Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 269: All Caucuses Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

The thing I keep telling you is if you put checks in a system you raise administrative costs a stupid amount. It is counter intuitive I know but the resources required to check that just aren't worth it

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The thing I keep telling you is if you put checks in a system you raise administrative costs a stupid amount. It is counter intuitive I know but the resources required to check that just aren't worth it

It can't be that hard to just have income from the IRS just automatically generated eligibility or some shit on a formula.

---

Then why isn't they done now for loan eligibility? Or assistance eligibility? Why do we have massive departments wondering if there is fraud? If it could be done that way to already would be

---

Also as a moral thing, I believe if you pay into a tax you have the right to enjoy that benefit. Healthcare and school for the rich is old with me!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Then why isn't they done now for loan eligibility? Or assistance eligibility? Why do we have massive departments wondering if there is fraud? If it could be done that way to already would be

Hard to apply that to 17 and 18 year olds that haven't had a job yet. And if going by parents, that system gets very messy, complicated, or gameable?

It's a bit easier to do after the fact?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Depending on loopholes in the laws, they might even be able to offer kickbacks to students. (The feds sent your tuition of $100k per year, we keep 70k, here's 30k for "living expenses," classes are optional and you can't fail out, thanks for your business!

That school would immediately lose accreditation.

---

Corrik7 posted...

How much money would debt go down by just by relieving all subsidized loan interest and not putting interest on them in the future? Would you say maybe 20% or more of that 1.4 trillion number is just interest? More maybe? Idk. How much of that 1.4 trillion is actually in bad state? Probably a lot right? I dunno. I think it definitely needs to require checks though so the actual needy are getting it and not those who don't. Or at least has a requirement to earn it.

Given that students loans have very long payment durations and start accruing interest during school I would guess interest at 30-40% of the total.

The thing is that with income-based repayment it's very unclear how much of the student loans should be considered bad debt (i.e. how much will be forgiven after 20 years of paying 10% of income). It's very easy for people in power to make very rosy projections for how much money American student loan holders will make in the future.....you just have to plan based on a 4% growth rate like Jeb said he would do.

The subprime mortgage crisis was similar.....everything worked if the US economy performed very very well. Hopefully we can avoid the situation of the 1920s when we were loaning money to Germany so they could afford to pay reparations to Britain and France so Britain and France could afford to repay their debt to us! And of course it ended badly when the market realized that these loans were never going to be repaid.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Also as a moral thing, I believe if you pay into a tax you have the right to enjoy that benefit. Healthcare and school for the rich is old with me!

So morally you should be disgusted at the responsible / non applicable being shafted for something they have to pay into but can't benefit from? I mean, if you are cool with anyone receiving the benefit if they paid into it.

Do you support increasing the tax rate 20% on all those that receive it and leaving those who don't untouched? I mean, I don't get that argument because the main gripe is that less well off families (let's say a 15k family income with a family of 4 that doesn't have student debt) may have to watch a well off family (let's say 300k income with a family of 2) receive like 100k in relief on student debt for their fancy law degrees.

That doesn't sit well with me morally, Chris. I mean, maybe I lack empathy to that well off family and shit, but I dunno. I think morally that's backwards.

---

No one is being shafted. My fiance for example has no loan debt and is a 25 years old with a master's degree. She doesn't feel shafted. I just asked her if she is fine with everyone getting forgiveness and she is like "yeah"

Also let me be clear. The reason I defend the well off family because actually the attack is on the poor. Means testing is a time tested way of killing government programs.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It can't be that hard to just have income from the IRS just automatically generated eligibility or some shit on a formula.

Based on IRS tax data alone, Donald Trump would probably qualify for free tuition much of the time. Since he may have negative taxable income.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Based on IRS tax data alone, Donald Trump would probably qualify for free tuition much of the time. Since he may have negative taxable income.

Amazon could go to college for free

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No one is being shafted. My fiance for example has no loan debt and is a 25 years old with a master's degree. She doesn't feel shafted. I just asked her if she is fine with everyone getting forgiveness and she is like "yeah"

I applaud her feelings towards it.

I dunno if the family of 4 on a 15k income is gonna be so understanding. I don't think that guy in that video is very understanding. I think people are going to feel shafted once they realize it may apply to people much better off than themselves.

I can't imagine anyone on food stamps and shit looking at people getting tens of thousands of dollars in relief with a nice house and better jobs than their family and not feeling some animosity.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So morally you should be disgusted at the responsible / non applicable being shafted for something they have to pay into but can't benefit from? I mean, if you are cool with anyone receiving the benefit if they paid into it.

Do you support increasing the tax rate 20% on all those that receive it and leaving those who don't untouched? I mean, I don't get that argument because the main gripe is that less well off families (let's say a 15k family income with a family of 4 that doesn't have student debt) may have to watch a well off family (let's say 300k income with a family of 2) receive like 100k in relief on student debt for their fancy law degrees.

That doesn't sit well with me morally, Chris. I mean, maybe I lack empathy to that well off family and shit, but I dunno. I think morally that's backwards.

So if you ask that family making 300k they will almost certainly not consider themselves affluent. This is where the dissonance comes from - people in the top 10% believe they are solidly middle class. Probably because they are always comparing themselves to the 1%.

---

never understand people concern trolling about billionaires also receiving basic needs

like it's such an insignificant slice of the pie who cares, they're paying for it in their taxes anyways

---

And you better believe that is going to be an argument if Bernie's plan is actually that. And, I think that is one that is gonna resonate with the masses come election time.


---

What I have a problem with is billionaires not paying their fair share and then donating to a guy against Medicare for all. People who are in crisis need help. Means testing does nothing for them. If their health needs are taken care of and they can go to college and their kids can have a better life than them, it is a great start.

---

I welcome the argument that Bernie is too on the rich!

---

Corrik7 posted...

And you better believe that is going to be an argument if Bernie's plan is actually that. And, I think that is one that is gonna resonate with the masses come election time.

Bernie has more class consciousness than to adopt such a tone deaf response. Warren did that when asked and it hasn't worked out for her. Bernie understands there is a huge gap between doctors/lawyers making 300k as a family who can't make ends meet because all their money goes to taxes, a mortgage, and student loans (in that order) and actual working class people.

---

But I guess to return to the original question, means testing for college students is hard because unless they received an inheritance or something, college students by and large don't have the means to pay for college. You need to means test the parents. But what if a parent says their child has been disowned and they won't pay a dime- is this child still to be means-tested based on his parents' wealth? If not, is the government going to be sending agents to see if he comes home for Christmas, and if he does, arrest the family for fraud in claiming disownment for free tuition?

---

Corrik7 posted...

And you better believe that is going to be an argument if Bernie's plan is actually that. And, I think that is one that is gonna resonate with the masses come election time.

"Bernie's too generous to the billionaires!!"

Oh god Bernie is really done for now.

---

Well, if you see that issue and don't think that is an issue people are going to have come election time then more power to you.

Obviously not the made up irrelevant quote you made, but what I am actually talking about.


---

I think the real solutions on the college cost problem have to come on the college side. They need to be less expensive. No other country spends anywhere near what we do on college education.

Now, we have won around 2/3 of Nobel prizes in the sciences since WWII and our universities are prestigious the world over. But is that worth the obscene amounts we spend, mostly by students who don't go to grad school and really don't get a benefit from having professors in the country who have won Nobel prizes?

Elizabeth Warren receiving 300k to teach one class - that is the face of the problem.

---

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1229504935634591745?s=21

Ive brought this up before, but Im very weirded out that this is a thing to such an extreme

Biden
Bernie
Bloomberg
Buttigieg

ElizaBeth
KloBuchar
GaBBard

Booker
Bennet
Beto
Bullock
Bill de Blasio

The only remaining candidate without a B is Steyer. Its like the Will of D. from One Piece!

---

Look, if millionaires and billionaires want to send their kids to free public colleges, I'm all for it.

But you and I both know that the kids of the rich are more likely to go to private, prestige schools than your average lower middle class person.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Look, if millionaires and billionaires want to send their kids to free public colleges, I'm all for it.

But you and I both know that the kids of the rich are more likely to go to private, prestige schools than your average lower middle class person.

Yeah, we are talking about debt relief regarding that. Not free tuition really.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I think the real solutions on the college cost problem have to come on the college side. They need to be less expensive. No other country spends anywhere near what we do on college education.

Now, we have won around 2/3 of Nobel prizes in the sciences since WWII and our universities are prestigious the world over. But is that worth the obscene amounts we spend, mostly by students who don't go to grad school and really don't get a benefit from having professors in the country who have won Nobel prizes?

Elizabeth Warren receiving 300k to teach one class - that is the face of the problem.

Profs that have won Nobel Prizes very well might not even be better lecturers. What America does have is a disproportionate amount of the worlds most impactful research output (and that does feed into economic growth by spinning off into productive companies).

---

Aren't some colleges paying like 100k for a speech from Clinton or some crap?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Profs that have won Nobel Prizes very well might not even be better lecturers. What America does have is a disproportionate amount of the worlds most impactful research output (and that does feed into economic growth by spinning off into productive companies).

Come now. You should know who the benefits of spinning off research into companies goes to. The 1%!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah, we are talking about debt relief regarding that. Not free tuition really.

And the already-rich dont take out student loans, Id be interested to see the numbers.

As was discussed earlier, becoming rich after having debt is totally fine.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Aren't some colleges paying like 100k for a speech from Clinton or some crap?

I think her rate is 200k+, although that's probably done for the same reasons as banks. It's a legal bribe. And now that she lost, she'll never be able to uphold her end of the quid pro quo.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Come now. You should know who the benefits of spinning off research into companies goes to. The 1%!

Actually a ton of the benefit goes to society! Both directly in terms of employment, but also in propping up the local economy by driving demand for support industries and in providing society with whatever technology is developed (e.g. Silicon Valley companies have pretty wildly changed the lives of pretty much all Americans).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually a ton of the benefit goes to society! Both directly in terms of employment, but also in propping up the local economy by driving demand for support industries and in providing society with whatever technology is developed (e.g. Silicon Valley companies have pretty wildly changed the lives of pretty much all Americans).

Silicon Valley jobs (the good ones at least) go overwhelmingly to affluent people. So not 1% necessarily, but 10 or 20%.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And the already-rich dont take out student loans, Id be interested to see the numbers.

As was discussed earlier, becoming rich after having debt is totally fine.

"Although the percentage of students who borrow decreases as family income rises, students from all income groups take out student loans. "

https://www.marketplace.org/2019/12/04/more-students-from-higher-income-families-taking-out-student-loans/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/10/08/wealthy-families-increasingly-take-out-loans-pay-college-study-finds

"The largest increases in borrowing rates among college graduates have come from the highest-income families, a new analysis of federal data shows. "

https://collegecashpro.com/college-funding/why-wealthy-families-should-apply-for-college-financial-aid/

People of no matter what wealth are encouraged to apply to financial aid just so they can then get low interest government loans.


---

People of wealth tend to understand debt better. Many people from poorer backgrounds are frightened of debt, even if the interest is low.

---

red sox 777 posted...

People of wealth tend to understand debt better. Many people from poorer backgrounds are frightened of debt, even if the interest is low.

Well, from what I understand the rich taking on student loan debts is kinda four fold.

1. They believe it will make their kid take it more serious.

2. It provides them with easy credit.

3. Might teach them financial responsibility.

4. It is economically advantageous to take out the student loan which has a very low interest rate and continue investing money for higher profits instead of pay it off or in advance.

---

When people say 'what about those who will get shafted by loan forgiveness', all I can think of is this

https://external-preview.redd.it/gCzt1RqFXFlJwwm9U0GLOjfN3qTVTT97li_fgxlgpZ8.jpg?auto=webp&s=3c3d08fc525a3f3a6522d327706a8021e968f88e

---

The government has no problem paying for college when its being used as a lure to bribe the poorest to join the military.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ive brought this up before, but Im very weirded out that this is a thing to such an extreme

George Bush
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama
Bob Dole

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

The government has no problem paying for college when its being used as a lure to bribe the poorest to join the military.

You are earning it.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

George Bush
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama
Bob Dole

George Bashington
Thomas Befferson
James Badison
Andrew Backson
James Bolk
Abraham Bincoln
Ulysses S. Brant
James Barfield
Theodore Boosevelt

Shit, this goes all the way down!

Bloomberg calls out Bernie supporters for........... accurately calling out Bloomberg?

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1229500344046161921

Like I can be critical of rose twitter but there isn't a single thing wrong with these spotlighted tweets. I guess thanks Bloomberg for highlighting what's wrong with you?

also lmao how dare you call someone racist or an oligarch!!

---

I love Bernie's campaign.

---

i'm not sure about "trump is better than bloomberg"

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'm not sure about "trump is better than bloomberg"

overall no, but narrowing it specifically to criminal justice is a completely fair statement (especially with the "may be" hedging)

---

Nevada poll.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/sanders-has-strong-lead-in-nevada

Sanders: 35%
Warren: 16%
Buttigieg: 15%
Biden: 14%
Steyer: 10%
Klobuchar: 9%
Gabbard: 2%

Sanders performs extremely well with Hispanic likely caucusgoers, registering 66 percent support, with no other candidate cracking double digits. He continues to see strong support among younger voters, with likely caucusgoers under 45 supporting him at 64 percent. Of those who have made up their mind, Sanders registers 47 percent support.

Democratic voters strongly support both Medicare for All (69 percent in support, 23 percent opposed) and a Green New Deal (93 percent in support, 6 percent opposed).

---

*blinks*

Uh... damn

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Nevada poll.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/sanders-has-strong-lead-in-nevada

Sanders: 35%
Warren: 16%
Buttigieg: 15%
Biden: 14%
Steyer: 10%
Klobuchar: 9%
Gabbard: 2%

In contrast...

https://www.pointblankpolitical.com/nv-democratic-caucus-2020/

Steyer 19%
Klobuchar 16%
Biden 14%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 13%
Warren 7%
Gabbard 2%


---

Steyer!! Could you imagine

---

Grimlyn posted...

Bloomberg calls out Bernie supporters for........... accurately calling out Bloomberg?

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1229500344046161921

Like I can be critical of rose twitter but there isn't a single thing wrong with these spotlighted tweets. I guess thanks Bloomberg for highlighting what's wrong with you?

also lmao how dare you call someone racist or an oligarch!!

I assume the strategy is to try to roll these legitimate criticisms in with the toxic Bernie bro attack type stuff to try to trick people into thinking these posts are also just baseless attacks?

oh god Im in a car and a Bloomberg ad just came on the radio and hes talking about institutional racism fuckkkkkkk
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In contrast...

https://www.pointblankpolitical.com/nv-democratic-caucus-2020/

Steyer 19%
Klobuchar 16%
Biden 14%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 13%
Warren 7%
Gabbard 2%

Btw, if you dig into the numbers for that poll you realize why. Massive oversampling of older voters as well as white voters and small sample size

The one kp linked got iowa and NH almost dead on at the top

---