The Trump Presidency – 2016

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This is a great post that gives a viewpoint much better than making insane generalizations about where a women would be happier or why we need more violence.

Personally I never thought all republicans were bad, but when you see the kind of person Trump so obviously is and continue to support him I can’t help but question your ethics and morality.

You are making generalizations. And I dont support Trump. Are you that stupid or did you fail in reading comprehension?

Im stating the reasons Trump was elected and why he will be again. You got butt hurt that I dont think like you.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Strong, Starchly right leaning on most, but not all, issues.
Voted for Trump in 2016. Knowing what I know now would vote for him in 2016 again.
Will not vote for Trump in 2020. Depending on what my options are determines whether I will vote D or abstain from any Presidential vote.

I don't get it. You'd still vote for Trump in hindsight but won't vote for him in 2020? What's the reasoning here?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The sweeping generalizations you have made the last few pages of this thread are nothing short of repugnant.

I know being able to read is your weakness. But read this book A Framework for Understanding Poverty 4th Edition: Ruby K. Payne: 9781929229482: Amazon.com: Books

Scam is a harch word. I will say game the system. No I wont say game the system either.

They learn to live within the system. That is a much better way to put it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You are making generalizations. And I dont support Trump. Are you that stupid or did you fail in reading comprehension?

Im stating the reasons Trump was elected and why he will be again. You got butt hurt that I dont think like you.

Where in that post so I say you support Trump?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I know being able to read is your weakness. But read this book A Framework for Understanding Poverty 4th Edition: Ruby K. Payne: 9781929229482: Amazon.com: Books

Scam is a harch word. I will say game the system. No I wont say game the system either.

They learn to live within the system. That is a much better way to put it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't get it. You'd still vote for Trump in hindsight but won't vote for him in 2020? What's the reasoning here?

Here we go...
Because I think what we have had is not as bad as some people like to portray, but it is still bad.
Because no matter how bad it is, its less horrific than I fell it would have been under HRC.

I said numerous times in the run up to the election, in my lifetime I considered Trump the 3rd worst candidate on a ballot. Ahead only of HRC and BO.... 2 years later I still maintain that stance though I must say there are days when I wonder if he is better or equal to BO.

That is largely predicated on my feeling of the ACA...


EDIT: BTW whoever thought it was cute a couple years ago to screw up my account and add the filter that makes my posts space weird and makes the typing eratic - I hate you.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Because he came in and spoke to the blue collar american. Open up the steel woks and the coal mines. Which helps families when there are jobs.

People feel Obama neutered the police in this country in favor of criminals. And that didnt sit well. That makes people feel unsafe.

He is going after other countries. He is doing things that Make America Great Again.
Like it or not it speaks to a lot of people in this country.

He came in and lied his ass off. He doesn't give a crap about those things. THAT'S why we think support for him is ill-conceived. We can't believe people actually believe him.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

There are ways to scam the system and the poor learn how to do it. I have studied this. Read Ruby Paynes book sometime. There are ways around the system. And they figure it out.

Your middle class thought process is completely different than that of the poor. It is well documented. Read into this stuff. You know that 16k isnt sustainable. But that is your Middle class upbringing.

So..... Even if I do acknowledge that it is possible to 'game' the system (as you put it). The implication you made is that this is an epidemic. Do you have numbers to back this up or is this just a perception because you know somebody or everybody knows somebody that games the system?

[Scoobz0202]

All I want to say is thanks for your contributions to the thread, CU Tiger. As somebody who disagrees with you on the majority of policy I greatly respect your opinion and willingness to continue to post even when you don't get the same treatment in return.


I appreciate your attitude regarding social programs, because I trust you are being honest with your contributions to the community. It's nice to see somebody very successful put their money where their mouth is and contribute to the less fortunate as much as you do. It can't be argued that your personal money can be more effective when delivered yourself in your local community instead of being entrusted to the government to do it fairly and effectively. My fear is that you are the minority of those that are successful. Remove or severely cut the social programs that are mandatory contributions via taxation and trust the private individuals to help those in need will never work. The vast majority do not want to part with their money they earned to help those that need IN MY OPINION.


