2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

If you really want to attend that college, find a way to make it happen. Grants, loans, scholarships, work study programs, living on Mac n cheese for years. Hell, spend four years serving in our military, learn some skills, maturity, and discipline, put some money away, and then take advantage of the GI Bill.

 

You can make it happen, but I don't think it's in either of our best Interests that it be free. For one thing, if it costs nothing, that will soon be what it's worth.

Well said. All it will lead to is more worthless degrees and entitled 22-26 year olds who think they are too good for 95% of the jobs available to them.

 

If you want free college, move to Canada and get good grades. If you want free college in America: get even better grades. Or suck it up, take out some loans and be an adult.(you can definitely work at the same time to take some of the amount owed off as well)

[formerly33]

 

If you really want to attend that college, find a way to make it happen. Grants, loans, scholarships, work study programs, living on Mac n cheese for years. Hell, spend four years serving in our military, learn some skills, maturity, and discipline, put some money away, and then take advantage of the GI Bill.

You can make it happen, but I don't think it's in either of our best Interests that it be free. For one thing, if it costs nothing, that will soon be what it's worth.

Did I ever suggest that I am a fan of Bernie's big vision? Did I ever suggest that college be free? I'm sorry ... I could say a lot more in answer to the rest, but I don't think this thread is a place for that discussion.

 

And believe me, I have every intention of making this happen ... somehow ... someway. But I'm not so sure I really want to go to that college anymore. I don't believe they're worth the tuition. Not anymore.

[stringer bell]

It seems to me that both frontrunners are now pivoting to the general election. Hillary is all but assured the nomination for the Democrats and no one else but Trump can win outright. I guess there could be a brokered convention for the GOP, but denying Trump the nomination when he has a pretty good sized plurality would cause the Donald to run as an independent, which would be death for the Republicans.

[DaveW]

It seems to me that both frontrunners are now pivoting to the general election. Hillary is all but assured the nomination for the Democrats and no one else but Trump can win outright. I guess there could be a brokered convention for the GOP, but denying Trump the nomination when he has a pretty good sized plurality would cause the Donald to run as an independent, which would be death for the Republicans.

Secretly I think trump wants a convention where he is screwed out of the Nom. He can run as an independent and Hillary wins in a landslide, he can then basically brag/talk about how he cost the GOP the nomination single handedly (not that it would be true) but it gets him all sorts of TV shows, books, etc and sets him up for this madness in another 4 years as well.

 

Basically he goes down as the ultimate troll.

[Craig Arko]

So the interesting thing about education in the 21st century is not how you get that first diploma, but how many times you'll need to re-train to fit jobs/professions that didn't exist when you went to school the first time.

 

I've been lucky to have a strong autodidact bent, but a lot of the kids I meet now are going to need formal training at various points in their lives to stay relevant. And we're going to want them to so they continue to be part of the tax base that keeps the infrastructure going for our sorry old butts.

[Squirrel]

Secretly I think trump wants a convention where he is screwed out of the Nom. He can run as an independent and Hillary wins in a landslide, he can then basically brag/talk about how he cost the GOP the nomination single handedly (not that it would be true) but it gets him all sorts of TV shows, books, etc and sets him up for this madness in another 4 years as well.

Basically he goes down as the ultimate troll.

I can see Trumps next reality TV show ... 'I Want to Run for President' and he finances the winner's campaign

[DaveW]

Yeah, it's looking like a Clinton/Trump general. Although New York and California remain to be counted.

Cali and NY are the two most diverse states in the country, Clinton wins those both easily.

 

Trump is interesting, he prob wins NY because of all the upstate Yokels, Cali could be interesting if it's Trump vs Kasich. Or trump vs Cruz.

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you really want to attend that college, find a way to make it happen. Grants, loans, scholarships, work study programs, living on Mac n cheese for years. Hell, spend four years serving in our military, learn some skills, maturity, and discipline, put some money away, take advantage of tuition assistance while you are in and get some school paid for and done, and then take advantage of the GI Bill.

You can make it happen, but I don't think it's in either of our best Interests that it be free. For one thing, if it costs nothing, that will soon be what it's worth.

The walk both ways in the snow solution! I worked all through college (etc.); but meager pay and lack of hours to work simply doesn't add up to the cost of living and tuition.  (That said, the path I've taken I wouldn't recommend, but I ended up here not because of lack of work ethic but because of ignorance, largely due to my parent's income level and job stability.)

 

It would be great if paying for school forced people to appreciate the cost and risk of higher education, and although it probably would force some people work 40 hours and earn a bachelor's over a half dozen years, the reality is that the people who would go to college, in this scenario, would be the ones whose parents would pay for it.  

