot of resources as do state departments and organizations, not to mention the people who shuttle between all the bureaucracies.

Iron Triangle and all that jazz.

I wish I was a libertarian because I could live in a world were I could just sit back throw criticisms, provide no real reforms or solutions and pretend my alternate world that has no basis in history is a practical alternative.

I can offer plenty of real reforms and solutions but they don't involve enough violent force against cultural enemies to gain traction.

And that "alternate world" is this one and it's all around you. Nature is a state of anarchy yet it still operates by laws...

My biggest problem is that you can point out movements that existed but pretend they're the 'real reason' something happened. Its like saying code pink forced Obama to remove Iraq troops in 2011 instead of the expiration of the status of forces agreement

Yeah, but people like Wiley and state regulators were literally taking actions to get the regulatory state expanded (and he later resigned because it operated like a government bureaucracy instead of a lab) so it'd be like if Code Pink ran the State Department and negotiated with the Iraqi government.

 

[benjipwns]

And don't steal that last idea, I have a dystopian novel to sell Sean Hannity's publisher!

 

[JesseEwiak]

Since I just made up my numbers:


http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/...rowth-in-America-s-Public-Schools--Part-2.pdf

This is public schools, but it also applies to universities and hospitals too. (And cable companies and welfare programs and...)

Part of the growth in "non-teacher workers" are little things like assistants and social workers so kids with problems such as autism and other developmental issues don't get shuttled off to a corner or refused any kind of education like they would in libertopia unless the parents of said kids happen to be rich, since there's no profit in educating developmentally disabled children of poor parents.

 

[benjipwns]

If people don't act unless they profit, why would they vote to educate children if it's not profitable?

 

[JesseEwiak]

If people don't act unless they profit, why would they vote to educate children if it's not profitable?

It's not profitable to Education Corporation of America in that quarter. Also, plenty of people don't act just for profit. Corporations who have been slobbering over the billions of dollars in education spending for decades, on the other hand?