I am one who strongly supports the social benefit systems we have. I know they are ineffective and can be taken advantage of at times. But I know people that do benefit from them. I just can't imagine an attitude that says "These people that take advantage of it while I work hard really piss me off so let's ruin for the majority that needs it." I just accept that a percentage of welfare systems are abused. Until somebody comes up with a solution that helps those in need financially and in skill training I accept that a percentage of my check goes to these systems and that a percentage of that money is wasted. It is what it is.

[molson]

I think the universal basic income offers some potential solutions to a lot of these tensions, and other problems we'll face going forward. If everybody gets it. From billionaires to those in poverty. You're not "penalized" for working or making just enough not to be poor. Everyone gets it. So you work not for basic life necessities (which would be guaranteed), but for a standard of living beyond. It could ease the transition into an more automated future where not everyone needs to work. And it also maintains our county's entrepreneurial and capitalistic values.

And there are things about it that would appeal to conservatives - true conservatives, not necessarily party loyalists or those who are anti-liberal more than they are conservative. Government could actually be smaller and much more efficient. You get what you get and that's it. Obviously many other government programs would be disbanded. And only citizens would benefit. A country with few social programs but a guaranteed minimum income could be a lot less desirable for illegal immigrants. And some portion of your guaranteed income could be collectible, before you even get it, for certain criminal fines or child support.

I don't know if 2019 is the right time, or the ins and outs of what Yang actually proposes, but I think discussion about universal basic income is going to be a big part of our progression into the next half of this century if not sooner.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

So..... Even if I do acknowledge that it is possible to 'game' the system (as you put it). The implication you made is that this is an epidemic. Do you have numbers to back this up or is this just a perception because you know somebody or everybody knows somebody that games the system?

I was wrong in my language.

I meant live within the system. The poor learn to do that. And they survive. But that is all they do.

This is fact. It is a well known fact.

When a politician comes in and threatens to change it, and they compare that politician to the one that will not change the system, who do you think they vote for?

That is my perception.

[bronconick]

Automation will force the UBI discussion. Hopefully before people are in the streets.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

He came in and lied his ass off. He doesn't give a crap about those things. THAT'S why we think support for him is ill-conceived. We can't believe people actually believe him.

Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

But his Make America Great Again message strikes a cord with a lot of people.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

They didnt accept HRC lies because they were outside their belief system. But you believe HRC lies because they fall within your belief system.

People should not be called idiots and worse. it is what it is.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You realize that the democrats were the party of slavery and fought against civil rights, correct?

This comment is straight out the alt-right playbook and it purposely ignores history. Based on this comment and the timing of your jump onto the Yang bandwagon I can safely say I have a good idea where you get at least some of your news.

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im not advocating for Trump. But you guys are the problem. You sit in your suburban homes and spout off about how bad the country is and if you dont think the way we do you are wrong and stupid.

This is exactly what you do to dems. The other side is the problem and your team has everything right.

Originally Posted by tarcone

It is not solely about the economy. But there are more jobs now then there were in the last administration. And fed people are happy people.

Trump's economy is the equivalent of being brought in as a pinch runner on 3rd base and claiming you hit a triple.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#4cecaaa81af3

Originally Posted by tarcone

We need to get back to those values that made this country great. Hard work, taking care of yourself, raising your kids. That is being lost.

one of the greatest dems of all time once said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country."

The democratic party has strayed way to far away from this brilliant idea.

Again, expecting everyone to have the same values that you have and looking down on them if they don't value these things with the same weight as you is very similar to how you portray liberals.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

We did have a $65 bottle of wine with dinner last night, so maybe so.

Heh. I keep it real with a Bud or Coors sitting in the back of a pickup with friends (circa college days).

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by molson

I think the universal basic income offers some potential solutions to a lot of these tensions, and other problems we'll face going forward. If everybody gets it. From billionaires to those in poverty. You're not "penalized" for working or making just enough not to be poor. Everyone gets it. So you work not for basic life necessities (which would be guaranteed), but for a standard of living beyond. It could ease the transition into an more automated future where not everyone needs to work. And it also maintains our county's entrepreneurial and capitalistic values.

And there are things about it that would appeal to conservatives - true conservatives, not necessarily party loyalists or those who are anti-liberal more than they are conservative. Government could actually be smaller and much more efficient. You get what you get and that's it. Obviously many other government programs would be disbanded. And only citizens would benefit. A country with few social programs but a guaranteed minimum income could be a lot less desirable for illegal immigrants. And some portion of your guaranteed income could be collectible, before you even get it, for certain criminal fines or child support.

