-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
In the case of the student loans though the schools have already been paid off. The ones holding onto the debts as assets are the financial institutions. For instance Joe Biden fought to eliminate bankruptcy as an option for dealing with student loans so that the banks who paid him would be able to pursue the students for their debts-- it's not the schools.
So you would do quantitative easing to buy all the student loans from private institutions and then have the government forgive it. It wouldn't be all that different in execution from how we bailed ourselves out of the financial crisis-- but the difference is that we would be forgiving student debts and relieving massive financial strains on what should be the most productive part of the population.
There's also the simple matter of the schools not being wholly or even primarily to blame for the student debt crisis vs, you know, an oil spill which is almost always the company's fault.
Schools didn't force students to go nor did they determine how those students would pay. It's a much broader societal issue.
I also don't know in what universe you think schools in the US have 1.2 trillion dollars lying around. My ballpark for the total size of all endowments of US colleges is probably between 500 billion and 1 trillion. Not like you'd want to wipe out those endowments entirely either. And this isn't remotely evenly spread out. If schools are responsible for their own students' debt only, you're probably bankrupting a bunch of schools.
There's a lot of weird ways to try to pay for student loan debt forgiveness, but sending the bill to schools has got to be the weirdest one I've heard.
Schools didn't force students to go nor did they determine how those students would pay. It's a much broader societal issue.
I also don't know in what universe you think schools in the US have 1.2 trillion dollars lying around. My ballpark for the total size of all endowments of US colleges is probably between 500 billion and 1 trillion. Not like you'd want to wipe out those endowments entirely either. And this isn't remotely evenly spread out. If schools are responsible for their own students' debt only, you're probably bankrupting a bunch of schools.
There's a lot of weird ways to try to pay for student loan debt forgiveness, but sending the bill to schools has got to be the weirdest one I've heard.
It's school who set the prices, not the banks. The banks are required by the law to give the loans when students ask for it. So, the school just raise the prices to force the students get the federally guaranteed loans. Check the graph of Yale tuition: the price tag suddenly went parabolic when FEEL law was passed (1965). Must be a coincidence, these school administrators did nothing wrong! :) We can spend that money from QE on something worthwhile and have the schools to pay for their price gouging.
See above: the schools set the prices. The schools abuse the fact that the managerial class care about degrees for whatever reasons. If you don't have degree, then you're gate-kept from being promoted and being hired. Then, the schools use this fact as a marketing rhetoric to justify the price increases (see the studies saying that having a degree increases your life expectancy, earning, and so on).
You're right, the schools didn't force the students to attend. Their parents did. They are deeply fooled by schools' marketing schemes and genuinely believe that attending schools will improve their children's futures. So, they propagandize their children into getting crippling debts while retaining the gate-keeping requirements in job hiring and promotions.
I don't care if schools can or cannot afford it. They need to take responsibility for their price gouging and nation-wide deceptive marketing.
Here's my solution. Have the schools pay the debt. Outlaw schools from charging students money. Instead of charging students money, the students would give schools their bonds with an agreed maturity date. So, for example a student gives up their 5% of total bonds with maturity at 20 years. Then, the schools would enjoy 5% returns of whatever that student earns in the next 20 years. Naturally, the fields with lower pay would have to give up more bonds. I believe that this is preferable to throwing students into a hole of crippling debt with accumulating interest right after their graduation.
Example:
I agree to attend XYZ University for 5% bond with 20 years maturity. I land a middle management job and I earn an average of $70,000/year for next 20 years. 20*70,000*5% = I pay school $70,000. My good friend Helga, a savvy business major, lands a CEO gig at a solar panel farm company and earns an average of $300,000/year for 20 years. Helga pays school 20*300,000*5% = $300,000. Joe, an art major, who is not exactly a mathematically inclined person, so he agreed to attend XYZ University for 10% bonds. He shuns the commercial art, so he only earns average of yearly $20,000 in 20 years. So, he'll pay school 20*20,000*10% = $40,000.
Last edited:
I'm all for changing the way school is paid for moving forward. The Australian model has worked pretty well, but even that one, which was once praised, has run into issues
2016 - https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...-shortcomings-of-new-american-version/473919/
2018 - https://www.brookings.edu/research/...an-problem-is-a-teachable-moment-for-the-u-s/
Still, though, a discussion about changing how it gets paid moving forward is very different from just having schools eat the current amount of debt, which is neither a good nor practical idea.
