[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-21, 11:38, said:

All of this debt is a total disaster. To me, it is one of those things that simply cannot be right. I really like it the way it was 60 years ago. Tuition wasn't free, books weren't free, rent wasn't free. But it was manageable. At least it was manageable for me to go to the state university. I don't think that we have to find ways for every kid to go to MIT or Cal Tech or Princeton etc. Space is limited anyway, and there is nothing wrong (my view) in expecting people to take cost into account. If there is truly some 8 year old Einstein walking around in rags, someone will make notice and get him/her to where s/he belongs. Most of us do fine at a quality school that is not MIT. We don't need perfection in solving this problem, but we need to do a lot better.

We already have public colleges and universities, which are relatively inexpensive, and students from that state get heavy subsidies on top of that. So I think we could just expand on that program: every high school graduate should be guanteed enough to afford a state college education. If they want to go to a private college, they'd need to make up the tuition difference.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-February-21, 15:21, said:

We already have public colleges and universities, which are relatively inexpensive, and students from that state get heavy subsidies on top of that. So I think we could just expand on that program: every high school graduate should be guanteed enough to afford a state college education. If they want to go to a private college, they'd need to make up the tuition difference.

Yes, something like that would be right.

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-21, 11:38, said:

It would be interesting to know just what motivates the young for supporting Sanders. Pocketbook issues? Idealism? Maybe they just like the guy. I like the guy. But I expect to vote for Hillary.

This article about Labour's leader election last year may be recognizable from a US perspective. It seems that over here, young people are more likely to be fed up with the establishment than older people are.

I somewhere saw a simpler explanation, though: The post-Berlin Wall generation doesn't have the strong negative associations with the term "socialism". This may be more a question of labels than of substance.

[gwnn]

Maybe because young people are on youtube?

https://www.youtube....h?v=-dY77j6uBHI

[y66]

From Young Voters, Motivated Again in today's NYT:

Quote

In one of the more pleasant surprises of this presidential campaign, young Americans are voting in big numbers, contributing to some unexpected results so far.

This is the first presidential campaign in which people age 18 to 29 make up the same proportion of the electorate as do baby boomers — about one-third. This year, the youth turnout for both parties in the primaries so far is rivaling 2008, the year of Barack Obama’s first campaign. On Saturday, young voters turned out in far greater numbers in the South Carolina Republican primary than they did in 2008 or 2012 in that state, according to a study by Tufts University’s Circle center. Donald Trump won the primary, with 32.5 percent of the vote, but young voters were the only group he didn’t carry. Marco Rubio came in second with 22.5 percent, closely followed by Ted Cruz, with 22.3 percent. Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump drew bigger share of the youth vote than Mr. Rubio.

The youth vote’s biggest beneficiary by far is Bernie Sanders, who filled venues in Las Vegas with cheering young admirers last week, after winning more than 80 percent of this group in both Iowa and New Hampshire. On Saturday young people made up 18 percent of voters in Nevada’s Democratic caucus, five percentage points more than in 2008. Mr. Sanders again drew more than eight in 10 of these voters. Mrs. Clinton won Nevada with 52.7 percent, besting Mr. Sanders by 5.5 percentage points. But young people were largely responsible for closing what just a month ago had been a more than 20-point lead for her.

Many find it odd that the 74-year-old Sanders would have this appeal. But John Della Volpe wasn’t surprised. Surveying young voters in November, Mr. Della Volpe, the director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics, noted that support for Sanders among potential voters age 18 to 29 had rocketed from 1 percent to 41 percent in about six months. Asked what they valued most in a candidate, young voters said integrity, level-headedness, and authenticity, in that order. Political and business experience were far down the list.

These voters have always been tough to motivate. For years young people have been telling Mr. Della Volpe that they’d like to take an active role in politics, but that few politicians have asked. This generation is heavily into volunteerism, the Harvard team found, with a big interest in “making the world a better place.” In focus groups, “They want to do more than just vote,” Mr. Della Volpe says. “They want to be part of a campaign. Sanders was the first one since Obama to tap into that.”

Pat Cotham, a 65-year-old Democratic superdelegate from North Carolina, says this year’s engagement by young people reminds her of her own Vietnam-era college activism. “I remember feeling that people weren’t paying attention to us. But young people changed America and it can happen again.” Though she admires Mrs. Clinton, “I have high regard for the Sanders camp for doing that.”

Inspiring young voters is crucial for Democrats. People born after 1980 are more racially diverse and socially liberal than any other age group, a 2014 Pew study found, and in the Harvard poll in November 56 percent of voters age 18 to 29 said they want a Democrat in the White House, compared with 36 percent who would prefer a Republican. Yet 40 percent of those in this age group say they are politically independent.

[y66]

From Bernie Sanders and the Danish Example: Why many millennials are attracted to Bernie Sanders and European social democracy in today's NYT.

Quote

To the Editor: Re “Livin’ the Danish Dream” (column, Feb. 12):

David Brooks is aghast at Bernie Sanders’s rise. Mr. Brooks fears that young Americans are forsaking the virtues of economic dynamism in their desire for greater economic security. He suggests that this is not the American way. But he doesn’t grapple with why so many Americans have soured on our economic order.