I don't know if 2019 is the right time, or the ins and outs of what Yang actually proposes, but I think discussion about universal basic income is going to be a big part of our progression into the next half of this century if not sooner.

I like this a lot.

But there is a lot of learned behavior that needs to be unlearned and a lot of new soft skills that need to be taught.

I remember talking to a young lady that was very well educated and very respected in her field. She was talking Ruby Payne with me. She told me her family was poor. No one went to college, she was the first. In fact, her family made fun of her for going to college. They thought education was useless. And what she was doing was wrong. She has lost contact with her family. She is uppity.

There needs to be a basic change in our society. Its not just teaching the poor, but the middle class as well.

Why do you think all those middle class people that win the lottery lose that money and fall into bankruptcy. Because they dont have the soft skills to live in that part of society.

I think Yang has a lot to offer. But there needs to be a lot of education before these ideas will be functional.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

But his Make America Great Again message strikes a cord with a lot of people.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

They didnt accept HRC lies because they were outside their belief system. But you believe HRC lies because they fall within your belief system.

People should not be called idiots and worse. it is what it is.

I'm sorry but you are constantly defending Trump Supporters and trashing liberals while painting a picture of Trump Supporters that know they're being lied to but don't care, believe Trump is bring back blue collar jobs but he isn't, and are willing to believe anything Trump says simply because it's what they want to hear.

But liberals are the ones that don't get it.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not at all. Again, reading comprehension.

The rich get all the breaks. Or the elite.

The poor learn to live within the system that was given to them. They survive. But they stay within that system. Because it is what they know and they know how to survive within that system.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm sorry but you are constantly defending Trump Supporters and trashing liberals while painting a picture of Trump Supporters that know they're being lied to but don't care, believe Trump is bring back blue collar jobs but he isn't, and are willing to believe anything Trump says simply because it's what they want to hear.

But liberals are the ones that don't get it.

Exactly. Because it isnt your "guy". This whole thread probably mirrors the Obama thread. But you believe your "guys" lies and buy into them. When Trump supporters believe his lies, they are idiots.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This comment is straight out the alt-right playbook and it purposely ignores history. Based on this comment and the timing of your jump onto the Yang bandwagon I can safely say I have a good idea where you get at least some of your news.



This is exactly what you do to dems. The other side is the problem and your team has everything right.




Trump's economy is the equivalent of being brought in as a pinch runner on 3rd base and claiming you hit a triple.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#4cecaaa81af3




Again, expecting everyone to have the same values that you have and looking down on them if they don't value these things with the same weight as you is very similar to how you portray liberals.

Yes and no. History is what history is. The democratic party is what it is. I have been talking about living within the system by the poor. the dems play into that. The scare the poor with stories about the big bad GOP taking their system away. So they keep voting dem. But the dems do nothing to help them except keep the statis quo.

It is not alt-right crap. It is fact. You cant deal with it so you do what you do best.

Yang brings some solid ideas that will help the poor. But it wont matter. They are taught how to live in the system and that is where their comfort zone is.

Yes, I have been an ass occasionally. I own that Im an asshole. Always have been,

Its hard to change what you know.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

It all boils down this statement and you are dead fucking wrong. We've never lost those values. What evidence do you have that we have other than your own delusion?

I don't support everything that Tarcone is saying however, I do think this is an interesting discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the traditional "family unit" is declining.

Parenting in America | Pew Research Center

Family life is changing. Two-parent households are on the decline in the United States as divorce, remarriage and cohabitation are on the rise. And families are smaller now, both due to the growth of single-parent households and the drop in fertility. Not only are Americans having fewer children, but the circumstances surrounding parenthood have changed. While in the early 1960s babies typically arrived within a marriage, today fully four-in-ten births occur to women who are single or living with a non-marital partner.
:
:
The share of children living in a two-parent household is at the lowest point in more than half a century: 69% are in this type of family arrangement today, compared with 73% in 2000 and 87% in 1960. And even children living with two parents are more likely to be experiencing a variety of family arrangements due to increases in divorce, remarriage and cohabitation.

I also think the traditional "family unit" is fracturing due to increased mobility of children. I see this with my siblings, with my spouse's siblings and parents, and it may well happen with my family.

