Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 37687 times)

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #600 on: July 18, 2019, 11:31:40 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naïve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

I guess the Democrat candidates are saying we want to do this when Trump said we will do this more often, so there's that. Otherwise, I don't know how you think your argument is any different. Again, people said, don't worry, let's elect Trump. He'll pull back to the center.

1) To repeat, I am not saying that a Bernie or a Warren will pull back to the center. I do not think they would.

He'll be regulated in by congress. He won't be able to accomplish any of these radical things he's saying. How is what you're saying any different - other than you saying that they won't do what Trump did?

2) To repeat, Trump is enabled by a GOP of people who don't dare stand up to him -- but more importantly, he does pretty much everything by executive order. I do not think there is any reason any of the Democratic candidates would do that. Because Trump is in a class by himself in this regard. There is almost no reason to believe any other candidate of either party would do it. I also do not believe the Democrats would allow it even if they were in full control. Which they will not be. (Though I grant you that going forward, I'm pretty sure the next GOP president will have quite an incentive to do the same thing as Trump, because the GOP will likely allow it from a president in their own party.)

If that's the only distinction, it doesn't hold enough water with me. Again, Democrat presidents have been getting more free with doing the "unthinkable" breaking with tradition, taking more executive power recently. Shoot, Obama's drone attacks killing citizens overseas without a trial is right up there with most of what Trump's done, in my book (granted that's one thing versus a bunch of Trump things).

I would like for you to please show me how the Democrat presidents have been "getting more free with" taking more executive power recently. In fact, the trend seems to show rather less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders


You're absolutely right, you never said they would pull back to the center. My bad.

Trump has done a lot by executive order that was really bad. Obama certainly did less than many, but that is a point of 1. I do take back that they've been doing more executive orders, but I'd say there's not really a trend up or down either way. Clinton did I would say average in 8 years, Carter quite a few in 4 years. Either way, it's not overwhelming that they're doing a lot more.

I poorly stated my points, but executive orders were only one part. The other part in that sentence was more on breaking traditions, doing the "unthinkable." This was referring back to my point about the Democrats being willing to do the nuclear option on judges, for instance. The entire system is getting more and more intense, and therefore I just have less confidence in general that having the Senate in the other party's hands, especially if it's by a vote or two, will provide the check on the president that it would have in the past. Things are constantly escalating.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #601 on: July 18, 2019, 12:26:40 PM »

Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 200B annual increased deficit and increase the military budget by 70B.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral, would likely seek to reimpose Obama era level taxation, and would favor reducing military spending. And you're saying you're the deficit hawk?
I'm not the one calling adding 50+ billion to the deficit "almost no effect." 

Giving examples of bad Republican policies doesn't make the Democratic boondoggle less bad.

Neither Bernie nor Warren's plan has been analyzed for what they would do to the deficit/economy and any taxation changes nullify the conclusions in the study you posted.  I generally agree that over the past couple decades that Democratic administrations have run lower deficits but all of them have been much closer to the center than Bernie or Warren.

I think you missed the point. The deficit-GDP ratio is all relative to whatever the current deficit is. IE based on current deficit levels, you could pay for education 5x over by simply undoing the GOP 2018 changes.

But we're also talking about removing huge amounts of poverty that would end and enriching Americans on the level of $28 in debt payoff alone for every $1 of federal deficit. Education costs the government 1/30 the price of private loans and you're still saying "nope not worth it".

That's fine if you don't want good government. I want the US to spend money that creates a better society and invests our dollars in things that will make our country a better place to live.

To your point, I agree that Bernie's tax plan is unstudied (at least to my knowledge), and I don't actually think congress would agree with it. But they could easily fund college by undoing the 2018 budget.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #602 on: July 18, 2019, 01:11:02 PM »

Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 200B annual increased deficit and increase the military budget by 70B.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral, would likely seek to reimpose Obama era level taxation, and would favor reducing military spending. And you're saying you're the deficit hawk?
I'm not the one calling adding 50+ billion to the deficit "almost no effect." 

Giving examples of bad Republican policies doesn't make the Democratic boondoggle less bad.

Neither Bernie nor Warren's plan has been analyzed for what they would do to the deficit/economy and any taxation changes nullify the conclusions in the study you posted.  I generally agree that over the past couple decades that Democratic administrations have run lower deficits but all of them have been much closer to the center than Bernie or Warren.

I think you missed the point. The deficit-GDP ratio is all relative to whatever the current deficit is. IE based on current deficit levels, you could pay for education 5x over by simply undoing the GOP 2018 changes.

But we're also talking about removing huge amounts of poverty that would end and enriching Americans on the level of $28 in debt payoff alone for every $1 of federal deficit. Education costs the government 1/30 the price of private loans and you're still saying "nope not worth it".

That's fine if you don't want good government. I want the US to spend money that creates a better society and invests our dollars in things that will make our country a better place to live.

To your point, I agree that Bernie's tax plan is unstudied (at least to my knowledge), and I don't actually think congress would agree with it. But they could easily fund college by undoing the 2018 budget.

I agree with nick663 here. I'm not commenting on whether this would be a good or bad policy overall, just that the study indicates it would add to the deficit. Even the authors refer to it as "moderate effect". You've reframed it as "almost no effect" and given reasons that amount to collecting more taxes to pay for it and that it would be good for society.

Again, I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, but they don't amount to almost no effect on the deficit.

If you were to argue the effect on the deficit would be much less than many people think, that would be fair a fair takeaway from the study.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

Here's an example. This does not make paying for college deficit neutral. It's like saying I worked more hours to pay for a new car so it didn't cost any more than a used one. Sure it did, you just earned more to pay for it. You also could have worked more hours and increased your savings.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 01:13:35 PM by Dabnasty »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #603 on: July 18, 2019, 01:39:16 PM »
I agree with nick663 here. I'm not commenting on whether this would be a good or bad policy overall, just that the study indicates it would add to the deficit. Even the authors refer to it as "moderate effect". You've reframed it as "almost no effect" and given reasons that amount to collecting more taxes to pay for it and that it would be good for society.

Again, I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, but they don't amount to almost no effect on the deficit.

If you were to argue the effect on the deficit would be much less than many people think, that would be fair a fair takeaway from the study.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

Here's an example. This does not make paying for college deficit neutral. It's like saying I worked more hours to pay for a new car so it didn't cost any more than a used one. Sure it did, you just earned more to pay for it. You also could have worked more hours and increased your savings.

