The Official Bendis Board 2012 Presidential Campaign Thread

[Matt Jay]

Romney discusses affordable higher ed.

“It would be popular for me to stand up and say I’m going to give you government money to pay for your college, but I’m not going to promise that,” he said, to sustained applause from the crowd at a high-tech metals assembly factory here. “Don’t just go to one that has the highest price. Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And hopefully you’ll find that. And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03...n-college.html
I have no problem with people that don't go to college. Steve Jobs didn't finish college. My wife didn't go to college and she managed to get a job that sometimes pays more than I make. And I have two bachelor's and a doctorate. But I do think college is important to keep us innovating and able to compete with the rest of the world. I get pissed when I hear this rhetoric coming from our politicians, and Romney and Santorum are candidates for President. I am increasingly pessimistic about our future.

[Dreg]

While insurers are paying for it, people do pay the insurers. And it's going to be mandatory soon.

There are two financial issues here.

It's not actually clear that insurers save money by covering contraceptives. That's the main reason they weren't already covering it.

Insurance companies talking about how expensive the pill is kind of takes the wind out of the republican argument that it's not a huge burden for employees to pay for it if their coverage is suddenly cut because of the Bible.

[Ray G.]

Romney discusses affordable higher ed.



http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03...n-college.html
I have no problem with people that don't go to college. Steve Jobs didn't finish college. My wife didn't go to college and she managed to get a job that sometimes pays more than I make. And I have two bachelor's and a doctorate. But I do think college is important to keep us innovating and able to compete with the rest of the world. I get pissed when I hear this rhetoric coming from our politicians, and Romney and Santorum are candidates for President. I am increasingly pessimistic about our future.

He makes a decent point in that private colleges are often not worth the money you put in compared to a state college. Overall, could have been said a lot better, though. I don't think he's coming off as anti-college like Santorum did.

[Brian Defferding]

Health Insurance is a service that encompasses a lot of things that are of no business to the employer. If we are already comfortable with health insurance existing, then allowing employers to weasel out of paying for things and giving these employers control in the health decisions of their employees is allowing the employer to infringe upon the body, privacy, and rights of that individual.

Can you give an example of this? Because I'm a little confused by what you mean.

Your contempt for "force" implies a society where force is never necessary. I don't share that belief. One of the chief responsibilities of the government should be the protection of its citizens from forces foreign and domestic. And when those citizens are being preyed upon by other citizens, "force" (which I assume means economic pressure as well) is indeed necessary and excusable in protecting them when absolutely necessary. It's not hard to see the evils committed by corporations when left unregulated, especially as far as insurance companies are concerned. Citizens need the force of the government to counteract the force of other citizens with more power, because as limited as it is, our government still allows for the participation of the individual, even the disenfranchised ones.

In order to prove your claim here, you have to prove that a market is actually truly free and unregulated, and that during such time of total freedom and absent of regulation, the entire society as a whole had absolutely no ability to provide voluntary economic checks and balances to the business whom provide services and goods. No one can do this, it's an impossible task. In a real free market--no government privileges or barriers to competition-- the system can have a moral core because it's based on virtue of people to provide checks and balances to each other.

To every example you can provide of one corporation "preying" on people, there are two examples of government furthering and enabling these practices through the very vehicle it can only operate on - force.

[RickLM]

He makes a decent point in that private colleges are often not worth the money you put in compared to a state college. Overall, could have been said a lot better, though. I don't think he's coming off as anti-college like Santorum did.

I suppose the "don't expect the government to help you go to college" rhetoric plays well among the frustrated blue-collar types and those who really think government should only outfit an army and pave highways, but it would have been alarming if a national politician had said such a thing in the 30-40 years following WWII. Pouring federal and state monies into universities, including direct aid to students, was once a public good that few argued with. It's amazing how we've shifted in the past 20 years.

[Taxman]

by force of the government

When will this bullshit end?

[Dreg]

Can you give an example of this? Because I'm a little confused by what you mean.

The Blunt Bill that Republicans championed. It allowed employers to opt out of medical treatment for moral or religious reasons.

In order to prove your claim here, you have to prove that a market is actually truly free and unregulated, and that during such time of total freedom and absent of regulation, the entire society as a whole had absolutely no ability to provide voluntary economic checks and balances to the business whom provide services and goods. No one can do this, it's an impossible task. In a real free market--no government privileges or barriers to competition-- the system can have a moral core because it's based on virtue of people to provide checks and balances to each other.

A purely free market is a lot like pure communism then, in that the pursuit of it from any currently existing government would allow for a terrible amount of injustices in the pursuit of an ideal that may not be achievable. It's not the government or corporations that innately corrupt. It's power that corrupts; and in that case, there needs to be checks and balances that ensure the less powerful are protected. The government is a check against corporations and vice versa. Tying one of their hands ensures that the system won't work.

To every example you can provide of one corporation "preying" on people, there are two examples of government furthering and enabling these practices through the very vehicle it can only operate on - force.

If you're using fines, taxes, and economic pressure as examples of "force," then the free market is hardly above the government in that regard. It also relies on economic pressure, penalties, and interest to get things done. Not regulating the corporations probably IS the clearest example of the government enabling unethical practices.

[Foolish Mortal]

So Romney was asked how important it is for him to pick up a southern state and Romney replies: "I realize it is a bit of an away game,"

You don't give a reply like you're going to another country, you're running for president of the ENTIRE United States. You should talk to them the same way you address other Americans.

Meanwhile...

Santorum apologizes for his remark about shipping liberal judges to Guam

[usagi20]

He makes a decent point in that private colleges are often not worth the money you put in compared to a state college. Overall, could have been said a lot better, though. I don't think he's coming off as anti-college like Santorum did.

Romney doesn't come across as anti-college at all. He comes across as, once again, out of touch with the middle class. He's saying that he understands that some families can't afford $100,000 for college, so they can go to a college that only charges $80,000. What he doesn't get it is that many families don't even make $80,000 in a year.

[Taxman]

Romney doesn't come across as anti-college at all. He comes across as, once again, out of touch with the middle class. He's saying that he understands that some families can't afford $100,000 for college, so they can go to a college that only charges $80,000. What he doesn't get it is that many families don't even make $80,000 in a year.

No wonder he his opposed to the minimum wage.

I will give him benefit of the doubt. He may well know that $80K would put a family in around the 76th percentile. But his wealth is so vast that those number may actually be too small for them to have any real meaning to him.