So yes, I do believe we have lost/losing those values.

Its valid to ask if the traditional "family unit" was better than what we have today. My answer is some aspects of it certainly was better, and others not better (wife with no options but stay at home).

All things held equal, a two parent household is better than a single parent household. All things held equal, a family that stays physically close to each other is better than not etc.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I am going to regret re-engaging but there are several folks in this thread who I respect greatly while differing in opinion.

There are also some folks I dis-repsect on higher levels though we share opinions.


However where I think we are talking past each other is this:





Where I think, at their core, the educated and intelligent centers of each part party ways is in the above.

It is what is the definition of help.


Instead of putting words in people's mouths let me speak only for myself, and what I think many who think like me think.


I oppose government welfare programs but strongly support helping the poor, down-trodden and in need.

I think the government is horribly inefficient and is the worst possible use of finite resources to help those people.
I know that if I keep more of my income out of government hands I will make a greater positive impact in my local area than they ever will.
I want to help the lower class. I don't think the left's policies help them. I think they hurt them.
I respect that many, maybe the majority, of the voter base of the left has their heart in the right place. They want to support policies that they think will help.

I also think that many of the controlling interest of the left party doesnt give two shtis about the lower class and wants to "help" them only to buy their votes.
In contrast, I think there is certainly a % of the right that wants to lower taxes just to keep more in their pockets.
I accept that there is a portion of the right that wants to abolish welfare (used generically) programs because they dont care about others and are selfish.
And I think there is a % that truly thinks all government mandated welfare programs amount to little more than giving a junkie a fix or a drunk a drink. And that they are not help and that they truly want to help them.


I think most reasonable people see that all the groups above I mention exist.

Where I think we disagree is the % of each group.

Some folks think 99% or all Rs are bad and evil and stupid and 1% are ok.
Some folks think 99% or all Ds are bad or evil and stupid and 1% are ok.

I think most reasonable people recognize neither of these to be true.

I think the real distribution is much, much closer to 80% of both parties being well intentioned though opposing on ideas on best way. I think the balance of power is essentially 49/51 and sways back and forth by the day and time.

I think there are a lot of folks on both sides who fail to consider that the other side may have a point, that stick their fingers in their ears and FA-LA-LA-LaLA so they dont hear the other side.

Its why I have a lot of emotional fatigue on the issue. I understand the belief that gov welfare helps. I disagree, but I understand it. If you have a new perspective I will gladly listen and try to learn. But when repeat tired platitudes and name call I tune you out.

Same goes for the side I agree with on any given issue. If you are just going to spew rheotric Im going to tune out and wander away pretty quickly.

Before I am labeled let me label myself.

Strong, Starchly right leaning on most, but not all, issues.
Voted for Trump in 2016. Knowing what I know now would vote for him in 2016 again.
Will not vote for Trump in 2020. Depending on what my options are determines whether I will vote D or abstain from any Presidential vote.

Great post. One question I have been asking people who have voted over the last two national election cycles. If you could break down your vote, how much of your vote was for what it would do for "your side" and how much of it was against what it would do for the "other side"? I am making the assumption that you believe what is good for "your side" is good for the country. Or maybe it was just what was good for you which is fine too. One of the frustrations of the last two election cycles has been how little of the discussion is FOR something. I guess it t does not really make a difference in the end. I just find that the productive discussion require people speaking for something and not just against something.

[JPhillips]

I think tarcone is Dinish D'Souza.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I can look at all the entitlement programs the government gives to those that are poor. No incentive to work, just hand outs.

What entitlement programs are you talking about where people feel they don't need to work? Do you understand how minuscule welfare payments are?

Take a look at our budget. Not a ton of money goes toward welfare. Compare it to how much we spend in Iraq. Or building a new fighter jet that Boeing lobbied for.

And this idea that government programs hurt people flies in the face of evidence from other countries. They have more assistance programs and higher generational income mobility than us.

Your mistake is thinking this country is a meritocracy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You realize that the democrats were the party of slavery and fought against civil rights, correct?

This is nonsense. You need to pick up some history books. The Democrats changed their platform during the Civil Rights Era which caused a segment of their party to break off and eventually turn Republican. The Republicans then proceeded to build a strategy (Southern Strategy) around this.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

.