If the only disagreement was between "negligible increase" and "moderate increase" then whatever. I don't see 50B as an unreasonable cost to education in the scheme of a 4T federal government budget. Nor do I see it as unreasonable especially considering that would free 1.4T of debt. (which is a bubble that yes can affect all of us)

You'll lose track of how the US economy, government spending, and government debt works if try and compare it to individual choices. Government debt != credit card, government spending != individual spending. That just doesn't work.

Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself. That's part of where your comparison breaks down. These things just don't have the 1:1 that you're trying to make it have.

The government could also just print the money if it wanted. Another thing that the individual cannot do.

So no, you can't make comparison like that. The government is controlling the game, and if it takes in more money from taxes in order to pay for another part of the economy, then it is keeping things in balance which is the whole point. The idea here though is that education is way out of whack. So far out of whack that forgiving 1.4T in debt would only cost .03-.04 on the dollar

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #604 on: July 18, 2019, 02:16:21 PM »
I agree with nick663 here. I'm not commenting on whether this would be a good or bad policy overall, just that the study indicates it would add to the deficit. Even the authors refer to it as "moderate effect". You've reframed it as "almost no effect" and given reasons that amount to collecting more taxes to pay for it and that it would be good for society.

Again, I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, but they don't amount to almost no effect on the deficit.

If you were to argue the effect on the deficit would be much less than many people think, that would be fair a fair takeaway from the study.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

Here's an example. This does not make paying for college deficit neutral. It's like saying I worked more hours to pay for a new car so it didn't cost any more than a used one. Sure it did, you just earned more to pay for it. You also could have worked more hours and increased your savings.

If the only disagreement was between "negligible increase" and "moderate increase" then whatever. I don't see 50B as an unreasonable cost to education in the scheme of a 4T federal government budget. Nor do I see it as unreasonable especially considering that would free 1.4T of debt. (which is a bubble that yes can affect all of us)

You'll lose track of how the US economy, government spending, and government debt works if try and compare it to individual choices. Government debt != credit card, government spending != individual spending. That just doesn't work.

Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself. That's part of where your comparison breaks down. These things just don't have the 1:1 that you're trying to make it have.

The government could also just print the money if it wanted. Another thing that the individual cannot do.

So no, you can't make comparison like that. The government is controlling the game, and if it takes in more money from taxes in order to pay for another part of the economy, then it is keeping things in balance which is the whole point. The idea here though is that education is way out of whack. So far out of whack that forgiving 1.4T in debt would only cost .03-.04 on the dollar

I understand conceptually that government debt is not the same as personal debt, but that's not the point of the analogy. It's that increasing spending in one area and increasing income in another unrelated area to balance it out doesn't make a policy deficit neutral. What is it that ties a wall street trade tax to higher education?

Unless you're saying that paying for higher education will result in additional income from the theoretical wall street trade tax that will cover the cost of education, then it is not deficit neutral.

As in a=total cost of free college; b=income from trade tax with free college; c=income from trade tax without free college;

where a < b-c


And I think it should be obvious that we understand the concept I've bolded. If this wasn't the case we would be raising the debt by whatever number is paid for student loans.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #605 on: July 18, 2019, 02:57:03 PM »
I agree with nick663 here. I'm not commenting on whether this would be a good or bad policy overall, just that the study indicates it would add to the deficit. Even the authors refer to it as "moderate effect". You've reframed it as "almost no effect" and given reasons that amount to collecting more taxes to pay for it and that it would be good for society.

Again, I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, but they don't amount to almost no effect on the deficit.

If you were to argue the effect on the deficit would be much less than many people think, that would be fair a fair takeaway from the study.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

Here's an example. This does not make paying for college deficit neutral. It's like saying I worked more hours to pay for a new car so it didn't cost any more than a used one. Sure it did, you just earned more to pay for it. You also could have worked more hours and increased your savings.

If the only disagreement was between "negligible increase" and "moderate increase" then whatever. I don't see 50B as an unreasonable cost to education in the scheme of a 4T federal government budget. Nor do I see it as unreasonable especially considering that would free 1.4T of debt. (which is a bubble that yes can affect all of us)

You'll lose track of how the US economy, government spending, and government debt works if try and compare it to individual choices. Government debt != credit card, government spending != individual spending. That just doesn't work.

Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself. That's part of where your comparison breaks down. These things just don't have the 1:1 that you're trying to make it have.

The government could also just print the money if it wanted. Another thing that the individual cannot do.

So no, you can't make comparison like that. The government is controlling the game, and if it takes in more money from taxes in order to pay for another part of the economy, then it is keeping things in balance which is the whole point. The idea here though is that education is way out of whack. So far out of whack that forgiving 1.4T in debt would only cost .03-.04 on the dollar

I understand conceptually that government debt is not the same as personal debt, but that's not the point of the analogy. It's that increasing spending in one area and increasing income in another unrelated area to balance it out doesn't make a policy deficit neutral. What is it that ties a wall street trade tax to higher education?

Unless you're saying that paying for higher education will result in additional income from the theoretical wall street trade tax that will cover the cost of education, then it is not deficit neutral.

As in a=total cost of free college; b=income from trade tax with free college; c=income from trade tax without free college;

where a < b-c


And I think it should be obvious that we understand the concept I've bolded. If this wasn't the case we would be raising the debt by whatever number is paid for student loans.

I'm not going to belabor the point. But you are using your own definition of 'deficit-neutral'. That's fine and all, it just made for poor communication.

Here's a definition I found off the internet:

Quote
A term applied to legislative bills or proposals that pay for themselves over some budget period — for instance, a proposal that includes tax increases to fully offset the value of proposed expenditure increases.

As a whole, what Bernie is proposing is likely deficit neutral.

What connects wall street and education? The fact that they happen in the same country and are regulated/managed by the same body: the US government. Connection enough.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #606 on: July 18, 2019, 08:28:59 PM »
I'm not going to belabor the point. But you are using your own definition of 'deficit-neutral'. That's fine and all, it just made for poor communication.

Here's a definition I found off the internet:

Quote
A term applied to legislative bills or proposals that pay for themselves over some budget period — for instance, a proposal that includes tax increases to fully offset the value of proposed expenditure increases.

As a whole, what Bernie is proposing is likely deficit neutral.

What connects wall street and education? The fact that they happen in the same country and are regulated/managed by the same body: the US government. Connection enough.

Same definition. What I said in my first response was "This does not make paying for college deficit neutral." Sure, a bill that both pays for college and implements a tax which would bring in as much as the cost of college tuition is technically deficit neutral, but so what? A bill to spend $1 million dollars to dig a hole and fill it in paired with a tax that brings in $1 million would be deficit neutral, but I wouldn't use that explanation to argue that digging a million dollar hole is deficit neutral. Any bill can be deficit neutral given this usage, but then does it really mean anything?