2016 - https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...-shortcomings-of-new-american-version/473919/
2018 - https://www.brookings.edu/research/...an-problem-is-a-teachable-moment-for-the-u-s/
Still, though, a discussion about changing how it gets paid moving forward is very different from just having schools eat the current amount of debt, which is neither a good nor practical idea.
Why isn't making the responsible party to bear their consequences a good idea? It's not like these schools actually educate anyone anyways.
May I suggest something about this topic?
If you want to lesson the burden of college loans, cut the amount of bullshit majors. Sounds blunt? Yes, but I find it hard to believe that Gender Studies, Sociology, etc. lead to higher paying jobs (and a wider range of jobs at that let alone). Not only are you more likely to and a more successful job when you're let's say in a STEM major, in Education, etc., but it would cost so much less on faculty and resources for many of these classes, lessening the amount of student burden. I am not for erasing college debt out of the fact that not only is it exorbitant, but that money is coming from somewhere, most likely from the taxpayers one way or another no matter how you blanket that. I saw a couple suggestions to make the debt on the colleges, but let's be honest here how the hell is the feasible? No one is going to be able to make money, and it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder to sustain higher education. Not only that, but why would colleges go behind that, what would be the point if it's barely possible to get anything out of being staffed/in leader positions in universities? Claiming that colleges can cover it is such as naive statement, and it's your decision to buy into the services college has to offer, which leads into my next point.
I do have another solution: don't go to college. While yes, it is pushed so hard in society nowadays that college inevitably leads to success (my high school pushed college so hard it wasn't even funny, and I was even looked down upon for wanting to start at county college to save money), there is such a massive decline in blue-collar jobs that can pay a sustainable wage. Like college, it isn't for everyone, but that's not to say that you don't at least have other options. I wish vocation was pushed a lot more in society, these services are on the decline, and it's smart to take advantage of them.
I'm sorry, but any candidate pandering for free college (cough Elizabeth Warren) is absolutely clueless on what they're talking about.
If you want to lesson the burden of college loans, cut the amount of bullshit majors. Sounds blunt? Yes, but I find it hard to believe that Gender Studies, Sociology, etc. lead to higher paying jobs (and a wider range of jobs at that let alone). Not only are you more likely to and a more successful job when you're let's say in a STEM major, in Education, etc., but it would cost so much less on faculty and resources for many of these classes, lessening the amount of student burden. I am not for erasing college debt out of the fact that not only is it exorbitant, but that money is coming from somewhere, most likely from the taxpayers one way or another no matter how you blanket that. I saw a couple suggestions to make the debt on the colleges, but let's be honest here how the hell is the feasible? No one is going to be able to make money, and it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder to sustain higher education. Not only that, but why would colleges go behind that, what would be the point if it's barely possible to get anything out of being staffed/in leader positions in universities? Claiming that colleges can cover it is such as naive statement, and it's your decision to buy into the services college has to offer, which leads into my next point.
I do have another solution: don't go to college. While yes, it is pushed so hard in society nowadays that college inevitably leads to success (my high school pushed college so hard it wasn't even funny, and I was even looked down upon for wanting to start at county college to save money), there is such a massive decline in blue-collar jobs that can pay a sustainable wage. Like college, it isn't for everyone, but that's not to say that you don't at least have other options. I wish vocation was pushed a lot more in society, these services are on the decline, and it's smart to take advantage of them.
I'm sorry, but any candidate pandering for free college (cough Elizabeth Warren) is absolutely clueless on what they're talking about.
Last edited:
It's school who set the prices, not the banks. The banks are required by the law to give the loans when students ask for it. So, the school just raise the prices to force the students get the federally guaranteed loans. Check the graph of Yale tuition: the price tag suddenly went parabolic when FEEL law was passed (1965). Must be a coincidence, these school administrators did nothing wrong! :) We can spend that money from QE on something worthwhile and have the schools to pay for their price gouging.
See above: the schools set the prices. The schools abuse the fact that the managerial class care about degrees for whatever reasons. If you don't have degree, then you're gate-kept from being promoted and being hired. Then, the schools use this fact as a marketing rhetoric to justify the price increases (see the studies saying that having a degree increases your life expectancy, earning, and so on).
You're right, the schools didn't force the students to attend. Their parents did. They are deeply fooled by schools' marketing schemes and genuinely believe that attending schools will improve their children's futures. So, they propagandize their children into getting crippling debts while retaining the gate-keeping requirements in job hiring and promotions.
I don't care if schools can or cannot afford it. They need to take responsibility for their price gouging and nation-wide deceptive marketing.
