"I have no more campaigns to run" Republicans applaud "I know because I won both of them" Republicans silenced
Standout moment:
I'm also watching. It's the first time I've seen the split media with graphs and data points on the right side of the screen. I'm watching via whitehouse.gov I liked his free and open internet bit. Edit: you are not kidding about Biden, he needs to undo that button.
Yeah, haven't decided if I like that or not. I'm finding it hard to focus on both. Like the open internet (i.e. Net Neutrality). Do not like "encouraging companies to share cybersecurity with the government." That's doublespeak for more warrantless wiretapping.the split media with graphs and data points
I thought it was fine. I don't think it was a "damn good speech," though. I think he has given some damn good speeches in the past and this wasn't one of them. I think the best speech giver in modern politics is Bill Clinton. What a gifted orator. -He's the shizzle. He made me want to vote for Obama more than Obama did :)
Oh yeah, I more meant ideologically. I was surprised and gratified to hear him speaking so strongly about wealth inequality, sexist wage discrepancies, climate change, further socialized education, closing Gitmo, etc. And that shot of Alan Gross mouthing "Thank you" was powerful.
I have the luxury, or perhaps the burden of remembering when Obama was first elected. I volunteered for him, I knocked on doors for him and I traveled to Ohio the weekend prior to his election to work for him and to see him speak. One of his central themes in his speeches back then was how he was going to close Gitmo. While it is nice to hear him speak about it now, it's a bit shameful too. In 2008 I was really excited regarding the prospects of Barack Obama. In 2012, it was that speech from Bill Clinton that swayed me vote for Obama. I'll be interested to see what he does with his waning time in office.
I didn't watch it last year. But the timing worked out, and I wanted to see how he framed his presidency thus far, and what he would say to a Republican congress. It was one of his better speeches as they go. As far as proposals, I think the idea of free community college for all was by and far away the best. It's something available to anyone, and it affects everyone. Not only does it unlock more potential in the populous, if they do it without also subsidizing private universities more, it could help to bring costs of college down. Transferring after two years of free community college would be an excellent option for a lot of people. I don't expect much from the next two years. I do worry that ACA is going to be killed by the SCOTUS gutting the federal subsidies in the early summer. Millions will lose insurance, and the GOP won't going to work with Obama to fix it. Fuck John Boehner for not even applauding the advance of gay rights. It looks really bad now. It is going to age very poorly. The 2020 census is going to be hard on the GOP.
I'm more skeptical of the CC plan than most. Here's the reason: We face, for example, a critical shortage of nurses in the country. There are plenty of young men and women dying to become nurses. Seems like an easy thing to fix, right? Train more nurses. Buuuuuuut, no one can get into nursing school. That's the rate limiting step. Normally, when there's a worker shortage, wages increase, but that's not happened in nursing, because the root cause of the shortage isn't that people aren't attracted to the profession at current wages; it's that you need to get on a goddam wait list for two years just to get your CC associate's degree in nursing. What's gonna happen when everyone can go for free? The system is going to break under its own weight. The capacity simply isn't there to handle the influx of students, and anyway it isn't debt from CC that is crushing young Americans. It sounds good, but I'm not convinced it's going to solve anyone's problems. To me, the bigger proposal is raising the capital gains and eliminating the step up tax loophole. This is a small step in the correct direction for taxation that, while not Earth shattering, should at least move the glacial debate toward fairness. If the GOP wants to continue to defend policy that affects only the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else, then it's up to the 2016 Dem nominee to pound that point into the ground. The way the Feds and especially the states collect taxes is in desperate need of fixing. This simple fix that the President proposed could be the beginning of that fix.
Did you try searching for nursing schools with no waiting list?
I was surprised at the low number. Still, the presence of nursing schools in most states with no waiting list suggests that many students are choosing to wait to get into a preferred school. But that just changes the question; why don't the busier schools expand capacity? It can't be done overnight, but we have been hearing about this crisis for years. There appears to be a shortage of nursing faculty, especially for "positions requiring or preferring a doctoral degree." A bottleneck in schools makes it hard to produce more qualified instructors, but the deeper cause is compensation: According to the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, the average salary of a nurse practitioner, across settings and specialties, is $94,050. By contrast, AACN reported in March 2013 that master's prepared faculty earned an annual average salary of $80,690. It's still hard to figure. The schools are refusing to admit new students, thereby declining additional revenue, which could be used to attract professors.Higher compensation in clinical and private-sector settings is luring current and potential nurse educators away from teaching.