Here's your original quote:

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

I took "it" to mean the act of paying for college. But let's assume you were referring to Bernie's proposal for a bill to pay for college and implement a trade tax. Not how it reads to me, but it's a reasonable interpretation. I still would be making the same argument, I just would have worded it a bit differently.

If paying for everyone to go to college is a good idea, it should stand on it's own. Same goes for a Wall Street trade tax. I haven't stated whether I'm for or against either, I've only made my argument that using one as a reason to support the other is illogical because they are not intrinsically related.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #607 on: July 18, 2019, 09:45:23 PM »
I'm not going to belabor the point. But you are using your own definition of 'deficit-neutral'. That's fine and all, it just made for poor communication.

Here's a definition I found off the internet:

Quote
A term applied to legislative bills or proposals that pay for themselves over some budget period — for instance, a proposal that includes tax increases to fully offset the value of proposed expenditure increases.

As a whole, what Bernie is proposing is likely deficit neutral.

What connects wall street and education? The fact that they happen in the same country and are regulated/managed by the same body: the US government. Connection enough.

Same definition. What I said in my first response was "This does not make paying for college deficit neutral." Sure, a bill that both pays for college and implements a tax which would bring in as much as the cost of college tuition is technically deficit neutral, but so what? A bill to spend $1 million dollars to dig a hole and fill it in paired with a tax that brings in $1 million would be deficit neutral, but I wouldn't use that explanation to argue that digging a million dollar hole is deficit neutral. Any bill can be deficit neutral given this usage, but then does it really mean anything?

Here's your original quote:

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

I took "it" to mean the act of paying for college. But let's assume you were referring to Bernie's proposal for a bill to pay for college and implement a trade tax. Not how it reads to me, but it's a reasonable interpretation. I still would be making the same argument, I just would have worded it a bit differently.

If paying for everyone to go to college is a good idea, it should stand on it's own. Same goes for a Wall Street trade tax. I haven't stated whether I'm for or against either, I've only made my argument that using one as a reason to support the other is illogical because they are not intrinsically related.

This makes absolutely no sense. I can't tell if you just don't want to let it go because you've already chosen a side more or less, or if you really really care about the semantics of the the verbiage.

There is no taxation without a reason to know what you're going to spend it on. So saying that a tax policy needs to stand on its own merits makes no sense, and as far as I know absolutely no taxation is passed without some idea of what it's going to be used for.

But by your definition of the phrase 'deficit-neutral', it doesn't really apply to anything the government does. And you can nit pick certain proposals into smaller chunks.

You highlighted this quote of me as obvious:
Quote
Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself.

Well perhaps if taxes were already higher, then maybe a free college proposal would be deficit neutral. So a tax proposal has nothing to do with the 'free college' proposal, but GDP going up increasing tax income going toward the policy's own payment is obvious?

You can't separate these things. Taxation rates are built into the study. So when talking about a policy or proposal like 'free college' you necessarily are talking about its funding (taxation), inflation, and debt in order to fund the difference.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #608 on: July 19, 2019, 08:08:01 AM »
I'm not going to belabor the point. But you are using your own definition of 'deficit-neutral'. That's fine and all, it just made for poor communication.

Here's a definition I found off the internet:

Quote
A term applied to legislative bills or proposals that pay for themselves over some budget period — for instance, a proposal that includes tax increases to fully offset the value of proposed expenditure increases.

As a whole, what Bernie is proposing is likely deficit neutral.

What connects wall street and education? The fact that they happen in the same country and are regulated/managed by the same body: the US government. Connection enough.

Same definition. What I said in my first response was "This does not make paying for college deficit neutral." Sure, a bill that both pays for college and implements a tax which would bring in as much as the cost of college tuition is technically deficit neutral, but so what? A bill to spend $1 million dollars to dig a hole and fill it in paired with a tax that brings in $1 million would be deficit neutral, but I wouldn't use that explanation to argue that digging a million dollar hole is deficit neutral. Any bill can be deficit neutral given this usage, but then does it really mean anything?

Here's your original quote:

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral

I took "it" to mean the act of paying for college. But let's assume you were referring to Bernie's proposal for a bill to pay for college and implement a trade tax. Not how it reads to me, but it's a reasonable interpretation. I still would be making the same argument, I just would have worded it a bit differently.

If paying for everyone to go to college is a good idea, it should stand on it's own. Same goes for a Wall Street trade tax. I haven't stated whether I'm for or against either, I've only made my argument that using one as a reason to support the other is illogical because they are not intrinsically related.

This makes absolutely no sense. I can't tell if you just don't want to let it go because you've already chosen a side more or less, or if you really really care about the semantics of the the verbiage.

There is no taxation without a reason to know what you're going to spend it on. So saying that a tax policy needs to stand on its own merits makes no sense, and as far as I know absolutely no taxation is passed without some idea of what it's going to be used for.

But by your definition of the phrase 'deficit-neutral', it doesn't really apply to anything the government does. And you can nit pick certain proposals into smaller chunks.

You highlighted this quote of me as obvious:
Quote
Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself.

Well perhaps if taxes were already higher, then maybe a free college proposal would be deficit neutral. So a tax proposal has nothing to do with the 'free college' proposal, but GDP going up increasing tax income going toward the policy's own payment is obvious?

You can't separate these things. Taxation rates are built into the study. So when talking about a policy or proposal like 'free college' you necessarily are talking about its funding (taxation), inflation, and debt in order to fund the difference.

Considering semantics can change the meaning of what was said, I suppose I do care about that. But my intention isn't to nitpick details that don't change the meaning, only discuss the details that do so we can better understand one another.

It seems you're stuck on how laws work, I'm speaking in the broader sense of ideas.

If paying for everyone to go to college is a good idea, it should stand on it's own. Same goes for a Wall Street trade tax.

The idea of a trade tax can stand on it's own. If taxing trades is a good idea, it should be implemented. Once we've determined that, it could be used to fund anything. Ideally another good idea.

You highlighted this quote of me as obvious:
Quote
Part of what makes the plan work is that there would be an overall economic stimulus caused by the debt forgiveness which causes an increase in GDP and tax intake. IE the large majority of the debt forgiveness pays for itself.

Well perhaps if taxes were already higher, then maybe a free college proposal would be deficit neutral. So a tax proposal has nothing to do with the 'free college' proposal, but GDP going up increasing tax income going toward the policy's own payment is obvious?

