He’s campaigning for president... yes he’s pandering.... naive are they?? Not imo. Again most college educated young people I know are smarter than you obviously think they are, and want focus on the important issue. These voters who support Bernie want to discuss the issue and figure out ways to get it under control. It’s the bad faith arguments from folks like you about diverting to cost that are meant to change the topic to cost so you can avoid the issue all together. I also seem to have struck a nerve by calling out your hypocrisy. My comment about “Mexico is going to pay for it” was more about hypocritical Trump true believers than it was about Trump. You have no credibility on the subject if you didn’t have a problem with Trump doing it but you have a problem with Bernie doing it. Shocking that hypocrisy is again a theme from your posts. Go look up my post history about Trumps wall. Instead of arguing about flood gates, and ladders, I always bring the argument back to the issue of immigration and how I believe a better way to solve the issue is through technology, and coherent Central American state policy. Feel free likewise to say Bernies plan is dumb but the point is to then discuss the issue at hand and your thoughts on how to solve it in a more reasonable way. But no instead you just throw Trump troll hackery out there to divert and to not discuss the issue. Because politics to people like you is a zero sum game, and you prove time and time again to not be taken seriously.
OMG, you have to be kidding me. Naivety is not linked to intelligence rather wisdom. I do not know how old you are. Perhaps you are one of the naive young people? That would be at least a partial excuse for you being so gullible however if you are older you should know better. You say they want to figure out ways to get the situation under control? That is really funny when the proposal is to just wipe the slate clean. That is not a true solution it is such an utterly ludicrous proposal that it stifles any real discussion of a workable solution. I will not even address the rest of the drivel in your post where yet again your TDS affliction shines through. It is truly sad you let someone get to you like that. I recommend you seek out psychiatric help.
Literally all of the candidates proposing forgiveness are considering this and those people. Nobody is talking about the folks who paid off their loans and will be massively poorer over the course of the their life because of it. I have not heard that group of people addressed once.
They wouldn't be made massively poorer due to student loan forgiveness. Though they may field some of the tax burden. What I'm saying is they will be massively poorer compared to those who came before them and got cheap college and those who come after them who will get forgiveness/ "free" college. If you spent your 20's paying off $60,000.00 in student loans instead of putting that money in an investment vehicle and other folks got their $60,000.00 debt wiped out by either 1. Just waiting or 2. Being born a few years later and getting free college, you will be massively poorer over the course of your life compared to those people. $60,000.00 saved for retirement in your 20's turns into $500,000.00 around traditional retirement age. Those who paid off their loans, the financially responsible and right thing to do, will miss out on $500,000.00 in retirement money compared to those who didn't pay off their loans, took out loans then just had them wiped out by the government or never had to take out any loans. Any Student Debt cancellation program would be morally bankrupt if they said to those folks who happened to have the poor luck of being born between 1984 - 1994, "well sucks to suck" - If you want to start writing trillion dollar checks, start with them. There has to be a more equitable way then current debt holders = 100% benefits and those who paid their debts back =0% benefits.
You know what? I have a bone to pick with you in reference to our more ancient debates years back. You used to harp about the intent of the founders and their religious motivations for our constitutional rights and that our government is "Judeo-Christain" and often very unsuccessfully. Well, this is going to blow your mind. Many of our founders were proto-socialists and heavily critical of capitalism. Thomas Jefferson advocated for "equality of opportunity". He heavily emphasized that society elites should purely be determined by merit and virtue and not origin of birth. He heavily advocated for a free tax collected education system that provides equality of opportunity and heavily believed that a educated society is a better society and not only from the "jobs" perspective but also from an informed electorate perspective. If he saw Donald Trump today, he would say "this is why we need a educated society".
that would be quite a trick seeing as how capitalism as an English term didn't show up until after Marx was translated into English. perhaps you mean something more precise, though
This is the issue I have with Sanders' campaign - he's making promises he can't keep. Not for lack of trying, but because of the way our institutions (i.e. Congress) are designed. There are a non-trivial amount of Bernie supporters who DO think that he can enact all of his policy proposals, and demonize any candidate who proposes more incremental measures.
actually I don't think it's a slippery slope (which is a fallacy that says A inevitably leads to B which leads to C . . . etc). Closer to a reductio ad absurdum (which is about exposing a problem with logic) I think. Here the logic of loan forgiveness applies to all forms of loan forgiveness . . . but there's no inevitability of outcome implied.
