The Democratic Candidates

Jearlpam0925

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

OnWis97

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

#5 Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

 #6 Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

I agree with almost all of this (though, to be honest, I don't even know enough about the subsidised loans piece to have an opinion).  So #1?  #2, agree; people from all incomes need to be able to access higher education.  #3, yep.  #4, of course.  #5 (# added by me),  Agree 99%.  I don't think "equal" is possible, but the gap absolutely needs to be shrunk in a big, big way. #6 (# added by me), agree.  I would be ecstatic if she became president.

And believe me, I am worn out by the distaste for higher education and the whole attitude of "liberal arts? Worthless.  You should have learned a real skill in a trade school.*  You can't design smart phone apps with a history degree; have fun being poor and useless."  That said, I struggle with the idea of just wiping out debt, even if it was accrued as part of a messed up system.  I'd be all for some sort of mitigation about interest or partial payback or something.  But (and correct me if I am wrong) I think she just wants to wipe it out. I think that's over-correcting a problem.  More importantly, it's going to be the poster-child for socialism and perhaps the most important reason she'd get clobbered by Trump.

*I actually think trade schools need to be a part of this...and that "college for all" is a bit of an outdated goal.  People need to do what their tastes and interests dictate.  And while I value the breadth of a four-year degree, we've evolved to the point where post-secondary education is treated as utilitarian.  There's a slight undercurrent of "go to four-year college or you're a loser."  And, of course, there's now a counter-attack of "learn a real skill and don't spend four years drinking and learning stuff that doesn't really matter."  I rarely see a middle ground, which is that all of these things (college, military, trade school, straight to work) are options and should not be mocked and assumed "lesser."

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hi! said:

brianlux said:

Hi! said:

what dreams said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Interesting and thanks for sharing.
As far as who’s what, what percentage, color of skin, this, that, and the other, I don’t care. I don’t think my heart can take a whole campaign of hearing Trump yelling Pocahontas everyday. Out of all things Trump has said, the Pocahontas thing has always bothered me most. I wouldn’t say it bugs me as Trump uses it to slam Warren, but the disrespect it shows to Native Americans and the history of the actual Pocahontas.

Yeah, he's clueless.  He probably doesn't know the first thing about Pocahontas, the person or for that matter the song either.

He’s a big Neil fan, so ya never know. We all remember the elevator ride.

I WAS SO HYPE!

What the fuck were you thinking Neil?

Jearlpam0925

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

#5 Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

 #6 Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

I agree with almost all of this (though, to be honest, I don't even know enough about the subsidised loans piece to have an opinion).  So #1?  #2, agree; people from all incomes need to be able to access higher education.  #3, yep.  #4, of course.  #5 (# added by me),  Agree 99%.  I don't think "equal" is possible, but the gap absolutely needs to be shrunk in a big, big way. #6 (# added by me), agree.  I would be ecstatic if she became president.

And believe me, I am worn out by the distaste for higher education and the whole attitude of "liberal arts? Worthless.  You should have learned a real skill in a trade school.*  You can't design smart phone apps with a history degree; have fun being poor and useless."  That said, I struggle with the idea of just wiping out debt, even if it was accrued as part of a messed up system.  I'd be all for some sort of mitigation about interest or partial payback or something.  But (and correct me if I am wrong) I think she just wants to wipe it out. I think that's over-correcting a problem.  More importantly, it's going to be the poster-child for socialism and perhaps the most important reason she'd get clobbered by Trump.

Equal is probably not possible, maybe "fair" isn't either as that's completely subjective and left up to what your brain thinks: I find both of these articles a good reference to both how liberals and conservatives define "fair", and basically you can be a liberal or conservative based on your circuit board (your brain:
1)  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/why-conservatives-hate-warrens-loan-debt-relief-plan/588322/
2)  https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2

So without deviating too far on a tangent regarding humans, I'll say that Warren's plan is actually "reasonable" compared to Sanders'. I think no doubt "socialism" will be Trump's play next year but that goes without saying. So Warren's plan reduces the amount of studen loans are forgivable based on both the amount you took out and what your salary is today - but basically it's everyone in the middle and below that gets cleared. She put a calculator on her website to show where you'd fall. Sanders, true to not being a Democrat, and more than anyone being the individual apropos to changing of the now-title of this thread put up a calculator on his website. The idea with his is that put in any amount and you're debt will be cleared.