I did not say that your statement was obvious

And I think it should be obvious that we understand the concept I've bolded.

I meant that based on the conversation so far it should have been obvious that we (nick663 and myself) understood that.

Generally I like to work through misunderstandings like this but I'm being very specific in what I write and you seem to be misinterpreting it just about every step of the way. I don't see that improving and I think I've said what I wanted to at this point, so I'm going to bow out. If I'm only making sense to myself and everyone else is reading it as gibberish, I'd appreciate it if someone else could weigh in.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #609 on: July 19, 2019, 10:05:07 AM »
I would vote for a candidate, and accept increases in my taxes willingly, who proposed: repealing the Trump tax cuts (which would bump my taxes), adjusting energy subsidies to substantially reduce fossil fuels and invest in a broad spectrum of renewables, move towards some form of single payer healthcare system.

Part of the issues with education spending relate to how research dollars are allocated. During the cold war, universities took a big chunk of research dollars as overhead to fund broader operations. This was fine because when you, say, decide to start bombing central America it is nice to have anthropologists and sociologists who understand the situation on the ground. As research dollars have diminished relative to expenses, tuition has gone up. I'd like to see a more sustainable funding model for higher education. It is a necessity of an industrialized society, and that needs to include far more than just STEM. $$ for research and higher ed across a broad spectrum would get a thumbs up from me as well. How that is funneled (tuition or grant side) isn't as important as the outcome.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #610 on: July 19, 2019, 10:21:00 AM »
In regards to the government wiping out college debt and the resulting stimulus or whatnot from that debt elimination, can anyone explain how this would be different than wiping out any debt for anyone? Why should we not just wipe out credit card debt for America or whatever? Retroactively wiping out college debt is not influencing people to go to college like free college now would - not that I'm saying that pushing more people to go to college is a good idea, because I don't believe that, just that it is not a logical reason for doing it because these people have already made their choices. So yes, why wipe out student loan debt versus some other type of debt? Or why not wipe out other debt in addition to student loan debt? Is it a moral not economic rational? If so, that's fine, but I think it should be stated as such.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #611 on: July 19, 2019, 10:39:04 AM »
In regards to the government wiping out college debt and the resulting stimulus or whatnot from that debt elimination, can anyone explain how this would be different than wiping out any debt for anyone? Why should we not just wipe out credit card debt for America or whatever? Retroactively wiping out college debt is not influencing people to go to college like free college now would - not that I'm saying that pushing more people to go to college is a good idea, because I don't believe that, just that it is not a logical reason for doing it because these people have already made their choices. So yes, why wipe out student loan debt versus some other type of debt? Or why not wipe out other debt in addition to student loan debt? Is it a moral not economic rational? If so, that's fine, but I think it should be stated as such.

A quite excellent point you make.   If it is such a huge economic stimulus to wipe out student loan debt, then how much more of a stimulus would it be to wipe out home mortgage debt?  Just pay off everyone's home.   Sorry if you are a renter....sucks for you, just like it sucks for someone who went to a community college and stayed with their parents for the first two years and then worked during college for their final years and graduated with no student loan debt.   They get nothing.  Much better to be like the recent author who is in debt for $160,000 for a journalism degree that when you dig into his past it shows he took several trips to climb various mountains and see the world while using these loans.  Yay for him, glad he got the experiences...now let us pay for his fun.




FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #612 on: July 19, 2019, 10:48:18 AM »
In regards to the government wiping out college debt and the resulting stimulus or whatnot from that debt elimination, can anyone explain how this would be different than wiping out any debt for anyone? Why should we not just wipe out credit card debt for America or whatever? Retroactively wiping out college debt is not influencing people to go to college like free college now would - not that I'm saying that pushing more people to go to college is a good idea, because I don't believe that, just that it is not a logical reason for doing it because these people have already made their choices. So yes, why wipe out student loan debt versus some other type of debt? Or why not wipe out other debt in addition to student loan debt? Is it a moral not economic rational? If so, that's fine, but I think it should be stated as such.

1. We already have a process by which people don't have to pay back credit card debt: bankruptcy.

It's backed by nothing like a credit card, but credit cards limit their risk with young people by limiting them to <5000. Credit cards balance this by also running interest rates of 15-25% for this risk group. Student loans have to be large enough to pay for all of college.

It's technically possible to cancel your student loans through bankruptcy, but it is highly highly rare:

Quote
just 0.04% of people who have filed for bankruptcy and sought to have their loans discharged received either a full or partial discharge of their student loans.
https://www.creditkarma.com/advice/i/student-loans-in-bankruptcy/

But also the years where the youngest people could be investing in themselves, getting additional training, securing long-term housing, and securing their own retirements have to instead spend large amounts of money on huge loans. Moving this to paying through taxes means that the government handles the costs upfront, and society pays it back through taxation later on. (ie literally the same way k-12 gets funded, just think of this as extending to k-16)

Credit cards are for whatever, student loans are for a specific purpose that is valuable to our society as a whole.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #613 on: July 19, 2019, 10:55:33 AM »
Also all student loans are already backed by the US Government. So if you die before paying the amount or manage to get them cancelled, the US government still pays the bill. If a student debt crisis happens, it's the government that'll be paying, not a private bank or investors that made bad loans.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2048
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #614 on: July 19, 2019, 05:02:38 PM »
Even if you didn't wipe out the student debt, but merely lowered the interest rate on that debt, that would go a huge way toward helping students.

There's no reason why students should have to pay a 7% interest rate on the loans.

Republicans fight tooth and nail in the Congress to keep those rates jacked up.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #615 on: July 20, 2019, 04:49:55 AM »
In regards to the government wiping out college debt and the resulting stimulus or whatnot from that debt elimination, can anyone explain how this would be different than wiping out any debt for anyone? Why should we not just wipe out credit card debt for America or whatever? Retroactively wiping out college debt is not influencing people to go to college like free college now would - not that I'm saying that pushing more people to go to college is a good idea, because I don't believe that, just that it is not a logical reason for doing it because these people have already made their choices. So yes, why wipe out student loan debt versus some other type of debt? Or why not wipe out other debt in addition to student loan debt? Is it a moral not economic rational? If so, that's fine, but I think it should be stated as such.

1. We already have a process by which people don't have to pay back credit card debt: bankruptcy.

It's backed by nothing like a credit card, but credit cards limit their risk with young people by limiting them to <5000. Credit cards balance this by also running interest rates of 15-25% for this risk group. Student loans have to be large enough to pay for all of college.

