2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
According to the linked article, that's not how Sanders is playing it. His proposal is to pay for the program not out of the income tax dividends from the program, but from new taxes which will be placed on financial transactions. You can see the context he provides in the unveiling of the proposal. This is as much about sticking it to Wall Street as it is about fixing college tuition debt. Probably more so.

Raise taxes on Wall Street. Fight the pushback and attract young voters by saying it's to make college free. Everybody believes in free college! Only a monster would question taxing Wall Street to make college free! Etc.

---

Besides, if it's an investment for the state to pay for college degrees, then it's an investment for the student as well, and suddenly their student loan debt isn't a problem the state needs to solve after all. The students will solve it on their own, by getting their degree, paying off the loan, pocketing the profits, and enjoying their improved quality of life. The state still gets the same income tax windfall, even - and they don't have to raise a single cent of new taxes to do it!

The problem is that a college degree isn't always a good investment, especially at current prices. If the idea is to realize a tax windfall from secondary education, then the smart approach would be to first try to reduce costs, and second try to take on those costs only for degree programs which actually have a high chance of profitability. A program that subsidizes qualifying (meaning demonstrated cost-effective) STEM degrees, for example, would make the kind of sense you propose.

Just blindly paying for everybody's college, and raising new taxes on some other sector of the economy entirely to pay for it, makes no sense at all for your proposal.
Click to expand...

I was offering a broad view, not outlining a plan or explaining whatever Sanders thinks he's proposing. As far as "where the money comes from" I don't earmark income in that fashion; money flows in from multiple sources, it flows out to multiple destinations. So long as the former total exceeds the latter total I don't think it matters.

And I do agree that if the nation is thus investing in its population's education that guidelines should be set and metrics established. Only accredited schools, only degrees that are actually viable, only fields the nation could benefit from at the projected time of graduation. Costs of the education negotiated and controlled. And perhaps to maximize the chances of success some sort of program to ease job placement.

No spending $200k for an English major to flip burgers, or swell the ranks of underemployed law graduates. But perhaps a boost in technology so we need to import fewer foreign experts would be good.

But of course doing such things would be government overreach because the government should properly do nothing, even if by so doing it makes America great again, right? The last thing we need is a well-educated, well-paid population with good jobs and vital skills to boost our national economy, strengthen our defense, and raise the standard of living!
 
TragicMonkey said:
I was offering a broad view, not outlining a plan or explaining whatever Sanders thinks he's proposing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. As a broad view, I'm broadly in agreement. I think that's implied in my reply, but probably not very clear.

Anyway, I am absolutely not criticizing you for suggesting this. I took the suggestion as a prompt to review Sanders' proposal and compare it to the suggestion.

As far as "where the money comes from" I don't earmark income in that fashion; money flows in from multiple sources, it flows out to multiple destinations. So long as the former total exceeds the latter total I don't think it matters.

And I do agree that if the nation is thus investing in its population's education that guidelines should be set and metrics established. Only accredited schools, only degrees that are actually viable, only fields the nation could benefit from at the projected time of graduation. Costs of the education negotiated and controlled. And perhaps to maximize the chances of success some sort of program to ease job placement.

No spending $200k for an English major to flip burgers, or swell the ranks of underemployed law graduates. But perhaps a boost in technology so we need to import fewer foreign experts would be good.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm pretty much in agreement with you on all of this.

But of course doing such things would be government overreach because the government should properly do nothing, even if by so doing it makes America great again, right? The last thing we need is a well-educated, well-paid population with good jobs and vital skills to boost our national economy, strengthen our defense, and raise the standard of living!
Click to expand...
You lost me. Is this actually part of your reply to me, or is it more along the lines of a Cato-ism, your own personal "Carthago delenda est" codicil?
 
Taxes are not the only economic benefit here. There's also the increased participation in the economy for people who've been economically crippled so far and would finally become economically de-crippled.

And on the "how to pay for it" refrain: other than the obvious "quit giving so much of the country's money to those who already have the most", how about taking just a smidge off the top of our gigantic but still somehow perpetually growing military expenses? Funny how nobody ever asks how we can afford to pay for that...
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
Taxes are not the only economic benefit here. There's also the increased participation in the economy for people who've been economically crippled so far and would finally become economically de-crippled.

And on the "how to pay for it" refrain: other than the obvious "quit giving so much of the country's money to those who already have the most", how about taking just a smidge off the top of our gigantic but still somehow perpetually growing military expenses? Funny how nobody ever asks how we can afford to pay for that...
Click to expand...

Taxes are not an economic benefit. Even if it had no welfare effects, it is just a transfer of cash. It would be neutral.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If the recipients of this largesse go on to earn higher incomes as a result of their education the nation will then receive more in income tax over their lifetimes than it otherwise would have. It could be considered an investment rather than a giveaway.
Click to expand...

