Sanders plan to wipe out student debt in question

[homosacer 8]

Executive order wouldn’t be a better substitute to passing legislation, but relieving student debt is within the scope of presidential power. It’s very likely Sanders won’t need their support. 

Trump’s already done it for veterans: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/trump-veterans-student-loans.html?emc=rss&partner=rss

[hankhatesyouall 2,731]

37 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

I used to think people like this were trolls but with Trump being president I've come to realise there's many of you. I have no idea how someone could think like this.

0.1 is a huge tax? Is this a ****ing joke? Have we been so conditioned to give a free pass to rich people so as to worry about 0.1 of their stock exchanges? 

You really believe that money they're making is not better spent getting millions of people education? So that everyone has an equal chance of receiving education, which will completely change society? 

The last thing you said makes 0 sense. Your whole paragraph literally makes no points whatsoever. He made a million selling a book, which means..? He used to not have a job and then he did, which means..? He has millenial support and is socialist, which means..?

The federal government exacting a 0.1% duty on all financial transaction is a huge deal. Considering that  commission-free trading became mainstream in 2019 with Charles Schwab, this plan is just ludicrous. Even small investors would have to pay onerous fees. They would have to pay $100 for each executing each $10,000 stock or ETF trade.  This is a HUGE fee.   

Even is such a proposal does get the green-light, rich people are not going to pay for your education. The US will simply lose its competitive advantage on the global economic scene, and all these trades will be shifted offshore.      

This means that he's a loser who never had a 9 to 5 job/never owned a business. He now tries to scam his way into the White House by brainwashing gullible millennials with his socialist ideas.      

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

5 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

The federal government exacting a 0.1% duty on all financial transaction is a huge deal. Considering that  commission-free trading became mainstream in 2019 with Charles Schwab, this plan is just ludicrous. Even small investors would have to pay onerous fees. They would have to pay $100 for each executing each $10,000 stock or ETF trade.  This is a HUGE fee.   

Even is such a proposal does get the green-light, rich people are not going to pay for your education. The US will simply lose its competitive advantage on the global economic scene, and all these trades will be shifted offshore.      

This means that he's a loser who never had a 9 to 5 job/never owned a business. He now tries to scam his way into the White House by brainwashing gullible millennials with his socialist ideas.      

0.1% of $10,000 is $10.

[littlepotter 76,617]

55 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

0.1% of $10,000 is $10.

 can't do simple math and is trying to tell us bernie's a loser. Bye sis

[Economy 52,928]

2 hours ago, AndyDWUW said:

Yet there is always money for war and corporate tax cuts, funding the military and bailing out wall street thugs.

 

This country has socialism and its socialism for the rich!!

If we can’t find one way, we will find another.

the lack of money is an illusion, the top 1% are all hogging it.

 

 

Excessive Corporate tax cuts are costing a lot as is the military. The US can pay a lot with military cuts

 

But not as much money exists in the top 0.1% to tax as the net wealth would suggest

 

A lot of that wealth isn't really real or fundamental nor does it have cash to back it up

 

A simple market crash will wipe out half that wealth in the blink of an eye and a wealth tax that forces liquidation of assets will make its value drop farther than the cash taken out

 

Stocks trade at a good 15X to 17X earnings right now. So that asset value is largely imaginary u could never actually tax even 10% of it

 

It's still a lot of money... But I think it's important to remember these technicalities when we talk about how much wealth exists where and what we can do with it

 

I never hear people Remember these important points and it could result in serious overestimation of what can be redistributed

 

To be clear, I'm not against taxing the the rich more or redistribute hoarded wealth I'm really not. My only skepticism comes more from when a lot of people think u can do more than you actually can

 

Again, if u look at the stockmarket and there's $50 Trillion in US stock market let's say (I don't know the actual amount off top of my head)... Ppl look at it like it's set wealth from the rich that can be redistributed... In reality u can't actually move even close to that much wealth from one person to another via taxes. The cash for it doesn't even actually exist. And it's worrying that Bernie Sanders does not even seem to acknowledge that despite almost every expert earning his wealth taxes would not yield as much as he's projecting 

 

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

2 hours ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

So your strategy is to wait and hope? Okay, sis.I don't think anyone is convinced Bernie will be able to implement every single thing off his list. Of course real social change takes years (decades, really) to come about, but why would just rather wait and hope than push it in every way possible?

Its pragmatism...look at the reality of our current political climate....

50ish pervent aof the voters out there are fox news old school tunnel vision nincompoops....

Gettn' all pushy and panicky is gonna do what????

[Economy 52,928]

4 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

I hope nobody is expecting a Sanders presidency to magically fix everything. This is NOT EASY, guys.

But it's better to AIM HIGH and then compromise than AIM LOW (most Dems) and then get screwed over by Republicans in the end result.

Even if Sanders loses the nomination, or loses against Trump, these things are NOT going away. The narrative has been pushed and people have woken up. We will keep fighting until these issues are tackled and resolved. This is a long-term process. This isn't going to happen with one president. We must be persistent. 

Good. A Bernie supporter wanting to fight for change but also being realistic on expectations

 

I may not agree with all of Bernie's ideas but I do admire and appreciate when people are actually realistic (regardless of what policy they are actually rooting for)

[Shaney 5,515]

Gurl, the tax cuts Donald Trump gave to billionaires would have been able to pay for free college. 