I'm curious how a lie falls in to a belief system.

I think the frustration around Trumps lies are that he literally lies constantly, and when the facts are presented and he is proven to be lying, his supporters stick their fingers in their ears and yell FAKE NEWS!!!

I get that if you live in West Virginia and Trump says he is going to bring back coal jobs you support him. But once it becomes obvious that isn't happening, why would you continue to support him?

Same goes for the wall. If you are anti immigration, and it becomes obvious Mexico isn't paying for the wall, and there likely isn't going to be a wall, and he is lying when he says new construction is under way, why would you support him.

This is why Trump supporters get painted as fools, because he hasn't made good on his promises, and his base continues to rally behind him, often to their own detriment.

I thin when other politicians lie, it is typically around campaign promises not fulfilled. Trump says things that are flat out lies. Claims new steel mils being built, claims NK has denuclearized, claims the Mueller report completely exonerates him, etc...All things that are easily disproven, yet when they are it's fake news.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Personally I never thought all republicans were bad, but when you see the kind of person Trump so obviously is and continue to support him I can’t help but question your ethics and morality.

All you have to do is convince yourself that Democrats are worse. It's the same binary argument we hear ever election; only policies matter and only the R and D candidates matter. If that's true, then ethics and morality don't even enter into it.

Originally Posted by Lathum

This is why Trump supporters get painted as fools, because he hasn't made good on his promises, and his base continues to rally behind him, often to their own detriment.

Ehh, he has made good on some of them. Tax cuts, SCOTUS appointments, etc. There are others he's tried to make good on but failed to. I.e. ACA something-or-other if senate republicans didn't vote against it.

[thesloppy]

If you treat 'politicians lying' as a matter of degrees, rather than just a binary yes or no, it's entirely obvious that trump lies significantly more than any other politician.

[cuervo72]

Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)

[stevew]

Why aren’t you people all getting stoned instead of fighting. It’s 4/20.

[cuervo72]

I also don't understand how Trump specifically could get any credit for SCOTUS appointments. That's all McConnell.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)

I think because its harder to relate to rich people. It's easier to be frustrated by the guy down the street who doesn't work at all but seems to have a better lifestyle than you.

[thesloppy]

No individual person would look at the government budget (either in detail or abstract) and determine that abuse of social programs are a major issue. The Republicans of the '80s invented welfare abuse as a direct threat to people's paycheck and declared themselves the only solution. That it continues to be a major issue today speaks to...I dunno, something about GOP abuse of the poor as political currency and/or historic DEM incompetence?


...on a semi-related note, in regards to the endless Capitalism vs. Socialism argument I think the following doesn't get near enough play:



Is the point of your life to protect the bottom line of your bank account, or to be happy? I assume most conservative Americans think that a better bottom line IS the way to more happiness, and so they are motivated by practically the same values.....it's just that there's a literal world of evidence that a more collective and progressive country is actually the course to a happier life. FWIW the USA has dropped several spots since Trump was elected.

[EagleFan]

Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)

Because it's a dumb trope used by people who buy into propaganda to divide up a class. There isn't much fraud taking place by poor people and the benefits are minuscule. Like you said, if all this fraud is taking place, why aren't these people rich? The real fraud is in Medicare and defense contracts.

Originally Posted by molson

I think because its harder to relate to rich people. It's easier to be frustrated by the guy down the street who doesn't work at all but seems to have a better lifestyle than you.

This is a great point. It kind of reminds me of the psychology behind the Ultimatum Game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

No individual person would look at the government budget (either in detail or abstract) and determine that abuse of social programs are a major issue. The Republicans of the '80s invented welfare abuse as a direct threat to people's paycheck and declared themselves the only solution. That it continues to be a major issue today speaks to...I dunno, something about GOP abuse of the poor as political currency and/or historic DEM incompetence?

Well the "welfare queen" stuff played well to the Republican base because it played off two things they hate, black people and women who choose to have sex.

It shouldn't be a surprise that decades later it lead to the party nominating a white nationalist who has contempt toward women.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Ouch.

Not sure this tells the full story but here's a statistic. I think there is value in having obtained a HS degree. You may have been thinking about college with your "top of the playing deck" but tbh, that's pretty presumptive.