It could be considered an investment in the wealthy and upper middle class as well, who presumable go to college in greater percentages than the lower middle class and poor. Sanders' program doesn't even include needs testing; Warren's plan at least has a sliding scale of reimbursement.
 
Brainster said:
It could be considered an investment in the wealthy and upper middle class as well, who presumable go to college in greater percentages than the lower middle class and poor. Sanders' program doesn't even include needs testing; Warren's plan at least has a sliding scale of reimbursement.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't have results testing.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If the recipients of this largesse go on to earn higher incomes as a result of their education the nation will then receive more in income tax over their lifetimes than it otherwise would have. It could be considered an investment rather than a giveaway.
Click to expand...

Hey, it would likely be a much, much more effective investment than, say, tax cuts for the rich. That's not to say that this investment, as proposed, would be a good investment in the first place, just that it would be much better than a steaming pile of feces.

Either way, when it comes to addressing student debt, I'm more generally more favorable towards Warren's overall plan. I'm not sold on it at this point, but I do like it better than Bernie's plan. Both of them, of course, would fairly certainly be wildly more beneficial, economically, than the recent Republican efforts at economic stimulus. Neither of the plans looks like they're particularly worth considering as an actual final solution to the underlying problem, so the economic effects are probably the main potential selling points.

The Great Zaganza said:
Student loan forgiveness is at best only half of the way in which the problem needs to be adressed.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
dudalb said:
The progressive wing of the Democratic party is rapidly becoming just a different flavor of the Tea Party mentality.
If the Dems have no place for Centrists except as second class Citiznes count me out and count me in as saying we need a new party that is not dominated by hard line ideologues, and the GOP now is and the Dems seem to be rapidly becoming.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the liberal Dems have:
  • a huge money machine behind them like the Tea Party had Freedom Works spending millions in support
  • a news network like Fox broadcasting wholr rallies week after week after week...
  • and that same network providing star power to draw the rules like Hannity did for the Baggers
  • not just ordinary political nerds working in the trenches but nathionally known Senator and Reps flogging them on all the networks week after week after week ....

C'mon, dudalb,get real. Yeah, sure there is a hard left but they have zilch in the way of power. How many PETA members hold House committee chairs. Extremists get visibility because .... well, their extreme. Off the mainline. Don't confuse that with power.
 
SezMe said:
You're gonna have work hard to convince me of that. Evidence?
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/29/18118213/elizabeth-warren-trump-trade-gm-tariffs

The Warren Doctrine on trade: America first

Trump doesn't' go far enough:
“There’s no question we need to renegotiate NAFTA,” she says, before rehashing some of the standard anti-NAFTA talking points that trade skeptics have circulated for years. “But as it’s currently written, Trump’s deal won’t stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers — it won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs. It’s NAFTA 2.0.”
Click to expand...

http://ontheissues.org/International/Elizabeth_Warren_Free_Trade.htm


https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-in...emocratic-presidential-candidates-stand-trade

The authors above describe Warren as "Generally anti-trade"


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/war...exemptions-favor-foreign-owned-companies.html
Again, Trump's protectionism doesn't go far enough for Warren:
You appear to be implementing the tariff exemption program in a way that undermines American steel producers - by allowing large tariff-free imports of foreign steel – and harms American-owned steel-dependent companies instead of improving their competitive advantage over companies headquartered in China and other foreign countries,” Warren wrote in a letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross dated Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Warren is correct that Trump's complex of tariff waivers is ******** (Trump wants to pick and choose tariffs at will and whim instead of just having a consistent tariff across the board, I'm sure he'd love a system where the state gets to pick the winners and losers in the economy by how well they can navigate the good graces of the state.)
 
The Great Zaganza said:
She isn't anti-trade, she is anti-stupid when it comes to trade policies.
Click to expand...

Being against trade that leads to outsourcing is being anti trade. Trying to prevent that from happening is protectionism.

To the extent someone favors something like jobs retraining, that would generally be regarded as pro trade
 
BobTheCoward said:
Being against trade that leads to outsourcing is being anti trade. Trying to prevent that from happening is protectionism.

To the extent someone favors something like jobs retraining, that would generally be regarded as pro trade
Click to expand...

just like with Zero Migration vs. Open Borders, there is a gradient between Protectionism and Unrestricted Free Trade.
Not being for Total Free Trade isn't the same as anti-trade.
There is no country in the world that willingly accepts unrestricted free trade: there are always sectors that are shielded from the full effects of globalism.

But on point here: Trump isn't using tariffs as a trade tool to help domestic producers, or he would charge all importers extra.
Instead, he is using them as a tool of geopolitics, at the expense of the domestic producers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom