We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

[Frank Apisa]

Hello Rob,



Fallacy. Big rich powerful corporations have very expensive lawyers. Harmed individuals have no access to the kind of legal teams they would be up against if they sue. Fancy corporate lawyers can easily drag a case out for years, effectively starving out the claimant.

If your position were accurate, there would be no need for OSHA. Yet, rampant violations keep OSHA very busy. The people at OSHA can tell you they do not have enough resources to effectively regulate all they are supposed to do.



I am not arguing to have a purely socialist state, where the means of production is owned by government, so yours is a moot point.

I am championing a mixed economy where luxuries and wants are traded under well-regulated capitalism, and basic needs are managed through government-run operations.

Under the ideal system, government would own and run health care. The Federal Health Care Service would provide health care to all, and be funded through taxes. Doctors and workers would be directly employed by the government, just as people in the military currently are. They would be motivated to work efficiently because they serve their nation, which they are proud to support, just as our military members are. They would be paid a fair wage with good benefits, just as our military is. It would be a public service, and it would cost less than our current for-profit health care system, because the government doesn't have to generate profits for share-holders. Remove the profit margin, and the cost is lower. Each worker would have greater take-home pay after payroll deductions, because no part of those deductions would go to making the very rich even richer.

The government should operate basic mass transportation, because there is no good capitalist model for that, and the need exists. Just like health care.

If people want a private automobile, that is a luxury, so they should pay for that in the capitalist economy.
If people want luxury foods, jewelry, a speedboat, a camping trailer, an RV, a big screen TV or elaborate entertainment center, cruise ship vacations, etc, then they will need to work to earn the money for those things. If they want prime real estate, stocks, bonds, airplanes, yachts, fancy touring motorcycles, etc, they need to work and earn to pay for that. At least as long as there are actually enough good jobs to go around (becoming doubtful.) After automation displaces most workers (predicted with AI,) then the government will need to tax the very rich so much that the government issues a standard basic income to most people, whether they work or not.

We are going to have to accept more socialism, whether you like it or not.

We really have no choice.

There are just too many of us, and overpopulation is taking it's toll on our society.

The one step further I would go would be for the government to fund education for doctors, nurses, and health care aides...with a term service feature (at a very decent pay) for graduates. For-profit hospitals and nursing homes (and prisons) should become a thing of the past immediately.

Keep fighting the good fight, Poli.

This is going to be done eventually. I just hope enough people get the message so it doesn't have to come as the result of critical crisis.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

The one step further I would go would be for the government to fund education for doctors, nurses, and health care aides...with a term service feature (at a very decent pay) for graduates. For-profit hospitals and nursing homes (and prisons) should become a thing of the past immediately.

Keep fighting the good fight, Poli.

This is going to be done eventually. I just hope enough people get the message so it doesn't have to come as the result of critical crisis.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

All education should be free to all who can produce grades. K-16 at least.

And for those who would serve in the new Federal Health Care Service, it should be free up to whatever level they can rise to. It would pay the country back multiple times over as they serve.

[Into the Night]

There is a long standing Conservative Myth that we have to choose between socialism and capitalism. Some say socialism is like a cancerous disease that, once begun, grows and grows until it chokes capitalism to death and destroys the economy.

False and false.

Socialism is working very well in most industrialized nations. The USA is the only highly industrialized nation which does not have a socialist universal health care system.

We have had socialism in the USA for a long time now.

Even back when most Trump supporters would say 'America was great.' (the 1950's?)

We had social security and a minimum wage. Neither of those things is the result of capitalism.

The (socialism again) GI Bill saved millions of returning American vets from poverty. It allowed them to get an education, get a job, get a mortgage, get a home, and build wealth. (White Americans, anyway - blacks were redlined OUT of home ownership, the primary vehicle to wealth for most Americans.)

FDR: One of the greatest Presidents ever. He brought us through the big war, brought us socialism to save us from the ravages of Great Depression.

Socialism has lots of promises and benefits but socialism cannot be our only solution.

Capitalism is our primary wealth generator. Capitalism is a powerful engine of motivation and productivity.

How do we decide between the two?

That's a trick question.

We don't have to pick one.

We can have BOTH!

We already do.

The trick is to get the correct balance between the two. We just need the proper blend of capitalism and socialism. We can work jobs, pay into the system, and let the system take care of the needy. Everyone wins!

We need to be talking more and more about how socialism can work for us. We need to move beyond the limiting old Conservative Myths that are supporting the Class War and wealth extraction.