It's technically possible to cancel your student loans through bankruptcy, but it is highly highly rare:

Quote
just 0.04% of people who have filed for bankruptcy and sought to have their loans discharged received either a full or partial discharge of their student loans.
https://www.creditkarma.com/advice/i/student-loans-in-bankruptcy/

But also the years where the youngest people could be investing in themselves, getting additional training, securing long-term housing, and securing their own retirements have to instead spend large amounts of money on huge loans. Moving this to paying through taxes means that the government handles the costs upfront, and society pays it back through taxation later on. (ie literally the same way k-12 gets funded, just think of this as extending to k-16)

Credit cards are for whatever, student loans are for a specific purpose that is valuable to our society as a whole.

Also all student loans are already backed by the US Government. So if you die before paying the amount or manage to get them cancelled, the US government still pays the bill. If a student debt crisis happens, it's the government that'll be paying, not a private bank or investors that made bad loans.

So to sum up what you're saying as I'm reading it. One, student loans can't be written off with bankruptcy. Two, they can be bigger than credit card payments. Three, they are for education which is more valuable than random expenses to society. Four, if people die before paying the loan off, the government will end up eating the cost. I don't think I missed anything?

Some thoughts on this:

For the purpose being beneficial to society, again, that's a moral argument not a fiscal one since the costs have already been undertaken and we're not discussing future free college now. So I think it should be stated as a moral argument in this situation. For the bankruptcy thing, this could be addressed by....changing them to be wiped out in bankruptcy instead of wiping them out altogether immediately, right...? For people dying before the loans are paid off, I'm just hypothesizing here, but I would think that's probably a pretty long way away for the majority of debt...seems like a stretch argument to promote wiping them out now. The only argument that seems to hold water for wiping them out is that they're very large at the front of people's lives. I think trying to mitigate it by, as DavidAnnArbor mentioned, by lowering interest rates would probably be a good first step instead of wiping them out. I have to say that if these are the only arguments, I think that we go back to it being an almost solely moral argument of get rid of it because we think we should because it's student loans and not some other debt since the push is to eliminate it without exploring any other options first.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2048
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #616 on: July 21, 2019, 07:16:03 PM »
Here's an interview that Pete Buttigieg did for Blair Garner

 
m.soundcloud.com/user-755551091/blair-garner-mayor-pete

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #617 on: July 22, 2019, 01:43:27 PM »
Thanks, David, I'll give that one a listen. I could listen to Mayor Pete pretty much all day.

I'm super interested to see how he positions himself in the debate in 8 days. I think he drew a great spot standing right beside Bernie, who is more than twice Pete's age (and looks it). If I was Pete, I would try to be the "reasonable" one, less liberal than Warren/Sanders, but more progressive than Hickenlooper, Bullock, Delaney, Ryan, Klobuchar, etc. Let's see if he can carve out that spot.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I am super curious as to how Yang does with his "middle four" placement the second night. I mean he's right there near the center of the podiums, beside Kamala Harris. I don't see how he can be ignored again being so front and center.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 01:45:28 PM by Nick_Miller »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #618 on: July 25, 2019, 08:59:46 PM »
On the subject of student debt, here's an interesting site that gives a perspective on how much college students are paying for college today, so you can compare to how much you paid or would have paid as a student. Paying off loans this size is not what you want for your kids or grandkids, or the generation that is supposed to be paying taxes when you are retired.
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/tuition-and-fees

Quote
In 2012, 71 percent of graduates from four-year colleges carried debt, with students at public schools owing an average of $25,550 and those with degrees from private colleges owing an average of $32,300, Student Loan Hero reports.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #619 on: July 31, 2019, 09:13:56 AM »
Anyone watch the debate?

I thought it was livelier than either of the first two were, but I hated the too-short time limits. As soon as someone started getting into the meat of their answer, they would get cut off.  But that was a problem they all had to deal with, so at least it was fair (if ineffective).

I thought Warren and Buttigieg stood out. Warren seems very passionate and authentic, but she was also a bit more grounded than Bernie, whose wild arm waves and constant yelling are wearing thin to me. Pete seemed like the most "grown up" of the bunch, delivered some good lines, and managed to avoid taking any shots (he'll have to get into the brawl next time for sure).

I would rank them:

Warren
Pete
Bernie
Bullock
Ryan
Williamson
Delaney
Klobuchar (I thought she was wooden and horrible)
Hickenlooper
O'Rourke (I thought he was timid and horrible)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #620 on: July 31, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »
Anyone watch the debate?

I thought it was livelier than either of the first two were, but I hated the too-short time limits. As soon as someone started getting into the meat of their answer, they would get cut off.  But that was a problem they all had to deal with, so at least it was fair (if ineffective).

I thought Warren and Buttigieg stood out. Warren seems very passionate and authentic, but she was also a bit more grounded than Bernie, whose wild arm waves and constant yelling are wearing thin to me. Pete seemed like the most "grown up" of the bunch, delivered some good lines, and managed to avoid taking any shots (he'll have to get into the brawl next time for sure).

I would rank them:

Warren
Pete
Bernie
Bullock
Ryan
Williamson
Delaney
Klobuchar (I thought she was wooden and horrible)
Hickenlooper
O'Rourke (I thought he was timid and horrible)

I did notice on CNN analysis they are avoiding saying anything about Bernie. They really really don't want to say anything positive about Bernie.

Notes:

They gave way too many questions to Delaney, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and the Montana guy. Klobuchar I guess at least has a chance of making the next debate, but half that stage won't be there next time, so why waste your time with them?

Beto: Run for Senate buddy or else Castro is going to take the spot. If you think Texas is a swing state, prove it.

On Buttigieg: It's all about surviving to the next round when the debate stage shrinks. Him not attacking is good. I think he wants to wait to go for Biden. No point in jumping in the mud with the small fry.

Having 2 debates of 20 people feels pointless; it should already be down to 10 people. They'll find a way to include like 15 people in the next one so that they have an excuse to run 2 nights for 1 debate.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 982
    • My Journal: WhiteTrashCash, Vol. 2: From Survival to Success
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #621 on: July 31, 2019, 10:18:05 AM »
On the subject of student debt, here's an interesting site that gives a perspective on how much college students are paying for college today, so you can compare to how much you paid or would have paid as a student. Paying off loans this size is not what you want for your kids or grandkids, or the generation that is supposed to be paying taxes when you are retired.
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/tuition-and-fees

Quote
In 2012, 71 percent of graduates from four-year colleges carried debt, with students at public schools owing an average of $25,550 and those with degrees from private colleges owing an average of $32,300, Student Loan Hero reports.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to borrow $74,000 in student loans from the American government to pay for my education, because it has helped me avoid the fate of my classmates at school on Hillbilly Mountain (drug problems, alcoholism, criminality). With the work I've been able to secure with my education, I have repaid $41,000 of the loans so far and soon I will have them paid down to the amount that Millennials & Gen Z think is impossible to ever pay off. Thank you to the American people for believing in me and helping me have a better life as a productive taxpaying citizen.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #622 on: July 31, 2019, 10:38:56 AM »
They gave way too many questions to Delaney, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and the Montana guy. Klobuchar I guess at least has a chance of making the next debate, but half that stage won't be there next time, so why waste your time with them?