This is interesting, b_b. A white paper on the faculty shortage points out that It had not occurred to me that there would be a legal limit. Elsewhere I read that states typically limit the ratio to 10 or 12 students per instructor. Not so hard to figure now. With a legal cap on the amount of revenue an additional class can bring in, the schools have little incentive to respond to the demand of the aspiring nursing students. Wait, maybe the government figured supply-and-demand would do its thing and schools would simply raise tuition to allow them to attract more professors with higher salaries, and students would happily pay a market rate for the guaranteed 10% of an instructor's attention. Then again, maybe not.It's still hard to figure. The schools are refusing to admit new students, thereby declining additional revenue, which could be used to attract professors.
Several states allow instructor-to-student ratio of 1:12 in clinical courses utilizing qualified preceptors, thereby expanding faculty capacity. Other states allow a 1:20 ratio (Delaware) or 1:25 (Texas) for precepted courses.
This is not the same as saying it is good, but I surmise that you like the idea and do not merely think it was the least bad proposal. Making someone besides the student pay for community college will not make it cheaper. Increased demand and indirect payment may make it more costly. The government does not make enough money to cover this cost. They have a terrible business model: they give away most of their product, legislation, for free, and only charge a few premium customers for custom jobs. Plus they limit what they will accept in payment and blow most of it on advertising campaigns. So the money will have to come from elsewhere. You can wish for them to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter program and use that money for education. People have been making such wishes for some time and it appears you will not get that wish. Perhaps they will succeed in extracting more funds from the rich than in the past while continuing to kiss their hands. I suspect that most of the money will come from the same place it does now, taxes on regular people, with interest paid to those wealthy enough to provide the up-front cash by buying T-bills. So poorer kids will go to school on credit and pay it back with interest to the wealthier later, rather like today. Except the very poorest, who can't afford to take years off for school, and those who choose not to go to college, who will still pay for the education and enrichment of others. I don't know how the numbers work out to say if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you have made up your mind on this proposal, you must have some evidence. Can you share it?I think the idea of free community college for all was by and far away the best.
I, for one, would much rather see free pre-school than free community college. That said, I don't know what the price per pupil of pre-school vs. CC is, but I do know that there's a preponderance of evidence that pre-school helps to set kids up for a more successful education for years down the road. Hopefully, those students would then be more likely to be college ready and perhaps pay for CC or university on their own. Like I said below, it's not as if CC debt is what is crushing America to begin with. But a general debt of education, one that starts as early as birth, is plaguing a lot of our youngest citizens, especially those from poor backgrounds.
Although I am apt to agree with you where the money will come from in general, my thinking is that the value gained from the increased access to this education will offset the costs, -that the ROI makes it worth it. My wish would be that a progressive marginal tax on annual capital gains that began at something like 1M or more would be put to this use, or yes, that we'd stop building so many damned weapons beyond our needs, and that the money could come from there. As far as evidence, I think it would be hard to come by anything convincing. One might make some sort of hand-waving argument with past GI bills, but there are too many variables in these equations to conclude anything decisively, and your take is largely going to be dependent upon your own politics and value system. My own politics and value system suggests to me that we are spending money in less useful ways, and this would be a good way to repurpose it. In short, I agree with this statement, but believe that the extra cost will be offset by the benefits of a more educated populous.Making someone besides the student pay for community college will not make it cheaper. Increased demand and indirect payment may make it more costly.