Corporations and the super-rich extract far more of our wealth than socialism. We need to face up to the facts here. The government doesn't want your money. The government uses the money it collects to do good, and always end up in the hole anyway. (because of the chintzy super-rich never want to pay enough taxes!) Corporations and the super-rich take your money and keep it for themselves. They take the government's money. They can't get enough. If you've got it, they want it. And they are very diabolical about getting what they want.

We need a socialist health care system. It is wrong for people to think of healing as a way to get rich. It is wrong for corporations to be making billions of dollars on the 'business' of providing health care. Health care in the USA should be a RIGHT. We can put a man on the moon; we can do this.

The capitalist model cannot work well for that because there is no way to have basic competition. Something happens and you're rushed off to the hospital, you don't spring up out of the gurney and say: "WAIT! I want to shop around and see which is the best deal in hospitals!" It's not like you're laying on the ground and waving off the first few EMT's because they charge too much. That's ridiculous. Who calls around to doctor offices for prices? "How much do you charge for treatment if I have a stroke?" No. That's ridiculous. Capitalism doesn't work for that.

We need Socialism in the USA.

Actually, people DO shop around for treatments. Capitalism works just fine for that. It is capitalism that created all the equipment and the techniques you see used in hospitals and other medical facilities today.

You bring the very good example if emergency care. Believe it or not, people DO actually prefer which hospital they go to for emergency care (anything from stitches to stroke and heart attack). If they are conscious, they can even let their preferences be known. If not, then stabilizing a person can be done by any competent hospital for pretty much the same price.

The government providing certain services, such as 911 coordination, etc., are fine. These are local services provided by local governments and voted on locally by the people. It is not withing the authority of the federal government to implement any of these things.

Doctors are not government employees. They work for themselves, not the government. They may build their own facilities, or they may make use of hospital facilities that are largely built out of private donations (not the government). If a government is involved in building and running a hospital, they are generally local governments, treating the hospital facility like any other part of the infrastructure.

Health care is not a right. Neither is a place to live. Neither is enough to eat. Someone, somewhere has to pay for that healthcare, or the housing, or the food.

In the United States, YOU are the one primarily responsible for your own safety. That means access to each of these things as well. If you can't do it, your family can. If your family can't do it, your neighbors can. If you neighbors can't do it, you town or city can. etc.
This is not socialism. Do not confuse philanthropy or insurance policies as socialism. Socialism takes wealth by force. Charity takes wealth voluntarily. Insurance takes wealth by providing a service when you need it. It is capitalism in action.

ObamaCare is price controls on medical insurance. It is also abusive, forcing one to buy a product they do not want. It placed into the hands of the IRS the power of enforcement for this abuse of power.

Trump wanted to remove it entirely and go to a system where insurance providers would be competing on equal footing (no unequal the way they were before ObamaCare) which would lower prices. Because of the price control aspect of ObamaCare, it is already collapsing of its own weight. It has done what price controls have always done. It has created shortages, this time in health insurance choices themselves.

[Into the Night]

Hello Frank,



Oh, I absolutely agree.

All education should be free to all who can produce grades. K-16 at least.

And for those who would serve in the new Federal Health Care Service, it should be free up to whatever level they can rise to. It would pay the country back multiple times over as they serve.

Education is not a liquid that someone pours into one's head. The NEA has not educated a single student. Our present school K-12 system is a local one. There is no need for a federal one. Indeed, the federal government does not have any authority to implement one. Nothing in the Constitution gave them that authority. There is a lot of problems with the education the government (including the federal government) mandates. It is producing students that are functionally illiterate, cannot write properly, are unable to do even simple arithmetic, know almost no science, have a very distorted view of history, and even can't find their own place in a world map. These are recent graduates I'm talking about, not people dropping out or failing.

Personally, I'm not impressed with government run education.

The other logical extension of what you are suggesting is free college as well (the -16 part of your K-16). This is a giveaway program that renders such a degree of no value. Colleges and universities already have a lot to answer for in failing to educate people. I see electrical engineering students that are so uneducated they don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. Software engineers that basically can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Business management graduates that have no idea how to organize their own budget, much less someone else's. Appallingly incompetent lawyers that not only graduated, but somehow passed the bar exam. etc.

By making this part of required education, you are doing nothing to improve it. By making it all free, you are doing nothing but increasing costs (there is no incentive for a government run anything to save money). In implementing the ultimate price control (free), you will produce the ultimate shortage. In this case, qualified personnel.

