The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Mr. Smith]

Obama didn't use his brief chance to pass a major infrastructural revival and this is the end result.

He pushed Obamacare first.

The Trump agenda is privatization to monopolistic profiteers in return for what in many cases might best be described as maintenance.

The stimulus came first, and it only had about $100 billion for infrastructure and science out of a total cost of over $800 billion, with actual transportation infrastructure at about $48 billion. We knew since the mid-00's that our nation needed at least $1 trillion in infrastructure spending to repair or replace everything. This was the case of Democrats being too timid, thinking that if they kept the cost of the stimulus down then they'd get less public backlash. They should have realized that you either go big or go home. If you're going to do a big spending bill, then do a really big one and get everything you need, because it will be less likely you get another chance. And by doing a smaller bill, it ends up being less effective at getting the economy going. They passed the stimulus in Feb. 2009 and other than a few months in spring 2010 due to census hiring, we still had monthly job losses in Sept. 2010. So with an unemployment rate of 9.8% in Nov. 2010 and the ugly fight to pass Obamacare they got destroyed in the midterms.

[Mr. Smith]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

     Colleges are useful for teaching certain advanced skillsets that lead to certain professions. I do know that there is a significant gap between Europe and the United States here (I recall hearing that 12% of college students study engineering over there compared to 4% here), so I can give you some benefit of the doubt on your mischaracterization of the situation.

     Many degree programs in the liberal arts suffer from low demand for the specific knowledge and do a poor job of imparting critical thinking skills (especially compared to yesteryear). Graduating college requires little effort outside of STEM fields and the quality of many graduates, even from prestigious universities, is frankly embarrassingly poor. Liberal arts programs are structured to funnel students into grad schools, where they are used as cheap labor for departments and offered little opportunity for advancement unless they are fortunate enough to enter top programs (even in the sciences, which carries its own baggage). For many jobs, universities are treated as a form of filtering wherein unnecessary degrees are valued for HR reasons and folks are corralled into seeking degrees they don't actually need. At top universities, social filtering both in admissions and in student life ensure that the best opportunities are reserved for upper-class youths, as middle-class strivers are led into a rat race that is stacked heavily against them.

     The spread of these problems that I just described affect far, far more students than do the opportunities offered by engineering and medicine. As I said, there is much good that colleges do. There are also many problems, and I could easily go on. Your dismissive tone only proves that you do not know what you are talking about here.

[Mr. Smith]

ITT: A bunch of privileged whites who aren't suffering under Trump have no sympathy for the millions of people who are suffering under him, instead caring about their party winning elections in the way people care about their favorite sports team winning games.

For people, their life hasn't changed much under either Trump or Obama. Cost of housing is still increasing, rent still unaffordable, housing costs are unaffordable. People are working 3 jobs to support their family. American towns are dying across the country. Racial Discrimination and Racism has remained the same, police deaths and violence still occurs at the same rate.

Hillary's loss was (more accurately put Trump's win) was a tragedy and his economic decision will fix none of the economic issues in America and only serves to exacerbate it. With Obama, the problems would have been slightly mitigated, with Trump you are a stabbing a wound. The long-term economic and supreme court consequences of a Trump presidency would be disastrous but people are still suffering the same problems as before and people aren't suffering because of Trump, they were suffering before him (indefinitely for black people) and since the 1980's for whites that are working or middle class.