Home | About | Donate

Progressives Condemn 'Nonsensical and Dishonest' Pete Buttigieg Ad Attacking Free Public College

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/29/progressives-condemn-nonsensical-and-dishonest-pete-buttigieg-ad-attacking-free


I agree with Pete, why should the middle class foot the college bill of rich kids? That’s indefensible. Do we pay for school lunches for rich kids too now?


Professor Byrd taught communication courses that I attended in the middle of another century. His
lectures on propaganda were the most informative. One such lecture was “ad hominem” attack the source with weak reference to the premise at hand. Wall Street Darling Buttigieg is not concerned with rich kids getting a ‘free’ education. He is concerned poor kids will get a free education paid for by the rich kids.


Uh … if taxes go up on the rich (which they should) to partly pay for free public tuition, what does it matter? By the way, “the college bill of rich kids” won’t be paid by you - those a-holes all go to private, Ivy League schools anyway.


Thank you for that. This needs to be said LOUD and OFTEN…but it won’t because they want to keep the waters muddied…so everyone can say “yeah, why SHOULD rich kids get free college…or free lunch?” They know education should be free, as they also know healthcare should be a human right…but, but, but what about my profits?? they ask.


Someone didn’t read the article’s direct quote about progressive tax rates:

“…to have an advanced society that lifts the working class, you need universal benefits paid for through progressive taxation.”


Bullshit. Just like with every public good, the rich pay more in progressive taxation, and “foot the bill for poor kids,” not the other way around.

As you know! Because you are only here as a “new commenter” to attack fairness and justice with your infantile right-wing think-tank focus-group “logic,” on behalf of the super-rich who are funding Buttigieg’s candidacy. Welcome!


FDR wisely understood that a federal program needed by the vast majority, namely social security, had to be extended even to the very wealthy simply because it is fair and equitable to do so. (And shuts down simplistic complaints of the Mayor Pete variety) No one can be certain that their wealth or health or ability to educate their children will always be there for them and this is why universal benefits programs are available to all of us. In fact, you must start drawing the social security old age pension at 70 whether you are Jeff Besos or the homeless woman on the corner who has worked at some point in her life the requisite number of quarters. Likewise, if a person is disabled at any age or a child is orphaned, social security is available for them. The fulfillment of FDR’s vision of a caring society now requires the next steps, free health care and free public higher education for all.

Buttigieg, in his attack on free public higher education is echoing an 80 year old Republican argument and for that reason alone must be rejected by the Democratic voter.


Also with a universal program, there is no humiliating and wasteful bureaucratic “means testing” imposed on the poor to prove they qualify by being poor, no costly and wasteful bureaucracy to categorize and track EVERYONE in order to make individual determinations on EVERYONE to figure out who qualifies and who does not qualify for EVERY PROGRAM that is set up with divisive “us against them” means-testing.

@Jim_McLeod, and Pete Buttigieg, and the super-wealthy who develop and promote such divisive ideology and divisive candidates, are “indefensible.”


The middle class will bear the brunt of these policies, we always have. The uproar I see to my comment is a reflection of each commenters desire to see a better society from their perspective. I commend the effort. I support Pete Buttigieg and his policy in this regard. That shouldn’t trigger such a vehement response, or is that just where we are in the conversation now?


Again, bullshit. The response you are getting is because we are ready with the facts, against your false smears. To the degree that the taxation system is gamed by the rich, what we need is to claw back the progressive taxation of the past, not impose divisive and humiliating bureaucracy on the poor and middle-class to “prove” they qualify for public goods.

Should there be means-testing at the public library? At the fire department? For police services? Your “argument” is divisive, right-wing bullshit.


I will accept that as a “yes” to where we are in conversation. Be well.

Give Trump the BOOT (edge-edge)!

All you got is campaign slogans, BS right-wing arguments produced by well-funded right-wing think-tanks. Be well.

EDIT: And plainly, all you will do here is repeat your slogans and take up space. Got anything new to say? Got any rational response to the “divisive bureaucracy of means-testing” argument? You like it for school lunch lines, how about for libraries and police services? Where do you draw the line? Why is K-12 public education not means-tested but higher education should be? Where is your “logic”? Will you also impose means-testing on kindergarten, and start charging money to attend grade school? Or will you just opportunistically and dishonestly repeat your right-wing sloganeering for the Buttigieg campaign?


I am just a regular guy ,and that kind of comment does a disservice to yourself.
If you want to convince people to listen to you- maybe start by not insulting them and their opinion , you’re just coming across very harsh. A few other commenters have made points that I will take into consideration as I become more informed on the free tuition issue.


A fair point, thanks.

I agree most rich kids will not go to public institutions. I further agree that it would be great to see the field narrow. Thanks.

Oh look, your opening comment “Mayor Pete” campaign-slogan now has an up-vote, from another “new commenter” who just joined Common Dreams 8 minutes ago. What an amazing campaign coincidence! Now that the “Mayo Judge” campaign has found Common Dreams, can we look forward to new onslaught of right-wing talking points in every comment thread? Oh, goody!


Pete was elevated by the establishment to bash New Deal policy of collective power. Notice that no one can even identify what Pete has done to be so elevated by the for-profit media (see Project Mockingbird). Pete is another Obama, an identity politician with no history.

Do we really want another eight years of popular New Deal programs being shut-out by a neoliberal president pretending to be a Democrat? ACA isn’t single-payer; it’s corporate subsidies to wealthy corporations. Who wins a Nobel Peace Prize starting new wars and expanding old wars? The irony isn’t sweet.


I am in favor of progressive taxation, those that make more should carry more of the tax burden, within reasonable guardrails. I don’t think that every benefit society has to offer needs to be universal. There is no daylight between where I stand and some commenters regarding everyone, regardless of income, being afforded fire and police protection, library access, and education K-12.

1 Like

Jim is a new poster, posting Republican talking points. Welcome the likes of David Brock’s CTR.