[Frank Apisa]

Actually, people DO shop around for treatments. Capitalism works just fine for that. It is capitalism that created all the equipment and the techniques you see used in hospitals and other medical facilities today.

You bring the very good example if emergency care. Believe it or not, people DO actually prefer which hospital they go to for emergency care (anything from stitches to stroke and heart attack). If they are conscious, they can even let their preferences be known. If not, then stabilizing a person can be done by any competent hospital for pretty much the same price.

The government providing certain services, such as 911 coordination, etc., are fine. These are local services provided by local governments and voted on locally by the people. It is not withing the authority of the federal government to implement any of these things.

Doctors are not government employees. They work for themselves, not the government. They may build their own facilities, or they may make use of hospital facilities that are largely built out of private donations (not the government). If a government is involved in building and running a hospital, they are generally local governments, treating the hospital facility like any other part of the infrastructure.

Health care is not a right. Neither is a place to live. Neither is enough to eat. Someone, somewhere has to pay for that healthcare, or the housing, or the food.

In the United States, YOU are the one primarily responsible for your own safety. That means access to each of these things as well. If you can't do it, your family can. If your family can't do it, your neighbors can. If you neighbors can't do it, you town or city can. etc.
This is not socialism. Do not confuse philanthropy or insurance policies as socialism. Socialism takes wealth by force. Charity takes wealth voluntarily. Insurance takes wealth by providing a service when you need it. It is capitalism in action.

ObamaCare is price controls on medical insurance. It is also abusive, forcing one to buy a product they do not want. It placed into the hands of the IRS the power of enforcement for this abuse of power.

Trump wanted to remove it entirely and go to a system where insurance providers would be competing on equal footing (no unequal the way they were before ObamaCare) which would lower prices. Because of the price control aspect of ObamaCare, it is already collapsing of its own weight. It has done what price controls have always done. It has created shortages, this time in health insurance choices themselves.

The unfettered capitalists...the "healthcare is not a right, food is not a right, shelter is not a right" people are the SCUM of the planet...and should be shunned by everyone else.

[Frank Apisa]

Education is not a liquid that someone pours into one's head. The NEA has not educated a single student. Our present school K-12 system is a local one. There is no need for a federal one. Indeed, the federal government does not have any authority to implement one. Nothing in the Constitution gave them that authority. There is a lot of problems with the education the government (including the federal government) mandates. It is producing students that are functionally illiterate, cannot write properly, are unable to do even simple arithmetic, know almost no science, have a very distorted view of history, and even can't find their own place in a world map. These are recent graduates I'm talking about, not people dropping out or failing.

Personally, I'm not impressed with government run education.

The other logical extension of what you are suggesting is free college as well (the -16 part of your K-16). This is a giveaway program that renders such a degree of no value. Colleges and universities already have a lot to answer for in failing to educate people. I see electrical engineering students that are so uneducated they don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. Software engineers that basically can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Business management graduates that have no idea how to organize their own budget, much less someone else's. Appallingly incompetent lawyers that not only graduated, but somehow passed the bar exam. etc.

By making this part of required education, you are doing nothing to improve it. By making it all free, you are doing nothing but increasing costs (there is no incentive for a government run anything to save money). In implementing the ultimate price control (free), you will produce the ultimate shortage. In this case, qualified personnel.

Absolute, unthinking SCUM.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nordberg,

Socialism in America is just nasty labeling.

Bernie has begun to turn that around.

Americans 18-29 view socialism more positively than capitalism 51%-45%.

Democrats view socialism more positively than capitalism 57%-47%.

Gallup

Bernie took the pox off the word 'socialist!'

[PoliTalker]

Many made the same claims about the Soviet Union before the fall of Communism--it was a paradise. Now it is Cuba.

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/new...ives/94885894/

It is no surprise that Naples, Florida would have a newspaper critical of anything that threatens crony capitalist wealth extraction, ie socialism, in the form of criticism of Cuba. Naples, Florida is a very rich community, kind of like the Mar-A-Lago of the Florida west coast. (Private jets come and go with stark regularity.) It only makes sense to placate the super-rich by championing capitalism.

The narrative is familiar because it is framed as a choice between one or the other, capitalism vs socialism.

That's a false narrative, because the USA has successfully mixed capitalism and socialism.

Government assistance programs for the poor, the struggling, the hungry, the wealth-extracted have been wildly successful in raising the lifestyles of millions of Americans, and are responsible for creating one of the highest average standards of living for all Americans comparatively across the entire world.