Too many American cities — indeed whole regions — have been devastated by mass job losses. More thriving metropolitan areas are increasingly unaffordable places to live. Real suffering accompanies our galloping inequality: Note the shocking uptick in drug- and despair-induced mortality among middle-age white Americans.

Mr. Brooks wants to protect the conditions that nurture “disruptive dynamos” like Walmart and Google. But as globalization and new technologies disrupt our economy, we need government to ensure that the gains aren’t all going straight to the top, with American workers left behind paying the price.

One need not be a Sanders-style democratic socialist to be nostalgic for the higher top marginal tax rates, more modest college costs and the broader union membership not of Denmark but of Eisenhower-era America.

DANIEL TREIMAN

Brooklyn

The writer is a student at New York University School of Law.

Quote

To the Editor: David Brooks wonders why millennials are tired of American capitalism and finds it amazing that they want to “mimic a continent that has been sluggish for decades” and “want a country that would be a lot less vibrant.”

Perhaps they know that Denmark has consistently been among the countries with the highest scores on national happiness; it has the lowest corruption grade in the world, free vocational and university education, low unemployment and universal health care. Its companies actually pay taxes, and young people have no educational debt and find employment after school.

How amazing that Mr. Brooks thinks that we are a vibrant, future-looking country when we cannot solve even the most basic problems.

ALAN KRAUS

New Paltz, N.Y.

Quote

To the Editor: It is clear to me that fear, anger and anxiety are causing so many young adults to long for Northern European stability. The simple truth is that salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living, and many young adults see their parents and others struggling.

How is it that so many people work full time (both adults in a family!) and still qualify for food stamps or Medicaid? How ridiculous is it to think about saving for retirement when one can barely put food on the table?

These young adults see no future for themselves. Of course they are longing for stability. It guarantees a roof over their heads, food on the table, and education in case economic conditions become more favorable.

Perhaps if enough power and money were threatened to be taken from the 1 percent by democratic socialists, they might become frightened enough to actually trickle down some well-paying jobs.

ADRIENNE L. RAINER FRIEDES

East Hampton, N.Y.

[WellSpyder]

 PassedOut, on 2016-February-20, 17:29, said:

He makes the argument that the US would be better off if college were tuition-free to those who desire it.

I couldn't help noticing this example of how American English differs from British English. Over here, tuition is teaching, and it took me a little while to see that people weren't talking about colleges not providing any teaching! (To put it another way, to me "tuition-free" means "free of tuition", not simply "free tuition".)

[kenberg]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-22, 05:45, said:

I couldn't help noticing this example of how American English differs from British English. Over here, tuition is teaching, and it took me a little while to see that people weren't talking about colleges not providing any teaching! (To put it another way, to me "tuition-free" means "free of tuition", not simply "free tuition".)

I was completely unaware of this. I may as well get the details straight: When a professors lectures to students is he providing tuition, or is tuition only provided later by tutors who meet with the students to further discuss the content of the professor's lecture?

Let's assume the prof is being clear enough to be providing something.

[Winstonm]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-22, 05:45, said:

I couldn't help noticing this example of how American English differs from British English. Over here, tuition is teaching, and it took me a little while to see that people weren't talking about colleges not providing any teaching! (To put it another way, to me "tuition-free" means "free of tuition", not simply "free tuition".)

How about intuition?

[Zelandakh]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-22, 05:45, said:

I couldn't help noticing this example of how American English differs from British English. Over here, tuition is teaching, and it took me a little while to see that people weren't talking about colleges not providing any teaching! (To put it another way, to me "tuition-free" means "free of tuition", not simply "free tuition".)

Think of it as an abbreviation for "tuition fee-free".

[WellSpyder]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-22, 08:21, said:

I was completely unaware of this. I may as well get the details straight: When a professors lectures to students is he providing tuition, or is tuition only provided later by tutors who meet with the students to further discuss the content of the professor's lecture?

Let's assume the prof is being clear enough to be providing something.

Yes, I think the prof is providing tuition as well as the tutors. Any form of teaching counts. Tuition fees have been a big issue at UK universities, and are supposed to cover the teaching side of university costs, as opposed to any living costs, accommodation rents, etc.

[kenberg]

A conversation that Becky hand with "Lady X" brought up a general question, relevant to proposals about medical care. We are healthy, but we are at an age when we, too often for comfort, encounter situations I am about to describe.

Lady X has a mother in a nursing home. There are levels 1,2,3 of care and her mother is now at the highest level. The cost is 10K per month. Her husband is also there, also at the highest level, also 10K per month. It is often said, and I imagine it to be true, that a large portion of medical costs throughout one's life occur in the last few years. Let's take Sanders, since he is the most aggressive in speaking of needed changes. Under his approach, what would happen?

As I get it, here is what happens with our current approach. The patient pays, until that patient is out of money. If the kids were expecting an inheritance, tough luck. Then Medicaid pays. In the case of Lady X, she and her husband separated their finances as much as they could, but only so much can be done. She described it as if they were going through a divorce, except they aren't.