He absolutely cannot fulfill his promises. The financial cost of his promises come to over 100 trillion dollars over a decade. That is just not possible. Second he will not have the support in house or senate to do what he wants to do. It is like me telling you I will buy you a new car...... it is a nice sentiment but really it has no practical application.
Student loan debt is a huge problem, but I disagree with absolving the debt as the solution. Life is about choices and these students chose to take on these debts, most of them doing so thinking of the next day and not their future. I feel like were rewarding poor choices by doing this. The reality is these debts could have been managed by the students had they planned properly. Instead we're enabling the instant gratification culture. I say this, married to my wife who at one time had over $80K in student loan debt. and is not working in field that requires a degree. Yes, she's hamstrung with limited disposable income. And she's had to learn a hard lesson, that Santa Claus isn't gong to come down the chimney and bail her out. Well, until now. I'm not sure where I am on this, because if it happens, it will be a boost to my family's overall income. But at the same time I've had to honor my debts and I've managed to swim without the help. I've made some poor choices but I've also had to dig myself out. I do find it ironic that it initially won't be the Universities who feel this, but the financial institutions that took on the debt in good faith. The irony is that it will be the Universities that will be hurt because nobody will ever underwrite another student loan. In the future it may divide those who could afford to go to private universities from those who go to publicly funded universities. Toss the resumes of those who went to the public universities in favor of the private. There is a real risk of creating a deeper social divide.
Ironically NO ONE talks about the incredible inflation in educational prices. Those skyrocketing prices allow big groups of super liberal professors to rant and rave about capitalism while they have a cartel subsidized by the US governments backing of student debt. Tenured professors make great money and typically teach 3 courses a semester. Bailing out lenders would be a gift the schools. Many people are opting to learn in alternative manners, autodidact and joining the workforce early and opting not to go to college. Many graduate programs like MBA's have plummeted in applications so the system is working itself out. Whether its everyone deserves a house, an education, healthcare big government bureaucrats are great at throwing loan guarantees and money at problems and drive up the demand for services but the guilds in power keep the supply low so the only thing that rises is debt and profitability of the special interests.
Fortunately his wife already made her money from higher education. Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to bankrupt a school. They're just rich people with multiple homes that are in a bubble of their own hypocrisy and delusion.
Cost of his promises are around 4 to 5 trillion a year, the current system spends 4.5. So his promises are around a 40-50 trillion increase a decade, the 100 trillion number would be the total, not an increase. Also, there would be an overlap in current spending with his proposals of around up to possibly 2 trillion a year (also including a potential cut to military spending), so the total could be as low as 65-75 trillion total. Considering we already are going to spend 50 trillion, and are going to spend an additional 20 trillion out of pocket on healthcare, it's not nearly as wild as you think it is. Especially with things like wealth tax, FTT, ending of tax loopholes being introduced on top of the employer/employee payroll taxes. What it ends his plans / taxes end up being at the end of the day, is a good deal for the vast majority of Americans.
The financial cost from independent think tanks puts it at nearly 100 trillion dollars over a decade. Currently the government spending is around 20-24% of the GDP..... the Sanders full plan would put the spending at 60-70% of the entire GDP. Now, that is eliminating deductibles and private insurance costs........ but you are still talking about greatly increasing the size of the government. For reference, the Sanders plan increases the GDP spending ratio beyond any of the democratic socialist nations in Western Europe. I am concerned about the economic cost to the US economy with that type of massive increase in taxes and spending. Anyone on either side of this issue that tells you it is simple and they know the outcome shouldn't be believed. I am not saying that America shouldn't shift more towards a Sanders model (again no one knows the outcome) but I do believe people need to be aware of the sheer size of such a plan and also what the likely positives and negatives are. Under such a plan there are definitely winners and losers.
Actually the increase and inflation in the cost of higher education is often discussed and has been brought up by Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg that I know of. If you have an issue with the highest educated people in the USA being super liberal, then you need to ask yourself why a higher standard of education makes them more liberal. Do they perhaps know or understand something that you do not? They make good money, not great money. They also are the very best in the world at what they do. It is very hard and competitive to become a tenured professor. I have no issue with how much the very top of the education food change makes. The system you do not like it working it's self out? Okay.... Yeah except there are now more higher education options than ever before. She didn't bankrupt the school. She didn't steal money from anyone. Define rich. They really not that wealthy for the level of advancement and accomplishment that they have earned.
Help me out https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm What is this data doing? Its shows USA at 38%, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden around 50%, but if I google USA GDP and spending the number come out around 22% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-spending-3305763 What am I missing?