The take-away is clear.

Mixing capitalism and socialism is the answer for a bright future for ALL Americans.

We don't have to choose.

[Fentoine Lum]

It is no surprise that Naples, Florida would have a newspaper critical of anything that threatens crony capitalist wealth extraction, ie socialism, in the form of criticism of Cuba. Naples, Florida is a very rich community, kind of like the Mar-A-Lago of the Florida west coast. It only makes sense to placate the super-rich by championing capitalism.

The narrative is familiar because it is framed as a choice between one or the other, capitalism vs socialism.

That's a false narrative, because the USA has successfully mixed capitalism and socialism.

Government assistance programs for the poor, the struggling, the hungry, the wealth-extracted have been wildly successful in raising the lifestyles of millions of Americans, and are responsible for creating one of the highest average standards of living for all Americans comparatively across the entire world.

The take-away is clear.

Mixing capitalism and socialism is the answer for a bright future for ALL Americans.

We don't have to choose.

Larry Kudlow Confirms GOP Plan to Shred Safety Net After Midterms
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/la...fter-midterms/

[PoliTalker]

Hello and welcome Evergreen58,

Thanks for joining and contributing to the discussion:

I suppose the idea of Socialism could be good if human nature was pure. If everyone truly did work to the best of their ability then it would be easier to feel good about goods and services being distributed to them. But I believe there are those who would take advantage of the system - as William Bradford discovered in 1620. He discovered that those participating in the work increased when they got to reap the benefits of their own work - and not have the product of their hard work given to those who did not work. I believe there are many conservatives who would be more open to a socialist society if there could be a way to eliminate benefits going to those who don't want to work. How could we fix this problem?

Then there is another problem. I believe greed is the driving force behind much innovation and invention. Why would someone want to work tirelessly to innovate and invent if the goods and services they produce will be regulated by the government? There may be exceptions, but surely no-one is naive enough to think that most men and women will work solely for the common good. This sounds good. It is probably the Christian way. But it is not human nature.

Also, it appears to me that many politicians who support socialism live in opulence themselves sharing very little of what they have with others. Sadly, they do not practice what they preach. This is a huge problem which leads to cynicism by conservatives. We all are more likely to follow those who practice what they preach. Which modern day politician does this?

I just joined this site. I am not looking for a fight. I would like to understand the socialist point of view better.

I really appreciate your honest candor. Yes, many here are in it for the fight. I agree that detracts heavily from the kind of discussions I like to see. Thank you for braving the fray and chiming in. I hope you can deal with the inevitable personal attacks which will surely come. I, personally, refuse to be trolled. I simply place all who troll me on Ignore. And I make it clear it is one and done. If I place a name on that list I Never take it off. By making this plainly clear, it serves as fair warning to others not to test me. That personal policy has been fantastically successful. Even though I have a predictably large Ignore List, (found at the beginning of every thread I create - also used as a thread ban list,) I have made more friends than entries on my Ignore List.

I think there is a big misunderstanding about the push for socialism. Heck, the very word socialism can have many meanings, and the definition seems to be changing.

Many conservatives view socialism as an alternative to capitalism, and believe that we have to choose between one or the other. They believe that if we let socialism get started that it will never end and it will grow until it stamps out capitalism all together.

The reality could hardly be further from that unfounded fear.

Socialism already got started a long time ago, and it has not diminished capitalism from creating opportunity and riches for many.

We have had some form of socialism in the USA for a very long time now, and look at the current economy. Look at Wall Street. Look at the American harbors full of posh yachts. Look at all the gated communities. Look at all the private jets, luxury cars. Look at how many super-rich people there are in the USA. Look at all the wealth generated.

All of that was done as socialism has grown in the USA. During that time we have instituted a minimum wage (socialist,) Social Security (socialist,) Unemployment compensation (socialist,) Medicare (socialist,) Medicaid (socialist,) Public schools (socialist,) subsidized mass transportation (socialist,) supplemental income for the poor (socialist,) supplemental food programs for the poor (socialist,) the PPACA (socialist,) public housing (socialist,) rent assistance (socialist,) heating assistance (socialist,) child care assistance (socialist,) disaster relief (socialist.) You get the idea. All of these things (and many more) are socialist concepts. We use the power of all of us put together to help those in need. The power of all of us put together is called government.