 

I think you underestimate taking the market out of the equation, suddenly universities' bargaining goes from millions of competing individuals to just one, the government.  That's going to have an affect on cost.  

 

The thing is that people feel compelled to go to college regardless of cost and opportunity for employment -- it's already treated like it's free.  "Free" and "being blind to consequences" are effectually the same thing.  Giving people the money to pay for school isn't working, so let's not deprive them of the opportunity to go (necessarily) and instead just directly pay for the school taking their idiocy and abuse out of the equation, among other benefits. 

[Willihammer]

 

This is overly simplistic, but the underlying principle is fair: when you buy stock (beyond when the firm first goes public), the money really doesn't go back in the economy, it goes to whoever sold their stock, who tend be people with lots of wealth.  Buying stock is a very different kind investment than, say, opening your business, which does in fact create jobs and put money into the economy.  You could call buying a baseball card an investment (in the hopes it will increase value and you can sell it), but that's not the kind of investment that makes sense to encourage through small taxes.   Heck, we tax wages at a higher rate than we do capital gains.

Herb is right though. Under Sanders, the day traders making thousands of computerized trades would get taxed more heavily, and so would Jack and Jill trying to build a nest egg so they can one day put a down payment on a home. Stocks are simply an alternative to t-bills for a bunch of people. (By the way even a T-bill carries some risk, and might fit the loosest definition of "speculation"). Regular, working people own stocks too.

[DaveW]

 

So the interesting thing about education in the 21st century is not how you get that first diploma, but how many times you'll need to re-train to fit jobs/professions that didn't exist when you went to school the first time.
 

Not only is that not interesting, that isn't the case at all in the majority of cases of people who went to college in the 21st century.

 

Unless you are 45+ and suddenly changing industry's etc, but that is what happens as things/industry's/economies continue to evolve.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

.  "Free" and "being blind to consequences" are effectually the same thing. 

But they really aren't.

 

Too many people are going to private or out of state universities to get worthless degrees, while racking up 100k+ in student loans, and then refusing to ever get a real world job to pay those off because "it doesn't fit my ideal/perfect world job"

 

As of today there are PLENTY of low cost higher education options, they are called trade schools and community colleges, you know, places that are affordable for all (you can easily work and goto CC or a trade school at the same time) while they teach you an actual valuable skill or two to make a legit living.

[PseudoSABR]

 

[...] Jack and Jill trying to build a nest egg so they can one day put a down payment on a home [...] Regular, working people own stocks too.

Apologies for cropping, but I do so in deference to your technical expertise, which I can't even speak to.

 

For me, the essential question is what kind of investment do you want to reward with tax breaks? Hopefully it's the kind that creates jobs and puts money back into the economy, not wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake.

 

We want Jack and Jill to grow that nest egg, but we can't keep rewarding wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake.  The stock market creates this secondary market for wealth-creation, which sucks dollars out of the economy, not the other way around. 

 

I mean this is why we don't privatize social security, because suddenly the interests of a democratic majority are aligned with the interest in Wall St. (etc.), so we'd be biased in any assessment of a bailout/regulation/etc.. That a bunch of hard working people invested/(gambled?) on the stock-market should have no bearing on how much you tax it; they took a risk that really has minimal added benefit for the rest the economy.  

 

(If people want to create more wealth for themselves, why not encourage local investment?  We need more small businesses, not more corporate wealth.)

[DaveW]

 

 

 

I mean this is why we don't privatize social security,

Privatizing social security to begin with, or even 15-20 years ago could have completely prevented the mess it is in moving forward.

 

 

We want Jack and Jill to grow that nest egg, but we can't keep rewarding wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake.

Apples to Oranges....again.

Also you should encourage investing into the market overall for EVERYONE, the rich and the poor. The rich shouldn't get penalized for investing some of their legally earned money (intelligently)

Talk all you want about job creation, pumping money into public companies helps keep jobs and prevent massive layoffs as well.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Privatizing social security to begin with, or even 15-20 years ago could have completely prevented the mess it is in moving forward.

You can't sow the sails of public welfare to the interests of publicly traded companies, it defies the free market!  We can't let ourselves once again be on the hook for the risks corporations take to increase the value of their stock.  

[DaveW]

 

You can't sow the sails of public welfare to the interests of publicly traded companies, it defies the free market!  We can't let ourselves once again be on the hook for the risks corporations take to increase the value of their stock.  

Social Security is one of the worst overall investments this country has made, anyone with half a brain could tell the system wasn't sustainable and more or less ended up being a pseudo pyramid/ponsi scheme anyways that us younger folk are now stuck with.