I feel like this is a cross between circular reasoning and a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't make the debate stage next time then people can start ignoring them next time. They did make this debate, and they deserve just as much a chance to make their case as the more popular candidates.

We're still a long way out from the primary, there's plenty of time to winnow the field.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #623 on: July 31, 2019, 11:04:10 AM »
They gave way too many questions to Delaney, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and the Montana guy. Klobuchar I guess at least has a chance of making the next debate, but half that stage won't be there next time, so why waste your time with them?

I feel like this is a cross between circular reasoning and a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't make the debate stage next time then people can start ignoring them next time. They did make this debate, and they deserve just as much a chance to make their case as the more popular candidates.

We're still a long way out from the primary, there's plenty of time to winnow the field.

If this was debate 1 maybe. Remember from the first debate Swalwell had some pretty memorable moments on the stage. The whole "pass the torch" lines. Didn't budge his poll numbers one bit, so he dropped out. If you're not connecting with voters, if you can't start any momentum in the 4-5 months that most of these people have been campaigning, then your message is no good. There's a huge difference between candidates that can get a 2-5 polling average, heck even just get up to 1-2 points in some polls. But half that stage has never even made it to a 1% RCP average. If you can't do that before the debates, the debates aren't going to change that. Prove you're a serious candidate before the debate stage.

One of the exceptions I can appreciate is Inslee, who I don't think has any notion that he'll be winning the nomination. He wants to push a specific policy agenda (and I guess earn his cabinet appointment). At least we know what he's about and not wasting his donor's money.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4002
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #624 on: July 31, 2019, 11:40:50 AM »
I get why they don't want to narrow the field too soon, but UGH. I wish they had narrowed even a little- 7-8 each night instead of ten would help a lot.

I will admit that I only watched about 15 minutes. I couldn't stand the format this time. Too short. I did like that they were somewhat holding people to the time limit- but if rather then get enough time to actually answer AND THEN be held to a time limit. Like..... Cut off their mic. How hard is it?

I am more excited about tonight's lineup, so we'll see how long I last......

Marrianne whatshername keeps making some REALLY good pointa- it's too bad she sprinkles them in with her nutty comments.  And also too bad she is a total nut. Because she is coming off way better than I would have excepted based on her general nuttiness.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #625 on: July 31, 2019, 12:00:58 PM »
Yeah, even 90-second time allotments for answers would have helped some. There were waaaaay too many interrupted answers (when candidates were legitimately trying to answer the question) for me to view this as having been a successful debate.

I go back and forth on Bullock. On one hand, to me he came off like a use car...pardon me, "pre-owned"...salesman who wants to be everyone's best friend. Just my take. On the other hand, some might think he was strong, outspoken, a hunter/tough guy, in other words "manly" or "alpha." I've always thought an alpha male Democrat might be Trump's Kryptonite, like Don Draper sort of guy. Bullock is the only one of the 20 that I think could be described that way.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #626 on: July 31, 2019, 02:08:21 PM »
Bullock's website shows some good stuff:

https://stevebullock.com/meet-steve/

People hadn't heard of Jimmy Carter years ago.  He became president.  Then there was that guy with the crabby looking wife from Arkansas.

calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
  • Location: Northern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #627 on: July 31, 2019, 02:08:38 PM »
Tim Ryan seems a bit alpha to me and based on some of his comments, a Dem-Lite. I could see him running for President....of his city's Chamber of Commerce.

Agree the 15 second time allotment was ultra annoying. If we somehow ended up with a Warren/Buttigieg ticket I'd be thrilled, though the right wing will continue to go nuts over Pocohantas references.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #628 on: July 31, 2019, 02:43:20 PM »
Tim Ryan seems a bit alpha to me and based on some of his comments, a Dem-Lite. I could see him running for President....of his city's Chamber of Commerce.

Agree the 15 second time allotment was ultra annoying. If we somehow ended up with a Warren/Buttigieg ticket I'd be thrilled, though the right wing will continue to go nuts over Pocohantas references.

I actually didn't think Tim Ryan did badly at all. I had him 5th of the 10. He strikes me as a "regular dad/guy" who would relate strongly to middle class voters. And he was right; Bernie WAS yelling.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #629 on: July 31, 2019, 03:15:29 PM »
I'm curious, do people actually believe any of the dem candidates are going to seriously pay off college loans?   Maybe I've lived in the DC area for too long but this is such an obvious pander to the young vote.   Nobody's going to pay off your student loans, it's no more realistic than trump building a wall or locking Hillary up. None of that stuff was ever going to happen yet people believed it.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #630 on: July 31, 2019, 03:32:59 PM »
I'm curious, do people actually believe any of the dem candidates are going to seriously pay off college loans?   Maybe I've lived in the DC area for too long but this is such an obvious pander to the young vote.   Nobody's going to pay off your student loans, it's no more realistic than trump building a wall or locking Hillary up. None of that stuff was ever going to happen yet people believed it.

I imagine that the solution that could reasonably come out of Washington would be what Klobuchar mentioned about increasing the number of forgiveness programs for entering needed fields like teaching/ medical in understaffed areas. However, politically you have to start closer to where Bernie is at in order to get what Klobuchar wants. Politics is all about wanting 150% in order to get 80%.

Want better health care? Claim you're going to flip the system. You suddenly find the system much more willing to amend itself. It puts these institutions onto the defensive retreating back to what they can only reasonably defend to justify themselves. Try to present only tiny reforms, and institutions will claim that even the tiny reforms will destroy the whole system as we know it.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #631 on: August 01, 2019, 03:29:53 AM »
I don't think free college is the way to go. I have not heard how it would actually work. What if I wanted to go to Harvard and someone else wanted to go to community college. They both cost significantly different. Will there be a cap of some sort? What if I don't want to go to college but want to go to barber school. Would they pay for that? My spouse is a retired, licensed, HVAC professional. Would they pay for people to learn Trades? Spouse gets invitations for employment almost every other week by mail. Trades are in need of people. No one mentions educating them. Then there is the GI bill. Why not encourage more people to join the military to get a free college education.

What if I am an older adult who never had a college education. Does this free college money allow me to go to college too?

Why not lower interest rates or no interest on the loans.

I know a woman who was offered scholarships to two great colleges she applied to. Well, she decided she wanted to live in a big city and go to a college with no scholarships. Her parents said okay. They got stuck with gigantic college bills and her apartment too. How could she turn down those two scholarships and stick her parents with those bills. If I were the parents, I would have said pick one of the two scholarships. 

There should be a better way the government could help with college but not pay it entirely. Maybe require upon graduation people work for 2 years in remote areas of the USA for Habitat for humanity or some other organization so they can give back to society for giving them college assistance.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #632 on: August 01, 2019, 06:46:16 AM »
Debate 2, Round 2

Winners: Booker was definitely on his game. He made it look easy. Yang was very likable, and had some of the very best lines of the night. He stood out, in a good way. And although Bennet was super boring to me, he seems like a really decent guy. I liked him, but not as a presidential candidate.

Losers: I thought Biden was atrocious. Slow, fumbling, awkward endings to his statements ("anyways") and that horrible ending where he slaughtered the text message. Who in the world watches this debate and says, "THIS guy is the one to take down Trump?"   Oh, and Harris fumbled a ton too, and I technically think she was murdered by Gabbard.

Doesn't this race seem more wide open now? Biden continues to struggle in debates...can you imagine what it will be like when he's up there with Bernie and Warren and Pete?

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #633 on: August 01, 2019, 07:13:13 AM »
Biden is really fumbling and bumbling. If this is the person the Dems thought would beat Trump, I don't see it! Bernie is very animated and has answers to questions and solutions to problems if you are comparing two old white guys. Some of the candidates have surprised me in different ways. Some I thought that were duds have blossomed and some I thought would be good are duds. Good we have these debates so we can see what these people are made of.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4278
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #634 on: August 01, 2019, 07:26:36 AM »
Yeah, I think Biden has just slowed down quite a bit in the last couple of years. He’s still way smarter and more competent than Trump, obviously. But he doesn’t have the vitality he used to.

2016 Biden would have murdered Trump in debates. 2020 Biden? A bit less so.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #635 on: August 01, 2019, 07:30:02 AM »
Debate 2, Round 2

Winners: Booker was definitely on his game. He made it look easy. Yang was very likable, and had some of the very best lines of the night. He stood out, in a good way. And although Bennet was super boring to me, he seems like a really decent guy. I liked him, but not as a presidential candidate.

Losers: I thought Biden was atrocious. Slow, fumbling, awkward endings to his statements ("anyways") and that horrible ending where he slaughtered the text message. Who in the world watches this debate and says, "THIS guy is the one to take down Trump?"   Oh, and Harris fumbled a ton too, and I technically think she was murdered by Gabbard.

Doesn't this race seem more wide open now? Biden continues to struggle in debates...can you imagine what it will be like when he's up there with Bernie and Warren and Pete?

I completely agree with you analysis on pretty much all the candidates.

I think Inslee and Deblasio also had a decent night. Though I still don't expect half that stage to survive to the next round.

I wish Inslee would pick up steam because I feel he would be the best president out of any of them, but c'est la vie.

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #636 on: August 01, 2019, 08:32:44 AM »

I think Inslee and Deblasio also had a decent night. Though I still don't expect half that stage to survive to the next round.

I wish Inslee would pick up steam because I feel he would be the best president out of any of them, but c'est la vie.

God, I wish Jay Inslee would get at least the attention that Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson are getting.  Yeah, he's a single issue candidate, but the climate crisis happens to be an existential threat to life on earth as we know it that demands urgent action.  So, if you had to pick one topic to put front and center in your campaign, you'd think that might just be a good one.  And plus also, he's been a governor and congressman.  But, no, let's talk more about the "dark psychic force" threatening America.  That was super weird, right?

::facepalm::

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #637 on: August 01, 2019, 08:54:56 AM »
So let's assume that Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, O'Rourke (all qualified) plus Yang, Castro, and maybe Gabbard make it to the next round. That's still a LOT of people, and frankly a pretty strong field without many "benchwarmers."

Do you think they will put all 10 of them together on stage, or break it into 2 nights of 5-person debates? I think we're getting sick of two-night debates, but we're also sick of 10-person debates?

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #638 on: August 01, 2019, 08:58:42 AM »
Yeah, I think Biden has just slowed down quite a bit in the last couple of years. He’s still way smarter and more competent than Trump, obviously. But he doesn’t have the vitality he used to.

2016 Biden would have murdered Trump in debates. 2020 Biden? A bit less so.

Yeah, Biden in any form would be better than Trump but Trump is so vicious he may crush Biden in one on one debates even though Trump only speaks Neanderthal.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #639 on: August 01, 2019, 09:01:33 AM »
So let's assume that Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, O'Rourke (all qualified) plus Yang, Castro, and maybe Gabbard make it to the next round. That's still a LOT of people, and frankly a pretty strong field without many "benchwarmers."

Do you think they will put all 10 of them together on stage, or break it into 2 nights of 5-person debates? I think we're getting sick of two-night debates, but we're also sick of 10-person debates?

This article says that if it's more than 10 it will be on two nights, otherwise just one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/politics/next-democratic-debate.html


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #640 on: August 01, 2019, 09:20:30 AM »
So let's assume that Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, O'Rourke (all qualified) plus Yang, Castro, and maybe Gabbard make it to the next round. That's still a LOT of people, and frankly a pretty strong field without many "benchwarmers."

Do you think they will put all 10 of them together on stage, or break it into 2 nights of 5-person debates? I think we're getting sick of two-night debates, but we're also sick of 10-person debates?

This article says that if it's more than 10 it will be on two nights, otherwise just one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/politics/next-democratic-debate.html

Thanks for the link!

Well then...I guess I'm pulling for someone like Gillibrand or Bullock to push through too. I'd rather have two 5-6 person debates than another 10-person "debate."

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #641 on: August 01, 2019, 09:29:04 AM »

- SNIP -

Yeah, Biden in any form would be better than Trump but Trump is so vicious he may crush Biden in one on one debates even though Trump only speaks Neanderthal.

