2020 Presidential Election

[PseudoSABR]

 

My push to beat Trump is based on how 2016 was lost. Not, and I will edit this in freaking neon colors and strobe lights if that's what it takes to get through to you, based on my personal ideological preferences. If that was the case of probably lean Warren. Or not be voting Dem at all. But I want Republicans to lose....so I want the strategy to win and cannibalize over policy later.

I think your analysis of why 2016 was lost focuses too much on demographics and not on the candidate, I'll leave it at that.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't think it was or would be smugness, with regard to the platform component of electability at least, to recycle success. If anything (and again, I'm only speculating from a campaign strategist's point of view, not an ideologue's), it would be much more pragmatic than a 'clean slate' approach to platform construction would have been in 2016, when inheriting a share of the popularity banked by your own party's two-term president.

 

Hillary established a left/right track in the Senate that was comparable to or even slightly left of Obama, and her campaign generally didn't stray very far from that in the 2016 election. So with a similar overall ideological blueprint to Obama/Biden but ultimately saddled with a candidate we (and polling) agree was less likable than Obama, Democrats won the popular vote in 2016.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for what I think is best for the country or even the Democratic party; I'm just saying that there's probably a fairly strong contingent inside their machine (strategists, rainmakers, etc) who see A] the electoral landscape as not being direly changed from 2016, B] their loss in that election as more the fault of the candidate than the platform, and C] therefore little incentive to reinvent the Democratic wheel with more spokes made of socialism, particularly when the consequences of a failed experiment are viewed as direly as they are.

 

Then again, in a year's time a portrait of Karl Marx might poll above 55% in a hypothetical head-to-head vs. Trump and by going with Biden, Dems might miss a once-in-a-generation chance to leap to the left and remake the landscape of American politics...

 

... or consign themselves to irrelevancy for the first half of the coming decade, for that matter.

This is all thoughtful, but I do think the calculus has changes since 2008/2012 in terms of both appealing to the center and turning out the left.  I think your point about Karl Marx obliquely acknowledges this.  

 

I'll say it did not work for Gore running on Clinton's success with a dash of environmentalism and elitism.  Biden is likable, but he's generic and seemingly policyless, but we will see, maybe he will be more bold than I imagine.  

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

Warren proposes cancelling 50K of student debt.

[Vanimal46]

So we're going to erase over $1 trillion in student loans simply by taxing the super rich 2-3% more and the states "chipping in" a little bit? What about states that are borderline bankrupt like Illinois? How are they able to pay that bill?

 

A lot of her policies are tied to getting enough money from the super rich sugar daddies and sugar mommies out there...

[Mike Sixel]

 

So we're going to erase over $1 trillion in student loans simply by taxing the super rich 2-3% more and the states "chipping in" a little bit? What about states that are borderline bankrupt like Illinois? How are they able to pay that bill?

A lot of her policies are tied to getting enough money from the super rich sugar daddies and sugar mommies out there...

 

as they should be. We are the only first world (is that still a phrase) nation that doesn't do that. Also, rates are historically low, and income inequality is at the levels where revolutions and death start happening. 

[Squirrel]

 

So we're going to erase over $1 trillion in student loans simply by taxing the super rich 2-3% more and the states "chipping in" a little bit? What about states that are borderline bankrupt like Illinois? How are they able to pay that bill?

A lot of her policies are tied to getting enough money from the super rich sugar daddies and sugar mommies out there...

The super wealthy already don't pay their fair share of taxes, once they've taken advantage of all the loopholes available to them. Whether or not applying this completely to loan forgiveness or free 4-year college educations, I might debate that somewhat, but they should at least be paying their fair share, which they aren't. Either close the loopholes or tax them higher.

[Vanimal46]

The super wealthy already don't pay their fair share of taxes, once they've taken advantage of all the loopholes available to them. Whether or not applying this completely to loan forgiveness or free 4-year college educations, I might debate that somewhat, but they should at least be paying their fair share, which they aren't. Either close the loopholes or tax them higher.

I don't disagree the super rich could be taxed more. I'm just trying to figure out the rough math here...

 

2-3% tax increase on the super wealthy is supposed to eliminate $1 trillion in student loans, along with paying for universal child care and universal pre-K school... I don't know how that's all supposed to work and get paid for without putting a significant burden on the states themselves.

 

I don't have kids yet, but the people I know that do say their child care is about the same as their mortgage payment. Sometimes more than that.

[Squirrel]

I don't disagree the super rich could be taxed more. I'm just trying to figure out the rough math here...

2-3% tax increase on the super wealthy is supposed to eliminate $1 trillion in student loans, along with paying for universal child care and universal pre-K school... I don't know how that's all supposed to work and get paid for without putting a significant burden on the states themselves.

I don't have kids yet, but the people I know that do say their child care is about the same as their mortgage payment. Sometimes more than that.

Ah, okay ... I didn’t really understand that from your previous post. Yeah, like I said, I’m not sure I’d apply those revenues in the same way, and don’t know if that would work, but I definitely think there needs to be a better system in place that is truly fair, which I don’t think our current system is. It seems to forgive a lot of taxation to the super wealthy and increases the burden on the lower classes.

 

I have a nephew who recently paid off, or is paying off his loans, dutifully, and he gets a little upset when he thinks others might be forgiven their loans entirely. That’s not fair either. But we do need to work on a better system of affordable education. Just not exactly sure what that is at this point.

[Vanimal46]

Ah, okay ... I didn’t really understand that from your previous post. Yeah, like I said, I’m not sure I’d apply those revenues in the same way, and don’t know if that would work, but I definitely think there needs to be a better system in place that is truly fair, which I don’t think our current system is. It seems to forgive a lot of taxation to the super wealthy and increases the burden on the lower classes.

 

I have a nephew who recently paid off, or is paying off his loans, dutifully, and he gets a little upset when he thinks others might be forgiven their loans entirely. That’s not fair either. But we do need to work on a better system of affordable education. Just not exactly sure what that is at this point.

The story of your nephew brings up a good point. What about the people who sacrificed and dutifully paid off their loans? Are they going to get reimbursed by this program too? Or are they going to get nothing out of this?

 

From the CNN article Pseudo posted that's how Warren explained how we were going to pay for the student loan forgiveness program. The 2-3% tax increase of the super wealthy, and the state "chipping in".

 

That's also her answer to how we're going to pay for universal child care and universal pre-K. So nearly all of her policies are tied to the fact that our super wealthy overlords are going to bail us out.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The story of your nephew brings up a good point. What about the people who sacrificed and dutifully paid off their loans? Are they going to get reimbursed by this program too? Or are they going to get nothing out of this?

From the CNN article Pseudo posted that's how Warren explained how we were going to pay for the student loan forgiveness program. The 2-3% tax increase of the super wealthy, and the state "chipping in".

That's also her answer to how we're going to pay for universal child care and universal pre-K. So nearly all of her policies are tied to the fact that our super wealthy overlords are going to bail us out.

 

the people that "sacrificed" and paid their own way won't get reimbursed any more than people who do other things that the government sometimes pays for some to do. Like, I'm not getting money back because some people get food stamps.

 

It just is.

 

As for your larger point, yes, we need to pick priorities on spending. I think some kind of fix to the student loan issue frees up a TON of pent up spending ability, which is better for the economy than other options for spending......excepting medicare for all, which we should do for moral and economic reasons.

 

As we've discussed elsewhere, just paying off student debt doe not fix the underlying issues with college costs (and that professors, like teachers, are underpaid).

[gunnarthor]

There are already some student forgiveness plans out there. For example, law student loans may be wiped away if you work 10 years for a qualified non-profit (and meet a few criteria). These were put in place under Bush.

 

A tax law professor who clerked for Scalia once explained why he thought student loans should be forgiven more (not necessarily wiped off the books but he wasn't opposed to that either). Basically, let's say you take out 100k in loans for law school. You get that 100k from other tax payers. But the return is that this creates a future high income earner who will pay more into the system. Additionally, he said that people don't save money. So the $850 monthly student loan repayment can go to the DOE or you can forgive it and the person will spend the $850 in the market and that money would flow out, as a combination of mortgage payment, car payment, entertainment purchases, etc. Forcing people to pay so much back in student loans hinders their ability to buy homes and start families. It also creates a discontented work force and creates generations of workers who think living paycheck to paycheck should be the norm. So, while the 100k payment to the law school would not be repayed, the money that the individual puts back into our economy more than makes up for it. 

[Musk21]

 

I have a nephew who recently paid off, or is paying off his loans, dutifully, and he gets a little upset when he thinks others might be forgiven their loans entirely. That’s not fair either. But we do need to work on a better system of affordable education. Just not exactly sure what that is at this point.

 

Philip Klein, editor of conservative rag Washington Examiner, is getting heavily ratioed on Twitter for this post:

 

"Elizabeth Warren's plan to cancel student loan debt would be a slap in the face to all those who struggled to pay off their loans"

 

Highlights from among the responses:

 

- Passing seatbelt laws is a slap in the face to everyone who survived a car accident.

- Cure cancer? Think of all those who died of the disease, don't they count?

- Universal healthcare would not be fair to the millions of people who already died because they couldn't afford healthcare
 

[Squirrel]

Philip Klein, editor of conservative rag Washington Examiner, is getting heavily ratioed on Twitter for this post:

 

"Elizabeth Warren's plan to cancel student loan debt would be a slap in the face to all those who struggled to pay off their loans"

 

Highlights from among the responses:

 

- Passing seatbelt laws is a slap in the face to everyone who survived a car accident.

- Cure cancer? Think of all those who died of the disease, don't they count?

- Universal healthcare would not be fair to the millions of people who already died because they couldn't afford healthcare

 

Point taken. Thanks.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There are already some student forgiveness plans out there. For example, law student loans may be wiped away if you work 10 years for a qualified non-profit (and meet a few criteria). These were put in place under Bush.

 

Studies show that a tiny fraction of those people actually get forgiveness.  

 

To the concerns about fairness,I haven't had to see a doctor in 15 years.  I've been getting screwed by medical premiums (and will continue to do so) for years paying for people that are less healthy.  That isn't a justification against doing something right for millions of people.  I don't get to say "You unhealthy people pay for for your own medical, I take care of myself" as an argument against universal health care.  I accept that my circumstances allow me to be healthier, but it's better for everyone that we have it, even if I don't gain anything from it.

 

Student loans are crippling economic spending power for millions.  I'll even pay them back....but end the interest payments at the very least.  But if you get rid of them?  We buy a new car tomorrow.  We hire someone to redo our backyard tomorrow.  We go out and buy a bunch of new stuff immediately.  The economic shackles would come off in ways people are seriously underestimating.

[Vanimal46]

Studies show that a tiny fraction of those people actually get forgiveness.

 

To the concerns about fairness,I haven't had to see a doctor in 15 years. I've been getting screwed by medical premiums (and will continue to do so) for years paying for people that are less healthy. That isn't a justification against doing something right for millions of people. I don't get to say "You unhealthy people pay for for your own medical, I take care of myself" as an argument against universal health care. I accept that my circumstances allow me to be healthier, but it's better for everyone that we have it, even if I don't gain anything from it.

 

Student loans are crippling economic spending power for millions. I'll even pay them back....but end the interest payments at the very least. But if you get rid of them? We buy a new car tomorrow. We hire someone to redo our backyard tomorrow. We go out and buy a bunch of new stuff immediately. The economic shackles would come off in ways people are seriously underestimating.

Yeah I applaud anyone who actually paid off their loans, because it's quite the accomplishment. It would do a world of good for a lot of people if their loans were erased.

 

But nothing in this world is free... And someone's going to have to foot the bill eventually. Right now I question the solution (2-3% tax hike on super rich) for making this a reality...

 

If taxing the most wealthy another 2-3% generates $2+ trillion in revenue? I would be blown away... That's the kind of numbers we would need to generate in order to erase $1 trillion in student loans AND get universal child care.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah I applaud anyone who actually paid off their loans, because it's quite the accomplishment. It would do a world of good for a lot of people if their loans were erased.

But nothing in this world is free... And someone's going to have to foot the bill eventually. Right now I question the solution (2-3% tax hike on super rich) for making this a reality...

If taxing the most wealthy another 2-3% generates $2+ trillion in revenue? I would be blown away... That's the kind of numbers we would need to generate in order to erase $1 trillion in student loans AND get universal child care.

 

I can understand your concerns with the mechanism certainly.  Though the Trump tax cuts account for almost that entire amount.

 

It's not that I demand things for free either, I'd be ok just paying the principal balance.  But this problem was one the government created with a terrible system, it doesn't make sense to punish the economy and millions of people for their mistake either.  I get not liking the "give stuff for free" mantra, but at a certain point the greater good outweighs things.

 

For me, it's the same logic behind universal health care.  We're better off, as a people (and probably economically) if we hit "redo" on the whole thing.  Short of wiping away the crappy old system and starting fresh, I don't think we do that successfully.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah I applaud anyone who actually paid off their loans, because it's quite the accomplishment. It would do a world of good for a lot of people if their loans were erased.

But nothing in this world is free... And someone's going to have to foot the bill eventually. Right now I question the solution (2-3% tax hike on super rich) for making this a reality...

If taxing the most wealthy another 2-3% generates $2+ trillion in revenue? I would be blown away... That's the kind of numbers we would need to generate in order to erase $1 trillion in student loans AND get universal child care.

Well, we don't need to pay for the loans, because if tuition is free, there's no need to refill the pool of available dollars for loans in the first place.  The key is paying for the tuition; it might just be cost shifting, but I think making tuition free could also drive down costs as universities won't be seeking those endless amount of loan dollars.

[biggentleben]

 

There are already some student forgiveness plans out there. For example, law student loans may be wiped away if you work 10 years for a qualified non-profit (and meet a few criteria). These were put in place under Bush.

 

A tax law professor who clerked for Scalia once explained why he thought student loans should be forgiven more (not necessarily wiped off the books but he wasn't opposed to that either). Basically, let's say you take out 100k in loans for law school. You get that 100k from other tax payers. But the return is that this creates a future high income earner who will pay more into the system. Additionally, he said that people don't save money. So the $850 monthly student loan repayment can go to the DOE or you can forgive it and the person will spend the $850 in the market and that money would flow out, as a combination of mortgage payment, car payment, entertainment purchases, etc. Forcing people to pay so much back in student loans hinders their ability to buy homes and start families. It also creates a discontented work force and creates generations of workers who think living paycheck to paycheck should be the norm. So, while the 100k payment to the law school would not be repayed, the money that the individual puts back into our economy more than makes up for it. 

 

The Michael Lewis podcast recently did an excellent look into some of these and found that essentially every student loan forgiveness program through the government is wrought with corruption from the student loan industry that makes it near-impossible for anyone to truly qualify.

 

I've got more than 10 years of service in social work, more than 10 years of on-time payments on my loan, but because I called in one month in the midst of all of that and discussed a potential forbearance (one I didn't end up taking, simply discussed), it's notated on their records, and I'm ineligible for forgiveness. All sorts of little crap like that are all over the system of these forgiveness program, regardless of the field.

[biggentleben]

 

Well, we don't need to pay for the loans, because if tuition is free, there's no need to refill the pool of available dollars for loans in the first place.  The key is paying for the tuition; it might just be cost shifting, but I think making tuition free could also drive down costs as universities won't be seeking those endless amount of loan dollars.

 

Or, God forbid, universities would start showcasing themselves for their excellent faculty and academic reputation rather than the new buildings all over campus paid for with outrageous tuition dollars.

 

Of course, one other thought here...no tuition and/or elimination of the student loan program would absolutely bankrupt any for-profit college, which is an aggressive force on Capital Hill now in lobbying.

[LaBombo]

 

Philip Klein, editor of conservative rag Washington Examiner, is getting heavily ratioed on Twitter for this post:

 

"Elizabeth Warren's plan to cancel student loan debt would be a slap in the face to all those who struggled to pay off their loans"

 

Highlights from among the responses:

 

- Passing seatbelt laws is a slap in the face to everyone who survived a car accident.

- Cure cancer? Think of all those who died of the disease, don't they count?

- Universal healthcare would not be fair to the millions of people who already died because they couldn't afford healthcare
 

 

 

All three analogies are just varying degrees of bad, but I think my favorite thing about all of them is that they all equate actively seeking, receiving, and paying off a loan to... dying.

 

However we handle the issues of high college costs, the idea of waving away student debt at some arbitrary point in time will absolutely create resentment among those who paid their loans off or down early, as they see the equivalent of the reward for their hard work and sacrifice being handed to their peers.

 

For that matter loan forgiveness also erases the sacrifices of those who made theirs at the front end by choosing a more affordable school, or even a more affordable major and/or career choice.

 

Whether the inequitable nature of the Warren plan would be enough by itself to doom it politically is another matter, as is the basic proposition that loan forgiveness could be fundamentally flawed and yet still end up being the least of several bad options.

 

As an aside unrelated to policy, if younger millennials feel they're being unfairly maligned now, just wait until they're the first generation to be patted on the head and told that America will pay to take care of their evil, malignant, death-like student loans.

[Vanimal46]

Or, God forbid, universities would start showcasing themselves for their excellent faculty and academic reputation rather than the new buildings all over campus paid for with outrageous tuition dollars.

 

Of course, one other thought here...no tuition and/or elimination of the student loan program would absolutely bankrupt any for-profit college, which is an aggressive force on Capital Hill now in lobbying.

Those new buildings all over campus are kind of a necessary evil in order to recruit and retain the best talent...

 

Great point in your 2nd paragraph.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, we don't need to pay for the loans, because if tuition is free, there's no need to refill the pool of available dollars for loans in the first place.  The key is paying for the tuition; it might just be cost shifting, but I think making tuition free could also drive down costs as universities won't be seeking those endless amount of loan dollars.

 

How would you price control that?  I have two main issues with the "free college" idea.  First - the lack of controls put in place with the loan system were precisely what caused this spiraling.  I don't see anyone saying anything about that.  Will colleges be forced to accept funding on a per pupil basis?  Are we going to cap student enrollments?  In other countries where colleges are free they have a much smaller number of students going to college.

 

And those questions lead me to my second issue....how is that distinguishably different than high school?  If everyone goes.....and it's free.....and colleges get paid per pupil.....isn't that just high school but you aren't limited by geography?  And won't that dilute any value of going to college?

[PseudoSABR]

 

How would you price control that?  I have two main issues with the "free college" idea.  First - the lack of controls put in place with the loan system were precisely what caused this spiraling.  I don't see anyone saying anything about that.  Will colleges be forced to accept funding on a per pupil basis?  Are we going to cap student enrollments?  In other countries where colleges are free they have a much smaller number of students going to college.

 

And those questions lead me to my second issue....how is that distinguishably different than high school?  If everyone goes.....and it's free.....and colleges get paid per pupil.....isn't that just high school but you aren't limited by geography?  And won't that dilute any value of going to college?

I do think we may have to cap student enrollment, and I think creating some kind of liability for universities in terms of students actually getting jobs might have the same effect. 

 

If we make it free, but not everyone gets to go, but create viable alternatives to college, I think it will drive down costs.  Academia may take a big hit in that there may no longer be a need for so many professors, or perhaps the professors would need to do more teaching, and the graduate/adjunct teachers would get culled.  Stripping out general education/liberal arts requirements would also save costs, and I think that highschools should be more active in giving a liberal arts education any way, leaving it for the university is crazy expensive way to culturally educate a society. 

 

Complex problem, and I'm just throwing ideas against the wall at this point. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Complex problem, and I'm just throwing ideas against the wall at this point. 

 

I don't expect all the answers either, just posting my own thoughts.  I don't think Bernie (or anyone subsequently) has addressed any of those issues.  And they are significant issues with the "free college" plan IMO.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Warren proposes cancelling 50K of student debt.

Warren or another Democrat proposes it: "sweeping, ambitious" 

 

Sanders proposes it: "Wacky Socialist ROFL!!"

[gunnarthor]

 

The Michael Lewis podcast recently did an excellent look into some of these and found that essentially every student loan forgiveness program through the government is wrought with corruption from the student loan industry that makes it near-impossible for anyone to truly qualify.

 

I've got more than 10 years of service in social work, more than 10 years of on-time payments on my loan, but because I called in one month in the midst of all of that and discussed a potential forbearance (one I didn't end up taking, simply discussed), it's notated on their records, and I'm ineligible for forgiveness. All sorts of little crap like that are all over the system of these forgiveness program, regardless of the field.

I'm in the same boat. I found out that I was on the wrong re-payment program and, even though I was paying more than I would if I had been in the correct one (by $400/mth!), I couldn't get credited for those six years. That was a very bad day for me.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I don't expect all the answers either, just posting my own thoughts.  I don't think Bernie (or anyone subsequently) has addressed any of those issues.  And they are significant issues with the "free college" plan IMO.

Agree. I don't really know what to do, only that the current system is utterly broken and anything else -- including taxing wealthy for complete forgiveness of all existing debt -- is preferable that what we have now. 

 

Again, don't know what to do about this one, but at least we are talking about it here, in some small corner of the univers(ity).

[PseudoSABR]

 

However we handle the issues of high college costs, the idea of waving away student debt at some arbitrary point in time will absolutely create resentment among those who paid their loans off or down early, as they see the equivalent of the reward for their hard work and sacrifice being handed to their peers.

I'm not sure resentment is viable policy consideration, and in any case, those people can vote for their interests at the ballot box.   This is a similar argument for not raising the minimum wage: that people already making $15 dollars would be discounted in relation.   These kind of arguments will always stifle any kind of benefit that only helps a subsection of society. 

 

I mean all the childless property owners might have a good reason to complain about their property taxes going to pay for schools, but thank god they don't do that.   Or those that bike/walk to work sales tax goes to maintain roads.  etc. etc.  At some point, you do the thing that helps people, even if some people managed to navigate the problematic system by playing by the rules don't receive the same benefit.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Warren or another Democrat proposes it: "sweeping, ambitious" 

 

Sanders proposes it: "Wacky Socialist ROFL!!"

Unlike Bernie, Warren at least proposes how she would pay for things.  It's unclear what kind of tax Bernie is behind.  Warren just as whole 'nother level of policy detail than Bernie has.   But generally I agree with you.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Unlike Bernie, Warren at least proposes how she would pay for things.  It's unclear what kind of tax Bernie is behind.  Warren just as whole 'nother level of policy detail than Bernie has.   But generally I agree with you.

Fair. I haven’t dug in that close.