mk's comment above was the cause of much private discussion behind his back. I was unable to square what appeared to be purely faith-based advocacy with the objective neuroscientist we know and love. Given an opportunity to see him in person, I printed our exchange along with a helpful summary: “I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs.” Discussion ensued, with Meriadoc contributing. What I find worrisome is that mk concludes that the proposal will be a net benefit without presenting a shred of evidence. Well, surely there is evidence that improving access to education will bring benefits. I don't mean to dispute that. It's just that we have no information on the costs, the negative effects. I find it particularly alarming that mk does not dispute my prediction that the very poorest will likely be harmed by this policy, and the wealthy will benefit (a pattern lamented elsewhere). Meriadoc made an interesting assertion that any politician who is enlightened enough to propose such a program would surely arrange to have it funded in a responsible way. I would like to see evidence for this belief. I don't know if legislators even have to specify where funding will come from, or if approved programs are simply paid out of a general budget. I was not impressed by California's model, in which a family leave program is completely paid for from a mandatory tax on all workers' salaries, while most low-income workers do not apply for the benefit, because they do not even know that it exists. More than once I heard the refrain "We already spend money on far worse programs." That is true, and it should stop. It is not a good reason to support a program that may still be bad on balance, only less bad. If you believe that the new program will be covered by "repurposed" funds, so that it is an improvement even if it does not provide net benefit, you should have evidence for that belief.
mk and I don't think exactly alike on political matters. In my personal correspondence there was some exegesis of his words "your take is largely going to be dependent upon your own politics and value system." I might believe that forcing people to pay for community college under threat of locking them in cages is an act of coercion, and he might have a different perception. Nevertheless, his argument should be "replicable." I should to be able to come to the same conclusion as mk by thinking like mk. Say B is the total benefit that we expect will accrue due to the implementation of the policy: more educated people, better jobs and higher salaries, reduced poverty, more prosperous community college founders and staff, etc. Say C is the total expected cost of the policy: things not purchased because resources were diverted to community college, income and work experience not gained while going to community college, distortions to incentives for community colleges to provide good value, dilution of the perceived value of a community college degree, fraud and waste at rent-seeking institutions that pretend to be community colleges, overhead to run the program, etc. We will ignore any costs that I recognize but mk denies. So if I am mk and don't worry that Sam has a problem, I think I would support the policy if I have reasonable expectation that B > C. But what I actually heard mk arguing was this: B is high enough to justify the risk that B < C. This seems like broken logic. By this rule, we might not support programs that provide small benefits, even if we are fairly sure that they are beneficial overall. We will simply look for the program that promises the most attractive outcome and support it, irrespective of the costs. It seems akin to arguing: I am not arguing that taxpayer-funded community college is good or bad. I am arguing that mk and I do not know (i.e. do not have evidence showing) that implementing a policy of funding community college through taxes would do more good than harm, and we should have reason to believe this before supporting the policy.“We agree that this program would have costs and benefits. We agree that other programs exist that have worse cost/benefit ratios. I don’t know if the benefits of this program would outweigh the costs. Why do you believe the benefits would outweigh the costs?”
(repeat as necessary) The health budget is X.
Health is important!
Therefore, the health budget should be 2X.
I haven't read through all this yet, but: I don't think I'd ever accuse a politician of being responsible. An enlightened person who believes in these things should also believe in another, and could reasonably do something responsible. If a politician is capable of such a feat is a different matter entirely.any politician who is enlightened enough to propose such a program would surely arrange to have it funded in a responsible way.
It seems as though government and civics isn't really taken too seriously in school. Just recently I completed a basic college course for American government, and the professor posted a few questions from the test immigrants need to pass in order to become citizens. A quick assessment of the class. I found it easy, but many in the class had a hard time. I understand keeping track of the latest political news isn't necessarily entertaining, but come on... These people run things for us. History always repeats itself; I wonder when people will wake up and take things seriously. The President talks some good points. I felt oddly patriotic after watching this. What do you think? I understand the dangers of nationalism, but my country's struggles are mine as well. I don't feel America is too bad.
I like watching Obama's speeches merely for their quality construction and good feels they manage to inspire when I don't think too hard about the points. That said, it's good to stay skeptical. We could have a conversation over the merits and problems of his presidency, but I'd rather not have this thread be the place as old even half-week-old threads tend to turn stale and fail to attract all voices. (I'm also fairly ill-informed about many things-politics)The President talks some good points. I felt oddly patriotic after watching this. What do you think?
Here's a good question: Do I watch the SOTU, or do I study for my U.S. History test?
Study. Get the bulletpoints from the speech later.
Good call, I was about to just quit and take a nap on this bed of irony.