There's nothing wrong with socialism. There's nothing wrong with Capitalism. Either, or any one system, left unfettered is not good for anybody. It is/will be refreshing to hear from a candidate that embraces any and all ideas & economic systems that are pragmatic and help solve our problems (bias shown here as Warren has already done something similar by not calling Capitalism the bogeyman and instead embracing it).

EDIT: I also caveat all of my support for her by also saying that I wouldn't be surprised if 60-90% of her policies do not become testament. That's just the way this bullshit works.

And adding onto the scope and breadth of education, yes, funding should be made for specialized and trade schools as well. Absolutely.

I'm pretty basic - in my world rights to food & water, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights. Full stop. Additionally, public education is the greatest public good. This is how my politics and policy are driven first and foremost. Second, is my career and education in finance and economics.

gimmesometruth27

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

I will watch some, but certainly not all. Too much to do to give up that much time over 2 days.

Jearlpam0925

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Going to a Warren watch party tonight after a neighborhood association meeting.

I'd say to your second statement - yes and no. So I'm in PA - Dems have a clear advantage in registered voters. The ~44-48k that Fuckface won by (in PA) last time can easily be made up in Philly alone. As you said, just gotta get people out. This is also why I ran and won a role of Executive Committee of the Dem party in Philly(it's basically the lowest level in politics; hyper local, hyper grassroots, position where you're basically tasked with canvassing your neighborhood/division - ~500 regitered voters - and getting the vote out on E Day). I can't control anything other than my own division, and I hope that's how everyone in low-level political positions across the country are approaching next year. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

But running against your point:  there's definitely Obama voters in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Fuckface in 2016. They can be brought back.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

College World Series of baseball is about 10,000x more appealing to watch tonight. Maybe one of the players will give his opinion on student loans in the post game interviews...

gimmesometruth27

Jason P said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

College World Series of baseball is about 10,000x more appealing to watch tonight. Maybe one of the players will give his opinion on student loans in the post game interviews...

maybe one will say "no i'm not going to the fucking white house."

OnWis97

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

I agree.  There's always a chunk of party line people that cannot be swayed, anyways.  And the dedication that we see to Trump is unprecedented. They are not switching and they're all going to vote.

Essentially, big turnout = dem win and small turnout = GOP win.  Has been that way for a while.  The variable has been the appeal of the Dem candidate.  And that appeal has been based more on personality than stances on issues. As awful of a person as Clinton is, he was very appealing in the 1990s...coming off of super-duper-old Reagan and super-old and boring Bush, Sr., our first baby-boomer president playing a sax on a late-night talk show was refreshing.  Gore?  Stiff and dry.  Kerry?  Meh.  Obama?  He made you feel good; like he was going to crawl right out of the TV with two beers, hand you one, figure out how to solve all of your problems, and then talk sports (or whatever your favorite topic was) with you.  Hillary?  About as exciting as Gore or Kerry, plus 25 years of being very hated.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  In a sense, this election is not about Trump.  To a third of the country, he's the greatest person in American history (I'm not even sure this is hyperbole).  To a third of the country he's crazy and/or dangerous.  These people are set.  To the rest?  He's embarrassing, but the economy is good.  These are the people you have to get...and as much as I want the message conveyed that we are moving toward dictatorship (yes, I believe that) and "look at these pictures of CHILDREN sleeping on concrete," the path to victory is probably a winning personality.  And I don't know if any of the candidates has that, aside from Pete, but I think that's offset by the "His husband will marr the tradition of the first lady" factor.  Maybe Beto, but is he still alive?

dignin

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

OnWis97

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

Spiritual_Chaos

gimmesometruth27 said:

they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

When, what 50% of the people voting in the greatest experiment on earth - there is a lot of people you can get to the polls.

I wonder if Biden is the guy to do it though.

Spiritual_Chaos

All Eyes On Elizabeth Warren At First Democrats Debate | Morning Joe | MSNBC

https://youtu.be/Y4QhJKWaJPo

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

cincybearcat

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

I was going to read this but then I realized it was an opinion piece.