[Shaney 5,515]

2 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

 

Gettn' all pushy and panicky is gonna do what????

make you the front runner of the Democratic primary

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Good. A Bernie supporter wanting to fight for change but also being realistic on expectations

I may not agree with all of Bernie's ideas but I do admire and appreciate when people are actually realistic (regardless of what policy they are actually rooting for)

I literally don't know a single Bernie supporter who doesnt have realistic expectations  

The stereotype that we're all pie in the sky optimists instead of radical pragmatists is so silly to me.

If anything, I have skepticism towards moderates who think things like "a Public Option!" or "expanding the ACA" or even "allowing students to refinance their loans and decreasing interest rates!" are bound to pass untouched, but that's the way media frames these policy differences We have a long long track record of the results of incrementalism that pushes people towards structural approaches, not a long history of radicalism that pushes people towards incrementalism.

The same moderates who say these things are politically impossible or mathematically or legislatively are just ignorant of history though. The civil rights movement was not the Democratic Establishment pleading for their Republicans in congress to move heaven and high water, it was a movement that started from the ground up and surmounted pressure over a long period of time in serious and disruptive ways. Bernie's campaign is a movement, he explicitly calls it that. A revolution, because he is not naive about the difficulties of enacting his agenda, he is planning for the kind of mass scale movement required to affect change at this level.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Also... wall street has been fear mongering about the devastation of even the smallest hint of a tax on them for over a  decade. Occam's razor tells me its pretty clearly an act of self-interest from a market that has a vast track record of screwing over middle class americans in favor of profits, even in light of major economic disaster  

[Economy 52,928]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I literally don't know a single Bernie supporter who doesnt have realistic expectations  

The stereotype that we're all pie in the sky optimists instead of radical pragmatists is so silly to me.

If anything, I have skepticism towards moderates who think things like "a Public Option!" or "expanding the ACA" or even "allowing students to refinance their loans and decreasing interest rates!" are bound to pass untouched, but that's the way media frames these policy differences We have a long long track record of the results of incrementalism that pushes people towards structural approaches, not a long history of radicalism that pushes people towards incrementalism.

The same moderates who say these things are politically impossible or mathematically or legislatively are just ignorant of history though. The civil rights movement was not the Democratic Establishment pleading for their Republicans in congress to move heaven and high water, it was a movement that started from the ground up and surmounted pressure over a long period of time in serious and disruptive ways. Bernie's campaign is a movement, he explicitly calls it that. A revolution, because he is not naive about the difficulties of enacting his agenda, he is planning for the kind of mass scale movement required to affect change at this level.

Well I get ur skepticism there on a public option

 

And U don't know a single one??? Not one? Seriously? I've seen tones. Probably because u don't usually challange other Bernie supporters since they agree with u, u probably aren't even aware. I'll give u that the general narrative that Bernie supporters in general are unrealistic baffoons is way too generalized and unfair and very rude on the past of the Centrists and right wingers. But not one with unrealistic expectations?

 

But I also noticed U talk about Bernie (as do many of his supporters) and left wing politics with such perfection all the time like there's nothing wrong with Bernie or the left ever. I don't wanna accuse u of being super biased but u keep consistly coming across that way

 

Like I can't remember the last time u ever acknowledged any point from a right winger or even a centrist but u defend every tiny thing from the left. Can politics really be that black and white that one side is right on everything and the other side wrong on everything? I think it's beyond arrogant to even entertain that idea

 

I think anyone that is that devoted and loyal to a political ideology and dismissive of any other has probably developed tunnel vision

 

I respect that at least u are not rude and uncivil like many people are...

 

But I've also had countless and countless discussions with u and I have yet to see u consider another view point even once with any great degree of seriousness. I do respect u in many ways, I do. But I also question if some beliefs are not sticking in like religious beliefs that one won't truly ever question... There's a lot of legitimate arguments one can at least acknowledge about Bernie's proposals, without agreeing with them u can at least see the line of thinking. U even respond with constant Rip  emojies or like any arguments against him must be idiotic

 

The fact that u said that about Bernie supporters when he has such a large diverse base makes me think u don't wanna see things u don't wanna believe

 

And for the record I like him as a person and even like a lot of his ideas. It's not like I'm some biased hater. Im merely just not fully convinced on how far he wants to go on everything, it's not like I'm going out of my way to find faults. But since I'm not a dedicated Bernie lover either without that to cloud my judgement, to me a lot of flaws are pretty darn obvious too

[Whispering 18,865]

I’m wondering how to distinguish tuition and book expenses from borrowed money for room and board. (rent, food, entertainment, etc.) 

 

Should we be paying off living expenses? If so, are we going to continue to do so? 

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I think anyone that is that devoted and loyal to a political ideology and dismissive of any other has probably developed tunnel vision

I know you weren't taling directly to me but I'm gonna challenge you on this bit anyway. The idea that people who hold very strong political positions are intolerant and/or unable to see "the big picture" is fundamentally flawed. It inherently suggests that all political positions are somehow interchangeable or equivalent in value. They are not. There is a big difference between the fascism of most (all) far-right ideologies and the kind of socialism for which most progressives advocate. Surely both are dismissive of each other, but only one has tunnel vision. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

2 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I literally don't know a single Bernie supporter who doesnt have realistic expectations  

The stereotype that we're all pie in the sky optimists instead of radical pragmatists is so silly to me.

 

Bernie's realistic expectations equate to turning the US in to a French socialist system ...

and ...

the fact that you can't see this a unrealistic is 'silly' to me...