Here's my solution. Have the schools pay the debt. Outlaw schools from charging students money. Instead of charging students money, the students would give schools their bonds with an agreed maturity date. So, for example a student gives up their 5% of total bonds with maturity at 20 years. Then, the schools would enjoy 5% returns of whatever that student earns in the next 20 years. Naturally, the fields with lower pay would have to give up more bonds. I believe that this is preferable to throwing students into a hole of crippling debt with accumulating interest right after their graduation.
Adjusting for inflation, Yale tuition has been increasing almost linearly since the 40's. Plus, the x-axis in that graph goes back to the fucking 1700s lmao. Of course that's going to make the 50 years of actual growth look ridiculous.
In fact, tuition growth as a whole is pretty slow right now. The overall average yearly tuition increase in 2008-2018 was only 3.1%, compared to 4.1% per year from 1988-2008.
Moreover, Yale is a private university. This discussion should focus on public universities, and iirc the biggest reason for rising public tuition is cuts to state funding.
Last edited:
Way to drop some numbers to paint a partial picture and expect to get away with it. The reality is that the students are forced to pay for room and board to as conditions to keep their scholarships. I would focus on the numbers on the right. The numbers has barely changed. I don't think that 0.6% reduction for public schools is a strong case for your point.
The school price tag is disproportionate when you view the full picture.
It's so disappointing that people actually try so hard to rationalize that the price tag which schools set are somehow not schools' fault.
3.13x the adjusted price from 1988 is significant. Average yearly increases of 3.1% don't seem like a lot but they add up quickly over time.
Mismanagement by universities themselves really are a large part of the problem. You can see from orch's source at the large increase in cost of housing and food. Much of the pay also will be going towards administrative bloat, underachieving sports programs, and the like. And while Sociology / Gender Studies certainly aren't "bullshit" majors, there are definitely some programs at public universities that are unnecessary costs.
EDIT: Dece1t yeah I too would like to see more emphasis on vocational schools pushed forward. College is not the only path towards career success, and in a capitalist class-based society it absolutely makes no sense if everyone were to attend a 4-year college. Andrew Yang in his platform promotes vocational education and affordable community college. It would make sense for the job market of the future which revolves around automation, because it will help address increased demand for skilled labor without making it too costly and lengthy a process. I hope he makes it to the debate stage and we can have a national discussion on it.
Last edited:
Way to drop some numbers to paint a partial picture and expect to get away with it. The reality is that the students are forced to pay for room and board to as conditions to keep their scholarships. I would focus on the numbers on the right. The numbers has barely changed. I don't think that 0.6% reduction for public schools is a strong case for your point.
Those are exactly the same numbers I gave you, so I'm not sure what your point is.
It's so disappointing that people actually try so hard to rationalize that the price tag which schools set are somehow not schools' fault.
How does this plot relate to your following comment? How do either of those relate to my comment? What exactly are you refuting here?
Last edited:
Warren: Forgive the Student Loan Debt
Sanders: Make Tuition Free <- do for public
Yang: Demand Institutions to open their books Federal Oversight and Tuition Reform or else get Fed money and grants completely cut off <-do for private
Doing all 3 of these sounds good to me. I can sympathize with Orch's fair criticism of the institutions, but I think punishing the schools is not as important as helping students-- forgiving old debts, and restructuring current tuition structure.
Sanders: Make Tuition Free <- do for public
Yang: Demand Institutions to open their books Federal Oversight and Tuition Reform or else get Fed money and grants completely cut off <-do for private
Doing all 3 of these sounds good to me. I can sympathize with Orch's fair criticism of the institutions, but I think punishing the schools is not as important as helping students-- forgiving old debts, and restructuring current tuition structure.
Last edited:
The solution to the college debt problem isn't vocational schools and I'm so exhausted seeing it brought up every time. "Hello person who is qualified enough to go to college you actually shouldn't go to college because you're too poor and should do a working class job instead" is not the incredible brain genius idea people seem to think it is. Or it is, if your goal is to eternally fuck working class people because you realize the world isn't a meritocracy and want to maintain your elite status.
it's not a direct solution to the problem but popularizing vocational schools would absolutely be a net positive for society, no matter how tired you are of hearing about it.
1. Not everyone wants to go to college and it isn't always a question of affordability. Even if some form of public colleges were affordable to everyone, which I hope will happen (but it will be a very lengthy process), there will always be a large population who don't want to go but still want the option of a decent career. Trade schools empower people to have more options if they want to choose a stepping stone between a high school diploma and investing all their time and effort into a 4-year+ degree.
2. The problem is not between the choice of colleges or vocational school, the problem lies with the existence of a working underclass in the first place. I think we can all agree if someone wants to go to a trade school for a few years and become an electrician, they should have a similar quality of life to someone who goes to a prestigious university and becomes a lawyer (but compared to those who never went beyond high school education they both already are above.) Yeah it doesn't happen currently but those are because of underlying problems with capitalism itself. Social programs, wage increases, etc will be somewhat effective ways to level the playing field to account for educational discrepancies.
Warren: It's unlikely that the bankers will allow this to happen and it doesn't address the root cause of school setting the price tag backed up by the guaranteed federal loans.
Sanders: Not a solution, it is subsidizing the schools' greed with money that taxpayers should enjoy. I would be ok with this plan AFTER the schools pay the existing debts and cut their costs.
Yang: A step in the right direction.
The point of this crisis is that someone has to pay for it. I think that the schools are directly responsible for this crisis and should pick up the tab. If the schools get crippled and shut down because of the bill, it would be a net positive for the society. Degrees are pointless gatekeeping tool. The students can get their education through reading textbooks or whatever.
I thought that similarly too until I saw the price tag. The estimates say it would cost 70 billion a year to make public colleges/universities tuition free. Sander's bill only covers 40 billion and asks the states to pay for the rest. But even 70 is like nothing. 70 bill is how much Trump increased the military's slush fund last year by.
I think the reason progressives use this as a test of seriousness on a part of the candidate is because it's pretty silly watching Buttegieg, or Kamala, or Yang for that matter quibble over a tiny tiny line item that would massively help a lot of students.
Just think of how many times you could pay for tuition for all just by rolling back Trump’s tax cuts.
Last edited:
Trade School enrollment in the U.S. has been steadily climbing and is almost as much as traditional college enrollment. They're already pretty fucking popular. The only reason they're ever brought up is as a gotcha when people complain about the college debt problem. That's it.
Its rather refreshing this time around that the candidates for the primary are actually being inspected and discussed for their policies and opinions, usually within the democratic party there was a really bad practice of just examining the candidates on their time in office, status, and gender / race status. If you look at the upcoming primaries this month, the most many democrats can say is "I did my job ok for 25 years!" which is nice, but we are having now a higher standard than a D next to their name and the best at taking pictures at Spaghetti Dinners.
The Humanist Report just put up a candidate tier list. I was shocked (and not shocked) to see him make literally the exact same placements I thought with each one. xD
Note: Tulsi is above Warren for him at about A+, while Mike has Joe Biden below all others at more like an FF- kind of rank.
Yeah so basically 100% same as me.
And as Mike said, since I’m kinda a YouTube junkie I hope some other progressive Youtubers like Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk), Michael Brooks, Tim Black, Kim Iverson, and MCSC do this too— Sam Seder and Michael Brooks’ lists would interest me the most as I can pretty much guess the others’.
Note: Tulsi is above Warren for him at about A+, while Mike has Joe Biden below all others at more like an FF- kind of rank.
Yeah so basically 100% same as me.
And as Mike said, since I’m kinda a YouTube junkie I hope some other progressive Youtubers like Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk), Michael Brooks, Tim Black, Kim Iverson, and MCSC do this too— Sam Seder and Michael Brooks’ lists would interest me the most as I can pretty much guess the others’.
Last edited:
What a brilliant, insightful, admirable, strategic answer. If the election were tomorrow, I honestly have no clue who I'd vote for at this point. We're blessed with a great field offering multiple solid choices for almost everyone
It's weird to think about what the numbers would look like if Biden never announced. It sucks that his inevitability is taking a lot of excitement out of the race by forcing everyone to fight for a near-certain 2nd place. It's especially unfortunate for Warren because she's too old at this point to get another chance.
Last edited:
She’s back!!!!! Brand new interview on JRE.
And this one was worth the listen. It’s definitely not worth it to me to hear Tulsi or Bernie’s stump speeches any more— but this interview they dig much deeper. Tulsi’s wisdom impresses me even more.
Last edited:
Honest question: why are people wasting their money on a joke campaign when Bernie and Tulsi (which I guess is a joke campaign too) are going to be on stage anyway?
And why are people contributing to another divisive campaign when Trump is the competitor?
And can we talk about how Bernie went on live TV and talked about how that CNN poll was rigged and didn't poll young people, as if we needed misinformed bullshit coming from the candidates themselves? Biden does better with young people anyway (iirc), so it's a moot point. Plus, it's silly to claim that young people are underrepresented in the polls when they historically have awful turnout.
At this point, it honestly feels like he's running again out of spite just to be a deliberate spoiler. I'm thrilled that Warren is quickly usurping him, because she's essentially Bernie but better in every single way.
I'm also disappointed in Pete's comments on "lolidentitypolitics", but he's a VP candidate anyway I guess. Also, maybe the Bernie fans are right, and he legitimately is a DNC plant to cut into Bernie's base. What better way to do that than dismiss civil rights issues to attract WWC voters and brogresives?
And why are people contributing to another divisive campaign when Trump is the competitor?
And can we talk about how Bernie went on live TV and talked about how that CNN poll was rigged and didn't poll young people, as if we needed misinformed bullshit coming from the candidates themselves? Biden does better with young people anyway (iirc), so it's a moot point. Plus, it's silly to claim that young people are underrepresented in the polls when they historically have awful turnout.
At this point, it honestly feels like he's running again out of spite just to be a deliberate spoiler. I'm thrilled that Warren is quickly usurping him, because she's essentially Bernie but better in every single way.
I'm also disappointed in Pete's comments on "lolidentitypolitics", but he's a VP candidate anyway I guess. Also, maybe the Bernie fans are right, and he legitimately is a DNC plant to cut into Bernie's base. What better way to do that than dismiss civil rights issues to attract WWC voters and brogresives?
Last edited:
I vote support people not based on some abstract political calculus, but rather if they in my opinion, have the best policies and if I like them the best, it is clear to me that Mike Gravel is the best candidate. I also like how he doesn't intend to win, he just wants to get on stage to dunk people, I get that, that's my kind of energy. I'll probably be supporting Bernie in the end, but Gravel > Bernie for now, and that's where my mind stops on the matter.
I've watched enough of Gravel to be both extremely impressed, and a bit concerned.
My concern is that his age does show compared to that stage performance from 2008. If you listen to him, he does have many "senior moments" as he calls them, and tends to get easily drawn off tangents or delve too much into the details. If he is to approach the sharpness he had in 2008, he will need to do a lot more preparation and his recent interviews do not instill the confidence in me that he's making those preparations.
Gravel online is putting forth a holistic platform covering the real and multi-faceted critique of the left on modern America, but all of it really boils down to one issue for Gravel: enacting an Citizen's Amendment to the Constitution that lets Direct Democracy write, and enact laws. A Legislature of the People.
This is the issue that Gravel himself cares most about, and he's going to have to get a lot better at (A) Explaining it quickly and sharply, and (B) Strategically coming back to it as a response to every... single... question... EVERY QUESTION.
DODGE. RE-FRAME. CONNECT. Every single issue is related to this issue, so every single question Gravel answers should be answered with this answer.
Are you a 9-11 truther?
He should say: "I am unsatisfied with the transparency of documentation around 9-11, but there are many things the government says that doesn't deserve our trust. Lets look at the truths revealed by our whistle blowers around the horrors of the Iraq War and the surveillance of American Citizens. This government needs to be reigned in for the people. There are many great ideas and candidates on this stage, but none of it matters without empowering the people to write their own laws alongside their representatives... to take away the monopoly of power in representatives, and empower citizens to also write their own laws. That is why I have long been fighting for a legislature for the people, enacted by a Citizen's Amendment."
You have been extremely critical of Joe Biden
"Look, Joe voted for the Iraq War, Repealing Glass Stagall... He wrote the crime bill and patriot act. He's responsible for bankrupting the middle class and inflating our prisons... but he's just one of many, just a product of the system. The system needs to be reigned in for the people. There are many great ideas and candidates on this stage, but none of it matters without empowering the people to write their own laws alongside their representatives... to take away the monopoly of power in representatives, and empower citizens to also write their own laws. That is why I have long been fighting for a legislature for the people, enacted by a Citizen's Amendment."
Why not leave this to Sanders/Warren/Tulsi
"This is a great field with great candidates and I truly am impressed with the progressive candidates-- Tulsi, Sanders, Warren. All would make great Presidents. But they won't get any of their visions implemented in this system. The system needs to be reigned in for the people. We need to take away the monopoly of power in representatives, and empower citizens to also write their own laws. That is why I have long been fighting for a legislature for the people, enacted by a Citizen's Amendment."
DRIVE THE POINT HOME GRAVEL.
GET THIS OUT.
Everything else, back seat.
#ThePeople2020
Last edited: