2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

The costs are out of control I agree. The solution isn't to make everything free though. Nuance...nuance.

 

People are still making the case for Bernie for prez, but he can't win any vote besides young white males. Yes of course some other people in other demos vote for him, but that is irrelevant since Hillary carries those demos so much more. I still maintain that Bernie in fact would make a terrible POTUS, would accomplish nothing in his four years and would get blown out in the reelection bid (the Democratic Party would suffer immensly)

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with your criticism, but whatever we've been doing hasn't worked, and no other candidate has ever made fixing funding-for-college a campaign issue.  I think it's better to have a bad plan that gets rid of tuition, than have nothing at all, in that the bad plan might provide a blueprint and an incentive to actually deal with the problem.

I agree that him bringing the issue forward was both smart on his part and absolutely necessary for the country. I just can't support any plan that gives the real culprit in this a golden parachute.

 

Give me a bad plan that screws the colleges hard, I'll sign up for most anything that begins with that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

 

Is he winning with:

A35+? No

A50+? No

Women? No

Women 35+? No

Women 50+? No

Hispanics? No

Hispanics 35+? No

Hispanics 50+? No

Is he winning with the educated?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Also one factor that is hurting Hilary a bit is sexism. I think you still have a decent chunk of the MALE population who secretly don't want a woman in charge of the country....

and that's all the farther you needed to go with that remark, because those folks already have their candidate, and it sure as hell isn't Bernie Sanders.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I agree Bernie's chances are zero to none, but it's pretty simplistic to claim that his only supporters are young dewy-eyed college kids. If the voting had broken differently (a lot differently) and Bernie had won the nomination, I believe most Democrats would have backed him.

 

I don't know the guy well enough to know if the free college bit is a bargaining chip or if he would actually go to the mat for it. Either way I'm glad to have him in the discussion for as long as possible. People need to hear new things. He's not really saying anything outrageous. 

 

People conveniently forget that after the 2008 crash, Alan Greenspan conceded that a nationalization of banks might be necessary. That's a far, far more socialist position than free college.

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

All righty, these are not the people to piss off.

http://mic.com/articles/137914/anonymous-just-declared-war-on-donald-trump-with-massive-cyberattack#.mSKXB6FzN

As if we needed another variable...

[USAFChief]

 

 

 

How is school-loan debt bad? Well it deprives the economy of all those dollars spent paying them back, along with the interest rate.  Less home sales, less retail sales, less car sales equals less jobs and more poverty and greater draw on social resources.

 

 

I'm not sure how bank loans deprive the economy of dollars but education paid for by taxes doesn't.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure how bank loans deprive the economy of dollars but education paid for by taxes doesn't.

I'll use my wife and I as examples, she it's a behavior analyst for austistic children and I'm a teacher, so we are solidly middle class. Even under an income based repayment schedule we pay about 25% of our take home pay each month in student loans. Money we would be spending on cars, home remodeling, or even traveling. All points where that money goes into the actual economy and not to federal loans.

 

 

There are many in the under 40 crowd that share this reality. It is of monumental economic impact. 20/30 years ago we were the people buying houses and cars and now many wait years to start families or make major purchases because large shares of debt, that is inescapable by any means, hangs over us.

[formerly33]

... Women? ...

Is he winning with the educated?

Excuse me ... ?

[stringer bell]

Trump wins Florida and Rubio is out.

 

Clinton win Florida for the Democrats.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Excuse me ... ?

I meant it as a demographic, nothing else.

[Craig Arko]

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

[formerly33]

 

I meant it as a demographic, nothing else.

Okay ... I get it now. Lol.

 

But the fact remains that the educated are ... well, already educated. Not that I like Bernie better than Hillary, but I still feel like some of the hatred for him is a bit ... juvenile. Just like the love.

[Squirrel]

 

I meant it as a demographic, nothing else.

So, the educated is a different demographic apart from women? (kidding)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Okay ... I get it now. Lol.

 

But the fact remains that the educated are ... well, already educated. Not that I like Bernie better than Hillary, but I still feel like some of the hatred for him is a bit ... juvenile. Just like the love.

 

No it didn't come across very well. Sorry   

 

[formerly33]

 

No it didn't come across very well. Sorry   

No, it was just me being dumb*. No worries.

 

 

*Uneducated.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not sure how bank loans deprive the economy of dollars but education paid for by taxes doesn't.

Levi tackled the first part, but I'll respond to the second point--that taxes would equally take money out of the economy.   

 

In general, that would be true, taxing people who spend their earnings would deprive the economy of those dollars.  But part of the problem is that a staggering amount of our wealth is held by people who don't spend any where near their earnings.  If your tax is prudently targeted it could capture that unused wealth and reintroduce it into the economy through relief of everyone's student loan debt.   (Another way thinking about it is you give a dollar to a man with no money he spends it right away, you give a dollar to a millionaire, he puts it in his pocket.)

 

In mind we have rigged economy that favors the already-wealthy, no one likes taxes but they can act as penance for an economy that creates cavernous wealth disparity. 

[PseudoSABR]

Bernie couldn't maintain/enlarge his momentum following Michigan; he'll probably begin to seriously think about getting out.  

 

The Republicans can still hold out hope for a brokered convention with the Kasich win, though if Trump nets something like 48% of the delegates it would be politically untenable to give the nomination to someone else.  Though Trump is pretty politically untenable himself.

[Hrbowski]

 

Levi tackled the first part, but I'll respond to the second point--that taxes would equally take money out of the economy.   

 

In general, that would be true, taxing people who spend their earnings would deprive the economy of those dollars.  But part of the problem is that a staggering amount of our wealth is held by people who don't spend any where near their earnings.  If your tax is prudently targeted it could capture that unused wealth and reintroduce it into the economy through relief of everyone's student loan debt.   (Another way thinking about it is you give a dollar to a man with no money he spends it right away, you give a dollar to a millionaire, he puts it in his pocket.)

 

In mind we have rigged economy that favors the already-wealthy, no one likes taxes but they can act as penance for an economy that creates cavernous wealth disparity. 

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.

[Hrbowski]

 

So, the educated is a different demographic apart from women? (kidding)

I was thinking that when he said educated he meant men around his own age, but than I realized that wasn't possible. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

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.

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.

[Squirrel]

So far my candidates are leading in Illinois: Clinton, Duckworth, Foxx and Stratton

[TheLeviathan]

Trump wins everything but ohio tonight, further cementing this is a done deal.  

[Craig Arko]

At least that way I'll know what country I'll be living in.

 

 

[DaveW]

Bernie needs to be a honorable human and bow out now. Stop taking money from folks for a wasted campaign.

 

Hillary 2016!

[DaveW]

Is he winning with the educated?

define "educated"

 

If you mean people with a college degree or higher, then no, in fact he isn't, Hillary is up with that demographic with 59%

[DaveW]

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.

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.

[DaveW]

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.

But Bernie wants to increase taxes paid by businesses (big and small).....

[USAFChief]

Okay ... I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders, but ... what? First of all, college is WAY too expensive. I know people who are what, late 30's, early 40's who went to the college I've wanted to go to for years, and could afford it, too? I mean, everyone takes out loans for college, but these days ... sigh. Here I am, barely a generation younger, and I don't have a hope. No, I'm not going to help with your mortgage. I don't even want you to help with my college. But we have a bigger problem than that. The problem is not that I'm going to come out of school drowning in debt - it's that I'm not going to get the education I would like because I'm not going to let myself drown in student loans.

 

Again, do you seriously think kids are going to graduate from high school and spend their years in college, wasting your money? You might have to think again. College isn't all fun and games unless you can afford for it to be all fun and games. And the trend seems to be that you go to college if you can afford for it to be all fun and games. I know that's an exaggeration to some extent, but really. If it wasn't this way, if more than just the rich kids could go to college, I'm guessing the standards would be raised (cue: remember your "lots of Americans don't belong in college" line). You just might start getting in for your brains and dedication rather than your money. Because, you know, you actually have to get in to college; you can't *just go.*

 

And this leads me to people using your money for "paid time off." No, I don't see that happening. A higher education shouldn't be all fun and games - it should be, well, a higher education. And that takes a lot of work. And they wouldn't exactly be paid to be in college. They'd be working to get an education so they could get a job and then be paid. I mean, if you had a choice between hard work learning stuff and not being paid or hard work doing stuff and being paid, what would you pick? I'm guessing the latter, unless of course you needed the former first, in which case ... fine.

 

But ... what am I saying? I sound like a Bernie supporter, and I'm not. I'm really not. It's just that there are problems with this whole college scenario, and no, I don't like it. Unfortunately I'm not offering any actual solutions ... just harping about the whole process. But I honestly don't think we'd have people leeching the system, so to speak, if Bernie's vision worked. I hate that argument. But if I'm wrong, please correct me. It's just that your comment about people not belonging in college really got me going here ... God knows I've heard that one enough times in my life ... and you know, wouldn't you agree that everyone in our developed, first world country should be entitled to have the ability to make a living wage, which is mostly only possible now with a college degree?

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.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Polling firms collect all sorts of data on voters, age, sex, race, where you live, income, education, registered, and so on.