6 facts about the U.S. military's changing demographics | Pew Research Center

It's a little more complex than that. The military has been fairly transparent in their recruiting strategy of targeting poor, underprivileged communities. This is going to lead to less educated people based on how our society doles out opportunities.

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen. If we valued education like other countries, I think those numbers would drop dramatically.

As for the upper echelon of the military with advanced degrees, remember that they are the geniuses behind the Iraq War. Not exactly mental giants there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)

One of the most enlightening things I've read said that the key to understanding US politics is to realize that a guy will gladly live in a box and eat a pigeon so long as the SOB next to him has no box and no pigeon.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One of the most enlightening things I've read said that the key to understanding US politics is to realize that a guy will gladly live in a box and eat a pigeon so long as the SOB next to him has no box and no pigeon.

Sums it up.

We have corporations that make hundreds of millions or more in profits and pay zero taxes. Also, thanks to the Republican tax cuts the number of corporations in that group has doubled.

Meanwhile, people are pissed off and upset at the person down the street scamming the government for a couple hundred a month while at no point questioning why we live in a society where a couple hundred a month is vital to these families' welfare.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen.

While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a little more complex than that. The military has been fairly transparent in their recruiting strategy of targeting poor, underprivileged communities. This is going to lead to less educated people based on how our society doles out opportunities.

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen. If we valued education like other countries, I think those numbers would drop dramatically.

HS is obviously less educated than a 4-year BA/BS. The below post implies that Military support of Trump is because they aren't educated enough.

I'm simply saying that HS graduate is sufficient to vote and we should respect that. A HS graduate who is in the military should not have their vote/support discounted because they are not college educated.

Originally Posted by PilotMan View Post
You know, the large chunk of the military aren't exactly pulling from the top of the playing deck. There are great examples of exemplary leaders, but a substantial part enlist for a reason.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for the upper echelon of the military with advanced degrees, remember that they are the geniuses behind the Iraq War. Not exactly mental giants there.

Let's not blame the military alone for the mess-up.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.

Not sure what this is in reference to, assume its like college on-line learning?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.

Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.

In my experience it was worse when I was stationed in Germany, but Phoenix had a presence on post and young soldiers were strongly encouraged to sign up for their online classes as way of helping gain the promotion points necessary for E-5.

Excelsior was also pushed by senior NCOs as a credit bank to get your military experience easily converted to college credits for promotion points.

University of Phoenix gained special access to military base – for a price | Reveal

[tarcone]

Would the free online courses they take while in service be free?

That would save the government a lot of money with the people not using the GI bill

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Would the free online courses they take while in service be free?

That would save the government a lot of money with the people not using the GI bill

I think when talking particularly about for-profit institutions it's probably safe to assume: hell no

...according to the article above University of Phoenix were the nation's largest recipient of GI Bill subsidies, and produced a graduation rate of 7%. So, no. Very unfree.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.

It's a recent development. The 2008 GI Bill allowed for-profit colleges to bypass the 90/10 rule. This turned the for-profit schools into government subsidized entities.

On top of that, the government was real lax with enforcing fraudulent marketing tactics. These schools were using official military logos, registering military names, and acting as if they were recommended by the military (might be why there is the perception the military pushed people toward the schools).

The military is not to blame for this. It's politicians who took large sums of money from for-profit schools to leave that loophole in the GI Bill and the FTC turning a blind eye to blatant fraud.

[RainMaker]

And for those who don't know, the 90/10 rule was put in place back in the 90's that mandated for-profit schools must get at least 10% of their tuition from private tuition. This was done so that scam schools couldn't be set up to run entirely on federal subsidies.

[thesloppy]

Interesting and informative stuff, RainMaker & Atocep.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

.

The military is not to blame for this. It's politicians who took large sums of money from for-profit schools to leave that loophole in the GI Bill and the FTC turning a blind eye to blatant fraud.

The military gets partial blame. There's some shady stuff that's been encourage and openly supported by military leaderships over the years.

I believe there was a crack down on it at one point, but it wasn't out of the ordinary for senior officers and NCOs to set up "investment training" for soldiers where investment scammers would come in and encourage soldiers to sign up for terrible investments offered by these companies (mostly mutual funds) while those setting up the "training" received kickbacks.

I know different installations had a problem with it in the early 2000s (no idea how long it ran) and the Drill Sergeants at my AIT set one up for our class.