I accept that there is no great solution to this. I am far from clear on what I would suggest. Certainly Sanders, or anyone who advocates substantial revision in medical care, is aware of this problem. Both at the political level and the personal level I am wondering what the plan is. Anyone out there know the answer?

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-22, 13:02, said:

As I get it, here is what happens with our current approach. The patient pays, until that patient is out of money. If the kids were expecting an inheritance, tough luck. Then Medicaid pays.

Silly question but what stops Lord and Lady X from giving their money to their children early, either directly as a gift or in a trust fund, so as to qualify for Medicaid? I daresay there is some reason why this would not work but I have not followed the legislation enough to know.

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-22, 15:23, said:

Silly question but what stops Lord and Lady X from giving their money to their children early, either directly as a gift or in a trust fund, so as to qualify for Medicaid? I daresay there is some reason why this would not work but I have not followed the legislation enough to know.

I also don't know much about this. In fact, this is what my father did, although no nursing home was involved. He just figured he wouldn't live forever. Not that much money was involved, and that can makes things easier. He said how much was to go to my kids. Of course they got it. He wanted some to go to my ex-wife. She got it, I had no desire to be haunted. The rest was mine.

But it can be tricky. I have two daughters, Becky has two daughters and a son. Mostly but not entirely everyone gets along, but we are not, at least for the moment, up for distributing the "wealth". But someday, when the medical bills mushroom, we shall see.

For people with a boatload of money (that's not us) I can imagine the government getting upset about such cleverness. I am not sure of the rules.

Added: Long ago I read The Day They Shook the Plum Tree. The very wealthy Henrietta Green supposedly dressed in rags and tried to have her son treated at a charity clinic when he broke his leg.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-22, 15:23, said:

Silly question but what stops Lord and Lady X from giving their money to their children early, either directly as a gift or in a trust fund, so as to qualify for Medicaid? I daresay there is some reason why this would not work but I have not followed the legislation enough to know.

you need to do so significantly in advance of the expected expenses (like seven years or so)

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-22, 16:27, said:

you need to do so significantly in advance of the expected expenses (like seven years or so)

How do they know? Say I invest my money into art that I keep in my home. Do I need to inform someone that a given piece now belongs to someone else and that I am "just looking after it"? Or will they take my word for it when the time comes?

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-22, 05:08, said:

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt.

I thought so too, but actually it has changed a lot over time. Recall that before the civil war, it was GOP that was against slavery.

Carter-Ford may be atypical because Carter was from Georgia and Ford from Michigan, but anyway the current South=GOP picture is something that crystalized gradually since Reagan.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-23, 03:10, said:

How do they know? Say I invest my money into art that I keep in my home. Do I need to inform someone that a given piece now belongs to someone else and that I am "just looking after it"? Or will they take my word for it when the time comes?

If you are rich enough to be investing in art, then you have lawyers and accountants to take care of this stuff.

If your money is in mutual funds, pensions plans, and the like then you need to have your i's dotted and your T's crossed (by which I mean, transferring your funds into a trust well in advance of the draw down date. My father is about to go into a nursing home because of Alzheimers. Sadly he didn't shelter his assets in time so his estate is pretty much *****ed)

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-23, 03:10, said:

How do they know? Say I invest my money into art that I keep in my home. Do I need to inform someone that a given piece now belongs to someone else and that I am "just looking after it"? Or will they take my word for it when the time comes?

I think you would need to put something into writing.

If you put it into a trust, the trust document serves that purpose -- it should be dated and notarized.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-February-23, 09:53, said:

I think you would need to put something into writing.

If you put it into a trust, the trust document serves that purpose -- it should be dated and notarized.

Right. Like many many people of my age, we have enough money to make sure we want this done legally and correctly, not so much money that there is any point to hire people who specialize in supposedly clever schemes. I imagine Lady X in my earlier post is similarly situated. There is something of a "Do what seems right and hope it work out" quality to all of this.

Anyway, my basic question was how such matters would be handled under a reform such as Sanders envisions. We have long term care insurance. There are limits to what this will pay but with any luck we kick off before we reach the limit. I am usually skeptical if such things but Becky feels more comfortable with it so we have it. But if the Sanders plan will take care of us whether or not we have it, then we are wasting a lot of money.

I went to the Sanders website and it said that his lan is that every person should get the health care that he or she needs. Ok. Then I clicked on Full Plan to see if there were more details. Not really, as near as I could see. At least I did not find anything addressing the type of thing I am speaking of here. Medicare for all sounds good, but as I understand it Medicare does ot cover nursing home care. Medicaid does cover it, after you exhaust your funds. So maybe that's the Sanders plan. I dunno.


Change of focus. Early in the campaign season it was my opinion that Hillary was a weak candidate and if the Republicans could get their act together they could beat her. I want to vary that, now that it appears that Trump will be the Republican nominee. Surely he can be beaten if the Dems have any sense at all. Surely voters can see that a guy who promises everything and has a history of escaping responsibity for his mistakes through the filing of bankruptcy is not a really great choice for president.