Government is also used by the rich and powerful to help themselves. Crony capitalists make lots of money. So much, that they can afford to make huge campaign contributions and dark money contributions to PACs that help get their candidates elected. Those candidates know they have to help the rich. They make laws that help the rich get richer. Helping the rich is not helping the poor. There is so little trickle-down effect that it might as well be like the mighty Colorado River. Are you familiar with the Colorado River? So much water is extracted out of it that it is often entirely dry before it ever makes it to the Pacific Ocean. Nothing trickles down to the lowest level at all.

Nothing trickling down is why 1 in 3 black children in the USA often go hungry. Even as the super-rich wallow in luxury and have more money than could EVER be spent in one lifetime on one person for anything less than what would have to be considered pure extravagances.

We need a balance of capitalism for the wants; and socialism for the needs. That way, we take advantage of the best that each has to offer.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Fentoine Lum,

Larry Kudlow Confirms GOP Plan to Shred Safety Net After Midterms
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/la...fter-midterms/

From you link:

"Despite Trump’s insistence on the campaign trail that he would not go after Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the president’s “morally bankrupt” 2019 budget proposal released earlier this year called for $1.7 trillion in cuts to safety net programs—including hundreds of billions in cuts to the very programs he vowed to shield."

It's not like they can hide their plan. Create huge debt by slashing taxes for the rich. Then claim we are spending too much. Then cut spending on the safety net. My, how greedy the rich conservatives are!

That would make an excellent Thread all on it's own. I would like to strongly suggest that you create it. I'd be happy to contribute to that discussion. There are more than a few ears that need to be lit on fire.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Into The Night,

I hope you are well today?

Actually, people DO shop around for treatments. Capitalism works just fine for that. It is capitalism that created all the equipment and the techniques you see used in hospitals and other medical facilities today.

You bring the very good example if emergency care. Believe it or not, people DO actually prefer which hospital they go to for emergency care (anything from stitches to stroke and heart attack). If they are conscious, they can even let their preferences be known. If not, then stabilizing a person can be done by any competent hospital for pretty much the same price.

The government providing certain services, such as 911 coordination, etc., are fine. These are local services provided by local governments and voted on locally by the people. It is not withing the authority of the federal government to implement any of these things.

Doctors are not government employees. They work for themselves, not the government. They may build their own facilities,

You know, if doctors did not have to spend so much time learning to run a business, they would have more time to devote to practicing medicine and being better Doctors.

or they may make use of hospital facilities that are largely built out of private donations (not the government).

Or in many cases BECAUSE of the government. Government has built MANY hospitals.

If a government is involved in building and running a hospital, they are generally local governments, treating the hospital facility like any other part of the infrastructure.

Health care is not a right. Neither is a place to live. Neither is enough to eat. Someone, somewhere has to pay for that healthcare, or the housing, or the food.

In the United States, YOU are the one primarily responsible for your own safety. That means access to each of these things as well. If you can't do it, your family can. If your family can't do it, your neighbors can. If you neighbors can't do it, you town or city can. etc.
This is not socialism. Do not confuse philanthropy or insurance policies as socialism. Socialism takes wealth by force.

Funny. I pay my taxes willingly. I understand that some of my taxes will be used to help those in need. I approve of that use.

As a matter of fact, I have never heard of government forces coming around door to door and pointing guns at people to demand they pay their taxes. Just doesn't happen.

Charity takes wealth voluntarily. Insurance takes wealth by providing a service when you need it. It is capitalism in action.

ObamaCare is price controls on medical insurance. It is also abusive, forcing one to buy a product they do not want. It placed into the hands of the IRS the power of enforcement for this abuse of power.

Trump wanted to remove it entirely and go to a system where insurance providers would be competing on equal footing (no unequal the way they were before ObamaCare) which would lower prices. Because of the price control aspect of ObamaCare, it is already collapsing of its own weight.

The PPACA is struggling because Republicans have worked very hard to undermine it.

It has done what price controls have always done. It has created shortages, this time in health insurance choices themselves.

Time to go to Single Payer, then. That is the next logical step toward totally socialized health care, and establishing an American Right To Health Care.

And MY, how that would Promote the General Welfare!

Just imagine how productive America could be if health care was fare more widely available. Sick people just don't work very hard.

[Evergreen58]

Wow! Thank you SO much for responding to me in a respectful intelligent manner!! It somewhat restores my hope that there are some people who favor Socialism but still respect other views. I read your reply and I need to go through it again later to digest it. I will respond later after I can do that. But if you believe in Socialism then you are a credit to those that do. The other person who replied to me told me this was not the forum to learn about Socialism. Why not?? I confess to being a "dyed in the wool" Capitalist. But I am open to learning. Why can't I dialog with others in a respectful manner. You made my day friend. I will respond again later.