 

Even with it being completely unsustainable the govt shouldn't have spent the early returns/surplus. They should have put it in a safe overall investment to at least try to stave off the inevitable collapse we are now faced with moving forward.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Social Security is one of the worst overall investments this country has made, anyone with half a brain could tell the system wasn't sustainable and more or less ended up being a pseudo pyramid/ponsi scheme anyways that us younger folk are now stuck with.

 

Even with it being completely unsustainable the govt shouldn't have spent the early returns/surplus. They should have put it in a safe overall investment to at least try to stave off the inevitable collapse we are now faced with moving forward.

Horrible investment, aside from all the elderly and the infirm since the Great Depression - they probably think it's a good deal.

[DaveW]

 

Horrible investment, aside from all the elderly and the infirm since the Great Depression - they probably think it's a good deal.

A decent investment is something that pays off at least a little as time goes on. A good investment is something that continues to grow, a horrible investment is something that literally loses all it's money/funding etc as it continues to grow. They could have slowed the bleeding/fixed things a little anytime since the baby boomers were born and it was literally impossible for the program to continue to be sustainable as is. But of course they didn't, and it has become the ****show it now is.

 

Me paying the max in SS taxes each year($7,500 -14,000 a year when I am technically self employed or running my own biz 2011-2013 and 2016) is a HORRIBLE investment when I will literally see next to ZERO of that money ever again. How is that not a ****ty investment? If I took $7,500 a year and put it in even the most conservative guaranteed growing investments, I would have an additional 750k+ in 40 years, and that is worst case scenario!!!!! More than likely that number becomes 1 to 2 million depending on how its invested.

 

Think I will or anyone in my generation will see that in SS? lol. not a chance!

[stringer bell]

Hill the apparent winner in MO by 1500, the Donald holds off Cruz by 1600. Goodness, could it be any closer? (Answer: Yes, see Minnesota US Senate in 2008). Still, these margins are certainly within the voter suppression parameters.

[DaveW]

 

Hill the apparent winner in MO by 1500, the Donald holds off Cruz by 1600. Goodness, could it be any closer? (Answer: Yes, see Minnesota US Senate in 2008). Still, these margins are certainly within the voter suppression parameters.

If Trump and Hill didn't dominate tonight I think this would be an interesting story to talk about, but the reality is that they both won big time, and clinched the nom (or at least in Trumps case the clear choice nom until they have the convention which gets ugly quick)

[PseudoSABR]

 

 Still, these margins are certainly within the voter suppression parameters.

Oh, you.

[glunn]

I would like to see every human being have a chance to realize his/her full potential.  I don't want to miss out on a cure for cancer because someone could not afford to go to college.

 

That said, tuition has increased far beyond the rate of inflation while instructional time has decreased. This seems inexcusable and I have a few ideas:

 

1.  Limit the salaries/benefits of college employees to what the U.S. President gets -- $400,000 annual salary.  That would apply to all employees including football coaches.  A college could elect out of this, but the price of electing out would be loss of its tax exempt status.  I believe that if you want to make more than the President of the United States then you should not make it from a tax exempt charity that is subsidized by the public fisc.

 

2.  Require states to restore funding to public education.  I think that a major driver of tuition increases has been state budget cuts.  Now that the economy is recovering, the states should go back to their prior levels of support.

 

3.  Establish a blue ribbon commission of top educators and business leaders to devise strategies to better employ technology to produce better results and more opportunities at a lower cost.  A few years ago I audited an online class offered by Yale University.  I got to see all of the lectures by the top professor in his field and the class materials are available for free.  http://oyc.yale.edu/courses 

It seems to me that with a some support from local community colleges, millions of students could effectively receive Ivy League educations.  The students could watch the lectures online then go to a local classroom to have discussions of the material and take tests to show that they understand the material (and be graded).  The class that I took was as good as any that I took in actual college, and I did not have to go anywhere near the misleadingly named pit known as New Haven.

 

I also agree with those who believe that some students would be better served by a trade school, and I think that trade school tuition should be free so long as a student is making a reasonable effort.  In the long run, this will save the taxpayers money.  But it seems to me that using technology in an efficient manner, even Joe the plumber should have an opportunity to take some Ivy League classes if he wants to make the effort.

 

As for Social Security, I have paid in the maximum for about 35 years and don't expect to get a great return on this.  Hell, I might die before getting a dime.  But I take great comfort in the fact that millions of old people don't have to eat cat food and sleep in doorways.  And I think that Social Security can and should be improved in terms of long-run solvency and overall fairness.

[TheLeviathan]

If you really want to attend that college, find a way to make it happen. Grants, loans, scholarships, work study programs, living on Mac n cheese for years. Hell, spend four years serving in our military, learn some skills, maturity, and discipline, put some money away, take advantage of tuition assistance while you are in and get some school paid for and done, and then take advantage of the GI Bill.

You can make it happen, but I don't think it's in either of our best Interests that it be free. For one thing, if it costs nothing, that will soon be what it's worth.

The second point is valid, and I would argue, largely already the case. Your first point boils down to this: delay starting your life and career so you can cobble together money to pay for over priced college.

 

Could everyone do your plan? Maybe, but that seems like an obnoxiously cumbersome response. Instead, why don't we start holding colleges accountable for their exploitative tuition hiking?

[TheLeviathan]

I like your points Glunn, and I agree that state funding cuts have only driven the problem further....but I think that takes colleges off the hook too easily. I'm glad we're no longer handing institutions money if the first place they spend it is to, essentially, advertise for more money. Colleges have become far too profit driven.

 

Any university that promised to slash costs, direct the bulk of spending to education, and trimmed the growing bloat of non-teaching staff would immediately have my vote for restored state and federal funding. But they need to budge first.

[Squirrel]

I, too, like your points, Gerald, although I'd specify more clearly when you just say 'employees' in your first point. I'd make it clear you were referring to administrators, coaches and the like. Students aren't the only ones paying for these exorbitant wages and benefits.

[Mike Sixel]

 

He isn't proposing a heavier tax on rich people, rather he supports one on Wall Street investments, which would harm a lot more than just rich people.

 

Really? Have you even looked at his tax plan, because that is simply not true, that it isn't on the wealthy at all. Not even close to factual.

[Mike Sixel]

 

he is proposing tax hikes on businesses/payroll taxes as well.

I already pay 50% of my pay check to taxes, I don't need that to jump up to 60% because some life long hippie who has never worked a real job in his life and has coasted along in Govt says we need to raise it just to piss it away for a bunch of programs with no nuance or substance to it.

 

50% what country do you live in?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Herb is right though. Under Sanders, the day traders making thousands of computerized trades would get taxed more heavily, and so would Jack and Jill trying to build a nest egg so they can one day put a down payment on a home. Stocks are simply an alternative to t-bills for a bunch of people. (By the way even a T-bill carries some risk, and might fit the loosest definition of "speculation"). Regular, working people own stocks too.

 

Almost no one outside of the upper 10% have any real money in the markets, outside their retirement accounts. This is not an accurate argument you are making.

 

Increasing the tax on investment income, to still lower than working for it income, seems fair to me. The idea of a lower tax rate on investment income was/is to increase the availability of capital. There is plenty of capital, that argument has lost credibility over the last couple decades.

 

There is no "fair" reason that income from investments, the huge, vast majority of which are either in retirement accounts or held by the wealthy, should be taxed at a lower rate than what the "average joe and jill" pay for their hard work 45 hours a week.

[Mike Sixel]

 

A decent investment is something that pays off at least a little as time goes on. A good investment is something that continues to grow, a horrible investment is something that literally loses all it's money/funding etc as it continues to grow. They could have slowed the bleeding/fixed things a little anytime since the baby boomers were born and it was literally impossible for the program to continue to be sustainable as is. But of course they didn't, and it has become the ****show it now is.

 

Me paying the max in SS taxes each year($7,500 -14,000 a year when I am technically self employed or running my own biz 2011-2013 and 2016) is a HORRIBLE investment when I will literally see next to ZERO of that money ever again. How is that not a ****ty investment? If I took $7,500 a year and put it in even the most conservative guaranteed growing investments, I would have an additional 750k+ in 40 years, and that is worst case scenario!!!!! More than likely that number becomes 1 to 2 million depending on how its invested.

 

Think I will or anyone in my generation will see that in SS? lol. not a chance!

 

I was unaware the purpose of SS was to make money. I thought it was to take of our elderly and sick. My bad. You don't want to pay taxes, you don't want SS there for others....we get it.

[DaveW]

 

50% what country do you live in?

NYC

It's not right at 50% but it's pretty damn close.

[DaveW]

 

 

I was unaware the purpose of SS was to make money. I thought it was to take of our elderly and sick. My bad. You don't want to pay taxes, you don't want SS there for others....we get it.

My issue with SS is it's going to be completely gone in 20 years, which doesn't help my current generation in the least when they get old and sick..... The idea was/is fine, the implementation was a freaking disaster and ended up screwing us (Anyone currently under 40) in the long run.

 

Medicare is for the sick FYI.

 

SS doesn't have to "make money" as you say, but then again you should see at least a better than a $0 return on the investment one has paid into for all those years, as of now that money will be gone and a whole generation will have basically lit thousands of dollars a year on fire.