Hey! Hey! Hey! Why are you picking on the poor Neanderthal people?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #642 on: August 02, 2019, 10:15:25 AM »
Saw an article on CNN that I haven't really dug into but that after a brief read articulated the leftward shift of the Democratic candidates. I'll be up front and say I didn't watch either debate (I don't have cable/satellite), but from some of the commentary and quotes I saw, it did seem that Obama's policies and even his presidency as a whole were the source of contention and derogatory statements. As the article said, Obama was pretty popular, and I don't think it's an unfair point to take that if even he and his policies are getting thrown under the bus, the Democratic candidates could be far enough left to alienate voters. I dunno, just a thought. Feel free to correct me if you watched the debate and I got the wrong impression.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4278
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #643 on: August 02, 2019, 10:27:47 AM »
Saw an article on CNN that I haven't really dug into but that after a brief read articulated the leftward shift of the Democratic candidates. I'll be up front and say I didn't watch either debate (I don't have cable/satellite), but from some of the commentary and quotes I saw, it did seem that Obama's policies and even his presidency as a whole were the source of contention and derogatory statements. As the article said, Obama was pretty popular, and I don't think it's an unfair point to take that if even he and his policies are getting thrown under the bus, the Democratic candidates could be far enough left to alienate voters. I dunno, just a thought. Feel free to correct me if you watched the debate and I got the wrong impression.

Frankly, I think this was an effect of having Biden on the stage, because it really was only happening the second night. Biden's debate strategy seems to be "I was Obama's VP, I helped him do all that stuff." Since he's the frontrunner right now, everyone else was gunning for him (that was obvious), so it's not surprising they're going to attack the very thing he's trying to run on.

I honestly think that's pretty much it. They have to knock him off the pedestal, and to do that, they have to attack him on the very thing he's trying to make his crown jewel.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #644 on: August 02, 2019, 11:28:09 AM »
Saw an article on CNN that I haven't really dug into but that after a brief read articulated the leftward shift of the Democratic candidates. I'll be up front and say I didn't watch either debate (I don't have cable/satellite), but from some of the commentary and quotes I saw, it did seem that Obama's policies and even his presidency as a whole were the source of contention and derogatory statements. As the article said, Obama was pretty popular, and I don't think it's an unfair point to take that if even he and his policies are getting thrown under the bus, the Democratic candidates could be far enough left to alienate voters. I dunno, just a thought. Feel free to correct me if you watched the debate and I got the wrong impression.

Frankly, I think this was an effect of having Biden on the stage, because it really was only happening the second night. Biden's debate strategy seems to be "I was Obama's VP, I helped him do all that stuff." Since he's the frontrunner right now, everyone else was gunning for him (that was obvious), so it's not surprising they're going to attack the very thing he's trying to run on.

I honestly think that's pretty much it. They have to knock him off the pedestal, and to do that, they have to attack him on the very thing he's trying to make his crown jewel.

Agree with @Kris in general on this point, but want to point out that the candidates are making choices.

Biden has deliberately chosen his positioning in the race as an anti-Trump (well, they all are, but for Biden it seems more of a central plank), restore the soul of America, build on Obama's legacy candidate.  It's a good strategy and quite possibly his best option, but not the only one.  He could try the "I've learned and grown, and now what I think is best is...X, Y, Z" or "I'm my own man, and while I counseled the President dutifully as VP when that was my role, now I think we should go on to do...X, Y, Z."

The others do have an alternative strategy as well, and that is to knock Biden on his positions in the way back.  Senator Harris attacked him on his position on busing in the first debate, and Senator Gillebrand attacked him on his position about women working outside the home in the second debate.  Although his Obama association is more recent, Biden seems better able to defend that, so which strategy is best may be a push.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #645 on: August 08, 2019, 12:57:09 PM »
So probably the only interesting Dem primary thing for the next few weeks will be seeing if Gabbard and Castro make the September debate. (Yang just made it)

I really hope they BOTH get the poll numbers they need (they have the donors), because otherwise we're going to have yet another debate with WAY too many candidates (9 or 10).

If they both make it, I would actually look forward to two September debates, each with just 5 or 6 people. 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 02:11:18 PM by Nick_Miller »

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #646 on: August 08, 2019, 01:08:54 PM »
So probably the only interesting Dem primary thing for the next few weeks will be seeing if Gabbard and Castro make the September debate. (Yang just made it)

I really hope they BOTH get the poll numbers they need (they have the donors), because otherwise we're going to have a debate yet another debate with WAY too many candidates (9 or 10).

If they both make it, I would actually look forward to two September debates, each with just 5 or 6 people.
Agreed.  I think Castro will make it (he's one poll away), and Tulsi would be the tipover into splitting it over two nights.  I'm sick of 10-way "debates."

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #647 on: August 09, 2019, 06:57:13 PM »
Saw an article on CNN that I haven't really dug into but that after a brief read articulated the leftward shift of the Democratic candidates. I'll be up front and say I didn't watch either debate (I don't have cable/satellite), but from some of the commentary and quotes I saw, it did seem that Obama's policies and even his presidency as a whole were the source of contention and derogatory statements. As the article said, Obama was pretty popular, and I don't think it's an unfair point to take that if even he and his policies are getting thrown under the bus, the Democratic candidates could be far enough left to alienate voters. I dunno, just a thought. Feel free to correct me if you watched the debate and I got the wrong impression.

Frankly, I think this was an effect of having Biden on the stage, because it really was only happening the second night. Biden's debate strategy seems to be "I was Obama's VP, I helped him do all that stuff." Since he's the frontrunner right now, everyone else was gunning for him (that was obvious), so it's not surprising they're going to attack the very thing he's trying to run on.

I honestly think that's pretty much it. They have to knock him off the pedestal, and to do that, they have to attack him on the very thing he's trying to make his crown jewel.

Forgot to respond but this makes sense. I think Biden will be taken down but slowly. It would seem then with this line of logic that we will probably see more of this for awhile.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4002
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #648 on: August 11, 2019, 11:46:47 AM »
Biden definitely seems to be slipping. Between his physical appearance, his mediocre debate performance, and his gaffe in Iowa about poor people, he is just really showing how out of date he is.

Of course never say never (see: Trump) but I don't think the odds are good. 

I'm also a bit tired of Biden both claiming Obama's victories, and blaming Obama for things that are no longer in vogue. Can't have it both ways! Of course all of them do this to some extent, it's just really obvious with Biden. I read that he basically doesn't prep for debates, though, so maybe it's just a matter of poor delivery.

I too am hoping for 11-12 people in the next round so that we have two smaller stages.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #649 on: August 11, 2019, 02:10:51 PM »
I hope Tulsi Gabbard stays in.  There should be at least one candidate strongly pushin' the NO MO WO message.