[Fentoine Lum]

Hello Into The Night,

I hope you are well today?



You know, if doctors did not have to spend so much time learning to run a business, they would have more time to devote to practicing medicine and being better Doctors.



Or in many cases BECAUSE of the government. Government has built MANY hospitals.



Funny. I pay my taxes willingly. I understand that some of my taxes will be used to help those in need. I approve of that use.

As a matter of fact, I have never heard of government forces coming around door to door and pointing guns at people to demand they pay their taxes. Just doesn't happen.



The PPACA is struggling because Republicans have worked very hard to undermine it.



Time to go to Single Payer, then. That is the next logical step toward totally socialized health care, and establishing an American Right To Health Care.

And MY, how that would Promote the General Welfare!

Just imagine how productive America could be if health care was fare more widely available. Sick people just don't work very hard.

Socialism in america is fine for the substantial people, we engage in that endlessly, it's only no good for the masses. And you're right, it's ludicrous to assert we will be globally competitive with societies who invest in their own people and societies while we allow the ruling class to extract from ours.

The current paradigm lays out like this:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense fopr the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

An example or two:

Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages
https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-...w-wages-2013-6

Amazon Gets Tax Breaks While Its Employees Rely on Food Stamps, New Data Shows
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/19/...housing-wages/

[PoliTalker]

Hello Into the Night,

Education is not a liquid that someone pours into one's head. The NEA has not educated a single student. Our present school K-12 system is a local one. There is no need for a federal one. Indeed, the federal government does not have any authority to implement one. Nothing in the Constitution gave them that authority. There is a lot of problems with the education the government (including the federal government) mandates. It is producing students that are functionally illiterate, cannot write properly, are unable to do even simple arithmetic, know almost no science, have a very distorted view of history, and even can't find their own place in a world map. These are recent graduates I'm talking about, not people dropping out or failing.

Personally, I'm not impressed with government run education.

China has socialized education and they are kicking our ass. Their students test at levels far superior to our own. They have become so productive that they are slowly stealing our economic stardom.

The other logical extension of what you are suggesting is free college as well (the -16 part of your K-16). This is a giveaway program that renders such a degree of no value. Colleges and universities already have a lot to answer for in failing to educate people. I see electrical engineering students that are so uneducated they don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. Software engineers that basically can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Business management graduates that have no idea how to organize their own budget, much less someone else's. Appallingly incompetent lawyers that not only graduated, but somehow passed the bar exam. etc.

Maybe they cheated their way through school just as many believe the President did.

By making this part of required education, you are doing nothing to improve it. By making it all free, you are doing nothing but increasing costs (there is no incentive for a government run anything to save money). In implementing the ultimate price control (free), you will produce the ultimate shortage. In this case, qualified personnel.

There was a time in our history when many did not go to school. Gradually, it became a source of pride to have finished the 6th grade. Eventually that level of competence grew to the standard of establishing the need to get a high school diploma as the benchmark for success.

That was a long time ago.

And time has not stopped since then. It just keeps on advancing. Progress happens.

Things have changed. The world has become more complex, well-paying jobs more demanding. The need for higher education than high school has become increasingly apparent. Where it was once accepted that a high school diploma was needed to get a good job, that has grown to needing a college degree.

And for that reason, public K-12 education needs to become K-16.

But it is useless to force students to attend school if they are not performing. Fudging test scores to fulfill quotas serves nobody. If students are not demonstrating proficiency at any level, for what ever reason, they should not be advanced to the next level, period. There is no point in attempting to force unqualified students through material which depends on understanding of lower level material if they have no such knowledge. That is pointless. That only hold the good students back. Our challenge is to weed out students who are not performing so they don't hold other students back. Only students who pass tests and demonstrate proficiency should advance to the college level, or for that matter, to any level.

Publicly funded K-16 should not be for everybody. There is a strong need for it, but it should only be for those who get good grades.

Having a well-educated populace is in the interest of our self-government, and the very survival of the United States. Our self-government concept depends on the active participation of a well-informed public. That means having a good education. Getting a good education should not be something reserved only for the rich and well-off. Our challenge is to bring a good education to the poorest and most disadvantaged. The elite and affluent already have it. But by effectively shutting out the disadvantaged, they are shut out of opportunity, and the American Dream.

The move away from public education is a move away from making America Great again.